I have to confess that as a Mac user also, I did find it odd that the Xojo IDE looks so Mac like on Windows.
While I can understand why it does, with most Xojo users being Mac users and Mac users (in general) are very particular that a Mac App looks like a Mac App (although you could be fooled by some of the apps on the Mac App Store, which uses Windows UI elements). I do think it would help Xojo to gain traction on Windows if the IDE was more consistent with the Windows HIG.
Also as a owner of a Windows machine with a HIDPI screen it would be awesome if the IDE would also support DPI scaling (which you have to use or your eyeballs will pop).
Oh really - hmm… I would never have guessed, but then I’m known to be wrong about things… sometimes
[quote=23945:@Norman Palardy]It probably would. And we know this - we just have to craft everything test it implement it deploy it and …
This really is already on our TO DO list.[/quote]
That’s really good news for Windows users, I’m sorry if it seemed like I was suggesting things you were already working on. However your plate does look rather full already. Sadly I can’t really help with anything, except maybe to fix your OS X ICNS issues
I am predominantly a Visual Studio user and I have used all versions back to it’s predecessor Visual C++ (MSVC) from the early 90’s. I also like Apple Macs, so I believe that I could have a balanced view. To my mind if I am using a Mac it is really distracting when the UI is not ‘Mac-like’, firing up Windows apps through Parallels in its integrated mode, CrossOver or those compromised cross-platform Java apps just feels wrong on a Mac. However on Windows there are a multitude of UI look and feels, the new Metro style, MDI, SDI, Explorer layouts, grid layouts, etc. Added to which we have had many OS skins from the original flat look of Windows 1 & 2, through raised controls and rounded corners and now with Metro back to flat look. So as a Windows user I really don’t mind using Xojo with its Mac look and feel because not having a single unified look and feel is part of the Windows experience. Equally I don’t mind if it changes either but I don’t see that it will make much difference either way to the majority of Windows users.
Just for thought, in one year (2011) Apple sold more iOS devices than all of the Macs ever sold since 1984 and it only took 4 years from the beginning for iOS device total sales to overtake the Mac. So with millions and millions of iOS devices in use only a fraction will be using iTunes on a Mac, the rest of iTunes users -> Windows. Sure you don’t need iTunes for your iOS device to work any more but Apple maintain and keep the Windows version of iTunes up to date for a reason
So fire up your Windows version of iTunes and tell me if that looks like a ‘Windows’ application, it actually looks remarkably like Xojo…
PS. Microsoft really want Apple to make a Metro/Windows RT version of iTunes - why? Because it would help to make Metro/Windows RT popular, iTunes is so popular on Windows (with its Mac look and feel) that a Metro/Windows RT version would drive up sales of those (horrible) Surface devices. See here and here
PPS. Then look at Photoshop, that is pretty popular on Windows too - OMG it looks like Visual Studio using ‘Dark’ theme
XOJO IDE LOOK: I do not really care as I do not really cared MS Word look on both platform. What I care about are:
a. commands at the same location,
b. similar commands names between platforms (when possible),
c. keeping my user experience in all IDEs
Also, high in the rank is the ability to make platform UI compliant applications (or my own similar look and feel not platform dependant).
Other than that
BTW: ctrl-o and cmd-o are the same behavior; because Ic an use both platforms, I am expected the same behavior, regardless of “ctrl” or “cmd”; if one does not work, I issue the second and do not think anything. The important part is elsewhere.
As far as I recall, Windows Compiling comes in RB 2.0 (1999 ?), but I do not recall the release date of the IDE on Windows.
I completely forgot about iTunes since I haven’t used it in ages. You are right about that Carl. Still though, not a show-stopper in working with Xojo.
Personally I don’t mind too much about this, and I agree with Carl about the complete chaos of UI styles in Windows.
Until now I did not see any Windows user complaining about Xojo not following the Microsoft UI guidelines. I think that many Windows developer too, simply don’t care about such guidelines, if they ever know exists. This fact is often easily reflected on applications written for the Mac from many Windows developer which never cared to know what UI guidelines are.
If the opposite would have been happened (Xojo on the Mac with a Windows-like UI) I bet there would have been MANY complaints.
I’m a window user and I’m not bothered by any “style” since the main concern with native looks is with creating a better user experience through familiarization and OSes themselves are keen to constantly change their looks, it really comes down to people who are poor designers who then go and make a UI that are worse than the standard UI which, to some degree has been heavily developed to create a good user experience in the first place.
That said the IDE looks pretty standard to me unless were on about the use of big buttons /icons instead of boring grey ribbon UI elements most windows office apps use, but I rarely see any top end program that everyone uses, not using their own UIs to be honest unless their ridiculously simple application (i.e. office apps)
I had two Visual Basic college classes many years ago (VB6 & VB.Net). In my VB6 class, it was no-holds-barred on what our programs looked like. We had 16 students with essentially the same program completed for homework with wildly different UI. The use of color and fonts now seem comical to me. In my VB.Net class, the instructor gave specific guidelines on style and everyone’s programs then looked nearly identical.
I tried to look up guidelines for the Windows UI, but quickly got bored reading what I found on MSDN. Would appreciate if Microsoft would put out a condensed “Cliff Notes” version. In the mean time, I follow the guidelines gleaned from my VB.Net class in an effort to make my programs at least look professional (even if I’m the only end-user).
It is a bit of a minefield nowadays, I think things strayed too far to pull them back into guidelines that would be useful because as soon as such a guide would be produced by Microsoft there would be media and marketing wars about those apps that didn’t conform (including those from Microsoft). It is even more varied with web application UIs, I do recommend to my clients that they spend money getting a design house to come up with something rather than waste so much time with subjective opinions and that has worked very well for web applications.
The reality is Microsoft change the look at every new release without an apparent plan behind it.
So they should write new and different guidelines at every release and some thing are in contradiction to what stated for previous release.
Following guidelines, one should write different versions for every targeted Windows flavor.
after thinking at the original poster subject, here’s some questions:
Is the IDE look fits a development tool ?
IMHO: yes. I do not really care about the look of a Hammer; all I need to it is if it fit my needs; this is the case.
Is the IDE able to build applications that have the correct look for my targets ?
IMHO: yes.
Is the IDE (Xojo 2013r2) look satisfy my eyes ?
Does your eyes needs to be satisfieds ? So you will be able to create the applications you want ?
No.
Is the question rhetorical ?
Yes, IMHO.
In short, the IDE is a tool. It have to let me create application with GUI that follows the target OS User Interface Guidelines OR my needs (but if I were XOJO, I will not be pleased to see window with red, green or blue surroundings instead of the OS target color(s)). I do not care about the look of the IDE if that IDE is fast, easy, powerful, etc.
I am sorry, in my first answer, I forgot that we were talking about a professional tool, normally used by developers. We are not using latest “Paris Hilton” fashion tool: Xojo IDE does not have to have pink in its interface. ;-
I’m not sure why you went with number 4. This may be rhetorical to you, but not to me which is why I posed the question in the first place. I wasn’t complaining about the IDE but just wanted to know “why” it looked like it did when Xojo was compiled using Xojo and it is supposed to compile native apps based on the platform you are running.
[quote=23879:@Norman Palardy]It was what we happened to get designs for
So that’s how it looks
Getting the right look on XP. Vista, 7 and 8 would require 4 sets of graphics to match the different looks where they differ
Not impossible but not the highest priority on our list at this point - but it IS on the TO DO list already[/quote]
I’d go even further. One of the most obvious custom controls reminds of iOS, not Mac (the toggles).
At this stage I believe most of the custom UI work in Desktop is being done on Mac, not on Windows. This means that inspiration for custom controls would usually be heavier on the mac side of possible options.
It couldn’t have been rethorical. If it had just been “Does the IDE look like a Mac?” then perhaps it could be argued that the question itself was (even if what you actually wanted to know wasn’t).
Your question was also valid. Even though it’s becoming more and more common to have custom interfaces in stuff, in each case they should come with a justification. In my case I do custom interfaces in part to get away with normalizing platform presentation, in part to set my app apart.
In Xojo’s case, using a custom look and controls serves two purposes (if I understand correctly). One is modernising the application look & feel (it may be the times, but custom controls more and more are associated with modern UIs, as long as they don’t have custom behaviours), the other is that it makes it easier for them dealing with multiple platforms. I can understand both reasons as they match mine but then again I don’t make an IDE supposed to make applications.
Using custom controls may look confusing for people that have been drawn by the promise of native controls (even though once it’s technically clear that one thing has nothing to do with the other, the concern should disappear). It looks weird and, for sure, it’s a departure from past versions.
I obviously don’t mind, but I’m glad you made the question because it makes sense for a new user drawn to the platform.
[quote=26047:@Eduardo Gutierrez de Oliveira]I’d go even further. One of the most obvious custom controls reminds of iOS, not Mac (the toggles).
At this stage I believe most of the custom UI work in Desktop is being done on Mac, not on Windows. This means that inspiration for custom controls would usually be heavier on the mac side of possible options.[/quote]
I use a Mac - but then I’m not a UI designer.
I use it simply because I can run OS X (3 versions) Windows (3 Versions) and linux (at least 3 versions) on one machine and much of it at the same time. It beats the heck out of my old set up where I had 4 different machines & about 8 monitors and nowhere near enough AC to keep me cool
That said we’re aware the IDE looks “too Mac” on Windows & Linux and are actively working on this.
it is probably a “not my mother tongue language” translation trouble. I apologize if I hurt you. It was not my intention.
On the other hand, a 100% Linux Look and Feel (on all platforms) IDE would not hurt me would be good for me if I found my kids where they belongs to ;- Of course, your opinion have the same value as mine and anyone else.
The boolean buttons looks strange to me at first, but I understand what they are and do not really care about their look. I recently created a XP/OS X software and used some similar images (for buttons) and some other different (platform related), but you understand what one do even if you used the other platform for sometimes.
