chit-chat about skins and stuff

psishock · April 24, 2009, 22:26:51

(Started about here, as an OT chat: http://forum.openmpt.org/index.php?topic=2850.0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=45)

Quote from: "Waxhead"Maybe we are confusing skins and themes..

nope, we're not

. Leave themes aside, they are mere (color) cosmetics, we're talking about skins here you can call them GUI if you like. Here are some examples, different skins have different overview and available options, they can be very very personalized:

Quote from: "Waxhead"Ever tried to change DPI / fontsize etc on a program that uses skins? sometimes you have to click outside buttons to click on them, sometimes fonts are writen larger than the button etc etc....

Sure, that happens if the OS is managing these stuff who has no clue about the client software. If the client software has a nice and flexible option to modify the GUI, change font sizes, or even design a totally new look, this should never be an issue.

Quote from: "Waxhead"We are talking about STANDARIZING stuff.

Nah, we shouldn't

i would hate if everything would have same standardized GUI, variability ftw.

Quote from: "Waxhead"(As you probably have understood I don't like programs that use skins )

sure, it's not a problem, but that means that you must like a specified GUI system (dunno like WIN98 style) and you would force that to most of your programs, but you hafta understand that not all the people would love that. The GUI needs to be independent, i'm using every of my programs differently, i want (totally) different setup for each of them, same look for every one of them wouldn't necessary speed up, make comfortable their usage.

Quote from: "Waxhead"advanced/simple view

that is not enough, i want more personalized approach.

Quote from: "Waxhead"This does not make sense. What you basically are saying is that it's better to have 10 skinned programs (who each handles skins in a individual way). that WILL consume more memory AND CPU resources than a slightly bloated GUI manager who can skip skinning for programs that don't require it AND can do a standard procedure for ALL programs that require a skin?!

That is totally up to me, if i want to run those 50 programs i take to chance to eat up a lot of memory, but if i want to run 3 with light weight GUI, i don't want a GUI manager to troll in the background. The GUI also could be unloaded from memory for minimized processes anyway. And 1-2 active visible process would eat lesser memory in most cases than a centralized GUI manager imo.

LPChip · April 24, 2009, 22:55:32

Actually, a theme is a package containing every aspect that can be changed in the appearance.

A skin is the graphical part of the appearance in the form of: how does a button look like, how does the window look like, etc.

The theme can have the skin in it, and additional the color settings.

Look for instance at windows skinning. You style the appearance of windows by Visual Styles (skinning) If you then also change the font and perhaps some colour settings (yes, some visual styles can have both) you can then save this as a theme. Loading in the theme sets the skin and the additional interface options.

another example is the software on your phone.

You can load in a background, which are just the phone settings. You can set the colour, but if you load in a theme, it sets it all.

psishock · April 24, 2009, 23:05:50

*sniff* skins, themes, styles, appearance, etc... they have so many names for stuffs that we cannot even precisely define. I would just simply call them GUI, and it's up to the OS (or to the client program, if it has an advanced engine that supports personalized changes) how deeply can we modify them. Just a simple color change, or a complete redesign.

Waxhead · April 24, 2009, 23:25:41

I define skins as a major visual change and often it's impossible to go back to the system GUI. I find this most disturbing.
So again I would like to say that I think the skinning / theme / whatever you want to call it should be done by a central management system (the GUI manager as we choose to call it here).

I am confident that this is way faster than the alternative who is needs to be build into each program (but this have already been discussed).

However when it comes to standardize stuff I am not talking about standardize the look. I am still saying that in a ideal world you should be able to skin each program like you want but under the management of the OS and not the program itself.

As for your example XMPlay... there is ONE reason that I refuse to use this program and that is simply because it does not use a std GUI.

To tired to continue this now... Let's start a flamewar tomorrow instead

Saga Musix · April 24, 2009, 23:29:09

Skins SUCK. simple as that.

Sam_Zen · April 24, 2009, 23:34:20

Nice work, Psi, to split this up to a dedicated topic..

psishock · April 25, 2009, 00:43:34

Quote from: "Jojo"Skins SUCK. simple as that.

Troll! GTFO.

(i could say skins ROCKS and wouldn't prove anything, explain you thoughts)

Quote from: "Waxhead"To tired to continue this now... Let's start a flamewar tomorrow instead

sure, i'm dead tired too, will read your last post tomorrow with clear head, gnite.

Sam_Zen · April 25, 2009, 01:06:47

Well, keep awake guys.. skins just can be itchy..

bvanoudtshoorn · April 25, 2009, 02:42:37

I should point out that one of the reasons that people use themes for their apps is that when you're developing something that's cross-system, it's extremely hard to make it look 'right' in every style. It's actually less effort to use a custom 'skin' or widget set for your app. That's why, for example, Audacity doesn't use native controls in Windows, Linux and OS-X; the GIMP and Inkscape do the same kind of thing.

Saga Musix · April 25, 2009, 11:07:33

I think you shouldn't say that GIMP and Inkscape use own skins or whatever. They use GTK+, and GTK+ uses the system theme, doesn't it?

psishock: My personal hatred towards skins comes from programs like MSN or ICQ. Kiddies prefer those extremely colorful and playful interfaces (you have the rather deprecating made-up word "klickibunti" in German for this kind of interface, which is a combination of "lotsa things to click on" (klicki) and "very colourful" (bunt)) over programs that actually can do more but look like any other program. They "customize" they messengers until they look like nothing else on their system. I just hate that. Why can't all programs just have the same look and feel?

bvanoudtshoorn · April 26, 2009, 00:10:58

Quote from: "Jojo"I think you shouldn't say that GIMP and Inkscape use own skins or whatever. They use GTK+, and GTK+ uses the system theme, doesn't it?

No, not in and of itself. Someone has put together a GTK theme that acts as a 'translator' between GTK and your system theme, but it's not perfect. Some other apps that have been ported cross-system that use GTK don't always include this 'translator' in their default GTK installation, such as Dia.

Oh, and btw Jojo, I completely agree about programs like MSN or whatever.

That's why I use Pidgin (another GTK app). And everyone I show it to is swapping to it. Pidgin is to MSN what Firefox is to IE.

Saga Musix · April 26, 2009, 00:21:44

Miranda is more like the Firefox.

jikoo · April 26, 2009, 11:25:38

Quote from: "Jojo"Miranda is more like the Firefox.

I don't understand ! :shock:

Miranda is an instant messenger and Firefox is a web browser. You compare table to chair !!??

Saga Musix · April 26, 2009, 12:58:20

bvanoudtshoorn said that pidgin is the firefox of the messengers, but to me, miranda is it: highly customizable but only the basic functions are available after you've downloaded it.

jikoo · April 26, 2009, 16:19:52

Haaa Ok ! I understood. I prefer Miranda too.

Thank you Jojo.