Hacker News Reader

Comment by blattimwind | Hacker News Reader

> I remember having to override the default Button class and add like 50 lines of code just so I could get a custom background.

That's mostly because you're not supposed to be doing that sort of thing in the first place. Customizing widgets = inconsistent look and feel. Custom widgets = Inconsistent LAF, inconsistent interaction, no accessibility etc.

The idea of Win32 UI, WinForms etc. is that you have a look and feel dictated by the system, not by individual app developers, with the ultimate goal being not just a consistent look and feel of the whole system (including applications) but consistently applied patterns of interaction. This in turn makes computers easier to use.

Of course, modern UI frameworks, whether in the browser (JS) or outside the browser (QML, UWP, JS, ...) run completely counter to that.

View on HN

That's all well and good but in certain niches you need custom graphics. A good example is gaming, have you seen how beautiful the blizzard client is? Steam is nice too. Users of these apps don't care about a unified experience with the rest of the win32 ecosystem, in some ways these apps are a different ecosystem unto themselves.

I was trying to write a poker client so same thing, using normal buttons just wouldn't have made any sense. It would've been ugly as hell.

Modern UIs stray from a standard because standards are boring and if your app is boring then your not so boring competitor will snatch your users.

Your “boring” is a blind persons “basically usable”. Standards exist for a reason.

I actively judge apps with non-platform-standard UIs as worse than an equivalent with a standard UI.

While I appreciate inclusivity, software isn't just utilitarian, it's also aesthetic. when it comes to aesthetics, slavish adherence to the lowest common denominator is a cancer... By analogy, would you like it if all books were written for a fourth grade reading level because some people can't handle more complexity? Or if the plots of all movies and television shows were simple enough for an idiot to follow?

Complexity is not an issue here, though, and in general the "boring" UIs tend to be the more complex ones, in terms of exposing more features etc. It's the custom-made ones that often trend towards fourth grade reading level...

Ironically, you got lost in the analogy. I'm not talking about interface complexity, but any intentional deviation from maximal accessibility (at least when it serves an aesthetic purpose).

> Or if the plots of all movies and television shows were simple enough for an idiot to follow?

That covers about 90% of Hollywood's output, and the reason for that is that you want a wide audience to purchase tickets. Only people that are good at navigating new interfaces appreciate novelty. That's a niche audience, but it intersects with the gamer audience (they're good at exploring new environments).

Most games can not be played by a blind audience.

There are enough exceptions that whatever API you are using should accomodate developers in those cases. If people want custom UIs they'll get them somehow, you putting unnecessary roadblocks in the way will only annoy developers.

Managers don't care how you do it, they just want it done.

In Brazil we have a saying, "I don't care if the duck is male, I want eggs!"

> It would've been ugly as hell.

That's because the underlying widget set is as ugly as hell.

> "a look and feel dictated by the system, not by individual app developers"

Ohh, the good old days...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com