Comment by pifflesnort | Hacker News Reader

Comment by pifflesnort | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Perhaps a better way to look at it is this- when I have a great job doing web development and see job listings all over the place for other rewarding web roles, where is my incentive to do desktop development- even if it's close to the (much more booming) mobile app space? The web is in no danger of dying or getting less popular any time too soon.

Because it would provide a better product for your users, which is the whole point.

It also shouldn't be hard to do. A senior engineer that can't easily jump on new technology stacks is not a senior engineer.

> But that isn't why I'm running it. I have a web browser open every minute I'm using my computer, so it's already there. The browser is a multitasking application itself, so using it for music streaming fits in great. I haven't used the Spotify web player, but Rdio has been web-based from the start, and has been great.

An arbitrarily resizable browser window/tab that looks like every other browser window on my desktop, which can't share state between multiple windows, and can't interact with my desktop in any meaningful way, doesn't use native components, goes wonky if I reload, and goes away if I have to restart my browser.

That doesn't make sense. This makes sense: http://www.pandabarapp.com/

I like how you're talking about good user experiences and then use that as an example.

Furthermore, that wouldn't as easily transfer to Windows since taskbar notification icons are routinely hidden.

> I like how you're talking about good user experiences and then use that as an example.

What's your point?

> Furthermore, that wouldn't as easily transfer to Windows since taskbar notification icons are routinely hidden.

Mac OS X isn't Windows. Part of writing native applications is working with established platform conventions and user expectations, not trying to rubber stamp the same thing everywhere.

> What's your point?

It's ugly. It doesn't look nice in the slightest. It doesn't scream to me "Boy, this looks like an awesome user experience. I better try it out!"

> Mac OS X isn't Windows. Part of writing native applications is working with established platform conventions and user expectations, not trying to rubber stamp the same thing everywhere.

Then there is no good user experience for Windows. There goes your UX angle.

> It's ugly. It doesn't look nice in the slightest. It doesn't scream to me "Boy, this looks like an awesome user experience. I better try it out!"

Why is it ugly? What, specifically is wrong with the UX?

The UI is non-standard:

- The buttons aren't styled like Cocoa buttons

- The gradient is non-standard

- Why is there so much lime green?

- Why is there a lime green border?

- The images don't look like they scale well, they look blurry and not very well defined, even in the screenshots

It's supposed to be a Mac app but it doesn't use any of the guidelines published by Apple on conformity in the UI. That makes for a horrible user experience, especially when your app is made for the platform which embraces uniformity across its apps. It is not using any UI elements which the user is accustomed to, instead opting for custom-styled everything.

These are all aesthetic complaints, not UX complaints. The UX is standard.

Now, I actually happen to agree that it's not the prettiest app. But it is a very usable app, in ways that a web browser music player is not.

I also get the impression that you're just being willfully contrary and not particularly genuine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com