Re: Tk::FunkyButton ?

Ala Qumsieh wrote:
> --- Dean Arnold <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Ala Qumsieh wrote:
>>concerns me is a bit. So I'll likely end up
>>requiring
>>GD be installed so I can render images w/ a bit less
>>overhead (just create a gradient brush the width of
>>the button, and drawn the line, resulting in a
>>single
>>image).
> 
> 
> Yikes. Do you really want to require your users to
> install a hefty lib like GD just to have more
> elaborate-looking buttons? If anything, I think that
> might reduce your user base (it depends on your
> application and your audience of course).

Its a matter of choice; personally, I'll almost
always deliver the app as a standalone exe, which will be
pretty hefty on its own, regardless whether GD is included.
For developers that don't want to use GD, they can carry on
with what I'll call the "1991" style that native pTk provides.

> 
> 
>>While I personally agree w/ you, I have been edified
>>(by recent
>>experiences w/ my end users) that user i/f
>>expectations
>>are changing. If the app's GUI doesn't have lots of
>>chrome, despite
>>any functional advantages the app itself may
>>provide, it often
>>meets with user resistance. E.g., some folks need
>>D&D, autocompletion,
>>syntax hilighting, etc....things I rarely use (and
>>some often annoy me).
> 
> 
> Then you're missing on a lot :)

And yet I manage to get things done fairly quickly.
(But then I still use the command line debugger and
a basic editor sans Perl highlighting, so maybe I'm
a curmudgeon).
While I'll concede that D&D has its value, I despise
autocompletion, and find syntax highlighting of marginal
value. To each their own..

> 
> Oval and image-based buttons are very different from
> what you mention here. An oval button does not add
> anything to a GUI that a normal button doesn't already
> have. It could even be more distracting, taking the
> user's attention away from the task at hand.

...or "attracting", if the users are accustomed to chrome.
My sense (based on user feedback over the past couple of years)
is that when users see the 1991 look/feel of pTk (or even early
Java Swing, or any other GUI w/ the original X windows look/feel),
they assume the underlying app is also circa 1991, and then tend to
shy away. OTOH, take a pre-1991 app (e.g., vi ?), throw a aqua GUI around
it, and they'll line up to use it. I don't agree with the mindset,
but its the reality I've been confronted with.

> 
>>And, I'll add, after rendering some of the
>>gradients, they do
>>look rather sexy...;^)
> 
> 
> care to share a snapshot? :)
> 

Sure. http://www.presicient.com/dtfgrad.png
Very prelim, and this is pure Tk (no GD rendering) and I
haven't finished aqua shading yet,
but it gives you an idea what I'm trying to do (for Tk::DTF tabs,
not buttons, per se, tho I'd like to be able to match button style
to the tab style for consistency)


- Dean
-++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==--++**==
This message was posted through the Stanford campus mailing list
server.  If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the
message body of "unsubscribe ptk" to [email protected]