Re: Next steps forward?

If I get it, it's because like you, I've been trying to live without it.

Point is, good design is not just pretty. It works.

Most of what I have seen so far in desktop customization land is what 
seems to be complete indifference to how something makes a difference. 
That is, I want my desktop to fit what I have to do--it's not about 
flashy/spinny/scrolly (just finished a frustrating year with another 
suite of programs--different tools, same frustrating conclusion).

The themes I have seen with what seems to be the highest level of 
computing genius behind them cause me to work harder to get around the 
theme's "features."

I want my computer to work for me. Not against me.

I don't even know how to do this. I'm neither a programmer nor a visual 
designer. But I have worked with enough visual designers/graphic artists 
over the years to realize that context *does* matter.

Now how do we get the visual designers and the programmers talking (and 
more importantly, showing) to one another without making designers first 
learn how to be (mediocre) programmers or programmers to be 
(uninspiring) designers?

That--and its equivalent with different disciplines--holds a robust 
future for LiteStep.

Keep the faith, Wendy! You are not alone. You are one of the relatively 
few visual artists who have ventured into code land. Let's try to make 
it a decent and safe place for both designers and programmers to live!

(and don't be too quick to say "all I need is. . ." We are after high 
quality work that exceeds everyone's expectations. So add "and is 
visually relevant and contextually aware" to your list. . .

Thank you,

Roy

Wendy Harlow wrote:
> Roy -
> 
> Your post made me cry. YOU GET IT.
> 
> I'm in the exact same position at work; I'm the only web designer in a shop
> full of developers. I can't hold a candle to what they do, but I can
> "graphic" and "CSS" circles around them. I was hired for my ability to
> leverage Joomla! and I'm in the process of learning DotNetNuke. They are
> truly the greatest things since sliced bread. Their power lies in the
> ability to lay a skin over the bare install. While it's not exactly a
> beginner's tool, it helps those of us who can't wrap their heads around
> complicated coding and would rather focus on the layout and look. It lets me
> do some of the simpler projects and lets the developers tackle the bigger
> custom jobs.
> 
> To answer your query about what would it take: Don't laugh, but MS' "Coffee
> Table" and WPF is a huge step forward. I don't think I've gotten as excited
> about anything as I have about this.
> 
> What would it take to make a desktop environment run with this, instead of
> running against it? Granted, at the moment, it's a Windows and limited-scope
> 'Net thing right now, but the CONCEPTS are what I'm referring to. Blending
> 'Net and desktop, allowing a person to manipulate their environment with
> fingers, as is most intuitive. Allowing them to do away with all the damned
> cords and lines and tethers... Making them truly mobile...
> 
> Coming back down into the scope of what we're currently capable of
> accomplishing - LS is a beautiful thing. It's just confusing as hell for a
> newbie. My concern is the number of people who manage to damage their
> computer so badly it requires a reformat to get it back - THAT'S what I mean
> by making it "idiot-proof". LS isn't a kids' toy, and probably shouldn't be,
> considering how deeply it needs to dig into the OS simply to function.
> 
> I do like Vista because it's "pretty". The visual effects are fabulous. Yes,
> I bought my new computer specifically so I could run Vista Aero (and Age of
> Empires, but that's a side issue). Like a mentioned, I'm a designer, so I
> like pretty stuff (forget flowers, though - I'm not that much of a
> girly-girl). Bare-bones gray/blue/black bars, while useful, are depressing.
> Tiny fonts strain my eyes. "Don't make me think", to steal a web design book
> title.
> 
> Is there a way, perhaps, to create an LS that will allow a graphic person to
> simply lay a skin over it? Why not? Several themes already allow you to
> change the colors using Windows' system settings. Would themers be willing
> to allow a graphic person to skin their themes? I know it's not a huge
> hassle, usually, to get permission. I've ported a theme or two myself. What
> if themers did that from the get-go? What if skins were looked at with the
> same regard as full-blown themes, a la WindowBlinds? What if LS worked with
> WindowBlinds, to skin the OS?
> 
> What do I require in a theme? An easy-to-read clock (digital or analog,
> doesn't matter). Customizable popup, with fonts large enough to read
> quickly. Systray. Taskbar (don't make me click to find my open windows).
> Appointments and follow-up list from Outlook. Weather's nice, but not
> required. System monitor - eh. I know when my computer's getting slow. VWM
> would be nice, but I've gotten used to not having one. Quick shortcut
> ability. I don't need multimedia controls - I have a keyboard for that. An
> interface that doesn't take up a lot of room (my biggest complaint about
> Vista - you NEED a widescreen to work effectively). Don't reset my wallpaper
> when I switch themes. Don't turn off Aero when I switch themes. Give me a
> preview of the theme before I switch it - names don't mean much anymore.
> 
> Find a way to leverage Vista's hardware acceleration. Use transparency. Make
> it pretty, but don't make it so distracting I can't work.
> 
> Ok, I'm done.
> 
> ~Wendy Harlow
> Tonsei-rs
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Can't Unsubscribe? Check http://desktopian.org/listunsub.html
>         LS List Homepage: http://wuzzle.org/list/litestep.php
>             Get the LS FAQ: http://lsfaq.shellfront.org
> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Can't Unsubscribe? Check http://desktopian.org/listunsub.html
        LS List Homepage: http://wuzzle.org/list/litestep.php
            Get the LS FAQ: http://lsfaq.shellfront.org