Why is Konfabulator "Pretty?"

[Richard Gaskin]

Bill Marriott wrote:
> Depends. What HIG specification are you wanting to follow? (link please.)

I maintain links to the Human Interface Guidelines for most popular 
operating systems on the top-right of this page:
<http://www.fourthworld.com/resources/>


> I'm sure we could find portions where Rev deviates from it. 

No doubt.  I have a list.  They're there, but they're also relatively 
minor.  For example, both Rev and my apps made with it have gotten 
4-mouse reviews in MacWorld, where HIG conformance is a factor.

> There's nothing I know of in K. that would prevent one from
> creating an HIG-compliant widget.

Probably not, but making an individual widget isn't what I was talking 
about.

When I wrote about making "HIG-compliant apps", oddly enough I was 
regerring to apps.  You know -- menu bar, documents, About box, etc. 
That stuff.

You can made widgets/gadgets in Rev.  Some of us have been doing that 
for years.  But I don't think you can make complete applications in any 
of these widget/gadget environments.  I don't believe you even have 
access to any local file I/O, nor the menu bar nor scrolling document 
windows nor....

That's where the apples/oranges comes in:

As an engine that works in a relatively small subset of the things that 
can be done on a computer, Konfab and the other widget/gadget engines 
handle that task with greater depth than a more general purpose 
development system like Rev.

But on the flipside, Rev's greater breadth in supporting development 
across a broader range of software categories gives it a value that 
isn't matched by the widget/gadget stuff.

Is one better than another?

I hate getting into qualitative arguments like that, as they're mostly 
subjective ("what is 'best'?").

Fortunately that wasn't the core question, which was much simpler:

To what degree would RR making it easier to import images from Photoshop 
into Rev help its market adoption?

Considering that relatively few application categories benefit from the 
novelty single-window translucent whizbangness that distinguishes 
widgets/gadgets from the rest of the world's software categories, and 
coupled with the sober recognition that importing graphics isn't the 
hard part of producing such UIs, I'm not sure it would make much 
difference in the big picture.

If you feel strongly that it might you can put that to the test in under 
an hour:

Write the import script and post it somewhere.  If Rev takes off like 
wildfire from that we'll know it was a great idea, and Rev can pay you 
handsomely for that hour's work.  :)

Sexy interfaces isn't something that comes from the runtime tool; it 
comes from talent applied to a graphics tool.

Photoshop output can be used in any app (as can output from Fireworks, 
which is arguably superior for making UIs since it was designed for that 
task from the ground up rather than morphed into it through accidents of 
history), regardless whether the language that drives the app is C++, 
Java, HTML, or Transcript.

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Managing Editor, revJournal
  _______________________________________________________
  Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com