unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jonathan Meek <shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx>]

While I'm sure that is the intent, no, Qt doesn't look 100% native. It
looks MOSTLY right, but it is still off. Things like the buttons looking
slightly different, randomly using bold for button text, still using GTK 2
(just nitpicking there, I'm sure that's being worked on).

And that's partly the point: yes, they work, but we have a sort of uncanny
valley situation arising with Ubuntu except the definition of what is
"human" for Ubuntu is nowhere to be found.

On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Chris Wilson <afrowildo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> An app that is written in Qt does not automatically have a particular
> visual theme. Instead, Qt inherits the theme of whatever platform it's
> compiled on. When I compile my Qt code on Ubuntu, it always looks like a
> native GTK+ based app. I've not done it yet on Windows or Mac OS, but if I
> were to compile it on either of them, it would look as native as those apps
> produced by Microsoft and Apple. The problem I've seen with Qt-based apps
> from the USC is that they're compiled on another platform, and the binary
> is packaged for Ubuntu.
>
> An intelligent toolkit used by a competent developer can easily be used to
> produce apps that look native, and we shouldn't be excluding technoligies
> because of the way some people use them. We should instead be educating
> people about how they can theme their apps appropriately.
>
> If professional developers decide they want to target their app at Ubuntu,
> they're going to go to developer.ubuntu.com, because they're already
> trained to go to developer.microsoft.com and developer.apple.com to learn
> about how to develop for those particular platforms. If we can direct them
> to documentation on how to effectively theme their app for Ubuntu, then
> visual consistency shouldn't be a problem.
>
>
> On 25 February 2012 16:37, Mark Curtis <merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>  Why does Ubuntu have a  redundant title bar when the Windows and OSX
>> versions do not?
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> From: estelar57@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To: nrundy@xxxxxxxxxxx; merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx;
>> unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: RE: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future
>> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:32:46 +0000
>>
>>  The firefox appearance problem will be no more:
>>
>> http://www.webupd8.org/2012/02/firefox-to-get-new-default-theme-other.html
>>
>>
>> the differences will be minimum and the ubuntu version on the pic looks
>> very slick to me (much better than now) and nothing to really envy the
>> appearances from the other OSs. But you never know if some of the ubuntu
>> devs decide to start changing the appearance and make it look weird/uglier
>> again...
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> From: nrundy@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To: merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx; unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:59:35 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future
>>
>>  I think the community (at a minimum) needs to ask Mozilla and TDF to
>> change toolkits for their Linux offerings. Frankly, Firefox's
>> appearance/presentation on Linux is rather pathetic. Just take a look at
>> the forums and lots of folks are posting pictures of Firefox on Windows and
>> commenting about how nice it looks while bemoaning the appearance of
>> Firefox on Ubuntu.
>>
>> Chrome on the other hand looks good on Linux. Here's an article I found
>> about why Chrome went with GTK+:
>> http://www.osnews.com/story/20980/Linux_Version_of_Chrome_To_Use_Gtk_
>>
>> Basically, Chrome went with GTK+ because it would mean a better Linux
>> product. I have looked at a LOT of performance reviews comparing Firefox
>> and Chrome web browsers. Chrome routinely performs better on Linux than
>> Firefox. And Firefox routinely performs better on Windows. Granted, this
>> probably isn't due solely to the toolkit. But I think it plays a role while
>> also reflecting on the commitment to Linux in the design of the product.
>>
>> Opening Ubuntu up to Qt I think was good move. It's a widely used toolkit
>> and encouraging app makers to support Ubuntu is important, even at the
>> expense of "seamless appearance." Perhaps in time the integration of Qt
>> won't look so "foreign"?
>>
>> I think the "toolkit problem" has a solution though and it lies more in
>> getting companies like Mozilla to not be so Windows-centric in their
>> product design and creation. After-all they are gung-ho about open-source
>> and freedom right? Why don't they do more to advance their Linux version of
>> Firefox and Thunderbird? I don't think it's too much to ask.
>>
>> LibreOffice definitely needs to change toolkits for Linux. Now that OOo
>> is basically no more and LibreOffice is "free" it should embrace Linux and
>> make it's product shine. Changing toolkits I think would go a long way
>> towards accomplishing that.
>>
>> So I think the solution lies in third-party companies using toolkits that
>> are appropriate for their Linux offering, which presently they are not
>> doing.
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> From: merkinman@xxxxxxxxxxx
>> To: unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:22:40 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future
>>
>>  While I like this idea, it'll probably get a lot of flak from the "LINUX
>> IS FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!11" crowd.
>>
>> Are we supposed to tell The Document Foundation/Mozilla/etc "hey you want
>> to make an Ubuntu version? Make it in {insert toolkit}?" I understand
>> applications Canonical itself builds should be in the same toolkit, sure,
>> but I don't know how successful it would be forcing/encouraging that for
>> 3rd party applications. Given this is Linux most of the popular
>> applications are third party contrary to Windows and OSX
>>
>> Compared to the other two operating systems and their applications
>> *Microsoft *Windows:
>> Control Panel, made by *Microsoft*.
>> Windows Media Player, made by *Microsoft*
>> Internet Explorer, made by *Microsoft*.
>> Office, made by *Microsoft*
>>
>> *Apple* OS X:
>> System Settings, made by *Apple*
>> iTunes, made by *Apple*
>> Safari, made by *Apple
>> *iWork, made by* Apple
>> *
>> *Canoncial* Ubuntu
>> Control Panel, made by *GNOME* (*Canonical*?)
>> Rhythmbox, made by *GNOME*
>> Firefox, made by *Mozilla*
>> LibreOffice made by *The Document Foundation*
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:40:27 -0500
>> From: shrouded.cloud@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future
>>
>> I was greeted by a small surprise today in updating my Precise machines:
>> a new version of Ubuntu One controls that is made using Qt. All well
>> enough, as it can make it much easier to share code with the Windows
>> version of the app... But there are still some consequences.
>>
>> First of all, this brings the number of default toolkits up to *five*.
>> We have Nux (for Unity), VCL (for LibreOffice), XUL (For Firefox and
>> Thunderbird), Qt (for the new control panel), and GTK+ for all else. And no
>> two of them look quite the same. What's worse is that, if we sync back up
>> with GNOME in 12.10, we'll have six toolkits technically because of
>> Clutter.*
>>
>> Now, this goes against what I thought Precise is to be about, but that's
>> personal.
>>
>> The real issue is our outward appearance. Does it look good to users when
>> they open a Qt app and it's JUST off enough visually for them to notice?
>>
>> Not only do we face the issue of visual inconsistency, but also in a bit
>> of a bind with future aims. We want developers to create and they still
>> don't know what they should use to make things based on what's available.
>> Is all of it good? None? I know we don't exactly have a plethora of quality
>> applications in a single toolkit, but for an LTS, was it really wise to
>> expand the toolkit count further?
>>
>> We're doing what I accused Linux Mint of doing in my OMGU article: we
>> keep pulling in a bunch of apps because they are good without looking at
>> the whole picture. We need a consistent *platform* not a station from
>> which we have tracks going off into several very different areas.
>>
>> I would have us look into, by the time 14.04 rolls out, having defined an
>> HIG for Ubuntu, a default toolkit and a STRONG push to have default
>> applications only in that toolkit. (In some cases, it's excusable... I
>> don't expect a native browser to pop up out of nowhere and be able to
>> challenge Firefox-- which at least sort of tries to look native) Precise is
>> pixel-perfect? Then let's make sure "T" celebrates the True Toolkit.
>>
>>
>> *I'm not counting Ubuntu for Android which, I believe brings in another
>> 1-2 toolkits.
>>
>> -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to :
>> unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe :
>> https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help :
>> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>> -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to :
>> unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe :
>> https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help :
>> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>> -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to :
>> unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Unsubscribe :
>> https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help :
>> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>> --
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
>> Post to     : unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
> Post to     : unity-design@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>