<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Brian Mury wrote: <blockquote cite="mid1120163630.4472.8.camel@localhost.localdomain" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 13:14 -0700, Richard Kelsch wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Function over form, ya know... </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap="">Good eye candy, implemented properly should not detract from functionality, </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> That's sometimes true, and sometimes not true. I find that eye candy, by it's very nature, can distract from the useability. </pre> </blockquote> Well, then perhaps my idea of "eye candy" is different than yours. I suppose (I'm guessing, sorry if I missed the mark) your definition of "eye candy" is special effects for the sole purpose of wowing the viewer. In that definition I agree with your assesments. However, I should have been more specific. "Well designed graphics, special effects,etc. designed to help or inform the user" was what I meant by "eye candy." The icon "throbber" of Aqua was a great example of this. Also, I wouldn't mind animated icons that reacted differently depending on what's hapenning to them as an improvement to the Aqua throbber. Mouse overs, app initializing, crashed app, running app, etc. all can be achieved with some good graphical effects without detracting from speed and usability. Configurability is the key here. <blockquote cite="mid1120163630.4472.8.camel@localhost.localdomain" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""></pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">and should, in fact, increase functionality as not all eye-candy is for special effects, but can be part of function. For example, the simple bouncing icon of a program loading in Apple's Aqua is, in my opinion, eye candy improving functionality. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I would call that a feature, or functionality; I wouldn't call it eye candy! :-) And BTW, would be a good feature for Gnome. </pre> </blockquote> It's eye candy because on a Mac it usually looks nice too. <blockquote cite="mid1120163630.4472.8.camel@localhost.localdomain" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I think for those (the 1 or 3 of you out there) with a wife or girlfriend </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> Uh... girl-what??? </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">until programmers finally get together with artists and designers. Both would be surprised what the end result can do. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> I think it's possible to have something that looks good without falling under the "eye candy" classification. </pre> </blockquote> Agreed, provided one agrees on its definition :-) <blockquote cite="mid1120163630.4472.8.camel@localhost.localdomain" type="cite"> <pre wrap=""> Anyway, I don't think eye candy is necessarily bad; I think it's often a (not always) a tradeoff between form and function, and I personally prefer function. No reason not to have eye candy available, especially if I can turn it off when it starts distracting/annoying me. </pre> </blockquote> Different definitions apply here as well. From what I think is your perspective, I agree. </body> </html>