Some thoughts for the future

[Richard Kelsch]

Brian Mury wrote:

>On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 13:14 -0700, Richard Kelsch wrote:
>  
>
>>>Function over form, ya know...
>>>  
>>>      
>>>
>>Good eye candy, implemented properly should not detract from
>>functionality,
>>    
>>
>
>That's sometimes true, and sometimes not true.
>
>I find that eye candy, by it's very nature, can distract from the
>useability.
>  
>
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.

>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>I would call that a feature, or functionality; I wouldn't call it eye
>candy! :-) And BTW, would be a good feature for Gnome.
>  
>
It's eye candy because on a Mac it usually looks nice too.

>  
>
>>I think for those (the 1 or 3 of you out there) with a wife or
>>girlfriend
>>    
>>
>
>Uh... girl-what???
>  
>
>>until programmers finally get together with artists and designers.
>>Both would be surprised what the end result can do.
>>    
>>
>
>I think it's possible to have something that looks good without falling
>under the "eye candy" classification.
>  
>
Agreed, provided one agrees on its definition :-)

>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.
>
>  
>
Different definitions apply here as well.  From what I think is your 
perspective, I agree.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/attachments/20050630/b5f6b7d8/attachment-0001.htm>