Related
There are many applications for Windows these days that don't use native windows controls, don't have standard window frames and generally look different. What are some recommended techniques for creating such interfaces?
There are good reasons not to. Like that you will most likely not do a better job than Windows does. (Maybe it will look better (in your opinion), but will it behave?). Or that it's not what most users expect. Or that it will look like s**** on Windows 2011.
That said, it's not hard. You simply handle the WM_NC* events like WM_NCPAINT or WM_NCHITTEST. NC stands for Non Client (window area). And of course, there is a trick on Vista/Win7 (you have to announce it to the DWM).
From an implementation aspect, you could employ WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) assuming you code for .NET :) It has pretty bunch of skinnable controls, that may look like native and may not.
From a design aspect, if your interface isn't going to follow documented standards (like the Windows UI guidelines), it has to be intuitive. I think the new generation of Windows applications will go through a growing phase in a manner similar to the early days of the Web. After a time, some standards or common themes will evolve.
Can you give us some sample applications? Some apps that don't use native windows controls use cross-platform GUI libraries, like Qt for C++ or Tkinker. These maintain the same look across different platforms.
I wouldn't really recommend making your user interface different deliberately. You don't stand to gain much. Your controls are almost always going to be buggier than native controls, and you are requiring the user to learn something new. Now, if you're controls add a large enough value to be worth the users' time it can be okay. But making them get used to different looking buttons is rarely worth it.
I`m not sure if this answer your question.
You can use third party skinning controls like from Infragistics, or SkinSoft for example.
But like Bubba said I`d recommend going for WPF.
Model-View-Controller! It's as valuable here as in web apps or anywhere else. Be sure to keep the part of your program that generates the custom UI separate from the part of your program that flashes the BIOS.
I know this question is 10 years old but none of the answers mention using an option in visual studio, dont know if it existed at the time.
Theres an option to remove the border of the window in visual studio (called borderStyle). Thats the easiest way to do it, using C#. After removing the border, all you have to do is create a new interface. If you're looking to do it in C++, i think you need to use DWM. I will let an example i found here.
https://github.com/melak47/BorderlessWindow
Another example (maybe without DWM? didnt test):
https://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/vstudio/en-US/b98c4c06-9581-44d3-8e5a-4adb2316e653/win32-about-styles-how-can-i-do-a-borderless-window?forum=vclanguage
There is a lot of people disencouraging to do it in this thread but there's no reason to not do it, if you know what you're doing your application can look great.
I'm just curious whether there is a gui framework that alloys you to use a mac look n feel on other platforms. presumably frameworks that use native APIs wouldn't be helpful (eg wxwidgets).
qt uses native API partially for mac look n feel, so that isn't useful.
what about swing?
In general, don't do this. Different platforms have different conventions, and your software should follow its platform's conventions to minimize the cognitive load of the user.
Unless, I guess, you're the only person who you ever expect to use it.
Legally, you can't create the Mac look and feel on another platform. Apple owns the copyrights to it.
However, the Quaqua Java Look-and-feel implements Java widgets that have that look-and-feel. If you have a good reason to use it in a non-commercial way, it may be a solution.
Every operating system and desktop manager has a different way of implementing GUI elements. Trying to port an application that will look exactly the same as OSX onto these platforms will be difficult if you're looking to use the native controls. Secondly, like Gred stated, each one will have their own way of doing things and could cause user issues by having unusal icons, symbols and controls displayed or missing.
Though if you would like to attempt this, one of the multi-platform web browsers such as FireFox might be able to give you some idea of how to carry over the same general look and feel over the platforms.
Good luck, and hope this helps some.
To answer the last question, Swing does not ship with the Mac look and feel on platforms that aren't Mac-based. This also applied to the other platform-specific look and feel elements.
While not the greatest solution, for Java, the Nimbus L&F is a good alternative... but since it's now included in Java (as of 6u10), it's not available separately any more.
You can implement your own style in Qt [and probably GTK*] to attempt to look the same (see QStyle). However it probably isn't worth the time and effort and will piss off some users. There are some windows themes that attempt to mimic the look. I know the new version of parallels ships with something like that, but it looks rather funny as the margins, spacing, font, etc is completely wrong.
I'm now with a idea to start the development of a bare bones Qt/GTK+-like framework, but I want to know some things before I start the creation of this project:
What is the structure of GTK+ and Qt?
Do I need to develop a window manager to build my own framework?
Some resources to start?
Developing a GUI/Application framework is a significant undertaking. You might want to be very clear about why you need to write yet an other framework.
Both projects you mention are open source. Why not start there?
GTK: git clone git://git.gnome.org/gtk+
Qt: git clone git://gitorious.org/qt/qt.git
Ed You ask what the structure of GTK and Qt are, whether you need to write your own widow manager (answer: no) and how to get started. Answers to at least the first two are in the source code. Don't forget, great practitioners in any field learn by watching others. Reading code is no different.
Writing a GUI/app framework would be a great learning experience, but even a fairly small app framework would be a very big job, and not something you really should tackle until you're fairly expert in writing applications using several other frameworks and widget toolkits.
I did something like this once, back in the early years of this decade. That was after I'd been programming for the Mac for over 15 years, Windows over 10, and had programmed both directly to their native graphics, event, and widget APIs, as well as various object-oriented toolkits for them including PowerPlant, MFC, and MacApp. When I started working on a PalmOS application, I spent a couple of weeks writing a very small app framework modeled on PowerPlant. But I could not have succeeded at all without those decades of broad and deep experience with so many GUI systems.
Doing this for Linux/X11 is even more work. That's because, unlike Mac OS and Windows, neither X11 nor Linux supply built-in user interface widgets, or much in the way of graphics primitives or text layout capabilities. GTK+ is part of the GNOME ecosystem; it provides the widgets, gets its message queue and internal communications from GObject, relies on GDK to abstract and simplify its graphics and event communications with X11, and uses Pango and Cairo for text rendering and layout. I work all through that system, and it probably represents many dozens of person-years of hard work by a lot of really smart people. And I'm sure Qt is very similar.
So if you really want to do this, I would recommend you:
Write programs with a lot of different app and widget toolkits, on multiple operating systems. That will help you learn not just how such systems work, but why they are designed as they are. And it will give you some feeling for what works well, and what works poorly.
Contribute bug fixes or new features to one or more of the various open-source frameworks. GTK+ has a list of tasks for beginners to work on. Another great open-source framework is wxWidgets.
Become an expert-level C/C++ programmer.
When you've done that for a few years, you will have the expertise suitable for tackling your own framework.
That sounds like a major undertaking, at least as a starting project.
Not sure what you mean by "the structure" of e.g. GTK+. You can see the object hierarchy for GTK+, that tells you at least how the implemented objects (GTK+ is an object-oriented API) relate to each other. You can guess how the code can be structured, from that information.
And no, you don't need to write your own window manager; the toolkits mainly concern themselves with what happens inside windows, not with the window management itself. Of course you could decide that your "platform" should have a wider scope, and include a WM.
I think some of the answers here might exaggerate a bit. Obviously making something of the same quality, width and depth as Qt and Gtk is a huge untertaking. But you can make simpler stuff and still learn a lot about how it works. I suggest doing like I did in university. Use OpenGL with Glut. Then you got basic drawing functionality and event system in place already. You then need to create classes for buttons, text fields etc.
If you want to make it really simple then each component just needs to know where it is drawn and have some sort of bounding box where you check whether mouse click are inside or not. You also needs to create some system which makes it possible for buttons, check boxes etc to tell the rest of your code that they were clicked.
This isn't really the rocket science people here make it out to be. Games have made their own very simple GUI toolkits for years. You can try that approach as well. I have modeled a simple GUI tookit on top of a game engine before. Your buttons and textfield could be simply be sprites.
But yeah, if you want to make something that will compete with Gtk+ and Qt, forget about it. That is a team effort over many years.
Is it worth to try to keep your GUI within the system looks ?
Every major program have their own anyways...
(visual studio, iexplorer, firefox, symantec utilities, adobe ...)
Or just the frame and dialogs should be left in the system look 'n feel range ?
update:
One easy exemple, if you want to add a close button to your tab, usually you make it against your current desktop theme. But if the user has a different theme, your close button is out of place, it doesn't fit the system look anymore.
I played with the uxtheme api, but there is nothing much you can do, and some themes i've seen are incomplete sets.
So to address this issue, the best way i see, is to do like visual studio/firefox/chrome roolup your own tab control with your theme...
I think, that unless your program becomes a very major part of the users life, you should strive to minimize "surprises" and maximimze recognizability (is that even a word?).
So, if you are making something that is used by 1.000 people for 10 minutes a day, go with system looks, and mechanisms.
If, on the other hand, you are making something that 100 people are using for 6 hours a day, I would start exploring what UI improvements and shortcuts I could cram in to make those 6 hours easier to deal with.
Notice however, that UI fixes must not come at the expense of performance. This is almost always the case in the beginning when someone thinks that simply overriding the OnPaint event in .Net will be sufficient.
Before you know it you are once again intercepting NC_PAINT and NC_BACKGROUNDERASE and all those little tricks to make it go as fast as the built-in controls.
I tend to agree with others here- especially Soraz and Smaci.
One thing I'll add, though. If you do feel that the OS L&F is too constraining, and you have good grounds for going beyond it, I'd strive to follow the priciple of "Pacing and leading" (which I'm borrowing here from an NLP context).
The idea is that you still want to capitalise as much as possible on your intended audidences familiarity with the host OS (there will be rare exceptions to this, as Smaci has already covered). So you use as much as possible of the "standard" controls and behaviours (this is the "pacing") - but extend it where necessary in ways that still "fit in" as much as possible (leading).
You've already mentioned some good examples of this principle at work - Visual Studio, even Office to some extend (Office is "special" as new UI styles that cut their teeth here often find their way back into future OS versions - or de-facto standards).
I'm bringing this up to contrast the type of apps that just "do it their way" - usually because they've been ported from another platform, or have been written to be cross-platform in GUI as well as core. Java apps often fall into this category, but they're not the only ones. It's not as bad as it used to be, but even today most pro audio apps have mongrel UIs, showing their lineage as they have been ported from one platform to another through the years. While there might be good business reasons for these examples, it remains that their UIs tend to suck and going this route should be avoided if in any way possible!
The overriding principle is still to follow the path of least surprise, and take account of your user's familiarity with the OS, and ratio of their time using your app to others on the OS.
Yes, if only because it enables the OS to use any accessability features that are built in like text-to-speech. There is nothing more annoying for someone who needs accessability features to have yet another UI that breaks all the tools they are used to.
I'd say it depends on the users, the application and the platform. The interface should be intuitive to the users, which is only the same as following system UI standards if they are appropriate for those users. For example, in the past I have been involved in developing hand held systems for dairy and bread delivery on Windows CE hand helds. The users in this case typically were not computer literate, and had a weak educational backround. The user interface focussed on ease of use through simple language and was modelled on a pre-existing paper form system. It made no attempt to follow the Windows look and feel as this would not have been appropriate.
Currently, I develop very graphical software for a user group that is typically 3rd level educated and very computer literate. The expectation here is that the software will adhere to and extend the Windows look and feel.
Software should be easy and intuitive where possible, and how to achieve this is entirely context dependent.
I'd like to reply with another question (Not really Stackoverflow protocol, but I think that, in this case, it's justified)
The question is 'Is it worth breaking the OS look and feel?'
In other words,
Do you have justification for doing so? (In order to present data in some way that's not possible within normal L&F)
What do you gain from doing so? (Improvinging usability?)
What do you lose from doing so? (Intuitiveness & familiarity?)
Don't simply do it 'To be different'
It depends on how wide you would define system look'n feel... But in general, you should keep it.
Do not surprise the user with differentiating from what he is used to. That's one of the reasons why we call him user ;-)
Firefox and Adobe products usually don't because they are targeting several plattforms which all have their own L&F. But Visual Studio keeps the typical Windows L&F. And, as long as you are developing only for Windows, so should you.
Apart from the fact that there is no well-defined look-n-feel on Windows, you should always try to follow the host platform native L&F. Note however that look-n-feel is just as much about how a program behaves as how it looks. Programs which behave in a counter-intuitive way is just as annoying as programs sporting their own ugly widgets.
Fraps is a good example (IMHO) of a program which is actually very useful, but breaks several user interface guidelines and looks really ugly.
If you're developing for Apple's Mac OS X or Microsoft Windows, the vendors supply interface guidelines which should be followed for any application to be "native".
See Are there any standards to follow in determining where to place menu items? for more information.
If you are on (or develop for) a Mac, then definitely YES!
And this should be true for Windows also.
In general, yes. But there's the occassional program that does well despite being not formatted for all the OSes it runs on. For example, emacs runs pretty much contrary to every interface guideline on OS X or Windows (and probably even gnome/KDE) and it's not going away any time soon.
I strongly recommend making your application look native.
A common mistake that developers who are porting an application to a new platform seem to make is that the new application should look-and-feel like it does on the old platform.
No, the new application should look-and-feel like all the other application that the user is used to on the new platform.
Otherwise, you get abominations like iTunes on Windows. The same UI design may be exactly right on one platform and very wrong on the next.
You will find that your users may not be able to pin-point why they dislike your application, but they just feel it hard to use.
Yes, there are valid exceptions, but they are rare (and sure enough, they tend to be the major applications like Office and Firefox, rather than the little ones). If you are unsure enough to have to ask on StackOverflow, your application isn't one of them.
I'd like to start experimenting with Cocoa and programming for Mac OSX. I'm not terribly concerned with Objective C syntax/constructs/bheaviors at this point, but more curious as to an efficient setup on in terms of an editor and/or IDE that will get me going quickly. Is there any IDE even remotely similar to Visual Studio (since that's where I've spent most of my time over the last 7 years) in terms of it's solution/project concept? Any other tools, tips, suggestions and/or resources to get up and experimenting quickly?
I'd like to avoid a lot of the intro stuff and get into things like "If you want to create an Mac desktop application, you can use Acme IDE and set up your project like this."
I was afraid Xcode was going to be the answer! :P I tried playing around with that -- literally just getting it off the DVD and just diving in with no idea what to expect (before I even knew that you used Objective C as the language). I figured, the wise guy that I am, that I could just sort of fumble around and get a simple app working ... wrong.
#Andrew - Thanks for the insight on those config settings. Based on my Xcode first impression, I think those may help.
I'd suggest you pick a fun little product and dive in. If you're looking for a book I'd suggest Cocoa Programming for Max OSX which is a very good introduction both to Objective-C and Cocoa.
XCode is pretty much the de facto IDE and free with OSX. It should be on your original install DVD. It's good but not as good as Visual Studio (sorry, it's really not).
As a long-time VS user I found the default XCode config a little odd and hard to adjust to, particularly the way a new floating window would open for every sourcefile. Some tweaks I found particularly helpful;
Settings/General -> All-In-One (unifies editor/debugger window)
Settings/General -> Open counterparts in same editor (single-window edit)
Settings/Debugging - "In Editor Debugger Controls"
Settings/Debugging - "Auto Clear Debug Console"
Settings/Key-binding - lots of binding to match VS (Ctrl+F5/Shift+F5,Shift+Home, Shift+End etc)
I find the debugger has some annoying issues such as breakpoints not correctly mapping to lines and exceptions aren't immediately trapped by the debugger. Nothing deal-breaking but a bit cumbersome.
I would recommend that you make use of the new property syntax that was introduced for Objective-C 2.0. They make for a heck of a lot less typing in many many places. They're limited to OSX 10.5 only though (yeah, language features are tied to OS versions which is a bit odd).
Also don't be fooled into downplaying the differences between C/C++ and Objective-C. They're very much related but ARE different languages. Try and start Objective-C without thinking about how you'd do X,Y,Z in C/C++. It'll make it a lot easier.
The first document to read and digest is the Mem management guide, understand this before moving on. This is a great guide to objective-c too. Infact the developer site at Apple is very good - but you would probably want to read the Hillegas book first.
In regards to Xcode vs Visual Studio - they are different. I wouldn't say one is better than the other - Windows developers come over from VS and expect it to be the same. This is just an arrogant attitude and please don't fall into this crowd. Having used VS since the AppStudio days and Xcode for a year or so now, both have strengths and weaknesses. Xcode is something that out of the box (and especially when coming from VS) doesn't seem that good, but once you start using and understanding it - it becomes very powerful.
Also, there are a lot more tools included with Xcode et al, such as Instruments and Shark that you simply can't get with VS, unless you open your wallet, and even then IMHO aren't as good.
Anyway, good luck. I still enjoy C#, but Objective-C/Cocoa somehow makes programming fun again once you get into it...
Don't bother digging up your OSX DVD as they've released a new version (3.1) of XCode since then.
First, you'll want to join Apple Developer Connection (it's free, and you need it to access their version of MSDN) - it uses your Apple ID so if you've ever had one for the itunes store etc, it's that same username/password
Once you've done that, click on downloads, then click on developer tools, to view this page, and go for the XCode 3.1 Developer DVD
One other suggestion: If you have feature or enhancement requests, or bugs that you've run into, be sure to file them at Apple's Bug Reporter. It's the best way for developers to communicate their needs to Apple, because every issue is tracked through the system.
You might try the demo of textmate and see how you like it for working with objective-c or any other type of text really. It will import xcode project settings so you can still compile and run from textmate rather than having to go back to xcode.
Xcode is the standard for editing source files, though you can use another editor in conjunction with the command line xcodebuild tool if you really want. I used Vim for all my Cocoa editing before finally giving in to Xcode. It's not the greatest IDE in the world, but it gets the job done, and the recent 3.x releases have had some nice improvements.
The real power tool of Cocoa development is Interface Builder. IB does not generate source code like many UI tools. Instead it manipulates real Cocoa views, controls, and objects which it then bundles into an archive (nib) that is loaded by your program at runtime. Most Cocoa programs use at least one nib file, and often many more.
No matter what IDE/editor combination you choose for hacking on source files, I recommend using IB where you can. Even if you're not a fan of other UI layout/generation tools, I suggest keeping an open mind, giving "the Cocoa way" a chance and at least learning what Interface Builder can do for your development process.
AFAIK, pretty much every OS X developer uses Xcode.
That, and Interface Builder for creating the GUIs.
FWIW, try to get hold of a copy of Hillegas's book, as it's a great introductory tutorial, and the reference Docs Apple provides really aren't. (They are generally very good reference docs, however).
Cocoa is huge. The hardest part of learning how to write apps on Mac is learning Cocoa. By the way. You do not need to know ObjC (though it helps tons). You can write Cocoa apps with Python or Ruby (right in the IDE).
I agree VS is a better IDE then Xcode. But if you throw in Interface Builder and all the other tools, I'm not so sure. Mac development is not about 1 giant IDE for everything. But VS is "kinder" on the developer then Xcode is.
Also if you want to do cross platform apps look at RealBasic. A fine tool (Basic though. But it runs on Linux too.) You'd be surprised how many Mac apps are written with RB.
I've heard the books currently out there are pretty out of date. The whole ecosystem seems to evolve very fast with dramatic changes made in every OS release.
He wrote a tutorial which pulls together some Apple documentation and other tutorials which should get you started. I think it covers the basics of using the IDE, writing simple apps, and then goes on to more advanced stuff.
I've been dabbling in Cocoa for the past couple years, and recently picked up Fritz Anderson's "Xcode 3 Unleashed." Highly recommended for getting into Xcode — especially with some of the big changes 3.0/Leopard brought.
Don't forget Hillegass' defacto Cocoa bible, "Cocoa Programming for Mac OS X - Third Edition."
#peter I don't know why you had trouble with getting a simple app working, right off the bat without doing anything your app gets a lot of benefits from the Cocoa framework. If you mean you were trying to do stuff like connect a button to an action and have it print a alert on screen or something like that then yes I could see where your going with it being difficult.
The problem for me starting with Cocoa many years back is that it was so different from anything else that it had a little bit of a learning curve. Whereas many other systems are compile time oriented Cocoa is very dynamic and runtime oriented. Once you get past learning how actions hook up to classes it just becomes a matter of learning how the Cocoa frameworks work.