I'm from a Windows programming background when writing tools, but have been programming using Carbon and Cocoa for the past year. I have introduced myself to Mac by, I admit it, hiding from UI programming. I've been basically wapping my OpenGL code in a view, then staying in my comfort zone using my platform agnostic OpenGL C++ code as usual.
However, now I want to start porting one of my more sophisticated applications to Mac OS.
Typically I use the standard Visual Studio dockable MDI approach, which is excellent, but very Windows-like. From using a Mac primarily now for a while, I don't tend to see this sort of method used for Mac UIs. Even Xcode doesn't support the idea of drag and drop/dockable views, unfortunately. I see docked views with splitter panels, but that's about it.
The closest thing I've seen to the Visual Studio approach is Photoshop CS4, which is pretty nice.
So what is the general consensus on this? Is there are more Mac-like way of achieving the same thing that I haven't seen? If not, I'm happy to write a window manager in Cocoa myself, so that I can finally delve in an learn what looks like an excellent API.
Note, I don't want to use QT or any other cross-platform libraries. The whole point is that I want to make a Mac app look like a Mac app, leave the Windows app looking like a Windows app. I always find the cross-platform libraries tend to lose this effect, and when I see a native Mac UI, with fancy Cocoa transitions and animations, I always smile. It's also a good excuse for me to learn Cocoa.
That being said, if there is an Open Source Cocoa library to do this, I'd love to know about it! I'd love to see how someone else achieves this, and would help smooth the Cocoa learning curve.
Cheers,
Shane
UPDATE: I forgot to mention a critical point. I support plugins, which can have their own UI to display various plugin specific information. I don't know which plugins will be loaded and I don't know where their UI will live, if I don't support docking. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this, specifically: How do I support a plugin view architecture, if the UI can't change? Where do I put the plugin views?
Coming from a Windows background, you feel the need to have docking windows, but is it really essential to the app? Apple's philosophy (in my opinion) is that the designer knows better than the user how things should look and work. For example, iTunes is a pretty sophisticated app, but it doesn't let you change the UI around, change the skin, etc., because Apple wants to keep it consistent. They offer the full view, the mini player, and a handful of different viewing options, but they don't let you pull the source list off into a separate window, or dock it in other positions. They think it should be on the left, so there it stays...
You said you "want to make a Mac app look like a Mac app", and as you pointed out, Mac apps don't tend to have docking windows. Therefore, implementing your own docking windows is probably a step in the wrong direction ;)
+1 to Ken's answer.
From a user perspective unless its integral to the app like it is in Adobe CS or Eclipse i want everything as concise as possible and all the different options and displays out of my way so i can focus on the document.
I think you will find with mac users that those who have the "user skill" to make use of rearranging panels will in most cases opt for hot key bindings instead, and those who dont have that level of "skill" youre just going to confuse.
I would recommend keeping it as simple as possible.
One thing that's common among many Mac apps is the ability to hide all the chrome and focus on your content. That's the point behind the "tic tac" toolbar control in the top right corner of many windows. A serious weakness of many docking UIs is that they expect you to have the window take up most of the screen, because the docked panels can obscure content. Even if docked panels are collapsable, the space left by them is often just wasted and filled with white space. So, if you build a docking panel into your interface, you should expect it to be visible most of the time. For example, iTunes' source list is clearly designed to be visible all the time, but you can double-click a playlist to open it in a new window.
To get used to the range of Mac controls, I'd suggest you try doing some serious work with some apps that don't have a cross-platform UI; for example, the iWork apps, Interface Builder or Preview. Take note of where controls appear and why—in toolbars, in bottom bars, in inspectors, in source lists/sidebars, in panels such as IB's Library or the Font and Color panels, in contextual HUDs. Don't forget the menu bar either. Get an idea of the feel of controls—their responsiveness, modality, sizing, grouping and consistency. Try to develop some taste—not everything is perfect; just try iCal if you want to have something to make fun of.
Note that there's no "one size fits all" for controls, which can be an issue with docking UIs. It's important to think about workflow: how commonly used the control would be, whether you can replace it with direct manipulation, whether a visible indication of its state is necessary, whether it's operable from the keyboard and mouse where appropriate, and so forth. Figure out how the control's placement and behavior lets the user work more efficiently.
As a simple example of example of a good versus bad control placement and behavior in otherwise-decent applications, compare image masking in OmniGraffle and Keynote. In OmniGraffle, this uses the Image inspector where you have to first click on an unlabeled button ("Natural size") in order to enable the appropriate controls, then adjust size and position away in a low-fidelity fashion with an image thumbnail or by typing percentages into fields. Trying to resize the frame directly behaves in a bizarre and counterintuitive fashion.
In Keynote, masking starts with a sensibly named menu item or toolbar item, uses a HUD which pops up the instant you click on a masked image and allows for direct manipulation including a sensible display of the extent of the image you're masking. While you're dragging a masked image around, it even follows the guides. Advanced users can ignore the HUD entirely, just double-clicking the image to toggle mask editing and using the handles for sizing. It should be easy to see, with a few caveats (e.g. the state of "Edit Mask" mode should be visible in the HUD rather than just from the image; the outer border of the image you're masking should be more effectively used) Keynote is substantially better at this, in part because it doesn't use an inspector.
That said, if you do have a huge number of options and the standard tabbed inspector layout doesn't work for you, check out the Omni Group's OmniInspector framework. Try to use it for good, and hopefully you'll figure out how to obsess over UI as much as you do over graphics now :-)
(running in slow motion, reaching out in panic) Nnnnnoooooooo!!!!!
:-) Seriously, as I mentioned in reply to Ken's excellent answer, trying to force a "Windowsism" on an OS X UI is definitely a bad idea. In my opinion, the biggest problem with Windows UI is third-party developers inventing new and inconsistent ways of presenting UI, rather than being consistent and following established conventions. To a Mac user, that's the sign of a terrible application. It's that way for a reason.
I encourage you to rethink your UI app's implementation from the ground up with the Mac OS in mind. If you've done your job well, the architecture and model (sans platform-specific implementation) should clearly translate to any platform.
In terms of UI, you've been using a Mac for a year, so you should have a pretty good idea of "the norm". If you have doubts, it's best to post a question specifically detailing what you need to present and your thoughts on how you might do it (or asking how if you have no idea).
Just don't whack your app with the ugly stick by forcing it to behave as if it were running in Windows when it's clearly not. That's the kiss of death for an app to Mac users.
Related
Well, the title almost says it all : Why should I not move a GUI (e.g. Gtk) window on screen from the code ? In Gtk 3 there was an API for moving windows on screen, but it was removed in Gtk 4, because it is not good to move a window from code; only the user should do so (don't ask me to provide sources for that, I read it somewhere but have forgotten where and cannot find it). But I cannot think of any reason why it shouldn't be good, but of several reasons why it could be good, for example to restore the position of a window between application restarts. Could you please shed some light on this ?
The major reason why is that it can't possibly work cross-platform, so it is broken API by definition. That’s also why it was removed in GTK4. For example: this is impossible to implement when running on top of a Wayland session, since the protocol doesn't allow getting/setting global coordinates. If you still want to have something similar working, you'll have to call the specific platform API (for example, X11) for those platforms that you want to support.
On the reason why it’s not supported by some display protocols: it’s bad for UX and security. In terms of UX: some compositors can have special behavior because they need to work on a small device, or because they have a kiosk mode in which everything should always run fullscreen, or they provide a tiling experience. Applications positioning their windows themselves then tend to give unexpected behaviour. In terms of security: if you allow this, it’s technically possible for an application to reposition and resize itself so that it covers your screens while making itself transparent, without it being noticeable, which means it has the possibility of scraping all input.
I'm reading the documentation for menus in Firemonkey desktop applications. It explains that there are two completely different menu components, one is to be used for Windows (TMenuBar) and the other is to be used for OS-X (TMainMenu).
Further, it also explains that a TMenuBar does not display on OS-X (nonstandard for OS-X), and that a TMainMenu is placed in the non-client area of the Windows form (nonstandard for Windows)
It's my understanding that Firemonkey is supposed to be one code-base for multiple platforms, but it appears they want me to separate the two. I can understand the menus work differently across both platforms, but it seems like an unnecessary pain to implement two different main menus (and conditionally show/hide them depending on the platform). I have no intention of using the special capabilities of menus specific to either platform. Not to mention the TMenuBar is completely ugly.
Since the TMainMenu also shows on Windows, but yet also claims it's "nonstandard for Windows", can I assume that the TMainMenu is sufficient for both? Or do I really need to implement a separate TMenuBar just for Windows? What are the implications if I don't separate them?
I saw this video, but It's for Delphi XE2, and I can't find such an option in the Delphi XE8 TMenuBar control. And again, the TMenuBar is very ugly and doesn't work like typical menus, like the TMainMenu does. I'm confused why they would advise to use this TMenuBar at all.
The help page linked to is wrong if being 'FireMonkey-native' (so to speak) is not a concern (for what I mean by that, see below). TMainMenu is not 'non-standard' on Windows - it wraps the Windows native menu bar API like the VCL equivalent. TMenuBar, in contrast, is completely custom.
That said, in general the fashion has been to use custom menu bars on Windows since Office 97 did so way back nearly twenty years ago, however the original menu bar API is still fully supported and used by (e.g.) Notepad in Windows 10. Further, writing a decent custom menu so that it fakes a real one properly - as well proving the additional functionalty that led to not using a real one in the first place - takes a fair bit of effort and detailed API knowledge. Unfortunately it might be doubted whether the FMX offering enjoyed this, which isn't to say it won't get better in the future.
One caveat - one reason to use TMenuBar might be if you are using FMX's custom styling options, and want your menu bars to fully participate.
As we know, several modern applications (IE9, Firefox 4, Chrome, Paint.NET, etc.) use DwmExtendFrameIntoClientArea for the Aero glass effect.
What type of applications should you really use this for, though? For browsers I can understand minimizing as much extraneous space as possible, but really, what's the point? Why not just create the window without a frame (like Google Chrome does when DWM is not present)? I'm just looking for some rough guidelines on what type of applications should use this effect and when.
Well, as this is purely a visual eye-candy type of thing, you're asking more for subjective opinion than anything else. First, check out the Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines, though.
Personally, I like Outlook 2010, where the tab labels are on a glass background - I like the background image on my desktop (or windows behind) seeping through. I think it gives the impression that the window is not taking up quite so much of my workspace. I also love Chrome and it's use of glass for tab space.
I don't like windows media player where the controls are on glass - it makes them seem busy on a busy background. I also don't like the Add Gadget window, where the whole thing is glass (although more blurry) for the same reason.
So pick your design ideals and keep it consistent. My personal pick is to allow glass to come in on windows aspects that are mostly text and uniform, and not the main focus of interaction. On things that are "busy" and are high interaction areas, I dislike having glass behind.
I've noticed recently that it seems to be a trend in Windows applications to no longer include the menu bar in an application (the "File Edit ..." menu), instead having the functionality linked to icons seemingly randomly spread around the application window.
for example: IE8, Windows 7 media player.
Is there any usability evidence driving this change? (I, personally, find these apps really hard to use)
If so, can someone suggest where I might find this research and perhaps some guidelines for writing new applications using this style?
Some answers have suggested that it's the "Ribbon" style, which appears to be what I'm looking at. I'm still having trouble finding guidelines or evidence of what works/doesn't work.
The MS Office Ribbon perhaps inspired the latest slew of apps that use multiple icons without text labels in lieu of a menu bar. However, the implementation of these apps apparently failed to understand or realize the advantages of the Ribbon or even what makes a Ribbon a Ribbon.
Controls labeled with icons alone are more difficult to learn than those labeled with text alone [See Wiedenbeck S (1999). The use of icons and labels in an end user application program: an empirical study of learning and retention. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(2)]. The lack of text labels for groups of controls in these apps can’t help.
Note that the Office Ribbon generally avoids both of these pitfalls by providing text labels for groups of controls (the Office Logo being a notable exception) and text labels for most individual controls (many controls on the Home tab being another notable exception).
After being subject to much research, the Office Ribbon largely preserved the traditional File-Edit-View arrangement of commands found the traditional menu bar. There’s no evidence that there’s anything wrong with this organization.
IMO, icon-scattered UI designs represent a fashion or branding statement, a rather clumsy attempt to appear “state-of-the-art” like Office, and an excuse to decorate the UI with graphics. They are not a usability improvement.
For everything about the Ribbon, see Jensen Harris’s blog.
My critique of the Ribbon. Not that I'm particularly satisfied with the traditional menu bar and tool bar.
It is ribbon. Presumably it is easier to use than the standard menu because it is context dependent. The whole purpose of developing it was that despite the fact Word can do almost anything now, people were complaining it is missing some features just because they couldn't find them. So MS people were thinking hard and ribbon is what they created. Being context dependent it shows you the features you might use right now, not all the features and it saves screen estate so more features actually visible to the user.
Well, after a quick search I found a reasonable explanation of this UI trend. It is based on the Ribbon concept. It traces back from Office 2007 and even Firefox is using it.
References:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/351808/firefox-tidies-up-with-office-2007s-ribbon
http://slashdot.org/story/09/09/23/1846248/Firefox-To-Replace-Menus-Wi
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Sprints/Windows_Theme_Revamp/Direction_and_Feedback
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ribbon_(computing)
The ribbon still serves as a navigation area - a combination of a menubar and toolbar that tends to be organized by area (Print, Design, Layout, External Data) rather than traditional style (File, Edit, Tools). While it does take a bit of getting used to things being organized by area, it certainly adds to the usability.
I think the reason IE 8 integrates the menu bar into the same line as the tab is to allow for more viewing real estate (or junky toolbar add-ons). A ribbon would be overkill for something as simple as a browser where 99% of the time you do one of 3 things: Enter a URL, Go to Bookmarks/Favorites, or Print.
If you are writing a Windows-based database system or other complex application, definitely checkout how Microsoft utilizes the ribbons throughout its Office products.
The "ribbon" is nothing more than a FAT toolbar. Such things are getting invented, not because of user request or need, but because of the arrogance of large corporations and bored, rich managers and "developers" sitting around with nothing to do. "Inventing" things is one thing, but FORCING it on everyone w/o preserving the previous, non-cluttered, classic, working, familiar interface is absolute arrogance. People need to be informed. You don't have to put up with it. Say something.
Up to now I been using the pda emulator in visual studios 2008 (I am using windows mobile 6.1 professional sdk).
So I just dragged and dropped most of my GUI components into the form. In one instance I made a panel then in this panel I dynamically generated labels in it with certain location positions.
I then put it on my Hp PAQ 110 Classic pda and it looked fine and everything. Then I was looking through the emulators one of them was called professional square. So I decided to run it and when it ran my program it looked like crap.
I had missing labels, missing controls and it just looked horrible.
I thought maybe it would like do some resizing for me but it seems to either did a shitty job or it does not do it at all.
So how do you make a GUI that will work well on all mobile phones(or at least the vast majority of them).
Is there like X number of types of mobile phones? Like the emulator emulates a pda and it works on my HP one so I am assuming that all window mobile device pdas have the same screen size.
Then the next question is how do you make the controls position properly from one device to another? I heard of people using XML files that have all the location position, sizes and etc that they call up and I guess essentially generate the GUI dynamically based on the information in XML.
But I could not find any examples how the XML file would look like, how to detect what phone type it is so that I could call up the right node of the file for that phone.
I am not sure if there are any other ways but this seems better then a set of GUI forms for each one.
Also would it be recommended to have most things in a panel so that way even if the stuff is bigger you can at least turn auto scrolling on.
thanks
I spent a good amount of time looking at different solutions for this problem (see my question here as well) and ended up with a pragmatic approach - consistent use of docking. You have to restrict yourself to the least common denominator, i.e. the lowest resolution you want to support, in terms of how much you can fit on the screen. The good news was that grids always use the entire available real estate, and my forms flow correctly on all devices and the screens don't look like they are broken.
This is far from being an easy task. You can follow some guidelines, but the only thing that will actually work is to always test the User Interface in all possible screen resolutions. Emulators are a good way to start, however it will be better to have an actual device. Some things like font sizes and text readability can only be tested in a real device. So, these are my advices:
Try to use docking for positioning your controls.
You need to be able to handle orientation changes correctly. Using docking helps, but again you always need to test in different screen resolutions.
At some point you will find out that it is inevitable to detect the screen size and adapt the User Interface dynamically. I don't agree that you should restrict yourself to only display what can fit in the smallest screen. A professional application should adapt itself to the available screen size and take full advantage of it.
Structure your application so that it is easy to support new screen resolutions. Make the main User Interface code screen size agnostic. Make it get all information about dynamic resizing - positioning from a configuration class. This way you only need to enhance a single item in your code in order to support a new screen resolution.
And of course:
Test in all possible screen resolutions. After even a minor change to the User Interface, retest.
Eventhough the above posts where helpful this video I found solves all my problems and you don't have to develop for the the lowest screen.
http://www.microsoft.com/events/series/detail/webcastdetails.aspx?seriesid=86&webcastid=5112