I would like to create a customized Graphical User Interface Window similar to Blender or Maya GUI window. Please refer this below image:
How and where to begin with to design and create a customized GUI window similar to Maya / Blender UI window. Please refer the below image which has video / image preview option and floating buttons and menus:
Being a student, instead of using other desktop GUI applications for 3D purposes, can I able to create a Graphical User Interface window similar to Blender / Maya.
Is it possible to create a Desktop Graphical User Interface application? If it is possible then how to begin with to achieve this?
Blender has custom GUI tooling that uses OpenGL. You could try learning OpenGL (or Vulkan) and start rendering things, but you should know that creating a GUI library will be a huge challenge. You'll need to think about things like dealing with keyboard input, font rendering, text selection...
You'll likely save a lot of time by using an existing GUI library that has solved these problems already, like Qt, Flutter, GTK+. Or you could use the code in Blender, but I'm guessing that it will be harder to find good documentation and community support since it's an internal library.
Desktop applications are usually developed in languages like C# and C++, mostly in any software like Visual studio. Since you need a graphics software, you need a render engine somewhat similar to Blender. Try using OpenGL, or any other render engine of your choice, with these former methods, I mean to combine both the idea of "rendering" and "programming"....It's all about inspirations and ideas!
Imho, it won't be an easy task. If you are ready to take up the challenge.
Dear Imgui will be good starting point.
Can anyone provide some insight on how to "duplicate" an iTunes style window in Windows? Specifically I am looking for the following features:
1) rounded window
2) top and bottom toolbars
3) rounded text fields
I'm currently attempting a bit of cross-platform development with Real Studio and while I've discovered the mechanism by which to perform the rounded windows in OS X (declare method call to HIWindowSetContentBorderThickness or SetContentBorderThickness), I cannot find in the MSDN how to do similar things in Windows. Obviously Apple accomplished it in actually writing iTunes for Windows. Perhaps they wrote custom controls from the ground up.
SIDENOTE: I found this article from a few years back that briefly discusses it (http://discuss.joelonsoftware.com/default.asp?joel.3.454369.12), but this is pretty much all I could find.
Even if I can't duplicate it exactly, some direction on which Windows libraries might contain the functionality I need to do it "manually" would be nice. Any further assistance would be greatly appreciated.
There's no API for doing Apple-style rounded corners, but there are lower-level APIs for creating windows (both frame windows and controls) of any shape you want.
I don't use RealStudio, but I believe it allows you to access both .NET and native Win32 APIs, so:
If you're using .NET Windows.Forms, read Shaped Windows Forms and Controls in Visual Studio .NET. It's written for VB7, but should be easy to translate to your favorite language.
If you're using the raw Win32 API, there are at least two ways to do this. The simplest, but most limited, is to call the SetWindowRgn API, which sets the shape of your window to anything you can create as an HRGN. But that probably won't cut it for you. You don't want jagged edges; you want smooth curves, with alpha-blended borders, and maybe shadows. (At least that's what Apple does.) The Layered Windows API is the way to do this. It allows arbitrary shapes (even changing on the fly, if you use UpdateLayeredWindow—although you don't need that feature to emulate iTunes), alpha transparency, and complicated hit testing. Since the original article is very out of date, and doesn't cover all of the functionality, also see Layered Windows for the current documentation, which has links to the references.
there is a third party controls that do what you want. It works on Mac & Windows.
http://www.madebyfiga.com/fgsourcelist/
works well.
sb
I am quite new to WP7 although have done lot of 2D games before(for BREW/J2ME).
But since in Windows phone we have the flexibility to create User Interface using XAML(through visual studio designer tools by drag/drop).
Is that really recommended or practical? I am asking because even the sample codes (provided here) doesn't have any XAML.
It really depends on your comfortably. Windows Phone 7 application can be made using the following
Silverlight for WP7 (Use this if your game is not very graphically intense)
XNA for WP7 (use this if you want to create a REAL game)
Silverlight and XNA for WP7 (use this if you would rather have all your menus using the easabilty of XAML, but still have all the gaming features XNA has)
The Microsoft provided GamestateManagementExample (http://create.msdn.com/en-US/education/catalog/sample/game_state_management) provides an easy to use alternative to baking some Silverlight into your XNA game. You can customise various options and add/remove screens really simply. You can make it look much more proffesional than using some "sprite" buttons.
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.
I want to build a desktop app where the size of both the window and the content is resized automaticly according to the resolution of the monitor. I know it can be done easily with the docking features of .NET Forms, but my customer insists on going with Linux so I can't use it.
I tried Flex & Air, but the content is not resized automaticaly when I put the app in fullscreen or in another resolution (the app goes full screen but I still have tiny buttons). Now, I am looking at Qt and Gtk...
Is there a GUI framework that can do that? I don't care about the programming language.
Also, since the app will go in a bar it would be nice to be able to customize easily the skin. (like in Flex, WPF, etc.)
Regards,
Pascal
An excellent place to start is understanding how the Screen class works: MSDN Even though that is .Net, it will give you an idea of how the screen size, dpi, etc. can be obtained. In addition that information should translate to the Mono platform. Since your client is insisting on Linux, you should look at MonoDevelop and then possibly the GTK# framework. My understanding is that GTK# is not a very friendly (that is pretty) development system (yet).
See:
MonoDevelop
GTK#