Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Barros Pena, Belen]

Hi all,

As part of the Hob work for the 1.3 release it looks like we need to make
a visual design and implementation decision: do we want a 'vanilla' or a
'branded' look for Hob? Sorry if the choice of words is not the best.
Neither 'vanilla' nor 'branded' are meant in any negative way.

We did have this conversation when we started work on the 1.2 release of
Hob, but somehow we settled for a middle way that is not working well and
is causing issues like bug 1701. From my conversations with UI engineers
and people with lots of experience in building applications using the GTK
toolkit, the middle way just doesn't work.

What I mean by 'vanilla' is an implementation that takes the visual
appearance from the theme installed in the Hob host. The main advantage of
vanilla implementations is they guarantee that Hob will play nicely with
its host computer.

What I mean by branded is a visually customised appearance which, apart
from basic UI elements like window chrome and window controls, takes no
input from the host theme. The advantage of this approach is full control
over the Hob appearance (Hob should look like Hob no matter what Linux
distribution you are using).

Personally, I have no preferences: I think both have strengths and
weaknesses and I am happy to go with any of the two. What I wouldn't like
is sticking to a half-way-in-between approach which is giving us a lot of
grief.

I would like to know what the Yocto Project community thinks about these 2
approaches.

Thanks!

Belen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Tomas Frydrych]

Hi,

On 31/05/12 17:55, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
> I would like to know what the Yocto Project community thinks about these 2
> approaches.

Vanilla please, 'branded' applications are so 1990s. I think very few
users care whether an application looks different on a different OS then
their own, but we all get very frustrated when an application brakes the
normal paradigms of our OS.

Tomas

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Jack Mitchell]

On 31/05/2012 18:08, Tomas Frydrych wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 31/05/12 17:55, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
>> I would like to know what the Yocto Project community thinks about these 2
>> approaches.
> Vanilla please, 'branded' applications are so 1990s. I think very few
> users care whether an application looks different on a different OS then
> their own, but we all get very frustrated when an application brakes the
> normal paradigms of our OS.
>
> Tomas

+1

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Darren Hart]

On 05/31/2012 09:55 AM, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> As part of the Hob work for the 1.3 release it looks like we need to make
> a visual design and implementation decision: do we want a 'vanilla' or a
> 'branded' look for Hob? Sorry if the choice of words is not the best.
> Neither 'vanilla' nor 'branded' are meant in any negative way.
> 
> We did have this conversation when we started work on the 1.2 release of
> Hob, but somehow we settled for a middle way that is not working well and
> is causing issues like bug 1701. From my conversations with UI engineers
> and people with lots of experience in building applications using the GTK
> toolkit, the middle way just doesn't work.
> 
> What I mean by 'vanilla' is an implementation that takes the visual
> appearance from the theme installed in the Hob host. The main advantage of
> vanilla implementations is they guarantee that Hob will play nicely with
> its host computer.

This would be very much preferred in my opinion. Having applications
that ignore the preferences I have set for theme, colors, fonts, etc. is
very annoying. Applications that ignore the GNOME HIG are even more
irritating as the button layout and general workflow is enough different
from the rest of the applications in my desktop that they become awkward
to use and break the continuity of the desktop experience.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[McClintock Matthew-B29882]

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Barros Pena, Belen
<belen.barros.pena@intel.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> As part of the Hob work for the 1.3 release it looks like we need to make
> a visual design and implementation decision: do we want a 'vanilla' or a
> 'branded' look for Hob? Sorry if the choice of words is not the best.
> Neither 'vanilla' nor 'branded' are meant in any negative way.
>
> We did have this conversation when we started work on the 1.2 release of
> Hob, but somehow we settled for a middle way that is not working well and
> is causing issues like bug 1701. From my conversations with UI engineers
> and people with lots of experience in building applications using the GTK
> toolkit, the middle way just doesn't work.
>
> What I mean by 'vanilla' is an implementation that takes the visual
> appearance from the theme installed in the Hob host. The main advantage of
> vanilla implementations is they guarantee that Hob will play nicely with
> its host computer.
>
> What I mean by branded is a visually customised appearance which, apart
> from basic UI elements like window chrome and window controls, takes no
> input from the host theme. The advantage of this approach is full control
> over the Hob appearance (Hob should look like Hob no matter what Linux
> distribution you are using).
>
> Personally, I have no preferences: I think both have strengths and
> weaknesses and I am happy to go with any of the two. What I wouldn't like
> is sticking to a half-way-in-between approach which is giving us a lot of
> grief.
>
> I would like to know what the Yocto Project community thinks about these 2
> approaches.
>
> Thanks!

Vanilla.

-M

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Burton, Ross]

Hi Belen,

On 31 May 2012 17:55, Barros Pena, Belen <belen.barros.pena@intel.com> wrote:
> As part of the Hob work for the 1.3 release it looks like we need to make
> a visual design and implementation decision: do we want a 'vanilla' or a
> 'branded' look for Hob? Sorry if the choice of words is not the best.
> Neither 'vanilla' nor 'branded' are meant in any negative way.

Vanilla, definitely.  Aside from sticking out like a sore thumb on the
user's desktop, a "branded" interface in something like GTK+ is
normally trickier to implement.

Ross

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Barros Pena, Belen]

Vanilla 5 - branded 0 :)

Shane, Dongxiao and Alex: from an implementation point of view, I guess
this means eliminating any hardcoded UI-related values (button colours and
styles, for example). Joshua: if you have a rough idea of the things that
will need to be changed from the work you did before the 1.2 release,
please let us know. I think we should keep the existing icons, though.
What do you think?

Shane: will I log this in bugzilla so that you can assign it a milestone
and an owner?

Thanks

Belen

On 31/05/2012 20:01, "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:

>Hi Belen,
>
>On 31 May 2012 17:55, Barros Pena, Belen <belen.barros.pena@intel.com>
>wrote:
>> As part of the Hob work for the 1.3 release it looks like we need to
>>make
>> a visual design and implementation decision: do we want a 'vanilla' or a
>> 'branded' look for Hob? Sorry if the choice of words is not the best.
>> Neither 'vanilla' nor 'branded' are meant in any negative way.
>
>Vanilla, definitely.  Aside from sticking out like a sore thumb on the
>user's desktop, a "branded" interface in something like GTK+ is
>normally trickier to implement.
>
>Ross

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Darren Hart]

On 06/08/2012 07:28 AM, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
> Vanilla 5 - branded 0 :)
> 
> Shane, Dongxiao and Alex: from an implementation point of view, I guess
> this means eliminating any hardcoded UI-related values (button colours and
> styles, for example).

GTK should be able to pull those colors and styles from the existing
theme. As Joshua mentioned in a hallway conversation, the highlight
color of the theme can be requested and used, rather than using a
hardcoded one. This still allows for customization of the UI, but keeps
the color scheme consistent.

> Joshua: if you have a rough idea of the things that
> will need to be changed from the work you did before the 1.2 release,
> please let us know. I think we should keep the existing icons, though.
> What do you think?

The existing artwork and general layout are nice and help indicate
intended usage. In my humble opinion, they should stay.

--
Darren

> 
> Shane: will I log this in bugzilla so that you can assign it a milestone
> and an owner?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Belen
> 
> On 31/05/2012 20:01, "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi Belen,
>>
>> On 31 May 2012 17:55, Barros Pena, Belen <belen.barros.pena@intel.com>
>> wrote:
>>> As part of the Hob work for the 1.3 release it looks like we need to
>>> make
>>> a visual design and implementation decision: do we want a 'vanilla' or a
>>> 'branded' look for Hob? Sorry if the choice of words is not the best.
>>> Neither 'vanilla' nor 'branded' are meant in any negative way.
>>
>> Vanilla, definitely.  Aside from sticking out like a sore thumb on the
>> user's desktop, a "branded" interface in something like GTK+ is
>> normally trickier to implement.
>>
>> Ross
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
> Registered No. 1134945 (England)
> Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
> VAT No: 860 2173 47
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> yocto mailing list
> yocto@yoctoproject.org
> https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto


-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
Yocto Project - Linux Kernel

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Joshua Lock]

On 08/06/12 07:28, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
 > Vanilla 5 - branded 0 :)
 >
 > Shane, Dongxiao and Alex: from an implementation point of view, I guess
 > this means eliminating any hardcoded UI-related values (button 
colours and
 > styles, for example). Joshua: if you have a rough idea of the things that
 > will need to be changed from the work you did before the 1.2 release,
 > please let us know.

I have a link to an old article that suggests techniques for getting 
colours from the GTK+ theme:

http://ometer.com/gtk-colors.html

It's pretty old but I believe the GTK+2 pieces are still appropriate for 
Hob.

On top of that using gtk.Table is bad, using hard coded sizes for text, 
widgets, etc. is bad.

Pango markup supports proportional font sizes (large, larger) like CSS 
and I'd suggest those be used.

I think we should keep the existing icons, though.
 > What do you think?

I'm definitely in favour of that.

Cheers,
Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
         Yocto Project
         Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Burton, Ross]

On 8 June 2012 17:41, Joshua Lock <josh@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Joshua: if you have a rough idea of the things that
>> will need to be changed from the work you did before the 1.2 release,
>> please let us know.

I think it's fair that I take over from Joshua as "resident GTK+
knowledge base", having written several GNOME applications and more
importantly being on the Yocto team. :)

Ross

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Joshua Lock]

On 08/06/12 13:24, Burton, Ross wrote:
> On 8 June 2012 17:41, Joshua Lock<josh@linux.intel.com>  wrote:
>>> Joshua: if you have a rough idea of the things that
>>> will need to be changed from the work you did before the 1.2 release,
>>> please let us know.
>
> I think it's fair that I take over from Joshua as "resident GTK+
> knowledge base", having written several GNOME applications and more
> importantly being on the Yocto team. :)

Even more importantly, being my "go to" guy for GTK+ lore!

There's no need to talk to the monkey any more...

Joshua
-- 
Joshua Lock
         Yocto Project
         Intel Open Source Technology Centre

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Burton, Ross]

On 8 June 2012 21:26, Joshua Lock <josh@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> Even more importantly, being my "go to" guy for GTK+ lore!

What you never knew is that I just asked Emmanuele your question. ;)

Ross

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Stewart, David C]

By the way, if there is no theme set, will the app use a reasonable default?

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Burton, Ross]

On 8 June 2012 21:42, Stewart, David C <david.c.stewart@intel.com> wrote:
> By the way, if there is no theme set, will the app use a reasonable default?

It's very hard to not have a theme set.  In GNOME the default is
Adwaita (GNOME 3) or Clearlooks (GNOME 2).  Many reasonable
distributions of KDE ship a theming bridge so GTK+ uses the current Qt
theme.  Under Windows the Windows-like theme is used.  If you try and
run a GTK+ app without an environment that doesn't set a theme, you'll
get the default theme which looks a lot like Windows 95.

Ross

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Barros Pena, Belen]

Thanks, Joshua.

Belen

On 08/06/2012 17:41, "Joshua Lock" <josh@linux.intel.com> wrote:

>On 08/06/12 07:28, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
> > Vanilla 5 - branded 0 :)
> >
> > Shane, Dongxiao and Alex: from an implementation point of view, I guess
> > this means eliminating any hardcoded UI-related values (button
>colours and
> > styles, for example). Joshua: if you have a rough idea of the things
>that
> > will need to be changed from the work you did before the 1.2 release,
> > please let us know.
>
>I have a link to an old article that suggests techniques for getting
>colours from the GTK+ theme:
>
>http://ometer.com/gtk-colors.html
>
>It's pretty old but I believe the GTK+2 pieces are still appropriate for
>Hob.
>
>On top of that using gtk.Table is bad, using hard coded sizes for text,
>widgets, etc. is bad.
>
>Pango markup supports proportional font sizes (large, larger) like CSS
>and I'd suggest those be used.
>
>I think we should keep the existing icons, though.
> > What do you think?
>
>I'm definitely in favour of that.
>
>Cheers,
>Joshua
>-- 
>Joshua Lock
>         Yocto Project
>         Intel Open Source Technology Centre

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Re: Hob implementation: vanilla or branded?

[Barros Pena, Belen]

Sounds good: thanks, Ross.

Belen

On 08/06/2012 21:24, "Burton, Ross" <ross.burton@intel.com> wrote:

>On 8 June 2012 17:41, Joshua Lock <josh@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>>> Joshua: if you have a rough idea of the things that
>>> will need to be changed from the work you did before the 1.2 release,
>>> please let us know.
>
>I think it's fair that I take over from Joshua as "resident GTK+
>knowledge base", having written several GNOME applications and more
>importantly being on the Yocto team. :)
>
>Ross

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.