PDA

View Full Version : Why don't we have... Inner Window Transparencies?



hoppipolla
August 18th, 2009, 07:53 PM
Personally I think this is something that would really help us to look as polished as commercial OSs like Windows... certain regions of certainly Qt apps could be set so they would appear transparent if viewed with an appropriate window manager, like Kwin or Compiz. If not, they would appear whatever colour the app specifies.

What do you think? Is there a reason we don't have this cool Aero-style effect? It may well be being considered for future versions of KDE 4.x, but I was wondering what your take on this was, and how we might be able to make it reality if we think it's a worthwhile idea!

Hoppi :)


For those of you who are not sure what I am talking about, it looks like this:



http://www.liewcf.com/blog/wp-images/windows-media-player-11-vista.jpg


http://www.vistax64.com/attachments/general-discussion/9735d1232761058t-increase-taskbar-transparency-myvistalook.jpg

Bachstelze
August 18th, 2009, 07:55 PM
Please go ahead and code that. :)

Viva
August 18th, 2009, 07:57 PM
It is possible with the latest murrine engine, but you need to apply patches for particular software.

Bachstelze
August 18th, 2009, 08:01 PM
By the way, it's quite funny to see someone whose signature says "KDE 4.3 makes Windows 7 look like a mistake!" ask why KDE doesn't look more like Windows.

starcannon
August 18th, 2009, 08:02 PM
Compiz and Emerald I think this is doable no? Even if no, the Compiz Emerald combo puts Linux toe to toe with any other UI out there imo; Aero does X, Compiz/Emerald does Y, and OSX does Z. There will always be a shiny feature that one has, that the other 2 do not; how'd the song go... "you want it all but you can't have it" :) (jk not trolling).

Anyway, check out all the stuff you can do with Compiz and Emerald, I doubt seriously that you will consider the UI "unpolished" when your through.

GL and HF

hoppipolla
August 18th, 2009, 08:06 PM
By the way, it's quite funny to see someone whose signature says "KDE 4.3 makes Windows 7 look like a mistake!" ask why KDE doesn't look more like Windows.

No need to attack me man, I'm just trying to be constructive.

hanzomon4
August 18th, 2009, 08:09 PM
No amount of compiz goodness will make gtk widgets capable of the visual gyrations of win7 or Qt4.blah blah. It's the widget toolkit stupid.

Bachstelze
August 18th, 2009, 08:15 PM
No need to attack me man, I'm just trying to be constructive.

Then let me ask you this: if Windows 7 looks "like a mistake", why do you think KDE should mimick it?

spoons
August 18th, 2009, 08:15 PM
No amount of compiz goodness will make gtk widgets capable of the visual gyrations of win7 or Qt4.blah blah. It's the widget toolkit stupid.

Thank you for that well constructed and considered response.

hoppipolla
August 18th, 2009, 08:20 PM
Then let me ask you this: if Windows 7 looks "like a mistake", why do you think KDE should mimick it?

I'm not sure I want to humour your approach to this, I know you're a mod but I don't agree.

I am saying this feature is attractive, and it might be a nice thing to have. I am wondering what other people think. KDE 4.x is wicked, but so are some of the features Windows has.

hessiess
August 18th, 2009, 08:26 PM
Transparency is completely and utterly useless;).

hoppipolla
August 18th, 2009, 08:32 PM
Transparency is completely and utterly useless;).

Good selling point for an OS though, many people including me enjoy eye-candy :)

hanzomon4
August 18th, 2009, 08:32 PM
Thank you for that well constructed and considered response.

I'm not calling anyone stupid... it's a Clinton thing (It's the economy stupid)

quazi
August 18th, 2009, 08:46 PM
Transparency is completely and utterly useless;).

Transparency is a kind of eye candy. If no one cared about eye candy, I doubt the Screenshot thread would be such a hit.

Regenweald
August 18th, 2009, 08:47 PM
Notice anything ?

RiceMonster
August 18th, 2009, 08:52 PM
Notice anything ?

That's the whole window, not sections of it that aren't the window border.

gjoellee
August 18th, 2009, 08:53 PM
It is possible with the latest murrine engine, but you need to apply patches for particular software.

That means that we may look forward to a similar feature in Linux then...:)

koenn
August 18th, 2009, 08:53 PM
... and how we might be able to make it reality if we think it's a worthwhile idea!

easy:
1- write the code to do that, or
2- convince someone to code that.

BuffaloX
August 18th, 2009, 08:55 PM
Beryl + Emerald already had this a couple of years ago, but I'm not sure if Compiz + Emerald work with KDE 4.3.
From your screenshots I can see there is some sort of blur effect, which I'm not sure if Emerald has. Personally I would prefer a much less blurry effect.

At least KDE now has alpha transparency, without having to install hacks on top of it.
In fact this may sway me over to KDE.

hoppipolla
August 18th, 2009, 08:56 PM
easy:
1- write the code to do that, or
2- convince someone to code that.

These threads I just thought would be good for igniting discussion about a certain feature, rather than being too vague. Then we can outline with greater ease what features we might want to have as well :)

hessiess
August 18th, 2009, 08:58 PM
Good selling point for an OS though, many people including me enjoy eye-candy :)

Whole window transparency may actually be useful under certain circumstances(see something without wasting time moving windows around (assuming you are not using a tiling wm)), but transparent borders are of no use to anybody, maby win 7 makes them transparent because they are so ******* big and waste an absolute tun of screen space :lolflag:.

Tibuda
August 18th, 2009, 09:03 PM
No amount of compiz goodness will make gtk widgets capable of the visual gyrations of win7 or Qt4.blah blah. It's the widget toolkit stupid.


Since there’s a lot of confusion on the web, in the last week I’ve seen a lot of people claiming about “lacks” of Gtk+ capabilities.
Some of them still think that Gtk+ doesn’t have RGBA support. And if it has, it’s related to Cairo rendering just for special (custom) widgets. Or it will require nasty hacks.

This is absolutely false.
And I will show you ;) (http://www.cimitan.com/blog/2007/12/12/gtk-rgba-transparent-widgets-with-the-murrine-engine/)
:)

hoppipolla
August 18th, 2009, 09:05 PM
Whole window transparency may actually be useful under certain circumstances(see something without wasting time moving windows around (assuming you are not using a tiling wm)), but transparent borders are of no use to anybody, maby win 7 makes them transparent because they are so ******* big and waste an absolute tun of screen space :lolflag:.

You are still missing my point. Functionality doesn't come into this.

meeples
August 18th, 2009, 09:08 PM
i personally really dont like Aero.

i think transparency in windows should only be used if the window is not selected. so when your using a window it is solid, and you can still see behind all the other windows cluttering your desktop :)

hoppipolla
August 18th, 2009, 09:11 PM
Ubuntu 10.04: Lusty Lemming

Lusty Lemming eh? hehe xD

Xzallion
August 18th, 2009, 09:30 PM
These threads I just thought would be could for igniting discussion about a certain feature, rather than being too vague. Then we can outline with greater ease what features we might want to have as well :)

Okay, while I believe your a troll I will bite. You want to discuss this? All right, lets start with two things. Why do you/others would want this 'feature', and where to carry the discussion to.

I don't care much for transparency, but some find it to be fun. Going with the eye candy a lot of end users may like it. the coders and power users will (by my guess) not use this feature and have little motivation to code it if its complex (Which transparency is).

But just going along with the idea that it is worth the effort to produce the eye-candy, where should we go with it? To produce this in Gnome, we need to see how it works with GTK and possibly other parts of the OS, and what about apps that don't natively use GTK? like oh say Amarok? So now we need to discuss this on some mailing lists/feature requests/etc in both gnome and kde.

Once the proper place to discuss it is found, we need to define it more in words than pictures. Are we going for transparent window borders? Transparent windows? Can they easily be separated?

Hoppipolla, do yourself a favor and contribute more to these discussions than just "this feature is cool and I want it" My intention isn't to be a jerk, I just can't find much purpose in these threads, there isn't any discussion.

koenn
August 18th, 2009, 09:46 PM
Hoppipolla, do yourself a favor and contribute more to these discussions than just "this feature is cool and I want it" My intention isn't to be a jerk, I just can't find much purpose in these threads, there isn't any discussion.
+1

we could start with
1 - is "windows has it" a valid reason to implement such feature ?
2- what (other than "windows has it') is a reason for having such a feature?

based on 2-, you can then
3- outline what the feature should look like / behave like / ... in order to fulfill its purpose.

kelvin spratt
August 18th, 2009, 09:58 PM
I don't think there are any valid point in this discussion at all 1 screen shot of windows media player, and people are squirming and taking sides its a shame the rest of win7 hasn't got the same features as gnome and Compiz.

23meg
August 18th, 2009, 10:14 PM
+1

we could start with
1 - is "windows has it" a valid reason to implement such feature ?
2- what (other than "windows has it') is a reason for having such a feature?

based on 2-, you can then
3- outline what the feature should look like / behave like / ... in order to fulfill its purpose.

More tips on the "Why?" of adding features:

http://ometer.com/features.html

And the "How?":

http://inessential.com/2009/07/30/anatomy_of_a_feature

BloGTK
August 18th, 2009, 10:18 PM
Emerald already does this...

jpeddicord
August 18th, 2009, 10:23 PM
No amount of compiz goodness will make gtk widgets capable of the visual gyrations of win7 or Qt4.blah blah. It's the widget toolkit stupid.Care to back that statement up?


Thank you for that well constructed and considered response.

It is possible with the latest murrine engine, but you need to apply patches for particular software.

That means that we may look forward to a similar feature in Linux then...:)

:)

hoppipolla
August 18th, 2009, 11:11 PM
Care to back that statement up?

Just to chuck something in, I guess it can't be ruled out that an effect like this could be made to work with GTK, I'd imagine it only has to give instructions to Compiz about how to display and render the window. It would however require a greater level of communication between GTK/Qt and Compiz/Kwin :)

doas777
August 18th, 2009, 11:26 PM
wow. this is a most disagreeable thread. even mods/staffers are attacking folks for the most benign statements.

op, if I had received this treatment on my first thread, I would never have posted again.

days_of_ruin
August 18th, 2009, 11:29 PM
We do have it, its just not being used by very many people and applications.



http://www.cimitan.com/blog/wp-content/murrine_rgba-3.thumbnail.jpg (http://www.cimitan.com/blog/2007/12/12/gtk-rgba-transparent-widgets-with-the-murrine-engine/)

hanzomon4
August 18th, 2009, 11:34 PM
Care to back that statement up?





:)

Yeah.. compiz is a window manager and don't draw no widgets, is that simple enough for ya

MikeTheC
August 18th, 2009, 11:43 PM
What do you think?
Personally, I think it looks like crap. I also think it takes away from the focus of the individual window.

geoken
August 18th, 2009, 11:53 PM
I think it's a pretty useful feature. It allows the drag-able area of an application to be greatly expanded while limiting the visual impact (and in many ways the practical impact since you actually can see behind that area) of doing so.

WMP 11 is a great example. If you look at many Linux music playing apps you'll notice that the nature of the app requires that controls be slightly segregated and rarely fill the entire window. There are typically large amounts of white space in these apps. With the windows approach, these controls can be pushed into an area of the app that can also double as the window border (look to chrome for an example of this where the tabs are actually part of the window border and the empty areas of the tab bar can be used to drag/size/etc the window).

Basically, this allows you to have areas of your app do double duty instead of adhering to a strict row based UI structure where a single row can only facilitate a certain function and if you only need to put 20px of UI controls/widgets on that row, then the rest is wasted space.

hoppipolla
August 18th, 2009, 11:55 PM
We do have it, its just not being used by very many people and applications.



http://www.cimitan.com/blog/wp-content/murrine_rgba-3.thumbnail.jpg (http://www.cimitan.com/blog/2007/12/12/gtk-rgba-transparent-widgets-with-the-murrine-engine/)

That's cool :)

Nice to see it can be done, well done for spotting it!

I wonder if it's something that will be trial run by more applications in the future, as it would be great to see it is a feature that can be turned on or off according to personal preference. Personally, I think it looks very professional and adds a certain something to the desktop :)

Viva
August 19th, 2009, 01:10 AM
Have any of you noticed that you can set the transparency inside the terminal without effecting its menus?

3rdalbum
August 19th, 2009, 11:06 AM
Mac OS X is the only operating system that cannot do transparent window contents.

I can't actually think of any third-party Windows software that supports transparent window contents either.

At least we have Rhythmbox (through plugin), Gedit (through plugin), Gnome System Monitor and plenty of programs that can be patched :-)

keiichidono
August 19th, 2009, 12:42 PM
wow. this is a most disagreeable thread. even mods/staffers are attacking folks for the most benign statements.

op, if I had received this treatment on my first thread, I would never have posted again.

Yeah, that first mod who posted is always hostile. :P

Sand & Mercury
August 19th, 2009, 01:01 PM
Let's not delude ourselves into thinking this feature would be good for usability reasons. Msft tried pulling that angle when they were hyping aero and we know that if you want to see what's behind a window, you're still going to want to move it. The idea is for looking pretty, though that's a good enough reason for me. I'm not really mad about transparency in general, though. As an accent it's nice, but going over big chunks of apps with it can make things look very busy and messy, very quickly.

koenn
August 19th, 2009, 01:16 PM
More tips on the "Why?" of adding features:

http://ometer.com/features.html

And the "How?":

http://inessential.com/2009/07/30/anatomy_of_a_feature

interesting reads, tnx

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 01:26 PM
I can't actually think of any third-party Windows software that supports transparent window contents either.



Chrome supports it. The tab bar actually resides within the transparent window border. This allows the unused portions of the tab bar to extend the window border/title bar and accept all commands that can be applied to it (ie double click to maximize, middle click to minimize (autohotkey script)).

geoken
August 19th, 2009, 01:30 PM
Let's not delude ourselves into thinking this feature would be good for usability reasons. Msft tried pulling that angle when they were hyping aero and we know that if you want to see what's behind a window, you're still going to want to move it. The idea is for looking pretty, though that's a good enough reason for me. I'm not really mad about transparency in general, though. As an accent it's nice, but going over big chunks of apps with it can make things look very busy and messy, very quickly.

But there are situations where you have large amounts of unused space. Making this space transparent, while not allowing you to see background windows 100%, still allows you to see them better than if that space was solid. I may not be able to read small text behind a transparent window but I can definitely monitor progress bars and get a brief overview of an app's state.

Starlight
August 19th, 2009, 02:31 PM
I think that inner window transparencies look nice, and that's a very good reason to have them. Some programs have quite a lot of blank space in them, so making it transparent would make them look better. :)

Screwdriver0815
August 19th, 2009, 02:44 PM
Transparency... in KDE 4.3 you can adjust it in the Kwin settings menu. There the transparency of the window borders, dialogues, menus... and so on can be adjusted.

ah... sorry, I have to remind myself all the time than KDE is distracting... where as Gnome is not and all the "distracting" things have to be installed in Gnome afterwards.

Methuselah
August 19th, 2009, 02:50 PM
Some people might not have seen much merit in the idea (or enough motivation for it) but I saw no personal 'attacks' here.

My first thought actually was why should I care about this?
And the main reason offered was that windows had it.
That's not really compelling to me since I use Ubuntu because it does many things differently in a way I prefer.
(And the OP's recurrent sig does scream irony in the context so I'm not surprised someone mentioned it...lol)
But this is an innocuous feature so I'm not really opposed especially since it's probably already possible.

I don't see it as adding to usability though.
If an application window has so much non-functional empty space why not consider making it more compact to save screen real estate instead of blurring what's underneath?
Also, it would seem even better to make the whole window transparent on command rather than to have little peepholes that you have to be lucky to see anything meaningful under.

So I think it's fair to say that it's pure desktop bling.
Which is fine, I guess, but who will do the work?

hoppipolla
August 19th, 2009, 03:22 PM
Some people might not have seen much merit in the idea (or enough motivation for it) but I saw no personal 'attacks' here.

Yeah it calmed down a lot actually after a few pages, which was really nice! And this thing about KDE 4.3... I DO think it looks amazing but I never said that other DEs don't have merits, I just fail to see the irony.


So I think it's fair to say that it's pure desktop bling.
Which is fine, I guess, but who will do the work?

Probably, eventually, if anyone, the KDE guys or a related project :)

23meg
August 19th, 2009, 03:26 PM
I don't see it as adding to usability though.


So I think it's fair to say that it's pure desktop bling.

It's time to get rid of the misconception that prettines, even for its own sake, is necessarily antagonistic to usability.

If a feature or design aspect makes the software more enjoyable to use, it adds to its usability. The satisfaction people get from using software is part of its usability (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html), and attractive things tend to work better (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/visual-decision-making/).

hoppipolla
August 19th, 2009, 03:43 PM
It's time to get rid of the misconception that prettines, even for its own sake, is necessarily antagonistic to usability.

If a feature or design aspect makes the software more enjoyable to use, it adds to its usability. The satisfaction people get from using software is part of its usability (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html), and attractive things tend to work better (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/visual-decision-making/).

very clever, well said :)

Although I think that Methuselah's post was actually quite balanced, he wasn't necessarily AGAINST it :)

Viva
August 19th, 2009, 03:45 PM
it's time to get rid of the misconception that prettines, even for its own sake, is necessarily antagonistic to usability.

If a feature or design aspect makes the software more enjoyable to use, it adds to its usability. The satisfaction people get from using software is part of its usability (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html), and attractive things tend to work better (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/visual-decision-making/).

+1

RiceMonster
August 19th, 2009, 03:46 PM
It's time to get rid of the misconception that prettines, even for its own sake, is necessarily antagonistic to usability.

If a feature or design aspect makes the software more enjoyable to use, it adds to its usability. The satisfaction people get from using software is part of its usability (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html), and attractive things tend to work better (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/visual-decision-making/).

I agree. Some people seem to argue that things shouldn't be done because it's purpose is to make something more visually appealing. So what if that's what it's for? I personally like to have things look nice. It's makes starting at a screen more enjoyable.

Screwdriver0815
August 19th, 2009, 03:54 PM
And this thing about KDE 4.3... I DO think it looks amazing but I never said that other DEs don't have merits, I just fail to see the irony.
if you mean my trollpost, then lets see if I can help you to see the irony :D

in some discussions about Gnome and KDE I learned that the standard opinion in this forum is that KDE just is senseless eyecandy if not bloat which is distracting, a resource hog and just disturbs the use of the computer. I learned that Gnome in its simple appearance is much more favourable because it does not have so much features as KDE. Although if one had these features, he/she could always decide if these features will be used or not.

So as I read this thread I could not help myself to explain that KDE has this transparancy feature, but I remembered that Gnome is the standard... and so on.

Can you now see the irony? It was not against you.

praveesh
August 19th, 2009, 04:07 PM
Personally I think this is something that would really help us to look as polished as commercial OSs like Windows... certain regions of certainly Qt apps could be set so they would appear transparent if viewed with an appropriate window manager, like Kwin or Compiz. If not, they would appear whatever colour the app specifies.

What do you think? Is there a reason we don't have this cool Aero-style effect? It may well be being considered for future versions of KDE 4.x, but I was wondering what your take on this was, and how we might be able to make it reality if we think it's a worthwhile idea!

Hoppi :)


For those of you who are not sure what I am talking about, it looks like this:



http://www.liewcf.com/blog/wp-images/windows-media-player-11-vista.jpg


http://www.vistax64.com/attachments/general-discussion/9735d1232761058t-increase-taskbar-transparency-myvistalook.jpg


If you wish, you may post a wishlist in the bugs.kde.org and in kde brainstorm.

hoppipolla
August 19th, 2009, 04:08 PM
if you mean my trollpost, then lets see if I can help you to see the irony :D

in some discussions about Gnome and KDE I learned that the standard opinion in this forum is that KDE just is senseless eyecandy if not bloat which is distracting, a resource hog and just disturbs the use of the computer. I learned that Gnome in its simple appearance is much more favourable because it does not have so much features as KDE. Although if one had these features, he/she could always decide if these features will be used or not.

So as I read this thread I could not help myself to explain that KDE has this transparancy feature, but I remembered that Gnome is the standard... and so on.

Can you now see the irony? It was not against you.

Oh no no sorry that wasn't directed at you at all, it was just because Methuselah said this:


(And the OP's recurrent sig does scream irony in the context so I'm not surprised someone mentioned it...lol)

and I was just like "I still don't REALLY get it..." lol

hoppipolla
August 19th, 2009, 04:10 PM
If you wish, you may post a wishlist in the bugs.kde.org and in kde brainstorm.

Yeah I have decided to get more stuck in over at KDE, but see this thread really is just designed to ignite debate about it, and throw some ideas and thoughts around, get people thinking etc. I mean for example I had no idea that it in fact COULD currently be done in Compiz as someone demonstrated, so I learnt something there :)

praveesh
August 19th, 2009, 04:21 PM
wow. this is a most disagreeable thread. even mods/staffers are attacking folks for the most benign statements.

op, if I had received this treatment on my first thread, I would never have posted again.

I don't think like that. I don't think he is attacking .If he/she was not a mod, can he/she ask that question?. Actually , I too have felt like what he/she felt.

RabbitWho
August 19th, 2009, 04:39 PM
It eats up ram and makes me cry.

Ubuntu is already a little too cool looking for my liking. I want all my ram to be going to my programs.

I wouldn't be opposed to them as something you could turn on and turn off however.
But I don't like the idea of someone installing ubuntu, saying "gee this thing is really slow" and never using it again.



It's time to get rid of the misconception that prettines, even for its own sake, is necessarily antagonistic to usability.

If a feature or design aspect makes the software more enjoyable to use, it adds to its usability. The satisfaction people get from using software is part of its usability (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html), and attractive things tend to work better (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/visual-decision-making/). All i need is for things to be blue. I can make things blue.. so I'm happy. I'm very simple that way. "Blue" I say. I don't even have a desktop picture at the moment. Blue.


I think that good design and usability go hand in hand. Usability coming first. For example the new Dell inspiron 1545 doesn't have any lights on its keyboard.. I read this was a designers idea. Nobody ever knows if their caps lock is on.. "Epic fail" as they say.
Then look at Google. Lovely. White page, splash of color. Minimal design. beautiful, stylish, functional, 0 flash. There needs to be some kind of balence.
Flat planes of colour can be beautiful, and they're not going to upset the computer.
What I would like would be something between this:

http://www.socialistunity.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/rodchenko1.jpg
this
http://wdjoyner.org/photography/public-domain/abstract-art/malevich/malevich.black-red-square.jpg
this
http://www.savefarscapecanada.com/bits/pksymbol1.jpg
and this
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/90/Am_windows95_desktop.png

We should stop thinking minimal "because we have to be" and take inspiration from people who were minimal because they wanted to be.

MikeTheC
August 19th, 2009, 06:46 PM
I think that good design and usability go hand in hand. <---snip---> We should stop thinking minimal "because we have to be" and take inspiration from people who were minimal because they wanted to be.

That's why I love both Aqua and Gnome.

mrgnash
August 19th, 2009, 06:58 PM
As others have said, we already have it, it's just not being used very often (which is no great shame, in my opinion). Applications like Gnome Terminal feature inner transparency in themes such as DarkRoom. It looks kinda neat, but I prefer something more minimal with an emphasis on functionality (which is why I use LXDE/Openbox or Wmii) rather than alleged eye-candy.

Methuselah
August 20th, 2009, 04:56 AM
It's time to get rid of the misconception that prettines, even for its own sake, is necessarily antagonistic to usability.

If a feature or design aspect makes the software more enjoyable to use, it adds to its usability. The satisfaction people get from using software is part of its usability (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html), and attractive things tend to work better (http://www.alistapart.com/articles/visual-decision-making/).

Nah, I don't think prettiness is necessarily antagonistic to usability.
I just think that some eyecandy features do not result in any significant improvement in workflow.

hoppipolla
August 20th, 2009, 01:30 PM
Nah, I don't think prettiness is necessarily antagonistic to usability.
I just think that some eyecandy features do not result in any significant improvement in workflow.

That's true, but it's also true that it's not the only reason to implement a new feature!

Besides people could turn it off easily enough :)

racerraul
August 20th, 2009, 07:12 PM
You can get a very similar look with Compiz+Emerald

SunnyRabbiera
August 20th, 2009, 08:55 PM
Personally I think this is something that would really help us to look as polished as commercial OSs like Windows... certain regions of certainly Qt apps could be set so they would appear transparent if viewed with an appropriate window manager, like Kwin or Compiz. If not, they would appear whatever colour the app specifies.

What do you think? Is there a reason we don't have this cool Aero-style effect? It may well be being considered for future versions of KDE 4.x, but I was wondering what your take on this was, and how we might be able to make it reality if we think it's a worthwhile idea!


Bah its effect, OSX has no transparency in its windows too yah know and people consider that "beautiful".
Me I dont care3 if my windows are transparent, not transparent or whatever.
It all goes down to theme, with the right theme Linux can look as good or better as people consider OSX or Windows Vista/7

hoppipolla
August 20th, 2009, 11:49 PM
Bah its effect, OSX has no transparency in its windows too yah know and people consider that "beautiful".
Me I dont care3 if my windows are transparent, not transparent or whatever.
It all goes down to theme, with the right theme Linux can look as good or better as people consider OSX or Windows Vista/7

There is something to be said for that point, at least in the short term.

I haven't seen a Gnome theme I like in years though ._.


EDIT -- Although the Fedora one looked ok. If you combined that with a Mac OSX-y finish it might look quite clean :)

blur xc
August 21st, 2009, 12:45 AM
I agree. Some people seem to argue that things shouldn't be done because it's purpose is to make something more visually appealing. So what if that's what it's for? I personally like to have things look nice. It's makes starting at a screen more enjoyable.

I think those people are funny. What kind of car do you drive? '84 dodge aries? They were minimalistic, functional, etc., so why put any effort into making prettier cars? If auto makers would just give up on on aesthetics, and focus all that money and resources on making cars cleaner, faster, more efficient, where would we be today? But then- on rebellious auto maker would put a useless racing stripe on their car, offer it in a just as useless prettier color, and BAM, everyone else would too or they'd go out of business.

Looks sells.

It sells even more than performance. It's a fact. It's just that 99.99% of developers are geeks, and 98.2 percent of forum users are geeks to- that it's written off as not as important. But- it's wicked important to joe schmme computer illterate who doesn't even really know what an OS is.

BM

hoppipolla
August 21st, 2009, 06:57 PM
I think those people are funny. What kind of car do you drive? '84 dodge aries? They were minimalistic, functional, etc., so why put any effort into making prettier cars? If auto makers would just give up on on aesthetics, and focus all that money and resources on making cars cleaner, faster, more efficient, where would we be today? But then- on rebellious auto maker would put a useless racing stripe on their car, offer it in a just as useless prettier color, and BAM, everyone else would too or they'd go out of business.

Looks sells.

It sells even more than performance. It's a fact. It's just that 99.99% of developers are geeks, and 98.2 percent of forum users are geeks to- that it's written off as not as important. But- it's wicked important to joe schmme computer illterate who doesn't even really know what an OS is.

BM

Yeah exactly, and it in turn results in more developers, as they will be drawn in as the OS becomes more popular. Which then results in increased and improved functionality. etc etc etc.

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 07:03 PM
Looks sells.

It sells even more than performance. It's a fact. It's just that 99.99% of developers are geeks, and 98.2 percent of forum users are geeks to- that it's written off as not as important. But- it's wicked important to joe schmme computer illterate who doesn't even really know what an OS is.

BM


Yeah exactly, and it in turn results in more developers, as they will be drawn in as the OS becomes more popular. Which then results in increased and improved functionality. etc etc etc.

joe schmme computer illterate (sic) is suddenly going to become a developer, which, for the OS, then results in increased and improved functionality. etc etc etc ?

K.Y.A
August 21st, 2009, 07:06 PM
In the beginning, KDE copied Windows....
Then Windows copied us....
Now we want to copy them again....


Anyone else making sense of this? :)

hoppipolla
August 21st, 2009, 07:06 PM
joe schmme computer illterate (sic) is suddenly going to become a developer, which, for the OS, then results in increased and improved functionality. etc etc etc ?

No not HIM personally! But it will attract more attention from developers and businesses.

K.Y.A
August 21st, 2009, 07:14 PM
Okay, let's say MS doesn't have inner window transparencies....

1. We like the idea.
2. Let's say it would be easy and feasible to write the code for Metacity widgets, Compiz, KDE... Oh, and we are talking about abandoning all current themes to write new ones, or clones. Of course, you could turn it off... But then, would there still be people writing themes for those who turn if off?
3. With this magnificent new thingy, people move one and come up with knew ideas. This is why Gnome/KDE is progressing with users while only a few use Fluxbox, Evilwm, etc.
4. Who's going to implement it?

blur xc
August 21st, 2009, 07:14 PM
joe schmme computer illterate (sic) is suddenly going to become a developer, which, for the OS, then results in increased and improved functionality. etc etc etc ?

Build it and they will come...


If you start picking up more Joe Schmoe's as your user base, your market increases. As the market increase, developers who currently don't waste their time on the 2% of users on Linux, will start to take notice and start developing for Linux as well.

Apple is a prime example- They pander to the Joe Schmoe's of the world. The have made it their practice to take the emphasis away from computer specs, ram, mhz, gigs, etc., and draw the attention towards the UI. This started way back w/ the first Macintosh, and carries on to today. Heck, my two year old can figure out how to unlock my wife's iphone in a few seconds (and consequently pressing a bunch of buttons, messing things up), and my 4 yr old has no issues opening it up, and starting whatever game she wants. And she can't really even read yet.

The UI draws consumers. Specs draw computer enthusiasts. Not counting people I know in the IT industry, I know maybe two people who know what a bus speed is. Everyone else, just doesn't care.

Consumers outnumber enthusiasts by a lot, and if you want Ubuntu or any Linux distro to gain ground in the market, you have to market to them. Not enthusiasts.

BM

hoppipolla
August 21st, 2009, 07:18 PM
Build it and they will come...


If you start picking up more Joe Schmoe's as your user base, your market increases. As the market increase, developers who currently don't waste their time on the 2% of users on Linux, will start to take notice and start developing for Linux as well.

Apple is a prime example- They pander to the Joe Schmoe's of the world. The have made it their practice to take the emphasis away from computer specs, ram, mhz, gigs, etc., and draw the attention towards the UI. This started way back w/ the first Macintosh, and carries on to today. Heck, my two year old can figure out how to unlock my wife's iphone in a few seconds (and consequently pressing a bunch of buttons, messing things up), and my 4 yr old has no issues opening it up, and starting whatever game she wants. And she can't really even read yet.

The UI draws consumers. Specs draw computer enthusiasts. Not counting people I know in the IT industry, I know maybe two people who know what a bus speed is. Everyone else, just doesn't care.

Consumers outnumber enthusiasts by a lot, and if you want Ubuntu or any Linux distro to gain ground in the market, you have to market to them. Not enthusiasts.

BM

amen to that :)

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 07:20 PM
No not HIM personally! But it will attract more attention from developers and businesses.

Although it's probably a little more rewarding to write code for a program that many people use, the prime motivation for people to code is : write good code.
Linux grew a community od developers in a couple of months, with a product that was little more than a terminal. Why ? because it was something programmers were interested in. The only users at that time, where those programmers.
I'm not saying Linux should bejust a ' OS for programmers', just that the number of users is far less relevant than you seem to think. Think of one of the more popular distros of today ... the new users are are just that : more users. The 'users that have developer capabilities' already joined 5 years ago.

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 07:33 PM
Build it and they will come...


If you start picking up more Joe Schmoe's as your user base, your market increases. As the market increase, developers who currently don't waste their time on the 2% of users on Linux, will start to take notice and start developing for Linux as well.
See my previous post as to why i don't think things will work this way



B
Apple is a prime example- They pander to the Joe Schmoe's of the world. [... ]

The UI draws consumers. Specs draw computer enthusiasts. [ ... ]

Consumers outnumber enthusiasts by a lot, and if you want Ubuntu or any Linux distro to gain ground in the market, you have to market to them. Not enthusiasts.


Funny you should pick Apple. Yes, they're the Masters of UI Design.
But by your reasoning, the should have, what, 90% of the market by now ?

Yet, ever since there's been somewhat of a market for personal computers, Apple was never more than a niche product. They could not compete against PC-s with MS-DOS (!), they couldn't compete with Windows 3.x, and 30 years later they have a whopping 5% of the PC market.

Excellent illustration of how mastery in UI design leads to greater market share.

blur xc
August 21st, 2009, 07:53 PM
See my previous post as to why i don't think things will work this way




Funny you should pick Apple. Yes, they're the Masters of UI Design.
But by your reasoning, the should have, what, 90% of the market by now ?

Yet, ever since there's been somewhat of a market for personal computers, Apple was never more than a niche product. They could not compete against PC-s with MS-DOS (!), they couldn't compete with Windows 3.x, and 30 years later they have a whopping 5% of the PC market.

Excellent illustration of how mastery in UI design leads to greater market share.

There are many other reasons that we all know very well why MS is where it is in the market, and none of it is based on having a better product. Apple was too late in the game, and MS was already well rooted in the market. See that users sig- "Microsoft's Crimes".

That, and shortly after the Macintosh came out, MS in it's usual fair, knocked it off and Windows was born. MS is always a step behind, but they are very quick, and unashamed to knock off good ideas, and use their weight in the market to stomp all over the competition.

BM

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 08:22 PM
There are many other reasons that we all know very well why MS is where it is in the market, and none of it is based on having a better product. Apple was too late in the game, and MS was already well rooted in the market. See that users sig- "Microsoft's Crimes".

That, and shortly after the Macintosh came out, MS in it's usual fair, knocked it off and Windows was born. MS is always a step behind, but they are very quick, and unashamed to knock off good ideas, and use their weight in the market to stomp all over the competition.

BM

Apple and Microsoft started out roughly the same time, +/ 1975, so how can one of them then be "late in the game' while the other is already "well rooted in the market'.

Besides that, Apple was years ahead of Microsoft when it comes to UIs - like I said, they had the Macintosch while microsoft was selling DOS, so who's "late in the game" then ?

But never mind all that, You asked me to look at Apple to illustrate your position on how UIs matter for "attracting the masses".
I did. Too bad there's nothing there to convince me, rather the contrary.

Regenweald
August 21st, 2009, 08:57 PM
Looking at the issue from a market point of view. Windows needs transparency, apple needs a pretty UI, because they want people to PURCHASE their product. we all know that a large amount of users don't care about what a system is capable of as long as it looks nice. If you are selling something you need to package and present it properly.

I am very grateful that in the early years of systems like Linux and BSD, the communities were primarily a niche of hackers, developers and power users so that issues like performance, architecture, stability and security were deemed priority and a UI just needed to work well. A mindset like that is what made 64bit computing in Linux and BSD a reality years before the nice looking OS'es. That kind of thinking is also what gave us the secure and robust foundation that we have today: BSD, Arch, Slackware, Debian to name a few.

Transparency looks cool, and if a developer want to implement it cool. But i think the 'attract more users' argument is BS. These OS'es aren't sold, they are given away for free and the 'so because it's free quality does not matter?' argument also holds no water, they are the fastest most stable and secure operating environments on the planet.

If developers were scrambling to 'get more users' and the focus shifted from quality to looks, this would be a windows forum. There is a stark difference between user experience, usability and appearance.

In my opinion, implementing transparency is a waste of time currently. If the prospect of a system that does not slow down over time for no good reason and potentially never having to be a victim of a virus in life again is not enough to attract Joe user, then allow Joe User to enjoy whatever product offers him transparency, if that is foremost on his/her list.

FOSS is what it is because talented developers code what is needed and what would enhance...

blur xc
August 21st, 2009, 08:59 PM
You are comparing a computer manufacturer to a software vendor.

Not exactly apples to apples (no pun intended)...

There are lots of reasons why microsoft exploded and apple didn't. The coloning of the ibm pc was one of them. Microsoft made a product that would work on numerous other computer manufacturers products, apple made software that ONLY worked on their hardware (still does, for the most part).



This page explains a lot better than I can why mac's sucked and didn't win over dos computers (ibm clones). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh#1984:_Introduction


BM

edit- Read this- nice pie charts. Notice 1985 market share- http://www.calcompcare.com/Resources/Apple%20market%20Share.pdf

Mac's were tiny even compared to commodore 64's. Too little, too late...the market was already owned by MS and was only growing.

K.Y.A
August 21st, 2009, 09:02 PM
I sense a flame war..

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 09:11 PM
Looking at the issue from a market point of view. [...]
What you say makes sense.

Here's an other take on it, also from a a marketing point of view:

Windows has a huge install base. 90 % or so. Therefore, when they release a new version, they can't count on an influx of new users to cover their development costs : they need to convince existing users to switch to the new version.
They can't just EOL the old version : that would **** of the business market, and the home market just wouldn't care.

So they're actually competing against their own previous version, and they need something that shows the people how much cooler, niftier, more wicked the new version is. Something that works well on demos and in videoclips. Something visual. Hence the emphasis on GUI 'looks' - and transparent windows is right up that alley.

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 09:15 PM
You are comparing a computer manufacturer to a software vendor.

You brought up Apple as an example to support your point.
I merely tore that apart, so don't blame me for bringing Apple in to it.

Katalog
August 21st, 2009, 09:20 PM
I only have one question. Have you taken the time to submit this idea to Brainstorm so it gets more visibility than just the forum community and so people who can actually do something about it might actually see it? If it's a good idea and others agree with you, they will vote it up and it will most likely get some attention. If they don't, then you have your answer as to whether or not the community at large and/or developers really think this is a concept worthy of serious consideration. Otherwise it will simply remain as a point of contention among forum members.

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 09:23 PM
From a usability perspetive :

The Gnome project is fanatical about UI design.
If transparency has a place in in it, they'll implement it, sooner or later.
KDE will probably implement it too, because they want to look like windows.

Meanwhile, threads like these serve no purpose.

So, there, case closed.

23meg
August 21st, 2009, 09:39 PM
The Gnome project is fanatical about UI design.
If transparency has a place in in it, they'll implement it, sooner or later.

Hint: check out the GTK+ 3 roadmap.

blur xc
August 21st, 2009, 09:53 PM
You brought up Apple as an example to support your point.
I merely tore that apart, so don't blame me for bringing Apple in to it.

I brought up apple because they are generally regarded as the leaders in UI design. Just look at ipod sales and iphone sales, for example. Mac's main problem is that their OS is only licensed to run on their hardware (and they are expensive). W/ ubuntu, or any other linux distro, we have to power to make an OS that has an even better UI than mac, but can run on any number of IBM clones, and even older slower computers. By that logic, Linux on some flavor or another, should be able to take over Mac in market share.

That's my stand- improve the UI, give it more eye appeal, and you will win over more users, that is as long as everything else works too...

And I don't just mean one feature like window transparency. Ironically, linux has the power to customize you ui however you want, but why it's not enabled out of the box is beyond me. Imo, it stands to reason, that a power user who does not like desktop effects would more easily be able to disable it than it would be for a normal user to figure out how to enable them. And besides, advanced users can run openbox or the awesome window manager, or whatever.

BM

hyperdude111
August 21st, 2009, 10:03 PM
From a usability perspetive :

The Gnome project is fanatical about UI design.
If transparency has a place in in it, they'll implement it, sooner or later.
KDE will probably implement it too, because they want to look like windows.

Meanwhile, threads like these serve no purpose.

So, there, case closed.

Kde want to look like windows?

Just because they have one panel and focus on UI more than gnome does not make them windows wannabe.

Under your logic gnome is a mac copy because of they hav a bar at the top and a windows list at the bottom. And the inclusion of any dock is game over?

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 10:27 PM
Kde want to look like windows?

Just because they have one panel and focus on UI more than gnome does not make them windows wannabe.

Under your logic gnome is a mac copy because of they hav a bar at the top and a windows list at the bottom. And the inclusion of any dock is game over?
Well, the original anouncement by Matthias Ettrich made it very clear that KDE was to be a total break with whatever Unix/Linux at that time had to offer in terms of GUI, the first versions looked very much like windows , and one of the default themes was 'Redmond', which added even more of a Windows Look-and-feel.

But I could be mistaking, or KDE may have changed its mind since then ...


As for Gnome and Mac, the few times I've had a Mac under my hands, it didn't give me too much trouble, I could more or less just pretend I was using Ubuntu. I don't know who's copying who, or maybe they've reached the same conclusions independently.

DeadSuperHero
August 21st, 2009, 10:32 PM
I personally think that just the option of having inner transparency for specific apps would be intriguing. I don't know very much about GTK or Qt coding/theming, but the ability to use custom widgets with different levels of transparency may be useful for someone who wants to make a flashy looking application.

I wonder how doable this will be in GTK+ 3.0, with Clutter and all that jazz. Also, does Qt support Clutter/support a scenegraph?

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 10:34 PM
I brought up apple because they are generally regarded as the leaders in UI design. ....

That's my stand- improve the UI, give it more eye appeal, and you will win over more users, that is as long as everything else works too...
You just keep repeating yourself. Do I really have to keep repeating my rebuttal ?
boring.



And I don't just mean one feature like window transparency. Ironically, linux has the power to customize you ui however you want, but why it's not enabled out of the box is beyond me. Imo, it stands to reason, that a power user who does not like desktop effects would more easily be able to disable it than it would be for a normal user to figure out how to enable them. And besides, advanced users can run openbox or the awesome window manager, or whatever.

BM
scroll a few pages back. 23meg posted links to some excellent reading about why adding a feature 'just because we can' is a bad idea, and why adding preferences, i.e. features that people people should turn on or of, is even worse.


edit:
here

More tips on the "Why?" of adding features:

http://ometer.com/features.html

And the "How?":

http://inessential.com/2009/07/30/anatomy_of_a_feature

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 10:43 PM
I wonder how doable this will be in GTK+ 3.0, with Clutter and all that jazz. Also, does Qt support Clutter/support a scenegraph?
I read about software design in general, and that includes UI design sometimes, but I don't follow any of the technical stuff, so i have no idea.

But maybe this helps:

Hint: check out the GTK+ 3 roadmap.

blur xc
August 21st, 2009, 10:43 PM
scroll a few pages back. 23meg posted links to some excellent reading about why adding a feature 'just because we can' is a bad idea, and why adding preferences, i.e. features that people people should turn on or of, is even worse.



Dude- we already have the features. We already have to turn them on. My only argument is that some of the more useful features should be already turned on by default, rather than have new linux users have to go on fishing expeditions to figure all that junk out on their own. It should *look* as good or better out of the box that OSx or Win7.

No one has to code anything. Just package the software WE ALREADY HAVE differently.

BM

koenn
August 21st, 2009, 11:06 PM
Dude- we already have the features. We already have to turn them on. My only argument is that some of the more useful features should be already turned on by default, rather than have new linux users have to go on fishing expeditions to figure all that junk out on their own. It should *look* as good or better out of the box that OSx or Win7.

Look, kid, the mechanism for it exists, but not all apps support it, and and those that do, don't do not in a consistent way. That's what DE design is about.

as for 'more useful', that remains to be seen, and what looks good or better is so subjective it's hardly worth discussing. For instance, the Barbie colors and kindergarten look-and-feel in some of the screenshots in this thread are not what I'd call 'look good'.

blur xc
August 21st, 2009, 11:20 PM
Look, kid, the mechanism for it exists, but not all apps support it, and and those that do, don't do not in a consistent way. That's what DE design is about.

as for 'more useful', that remains to be seen, and what looks good or better is so subjective it's hardly worth discussing. For instance, the Barbie colors and kindergarten look-and-feel in some of the screenshots in this thread are not what I'd call 'look good'.

What apps don't support a more attractive alt-tab window switcher, scale (osx expose) window selector, window previews, desktop cube, expo, etc... Those are usable productivity tools. There was a post or article recently on the subject of how a tangible desktop improves the user experience.

Yeah, there are some ugly themes in the screen shot threads, but there are also some very nice usable ones too.

Ubuntu out of the box is barely any better than Win XP in the looks dept. Some might argue even worse, with the default brown theme. Vista has come and is almost gone, and Win 7 is now out with even more appealing window management features.

When I replaced our aging Win XP box with my new Ubuntu box, the first thing I did after creating a user account form y wife was to change her theme and enable some compiz plugins. And I only knew how to do that by using the new box for about a month before subjecting my wife to the transition. I can tell you, w/o giving myself that month long education period- the transition would not have gone well. It has still been difficult.

BM

Regenweald
August 21st, 2009, 11:27 PM
@ Koenn, Blur XC
the original post was akin to trolling imo. I personally respect both your opinions but please don't descend..... :)
http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

K.Y.A
August 21st, 2009, 11:37 PM
I just got leopard installed, and Gnome DOES seem a lot like it...
KDE is designed to make the transition from Windows to Linux easier, that's a known fact...

hoppipolla
August 22nd, 2009, 03:08 AM
I just got leopard installed, and Gnome DOES seem a lot like it...
KDE is designed to make the transition from Windows to Linux easier, that's a known fact...

Possibly true but I think there may be far more to the project than that!

hoppipolla
August 22nd, 2009, 03:15 AM
What apps don't support a more attractive alt-tab window switcher, scale (osx expose) window selector, window previews, desktop cube, expo, etc... Those are usable productivity tools. There was a post or article recently on the subject of how a tangible desktop improves the user experience.

Yeah, there are some ugly themes in the screen shot threads, but there are also some very nice usable ones too.

Ubuntu out of the box is barely any better than Win XP in the looks dept. Some might argue even worse, with the default brown theme. Vista has come and is almost gone, and Win 7 is now out with even more appealing window management features.

When I replaced our aging Win XP box with my new Ubuntu box, the first thing I did after creating a user account form y wife was to change her theme and enable some compiz plugins. And I only knew how to do that by using the new box for about a month before subjecting my wife to the transition. I can tell you, w/o giving myself that month long education period- the transition would not have gone well. It has still been difficult.

BM

Hmm, I appear to agree with most things you say. lol :)


It is my current view that with Ubuntu greatly focusing on user-friendliness and KDE focusing on desktop aesthetics and functionality, we are on the right track to providing a far more appealing system to the general public :)