Non-native interfaces lose
It's well known that Mac users prefer Safari over Firefox. Safari comes bundled with OSX - and we know that this always works great for dealing with competitors . But the reason for success is not just a monopoly, people have sufficient reasons to prefer Safari:
Safari is of course a full-featured browser that well supports technical standards , unlike IE6 . But if you ask Mac users why they chose Safari, and if you put pressure on them, they will probably express the opinion that the deciding factor was that Safari looks like a real Mac application .
The next version of Firefox will support some of the native OSX interface elements , but it will still not be a real Cocoa application . The lack of a completely native interface under OSX may seem like a small implementation detail, but in fact it will stop many people:
When two applications with, roughly speaking, compete with similar functionality, the application with the native interface wins. Is always. If you really want to win the hearts and minds of your users, you will get down to business and squeeze everything you can from the native interface.
Java has been struggling with this problem for many years, achieving results somewhere between “terrible” and “idiotic,” depending on who to ask. Most Java developers are completely resigned and surrendered :
Ultimately, the best that any Java application can count on is to become a native application. To simulate it. The goal of a Java application should be the similarity with native applications, and not the desire to stand out.
GAIM has a GTK-based cross-platform user interface, which is obtained by bringing different interfaces to a common denominator:
Moreover, I understand the feelings of Mac Safari users, because I could not switch from IE7 to Vista. Firefox looks so miserable under Vista. It simply does not fit the overall look. It scrolls the pages very slowly, the keyboard stops working at random times , and the whole interface is annoyingly highlighted, including the usual main menu . Without a doubt, Firefox is in many ways the best browser for web developers, with a very vibrant developer community . Firefox should definitely be part of any developer kit.
But when it comes to everyday surfing the net, I always choose the native speed and native appearance instead of being able to install a dozen extensions, or the ability to run on the Nth number of platforms. Everytime.
Non-native interfaces - sucks.
Mac users prefer [Safari] because of the page rendering speed, clean interface and low startup time.
Safari is of course a full-featured browser that well supports technical standards , unlike IE6 . But if you ask Mac users why they chose Safari, and if you put pressure on them, they will probably express the opinion that the deciding factor was that Safari looks like a real Mac application .
The next version of Firefox will support some of the native OSX interface elements , but it will still not be a real Cocoa application . The lack of a completely native interface under OSX may seem like a small implementation detail, but in fact it will stop many people:
Native cocoa widgets use system components like scrollbars or buttons. These are the same buttons and scroll bars that are used in just about all OSX applications. The default skin used in Firefox 2 contains really awful Netscape 4-style square widgets.
These ugly, as horrible as possible graphics elements are in fact one of the main reasons why I use Safari rather than Firefox on my OSX.
When two applications with, roughly speaking, compete with similar functionality, the application with the native interface wins. Is always. If you really want to win the hearts and minds of your users, you will get down to business and squeeze everything you can from the native interface.
Java has been struggling with this problem for many years, achieving results somewhere between “terrible” and “idiotic,” depending on who to ask. Most Java developers are completely resigned and surrendered :
I am one of those Apple Java programmers who quit trying. I’ve been a crazy Java fan for 5 years, but I gave up after optimizing AWT for drag and drop. I tried to get 1200 pages of the crappy API to do what is needed on OSX. Then I took a week of Cocoa programming courses, and wrote the first prototype of iChat.
Java for desktops never worked because Sun tried to build its own OS on top of a real OS, duplicating the entire application interface. This led to a terrible swelling of the platform, making any application as heavy as if it were Photoshop. Worse, the Java GUI platform is simply idiotic, because Sun is a server company with no truly competent user interface experts. The software interface is so awkward that if compared with any normal OSX application, the result will be similar to the Soviet tractor built on Monday.
Ultimately, the best that any Java application can count on is to become a native application. To simulate it. The goal of a Java application should be the similarity with native applications, and not the desire to stand out.
GAIM has a GTK-based cross-platform user interface, which is obtained by bringing different interfaces to a common denominator:
Moreover, I understand the feelings of Mac Safari users, because I could not switch from IE7 to Vista. Firefox looks so miserable under Vista. It simply does not fit the overall look. It scrolls the pages very slowly, the keyboard stops working at random times , and the whole interface is annoyingly highlighted, including the usual main menu . Without a doubt, Firefox is in many ways the best browser for web developers, with a very vibrant developer community . Firefox should definitely be part of any developer kit.
But when it comes to everyday surfing the net, I always choose the native speed and native appearance instead of being able to install a dozen extensions, or the ability to run on the Nth number of platforms. Everytime.
Non-native interfaces - sucks.
')
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/30894/
All Articles