Can Java do fancy GUIs?

[John McGrath]

It's quite simple, really.
My standards are higher than yours.

That is certainly one possibility. The other possibility is that he knows
how to create the GUI's he wants with Swing and you are not able to do so.

It seems pretty silly to be arguing about this without talking about what
you are actually trying to accomplish. You have mentioned Adobe Acrobat's
"Zoom Toolbar". I do not have Acrobat, but I do have Adobe Reader. It
also has a "Zoom Toolbar", and there is certainly nothing there that could
not be done with Swing. There are quite a few components in that toolbar,
so it is unclear what you think cannot be done in Swing.

So if you really have an interest in doing this in Swing, why not tell us
specifically what it is that you are having problems with? I am sure that
someone here would be glad to help you do what you want.

 

[Alex Buell]

To be truthful, I am impressed with the Acrobat Reader splash screen.
How do they do those swirly bits in Java or any other language?

http://www.jroller.com/page/gfx/20050315


Cheers,
Alex.

 

[David Alex Lamb]

In other words you intend to go through life dissatisfied.

You give the impression of having the same disease as many in the
games industry, where the looks are more important than the function.
You will find that users prefer simple software that WORKS instead of
over-designed bells and whistles GUIs which confuse.

Good grief. Yes, he was a bit bombastic in how he said things, but at the
core he was asking for a simple piece of common GUI functionality: multiple
docking toolbars. I know how to have a single docking toolbar but have never
had to learn how to get multiples. Anybody able to answer this fairly narrow
technical question?

 

[David Alex Lamb]

3. And even if you are not after the high-end glitz I
am referring to, swing (even with the windows
LaF) somehow just never looks /quite/ like the
other windows applications running. I personally
find that irritating.

Do you mean the Metal L&F versus the "native" ones? I thought it was easy to
change that -- though I've not looked at Swing details for several years,
relying on a fairly simple set of facilities for most of what I do.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

David Alex Lamb coughed up:

Thomas G. Marshall


Do you mean the Metal L&F versus the "native" ones?

The "native" one that is pertinent here is the windows one, which is for
microsoft windows.

So I mean precisely what I said. The windows LaF, as established by this
code, should you wish to hardwire it:

try
{
UIManager.setLookAndFeel(
"com.sun.java.swing.plaf.windows.WindowsLookAndFeel");
}
catch (Exception ignore) { }

Just does not /quite/ look like the rest of the windows apps running. On
/any/ version of windows. Even the latest xp laf's just don't look /right/
..

 

[Abrasive Sponge]

So far, I have been programming my interfaces by picking the available
Swing components in my IDE. Sometimes, however, a programmer needs a
richer visual interface. I have always noticed that the standard
(compiled, non-Java) Windows programs tend to have a more professional
look than their Java counterparts.

That's odd because Swing has multiple look and feels including XP and
there are also other beautiful ones like JGoodies.

Let me give an example: I have a program that displays and manipulates
images and I am really jalous of the way the "Zoom Toolbar" looks in
Adobe Acrobat. That's the kind of visual quality that I am trying to
achieve. Is it possible to write an exact (or close) replica of that
zoom toolbar in Java?

Yep

With the "floating" toolbars that somehow deck

next to each other?

Yep, it's all part of the API

I have read a little about JavaBeans. Is this what JavaBeans is for?
To achieve very nice and professional looking widgets? How hard (and
expensive) is it to have a high quality JavaBean custom written for
you?

Widgets are more than just java beans. Look into it.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

David Alex Lamb coughed up:

Good grief. Yes, he was a bit bombastic in how he said things, but
at the core he was asking for a simple piece of common GUI
functionality: multiple docking toolbars. I know how to have a
single docking toolbar but have never had to learn how to get
multiples. Anybody able to answer this fairly narrow technical
question?

Repost with that specific question as the subject. I would be interested in
the replies.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Dag Sunde coughed up:

While that is probably a very powerful application that fullfill
your needs, it was a very bad argument in a discussion concerning
swing vs. elegant and "sexy" GUI...

That is propably the most horrible UI I've seen in a long time.
It breaks almost every rule from the "divine proportion" and
balance, to simple common sense...

just my 2 cents worth...

1. That's excessively rude.

2. I don't see your conclusion, and I've been in GUI design for a very long
time. I've spent a lifetime tearing apart UI's from beginners to supposed
experts, and cannot state with certainty whether this is good or bad from
screenshots. It would be impossible to entirely rank on a GUI's design
without actually /using/ the gui for a while. Did you actually run this
thing? I myself did not, and without doing so I would be unable to say
"That is propably [sic] the most horrible UI I've seen in a long time."


3. Divine proportion? Phi is /way/ over hyped. It is an interesting
mathematical notion, but it is not as strong a driving force in visual
esthetics as is often told. Take an honest look at all the parts of your
currently running applications, and tell me all the places where 1hi
(1:1.618...) is used, and where it would help if it isn't.

 

[Remi Bastide]

Good grief. Yes, he was a bit bombastic in how he said things, but at the
core he was asking for a simple piece of common GUI functionality: multiple
docking toolbars. I know how to have a single docking toolbar but have never
had to learn how to get multiples. Anybody able to answer this fairly narrow
technical question?

http://www.infonode.net/index.html?idwfeatures

 

[Chris Uppal]

[...] They make the hideous
mistake, which is a very common one, of providing an interface that looks
fully raytraced without thought as to which button gives me options,
which part can I drag the GUI with, etc., etc.

Or even which parts /are/ buttons, or otherwise active parts of the GUI, and
which are mere decoration. Those designs, IMO, range from poorly thought out
and implemented (at the best) right the way down to insanely incompetent.

There's no obvious theoretical reason why roll-your-own GUIs should be so bad,
but somehow they always[*] are...

([*] "always" is a strong word, perhaps too strong, but I can't think of a
counter-example right now.)

Maybe its a selection effect -- the designers who know how to create GUIs that
work will naturally understand the value of meeting user-expectations, and
hence of adhering tightly to standards. So, when they do decide to create
their own bit of UI widgetry I don't notice that it's non-standard since it's
been crafted to fit seemlessly with the widgets that I am used to. (one
example being the "splittable" scrollbars that a few Windows applications use)

-- chris

 

[David Alex Lamb]

http://www.infonode.net/index.html?idwfeatures

I can't afford their prices, but thanks anyway.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Chris Uppal coughed up:

[...] They make the hideous
mistake, which is a very common one, of providing an interface that
looks fully raytraced without thought as to which button gives me
options, which part can I drag the GUI with, etc., etc.

Or even which parts /are/ buttons, or otherwise active parts of the
GUI, and which are mere decoration. Those designs, IMO, range from
poorly thought out and implemented (at the best) right the way down
to insanely incompetent.

There's no obvious theoretical reason why roll-your-own GUIs should
be so bad, but somehow they always[*] are...

([*] "always" is a strong word, perhaps too strong, but I can't think
of a counter-example right now.)

Maybe its a selection effect -- the designers who know how to create
GUIs that work will naturally understand the value of meeting
user-expectations, and hence of adhering tightly to standards. So,
when they do decide to create their own bit of UI widgetry I don't
notice that it's non-standard since it's been crafted to fit
seemlessly with the widgets that I am used to. (one example being
the "splittable" scrollbars that a few Windows applications use)

-- chris

Yes. A boss of mine from nearly 20 years ago referred to this as not
violating "the law of least surprise".

I would phrase much of what you're talking about as the creation of GUI
elements that are not that far from other gui elements you've seen before.
However, with the right training, if the UI designer is very mindful of what
the user will be asking himself as he goes uses the product (particularly
for the first time!), then he can create an entirely unique, yet intuitive
component.

It's tough for many designers to continually put themselves in the position
of looking at their design from the standpoint of the first time user. It
is similar to the process of writing [source] code that is to be later
maintainable by the caffeine-hopped engineer at 3am who has never seen your
code before.

As a strong point to this: you have to remember that using standard GUI
components does not guarantee that the interface is intuitive.

 

[Ted Hill]

http://glipssvgeditor.sourceforge.net/

check the screen shot, does it look satisfactory?

 

[Abrasive Sponge]

just kidding, having a cup of sarcasm this afternoon.

 

[IchBin]

I can't afford their prices, but thanks anyway.

I'll try one more time.

Again, *You can get the same look by using* the *JGoodies Java User
Interface Design* at: http://www.jgoodies.com/

Compare http://www.infonode.net/index.html?idwfeatures TO
http://www.jgoodies.com/freeware/forms/index.html just for an example.

JGoodies have FOLLOWING freebees:

Free Tools
:: JDiskReport
:: JPathReport

Free Demos
:: Forms Demo
:: Looks Demo
:: Metamorphosis
:: Skeleton
:: Skeleton Pro
:: Validation

Free Libraries
:: Animation
:: Forms
:: Looks

I use in my programs see screenshots...: http://localhost:8080/
--


Thanks in Advance...
IchBin
__________________________________________________________________________

'The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical
substances:
if there is any reaction, both are transformed.'
- Carl Gustav Jung, (1875-1961), psychiatrist and psychologist

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Abrasive Sponge coughed up:

just kidding, having a cup of sarcasm this afternoon.

Me too. lol

 

[Karsten Lentzsch]

http://glipssvgeditor.sourceforge.net/

check the screen shot, does it look satisfactory?

Hmm - not quite.

I provide a bunch of articles that are intended
to help Java developers design better and faster.
You may consider reading "First Aid for Swing"
which consists of Don't and Do's for Java/Swing:
http://www.jgoodies.com/articles/

You can find a much more detailed analysis of
typical problems, concepts to address them and
practical tips in Mullet&Sano's "Designing Visual
Interfaces" - definitle a recommended read if
you want to improve your design capabilities.

Hope this helps. Best regards,
Karsten

 

[Alex Hunsley]

It's quite simple, really.
My standards are higher than yours.
I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical designers
on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font, press,
logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing provides.

It sounds like your standards are misguided, not 'higher'.
In countless user experience reviews of GUIs, one of the main messages
that comes across is that the user has a tasks to do, and they want to
be able to do that task without hindrances. Bells, whistles, fancy
widgets etc. are an aside, possibly a distraction, and quite often
actually get in the way: think about it.... people know how standard
widgets work; if you start messing with them, it causes confusion, the
learning curve is steeper and the user is distracted from the task at hand.

 

[Thomas G. Marshall]

Alex Hunsley coughed up:

It sounds like your standards are misguided, not 'higher'.
In countless user experience reviews of GUIs, one of the main messages
that comes across is that the user has a tasks to do, and they want to
be able to do that task without hindrances. Bells, whistles, fancy
widgets etc. are an aside, possibly a distraction, and quite often
actually get in the way: think about it.... people know how standard
widgets work; if you start messing with them, it causes confusion, the
learning curve is steeper and the user is distracted from the task at
hand.

Simple well known widgets quite often are "distractions" and "get in the
way". A good gui has everything to do with a good designer and not
home-grown vs. standard widgets arguments.

 

[hiwa]

I wonder do all of you really know that 'high standard',
'sophisticated', 'fancy', 'sexy' blah blah UI is a steep
learning curve for ordinary common people users.

It humiliates them.

And you must be aware of that the Java has simplified
almost every field of application level computing and
its development effort.

And you might have to notice, for example, that modern car
no more has manual gearbox.

I like Swing UI because of simplicity both in usage
and in app development.