[Qt-interest] Qt5 and XML DOM

[Arnold Krille]

On Saturday 14 May 2011 15:32:41 Till Oliver Knoll wrote:
> Am 11.05.2011 um 18:42 schrieb Konrad Rosenbaum <konrad at silmor.de>:
> > Would the summit in Berlin be a good place to chime in for us die-hard
> > lovers of old and un-sexy features like widgets and DOM?
> 
> Yes, that was exactly my keyword: "un-sexy features - and QWidgets"!
> 
> I must insist(TM) ;) that the "old-fashioned" but very proven and
> widely-accepted widget approach is neglected in favour of "klicki-bunti"
> (german expression ;) user interfaces "which look everywhere the same"!
> 
> Don't get me wrong: I am talking "desktop applications" (and I intenionally
> say "applications" and not "apps"), and I /do/ see a use of QML even on
> the desktop: for "fixed size toy apps or games".
> 
> But other than that I want my Qt application to look, feel and behave as
> closely as possible according to the underlying OS.
> 
> Now I do see and respect the argument of "declarative UI design". But
> what's wrong with the "interactive design" with the excellent Qt
> Designer"? Yes, there seems to be an attemp to "support QML in Qt
> Designer", but that looks like re-inventing the wheel for something we
> already have.
> 
> Now I totally agree that when it comes to "animating the UI" it is indeed
> easier to do that with declarative design. But my point is: as a user I
> don't want that! As a developer I don't need that!
> 
> Concrete example: I am evaluating Lightroom 3.4 (an application to manage
> and index huge collections of photos) on Mac. Yes, I must agree I was a
> bit impressed in the beginning about the "sexyness" of their dark-stylish
> UI. And they do have fading and moving elements - cool.
> 
> Yes, it doesn't quite look like a "Mac application" (but then again: even
> Apple does visual experiments lately), but the dark-coloured UI makes
> sense for an application where the colours of the photos count mainly.
> 
> That said, the next thing I noticed was that the presets for photo
> development were a huge linear list, instead of some (freely configurable)
> tree structure or the like. Then my shared network folder of my other Mac
> was not recognised as such (LR has its "own filesystem view", as it seems,
> which does neither seem to support NFS mounted drives nor "Apple Shared
> Folders").
> 
> Bottom messages: the eye candy was eaten after 10 minutes! Then I thought
> "Had they invested more on usability the application would be even
> better!" (It's still a great tool, don't get me wrong ;)
> 
> And if the application had been written in Qt everything would have been
> possible with QWidgets and a bit of CSS for the dark background colours.
> Animating the tabs with "QAnimation" classes would be relatively easy
> (when compared what the application is supposed to do). And on feature
> request lists I read "face recognition, HDR, separate control curves per
> colour channel... but I have never read "Please animate the UI more and
> make it more sexy!" In fact, I have never read such a request for /any/
> application, from /any/ user!
> 
> The only persons that I came across or read about mentioning "sexy UIs" was
> some former boss ("I've heard Flash/AIR apps are very sexy - can't we port
> our Java client app to that?").
> 
> 
> So here's a suggestion: improve the QGesture support in QGraphicsView (I've
> been told the current architecture doesn't really support the needed event
> handling well, on Mac for example). Improve OpenGL 3 support ("core GL
> context" with no deprecated GL functions. Add proper SOAP support. There
> are more examples which would bring a real use to applications.
> 
> 
> Qt NEEDS to be UN-SEXY! It needs to provide the BASIC building blocks and a
> fast and reliable abstraction for common OS functionality. Please KEEP it
> like this - let us Qt users write the sexy parts ;)
> 
> 
> Sorry for the lenghty post here - just trying to fight the "we need every 3
> years a new technology (which does the same as the previous one, just
> under a different name), so we keep starting over and over again, just
> slower and with the same bugs we already had fixed in the previous
> technology"-thinking ;)

You would get a "Like" from me if this post and me where on that popular 
public face directory.

Have fun,

Arnold
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.qt-project.org/pipermail/qt-interest-old/attachments/20110514/2433ce3b/attachment.bin