Peter Onion wrote:
 > On Fri, 2008-03-28 at 21:40 -0400, Dr Skip wrote:
 >
 > If they help you do your work why do you care what they look like ?


I knew when I wrote it that someone would say that... ;)

To be more accurate, and I don't have a sample at hand, the apps tend to be 
oversimplified as if packing a lot of information (and I don't mean text tables 
and such) in a window in a manner that one can take a lot in at once is 
difficult, so not done. I'm not talking fanciness, but some of the visual items 
actually help usability, especially in an information-dense app. Thus, the apps 
I've seen aren't as information dense as their competitors in a particular 
area. I get the impression that either the language is 'visually' primitive or 
that it must be tough to code in it. I can use either as an app, but if one 
were creative, ceilings like that would be an issue for them.

The other is (and I'm thinking Java now, but may apply) that the apps I've seen 
tend to have 'flat' buttons and text areas the same color as background. Yes, I 
can get along with it, but it's not as easy on the eyes. This also seems to 
make it slower (by a little bit) to use or get started with. It makes it very 
tough to get a less experienced user going with it.

I've worked with several software usability groups and you get to see that 
little things like visual clues can really speed up a person's usage - 
experienced or novice. I would venture to say that a good app makes use of the 
3D effects to layer things such that the user begins to 'see' the whole thing 
as layers in 3D, and the eyes don't hunt as much. It might be like trying to 
find a small something in a room by looking from your chair (3D) vs finding it 
in a flat painting with no treatment of light or shadow, just color. The eyes 
scan differently.

While I'm talking about it, it would seem visual effects and 'styles' are a big 
seller too. I just like a consistent window, not all the odd stuff one can do, 
but the other sells. If he were to come up with something to sell, I'm sure it 
would also have to compete visually, at least for a popular app. Again, the 
comment was more about limitations in a language than a complaint about any app.

Thanks for all the input. It looks like C is still the one, and Basic isn't a 
bad word (although there isn't much Basic talk for PICs despite it being fairly 
available). As probably mentor, I'll have to bone up on C again... I'll 
probably show concepts in Basic and give the translation of them to C as a 
learning exercise, then as it gets more complex and into PC apps, introduce 
Python, still keeping a Basic variant along the way and trying things in all 3. 
As this is going to be more 'hobby' for him until college, I'll use the PIC for 
assembler ideas when he's ready. ;)

Thanks all.

-Skip



-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist