Comment by userbinator
15 days ago
Depends what you mean by "look good".
The main function of the app being discussed here is to draw solid black rectangles on the screen.
Don't forget the "average person", I'm assuming someone relying on software as a tool, doesn't care about the stuff "designers" seem to obsess over, and will actively hate if you break their workflow by doing things like adding useless padding that makes them scroll more or shows less information in the name of "modernity". There's a lot of specialized niche software for various industries, often very expensive too, which looks like it came out in the early 90s. As long as it works well, users won't complain.
Oh, how I hate when vendors bring "modern web" aesthetics to desktop utility programs. For example, Docker Desktop could go a long way in terms of usability if it just sticked to Win32 common controls - the kind of buttons, labels and list views that have been around since Windows 95. Maybe I wouldn't even have to wait 10 seconds for the main window to show up every time.
There's a pretty simple settings window: https://github.com/domenic/display-blackout?tab=readme-ov-fi...
Would that UI be hard to accomplish?
You mean conceptually or to match it? Native components are pretty much impossible to match without actually using the native framework which provides them, so you need WinUI/WPF.
Win32 provides its own components which are basically Win95 style apps, and you can draw the components using some graphics APIs by yourself.
The whole native development area is a mess exactly because making your own (decent) renderer is a huge undertaking.
Agreed. The Qt framework, which is a cross-platform UI framework, does a decent job mimicking the native Win32 looks. Inside, the code is a giant mess. But on the outside, the API is very well thought out and easy to use.
But you are making false equivalence, the Win32 GUI API is decades out of date from modern UIs. I can use flutter and make a pixel perfect equivalent of the above UI in an hour, with the exact same responsiveness behavior on both windows tablets and desktop, and scales perfectly in high DPI displays. 3 hours if you want the toggle animation timing to be exactly the same.
I came from the WinForms world so don't pretend I don't understand Win32 programming. The fault lies with Microsoft for not investing in it more.
4 replies →
The functionality of that is not hard at all. A few checkboxes, a trackbar, and a hotkey control (there is actually a standard Win32 control for this: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/controls/hot... ), with "pushlike" checkboxes at the top to be drawn replicating the monitor layout.
But that "modern" style is... disgusting and repulsive. That whole dialog is bigger than one of my monitors due to how much wasted space it has.
My favourite example of "Modern" style is the toggle switch, shown even in that image. I laugh a lot of the times I see one, it's the 'replacement' for the checkbox, but it's so awful at actually telegraphing it's current state in a consistent way- (the entire purpose of the control!) that it has to have a label indicating whether it's on or off. I find it so absurd that people genuinely put this stuff into their programs and have no problem with it, because apparently we are just supposed to accept this type of poorly designed component because it's more "Modern".
1 reply →
I used to work in finance. Screens very densely packed with text is the preferred user interface.
We did a UI refresh at one point. It looked much nicer. People hated it. We had to hastily redesign it again and it looked far more like the original.