[QUOTE=P320;36061940]ITT: Plain and boring = new and innovative.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=P320;36021788]Do it with regular Aero (Windows 8 Consumer preview might be best to port from) and you'll be my hero.[/QUOTE]
Looks like you're just whiny about you not getting your way with Aero. Aero isn't that spectacular either, dude.
[img_thumb]http://screensnapr.com/e/J7DP13.png[/img_thumb]
You know why this is my theme and has been my theme for the last month? Because it's the only theme that's attractive through minimalism but more importantly allows the following:
1. Readability
2. No distraction
3. Agrees with any color palette
I've always liked the minimal XP themes for this reason too. It's "boring" to some but it's what I need minus the BS. I don't need your fancy effects. I was happy when I saw the newest look of Metro because really, that's all I've really wanted. Simple. Straight to the point.
[QUOTE=P320;36061940]ITT: Plain and boring = new and innovative.[/QUOTE]
Its not like any programs fit with the Aero theme anyway and the ones that did use its transparency did it horribly. You should have seen Mozilla Thunderbird a few versions ago. What a mess.
So long Aero. You won't be missed.
And that's not to say that I think Aero sucked. I just prefer solid colors and at times Aero was a little bit of a pain to read and a little flashy.
Reposted from closed thread:
You'll notice that people that get angry or worried about these features are 99% of the time not developers, and have never worked with the technology in question. For example, people who hate Metro apps have most likely never programmed a Metro app or programmed anything at all.
On the topic of Metro apps, it seems that most people are failing to understand what the purpose of them are in the first place. Metro apps are intended to provide a way for developers to create basic visually appealing applications that have a small feature set, and a small amount of relative data. Microsoft is trying to give developers a way to create their simple "iPad/iOS-esque" applications. It's not meant to replace desktop apps, and MS is not dumb enough to think that it would.
Additionally, as I've explained before, MS needed a way to expand their OS to tablets, and netbooks. Rather than create a mess of three operating systems like Apple decided to do, Microsoft simply wanted a way to create an OS that translates to tablets, and everything else. This is a good thing: MS can now have one large team working on improving everything rather than have 3 operating systems. That way, everyone can be on the same page without having to worry about problems like "will I get the new Android update? will the iOS device I just bought get the next update? will this app work on my device?". Anyone with an iOS device or Android device will happily inform you of how they worry if they will be getting the newest OS version.
You see, by pushing the same OS across all devices, MS is also ensuring a base hardware requirement as well. We all know that MS did a pretty good job keeping the requirements for Win8 really low, right? I'm willing to bet that Win9 will have the same requirements as Win8. I'm also willing to bet that updates will be taking a new direction in Win8. I'm curious to see if MS will re-brand service packs and instead push OS features in later updates.
[QUOTE=Foda;36066337]Reposted from closed thread:
I'm also willing to bet that updates will be taking a new direction in Win8. I'm curious to see if MS will re-brand service packs and instead push OS features in later updates.[/QUOTE]
Naming them "Feature Packs" and "Service Packs" would set them apart, respectively.
[QUOTE=Foda;36066337]Reposted from closed thread:
You'll notice that people that get angry or worried about these features are 99% of the time not developers, and have never worked with the technology in question. For example, people who hate Metro apps have most likely never programmed a Metro app or programmed anything at all.
.[/QUOTE]
I'm okay with "Metro"-styled apps, and having the same OS on multiple devices. It's a good thing because of cross-platform compatibility and all.
But I'm not okay with Metro (as a design direction) itself.
It looks fucking revolting.
Even the Segoe font family is ugly.
And the UI is kind of a big deal to me, since you look at it all the time you use a computer
[QUOTE=P320;36066387]Naming them "Feature Packs" and "Service Packs" would set them apart, respectively.[/QUOTE]
To me, "Feature Packs" implies an optional update of non-important features. I'm sure Service Packs will still exist as they serve a way to get everyone on the same page in terms of Windows Updates, but perhaps MS will decide to start adding features to said updates.
just found metrotwit. looks neat imo
[t]http://goo.gl/ff3M6[/t]
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;36066537]I'm okay with "Metro"-styled apps, and having the same OS on multiple devices. It's a good thing because of cross-platform compatibility and all.
But I'm not okay with Metro (as a design direction) itself.
It looks fucking revolting.
Even the Segoe font family is ugly.
And the UI is kind of a big deal to me, since you look at it all the time you use a computer[/QUOTE]
How do you find it revolting? What would you consider to be a "good" design language (example?).
Metro's philosophy is about providing data in a quick readable way(ie: road signs, subway signs, etc). Large readable text with careful use of contrasting colors happens to be the best way of doing just that.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;36066537]I'm okay with "Metro"-styled apps, and having the same OS on multiple devices. It's a good thing because of cross-platform compatibility and all.
But I'm not okay with Metro (as a design direction) itself.
It looks fucking revolting.
Even the Segoe font family is ugly.
And the UI is kind of a big deal to me, since you look at it all the time you use a computer[/QUOTE]
A lot more research has gone into designing Metro than forming you opinions
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;36066537]I'm okay with "Metro"-styled apps, and having the same OS on multiple devices. It's a good thing because of cross-platform compatibility and all.
But I'm not okay with Metro (as a design direction) itself.
It looks fucking revolting.
Even the Segoe font family is ugly.
And the UI is kind of a big deal to me, since you look at it all the time you use a computer[/QUOTE]
The segoe font family is like the best screen readability font and looks pretty good on top of that and you call it ugly?
Or perhaps you want helvetica in areas where it doesn't work at all? Or maybe gill sans, perhaps eurostyle?
Hell most of the vista fonts are some of the utterly best things designed with computers in mind and it shows.
[QUOTE=Foda;36066585]To me, "Feature Packs" implies an optional update of non-important features. I'm sure Service Packs will still exist as they serve a way to get everyone on the same page in terms of Windows Updates, but perhaps MS will decide to start adding features to said updates.[/QUOTE]
Fair enough. :)
I've got to say Segoe UI and its variants is probably on of my favorite fonts. Even the new versions in 8.
[QUOTE=Foda;36066798]How do you find it revolting?[/quote]
Bright, massive, solid colored boxes with white text on them are ugly.
It's too colorful, I'd prefer my UI to have little saturation, or shades of one color, or at least not as bright and contrasting ones.
Enormous lowercase text as a part of the interface, sometimes even as buttons (Zune) looks awful.
Buttons and controls on Metro apps are terrible too, they're not separated from the app in any way, they just "float":
[t]http://i41.tinypic.com/21bknbc.jpg[/t]
Take this for example (I know it's a mockup,but still).
Everything is just floating on a solid background, even the clock and menu on the top. A simple line to separate the UI elements wouldn't hurt, but would look so much better.
I consider pretty much all UI elements that are big, bright, white, or overly simplified just to look "good" (pretty much the definition of Metro) ugly as hell.
[quote]What would you consider to be a "good" design language (example?).[/QUOTE]
An interface that's as small as possible, so that all information I could possibly ever need fits on one screen.
Preferably lacking any colors, or only very dark ones.
Square or hexagonal buttons/controls/whatever, no circles or overly rounded UI items anywhere.
Examples of what I like would be either the default Maemo 5 UI, or [url=http://vathanx.deviantart.com/art/NEXTLevel-71347045?offset=20#comments]this Vista theme[/url], preferably without the glossy buttons or Start menu
[QUOTE=wraithcat;36066887]The segoe font family is like the best screen readability font and looks pretty good on top of that and you call it ugly?
Or perhaps you want helvetica in areas where it doesn't work at all? Or maybe gill sans, perhaps eurostyle?
Hell most of the vista fonts are some of the utterly best things designed with computers in mind and it shows.[/QUOTE]
Arial, Tahoma and Calibri are the best fonts ever made IMO
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;36066537]It looks fucking revolting.[/QUOTE]
I get that this is down to opinion and all that but finding metro revolting is just mad.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;36067138]Bright, massive, solid colored boxes with white text on them are ugly.
-It's too colorful, I'd prefer my UI to have little saturation, or shades of one color, or at least not as bright and contrasting ones.
-I consider pretty much all UI elements that are big, bright, white, or overly simplified just to look "good" (pretty much the definition of Metro) ugly as hell[/QUOTE]
You're contradicting yourself by saying you like shades of one color but don't like solid colored boxes (tiles?). I assume you're talking about the start screen? As for the bright color usage for Win8 apps: using a consistent bright color helps establish a color-to-app response. The next time I want to check the News, I know to look for the bright orange tile, and look for the blue tile for Internet Explorer.
As for the lack of shades of color: look at the Start screen. My start screen is black, has white text for the "Start" logo, grey for the tile labels, a radial circle background, and has a gradient for the content for each (non Metro) tile. Non-Metro apps have non-bright unique tiles because their icons have already been designed to standout.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;36067138]Enormous lowercase text as a part of the interface, sometimes even as buttons (Zune) looks awful.[/QUOTE]
Enormous lowercase text stands out (you're complaining about it, so it's doing it's job to standout lol). Buttons are never floating (they have squares around them).
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;36067138]Buttons and controls on Metro apps are terrible too, they're not separated from the app in any way, they just "float"[/QUOTE]
Buttons are simply squares with text in them. What you see in that mockup is not buttons (under the title), but labels. You are supposed to scroll left to right. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "floating controls", could you provide some different examples of what you mean by that?
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;36067138]An interface that's as small as possible, so that all information I could possibly ever need fits on one screen.[/QUOTE]
Metro uses animations between pages to display different categories of information, or to sort information. Small text is a problem with those that have low-res screens, or low pixel density screens/devices.
Metro is not designed to display a lot of information at once. The Metro-esque look in Visual Studio is a good example of an application which should not have a Metro design.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;36067138]Preferably lacking any colors, or only very dark ones.[/QUOTE]
Metro in Windows phone has a black background. Color is important, it lets users identify things much faster than reading text.
Keep in mind readability is a really important issue. High-contrast, and high-contrasting colors provide readability. White-on-black or black-on-white are usually the best choices due to each device having different screen brightness and light-level conditions. People who are color-blind must be accounted for too.
[QUOTE=Thunderbolt;36067138]Square or hexagonal buttons/controls/whatever, no circles or overly rounded UI items anywhere.[/QUOTE]
Metro already forbids non-square controls. The only circles there are for the settings popup thing on the bottom when running apps.
Remember: Metro is designed for touch first.
I just hope the way Metro uses fullscreen will be the way all (or most) other apps will use fullscreen, such as games. The way they work with multitasking is just so nice. That's kind of the only thing I like of Metro.
Apparently (according to WinUnleaked) Flash now comes in Windows by default and Metro IE will include Flash.
[IMG]http://i.cubeupload.com/YNOKhZ.png[/IMG]
Well, that's a u-turn if I ever saw one.
Thought microsoft stated harshly that flash was not bundled with metro IE.
HTML5 isn't really atm my cup of tea pretty much because I see more bugs in HTML5 designed apps than flash. May use more memory and shit but what would you prefer?
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;36070068]Thought microsoft stated harshly that flash was not bundled with metro IE.
HTML5 isn't really atm my cup of tea pretty much because I see more bugs in HTML5 designed apps than flash. May use more memory and shit but what would you prefer?[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I love HTML5 when it's done right, but a lot of the time it isn't. And I don't like tablets without Flash. There are still so many things on the internet that do use Flash; it can't just be replaced overnight. HTML5 hasn't even been [i]finalized[/i] yet.
[url]http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/23/3039451/windows-8-adobe-flash-support-internet-explorer-10-metro-browser[/url]
A little more about it.
[QUOTE=Foda;36066337]You'll notice that people that get angry or worried about these features are 99% of the time not developers, and have never worked with the technology in question.[/QUOTE]
This part of your post makes sense regarding what I posted earlier, and I agree.
However, it has nothing to do with this ( your example )
[QUOTE=Foda;36066337]For example, people who hate Metro apps have most likely never programmed a Metro app or programmed anything at all.[/QUOTE]
You don't need to be a programmer to hate the feel of Metro and its apps. You do, however, need to be technically apt if you're going to say something like "I don't like x86 going away though, I like it!!" because otherwise you're just basing your assertion on what's essentially brand loyalty.
[QUOTE=Foda;36066337]Anyone with an iOS device or Android device will happily inform you of how they worry if they will be getting the newest OS version.[/QUOTE]
So does anyone with a Windows Phone. What you're talking about is carrier or device specific. Plus it's not like MS can cut 2/3rd of the staff, they'll just be working on the same project.
[QUOTE=Foda;36066337]MS is also ensuring a base hardware requirement as well. We all know that MS did a pretty good job keeping the requirements for Win8 really low, right?[/QUOTE]
Not really, no. They might be impressive if you compare to Vista, but Windows is a requirements cow compared to most other OSes.
[QUOTE=Foda;36066337]I'm willing to bet that Win9 will have the same requirements as Win8.[/QUOTE]
I'm hoping they aimed at better than that. It'd be pathetic if they didn't.
[QUOTE=Panda X;36069356]Apparently (according to WinUnleaked) Flash now comes in Windows by default and Metro IE will include Flash.[/QUOTE]
Any chance that it can be disabled?
I hope Flash can be disabled. It's really sad to see Flash still in 2012. I've never had any troubles with websites on my iPhone, practically every video is supported, and most popular flash games have been made into apps. But the majority of apps on the app store are better than the flash games anyway
If the replacement for flash (HTML5) is not even done, there is no point on getting rid of it. HTML5 will most likely not be done before 8 goes gold.
[QUOTE=gparent;36071443]Any chance that it can be disabled?[/QUOTE]
While I can't say for sure, I'm betting you can. If not through the control panel you can disable it through IE's settings. Settings are the same across MetroIE and IE.
Is there any proper SDK's to build with HTML5? This is the only reason I don't use HTML5 and prefer flash
[QUOTE=jordguitar;36072522]If the replacement for flash (HTML5) is not even done, there is no point on getting rid of it. HTML5 will most likely not be done before 8 goes gold.[/QUOTE]
Consider the target for HTML5 is (or was) something like 2023, you don't even need to add "Most likely" to that sentence.
Did the metro snap-capable resolution change after the Dev Preview? The tablet PC I want to buy has a resolution of 1280x800, which is less than 1366x768 (the minimum resolution supporting snap), but is shown with snap capabilities in the video below.
[hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW2mpyx2Y10[/hd]
[QUOTE=Jimmy422;36074377]Did the metro snap-capable resolution change after the Dev Preview? The tablet PC I want to buy has a resolution of 1280x800, which is less than 1366x768 (the minimum resolution supporting snap), but is shown with snap capabilities in the video below.
[hd]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AW2mpyx2Y10[/hd][/QUOTE]
Damn these rich faggots, and their expensive fucking touchscreens...
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.