I just can't "get" the problem at all. They just made an abstraction layer to be easier to develop finger friendly applications. What's the problem with that?
The problem you need to get is that this abstraction layer pretty much throws the "code less create more deploy anywhere" mantra out the window.
You end up going from writing one set of UI code that will work on any OS on any platform (naturally, with scaling down for mobile devices, i.e. showing less information and so on) to writing two totally separate UIs.
The problem you need to get is that this abstraction layer pretty much throws the "code less create more deploy anywhere" mantra out the window.
You end up going from writing one set of UI code that will work on any OS on any platform (naturally, with scaling down for mobile devices, i.e. showing less information and so on) to writing two totally separate UIs.
Why the hell I want my finger, small resolution optimized UI running on desktop with high resolution and mouse? That just doesn't make sense.
Different type of use, different UI. You guys must learn user centered design. The user needs on a phone/tablet/mobile are very different from the user needs on a desktop.
Why the hell I want my finger, small resolution optimized UI running on desktop with high resolution and mouse? That just doesn't make sense.
I'm not talking about word processors here. I'm talking about applications (typically) oriented towards phone usage. Smaller games like (to pick a simple example), Solitaire.
Likewise, it goes against everything that Qt developers have been working with for the past X years. This is why you see things like KDE running on the n900.
By the way, why is it so hard to allow finger optimisation & usage of the existing widgets without the need for yet another layer of crap? It's not. Take a look at QML and things like the animation API. Take a look at other posts in this topic.
Simple maths, if I can make a product with Qt and sell it on Symbian, Windows Mobile, and desktop platforms (less important, but hey - there is some market for small time-killing games) and Maemo (with Qt but bastardised with DUI), then I'm going to target Symbian only, because that has the bigger marketshare by far. It's their funeral.
Different type of use, different UI. You guys must learn user centered design. The user needs on a phone/tablet/mobile are very different from the user needs on a desktop.
Focusing on the user doesn't entail throwing out years worth of API design, tools, and knowledge, just because someone has a case of "NIH Syndrome".
I'm not saying that means should be dictated by a lowest common denominator, and that there is absolutely no need for DUI simply because it doesn't exist - but as far as I can tell from what I've read up on it, there isn't any need for it because QtAnimation and QML and other similar technologies are already working towards the goals it seems to want to achieve, in a more agnostic, abstract fashion.
I'm all for new toys going into Qt as a result of Qt working with the Maemo and Symbian teams, I just really hope that it's going to happen in a rigorously controlled fashion so that Qt as a product doesn't disintegrate into a ball of horrible mess instead of the (fairly sane) controlled offering it has been in the past.
Hoho, now I'm reading a big piece of BS. Sorry but now I just can't take you seriously anymore.
I just can't take for serious a developer that doesn't cares about the user.
Thanks. I'll take your dose of ad hominem and raise you a straw man.
If you're seriously saying that things like DUI, which duplicates existing work, doesn't make you worry about platform fragmentation then I'd have to wonder how on earth I can take you seriously as a developer, regardless of how much you proclaim to care for the user.
Thanks. I'll take your dose of ad hominem and raise you a straw man.
If you're seriously saying that things like DUI, which duplicates existing work, doesn't make you worry about platform fragmentation then I'd have to wonder how on earth I can take you seriously as a developer, regardless of how much you proclaim to care for the user.
You can think whatever you want. In my opinion, and you can find several examples illustrating that, a software that doesn't attend the user needs is irrelevant, no matter how well engineered it is.
Of course I'm not saying things shouldn't be bad engineered, don't misuse my words, and again, I still doesn't see how an abstraction layer can be so harmful. KDE uses one the same way and there's no one pointing fingers at them.
