26-Apr-2024 08:23 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Web] Exclusive Online! A New Queens Bits Article!ANN.lu
Posted on 10-Aug-2004 05:10 GMT by Lou Vidal56 comments
View flat
View list
Campaigning for the updating of the Workbench look, a new Queens Bits article traces the look of the Amiga interface from 1.3 to now. Profusely illustrated. The official newsletter of the Queens Amiga Users Group ceased regular publication in the summer of '99 and there have been precious few articles published in the interim. Advocating a more up-to-date, professional-looking Workbench (along with accompanying OS4 applications), club president and former Queens Bits editor, Lou Vidal, has penned an appeal for a new look in the Amiga interface that can proudly hold its own against all the other OSs out there. Check it out on the QAUG website. Examples illustrating the development of Workbench from 1.3 to the future abound. Also make plans to see the ongoing demos of OS4, various machines, and sundry gadgets & goodies at our August meeting this Saturday, the 14th, starting at 11:30 am. Be there!
List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Anon10-Aug-2004 04:15 GMT
Comment 2Anonymous10-Aug-2004 04:33 GMT
Comment 3cheesegrate10-Aug-2004 05:07 GMT
Comment 4cheesegrate10-Aug-2004 05:08 GMT
Comment 5Don CoxRegistered user10-Aug-2004 06:15 GMT
Exclusive Online! A New Queens Bits Article! : Comment 6 of 56ANN.lu
Posted by Don Cox on 10-Aug-2004 06:41 GMT
In reply to Comment 5 (Don Cox):
An example of how not to do it is LouOS4_WB_2.jpg (in the article).

This shows a window containing a dozen icons that are almost identical. So you end up having to read the name underneath. In that case, why have a picture? Leave out the pictures and the text could be bigger.

I have about 50 icons in the dock, all different shapes and sizes. Most of them do stand out clearly so I can go straight to them. But they are not a uniform set.

Another major fault in this example is the heavy background in the Dock, which makes the icons hard to see.

The area on the screen that you can click on to produce a desired result is always a rectangle. IMO icons should match the clickable area. If you make the image smaller than the clickable area, and of an irregular shape, you are making the user's task needlessly difficult.

One thing to remember is that when using an Amiga, you do not spend much time in the Workbench program. It is not like the Windows desktop, which acts as the computer's only public screen. Most of the time on an Amiga, you are using an application program, not Workbench.

However, it may be that if Amigas ever get into retail shops, some kind of pretty display is needed to attract consumers.

I was surprised at the author's negative comment about Bars and Pipes, which he admitted to not having a copy of. This actually has a very good functional interface for what is a dificult and complex task. Certainly Alfred's update which allows you to use a high resolution screen is better than the original 640x256 version, but that is true of any program.

BarsnPipes is much easier to use than Reason, in my experience. Reason is the extreme example of the habit of using a picture of a control panel instead of a control panel. It looks great in screen grabs, but is an ergonomic disaster.
Jump...
TopPrevious commentNext commentbottom
List of all comments to this article (continued)
Comment 7Emeric SH10-Aug-2004 07:32 GMT
Comment 8Anonymous10-Aug-2004 07:42 GMT
Comment 9Hans-Joerg Frieden10-Aug-2004 08:00 GMT
Comment 10Emeric SH10-Aug-2004 08:24 GMT
Comment 11Emeric SH10-Aug-2004 08:29 GMT
Comment 12Anonymous10-Aug-2004 08:31 GMT
Comment 13Anonymous10-Aug-2004 08:36 GMT
Comment 14Emeric SH10-Aug-2004 08:39 GMT
Comment 15Anonymous10-Aug-2004 08:39 GMT
Comment 16Anonymous10-Aug-2004 08:42 GMT
Comment 17Anonymous10-Aug-2004 08:42 GMT
Comment 18Emeric SH10-Aug-2004 08:46 GMT
Comment 19Gareth Knight10-Aug-2004 09:16 GMT
Comment 20Don CoxRegistered user10-Aug-2004 09:23 GMT
Comment 21Emeric SH10-Aug-2004 09:29 GMT
Comment 22Sammy Nordström10-Aug-2004 09:50 GMT
Comment 23itix10-Aug-2004 09:56 GMT
Comment 24Emeric SH10-Aug-2004 10:00 GMT
Comment 25itix10-Aug-2004 10:02 GMT
Comment 26Don CoxRegistered user10-Aug-2004 11:11 GMT
Comment 27Don CoxRegistered user10-Aug-2004 11:18 GMT
Comment 28Gareth Knight10-Aug-2004 11:21 GMT
Comment 29pixie10-Aug-2004 11:29 GMT
Comment 30pixie10-Aug-2004 11:31 GMT
Comment 31pixie10-Aug-2004 11:36 GMT
Comment 32Sammy Nordström10-Aug-2004 11:43 GMT
Comment 33AF10-Aug-2004 11:48 GMT
Comment 34Emeric SH10-Aug-2004 11:59 GMT
Comment 35Don CoxRegistered user10-Aug-2004 12:00 GMT
Comment 36Emeric SH10-Aug-2004 12:18 GMT
Comment 37Sammy Nordström10-Aug-2004 12:24 GMT
Comment 38Emeric SH10-Aug-2004 12:42 GMT
Comment 39Sammy Nordström10-Aug-2004 13:01 GMT
Comment 40Lando10-Aug-2004 13:20 GMT
Comment 41Sammy Nordström10-Aug-2004 14:09 GMT
Comment 42Amon_ReRegistered user10-Aug-2004 15:42 GMT
Comment 43Bill Toner10-Aug-2004 15:50 GMT
Comment 44sutro10-Aug-2004 21:37 GMT
Comment 45Anonymous10-Aug-2004 21:39 GMT
Comment 46G Dawg110-Aug-2004 21:44 GMT
Comment 47Olegil11-Aug-2004 04:38 GMT
Comment 48Don CoxRegistered user11-Aug-2004 07:14 GMT
Comment 49Anonymous11-Aug-2004 23:25 GMT
Comment 50itix12-Aug-2004 00:06 GMT
Comment 51itix12-Aug-2004 08:33 GMT
Comment 52Frank21312-Aug-2004 11:57 GMT
Comment 53bobbie sellers12-Aug-2004 21:21 GMT
Comment 54Anonymous12-Aug-2004 22:13 GMT
Comment 55Don CoxRegistered user13-Aug-2004 17:08 GMT
Comment 56pixie15-Aug-2004 18:40 GMT
Back to Top