WindowBlinds 4 features
Sunday, November 17, 2002 by Frogboy | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
One of the debates we regularly have with regard to WindowBlinds is a classic argument:
Are we better off throwing in more features into the base product or breaking out new features into new programs?
Here's a good example: We can change IE toolbar icons and the throbber. You can do that with WebBlinds. But few people seem to use WebBlinds even though you could just use it to change the toolbar buttons and nothing else (with minimal system impact).
I tend to come from the school of thought of having more programs that do fewer things each to keep each one as small and tight as possible.
But that also opens up the door for the guy who says "Well, my program does X, Y, and Z in a single program."
So with WindowBlinds 4, we have ideas such as having the ability to skin the toolbar icons in IE and explorer and changing error messages and progress dialog animations and all sorts of pieces of Windows that many people take for granted as being unchangable.
But would we be better off breaking that sort of thing off into a seperate program (part of Object Desktop still of course) that does that and let WindowBlinds call that program to do its thing rather than have it integrated into WindowBlinds itself?
I could go either way on this. We really want to see toolbar icon changing in Windows become much more popular than it already has. That's the larger goal here.
Which path would you suggest?
Are we better off throwing in more features into the base product or breaking out new features into new programs?
Here's a good example: We can change IE toolbar icons and the throbber. You can do that with WebBlinds. But few people seem to use WebBlinds even though you could just use it to change the toolbar buttons and nothing else (with minimal system impact).
I tend to come from the school of thought of having more programs that do fewer things each to keep each one as small and tight as possible.
But that also opens up the door for the guy who says "Well, my program does X, Y, and Z in a single program."
So with WindowBlinds 4, we have ideas such as having the ability to skin the toolbar icons in IE and explorer and changing error messages and progress dialog animations and all sorts of pieces of Windows that many people take for granted as being unchangable.
But would we be better off breaking that sort of thing off into a seperate program (part of Object Desktop still of course) that does that and let WindowBlinds call that program to do its thing rather than have it integrated into WindowBlinds itself?
I could go either way on this. We really want to see toolbar icon changing in Windows become much more popular than it already has. That's the larger goal here.
Which path would you suggest?
 |
|
Page 1 of 5 | |
|
|---|
davad70
Reply #2 Sunday, November 17, 2002 2:49 PM
Reply #2 Sunday, November 17, 2002 2:49 PM
Personally, I think a seperate app would be better. There is already so many things to skin in WB, it's getting to be more and more of a chore to make a complete skin.
dan.wright
Reply #3 Sunday, November 17, 2002 2:53 PM
Reply #3 Sunday, November 17, 2002 2:53 PM
Listen to Koasati and davad70, from a users perspective (mine), I'd say bundle it all in one, but I also really love complete skins (i.e., current ones using *all* 3.4 features). So, if it will diminish the number of skins by being an all-in-one app, then please, make it a separate app.
JamMeister33
Reply #4 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:03 PM
Reply #4 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:03 PM
Hmmmmmm, decisions, decisions... I think I'd like to see it incorporated into Windowblinds. 
WOM
Reply #5 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:06 PM
Reply #5 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:06 PM
I vote all in one, But I'am not a skinner, just a user.
bakerstreet
Reply #6 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:27 PM
Reply #6 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:27 PM
There's always a third choice, i.e. loading the functionality in the form of modules. They could be all included in the original install, and people could select the ones they want in the preferences. If they don't load, they don't waste resources, but they are there when you want them.
Isn't the throbber in the Explorer file manager the same as the throbber in IE? If so, that wouldn't be a bad thing to tack on.
Isn't the throbber in the Explorer file manager the same as the throbber in IE? If so, that wouldn't be a bad thing to tack on.
treetog
Reply #7 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:43 PM
Reply #7 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:43 PM
I agree with Koasaty, windowblinds allready have tons of things to be skinned and adding more things to it will just intimidate new and veteran skinners.
Other then that, sometime ago I made a thread here askiing about a wishing list for windowblinds. Many skinners added dozens of cool suggestions to be implemmented, I really hope the Windowblinds development team took that in considerations, since we are the ones who makes the skins for the applications.
Other then that, sometime ago I made a thread here askiing about a wishing list for windowblinds. Many skinners added dozens of cool suggestions to be implemmented, I really hope the Windowblinds development team took that in considerations, since we are the ones who makes the skins for the applications.
Frogboy
Reply #8 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:55 PM
Reply #8 Sunday, November 17, 2002 3:55 PM
Anyone have a link to that discussion? I'd like to print that out and go over it again.
Ande
Reply #9 Sunday, November 17, 2002 4:44 PM
Reply #9 Sunday, November 17, 2002 4:44 PM
I would like all in one, however you have to think of the marketing aspect as well - an extra application can be sold separately.
Lecrayon
Reply #10 Sunday, November 17, 2002 4:51 PM
Reply #10 Sunday, November 17, 2002 4:51 PM
The less complicated a program is, the less errors will occur...I'd say keep the WB as basic as possible and let it call different programs with an option to exclude
messybuu
Reply #11 Sunday, November 17, 2002 4:56 PM
Reply #11 Sunday, November 17, 2002 4:56 PM
Well, I think that it would be best to have it all done by one program, at least anything that is considered skinning anyway. After all, it might intimidate people at first, but I believe that in time, it will be as second-nature as the other parts of a skin, including the Windows XP features that were recently added. I also think that having toolbar icons (assuming that they aren't actual icons, which would make it perfect for IconPackager if they were) included in WindowBlinds would have it skinned by more people.
Mercury
Reply #12 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:25 PM
Reply #12 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:25 PM
Personally, I'd like to see all the features incorporated in WB. I liked the idea of WebBlinds but could never get myself to actually fire it up and dig through it. When new features are added to WB I don't have to look at it as a whole new program to learn, just more stuff to manipulate in WB. As far as skinning goes, I'm pretty much one track. I dabbled a little in LiteStep and a few others but they couldn't hold my interest like WB has.
Sure, all that WB can skin now can be a bit overwhelming but that can be overcome fairly easily. For example, the skin I'm working on now. It started life 2 days ago as just a window frame. I stirred in a bunch of bits from my other skins then started changing everything to get the look I wanted. All of the really difficult work had already been done since I started with bits from working skins and it was just a matter of changing the graphics to fit the image in my head. This, I believe, was the whole concept behind the template skin - no need to start from a blank sheet every time.
WB works great for me, it does just about everything I could want or need it to and is extremely stable. Neil and Co. have done a terrific job so far, I say pour it on!
Sure, all that WB can skin now can be a bit overwhelming but that can be overcome fairly easily. For example, the skin I'm working on now. It started life 2 days ago as just a window frame. I stirred in a bunch of bits from my other skins then started changing everything to get the look I wanted. All of the really difficult work had already been done since I started with bits from working skins and it was just a matter of changing the graphics to fit the image in my head. This, I believe, was the whole concept behind the template skin - no need to start from a blank sheet every time.
WB works great for me, it does just about everything I could want or need it to and is extremely stable. Neil and Co. have done a terrific job so far, I say pour it on!
Frogboy
Reply #13 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:27 PM
Reply #13 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:27 PM
My concern is that skinning is becomes too complicated.
In terms of R&D budget, much of our development $$$ is going towards finding ways to make skinning simple and easy again.
I would like to see a meta format created that would let people create fully featured skins with as little effort as possible. While at the same time allowing experienced skinners to have much finer control over skins with a lot less frustration.
SkinStudio would then be able to use the metaformat to generate the whole skin. If, for instance, I didn't have time to do the Start bar, SkinStudio would have the ability to create a basic XP Start bar.
I'd also like to find a way to create collaborative skins. Where skin authors could define whether their skin would accept third party collaboration help. Then users could upload linked skin updates to those skins.
For instance, I don't like making scrollbars. I hate it. I almost always use a SkinStudio widget for my scrollbars when I'm making a new skin. If we could make it a lot easier for multiple skin authors to work together I think this would bring a lot of new skinners in.
That's why I am worried about adding features like skinning toolbars (changing the icons and such) and would rather see that be in a seperate simple program.
In terms of R&D budget, much of our development $$$ is going towards finding ways to make skinning simple and easy again.
I would like to see a meta format created that would let people create fully featured skins with as little effort as possible. While at the same time allowing experienced skinners to have much finer control over skins with a lot less frustration.
SkinStudio would then be able to use the metaformat to generate the whole skin. If, for instance, I didn't have time to do the Start bar, SkinStudio would have the ability to create a basic XP Start bar.
I'd also like to find a way to create collaborative skins. Where skin authors could define whether their skin would accept third party collaboration help. Then users could upload linked skin updates to those skins.
For instance, I don't like making scrollbars. I hate it. I almost always use a SkinStudio widget for my scrollbars when I'm making a new skin. If we could make it a lot easier for multiple skin authors to work together I think this would bring a lot of new skinners in.
That's why I am worried about adding features like skinning toolbars (changing the icons and such) and would rather see that be in a seperate simple program.
adni18
Reply #15 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:44 PM
Reply #15 Sunday, November 17, 2002 6:44 PM
Separate program means a new kind of WebBlinds utility. No success...
Keep it in one with the new features included, maybe separately, maybe something like UIS1 it may be a good idea, the users will love it and the skinners will skin it ONLY IF the like to, like UIS1.
Keep it in one with the new features included, maybe separately, maybe something like UIS1 it may be a good idea, the users will love it and the skinners will skin it ONLY IF the like to, like UIS1.
Frogboy
Reply #16 Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:15 PM
Reply #16 Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:15 PM
The problem with WebBlinds is that people felt it came with too much.
A simple utility that just changes toolbar icons and nothing more wouldn't suffer from what webblinds has suffered. I don't run WebBlinds because of all the overhead.
A simple utility that just changes toolbar icons and nothing more wouldn't suffer from what webblinds has suffered. I don't run WebBlinds because of all the overhead.
Jafo
Reply #17 Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:18 PM
Reply #17 Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:18 PM
There is a heck of a lot to be said for the 'KISS principle'.
To attract more new skinners to the 'game' 'KISSing' is of paramount importance.....
To attract more new skinners to the 'game' 'KISSing' is of paramount importance.....
kith
Reply #18 Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:20 PM
Reply #18 Sunday, November 17, 2002 10:20 PM
My opinion would be to add the functionality to WindowBlinds. A seperate app I fear would end up being another dead horse just like WebBlinds. Every version of WB I can remember has added some form of extra skinning functionality. However authors can use as little or as much of it as they wish. Same with users, funcitonality can be controlled from within the configuration menus. Keep in mind as well that as a seperate app it would probably only be available to OD users. That leaves out all the standalone WB customers. Let's not kid ourselves here, Windowblinds is the Flagship application. What it does sets the standard.
JamMeister33
Reply #20 Sunday, November 17, 2002 11:09 PM
Reply #20 Sunday, November 17, 2002 11:09 PM
My feeling personally is that I like to set and control and configure as many things as possible from opening "one" application. Am I abnormal in this? I don't think so...
Please login to comment and/or vote for this skin.
Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
- Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums and downloading skins.
- Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
- Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
- It's simple, and FREE!
|
|
Page 1 of 5 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Sunday, November 17, 2002 2:48 PM