Future trends in skins
Wednesday, February 18, 2004 by Sput | Discussion: WinCustomize Talk
It strikes me that as screen resolutions increase we are faced with a choice.
a) design things at the same size (in pixels) and hence have everything get smaller and smaller as resolution increases
design things bigger (within reason!) so that they can take advantage of increase detail whilst staying approximately the same final size to the user.
At present, it seems that most people (me included) are happy to luxuriate in the increased desktop realestate liberated by ever shrinking icons/window borders etc...BUT, what about when screens become 4000x3000 pixels?
Current skin/icon designs at that resolution on even a 19" screen (assuming that to be common in the future) would render even a 128x128 pixel icon at less than 1/2 an inch (1.23cm) across - and more worryingly, a 4 pixel window frame border at just 0.4 mm!
There will undoubtedly be changes to the way the GUI works in that time (Longhorn developments regarding use of Direct3D and emphasis of vector based interface designs noted), but is there milage in designing skins that will take advantage of these developments?
It would mean windows that are incredibly "chunky" looking on a current display @ 1024x768, or even 1400x1050 - but these designs will look great as technology catches up
Whatcha think?
a) design things at the same size (in pixels) and hence have everything get smaller and smaller as resolution increases
design things bigger (within reason!) so that they can take advantage of increase detail whilst staying approximately the same final size to the user.At present, it seems that most people (me included) are happy to luxuriate in the increased desktop realestate liberated by ever shrinking icons/window borders etc...BUT, what about when screens become 4000x3000 pixels?
Current skin/icon designs at that resolution on even a 19" screen (assuming that to be common in the future) would render even a 128x128 pixel icon at less than 1/2 an inch (1.23cm) across - and more worryingly, a 4 pixel window frame border at just 0.4 mm!
There will undoubtedly be changes to the way the GUI works in that time (Longhorn developments regarding use of Direct3D and emphasis of vector based interface designs noted), but is there milage in designing skins that will take advantage of these developments?
It would mean windows that are incredibly "chunky" looking on a current display @ 1024x768, or even 1400x1050 - but these designs will look great as technology catches up
Whatcha think?
 |
|
Page 1 of 2 | |
|
|---|
Sput
Reply #3 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:06 PM
...and growing I would lay money on.
(but seriously)
If I had any money, I'd be looking for shares in companies like StarDock...Everything these days tends to be "skinable": Mobile phones, portable CD players - even some cars and some shoes.
I see it as an extention of the industrial revolution (with the emphasis on revolution)...things before industialisation tended to be bespoke (even if lots were made). Industrialisation and factories brought about the famous "any colour as long as it's black" idea. Now, people are able to express individuality within mass produced goods through customisation being designed into them, and it seems that people like that - enough to pay for it too. Look at how much people will pay for a little bit of extruded plastic to clip on the front of a mobile phone? As computers become ubiquitous in the home as the center of an integrated entertainment system, you can bet that Mr.Gadget will want his fancy system to look better/different to his mate, Mr.GotOneToo
Reply #3 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:06 PM
...and growing I would lay money on.
(but seriously)
If I had any money, I'd be looking for shares in companies like StarDock...Everything these days tends to be "skinable": Mobile phones, portable CD players - even some cars and some shoes.
I see it as an extention of the industrial revolution (with the emphasis on revolution)...things before industialisation tended to be bespoke (even if lots were made). Industrialisation and factories brought about the famous "any colour as long as it's black" idea. Now, people are able to express individuality within mass produced goods through customisation being designed into them, and it seems that people like that - enough to pay for it too. Look at how much people will pay for a little bit of extruded plastic to clip on the front of a mobile phone? As computers become ubiquitous in the home as the center of an integrated entertainment system, you can bet that Mr.Gadget will want his fancy system to look better/different to his mate, Mr.GotOneToo
Sput
Reply #4 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:06 PM
Reply #4 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:06 PM
svg - very true...I wonder when WindowBlinds will support importing that format directly?
kongit
Reply #5 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:09 PM
Reply #5 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:09 PM
whenever computers get fast enough, and the range of screensizes gets large enough to require it.
DavidK
Reply #6 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:11 PM
Reply #6 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:11 PM
Are there any skinning formats that actually use svg now? and does svg have any advantage over flash, which does basically the same thing?
DavidK
Reply #7 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:13 PM
Reply #7 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:13 PM
btw Sput - this is a great question and should be good for a lot of intelligent discussion... (now that I have to go somewhere )
)
craeonics
Reply #8 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:30 PM
Reply #8 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:30 PM
As long as we are stuck with 72dpi interfaces, this is a moot point. If your resolution increases (and I mean the dpi ratio) skins will get bigger and stay the same at the same time (get it?).
At any rate, vector based skins should be more fun, primarily because of its flexible scaling and rotation and stuff.
At any rate, vector based skins should be more fun, primarily because of its flexible scaling and rotation and stuff.
moshi
Reply #9 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:35 PM
a, yes. Metacity, GTK+ and icons (all *NIX stuff, GTK+ is ported to Windows though). there are probably a few more, but these are the main ones.
b, SVG is a completely open format.
Reply #9 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:35 PM
| #6 by DavidK - 2/18/2004 2:11:44 PM Are there any skinning formats that actually use svg now? and does svg have any advantage over flash, which does basically the same thing? |
a, yes. Metacity, GTK+ and icons (all *NIX stuff, GTK+ is ported to Windows though). there are probably a few more, but these are the main ones.
b, SVG is a completely open format.
BoXXi
Reply #10 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:41 PM
Reply #10 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:41 PM
| ...BUT, what about when screens become 4000x3000 pixels? |
HeHe...at least my skins will fit on the screen then.......
Sput
Reply #11 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:43 PM
Reply #11 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:43 PM
craeonics - but we're not stuck at 72dpi. Most displays now will operate at at least 96dpi and usually higher.
For example, lots of 15" laptop screens we've dealt with recently are running at 1600x1200, which means a dpi of...er..(quick bit of pythagorus again)...12" horizontally with 1600 pixels, is 133.33 dpi. And I can assure you that everything is TINY on those. Standard 32x32 icons become just 1/4" across (approx - or 6mm)...If you don't believe me I'll have to have someone bring one in and take a digi-photo of a ruler held up against the screen
I certainly can't wait to see vector based GUI's start....oh wait a moment, I already have It was called a NeXt Cube and we had one in the research lab when I was at Uni back in 1989! So, Microsoft are only 15 years behind the state of the art already
For example, lots of 15" laptop screens we've dealt with recently are running at 1600x1200, which means a dpi of...er..(quick bit of pythagorus again)...12" horizontally with 1600 pixels, is 133.33 dpi. And I can assure you that everything is TINY on those. Standard 32x32 icons become just 1/4" across (approx - or 6mm)...If you don't believe me I'll have to have someone bring one in and take a digi-photo of a ruler held up against the screen
I certainly can't wait to see vector based GUI's start....oh wait a moment, I already have
It was called a NeXt Cube and we had one in the research lab when I was at Uni back in 1989! So, Microsoft are only 15 years behind the state of the art already
Sput
Reply #12 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:50 PM
Reply #12 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:50 PM
BoXXi - just what I was thinking about my own virtual skins, which prompted me to ask the question.
just what I was thinking about my own virtual skins, which prompted me to ask the question.
Sput
Reply #13 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:55 PM
Reply #13 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 2:55 PM
Hey - I just realised that I wrote my first "skinable" application back then too - under X windows you can choose different window manager apps to change the appearance depending on your preferences...does anyone know an earlier computing example of things being "skinable"??
(sorry - going off at a tangent now!)
(sorry - going off at a tangent now!)
Stumpy
Reply #14 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:19 PM
Reply #14 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:19 PM
What about those that cannot afford to keep up with the latest ??
kongit
Reply #15 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:42 PM
Reply #15 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:42 PM
hah I forgot about metacity and xwindows...and I am using them right now!
craeonics
Reply #16 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:42 PM
Reply #16 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:42 PM
Yeah, but, I wasn't talking about hardware resolutions, but software resolution. Windows will be drawn at 72 dpi no matter what res your hardware has.
Perhaps "dpi" isn't the right term for this. What I mean is that an icon will be drawn as (say) 48 pixels, regardless and independent of what your hardware res is. This is because the GUI is bitmap based.
So if you want to get that in sync with your hardware res, you'd either need multiple versions of each icon, scale things up or use vectors.
Alright, someone code me a vecotr based GUI! *drool*
Perhaps "dpi" isn't the right term for this. What I mean is that an icon will be drawn as (say) 48 pixels, regardless and independent of what your hardware res is. This is because the GUI is bitmap based.
So if you want to get that in sync with your hardware res, you'd either need multiple versions of each icon, scale things up or use vectors.
Alright, someone code me a vecotr based GUI! *drool*
craeonics
Reply #17 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:50 PM
Reply #17 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:50 PM
Ahum, I appear to have completely re-iterated the first post.
At first, vectors would seem to be the ultimate solution. For scaling upwards that is. Scaling downwards is a different beast altogether. With vectors, you'd run the risk of critical details being blurred out when you get too small, so in that case bitmaps would be better.
At first, vectors would seem to be the ultimate solution. For scaling upwards that is. Scaling downwards is a different beast altogether. With vectors, you'd run the risk of critical details being blurred out when you get too small, so in that case bitmaps would be better.
Sput
Reply #18 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:54 PM
Reply #18 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:54 PM
craeonics - an icon with 48 pixels will be drawn with 48 pixels - you're right - but the higher the resolution of the screen, the smaller each pixels will be
I'm not sure why you think that Windows can somehow scale icons to keep things the same size regardless of screen resolution. This just isn't the case at all.
Try switching your screen res down to 640x480 to see what I mean
Increased resolution on the screen means smaller "things" in Windows. The only (?) bit of Windows which can/does scale things to different sizes depending on resolution (if you ask it to) is the system fonts. Other than that, things are rendered on screen with the number of pixels they were created with, not the size they were created at.
I'm not sure why you think that Windows can somehow scale icons to keep things the same size regardless of screen resolution. This just isn't the case at all.
Try switching your screen res down to 640x480 to see what I mean
Increased resolution on the screen means smaller "things" in Windows. The only (?) bit of Windows which can/does scale things to different sizes depending on resolution (if you ask it to) is the system fonts. Other than that, things are rendered on screen with the number of pixels they were created with, not the size they were created at.
Sput
Reply #19 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:56 PM
Reply #19 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:56 PM
craeonics - the problem of scaling vector images to small sizes is a valid one - something that fonts address by using hinting as well as the basic vector data...they use other methods too, but hinting is the one I like
I can't imagine how hinting data would work with svg images though, so you're right - a fall back bitmap version of any interface would probably be needed....or, you just don't let people make things too small in the first place
I can't imagine how hinting data would work with svg images though, so you're right - a fall back bitmap version of any interface would probably be needed....or, you just don't let people make things too small in the first place
craeonics
Reply #20 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:57 PM
Reply #20 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 3:57 PM
Umm, yeah that's exactly my point.
When I talk about scaling, it's on the topic of "the future of skinning", if a GUI used that does allow scaling.
When I talk about scaling, it's on the topic of "the future of skinning", if a GUI used that does allow scaling.
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 2 | |
|
|---|
Reply #1 Wednesday, February 18, 2004 1:54 PM
skinning has a future?