While I'm sure that is the intent, no, Qt doesn't look 100% native. It looks MOSTLY right, but it is still off. Things like the buttons looking slightly different, randomly using bold for button text, still using GTK 2 (just nitpicking there, I'm sure that's being worked on).
And that's partly the point: yes, they work, but we have a sort of uncanny valley situation arising with Ubuntu except the definition of what is "human" for Ubuntu is nowhere to be found. On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:24 AM, Chris Wilson <afrowi...@gmail.com> wrote: > An app that is written in Qt does not automatically have a particular > visual theme. Instead, Qt inherits the theme of whatever platform it's > compiled on. When I compile my Qt code on Ubuntu, it always looks like a > native GTK+ based app. I've not done it yet on Windows or Mac OS, but if I > were to compile it on either of them, it would look as native as those apps > produced by Microsoft and Apple. The problem I've seen with Qt-based apps > from the USC is that they're compiled on another platform, and the binary > is packaged for Ubuntu. > > An intelligent toolkit used by a competent developer can easily be used to > produce apps that look native, and we shouldn't be excluding technoligies > because of the way some people use them. We should instead be educating > people about how they can theme their apps appropriately. > > If professional developers decide they want to target their app at Ubuntu, > they're going to go to developer.ubuntu.com, because they're already > trained to go to developer.microsoft.com and developer.apple.com to learn > about how to develop for those particular platforms. If we can direct them > to documentation on how to effectively theme their app for Ubuntu, then > visual consistency shouldn't be a problem. > > > On 25 February 2012 16:37, Mark Curtis <merkin...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> Why does Ubuntu have a redundant title bar when the Windows and OSX >> versions do not? >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: estela...@hotmail.com >> To: nru...@hotmail.com; merkin...@hotmail.com; >> unity-design@lists.launchpad.net >> Subject: RE: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future >> Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 00:32:46 +0000 >> >> The firefox appearance problem will be no more: >> >> http://www.webupd8.org/2012/02/firefox-to-get-new-default-theme-other.html >> >> >> the differences will be minimum and the ubuntu version on the pic looks >> very slick to me (much better than now) and nothing to really envy the >> appearances from the other OSs. But you never know if some of the ubuntu >> devs decide to start changing the appearance and make it look weird/uglier >> again... >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: nru...@hotmail.com >> To: merkin...@hotmail.com; unity-design@lists.launchpad.net >> Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:59:35 -0500 >> Subject: Re: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future >> >> I think the community (at a minimum) needs to ask Mozilla and TDF to >> change toolkits for their Linux offerings. Frankly, Firefox's >> appearance/presentation on Linux is rather pathetic. Just take a look at >> the forums and lots of folks are posting pictures of Firefox on Windows and >> commenting about how nice it looks while bemoaning the appearance of >> Firefox on Ubuntu. >> >> Chrome on the other hand looks good on Linux. Here's an article I found >> about why Chrome went with GTK+: >> http://www.osnews.com/story/20980/Linux_Version_of_Chrome_To_Use_Gtk_ >> >> Basically, Chrome went with GTK+ because it would mean a better Linux >> product. I have looked at a LOT of performance reviews comparing Firefox >> and Chrome web browsers. Chrome routinely performs better on Linux than >> Firefox. And Firefox routinely performs better on Windows. Granted, this >> probably isn't due solely to the toolkit. But I think it plays a role while >> also reflecting on the commitment to Linux in the design of the product. >> >> Opening Ubuntu up to Qt I think was good move. It's a widely used toolkit >> and encouraging app makers to support Ubuntu is important, even at the >> expense of "seamless appearance." Perhaps in time the integration of Qt >> won't look so "foreign"? >> >> I think the "toolkit problem" has a solution though and it lies more in >> getting companies like Mozilla to not be so Windows-centric in their >> product design and creation. After-all they are gung-ho about open-source >> and freedom right? Why don't they do more to advance their Linux version of >> Firefox and Thunderbird? I don't think it's too much to ask. >> >> LibreOffice definitely needs to change toolkits for Linux. Now that OOo >> is basically no more and LibreOffice is "free" it should embrace Linux and >> make it's product shine. Changing toolkits I think would go a long way >> towards accomplishing that. >> >> So I think the solution lies in third-party companies using toolkits that >> are appropriate for their Linux offering, which presently they are not >> doing. >> >> ------------------------------ >> From: merkin...@hotmail.com >> To: unity-design@lists.launchpad.net >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 09:22:40 -0500 >> Subject: Re: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future >> >> While I like this idea, it'll probably get a lot of flak from the "LINUX >> IS FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!11" crowd. >> >> Are we supposed to tell The Document Foundation/Mozilla/etc "hey you want >> to make an Ubuntu version? Make it in {insert toolkit}?" I understand >> applications Canonical itself builds should be in the same toolkit, sure, >> but I don't know how successful it would be forcing/encouraging that for >> 3rd party applications. Given this is Linux most of the popular >> applications are third party contrary to Windows and OSX >> >> Compared to the other two operating systems and their applications >> *Microsoft *Windows: >> Control Panel, made by *Microsoft*. >> Windows Media Player, made by *Microsoft* >> Internet Explorer, made by *Microsoft*. >> Office, made by *Microsoft* >> >> *Apple* OS X: >> System Settings, made by *Apple* >> iTunes, made by *Apple* >> Safari, made by *Apple >> *iWork, made by* Apple >> * >> *Canoncial* Ubuntu >> Control Panel, made by *GNOME* (*Canonical*?) >> Rhythmbox, made by *GNOME* >> Firefox, made by *Mozilla* >> LibreOffice made by *The Document Foundation* >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2012 05:40:27 -0500 >> From: shrouded.cl...@gmail.com >> To: unity-design@lists.launchpad.net >> Subject: [Unity-design] Ubuntu, Toolkits, Precision, and the Future >> >> I was greeted by a small surprise today in updating my Precise machines: >> a new version of Ubuntu One controls that is made using Qt. All well >> enough, as it can make it much easier to share code with the Windows >> version of the app... But there are still some consequences. >> >> First of all, this brings the number of default toolkits up to *five*. >> We have Nux (for Unity), VCL (for LibreOffice), XUL (For Firefox and >> Thunderbird), Qt (for the new control panel), and GTK+ for all else. And no >> two of them look quite the same. What's worse is that, if we sync back up >> with GNOME in 12.10, we'll have six toolkits technically because of >> Clutter.* >> >> Now, this goes against what I thought Precise is to be about, but that's >> personal. >> >> The real issue is our outward appearance. Does it look good to users when >> they open a Qt app and it's JUST off enough visually for them to notice? >> >> Not only do we face the issue of visual inconsistency, but also in a bit >> of a bind with future aims. We want developers to create and they still >> don't know what they should use to make things based on what's available. >> Is all of it good? None? I know we don't exactly have a plethora of quality >> applications in a single toolkit, but for an LTS, was it really wise to >> expand the toolkit count further? >> >> We're doing what I accused Linux Mint of doing in my OMGU article: we >> keep pulling in a bunch of apps because they are good without looking at >> the whole picture. We need a consistent *platform* not a station from >> which we have tracks going off into several very different areas. >> >> I would have us look into, by the time 14.04 rolls out, having defined an >> HIG for Ubuntu, a default toolkit and a STRONG push to have default >> applications only in that toolkit. (In some cases, it's excusable... I >> don't expect a native browser to pop up out of nowhere and be able to >> challenge Firefox-- which at least sort of tries to look native) Precise is >> pixel-perfect? Then let's make sure "T" celebrates the True Toolkit. >> >> >> *I'm not counting Ubuntu for Android which, I believe brings in another >> 1-2 toolkits. >> >> -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : >> unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : >> https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : >> unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : >> https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : >> unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : >> https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : >> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design >> Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design > Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~unity-design Post to : unity-design@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~unity-design More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
