Notices

I just did a google for this and didn't really come up with anything. Mind sharing what some of the bling is and how it works with the purpose of the application to get the job done for the user in easy clear manner?

Feel free to submit these ideas for Gonvert in its bug tracker. I can't say I have the time to implement them all but we'll see.

You see this is one of the nice things about open development, we can have our cake and eat it. App design really fits into two main camps (stop me if I am wrong).

1) I see maemo (QT, GTK, etc) framework style apps that conform to the maemo style guidlines. Impose a uniformed look and feel so that everyone can use the apps.

2) Graphic apps that are freeformed, allowing UI's that arent possible on the normal framework. This would give developers imaginative ways to convey the look and feel of the app.

Both need control as its pointless having a cool app that no one understands!

I dl'd the qt thing....stupid idea on my part. I'll stick to whining for now

You want anything prettied up I can do that - I can't code for toffee but Photoshop and Illustrator are my tools - and I have plenty experience with them too..... You want anything prettied, hit me up in PM

try vb express from microsoft - its a hell of a lot easier to just draw forms in that!

Its an intersting thread which has been discusse dquite a lot in these forums - but the OP makes some nice points namely the one very important point .

To a ordinary END USER ( don't think me and you and the geekly population of these forums please) - a nice looking and aesthetically pleasing application is more attractive and maked him / her download that rather than a very straighforward looking UI. Its just human nature, nothing else to it... (think about that analogy of the fit blonde woman and lets see who all raises their hands to decline a date with such a hot blonde attractive woman :-) )

So having said that one salient point - there is more to a good UI design than just good look - the look being an important function of the UI design.

It also needs to have a very functional and efficient UI - so that more can be accomplished with lessed clicks.

It need to be imntuitive - so a new user can easily understand the functional concepts of the app - that is why ICONS and animations help in the process - they are not always just for fluff.

It needs to be simple and designed for the device paragigm. This is my most important grouse about many of the Linux apps being developed (read ported) to the N900. You can't have a desktop application paragigm running on a handheld form factor. Its not good UI design - because it makes using the app damn difficult. While its good to have such a app in the case of nothing else existing (and I credit the developers who are porting these missing apps), it would be better to have the ported app being redesigned to fit the N900's usage paradigm - i.e. finger friendliness and mobility friendly.

A dedicated app for a dedicated function makes using the function easier on the N900. This goes to address the proponents of the "use a browser for all internet related functions" camp. While many of the apps we are used to using have been designed to run off the browser (a desktop browser) , often times it not efficine tUI wise to run the same on the smaller screen of the N900 browser - notwithstanding the fact that the N900 browser it damn good.
Its not the browser performance which hinders - its the screen size.
(for ex : on my train commute website - which lists my train timings, its damn difficult to hit the correct buttons with the finger - since its too data heavy. An application would have helped in this regard I am sure - by abstracting the data away from the layout elements that are in the
in the web page.
These are some of the major shortcomings when it comes to app design I believe. Dont get me wrog here - I am not criticizing all the app developers - I am just thinking aloud as an end-user - if thats adds any value to understanding what an end-user wants (me being a small fractional representative).

Well Im a developer and I think discussions such as this are very healthy. None of this is about re inventing the wheel more common sense. We all know what we like but difficult to get anyone to actually write it down.

Graphic apps will never be consistent on the look but there is no reason why they cannot be consistent on the control. If I were to write an alarm clock application I would consider the following items:

1) Graphical layout - is it nice to look at, would I use it, would others use it?
2) Usability - One click fits all
3) Alternative access - such as command line driven
4) Environmental Issues - does power saving kick in, disable with an auto timeout or shutdown incase user falls alseep etc

After Ive done all that, coded it and loaded it to my device. I would give it to my gran to use and my daughter. If they cant work it then its probably too complicated to operate. This doesnt mean the target audience are stupid, it simply means the application isnt intuitive enough.

Here is a classic example of a sexy app that has a bit of function for the end user. Check out the Xbox live friends status, ect. the GUI looks similar to the original xbox experience

http://itunes.apple.com/app/1337pwn-...299556867?mt=8

Not a good comparison. SVG Clock is not exactly like it, flipclock is:

http://my-maemo.com/software/applica...uto=917&faq=54



Just for fairness of comparison. So, which one is prettier?

i used too think the same way. But i read a little found out how much work goes into making these apps. Free apps i might add. Thanks for the hard work guys.if its functional and it works no complaining from me.