So far, I have been programming my interfaces by picking the available
Swing components in my IDE.  Sometimes, however, a programmer needs a
richer visual interface.  I have always noticed that the standard
(compiled, non-Java) Windows programs tend to have a more professional
look than their Java counterparts.

Let me give an example: I have a program that displays and manipulates
images and I am really jalous of the way the "Zoom Toolbar" looks in
Adobe Acrobat.  That's the kind of visual quality that I am trying to
achieve.  Is it possible to write an exact (or close) replica of that
zoom toolbar in Java?  With the "floating" toolbars that somehow deck
next to each other?

I have read a little about JavaBeans.  Is this what JavaBeans is for?
To achieve very nice and professional looking widgets?  How hard (and
expensive) is it to have a high quality JavaBean custom written for
you?

TIA,

-Ramon F Herrera

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> So far, I have been programming my interfaces by picking the available
> Swing components in my IDE.  Sometimes, however, a programmer needs a
> richer visual interface.  I have always noticed that the standard
> (compiled, non-Java) Windows programs tend to have a more professional
> look than their Java counterparts.
> 
> Let me give an example: I have a program that displays and manipulates
> images and I am really jalous of the way the "Zoom Toolbar" looks in
> Adobe Acrobat.  That's the kind of visual quality that I am trying to
> achieve.  Is it possible to write an exact (or close) replica of that
> zoom toolbar in Java?  With the "floating" toolbars that somehow deck
> next to each other?
> 
> I have read a little about JavaBeans.  Is this what JavaBeans is for?
> To achieve very nice and professional looking widgets?  How hard (and
> expensive) is it to have a high quality JavaBean custom written for
> you?
> 
> TIA,
> 
> -Ramon F Herrera
> 

I really enjoy *JGoodies Forms*. They are free. http://www.jgoodies.com/

Their layout manager walks rings around say Gridbag or any of Sun's 
layout managers. They are simple to implement also. JGoodies also have 
their own set of "Looks & Feel"s. These integrate very nicely with other 
LAF's. They also have an animation library. Have not used that yet but 
may integrate into my website.

To see them, from my use in action, you can go to my website. Sorry I am 
still building the website. Anyway, go to the screenshots under the "Pro 
Versions" tab for JHackerAppManager.

Website address: http://24.115.55.47:8080/JHackerAppManager/

I was going to add some screenshots of the possible "Looks & Feel"s 
combined with Goodies forms but have not added those yet.

Enjoy...
-- 

Thanks in Advance...
IchBin
__________________________________________________________________________

'The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical 
substances:  if there is any reaction, both are transformed.'
-  Carl Gustav Jung,  (1875-1961),  psychiatrist and psychologist

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> So far, I have been programming my interfaces by picking the available
> Swing components in my IDE.  Sometimes, however, a programmer needs a
> richer visual interface.  I have always noticed that the standard
> (compiled, non-Java) Windows programs tend to have a more professional
> look than their Java counterparts.
> 
> Let me give an example: I have a program that displays and manipulates
> images and I am really jalous of the way the "Zoom Toolbar" looks in
> Adobe Acrobat.  That's the kind of visual quality that I am trying to
> achieve.  Is it possible to write an exact (or close) replica of that
> zoom toolbar in Java?  With the "floating" toolbars that somehow deck
> next to each other?
> 
> I have read a little about JavaBeans.  Is this what JavaBeans is for?
> To achieve very nice and professional looking widgets?  How hard (and
> expensive) is it to have a high quality JavaBean custom written for
> you?
> 
> TIA,
> 
> -Ramon F Herrera
> 
I don't undestand what you're talking about.
I developed a "point of sale" system with Swing.
That's about as complex a GUI as you can get. Image buttons etc...Using 
standard Swing components.

It's quite simple, really.
My standards are higher than yours.
I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical designers
on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font, press,
logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing provides.

-Ramon

"Ramon F Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> writes:

> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical designers
> on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font, press,
> logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing provides.

In other words you intend to go through life dissatisfied.

You give the impression of having the same disease as many in the
games industry, where the looks are more important than the function.
You will find that users prefer simple software that WORKS instead of
over-designed bells and whistles GUIs which confuse.

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen wrote:

> You give the impression of having the same disease as many in the
> games industry, where the looks are more important than the function.
> You will find that users prefer simple software that WORKS instead of
> over-designed bells and whistles GUIs which confuse.

It's so sad to hear someone so out of touch with reallity, but at the same 
time, out of touch in a nobel-programmer sort of way. ;)
I'd say that practically every application has two very distinguishable parts: 
the part that challenges the programmers abilities, that a programmer derives 
the most satisfaction and the part the users criticize most - how the data and 
the data manipulation interface looks like. The second is all about "a little 
bit to the left", "group this with thees, rather than those" and "oh, and I 
need 5 more ways to see the same data" - not very stimulating for a systems 
designer and it shows.

Ramon F Herrera schrub am Samstag, 16. April 2005 05:07
folgendes:

> It's quite simple, really.
> My standards are higher than yours.
> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best
> graphical designers on the planet (Adobe, the
> creators of the electronic font, press, logos, etc.)
> while you are satisfied with whatever Swing provides.

Swing provides areas of your screen
(buttons,labels,panels...), which have a kind of
graphics context. You can paint freely in this context
to get your "personal" look. 
So what you're saying is that you really aren't able to
draw what you want to see ??

-- 
greetz Karlheinz Klingbeil (lunqual)
http://www.lunqual.de oder http:www.lunqual.net

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote:

>"Ramon F Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> writes:
>
>> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical designers
>> on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font, press,
>> logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing provides.
>

>You will find that users prefer simple software that WORKS instead of
>over-designed bells and whistles GUIs which confuse.
There are two problems with that sentence. First, you contrast two
objects that are not comparable. Second, the OP wanted to model his
software on a program that must be installed on more computers than
_any_ other piece of software.

> In other words you intend to go through life dissatisfied.

That's my curse.  :-)

If people were satisfied with what is out there, we wouldn't have Java
or the Macintosh.

I just want software which is designed to satisfy both sides of the
brain. Have you heard of "form follows function"?

Do you know what percentage of the brain is exclusively dedicated to
visual processing?  I don't remember the figure, but it is a huge
percentage.

-Ramon

Tor Iver Wilhelmsen coughed up:
> "Ramon F Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> writes:
>
>> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical
>> designers on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font,
>> press, logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing
>> provides.
>
> In other words you intend to go through life dissatisfied.
>
> You give the impression of having the same disease as many in the
> games industry, where the looks are more important than the function.
> You will find that users prefer simple software that WORKS instead of
> over-designed bells and whistles GUIs which confuse.


I'm with you in your argument right up until this post.  Your heart is very 
much in the right place, but It is not a black a white subject (no pun re: 
color graphics) and as such I'll try to simply list out what I've determined 
to be the facts over the years.  Come to think of it, I think you and I had 
this discussion before.  (?)

    1. Functionality is obviously extremely important,
        but you can actually (believe it or not) lose a part
        of your functionality and replace it with glitz and
        you will sell more product.  I've discovered that
        Engineers as customers /sometimes/ see this
        differently, but engineers are often not where the
        real money is.

    2. Much of what frustrates an engineer with the
        swing out-of-the-box design is that until you really
        know what you are doing it is very hard to tweak
        the gui into what you might view as perfection.
        Such tweaking isn't always simple "useless" glitz:
        sometimes the seemingly cosmetic improvements
        to a gui result in an improvement to its usability.

    3. And even if you are not after the high-end glitz I
        am referring to, swing (even with the windows
        LaF) somehow just never looks /quite/ like the
        other windows applications running.  I personally
        find that irritating.

I've come to these conclusions as a result of being in the computer graphics 
and GUI design and philosophy business for the 20+ years I've been creating 
software, as from being in java since the beta.

Now, IMO where Ramon has gone entirely wrong is in making the assumption 
that you cannot fully tailor swing to do whatever you like.  You can, and I 
done so repeatedly in both the AWT and Swing venues.  I haven't ventured 
into IBM's SWT yet, thought I suppose it's inevitable.  It's just that peer 
based component design give me the willies :)


-- 
"It's easier to be terrified by an enemy you admire."
-Thufir Hawat, Mentat and Master of Assassins to House Atreides

> You give the impression of having the same disease as many in the
> games industry, where the looks are more important than the function.
> You will find that users prefer simple software that WORKS instead of
> over-designed bells and whistles GUIs which confuse.

The only Java utility that I have seen out there that "rocks" is
JDiskReport by a company:

    http://www.jgoodies.com

whose motto is: "We make Java look good and work well".

Why do you figure JDiskReport is their most popular product?

It seems to me that if one wants to impress a potential customer with a
prototype, the very first thing you have to do is to disguise the
visual part, so they don't know that it is written in Java.

Oh, speaking of the game industry.  Did you know that they are bigger
than Hollywood (not that I care much for games)?

-Ramon

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> It's quite simple, really.
> My standards are higher than yours.
> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical designers
> on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font, press,
> logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing provides.
> 
> -Ramon
> 
Wow, i'm impressed. NOT.

How many business types give a damn about flashing widgets, and mini 
movies playing on their desktops while they are manipulating 
equities,commodities and deniro.
let me answer that question for ya. NONE.

And, yes, I am satisfied with what Swing and its architecture provides,
as I'M creative enough to use the myriad of graphic design knowledge I 
have at my disposal.


If you're too lazy to do the work required, then step off and use VB or 
something.

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>In other words you intend to go through life dissatisfied.
> 
> 
> That's my curse.  :-)
> 
> If people were satisfied with what is out there, we wouldn't have Java
> or the Macintosh.
> 
> I just want software which is designed to satisfy both sides of the
> brain. Have you heard of "form follows function"?
> 
> Do you know what percentage of the brain is exclusively dedicated to
> visual processing?  I don't remember the figure, but it is a huge
> percentage.
> 
> -Ramon
> 
You're stuck in your head dude.
Get out and do some work.

Sounds like you just don't know what you're doing in the Java Swing world.

Ramon F Herrera wrote:

> [...] I have always noticed that the standard
> (compiled, non-Java) Windows programs tend to have a more professional
> look than their Java counterparts.

That's true for many Java apps. But as you've seen with JDiskReport,
Java applications can compete with or even outperform native apps.

> [...] Is it possible to write an exact (or close) replica of that
> zoom toolbar in Java?  [...]

Yes. Java, Java2D and Swing make up a very powerful toolkit
for many kinds of well designed UIs, visual appealing stuff,
and even advanced presentations that most native apps can't
offer easily.

However, the quality comes at a price. If you master Swing,
or more generally the Java Foundation Classes, and have learned
about the many Don't and Do's, then you can build elegant apps.
If you want to go further and want to impress your users with
fancy visuals and cool stuff, the price gets even higher.

Anyway, I provide a set of free libraries and articles
that are intended to help Java developers design better
applications faster and at reasonable development costs.
See the JGoodies download section and my article page at:
http://www.jgoodies.com/articles/

Best regards,
Karsten Lentzsch

In a previous article, "Ramon F Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> said:
>So far, I have been programming my interfaces by picking the available
>Swing components in my IDE.  Sometimes, however, a programmer needs a
>richer visual interface.  I have always noticed that the standard
>(compiled, non-Java) Windows programs tend to have a more professional
>look than their Java counterparts.

If you want an example of what can be done with a few custom widgets and
some gratuitous hacking on a custom Look and Feel, have a look at
http://xcski.com/gallery/screenshots/sched_collapse and
http://xcski.com/gallery/screenshots/playlist_main which are screen shots
of an application I helped write.  It wasn't quite complete there, so
there are a few things that are square boring standard Swing components,
but the tabs, the rounded corners, the "rivets" in the corners, and the
time line are all my attempts to implement something that looked like what
the graphics designer wanted.  Originally we used a textured brushed metal
look, but it made the display too slow when running on an LTSP X terminal.
Now that we're not LTSPs any more, I might put the brushed metal back in.

-- 
Paul Tomblin <ptomblin@xcski.com> http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
I trust the cut & paste under Win2k's telnet about as far as I can
comfortably spit a rat.
              -- John Burnham

Ramon F Herrera wrote:

> Do you know what percentage of the brain is exclusively dedicated to
> visual processing?  I don't remember the figure, but it is a huge
> percentage.

This is an excuse for bad GUI's.

A good GUI keeps the brain processing of users to a minimum.

This means presenting a user interface the user already knows.

This also means keeping the self-made widgets to a minimum (only use 
them when the OS-provided widgets can't give the usability you need).

Personally, I always have the most trouble with self-made GUI's like 
Winamp, Windows Media Player, Software DVD-players etc. They're a disease.

Edwin Martin

-- 
http://www.bitstorm.org/edwin/en/

Ramon,

Take a look at Photomesa, a 100% pure java, swing-based desktop
application that will simply blow you away.

http://www.windsorinterfaces.com/photomesa.shtml

While it's currently a shareware application, at some point it was a
work-in-progress, with source code avaialble...

http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/photomesa/download/layout-algorithms.shtml
http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/jazz/

I don't know if this helps, hope so...

<willykk@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1113696987.301503.53240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Ramon,
>
> Take a look at Photomesa, a 100% pure java, swing-based desktop
> application that will simply blow you away.
>
> http://www.windsorinterfaces.com/photomesa.shtml
>
> While it's currently a shareware application, at some point it was a
> work-in-progress, with source code avaialble...
>
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/photomesa/download/layout-algorithms.shtml
> http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/jazz/
>
> I don't know if this helps, hope so...

While that is probably a very powerful application that fullfill
your needs, it was a very bad argument in a discussion concerning
swing vs. elegant and "sexy" GUI...

That is propably the most horrible UI I've seen in a long time.
It breaks almost every rule from the "divine proportion" and
balance, to simple common sense...

just my 2 cents worth...

-- 
Dag.

Edwin Martin coughed up:
> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>
>> Do you know what percentage of the brain is exclusively dedicated to
>> visual processing?  I don't remember the figure, but it is a huge
>> percentage.
>
> This is an excuse for bad GUI's.
>
> A good GUI keeps the brain processing of users to a minimum.
>
> This means presenting a user interface the user already knows.
>
> This also means keeping the self-made widgets to a minimum (only use
> them when the OS-provided widgets can't give the usability you need).

The goal of a good GUI is to facilitate use and also to limit the questions 
that form in the user's head during the interaction session.  This often 
means graying out buttons, instead of removing them, and not having certain 
interfaces visible at all (not even grayed) when they might form the 
question: "do I need to do to un-gray these?".  Dependent, of course, on the 
context and details of the issue at hand.

This is potentially a very long topic.

The problem is that often self-made widgets do the best job at limiting the 
questions and facilitating use.


> Personally, I always have the most trouble with self-made GUI's like
> Winamp, Windows Media Player, Software DVD-players etc. They're a
> disease.

Those are usually examples of skinning gone awry.  For example, Nero does a 
great job at confusing the crap out of me.  They make the hideous mistake, 
which is a very common one, of providing an interface that looks fully 
raytraced without thought as to which button gives me options, which part 
can I drag the GUI with, etc., etc.


-- 
"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!"

"Ramon F Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> wrote:

>So far, I have been programming my interfaces by picking the available
>Swing components in my IDE.  Sometimes, however, a programmer needs a
>richer visual interface.  I have always noticed that the standard
>(compiled, non-Java) Windows programs tend to have a more professional
>look than their Java counterparts.
>
>Let me give an example: I have a program that displays and manipulates
>images and I am really jalous of the way the "Zoom Toolbar" looks in
>Adobe Acrobat.  That's the kind of visual quality that I am trying to
>achieve.  Is it possible to write an exact (or close) replica of that
>zoom toolbar in Java?  With the "floating" toolbars that somehow deck
>next to each other?
>
>I have read a little about JavaBeans.  Is this what JavaBeans is for?
>To achieve very nice and professional looking widgets?  How hard (and
>expensive) is it to have a high quality JavaBean custom written for
>you?
>
>TIA,
>
>-Ramon F Herrera
I don't have access to Acrobat but if you are only talking about the
zoom toolbar in the Acrobat Reader I am sure that you can reproduce
this using Swing. Netbeans, which is written in Java, has similar
tools. Unfortunately my Swing talents are not up to the task and you
seem to have upset the contributors in these groups who could have
given you the answer. I can only suggest you post again describing
exactly what you want to do and omitting the "more professional" and
"richer visual interface" bits.

To be truthful, I am impressed with the Acrobat Reader splash screen.
How do they do those swirly bits in Java or any other language?

On 4/15/2005 at 11:07:28 PM, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

> It's quite simple, really.
> My standards are higher than yours.

That is certainly one possibility.  The other possibility is that he knows
how to create the GUI's he wants with Swing and you are not able to do so.

It seems pretty silly to be arguing about this without talking about what
you are actually trying to accomplish.  You have mentioned Adobe Acrobat's
"Zoom Toolbar".  I do not have Acrobat, but I do have Adobe Reader.  It
also has a "Zoom Toolbar", and there is certainly nothing there that could
not be done with Swing.  There are quite a few components in that toolbar,
so it is unclear what you think cannot be done in Swing.

So if you really have an interest in doing this in Swing, why not tell us
specifically what it is that you are having problems with?  I am sure that
someone here would be glad to help you do what you want.

-- 
Regards,

John McGrath

On Sun, 17 Apr 2005 16:44:37 GMT, David Segall <david@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>To be truthful, I am impressed with the Acrobat Reader splash screen.
>How do they do those swirly bits in Java or any other language?

http://www.jroller.com/page/gfx/20050315


Cheers,
Alex.
-- 
http://www.munted.org.uk

In article <ull7jaxuw.fsf@broadpark.no>,
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen  <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote:
>"Ramon F Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> writes:
>
>> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical designers
>> on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font, press,
>> logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing provides.
>
>In other words you intend to go through life dissatisfied.
>
>You give the impression of having the same disease as many in the
>games industry, where the looks are more important than the function.
>You will find that users prefer simple software that WORKS instead of
>over-designed bells and whistles GUIs which confuse.

Good grief.  Yes, he was a bit bombastic in how he said things, but at the
core he was asking for a simple piece of common GUI functionality: multiple
docking toolbars.  I know how to have a single docking toolbar but have never
had to learn how to get multiples.  Anybody able to answer this fairly narrow
technical question?
-- 
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/   qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

In article <Q7a8e.8341$Fm5.2889@trndny09>,
Thomas G. Marshall <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>    3. And even if you are not after the high-end glitz I
>        am referring to, swing (even with the windows
>        LaF) somehow just never looks /quite/ like the
>        other windows applications running.  I personally
>        find that irritating.

Do you mean the Metal L&F versus the "native" ones?  I thought it was easy to
change that -- though I've not looked at Swing details for several years,
relying on a fairly simple set of facilities for most of what I do.
-- 
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/   qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

David Alex Lamb coughed up:
> In article <Q7a8e.8341$Fm5.2889@trndny09>,
> Thomas G. Marshall
> <tgm2tothe10thpower@replacetextwithnumber.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>    3. And even if you are not after the high-end glitz I
>>        am referring to, swing (even with the windows
>>        LaF) somehow just never looks /quite/ like the
>>        other windows applications running.  I personally
>>        find that irritating.
>
> Do you mean the Metal L&F versus the "native" ones?

The "native" one that is pertinent here is the windows one, which is for 
microsoft windows.

So I mean precisely what I said.  The windows LaF, as established by this 
code, should you wish to hardwire it:

        try
        {
            UIManager.setLookAndFeel(
                "com.sun.java.swing.plaf.windows.WindowsLookAndFeel");
        }
        catch (Exception ignore) { }

Just does not /quite/ look like the rest of the windows apps running.  On 
/any/ version of windows.  Even the latest xp laf's just don't look /right/ 
..


> I thought it was
> easy to change that -- though I've not looked at Swing details for
> several years, relying on a fairly simple set of facilities for most
> of what I do.



-- 
Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaselettertostartclassnames....

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> So far, I have been programming my interfaces by picking the available
> Swing components in my IDE.  Sometimes, however, a programmer needs a
> richer visual interface.  I have always noticed that the standard
> (compiled, non-Java) Windows programs tend to have a more professional
> look than their Java counterparts.

That's odd because Swing has multiple look and feels including XP and 
there are also other beautiful ones like JGoodies.

> 
> Let me give an example: I have a program that displays and manipulates
> images and I am really jalous of the way the "Zoom Toolbar" looks in
> Adobe Acrobat.  That's the kind of visual quality that I am trying to
> achieve.  Is it possible to write an exact (or close) replica of that
> zoom toolbar in Java?

Yep

   With the "floating" toolbars that somehow deck
> next to each other?

Yep, it's all part of the API
> 
> I have read a little about JavaBeans.  Is this what JavaBeans is for?
> To achieve very nice and professional looking widgets?  How hard (and
> expensive) is it to have a high quality JavaBean custom written for
> you?

Widgets are more than just java beans.  Look into it.



> 
> TIA,
> 
> -Ramon F Herrera
> 

David Alex Lamb coughed up:
> In article <ull7jaxuw.fsf@broadpark.no>,
> Tor Iver Wilhelmsen  <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote:
>> "Ramon F Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> writes:
>>
>>> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical
>>> designers on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic
>>> font, press, logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever
>>> Swing provides.
>>
>> In other words you intend to go through life dissatisfied.
>>
>> You give the impression of having the same disease as many in the
>> games industry, where the looks are more important than the function.
>> You will find that users prefer simple software that WORKS instead of
>> over-designed bells and whistles GUIs which confuse.
>
> Good grief.  Yes, he was a bit bombastic in how he said things, but
> at the core he was asking for a simple piece of common GUI
> functionality: multiple docking toolbars.  I know how to have a
> single docking toolbar but have never had to learn how to get
> multiples.  Anybody able to answer this fairly narrow technical
> question?

Repost with that specific question as the subject.  I would be interested in 
the replies.

-- 
"Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity!
Two weeks from everywhere!"

Dag Sunde coughed up:
> <willykk@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:1113696987.301503.53240@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Ramon,
>>
>> Take a look at Photomesa, a 100% pure java, swing-based desktop
>> application that will simply blow you away.
>>
>> http://www.windsorinterfaces.com/photomesa.shtml
>>
>> While it's currently a shareware application, at some point it was a
>> work-in-progress, with source code avaialble...
>>
>> http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/photomesa/download/layout-algorithms.shtml
>> http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/jazz/
>>
>> I don't know if this helps, hope so...
>
> While that is probably a very powerful application that fullfill
> your needs, it was a very bad argument in a discussion concerning
> swing vs. elegant and "sexy" GUI...
>
> That is propably the most horrible UI I've seen in a long time.
> It breaks almost every rule from the "divine proportion" and
> balance, to simple common sense...
>
> just my 2 cents worth...


1. That's excessively rude.

2. I don't see your conclusion, and I've been in GUI design for a very long 
time.  I've spent a lifetime tearing apart UI's from beginners to supposed 
experts, and cannot state with certainty whether this is good or bad from 
screenshots.  It would be impossible to entirely rank on a GUI's design 
without actually /using/ the gui for a while.  Did you actually run this 
thing?  I myself did not, and without doing so I would be unable to say 
"That is propably [sic] the most horrible UI I've seen in a long time."


3. Divine proportion?  Phi is /way/ over hyped.  It is an interesting 
mathematical notion, but it is not as strong a driving force in visual 
esthetics as is often told.  Take an honest look at all the parts of your 
currently running applications, and tell me all the places where 1:phi 
(1:1.618...) is used, and where it would help if it isn't.


-- 
"Well, ain't this place a geographical oddity!
Two weeks from everywhere!"

dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote:

>In article <ull7jaxuw.fsf@broadpark.no>,
>Tor Iver Wilhelmsen  <tor.iver.wilhelmsen@broadpark.no> wrote:
>>"Ramon F Herrera" <ramon@conexus.net> writes:
>>
>>> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical designers
>>> on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font, press,
>>> logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing provides.
>>
>>In other words you intend to go through life dissatisfied.
>>
>>You give the impression of having the same disease as many in the
>>games industry, where the looks are more important than the function.
>>You will find that users prefer simple software that WORKS instead of
>>over-designed bells and whistles GUIs which confuse.
>
>Good grief.  Yes, he was a bit bombastic in how he said things, but at the
>core he was asking for a simple piece of common GUI functionality: multiple
>docking toolbars.  I know how to have a single docking toolbar but have never
>had to learn how to get multiples.  Anybody able to answer this fairly narrow
>technical question?

http://www.infonode.net/index.html?idwfeatures

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:

> [...] They make the hideous
> mistake, which is a very common one, of providing an interface that looks
> fully raytraced without thought as to which button gives me options,
> which part can I drag the GUI with, etc., etc.

Or even which parts /are/ buttons, or otherwise active parts of the GUI, and
which are mere decoration.  Those designs, IMO, range from poorly thought out
and implemented (at the best) right the way down to insanely incompetent.

There's no obvious theoretical reason why roll-your-own GUIs should be so bad,
but somehow they always[*] are...

([*] "always" is a strong word, perhaps too strong, but I can't think of a
counter-example right now.)

Maybe its a selection effect -- the designers who know how to create GUIs that
work will naturally understand the value of meeting user-expectations, and
hence of adhering tightly to standards.  So, when they do decide to create
their own bit of UI widgetry I don't notice that it's non-standard since it's
been crafted to fit seemlessly with the widgets that I am used to.  (one
example being the "splittable" scrollbars that a few Windows applications use)

    -- chris

In article <mbs661dp0gc8p0eqk8v7gkg2jm24rjfsm9@4ax.com>,
Remi Bastide  <FirstName.LastName@irit.fr> wrote:
>dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote:
>>Good grief.  Yes, he was a bit bombastic in how he said things, but at the
>>core he was asking for a simple piece of common GUI functionality: multiple
>>docking toolbars.  I know how to have a single docking toolbar but have never
>>had to learn how to get multiples.  Anybody able to answer this fairly narrow
>>technical question?
>
>http://www.infonode.net/index.html?idwfeatures

I can't afford their prices, but thanks anyway.
-- 
"Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/   qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)

Chris Uppal coughed up:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>
>> [...] They make the hideous
>> mistake, which is a very common one, of providing an interface that
>> looks fully raytraced without thought as to which button gives me
>> options, which part can I drag the GUI with, etc., etc.
>
> Or even which parts /are/ buttons, or otherwise active parts of the
> GUI, and which are mere decoration.  Those designs, IMO, range from
> poorly thought out and implemented (at the best) right the way down
> to insanely incompetent.
>
> There's no obvious theoretical reason why roll-your-own GUIs should
> be so bad, but somehow they always[*] are...
>
> ([*] "always" is a strong word, perhaps too strong, but I can't think
> of a counter-example right now.)
>
> Maybe its a selection effect -- the designers who know how to create
> GUIs that work will naturally understand the value of meeting
> user-expectations, and hence of adhering tightly to standards.  So,
> when they do decide to create their own bit of UI widgetry I don't
> notice that it's non-standard since it's been crafted to fit
> seemlessly with the widgets that I am used to.  (one example being
> the "splittable" scrollbars that a few Windows applications use)
>
>    -- chris

Yes.  A boss of mine from nearly 20 years ago referred to this as not 
violating "the law of least surprise".

I would phrase much of what you're talking about as the creation of GUI 
elements that are not that far from other gui elements you've seen before. 
However, with the right training, if the UI designer is very mindful of what 
the user will be asking himself as he goes uses the product (particularly 
for the first time!), then he can create an entirely unique, yet intuitive 
component.

It's tough for many designers to continually put themselves in the position 
of looking at their design from the standpoint of the first time user.  It 
is similar to the process of writing [source] code that is to be later 
maintainable by the caffeine-hopped engineer at 3am who has never seen your 
code before.

As a strong point to this: you have to remember that using standard GUI 
components does not guarantee that the interface is intuitive.

-- 
"I don't want FOP, God dammit!  I'm a DAPPER DAN MAN!"

http://glipssvgeditor.sourceforge.net/

check the screen shot, does it look satisfactory?

just kidding, having a cup of sarcasm this afternoon. :)

David Alex Lamb wrote:
> In article <mbs661dp0gc8p0eqk8v7gkg2jm24rjfsm9@4ax.com>,
> Remi Bastide  <FirstName.LastName@irit.fr> wrote:
> 
>>dalamb@qucis.queensu.ca (David Alex Lamb) wrote:
>>
>>>Good grief.  Yes, he was a bit bombastic in how he said things, but at the
>>>core he was asking for a simple piece of common GUI functionality: multiple
>>>docking toolbars.  I know how to have a single docking toolbar but have never
>>>had to learn how to get multiples.  Anybody able to answer this fairly narrow
>>>technical question?
>>
>>http://www.infonode.net/index.html?idwfeatures
> 
> 
> I can't afford their prices, but thanks anyway.

I'll try one more time.

Again, *You can get the same look by using* the *JGoodies Java User 
Interface Design* at: http://www.jgoodies.com/

Compare http://www.infonode.net/index.html?idwfeatures TO 
http://www.jgoodies.com/freeware/forms/index.html just for an example.

JGoodies have FOLLOWING freebees:

Free Tools
:: JDiskReport
:: JPathReport

Free Demos
:: Forms Demo
:: Looks Demo
:: Metamorphosis
:: Skeleton
:: Skeleton Pro
:: Validation

Free Libraries
:: Animation
:: Forms
:: Looks

I use in my programs see screenshots...:  http://localhost:8080/
-- 


Thanks in Advance...
IchBin
__________________________________________________________________________

'The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical 
substances:
  if there is any reaction, both are transformed.'
-  Carl Gustav Jung,  (1875-1961),  psychiatrist and psychologist

Abrasive Sponge coughed up:
> just kidding, having a cup of sarcasm this afternoon. :)

Me too.  lol

-- 
With knowledge comes sorrow.

My customer wants me to change the
tab order from L to R in a row on a table,
to instead, descend the column.

I have seen some notes in the Java Swing Tutorial
and elsewhere that say that JTable does not
"properly" support the FocusTraversalPolicy.

Is it correct to conclude that in 1.4.2 and 1.5 that
it is not possible to specify the tab order ?

Ted Hill wrote:

> http://glipssvgeditor.sourceforge.net/
> 
> check the screen shot, does it look satisfactory?

Hmm - not quite.

I provide a bunch of articles that are intended
to help Java developers design better and faster.
You may consider reading "First Aid for Swing"
which consists of Don't and Do's for Java/Swing:
http://www.jgoodies.com/articles/

You can find a much more detailed analysis of
typical problems, concepts to address them and
practical tips in Mullet&Sano's "Designing Visual
Interfaces" - definitle a recommended read if
you want to improve your design capabilities.

Hope this helps. Best regards,
Karsten

Ramon F Herrera wrote:
> It's quite simple, really.
> My standards are higher than yours.
> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical designers
> on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font, press,
> logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing provides.

It sounds like your standards are misguided, not 'higher'.
In countless user experience reviews of GUIs, one of the main messages 
that comes across is that the user has a tasks to do, and they want to 
be able to do that task without hindrances. Bells, whistles, fancy 
widgets etc. are an aside, possibly a distraction, and quite often 
actually get in the way: think about it.... people know how standard 
widgets work; if you start messing with them, it causes confusion, the 
learning curve is steeper and the user is distracted from the task at hand.

Alex Hunsley coughed up:
> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>> It's quite simple, really.
>> My standards are higher than yours.
>> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical
>> designers on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font,
>> press, logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing
>> provides.
>
> It sounds like your standards are misguided, not 'higher'.
> In countless user experience reviews of GUIs, one of the main messages
> that comes across is that the user has a tasks to do, and they want to
> be able to do that task without hindrances. Bells, whistles, fancy
> widgets etc. are an aside, possibly a distraction, and quite often
> actually get in the way: think about it.... people know how standard
> widgets work; if you start messing with them, it causes confusion, the
> learning curve is steeper and the user is distracted from the task at
> hand.

Simple well known widgets quite often are "distractions" and  "get in the 
way".  A good gui has everything to do with a good designer and not 
home-grown vs. standard widgets arguments.

-- 
"So I just, uh... I just cut them up like regular chickens?"
"Sure, just cut them up like regular chickens."

I wonder do all of you really know that 'high standard',
'sophisticated', 'fancy', 'sexy' blah blah UI is a steep
learning curve for ordinary common people users.

It humiliates them.

And you must be aware of that the Java has simplified
almost every field of application level computing and
its development effort.

And you might have to notice, for example, that modern car
no more has manual gearbox.

I like Swing UI because of simplicity both in usage
and in app development.

hiwa wrote:

<offtopic>
	> And you might have to notice, for example, that modern car
> no more has manual gearbox.

I dare say that that depends largely on the part of the world you live in. ;)
</offtopic>

hiwa wrote:

> I wonder do all of you really know that 'high standard',
> 'sophisticated', 'fancy', 'sexy' blah blah UI is a steep
> learning curve for ordinary common people users.

Don't confuse 'high standard' with 'fancy'.

That cuts both ways.  Not only does 'fancy' not imply good, but /not/ 'fancy'
doesn't imply good either.

I have no idea what the OP meant by wanting to produce GUIs to a high standard.
It's possible that he meant that he wanted to produce the sort of wretched,
glitzy, gaudy, abomination that is becoming all too common.  But it's at
least as possible that what he is aiming for is to produce solidly engineered,
straight-forwardly usable, application such as one all too rarely finds.

Producing the latter requires (at least) considerable effort from the
programmer/designer.  Every aspect of the GUI, the user interaction, and the
application logic (or flow) has to be considered in relation to every other
aspect.  Even assuming the existence of such a design, simply coding it
requires, usually, a great deal of sophistication in the use of whatever
pre-packaged widgets are available, or the ability to produce new widgets that
work /seamlessly/ with all the existing widgets.

There are no short-cuts.

AFAIK, Swing isn't a particularly good place to start if you want to produce
that kind of interface.  OTOH, it isn't a particularly bad place to start
either.  If you want a well-crafted GUI then you are going to have to do a
/lot/ of work, no matter what toolkit you are using.

    -- chris

hiwa wrote:

> I wonder do all of you really know that 'high standard',
> 'sophisticated', 'fancy', 'sexy' blah blah UI is a steep
> learning curve for ordinary common people users.
> 
> It humiliates them.
> [...]

First off, I don't understand how this is related
to my posting regarding Ted Hill's question.

Anyway, I've found in my Swing and design courses
that most developers can learn the design essentials
in about 3 weeks. With a little review help, they
can significantly improve their design capabilities
and design costs. In addition they feel much better
- and a lot of those developers I teached report
that they now enjoy designing user interfaces.

 From the feedback I receive after talks,
it seems to me that my article I referred to
does not humiliate developers. I don't know
if you have taken the time to look at it.
The article starts with a bunch of Don'ts,
things you should avoid, to not alienate users;
these are simple but very effective.
The Do's require more work and time,
but help you improve your design results.

- Karsten Lentzsch

Karsten Lentzsch wrote:

> Anyway, I've found in my Swing and design courses
> that most developers can learn the design essentials
> in about 3 weeks. [...]

Oops, that should read "in about 3 days".

- Karsten

Tomislav wrote:
> hiwa wrote:
>
> <offtopic>
>> And you might have to notice, for example, that modern car
>> no more has manual gearbox.
>
> I dare say that that depends largely on the part of the world you
> live in. ;) </offtopic>

and I certainly prefer the manual gearbox

--
Virgil

On 4/18/2005 at 2:50:10 PM, IchBin wrote:

> I use in my programs see screenshots...:  http://localhost:8080/

I do not think that URL will work for most people.  :o)

-- 
Regards,

John McGrath

John McGrath wrote:
> On 4/18/2005 at 2:50:10 PM, IchBin wrote:
> 
> 
>>I use in my programs see screenshots...:  http://localhost:8080/
> 
> 
> I do not think that URL will work for most people.  :o)
> 
Sorry....

http://24.115.55.47:8080

-- 


Thanks in Advance...
IchBin
__________________________________________________________________________

'The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical 
substances:
  if there is any reaction, both are transformed.'
-  Carl Gustav Jung,  (1875-1961),  psychiatrist and psychologist

Karsten Lentzsch coughed up:
> hiwa wrote:
>
>> I wonder do all of you really know that 'high standard',
>> 'sophisticated', 'fancy', 'sexy' blah blah UI is a steep
>> learning curve for ordinary common people users.
>>
>> It humiliates them.
>> [...]
>
> First off, I don't understand how this is related
> to my posting regarding Ted Hill's question.
>
> Anyway, I've found in my Swing and design courses
> that most developers can learn the design essentials
> in about 3 weeks.

In my experience, that amount of time will produce sophisticated enough 
/looking/ gui's but not stable ones.  There is always some MT thing lurking 
around the corner with code written by people unused to swing.  It allows 
everything to run fine for a while and then kablooey.


> With a little review help, they
> can significantly improve their design capabilities
> and design costs. In addition they feel much better
> - and a lot of those developers I teached report
> that they now enjoy designing user interfaces.
>
> From the feedback I receive after talks,
> it seems to me that my article I referred to
> does not humiliate developers. I don't know
> if you have taken the time to look at it.
> The article starts with a bunch of Don'ts,
> things you should avoid, to not alienate users;
> these are simple but very effective.
> The Do's require more work and time,
> but help you improve your design results.
>
> - Karsten Lentzsch



-- 
Whyowhydidn'tsunmakejavarequireanuppercaselettertostartclassnames....

"IchBin" <weconsul@ptd.net> wrote in message
news:IfmdnRlvg6rHZvvfUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> John McGrath wrote:
> > On 4/18/2005 at 2:50:10 PM, IchBin wrote:
> >
> >>I use in my programs see screenshots...:  http://localhost:8080/
> >
> > I do not think that URL will work for most people.  :o)
> >
> Sorry....
>
> http://24.115.55.47:8080

There surely isn't really anybody who would click on a numeric link??

--
Tim Ward
Brett Ward Limited - www.brettward.co.uk

"Tim Ward" <tw2@ipaccess.com> wrote in message
news:3cpg6hF6nk72vU1@individual.net...
> "IchBin" <weconsul@ptd.net> wrote in message
> news:IfmdnRlvg6rHZvvfUSdV9g@ptd.net...
> > John McGrath wrote:
> > > On 4/18/2005 at 2:50:10 PM, IchBin wrote:
> > >
> > >>I use in my programs see screenshots...:  http://localhost:8080/
> > >
> > > I do not think that URL will work for most people.  :o)
> > >
> > Sorry....
> >
> > http://24.115.55.47:8080
>
> There surely isn't really anybody who would click on a numeric link??
>

I can't for my life see whats wrong with clicking on a numeric link?
A domain-name doesn't really tell you anything, does it?
The only difference is that you save a DNS-lookup...

But the fun part, is that http://24.115.55.47:8080 contains the following:
<meta http-equiv="refresh"
content="0;http://localhost:8080/JHackerAppManager">
so you don't get any further anyway.

This will take the "daring" ones to where the OP probably wanted us
to go:
http://24.115.55.47:8080/JHackerAppManager/

-- 
Dag.

Tim Ward wrote:

> > http://24.115.55.47:8080
>
> There surely isn't really anybody who would click on a numeric link??

Sure.  Why not ?

Since I have no control over what's at the far end of the link anyway (however
the link is presented), it is my responsibility to ensure that I have adequate
protection against any malware that might be on the site.  If I have adequate
protection (whatever that might mean to me) then there's no reason not to visit
anonymous sites.  If I /don't/ have adequate protection then I'd be an idiot to
visit any site, whatever its (apparent) name.

    -- chris

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> Alex Hunsley coughed up:
> 
>>Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>
>>>It's quite simple, really.
>>>My standards are higher than yours.
>>>I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical
>>>designers on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic font,
>>>press, logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever Swing
>>>provides.
>>
>>It sounds like your standards are misguided, not 'higher'.
>>In countless user experience reviews of GUIs, one of the main messages
>>that comes across is that the user has a tasks to do, and they want to
>>be able to do that task without hindrances. Bells, whistles, fancy
>>widgets etc. are an aside, possibly a distraction, and quite often
>>actually get in the way: think about it.... people know how standard
>>widgets work; if you start messing with them, it causes confusion, the
>>learning curve is steeper and the user is distracted from the task at
>>hand.
> 
> 
> Simple well known widgets quite often are "distractions" and  "get in the 
> way".  

In some circumstances they could be a pain. Do you have any recent 
examples in mind?
I believe that in far more cases than not, however, standard widgets 
will do the job. And in the case of the OP, he seems to not even be 
aware of what the standard widgets can and can't do - hardly a good 
place from which to be thinking about making custom widgets.

> A good gui has everything to do with a good designer and not 
> home-grown vs. standard widgets arguments.

Yes. But it's still the case that in most cases, basic widgets will do 
the job, and that if one is thinking of customizing widgets, it's 
important to ask "Why am I doing this?".

hiwa wrote:
> I wonder do all of you really know that 'high standard',
> 'sophisticated', 'fancy', 'sexy' blah blah UI is a steep
> learning curve for ordinary common people users.
> 
> It humiliates them.
> 
> And you must be aware of that the Java has simplified
> almost every field of application level computing and
> its development effort.
> 
> And you might have to notice, for example, that modern car
> no more has manual gearbox.

I didn't notice that. I like in the UK where by far modern cars have 
manuals.

Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
> Karsten Lentzsch coughed up:
> 
>>hiwa wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I wonder do all of you really know that 'high standard',
>>>'sophisticated', 'fancy', 'sexy' blah blah UI is a steep
>>>learning curve for ordinary common people users.
>>>
>>>It humiliates them.
>>>[...]
>>
>>First off, I don't understand how this is related
>>to my posting regarding Ted Hill's question.
>>
>>Anyway, I've found in my Swing and design courses
>>that most developers can learn the design essentials
>>in about 3 weeks.
> 
> 
> In my experience, that amount of time will produce sophisticated enough 
> /looking/ gui's but not stable ones.  There is always some MT thing lurking 
> around the corner with code written by people unused to swing.  It allows 
> everything to run fine for a while and then kablooey.

And even once you know the pitfalls of writing swing code (event thread 
issues etc) it can still be quite annoying to write it....
often found myself wishing swing could handle more of the bookkeeping 
stuff transparently.
And when you do things wrong, often there's nothing to particularly tell 
you so.... If you're lucky, your whole GUI might freeze and that's a big 
hint. Other things are smymptomless until, one day, it all goes kablooey 
as you say....

Alex Hunsley coughed up:
> Thomas G. Marshall wrote:
>> Alex Hunsley coughed up:
>>
>>> Ramon F Herrera wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's quite simple, really.
>>>> My standards are higher than yours.
>>>> I aspire to have the same quality as the very best graphical
>>>> designers on the planet (Adobe, the creators of the electronic
>>>> font, press, logos, etc.) while you are satisfied with whatever
>>>> Swing provides.
>>>
>>> It sounds like your standards are misguided, not 'higher'.
>>> In countless user experience reviews of GUIs, one of the main
>>> messages that comes across is that the user has a tasks to do, and
>>> they want to be able to do that task without hindrances. Bells,
>>> whistles, fancy widgets etc. are an aside, possibly a distraction,
>>> and quite often actually get in the way: think about it.... people
>>> know how standard widgets work; if you start messing with them, it
>>> causes confusion, the learning curve is steeper and the user is
>>> distracted from the task at hand.
>>
>>
>> Simple well known widgets quite often are "distractions" and  "get
>> in the way".
>
> In some circumstances they could be a pain. Do you have any recent
> examples in mind?
> I believe that in far more cases than not, however, standard widgets
> will do the job. And in the case of the OP, he seems to not even be
> aware of what the standard widgets can and can't do - hardly a good
> place from which to be thinking about making custom widgets.
>
>> A good gui has everything to do with a good designer and not
>> home-grown vs. standard widgets arguments.
>
> Yes. But it's still the case that in most cases, basic widgets will do
> the job, and that if one is thinking of customizing widgets, it's
> important to ask "Why am I doing this?".

Of /course/.

Define "do the job".  Text interfaces can usually "do the job".  The issue 
is how to do the job as well as possible, according to good gui 
methodologies.



-- 
Framsticks.  3D Artificial Life evolution.  You can see the creatures
that evolve and how they interact, hunt, swim, etc. (Unaffiliated with
me). http://www.frams.alife.pl/

Dag Sunde wrote:
> "Tim Ward" <tw2@ipaccess.com> wrote in message
> news:3cpg6hF6nk72vU1@individual.net...
> 
>>"IchBin" <weconsul@ptd.net> wrote in message
>>news:IfmdnRlvg6rHZvvfUSdV9g@ptd.net...
>>
>>>John McGrath wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 4/18/2005 at 2:50:10 PM, IchBin wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I use in my programs see screenshots...:  http://localhost:8080/
>>>>
>>>>I do not think that URL will work for most people.  :o)
>>>>
>>>
>>>Sorry....
>>>
>>>http://24.115.55.47:8080
>>
>>There surely isn't really anybody who would click on a numeric link??
>>
> 
> 
> I can't for my life see whats wrong with clicking on a numeric link?
> A domain-name doesn't really tell you anything, does it?
> The only difference is that you save a DNS-lookup...
> 
> But the fun part, is that http://24.115.55.47:8080 contains the following:
> <meta http-equiv="refresh"
> content="0;http://localhost:8080/JHackerAppManager">
> so you don't get any further anyway.
> 
> This will take the "daring" ones to where the OP probably wanted us
> to go:
> http://24.115.55.47:8080/JHackerAppManager/
> 

*Sorry*, I am running a Tomcat App Server off of my machine. Will move 
to an ISP add buy a domain Name when I am finished building my site. So 
I do not have my own domain name yet, hence the IP address. Why spend 
any money for development when I do not have to.

I did not think that clicking on an IP address would make people *knees 
shake*.

Yes, it is really pointing to 
http://24.115.55.47:8080/JHackerAppManager/. That just so happens to be 
the name of my product. It is a 'Windows XP SP 2 Firewall Audit 
Application'.

It was just by *chance* that the Product name and clicking on an "IP 
address link" where mixed together to make people think about their own 
security concerns.

If any of you did have a security concern then I think that you better 
start look around for software to protect your machine.

I personally would hate to have that feeling of not going to a link 
address because of my security concerns. Kinda takes away the freedom of 
the Internet..

But then this email is getting way out-of-scope for my initial reason 
for posting my link, That is, GUI design. I use a mixture of LAF's with 
the main structure being "Goodies Forms". I do have screenshots there 
for the people who know their own security strength and weakness issues 
to take the journey.

Sorry, I just thought of something funny...LOL

I noticed the author of the http://www.jgoodies.com/ Products, Karsten 
Lentzsch has posted to this thread. I just wanted to thank him for all 
of his products and guidance by his web site. I only hope I do his forms 
justice, in his eyes.

-- 

Thanks in Advance...
IchBin
__________________________________________________________________________

'The meeting of two personalities is like the contact of two chemical 
substances:
  if there is any reaction, both are transformed.'
-  Carl Gustav Jung,  (1875-1961),  psychiatrist and psychologist

Alex Hunsley coughed up:
> hiwa wrote:
>> I wonder do all of you really know that 'high standard',
>> 'sophisticated', 'fancy', 'sexy' blah blah UI is a steep
>> learning curve for ordinary common people users.
>>
>> It humiliates them.
>>
>> And you must be aware of that the Java has simplified
>> almost every field of application level computing and
>> its development effort.
>>
>> And you might have to notice, for example, that modern car
>> no more has manual gearbox.
>
> I didn't notice that. I like in the UK where by far modern cars have
> manuals.

I live  in the US and my cars (audi-a4, and honda crv) come with manual 
still.

{shrug}

-- 
Framsticks.  3D Artificial Life evolution.  You can see the creatures
that evolve and how they interact, hunt, swim, etc. (Unaffiliated with
me). http://www.frams.alife.pl/