Ideal D GUI Toolkit

[Adam Wilson]

On Mon, 20 May 2013 17:04:40 -0700, Nick Sabalausky  
<SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:50:06 -0700
> "Adam Wilson" <flyboynw at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 15:21:22 -0700, Nick Sabalausky
>> <SeeWebsiteToContactMe at semitwist.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > I still have a hard time believing that it's realistic for it take
>> > take everything into account. *Even* if you go to all the effort to
>> > make every render and behavior pixel-perfect, you're *still*
>> > failing to account for all of the following things, all of which
>> > actually *exist*:
>> >
>> > - Software to allow the user to custom-reskin the system. Yes, even
>> > on Windows this exists, and has for a looong time. Getting a
>> > third-party GUI toolkit compatible with this would likely be quite
>> > difficult, if even possible.
>> >
>>
>> What if as a UI designer I know that I want to specifically disallow
>> skinning? It's not even that hard of a decision to reach. If the
>> skinning changes the layout metrics at all (margin, padding, size,
>> even shape), my app can end up looking terrible and I have to take a
>> support call for a case that I couldn't have possibly dreamed up.
>>
>
> Basing software decisions upon worries of "What if some user shoots
> himself and calls our support?" is *always* a bad idea.
>

Is it though? Because regardless of whether or not they should call me,  
they will, and I will have to spend money to deal with it. Again, I have  
real problems that are clashing with ideology. When that happens the  
engineer in me demands that I address the real problems.

> The user overrides the developer/designer. Always. The user is the
> whole reason for *anything* we do in this field. The user may as well be
> God - if they want to do something questionable, we can raise warnings,
> but it is *absolutely* not our place to prevent it. As soon as you
> start down that route, anything you do becomes a pointess waste that
> defeats its own reason for existence.
>
>

Why? The user mostly doesn't care as long as it works and solves their  
problem, I personally spend less and less time customizing my environments  
for two-fold reasons, I have an every growing number of them, and I care  
less and less, just get out of my way and let me work. Don't make me  
decide on a hundred details before I can get started.

>> > - On windows, I use a program called KatMouse that allows me to
>> > scroll any control by just pointing at it and using my mouse's
>> > scroll-wheel. No need to manually "focus" the control before the
>> > retarded Win system allows me to scroll it. This is literally my #1
>> > favorite windows program. But this obviously doesn't work on
>> > programs that merely *emulate* the system's look-and-feel, no
>> > matter how meticulous the emulation. Hell, even the UI changes in
>> > "native" MS-developed Vista and Win7 break it at least half the
>> > time.
>> >
>>
>> I'd say it's on the developers of KatMouse to get their crap
>> together. It sounds like their development model is "don't upgrade
>> from WinXP because we like that one."[...]
>
> You're missing the point:
>
> The point is NOT that "XP -> 7 should be seamless for all software". I
> don't believe that, and I would never claim it or deliberately imply it.
>
> The point is that even the most *meticulous* and convincing native
> emulation is *still* insufficient (and ultimately a big waste of time).
>
> Should it be the responsibility of the program itself support newer
> versions of Win? Obviously. (Unfortunately, KatMouse appears to
> be closed-source abandonware, but that's completely beside the point.)
>
> Should it be the responsibility of the program itself to support the
> various non-native third-party GUIs just because some
> self-important GUI developers didn't feel like playing ball and
> decided that *their* internal conveniences were more important than
> their users, the very people for whom the all this software exists
> in the first place? *Absolutely not*.
>
>
>> You may like it, by I've never even
>> heard of it, and my guess is that almost nobody else has either.
>>
>
> popularity != importance
> popularity != value
> popularity != worthiness
>
> (popularity != a goddamn thing)
>
> It is unreasonable to expect GUI developers or GUI designers to
> explicitly support various tools like KatMouse? Absolutely. It is
> definitely unreasonable. And that's *exactly* why non-native GUIs are
> horrible idea.
>
>
>> > - Tools to reveal the value behind "******"-filled password boxes.
>> >   Sounds like a black-hat tool, but I've personally had legitimate
>> >   need to use it.
>> >
>>
>> Ehrm, TBH, I consider breaking those tools a good thing. Yes there
>> may be legitimate uses, but the number if illegitimate uses far
>> exceeds the benefit.
>>
>
> I strongly disagree:
>
> First of all, there is very little, if any, illegitimate use of this
> that doesn't require *at least* as significant a security breach to
> have *already* occurred.
>
> Secondly, we're not babysitters or self-appointed police here. To
> engage in such a level of control is *already* a very serious breach
> of our moral obligations.
>
>

In the real world, yes, we are. You see, it's a small inconvenience known  
as the lawsuit. Specifically that I am legally liable for any and all  
security vulnerabilities within my product. There is case-history going  
back to support this since the dawn of legal systems. It is ironclad,  
ideology will not change it. I consider cross-process of a UI a MAJOR  
security problem because it allows malicious software to modified my  
software in subtle ways that compromise the security of the system. And  
apparently I am not the only one who thinks this way because every mobile  
OS available today does not allow ANY kind of cross-process UI  
manipulation of any kind, going so far as to sandbox each app. Where is  
your outrage over Android or iOS or WinRT or Blackberry or Symbian?

>> > - Anything else that involves either GUI-introspection or adding a
>> >   cross-application UI feature. There's plenty of other
>> >   entirely valid use-cases.
>> >
>>
>> What is the use case for GUI introspection?
>>
>
> Just for example, Spy++ or any similar such developer tool. Or GUI
> macros. Those are just off the top of my head. I'm sure people can, and
> have, thought of any number of other different uses.
>

GUI macros work on WPF apps. Snoop does what Spy++ does.

>>
>> Manipulating a UI from another process is bad, evil, and a massive
>> security problem, I'd say that disallowing it is a service to the
>> world.
>>
>
> I couldn't disagree more. I don't believe for a second that that's
> even the slightest bit different from saying "Using a computer is bad,
> evil, and a massive security problem; disallowing them is a service to
> the world."
>
> We're not Big Brother and I, for one, refuse to be party to anything
> even remotely smelling as such, which is something (ie, "Big Brother")
> that I very much believe your views on our responsibilities as
> developers *do*, by necessity, constitute.
>

Have you ever built any software where you are legally liable for any  
security holes your software opens up? My guess is no. Because if you had,  
you'd get where I am coming from.

Ideology is fine, right up until you have to meet the real world. Do you  
honestly expect your users to each become security experts? Such a thought  
is laughable on the face of it. They have neither the time nor the  
interest, and nor should they, it is not a productive use of their time.  
This is why the law makes it MY fault for security flaws, because there is  
not, and can be no, reasonable expectation that they are security experts,  
that's MY job.

Ergo, allowing cross-process UI manipulation is inherently wrong, it's  
also legally and ethically wrong.  Putting my users at risk in the name of  
ideology is so wrong that I am dry heaving at the thought. Incidentally,  
this is why no mobile OS ever allows it, it's WAY to legally risky. Not  
even Google can make that lawsuit go away.


Nick, I hate to break it to you, but you are so far out on the extreme end  
of the scale on this one that it will be impossible to advance technology  
and keep you happy, so I'll have to leave you behind, because the 99% want  
there software to just work, and could care less how it does it. I don't  
like leaving people behind and pissing them off, but I have to go where  
the majority goes, otherwise I'm just a penniless artist with a rigid  
ideology and no friends.

-- 
Adam Wilson
IRC: LightBender
Project Coordinator
The Horizon Project
http://www.thehorizonproject.org/