crappish wrote:Besides, I see no need to give you any textbook definition, nor any other definiotions whatsoever, because you should know that all already. You kept flaming me, at IRC, that icons aren't part of GUI.. etc. (+bashing my opinions at IRC. I discussed about XP icons being easier to recognize which you so well did put as "retard design") As you clearly aren't willing to part from that knowledge I see absolutely no reason to argue about it.
Wow. That is so mangled that I don't even feel tempted to seperate all the tidbits of misinformation into quote tags and point out where stuff has been kludged together in your brain. But it's at least cool to know how wrong someone can interpret normal conversation.
Just to throw in some much needed nuance (which seems to be terribly difficult for you): I said that icons are not subjected to UI design rules
. They are part of the GUI but only their placement, size, what happens when you click it, etc, are the things that relate to UI design. The icon itself (the way it looks, or what it resembles), has two simple rules: to be consistent with its surroundings (iconsets should have the same style and blend in with the look and feel of the OS), and it should be easily recognizable in its depiction. PERIOD. You kept implying that there are other magic rules to abide to that I should go read books about, which I of course denied. Also, completely unrelated to what you
said (you were idle at the time), I mentioned how I find it funny that people (IN GENERAL!) glorify the XP icons/skins even though it is made for retards. These blinding brightly colored in-your-face, the-button-can't-be-big-enough interfaces that seem to be designed with visually and cognitively handicapped people in mind that I find an insult to my intelligence. This is just my opinion that I ranted around a bit, which you took personally and started attacking. Feel flamed but I think it was my opinion that you attacked, not the other way around.
I see now that your distinction between UI and GUI is such an irrelevant one that I can hardly get into why you shout so loud about it. To me, what happens when you click a button with middlemouse or rightmouse is still part of how the G
UI responds to user input. Keyboard shortcuts are ways to interact with the G
UI without using the mouse. Basically, what you call GUI is the part that just sits there being pretty. I still count the interaction, be it with mouse, keyboard, or voice commands, interacting with that same GUI. It doesn't become "generic UI" all of a sudden just because it stopped sitting there being pretty and started reacting to user input. Personally, I'd say the way how everything sticks together could be called normal UI whereas anything that has buttons or such things is GUI. Still, if you ask a UNIX sysadmin he'll tell you that anything that can't be run under console is GUI. These are the sort of distinctions that keep me running after your
definition of UI and GUI. It is because I know you can't talk about things when you both have something else in mind. You insist though that your opinion is absolute and the truth(tm), and that if I read enough books I'd understand.
You presumed I had "basic knowledge of UI", I presumed you had basic knowledge of how to conduct an argument. You know what they say, "assumption is the mother of all f*ckups"...