As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 12 years ago.
This is a question I have had rattling around in my head for some time. I had a chat with a guy the other night who told me he would not be using the navigational framework because he could not figure out how it works with MVVM. As much as I tried to explain that patterns should be taken with a pinch of salt he would not listen.
My point is this, patterns are great when they solve some problem. Sometimes only part of the pattern solves a particular problem while the other parts of it cause different problems. The goal of any developer is to build a solid application using a combination of patterns know how and foresight.
I feel MVVM is becoming the one pattern to rule them all. As it is not directly supported by .Net some fancy business is needed to make it work. I feel that people are missing the point of the pattern, which is loosely coupled, testable code and instead jumping through hoops and missing out on great experiences trying to follow MVVM to the letter.
MVVM is great but I wish it came with a warning or disclaimer for newbies as my fear is people will shy away from silverlight development for fear of being smacked with the mvvm stick.
EDIT:
Can I just add as an edit, I use and agree with MVVM as a pattern I know when it is and isn't feasible in my projects. My issue is with the encompassing nature it is taking, as if it HAS to be used as part of development. It is being used as an integral feature and not a pattern, which it is.
EDIT 2: Thanks for all the comments so far, one issue that is surfacing from this is something I have not thought about until now. Is the introduction of richer more advanced frameworks for GUI/RIA development showing a weakness in RAD development for this generation. That is, is there a lack of code design and pattern knowledge being taught along with these frameworks? I once asked for a book on just C# (Before Pro C# & the .Net framework was popular) and was told why would I want to know C# minus winforms/asp.
Sure there are plenty of books/KB on these subjects but are people using them, beyond the superstars and very good programmers?
So, here's something that I think a lot of new MVVM developers forget - the pattern is there to help you, not the other way around. Building software in this manner tends to make your life easier as your project gets larger, but if it's completely getting in your way for a specific task, take a step back and ask, "In this specific scenario, is MVVM helping me here?" You're allowed to "cheat" a bit from time to time if it makes your life easier.
Actually I've used MVVM quite effectively with Navigation Applications with the Windows Phone 7 framework using commands and messaging. But if someone tells you that you can use every feature of Silverlight without adding some code to the code-behind, then they are fooling themselves. Use the pattern where it helps and make sense, and go "off-pattern" when a particular feature requires something custom.
Assuming your question applies to WPF as well, I sort of wonder if the problem isn't just the massive learning curve of WPF/Silverlight, before it even occurs to you to try out MVVM. Think about all the new things that need to be learned with WPF (and I assume Silverlight): XAML, dependency properties, attached properties, routed events, routed commands, static resources, dynamic resources, styles, data templates, control templates, databinding, etc., etc. etc. Then take the fact that Microsoft released this technology with an incomplete set of, at least with WPF, badly skinned controls, and you have a recipe for frustration and the inescapable feeling that you are dealing with a technology that is "not ready for prime time". I mean, before the WPF Toolkit came out, there wasn't even a proper DataGrid control.
Once you understand all these things, MVVM is yet another hurdle, but I don't think it's the main impediment to people jumping on the WPF/Silverlight bandwagon. That said, it would be nice if Microsoft would get behind it the way it has gotten behind ASP.NET MVC. As it stands today, you have to download and use third-party tools, like MVVM Foundation and MVVM Toolkit (which, incidentally, have a lot of overlap and should be combined into a single project).
So, I agree with you to a point, but I think most of the challenges involved with MVVM are probably due to the lack of support from Microsoft, and the inherent complexity of WPF/Silverlight, not due to any flaw in the MVVM pattern itself.
Great answers here, by the way. Good discussion and an important one to have. There is no doubt that learning Silverlight can be intimidating for new developers, and the MVVM framework will no doubt compound that.
However, I do agree that someone not understanding it isn't a dig against the framework. I still have developers who tell me that inversion of control/dependency injection is too confusing to learn, but does that make these invalid patterns? The fact the so much proven, "in the field" software relies on those concepts tells me they are sound even if complicated to grasp at first or understand.
Then again, learning a foreign was tough when I started, but once I pushed through, now I can speak it comfortable and wonder why it was so hard to begin with.
I guess the trend that scares me the most is this notion that for some reason complicated, enterprise applications should be easily built by beginner developers who either can't or won't grasp complex concepts. That's what it really boils down to. You don't have doctors saying, "Help, make this brain surgery easier so any one can do it." It's specialized. Building great software is also specialized, that's why consultants command good payment for their services: it's the value they provide in understanding the right way to architect and develop solutions.
If you are making an asteroids game, a fantasy game, a media site, a YouTube knock-off, etc, then you probably don't need MVVM and it is overkill. If you are building a small site with a few forms and graphs then build it how you are comfortable and be done with it.
If you are building a large, complex site that is composed of multiple, dynamic modules, moves thousands or millions of records and requires scaling to massive concurrent users, then you can't expect the design to just pop out after thumbing a few pages of a book or skimming a few sites. Software like that is complicated, with a lot of moving parts, and rqeuires a firm grasp of architecture.
What amazes me is people presumably building these more complex applications who still don't get building these more complex applications. Is there someone experienced on the team? Do you have an architect to stub out the framework that you can consume?
I mean really, the example just tells me the problem isn't MVVM, it's the developer. "Avoiding Navigation because of MVVM?" REALLY? What's MVVM got to do with it? Write the navigation pieces, and let the view models live inside the pages. Why does my navigation have to drive from a view model?
Come one. If it's that complicated I think it has nothing to do with the pattern, and everything to do with the developer just not understanding development. Don't blame the pattern. Maybe they need to stick to simpler applications. In my experience, people who come to understand the pattern understand software well enough that they know when and when not to use the pattern.
I know there are many movements to boil it down and make it simple for the "average consumer" but I think this is like trying to say, "Calculus is the wrong way to find the area under a curve because it's too tough to learn." While MVVM isn't as complex as Calculus, building complex software is a complex endeavor and I don't think you are ever going to simplify it or boil it down to a simple formula (nor should you). If you struggle with MVVM, please, don't use it - find something simpler and easier. If your project is complex enough to use it and you still don't grasp it, please hire someone who does, have them plumb it out and learn from them.
No, I don't want Microsoft telling me what pattern to use nor do I feel it is their responsibility. I'm a professional and it's on my shoulders to invest the time to learn and understand what I'm building so I can build it the best way for the customer. Microsoft doesn't necessarily know what my customer does or needs, so how can they possibly tell me what pattern to use? Projects like Prism are great because they are a compromise: they provide guidance and share "best practices" of how something can be done, without forcing that implementation on the developer.
I'm using MVVM for a Windows Phone 7 app. I really like the idea of it but there's too many hacks, wordarounds and 3rd party tools needed to get it running.
Things are getting better with every release of Silverlight but I still think the technology is "bleeding edge".
Why can't you?
And no, MVVM is just one of many patterns and frankly, not even amongst the most popular ones. What is hurting Silverlight's development is a) Flash b) not being Flash c) being Microsoft centric d) learning curve.
Plus the fact WPF doesn't really seem to have caught on doesn't much help.
Someone has problems figuring out how to use navigational framework with MVVM => Someone doesn't use navigational framework => MVVM is killing navigational framework => MVVM is killing Silverlight development.
Would you say there are few flaws with this chain of reasoning?
Related
In your company, who does design and develop style, layout in xaml, Designers? or Developers?
Are there enough designers who are able to deal with xaml or blend?
Are they willing to touch Blend?
In my company, Developers do all those jobs except making images.
I am so confused nowadays if this is right direction.
Give me a advice.
I'm the developer and the designer too. I think developers love blend, because it is very simple, and it is easy to create attractive interfaces (the greatest programming/design IDE i've ever seen). But i never met a silverlight designer, who is not a developer too. I think it will be happens in the future, that completely separate design and coding, but not now. Maybe in a new programmer generation :). I think its very important for a silverlight/wpf designer, to know, how this new binding concept works. Programmers knows it already, so it is much easier to do coding and design for yourself, than ask a designer to learn blend and the silverlight/wpf things, because they think it's coding...but blend is simply clicking...but you must learn it, and you must understand xaml hierarchy and syntax and everything...
So i think they must go to a training class, with developers, and learn the new things together. Than they can separate things. Designers are much lazier than developers, but they need learn new things too.
I think i'm lucky, i love design & coding too.
A Coder's perspective:
Silverlight is certainly gaining momentum, but in the design industry it is a relative newcomer.
I personally know of only one UK company that actually uses specialist "XAML designers" side-by-side with their Silverlight coders (but the results there are not anything special). I'm sure there are more but it says something that I have not seen many.
At my current major client, there is a real need for GUI design work, but that will be done by traditional designers (e.g. in Photoshop) and although I am a hard-core coder by trade I will likely be the one that "Blends it". Luckily I really like working with Blend (and Sketchflow). I rate it highly for coders, as it does so much more than the VS 2010 editor, and I tend to do only XAML tweaks in VS 2010 (and all my code of course).
Designers are not lazier. They have a different skill set - one that I do not have myself and have come to admire. The really good ones can produce amazing results, but even the worst ones are much better at pure design than me. I do not expect non-coders to sit at a desk for 12 hours straight solving problems like we are prone to do (but non-coders usually have better social lives) :)
Forgive me if this is the wrong place but I am curious as to how other programmers feel about this topic:
I am currently working on my portfolio site, it is being designed and built in silverlight 4. I initially started off with a typical stylised e-folio theme much like a standard website in terms of layout and flow.
As I work more in the concept stages something has struck me. Am I trying to shoe-horn yesterday into today? What I am talking about is UI expectations. I'm all for clean user interfaces but that does not mean they should not take advantage of new concepts in presentation right?
If you where to develop a site in silverlight as your own portfolio piece would you stick to the tried and tested "website" feel or would you try to come up with a UI that is intuitive and complements the technology?
I feel that UI discussions are all the more important now that all forms of web development are allowing better methods to engage the user.
One of the most important things in UI design is to avoid being "clever". Understand the cultural, psychological and experiential expectations of your users and meet those expectations, don't challenge them. If a user has to learn your UI concept, or an unusual mental model of information organization, you have failed.
Read The Design of Everyday Things and Designing Visual Interfaces to dig into these ideas more deeply.
There is (very nearly) no such thing as a new UI scheme - simply new arrangements of the basic concepts of user interaction - see the iPod click wheel, for example. Almost without fail, anyone who thinks they have come up with some great new interface concept has actually just come up with crap that doesn't follow any of the rules of UI design - and it's bound to frustrate users, make them feel stupid, or make them think the designer is stupid.
If you understand these basic pieces, you can use new technologies like Silverlight to put them together in better ways than ever before. Again, the key is understanding them and what drives them, and how they align with the user's conscious and unconscious needs.
There's two answers to this: macro and micro.
On micro level, the usual UI design idea is to NOT violate the users' expectations.
If they expect a certain type of widget/flow/look to do "X", don't make your site do "Y". It confuses or even frustrates the users.
However, you can always come up with new widgets/paradigms! (an example would be expandable panes upon introduction of JavaScript)
On a macro level, if you can come up with a new work/view/data flow or feel due to new technologies used (Silverlight), most certainly try it!
However, as usual, follow the Nielsen mantra... Hallway test!
Come up with an idea, prototype, and try it out on 5 people you know (coworkers, friends, family) to gauge usability "in real life".
I would avoid making a Silverlight application that is the same as a web page. But were I to make a portfolio, I wouldn't put all my eggs in the Silverlight basket either. (Well unless I had the money to wait for a Silverlight job.)
I would look to embed a couple small applications made in Silverlight. Depending on what you want to emphasize, it could even be something as simple as a calculator with cool effects on the keys. Another idea is some kind of feed reader.
For a developpeur who as to do a project with WPF or Silverlight (xaml code), is it trial to learn some design (basics) and to handle blend? Beacause in France there isn't much blend professional (compare to photoshop users) and the price/day of a blend designer is very high.
What I am sure is there i ain't no artist, but it could be interesting/fun to learn something that different then pure code. So my question is mainly for designer or developpers that had to learn some design, is it that hard for a custom design?
The principle of design are not difficult to learn but they're not always easy to put into practice and that's why it's considered an art rather than a skill. Certainly WPF/Silverlight is a designers dream as far as desktop UI is concerned since it's VERY flexible so you'll find few restrictions on what is possible when compared to other technologies. Blend works well with them too and it's not that tough to learn.
To start learning design as a developer, i'd suggest you take in as much material as possible and pratice,..a LOT. Read design blogs like the ones here and read plenty of books. Some good starter books are The Non Designers Design Book, The Design Of Everyday Things and Don't Make Me Think. I know they all really help when i started to look into UI and interaction design.
Hope that helps.
A great way to find your way in the design world is the Principles of Design Series on Microsoft Showcase. These videos explain things like Rythm and Unity.
There are a lot of other videos that should help to find your way around Expression Blend and Silverlight.
One thing that works for me all the time is to look what others do and use that for inspiration in you own design. Just google-image or bing-image for you are designing or see if it is in the Infragistics UX explorer.
I understand your question as I went through the same thing. I've done plenty of web sites over the years, but I never felt as though they had the "zing" a good graphic artist could provide. Because of this, I had concluded some time ago that to really take my skills to the next level I had to learn at least some graphic design, but I never did anything about it.
That changed when I started learning WPF. I quickly decided that I needed to learn some basics, especially when I started using Blend which was a whole new world after living in Visual Studio for so long.
To jump start my graphic artist education, I took an introductory course at our local community college. It was worth every penny: I was exposed to principles of design and some key software products like Adobe Photoshop and Illustrator. Understanding them made Blend finally "click" for me. The experience has proven invaluable to me as a WPF developer, and I would recommend it to anyone interested in UI work.
WPF Silverlight have a lot of power however even when mastered it takes a lot of time to design a simple form say using a tab control using lots of grids with rows and columns and stack panels than it would on a normal desktop. Also it can be quite sloppy looking back at the XAML code just from a design point of view unless your using lots of windows which i try to avoid, i would rather have a tab control with each tab acting a a window. Anyway from a design point of view it is much more time consuming than a desktop application. You will find a lot of developers will use it as they are not good in code behind. So it depends on the program you are writing. ?You can make your program look very good from default controls and the listview is always a great control. Many will disagree because they think they are great developers and most likely will talk the usual no one want's to hear!
What are the characteristics of a good UI designer? How much does one have to have graphical design abilities these days as opposed to interaction design abilities. I see this of growing importance with the advent of WPF and Silverlight.
I personally consider myself good at interaction design, but would like to strengthen my skills in the graphical design area. Is it even possible to learn these skills or are you born with them? Can anybody recommend any good books or resources that would help?
Thanks,
Craig
Try the Non-designer's design book.
In my experience, interface design is a skill all in itself. Graphic designers are good at making wonderfully beautiful but completely confusing and unusable interfaces.
I have a few tricks I use but they mostly involve stealing design elements from well designed apps and websites.
In my experience, the hallmark of a good UI designer isn't necessarily a snazzy, do-it-all, isn't-that-cool solution, but generally one that's almost invisible because it just works with very little help from the user:
Controls and information are laid out logically, intuitively, and consistently.
The ease of accessing a feature is proportional to its frequency of use.
The user finds it almost impossible not to use the product correctly.
It breaks the "rules" when doing so increases its usability.
It's attractive in a "girl (or guy) next door" sort of way. Pleasant to look at, but not distracting.
I would look at any of the edward tufte books.
Jakob Nielson is a good author also.
Most people can look at user interfaces (like they look at anything graphical) and say "that looks good" or "that doesn't look good". What usually makes a graphics person able to produce good-looking material is a willingness to change and tweak things near-endlessly, and even throw out entire lines of effort, until something that looks good emerges. Most programmers do not have the patience for this kind of thing, so their user interfaces look like they were designed by someone who didn't much care what they looked like.
On a deeper level, the concept of "talent" or "innate ability" is most often used as an excuse not to even try something (e.g. "I'm not musically talented, so I'm not even going to try playing the piano"). If you want to become good at something, you have to practice it a lot - there is no alternative.
In my experience, it's a lot easier to find someone to make pretty pages, than someone who can do really amazing, subtle, non-obvious use cases. Use cases that aren't fundamentally table maintenance input forms.
If you're there already, I'd suggest you might think about finding a gui artist to pair-program with.
On the opposite side, if I find something laid out poorly, boxes that don't line up, awkward usage, poor grammar, I assume that the programmer is just as sloppy in their internal code. I expect more bugs in applications with a poor UI.
It's somewhat dated, but I enjoyed "The Design of Everyday Things". Good UI makes the user feel good without them ever noticing.
It is definitely possible to learn these skills.
What a lot of people get confused with is the difference between Art and Design. In many ways the difference between Art and Design is that Art has no understated functionality. It looks good...because it does. With Design there is usually a reason for something to exist. To be a good designer one must understand what good design is and how to efficiently break the boundaries of logic to create something that works with as little cognitive-load as possible. If a new UI design allows me to perform a task twice as fast as the old one then it is better. If I enjoy the experience of using the new one then it is better.
Of course, there is an artistic side to design, and by using flair and creativity a designer can make better designs.
If you want to become better at designing then there are two things you can do:
Read everything you possibly can about design. Find the best design Blog's and stick them in your RSS feed. Read through everything you possibly can about design.
Design something, then design it again, and again, then stop! Now, design something else...
Learn as much as you can about HCI. There are some great HCI books out there, even past the obvious choices. Read as many books as you can find.
Join a design community and monitor the work people produce. If you get the chance, collaborate with someone better than you and see how they tick.
I don't know enough about Art to say if you can learn how to become an artist. All I do know is that everyone is naturally creative; you just have to learn how to let it out in your work, that means learning how to use your tools effectively. Once you can do that then you can experiment.
I like to think that many of the standing HCI concepts we use today haven't just come from calculated thinking; more an artistic vision come to life.
it's all about the end-user's mental model - the abstract structure they form in their minds that leads them to just 'know' what to try as they explore your UI design. As a UI developer you need to clearly understand and then create that mental model for them - and a lotta times it will have nearly nothing to do with the composition of the underlying software system. So don't be surprised if some UIs are difficult to develop.
Once a user begins to visualize and embrace this mental model, they will start to explore and try things based on logically filling in the missing pieces. Good UI design will reward them with expected results, a bad UI will stymy and confuse and they'll wanna hunt you down.
Great UI means:
All the tools/data you see are actionable
That is, everything on the screen has meaning. If it doesn't have meaning or doesn't affect what you're going to do next, it shouldn't be there.
Understanding and using conventions
This is most of the time. Occasionally a great UI designer invents a new interface model (tags were invented to better handle photo-sharing).
Making everything frictionless
If you want to do something, you want to do it in as few steps as possible.
Making everything clean and understandable to the eye
You can't diminish the need for good UI design to at least be palatable to the eye. If you can't digest something visually in a very short amount of time, it might not be a good example of good UI.
About Face is a nice book too.
Subtlety is always something good to watch out. Harsh gradients and some color combinations are just a pain.
As a resource for designing user interfaces in Windows, I'd say that the Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines offers great tips and examples on designing user interfaces.
It provides both good and bad examples of user interfaces from actual Microsoft products, so I'd say it's actually quite objective and a valuable guide to use as a reference when learning about user interface design.
As it is designed as a guide for Windows Vista applications, it would fit in well with UI design for WPF, but the tips offered are general enough that they can also be applied to user interfaces that aren't Windows-based as well.
I'll add a pointer to a related question: Java User Interface Specification
Joel Spolsky's got a simple, elegant idea in the "Hallway Usability Test," as well as a series of posts on UI design.
I suppose the first book I'd suggest is 'the inmates are running the asylum". It takes a bit to get into, but it turns out to be a great book.
Online...
the w3's got some great ideas about how to design web pages.
The zen of palm coding should be required reading for gui design for pda designers.
This can be debated until the end of time, personally I believe that interaction design and graphical design are two quite separate things.
But both of them van be learnt, at least to a satisfactory level. You'll probably never be4come truly great at it unless you have a "talent" for it.
A book that I myself havn't read but I have heard many people recommend is "Don't make me think" by Steve Krug.
The sites I recommend for UI and design specifically are:
Alert Box, about web design, in particular. Good examples, use cases, and studies there.
Humanized, design principles. Check the blog too, specifically this and it's setup article.
Aza Raskin's Blog. He's part of Humanized (and now Mozilla), and his personal blog is a mine of insightful commentary on interface design.
The interesting thing about these sites is that they don't just give examples of UI "do's and don'ts", but back these examples up with specific metrics and methods that you can actually use to measure how "good" your UI is. Aza's blog is particularly interesting because he goes through his design iteration on several projects he's been part of, and talks about the "whys" for a lot of the UI decisions that were made.
Lots of links here to good guides, but the initial question remains: "What are the characteristics of a good UI designer?"
The ability to view a process, system or practice, and design an interface that makes the greatest improvement to it.
It's not about pretty interfaces, it's about what works best in that exact situation. And my advice for becoming a better user interface designer is to get better at putting yourself in the user position. We could all improve on that.
You can find a lot of designers who are able to draw pretty pictures, but the best have a working knowledge of interface design. Inherent in that is the ability to anticipate how a user will interact with an application without being prejudiced by the knowledge of how that application is supposed to work.
Regarding your second question - in my opinion, the programming model of WPF and Silverlight allows for a clearer separation between designer and coder (i.e. Microsoft Expression Design is for designers, .NET 3.5 is for coders, and Microsoft Epxression Blend is somewhere in the middle). That being said it is always better to have a UI designer who can handle both the design and the code.
And just to throw a book in there that I like - Luke Wroblewski's Web Form Design - you can get a PDF version of the book for under $20 bucks.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
Basically I'm going to go a bit broad here and ask a few questions to get a bit of a picture of how people are handling UI these days.
Lately I've found it pretty easy to do some fancy things with UI design and with WPF specifically we're finding new ways to do layouts that are better looking and more functional for the user, but in contrast one of the business focused guys at our local .NET User Group wouldn't even think of using WPF until it had a datagrid that he could use to make Excel like input forms.
So basically, have you rethought the design of your business apps as you move to Web/WPF/Silverlight designs, because for us at least - in winforms we kept things fairly functional and uniform, or are you trying to keep that "known" UI?
Would a dedicated design guy (for larger teams), or a dev with more design chops rank higher when looking at hiring these days? (Check out what a designer did for Scott Hanselman's BabySmash and Microsoft's Prism demo)
Are there any design hints/tips/guidelines you use for your UI - especially for WPF?
What sites would you recommend for design?
I recommend that you read Steve Krug's Don't Make Me Think first. The book has a great checklist of things that you have to take into consideration when designing your UIs. While it's focused on web usability, a lot of the lessons therein are valuable even to desktop application designers.
That being said, whether you use Windows forms or WPF or Flash or whatever new and shiny thing that comes around is, it is of utmost importance to hire either a) a real designer, or b) a development guy with a lot of UI design experience, either of which who can provide you a serious URL for their design portfolio. It will help a lot not only in improving the design of your application but also unburdening your developers from thinking about UI design, and allow them to focus on the back-end code.
As for "business focused" guys -- it would be really great if you would get the opinion of actual customers and stake holders, and have them do some usability testing for your application. It's their opinion that would matter most.
I think it would not be difficult to get a good designer up to speed on Microsoft Expression Blend to whip up some good XAML designs that your team could use to come up with a really good product.
Here's a great screen cast where Billy Hollis goes into many of these issues:
http://www.dnrtv.com/default.aspx?showNum=115
I think WPF can greatly improve user experience.
However there are not much business oriented controls out there which means you need to do a lot by yourself.
As for designers I think it's really hard to find WPF designer now days, it still would be a dedicated programmer rather then design-only guy.
I hope that this situation will change in nearest feature.
I think it's worth at least start experimenting with WPF to be able to compete with upcoming solutions.
The whole concept of re-thinking a UI of an existing application is dependent on the target audience. For a boring business application, like accounting or budgeting, it may even be counter-productive. For one, users of those kinds of apps may have used a similar looking and feeling UI for years and years, and second, looking too "cute" and colorful can even bring a perception of toy-ishness (is that a word?) with it.
We have done several new projects with the latest & greatest UI gadgets, and for the most part for new applications it seems to be a good chance to get some feedback from a live audience. Then it gets easier to translate that feedback into existing applications.
We also have some apps which are still actively developed (and used obviously), where the UI looks almost like in Windows 3.1. They're awful, gray, clunky, and our only real designer is always trying to get a permission to bring it to the current centrury - but the biggest customer actively refuses this. They say it's just fine, people know how to use it, and it works even in their oldest computers.
#aku "I think WPF can greatly improve user experience."
I believe that WPF has amazing potential as a tool to make UIs more creative and better suited to the actual data that is being displayed, BUT..............
Just the mere act of using WPF isn't going to make great UIs appear out of nowhere.
A great carpenter may use the best wood working tools, but that doesn't mean that if you picked up his tools you'd all of a sudden be popping out fine furniture.
Using WPF over HTML/Flash/WinForms/etc just increases your potential .
If that's potential for ugliness or potential for beauty is up to you.
#David H Aust That's part of the reason for asking the question - with these newer tools like WPF that lend themselves to providing newer, more intricate, and at the same time simpler for the user, interfaces that we might need to adapt to new ways of doing things.
And trying to find out who else is adapting/interested and what they are doing, and where they get some inspiration, knowledge or help :)
IE: This is me being proactive about change in possibly the slackest manner ever, short of actively googling :)
^ That was a joke, to make it clear, I'm actually pretty active about learning new stuff, I'm just finding some of the crowdsourcing stackoverflow vs googling pretty interesting :)
Microsoft is building a DataGrid for WPF. A CTP can be found here.
#Lars Truijens - Thanks, but I think for 99% of cases that's a horrible idea, and sure, there are uses - but I've found that with WPF there's typically a much better way to do it.
Plus you can use textboxes, and use an Enter as Tab override to move through them easily and swiftly.