| User | Post |
windwaker
Posts: 938/1797 |
What about a type A that can have skins or an option to use its own colors, like Type D and E? 
A. |
Xeolord
Posts: 962/3418 |
A, for standard default, and E, for having freedom and such.
By default an E program should hopefully be A.  |
Tamarin Calanis
Posts: 259/1802 |
A or E. I hate D because I always use dark color schemes, and most programs that have their own colors that I've seen are really freaking bright (Black on yellow and white, for example). With other skins as options, it's not quite so bad, but I still generally prefer when everything fits with my computer's color scheme - something that can only be guaranteed by A. |
Ran-chan
Posts: 6510/12781 |
I chose A as I don |
Sokarhacd
Posts: 968/1757 |
Either A, or E, but I voted for A anyway, but E with an A option would be nice, like BMF says, firefox is one that definently shows it can be a really good thing. |
BMF98567
Posts: 563/1261 |
Definitely E with A as an option (or vice versa). Firefox is probably a good example, though it still uses non-standard methods to draw its menus and such even without a skin (its drop-down menus draw soooo slowly on my K6-2)... |
Xkeeper
Posts: -2777/-863 |
Originally posted by FreeDOS
XMMS and deritives use the same skinning method as Winamp. heh, as of a few versions ago, it supports .wsz files.
That had absolutely nothing to do with the topic.
ANyway, Centra 7 (a presumably well-known product among companies) has a text-chat feature for the presentations.
The window background is always white.
Guess what? Uses 3D TEXT COLOR for the text.
OH NOES. Especially when you use a very, very bright red as your 3D text color  |
Ailure
Posts: 7121/11162 |
I prefer Type A if anything, hell once I was using a odd but nice colour scheme. In Programs following all colours it looked nice but in programs that disregarded colours in some places and followed in others... ugh.
Skinnable programs are nice too, althought I tend to stick to the standard skin in thoose.  |
FreeDOS
Posts: 984/1657 |
XMMS and deritives use the same skinning method as Winamp. heh, as of a few versions ago, it supports .wsz files. |
HyperLamer
Posts: 2842/8210 |
E is nice, but I like to try to use as few resources as possible (not many available on this thing  ), so I prefer A. Best, of course, is E with A as an option. B and C suck, and are the reason that custom colour schemes in Windows 9x (and XP in Classic mode) just don't work, because there'll always be that one program that uses the system background window colour with a self-specified text colour. A big problem when it always makes the text black, and I always make the backgrounds dark. I really wish there was some way to force certain programs to use system colours, because I'd much rather use XP in Classic mode with a decent colour scheme than use the incredibly-resource-heavy XP themes. (It runs so much faster in that mode, but it's UGLY!  ) D isn't much better because some people just have horrible taste in colours/graphics, and they tend to still use one or two system colours right where it looks worst. |
Xkeeper
Posts: -2790/-863 |
For myself? Type A. The only program I've seen a good implementation of skins is (suprise!) Winamp, but I still prefer anything over skins (Winamp just does well because I can't see it functioning the smae with regular buttons, especially in the 'up' mode) |
FreeDOS
Posts: 980/1657 |
Type A. The option of doing type E is a bonus if type A is still an option. |
Gavin
Posts: 370/799 |
Originally posted by dan
Type A definitely. Programs that use their own colour schemes and stuff suck. Skins are frivilous bollocks too.
especially when you think about some of the really sick color combinations that i've seen people come up with. I just want to use the program for it's intended purpose without going blind, is that so hard to ask??
And the Norton Anti-virus type really piss me off, such a waste of my systems resources especially when i update my older machine, it's a huge pain just because they feel the screen has to be some candy shit color scheme with flashy buttons. |
dan
Posts: 333/782 |
Type A definitely. Programs that use their own colour schemes and stuff suck. Skins are frivilous bollocks too. |
Karadur
Posts: 523/1192 |
Type E definitely. It's good when the program is skinnable. That way you won't have to get sick and tired of seeing the same-looking interface all the time |
DarkSlaya
Posts: 3176/4249 |
I'll vote for Type E. Type A comes close to it, though. |
Xkeeper
Posts: -2791/-863 |
NOTE: Clicking on the types below will vote for them. This is just made for easier voting on your part.
Type A: Standard windows program that uses all system colors. (Example: Notepad)
Type B: A program that uses its own colors regardless of the system colors, even if it means the program turns unusable (Example: Calculator)
Type C: A program that will disregard several things about the system color scheme, but keep the majority of text system-color (Ex: MSN Messenger)
Type D: A program that disregards all system colors and looks like whatever the hell it wants to, using nonstandard buttons and designs (Ex: Norton Antivirus 2003)
Type E: Type D, but with options to skin (Ex: Winamp)
Vote on |
