XAML headache
-
[WARNING: Rant ahead] I finally upgraded to a new laptop to start playing with "modern/metro" UI apps, but after the first few hours, i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view. [Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)] Maybe i'm getting to old; .net winforms are direct and to the point (easy), building UI in C or C++ may take awhile but the end result always feels good. (yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need). Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower. then there is the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point). Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff, or switch over to building things for Linux. Thanks for letting me rant.
-
[WARNING: Rant ahead] I finally upgraded to a new laptop to start playing with "modern/metro" UI apps, but after the first few hours, i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view. [Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)] Maybe i'm getting to old; .net winforms are direct and to the point (easy), building UI in C or C++ may take awhile but the end result always feels good. (yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need). Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower. then there is the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point). Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff, or switch over to building things for Linux. Thanks for letting me rant.
I haven't gotten into XAML and WPF myself, the threshold is too high to get started when you only have a limited time. I thought WPF looked promising at first. Separate the layout from the code behind, so a good graphical designer can do the XAML bit and a good programmer the code. However, that is not what I see after messing with it for a while. There is too much logic going on in the XAML part for that concept to work well. Maybe I have totally misunderstood WPF or maybe I am too old and lazy to learn new, shiny things. :sigh: Sometimes I feel like one of the old grumpy guys in the Muppet show. The ones sitting on the balcony, Waldorf and Statler. ;P
-
[WARNING: Rant ahead] I finally upgraded to a new laptop to start playing with "modern/metro" UI apps, but after the first few hours, i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view. [Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)] Maybe i'm getting to old; .net winforms are direct and to the point (easy), building UI in C or C++ may take awhile but the end result always feels good. (yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need). Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower. then there is the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point). Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff, or switch over to building things for Linux. Thanks for letting me rant.
Matt McGuire wrote:
or switch over to building things for Linux.
I don't think the OS is the relevant issues with the Fisher and Paykel UI design, you can design a crappy UI for any platform. I have not even got as far as you with the windows 8 thingy but we jumped into Silverlight 4 years ago and are now transferring to WPF which is a simple excercise, I'm hoping the transfer to XAML/metro crap is just as simple.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
[WARNING: Rant ahead] I finally upgraded to a new laptop to start playing with "modern/metro" UI apps, but after the first few hours, i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view. [Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)] Maybe i'm getting to old; .net winforms are direct and to the point (easy), building UI in C or C++ may take awhile but the end result always feels good. (yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need). Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower. then there is the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point). Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff, or switch over to building things for Linux. Thanks for letting me rant.
The step to WPF is a large number of steps. My day to day work is with winforms which with good design practises is fine. I think the advantages of WPF and more recent technologies is that they allow larger teams to work on the same product at the same time. The thing is that most of us work in small teams or even on our own so the justification does not work for many of us. The only thing I will say about WPF is that it was a challenge to learn and has helped me think about solutions in different ways that feeds back into my winforms development. If you do go near WPF I would suggest working your way through something like WPF in 24 hours[^] typing all the examples by hand rather than downloading them.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
-
[WARNING: Rant ahead] I finally upgraded to a new laptop to start playing with "modern/metro" UI apps, but after the first few hours, i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view. [Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)] Maybe i'm getting to old; .net winforms are direct and to the point (easy), building UI in C or C++ may take awhile but the end result always feels good. (yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need). Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower. then there is the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point). Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff, or switch over to building things for Linux. Thanks for letting me rant.
Matt McGuire wrote:
Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff
This crosses my mind too, on a regular basis! :rolleyes:
"State acheived after eating too many chocolate-covered coconut bars - bountiful" Chris C-B
-
The step to WPF is a large number of steps. My day to day work is with winforms which with good design practises is fine. I think the advantages of WPF and more recent technologies is that they allow larger teams to work on the same product at the same time. The thing is that most of us work in small teams or even on our own so the justification does not work for many of us. The only thing I will say about WPF is that it was a challenge to learn and has helped me think about solutions in different ways that feeds back into my winforms development. If you do go near WPF I would suggest working your way through something like WPF in 24 hours[^] typing all the examples by hand rather than downloading them.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
When I tried WPF I went by the article series from Sacha Barber WPF: A Beginner's Guide - Part 1 of n[^] Really easy to follow and to get a grasp of the subject.
-
[WARNING: Rant ahead] I finally upgraded to a new laptop to start playing with "modern/metro" UI apps, but after the first few hours, i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view. [Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)] Maybe i'm getting to old; .net winforms are direct and to the point (easy), building UI in C or C++ may take awhile but the end result always feels good. (yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need). Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower. then there is the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point). Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff, or switch over to building things for Linux. Thanks for letting me rant.
I think the hard part is not to learn how to use all these MVVM related patterns, and xaml, and Blend, and many more to work with WPF (or any XAML-based tech), but to get yourself away from fixed content to "fluent" content based application design and to leverage the binding and animation features. Your rant about processing power is not understandable to me. I started my first WPF project years ago on a embedded XP device (low power, graphics onboard...), What I could do with this application in opposition to the old WinForms based application on the same device was unbelievable - The customer was praising me like a god :-O After some years WinForms seems to me now a very outdated stupid complicated concept :laugh:
-
[WARNING: Rant ahead] I finally upgraded to a new laptop to start playing with "modern/metro" UI apps, but after the first few hours, i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view. [Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)] Maybe i'm getting to old; .net winforms are direct and to the point (easy), building UI in C or C++ may take awhile but the end result always feels good. (yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need). Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower. then there is the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point). Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff, or switch over to building things for Linux. Thanks for letting me rant.
Matt McGuire wrote:
i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view.
I think most languages "after a few hours" feel that way. I have been involved in XAML for quite some time now. I honestly can't stand non mark up UI now. Why would you want anything else?
Matt McGuire wrote:
Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)
Actually you can. There are numerous blog postings on it etc. Here is the first one I found with a quick google search. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/jj874388.aspx[^]
Matt McGuire wrote:
(yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need).
Well it seems now you are seeing the need. It was not so much pure "WPF" but over the years XAML has become quite important.
Matt McGuire wrote:
Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower.
Its called abstraction, and yes it does require more and more processing power as it becomes easier to understand and program to.
Matt McGuire wrote:
the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point).
Use case studies have shown that cluttered screens overwhelms users and they are unable to find/discover features they could benefit from. Not but 10 years ago nearly all software came with some printed user guide. Now the general practice is have the user guide integrated with the software. In other words, using the software teaches the user how to "use the software". I find it much more effective.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
-
Matt McGuire wrote:
i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view.
I think most languages "after a few hours" feel that way. I have been involved in XAML for quite some time now. I honestly can't stand non mark up UI now. Why would you want anything else?
Matt McGuire wrote:
Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)
Actually you can. There are numerous blog postings on it etc. Here is the first one I found with a quick google search. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/jj874388.aspx[^]
Matt McGuire wrote:
(yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need).
Well it seems now you are seeing the need. It was not so much pure "WPF" but over the years XAML has become quite important.
Matt McGuire wrote:
Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower.
Its called abstraction, and yes it does require more and more processing power as it becomes easier to understand and program to.
Matt McGuire wrote:
the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point).
Use case studies have shown that cluttered screens overwhelms users and they are unable to find/discover features they could benefit from. Not but 10 years ago nearly all software came with some printed user guide. Now the general practice is have the user guide integrated with the software. In other words, using the software teaches the user how to "use the software". I find it much more effective.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Actually you can. There are numerous blog postings on it etc.
So long as you're either:
- running Windows 8 Enterprise joined to a Windows Server 2012 domain; or
- willing to fork out for Software Assurance or purchase Enterprise Side-Loading Keys through Volume Licensing.
The side-loading keys "only" cost $30 per machine, but are only available in packs of 100. Rockford Lhotka wrote a series of blog posts[^] on this issue last year.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
The step to WPF is a large number of steps. My day to day work is with winforms which with good design practises is fine. I think the advantages of WPF and more recent technologies is that they allow larger teams to work on the same product at the same time. The thing is that most of us work in small teams or even on our own so the justification does not work for many of us. The only thing I will say about WPF is that it was a challenge to learn and has helped me think about solutions in different ways that feeds back into my winforms development. If you do go near WPF I would suggest working your way through something like WPF in 24 hours[^] typing all the examples by hand rather than downloading them.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
I'm the only developer. we only sell one main software package that's an industrial control system automating huge Cold fruit storage and freezer facilities. I usually only have a couple months every winter for reversions/R&D before the construction season gets started again. So I have to carefully choose what that time is going to be used for, so i just don't see the WPF advantage yet. (although the WCF over Remoting was a clear win for me :) )
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Actually you can. There are numerous blog postings on it etc.
So long as you're either:
- running Windows 8 Enterprise joined to a Windows Server 2012 domain; or
- willing to fork out for Software Assurance or purchase Enterprise Side-Loading Keys through Volume Licensing.
The side-loading keys "only" cost $30 per machine, but are only available in packs of 100. Rockford Lhotka wrote a series of blog posts[^] on this issue last year.
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
The side-loading keys "only" cost $30 per machine, but are only available in packs of 100.
Sorry, but that's just retarded; I'll just stick to classic windows (winforms) and install packages. I build industrial automation control software, I don't think this stuff will apply to me.
-
Richard Deeming wrote:
The side-loading keys "only" cost $30 per machine, but are only available in packs of 100.
Sorry, but that's just retarded; I'll just stick to classic windows (winforms) and install packages. I build industrial automation control software, I don't think this stuff will apply to me.
Indeed. Unfortunately, Microsoft don't seem to understand just how stupid this policy is, and there's no indication that they'll ever change it. :sigh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
-
Matt McGuire wrote:
i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view.
I think most languages "after a few hours" feel that way. I have been involved in XAML for quite some time now. I honestly can't stand non mark up UI now. Why would you want anything else?
Matt McGuire wrote:
Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)
Actually you can. There are numerous blog postings on it etc. Here is the first one I found with a quick google search. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/jj874388.aspx[^]
Matt McGuire wrote:
(yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need).
Well it seems now you are seeing the need. It was not so much pure "WPF" but over the years XAML has become quite important.
Matt McGuire wrote:
Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower.
Its called abstraction, and yes it does require more and more processing power as it becomes easier to understand and program to.
Matt McGuire wrote:
the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point).
Use case studies have shown that cluttered screens overwhelms users and they are unable to find/discover features they could benefit from. Not but 10 years ago nearly all software came with some printed user guide. Now the general practice is have the user guide integrated with the software. In other words, using the software teaches the user how to "use the software". I find it much more effective.
Computers have been intelligent for a long time now. It just so happens that the program writers are about as effective as a room full of monkeys trying to crank out a copy of Hamlet. The interesting thing about software is it can not reproduce, until it can.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Matt McGuire wrote:
(yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need).
Well it seems now you are seeing the need. It was not so much pure "WPF" but over the years XAML has become quite important.
Not really, I was just exploring the tech to see what the hub-bub was about, and i'm not impressed. I can see the point possibly if I was a multi-person dev shop, or someone who did all the screen designing for me, but I'm not. I build industrial automation control software, and this fluff is not worth my limited time at this point.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Use case studies have shown that cluttered screens overwhelms users and they are unable to find/discover features they could benefit from.
That may be, but it takes me soooooo much longer to find the features that used to/should be there. Take Office after using the tool ribbon for 3 years I was still constantly searching (give me back my menus!), it drove me mad. I dumped it and moved to LibreOffice and was so happy, a small toolbar or none is so less clutter then the tool ribbon. If the ribbon ever finds it's way into VS then I'm done with it; I'll go back to notepad and command line compilers.
-
I haven't gotten into XAML and WPF myself, the threshold is too high to get started when you only have a limited time. I thought WPF looked promising at first. Separate the layout from the code behind, so a good graphical designer can do the XAML bit and a good programmer the code. However, that is not what I see after messing with it for a while. There is too much logic going on in the XAML part for that concept to work well. Maybe I have totally misunderstood WPF or maybe I am too old and lazy to learn new, shiny things. :sigh: Sometimes I feel like one of the old grumpy guys in the Muppet show. The ones sitting on the balcony, Waldorf and Statler. ;P
Are you still having the same issue?
Indonesia Webmaster Blogger Permai Lindal | Travel Photos Blog Permai Lindal
-
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Matt McGuire wrote:
(yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need).
Well it seems now you are seeing the need. It was not so much pure "WPF" but over the years XAML has become quite important.
Not really, I was just exploring the tech to see what the hub-bub was about, and i'm not impressed. I can see the point possibly if I was a multi-person dev shop, or someone who did all the screen designing for me, but I'm not. I build industrial automation control software, and this fluff is not worth my limited time at this point.
Collin Jasnoch wrote:
Use case studies have shown that cluttered screens overwhelms users and they are unable to find/discover features they could benefit from.
That may be, but it takes me soooooo much longer to find the features that used to/should be there. Take Office after using the tool ribbon for 3 years I was still constantly searching (give me back my menus!), it drove me mad. I dumped it and moved to LibreOffice and was so happy, a small toolbar or none is so less clutter then the tool ribbon. If the ribbon ever finds it's way into VS then I'm done with it; I'll go back to notepad and command line compilers.
Thanks for the update, I wasn't expect it fixed.
Webmasters SEO SEM SMO PPC Backlinks Social Media Internet Marketing Hosting | Webmasters SEO SEM SMO PPC Backlinks Social Media Internet Marketing Hosting | | Webmasters SEO SEM SMO PPC Backlinks Social Media Internet Marketing Hosting
-
Are you still having the same issue?
Indonesia Webmaster Blogger Permai Lindal | Travel Photos Blog Permai Lindal
That I am old and cranky? Yep, still an issue :-D
-
Indeed. Unfortunately, Microsoft don't seem to understand just how stupid this policy is, and there's no indication that they'll ever change it. :sigh:
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer
Richard Deeming wrote:
there's no indication that they'll ever change it.
As this was the number 1 complaint they heard from some very influential end users, I wouldn't be so sure. They got a heck of a spanking on this issue.
-
[WARNING: Rant ahead] I finally upgraded to a new laptop to start playing with "modern/metro" UI apps, but after the first few hours, i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view. [Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)] Maybe i'm getting to old; .net winforms are direct and to the point (easy), building UI in C or C++ may take awhile but the end result always feels good. (yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need). Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower. then there is the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point). Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff, or switch over to building things for Linux. Thanks for letting me rant.
Metro app are actually quite fast.. I don't quite get the end of your complaint! You might say that the Metro UI element available out of the box are.... lacking (to be polite) But they are not slow!?! You confused me here! What are you talking about? Other than that writing a dumb UI with XAMl is not that hard... maybe you didn't get the layouting concepts? Read about panels! If you don't want to, use a Canvas (XY positioning) or DockPanel panel! That should provide familiar way of putting control on screen.
My programming get away... The Blog... DirectX for WinRT/C# since 2013! Taking over the world since 1371!
-
[WARNING: Rant ahead] I finally upgraded to a new laptop to start playing with "modern/metro" UI apps, but after the first few hours, i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view. [Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)] Maybe i'm getting to old; .net winforms are direct and to the point (easy), building UI in C or C++ may take awhile but the end result always feels good. (yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need). Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower. then there is the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point). Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff, or switch over to building things for Linux. Thanks for letting me rant.
Wait until you try printing in WPF. X| Marc
Latest Articles - APOD Scraper and Hunt the Wumpus Short video on Membrane Computing Hunt the Wumpus (A HOPE video)
-
[WARNING: Rant ahead] I finally upgraded to a new laptop to start playing with "modern/metro" UI apps, but after the first few hours, i have to say i can't stand messing with the XAML designer or code view. [Don't get me started that i'm not allowed to side load to other machines (everything I build is for internal use in our company and NOT for external sales like app stores)] Maybe i'm getting to old; .net winforms are direct and to the point (easy), building UI in C or C++ may take awhile but the end result always feels good. (yes, I skipped WPF also, didn't see the need). Is it just me, or does every "revolution" of new UI technologies require more processing power as they get slower and slower. then there is the fact that UI standards put less and less information on the screen, with over sized controls like tool ribbons (still don't see the point). Maybe I should just retire from building Software for Windows, and stick with the embedded stuff, or switch over to building things for Linux. Thanks for letting me rant.
