However, looking at it from your POV, it would take some effort to redo the GUI so that people would be able to skin it. This brings me back to why it would be advantageous to use an ‘existing’ GUI structure like GNOME.
Its apparent that some are and will be set against skinning, some perhaps just to the idea of ‘change’ itself, others perhaps for some reason or another. Again I would venture to say most all products are ‘skin-able’ from Android, to Linux, to Windows, JRiver etc. etc. I wouldn’t say any of these products are ‘flawed’…would you?
Android is a UX dumpster fire, made worse by letting individual companies add bloatware (to the point that “vanilla” is actually a selling point).
Linux, you mean the OS with about a gazillion different flavours, whose users still debate between Vi and Pico, and use MC ? Or the one that’s only used by non-neckbeards when there’s a small, focused team in charge of design (say, OpenElec) ?
Windows ? Please.
JRiver ? You mean the piece of software that’s competing in the same niche, and probably losing users to Roon ?
It isn’t complicated: design by committee at best rarely works, in the real world, it’s simpler to say it simply doesn’t work. That’s OK: there’s about a gazillion FOSS projects that could do with enthusiastic UX specialists with too much time on their hands.
It’s ok that you respectfully disagree. Can I then respectfully ask if you also work with software design and development? And if so how big is your team and how many teams do you have in the company?
Because it seems to you it’s such a small task of doing this. Never mind having a system to maintain and building more dependencies. With a budget that wouldn’t increase just because you would cater to the 1% that possibly could want to “skin” your product?
And I would also respectfully have you read my last comment about using GNOME GUI structure and answer what it would even do? Does it work cross platform, is it “future proof” enough and when you would need you build upon it with new components – how would that work? It’s one thing suggesting a change, another thing to really argue for the benefits. And why else suggest it?
I love change and I possibly live for it in many ways. But without a “why” and without a clear use of/for suggested changes – or even valid arguments for such suggestions – it’s always falls a bit flat.
I say if Windows would need skinning for most people to enjoy it – then yes, it’s flawed without a question. Same goes for all the rest of the product you mentioned (funny enough I love most Samsung hardware but I can not stand what they do to Android). If skinning is needed, if it’s even on your top 10 list then the products needs some serious love.
Thats a very good question. Yes…How many teams, lots and lots.
As far as Windows being flawed…well its flawed for different reasons. But skinning is akin to having different paint jobs and options on a car. You have a unique idea and definition of flawed. Industry seems to have the idea that options are good.
You miss the point. I’m never saying Windows IS flawed. I’m saying if skinning IS needed for Windows to be a good product then it would definitely not be a good enough product from the beginning (=flawed).
Edit: Anyway, we’re completely off the topic with discussing this. No hard feelings from my end, my Windows example was a hypothetical one.
