In Windows 2000, Microsoft introduced a feature called Layered
Windows. This introduced desktop composition features that had not been available in previous versions of windows, the most interesting of which was arguably the support for per-pixel transparency. With layered windows, any pixel in a window could be given its own transparency level. This is used for things like the transparent drop shadows you see on some windows, and Outlook uses it to fade new email notifications up and down.
[Via IanG on Tap]
So, why do I WANT to do this, again? In what possible way is a fuzzy semi-visible version of the underlying video stream
useful to me?
Posts
2 comments:
Yeah, I mean, who cares what their desktop looks like? Shadows, translucency, shapes that aren't rectangles; what meaning can they possibly impart?
Now, I think the Linux desktop screenshot fanboys that love transparent and barely-readable shell windows are as silly as the next guy, but have you used OS X at all? The use of translucent bezels for highlighting temporary alerts, for shading irrelevant screen area, and for generally de-emphesising creates a very fluid environment that just "feels good."
> Yeah, I mean, who cares what their desktop looks like?
I care. I care about readability. I immediately moved Consolas from my Vista install to XP just to get a better programming font. In fact, that is reason I installed it, to get that font :)
> Shadows, translucency, shapes that aren't rectangles;
I let XP do shadows on my desktop icon labels (of which I have 5!), but I turn off all the animations and other shadowing. I'm in it for the speed. As for translucency, that has no value to me... I don't care because I _need_ to focus on the foreground. As for non-rectangular things, little annoys me more than skinned applications where I accidentally click on whatever is under the window I meant to click near the edge of...
> what meaning can they possibly impart?
I don't know, how about you give me a good example of a component that is easier to use or understand just because of the shape of its WINDOW (as opposed to elements inside that window)?
> Now, I think the Linux desktop screenshot fanboys that love transparent and
> barely-readable shell windows are as silly as the next guy, but have you
> used OS X at all?
In a word, no. I haven't had the time or desire. Maybe when I can run the next version under VirtualPC on my XP box I will let you know.
> The use of translucent bezels for highlighting temporary
> alerts, for shading irrelevant screen area,
> and for generally de-emphesising creates a very
> fluid environment that just "feels good."
See, if it is irrelevant, I don't want to see it, or know about it. I'm too easily distracted to allow for anything interrupting me but the essentials. Not every one is like me, I know. That's why I own a Karma (the best _music_ player) and not an iPod. I don't like the touch-mouse wheel interface and the sound is inferior, so why would I want one? Same goes for the whammy user interfaces of Vista.
Post a Comment