|
From: Taj M. <tm...@li...> - 2003-07-19 02:18:07
|
Hi All (Brian), >Hi all (extended form of Taj ;-), > =) >I was thinking about how the GUI of a program can really impact its >success/failure. Looking at the GUI for rq.net, it seems to be lacking quite a bit. > Yes, I agree. >So I was thinking that perhaps a wizard like GUI might be nice. > Yes... I think we should have two options that you can set. They would be Wizard Style or Dialog Based. This would be more flexable. >1st Page: A general welcome to the RapidQ.NET program with a little about it and how to use it and of course, Taj's logo (don't you like me refering to you in the third person?). > Naw... ;-) > Can be disabled for future launches (with something like a 'Don't show this page again' checkbox). Any 'setup' can be done here. > >2nd Page: Page to select the file to compile. "Next (Options)" button might >lead to 3rd page, while "Finish (Compile)" might lead to 4th page. > >3rd Page (optional): Options page where you can specify the language to >compile to, and other options. > Hmmmm. Are you thinking of having multipul backends built into the compiler? This seems like it would be pretty difficult. If RQ could generate DLLs, this would be eaiser, but I think that embedding all possible languages would slow it down. >4th Page: Compile page where the file is compiled (with progress bar) if >need be, select the path to the compiler. > Sounds good. >5th Page: Finish - you get compile results and can either go back to step 2 >(if your program had errors) or exit. > >So this could be as long as a 5 step program (Welcome, Select File, Set >Options, Watch Compile, and View Output) or as short as a 3 steps (select >file, watch compile, and view output). > >What do you think? > Sounds good to me. Give the user all the options. --Taj -- "My software never has bugs, it just develops random features." |