Talk:Graphical user interface

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

IBM's SPF and ISPF/PDF[edit]

Being around at the time, I think much of the inspiration for GUI styles comes from IBM's screen presentation called SPF (superseded by ISPF and PDF). This was the state of the art at the time. The physical displays (eg IBM's 3270, 3278) had a fixed programmable size (typically 24x80 characters), so the facility to display information or request input was severely constrained by that. Even today, the 24x80 format is typically in use !

SPF presented 1 or 2 logical screens; displayed information was severely limited by the screen size; commands were keyed as an abbreviation (eg, option 2 meant start the editor, or you could skip to another panel); command shortcuts were numeric or character, (there was no "click" then) and translated into a command or command sequence with variable parameters; there was help at every level - typically F1 meant "HELP"; one could skip directly to another screen.

Functionally, not that different from modern GUI, just very limited in what could be achieved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SombreGreenbul (talk • contribs) 06:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation =[edit]

I don't think that pronouncing the acronym requires pronunciation assistance as given. On the Wikipedia page for the FBI does it offer "eff-be-eye?" Unless there is objection I will delete the "jee-you-eye" for this article, leaving only the "gooey." Derrick Chapman 22:40, 7 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derrickchapman (talk • contribs)

Chrome[edit]

Currently, the article reads: "The visible graphical interface features of an application are sometimes referred to as "chrome" or "GUI"

This isn't my understanding of the word chrome in this context. Historically 'chrome' has been used to describe prettifying the GUI elements, such as adding curved corners to an otherwise rectangular button. There is a chance that as an operating system progressed from (eg) Windows 1 to Windows 3.1 that every GUI element could be considered chrome, but I would argue that that misrepresents the original meaning of the word. The original meaning I would distil to: altering standard GUI elements to look nicer, without altering functionality. MrWizcat (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GUI wrappers[edit]

There's a surprising amount of references to and details about polipo in this section -- seems like it is based on the "GUI wrappers" section from the polipo article. Might be better to reduce it and add other examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.228.171.125 (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be someone trying to promote their software. 91.64.85.170 (talk) 09:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered "recognizable" in terms of most popular?[edit]

In the popularization section of this article it states at the bottom that Firefox OS is "familiar to most people" when in fact it only lasted for three years before being discontinued. Firefox OS wasn't popular by any stretch of the word.

I would go much further and say that none of these are familar to "most people", depending on your definition of "most people". Very few people have used multiple OS's (although visitors to this site probably have). It might even be a stretch to say all of these are familiar to most GUI experts. Unless there's a really compelling reason to keep this information (or a reliable source appears) I would recommend just removing the statement in its entirety. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand sentence in lead[edit]

The term GUI tends not to be applied to other lower-display resolution types of interfaces, such as video games (where head-up display (HUD) is preferred), or not including flat screens, like volumetric displays because the term is restricted to the scope of two-dimensional display screens able to describe generic information, in the tradition of the computer science research at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.

Don't like the nested parenthetical, either, and the concluding phrase "in the tradition of the computer science research at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center" is on the fluffy side, even by the standards of Old Entish. — MaxEnt 17:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Historical accuracy[edit]

An edit made over a month ago (claiming to be "errors in grammar") made some very non-grammarian changes. The one I noticed first (and am most concerned with) made a section claim that

By the 1980s, cell phones and handheld game systems also employed application specific touchscreen GUIs.

(emphasis added)

It's too late now to just roll back the change. If it were just the 1980s bit, I'd make that fix, but I'm considering that the other changes may also be meaningful. Also, I'm not completely convinced that taking it back to "1990s" is correct enough; it could as easily be the 2000s, since I see no citation for it. (and I haven't checked all the references and external links)

Is there someone else more confident with editorial power who would be interested in setting things straight? 192.150.9.201 (talk) 22:12, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Graphical user interface. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

History: Windows 3.1[edit]

As I recall, Windows 3.1 was the most significant breakthrough for the IBM/Microsoft family of GUIs, but only the later Windows 95 is mentioned. I was mostly still using text-based interfaces at the time & don't feel particularly qualified to add this bit of history. Any volunteers? D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 01:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Graphical user interface. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

Sometime last month it appears that someone updated the pronunciation of GUI (as an acronym, not an initialism- the initialism pronunciation is still there). Some friends brought it up to me, because we often argue if people really do pronounce it as an acronym (goo-ee) or as an initialism. They searched for a while and only found the pronunciation guide here. It is referenced to a dictionary, but I don't think the person who added the footnote made the same addition as the person who added the IPA pronunciation guide.

Anyways, to set it straight: I hear people call it gooey (goo-ee) often. Because of this guide, I looked up and found one person online in a forum that claims "to have always said goo-eye" (which is what is said here). But if gooey is the most common pronunciation, shouldn't it be here? I don't have any dictionaries to cite this with, so I'm hoping I'm not just speaking as a loud minority.

This sentence is false? (talk) 03:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I pronounce it 'gooey', and the Cambridge Dictionary provides audio examples of people pronouncing it 'gooey' (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/gui) and Wiktionary says it can be pronounced that way, so I shall go ahead and add this pronunciation to the main article. Richard n 07:57, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GUI Wrappers[edit]

Shouldn't GUI Wrappers mention something like window dresssing where an existing GUI is enhanced and partly replace by new candy? Theking2 (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Touchscreen mobile phones and handheld game systems in the 1980s[edit]

The articles currently includes, "By the 1980s, cell phones and handheld game systems also employed application specific touchscreen GUIs." Unless it's talking about some minority of obscure products, shouldn't this be the 2000s? I can't recall readily-available examples from the 80's. Sure, they could be made, touchscreen technology was viable then but to suggest it's the decade of that technology as a lone statement is incorrect. ToaneeM (talk) 08:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What was the name of that 3D airport-themed email app?[edit]

It was an email client where you see your emails coming in on airplanes at an airport; the developer also had a similar app visually-based on warehouses. I had last seen about it a few years ago. It was a great example of a 3D GUI. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:56, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found the links: 3dmailbox.com (archive.org link) 3D Mailbox | CNET. Altanner1991 (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Examples limited to Unix/linux[edit]

Where is a screenshot of windows, macOS, riscos, Amiga? 90.255.18.255 (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because of Unix/Linux bias, I'd think.
Is there any real reason not to add Windows, Mac OS and such? Because if no one has any valid arguments against it, I'll add them myself in about a week. Endianer (talk) 11:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added desktop images for Mac OS 8.1, Windows 11 and macOS Sonoma (although adding the last of those doesn't remove the Unix bias. :-)) Guy Harris (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GUI should be embadded in any programming language[edit]

I was wondering why C++ standard library does not include Graphical User Interface (GUI). It is instead something like Qt (software) with its own library that complitely confuses even highly qualified professional programmers. GUI should be a part of any language rather than a non-standardized independent software modul. Each language should have native GUI that will make applications more efficient and convenient for the users. Research4good (talk) 00:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that should be the case, but it's not the case, so, at most, all that Graphical user interface should say on the subject is that GUIs are not part of all programming languages, and, if that's been proposed and rejected, give the reasons why it was rejected, with citations.
And this is not the place to discuss whether they should or shouldn't be embedded in all languages; "NOTFORUM" refers to WP:NOTFORUM. Guy Harris (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

remove unused "notes" section[edit]

there is nothing in the "notes" section, so it should be removed until somebody comes up with somethink to put there - some bored kid at school 20:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also i think the "skin (computing)" link in "see also" should be removed as it redirects to "theme (computing)", which is linked right below it - some bored kid at school 20:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. Guy Harris (talk) 21:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Graphical_user_interface&oldid=1212636492"