On 2002.07.24, Benjamin Peterson <bjsp123 / yahoo.com> wrote:
> I completely agree that the core functionality should
> not be dependant on the GUI.  But since the GUI is
> likely to be larger, more difficult, and much more
> influenced by OS/toolkit/user considerations than the
> 'core', it's something to develop over the whole life
> of the project rather than add as an enhancement.

Do customers (of software) pay for core functionality, or
the GUI?

If the GUI is "larger, more difficult, and much more
influenced by OS/toolkit/user considerations", is this
necessary or is it coincidental?

I think that applications that get driven by their UI
rather than the functionality the software is supposed
to deliver are doomed to fail (at least, relative to
any competing application which isn't UI-bound).

I do think it's an easy trap to fall into to say that
"the UI is the closest layer to the user and therefore
the layer the user will be most critical of, so it's
the most important layer to do well" but consider that
even today, in 2002, Microsoft Excel still looks very
reminiscent of VisiCalc, nearly 20 years earlier.  The
functionality drove the design and it won.

-- Dossy

-- 
Dossy Shiobara                       mail: dossy / panoptic.com 
Panoptic Computer Network             web: http://www.panoptic.com/ 
  "He realized the fastest way to change is to laugh at your own
    folly -- then you can let go and quickly move on." (p. 70)