I really wonder if it would not have been easier to apply flex-box layout and stylesheets on top of uGUI. > Most of the new tools Unity has introduced are opposing the original Unity tool design philosophy ![]() Most I know and I also assume new designers (just finished with studies) have learned some web design basics, at least some CSS maybe HTML. > The old system is much easier and friendlier for artists and designers. In a way, these "large studios" also pay for the many hobbyists that use Unity for free. I hope they focus on the needs of their customers. Me too, it just feels unfinished, unpolished.īut that's a matter of the UIBuilder, not of UXML and USS. When the language is present, the rest is only a matter of rendering it. The advantages have also grown into other areas, e.g. In the end, having the UI as code, enables to work with it like code, re-use tools, principles, etc. There are existing, powerful text editors / IDEs that can be used to edit the UI, no need to reinvent the wheel.įuther, new tooling for text is implemented more easily, e.g., linters, static checks, etc.įor example, you can easily write a test case that scans your UXML files to enforce some naming convention. Same for Android XML layouts, Windows Forms XML layout, JavaFX XML layout, and others that implement the same approach.įuther, text editing has other advantages over GUI tools, for example, easy copy&paste, insert stuff, good for version control and diffs. Similarly, you don't need Dreamweaver to create HTML. However, UXML and USS provide a language and mechanics that do not require a proprietary GUI application to create a UI. The UIBuilder provides a drag'n'drop interface. > It is not as intuitive as dropping stuff in the old canvas I don't think it is more complex (to use) than uGUI when creating UI.įor me it is simpler and I can do stuff faster, because it is more like established web technology. ![]() ![]() > It is complex to make a UI using the new tools. Thus, I recommend taking a look at other engines. I feel that your arguments will not change with the future. Just dump stuff in the engine and they just work. Even if that is basic xml stuff.Īnd they are not going to start doing it for Unity's sake.Ĭontrary to that, Unreal is becoming less and less technical. Many of them have become more technical and more programmer friendly.ĭesigners and artists do not script. Most of the new tools Unity has introduced are opposing the original Unity tool design philosophy. ![]() The old system is much easier and friendlier for artists and designers. It may be good for large studios that would perhaps hire a web designer to do that, but for small studios and teams with traditional UI artists (which I suspect is the more common Unity case) this is bad. Instead of designing the tool more like Photoshop, they did it more like Dreamweaver. You could set up an entire screen in minutes and it works. It is not as intuitive as dropping stuff in the old canvas, moving and scaling them where you need them and having the whole thing being responsive. If it had to be like web design, then it would be better to be like Wix or Weebly. It may technically be better, but it is limited and not user friendly. It is complex to make a UI using the new tools.įorcing you to do things in a way that reminds me of web design.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |