Teaser - Polywick Story Server

Posted by tightbeam
Sep 5, 2018 at 11:40 AM

The point isn’t that you can’t swipe the original Ecco interface, it’s why would you? That interface is old and ugly, by today’s standards, and likely won’t appeal to anyone but those nostalgic for Ecco.

As for the strikethroughs, my concern is quality control…

Polywick Studio wrote:

>There are strike-through because our company is also game-studio.
>The developers here also create games.
>There are artists here.
> >Do you remember the first posts?
> >What’s wrong?
> >What’s wrong with making a one-panel grid?
>See the OSX Apps and Windows app, they use the similar User-Interfaces
>(WinForms, WPF, Cocoa, Metal, etc.) and follow either Microsoft’s or
>Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines:
>https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/macos/overview/themes/
> >All the coding was made ground-up from scratch.
>All the screenshots show a new product under development.
> >The CUA (Common User Access) Guidelines are of the same standard of any
>Windows App or OSX App.
> >For the UI, there are court-cases which have set the precedents - Lotus
>vs. Borland where -
> >1) The court made an analogy between the menu hierarchy and the
>arrangement of buttons on a VCR. The buttons are used to control the
>playback of a video tape, just as the menu commands are used to control
>the operations of Lotus 1-2-3. Since the buttons are essential to
>operating the VCR, their layout cannot be copyrighted. Likewise, the
>menu commands, including the textual labels and the hierarchical layout,
>are essential to operating Lotus 1-2-3. [Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland
>Int’l, Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 817 (1st Cir. 1995)]
> >2) The court also considered the impact of their decision on users of
>software. If menu hierarchies were copyrightable, users would be
>required to learn how to perform the same operation in a different way
>for every program, which the court finds “absurd”. Additionally, all
>macros would have to be re-written for each different program, which
>places an undue burden on users.[Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int’l,
>Inc., 49 F.3d 807, 818 (1st Cir. 1995)]
>