Skinning Language User-friendly-ness?

For this contest, or just in general I guess, when I worry about how "user-friendly" or "usable" a skin is, I'm wondering about the difference between UIS1, UIS2 and per-pixel frames.  I'm not really going to touch UIS1 but if I want a skin to be as accessable as possible are per-pixel frames a worse idea than UIS2? Is there any way that PPF's might cause problems or should it and UIS2 pretty much work either way.  I've seen skins that use only UIS2 and I've seen skins that apply images in both UIS2 and PPF within the same file.  How "generally accessable" are the PPF's.

2,726 views 3 replies
Reply #1 Top

If you PC supports per pixel, in most cases only they will be used. Skinning the UIS2 frames is however important, as some apps still use them.

With per pixel frames, you have the atvantage of using .tga/.png. these support transparency and have a smoother look (you don't have to color blank canvas with magic pink).

 

Reply #2 Top

Yea just to be clear, I'm not worried about 'my' usage I'm worried about the general overall accessability of the blind for the ones that download it.  So are you saying that it's possible for one's computer to not support per pixel frames and therefore not be able to use the skin I made?  If I do use PPF's should I then upload images into both UIS2 and PPF sections in Skinstudio just to make sure I'm covered for everyone's computers?

Reply #3 Top

The UIS bitmap frames are only used in areas that do not support per pixel.. not that many... but.. I'd suggest skinning both, a skin in many peoples opinion isn't fully skinned without the bitmap frames. Also folks that have older PCs wont be able to use your skin at all.

A good example of an area they ARE used is a restored SKS5 window or a restored PS CS3 window. I would definately skin them.

There also will be no preview in WBcfg until you add the older frames.

Lastly id say the vast majority of users are seeing\using per pixel frames nowadays.