1. Does not work with TrueType fonts here.
2. Why fonts are selected with a filerequester? There is a font requester for this.
3. Color selection window looks like from 1985
4. Doing everything only via keyboard shortcuts is not a modern GUI concept too. At least a screen menu would be appreciated.
5. Why the strange image size limitation?
The only advantages I can see compared to ShowGirls text tool are auto centering. Free rotation would be an advantage if it used better algorithm. ShowGirls on the other hand works with TrueType, has very nice gaussian shadows and outlines, and works on images of any size. It has also six times smaller executable, while having lots more than just text function... I know, playing with Hollywood is nice, but resulting programs have non-system GUIs (and every script has a different one), which is a nightmare to learn.

[ Edited by Krashan On 2011/7/31 12:21 ]

Thx Krashan 4 feedback. I must say I didn't know ShowGirls had such text tool similar to my app - so it was all the waste of time...

1) In my tests all ttf fonts installed to MOS viaa FTManager worked...
2) I don't know Hollywood had a font requester... must check it out but I think even filerequester is suitable when it displays only fonts...
3) A bit of nostalgia is not bad, isn't it? Anyway I wanted this window to be as small as possible so that's why it looks so - and anyway I think that the most important is if it works not the modern look...
4) Well, it was intended to be without gui because in my opinion in this case gui is not needed. What exactly would you like to have in menu ? It was written in manual that it has not a gui so i suppose that people who can't live without gui will never start TeXtminator And to be honest I think that learning some keys is not a problem - but it's only my opinion
4) Size limitation is because I have only 1280x1024 resolution so far and i can't test it myself with higher resolutions... maybe next version (but i doubt there will be any)

> 2) I don't know Hollywood had a font requester... must check it out but I think even filerequester is suitable when it displays only fonts...

Not exactly. A system font requester provides a live font preview, size selction, softstyle selection, foreground and background (outline) color selection. If Hollywood does not support the system font requester, it only confirms my opinion, that it is not a tool suited for creating applications.

> anyway I think that the most important is if it works not the modern look...

The problem is not with modern or not modern. The point is that utility software should just use the system GUI. This way it is easier to use and also (via MUI prefs) it follows user's taste and habits. I've seen three or four graphics manipulation apps written in Hollywood. Each of them has own, different GUI, all of them have GUI completely different than the system one.

> What exactly would you like to have in menu ? It was written in manual that it has not a gui so i suppose that people who can't live without gui will never start TeXtminator

This is related to something called "learning curve". A new user just looks at menus to see what is available. For first few images he just uses menu. Then he notices options have keyboard shortcuts. Then after selecting an option 50 times he starts to remember the key and starts to use the option via key. The learning curve is flat, which is always encouraging for user. Now TeXterminator requires an user to memorize 20 or so keys just at start. This is called a steep learning curve, and all the GUI techniques are about making it more flat.

[ Edited by Krashan On 2011/7/31 19:59 ]

[ Edited by Krashan On 2011/7/31 20:01 ]

Thx again for your feedback and explanations... however I must insist on my claims I don't like arguing so please take this as a friendly opinions change I agree that Hollywood is not suitable for creating apps but why being so critical ? We people who use it just want to support our beloved Amiga and her flavours which is perfectly possible with Hollywood..

GUI - I really don't understand why having non-standard gui is so bad... Many apps or games have non-standard gui and interface... I must claim again that if gui is intuitive and easy to use then it doesn't matter what it looks like - and i dare to say once more that color editor window in TeXtminator is easy to use - even though it looks like a visitor from 1985

Learning curve - sorry but i don't agree again... user doesn't have to remember a single thing !!! Maybe you saw the reference card "keyboard.jpg" in TeXtminator drawer. It can be easily printed and kept by hand... so user can anytime look at it until he remembers the keys as you wrote, it's an equivalent of opened gui with all the commands - and that's my learning curve

With respect, pecaN

GUI - I really don't understand why having non-standard gui is so bad...

It is because non-standard GUI is something which user does not know and have to learn it. If user sees standard GUI, he need not to learn it, he just uses it. In case of MorphOS and MUI there is another point. MUI look is customizable and user can do his own decisions how the standard should look like. Using a non-standard GUI you are ignoring user's preferences.

I must claim again that if gui is intuitive and easy to use then it doesn't matter what it looks like

If GUI is non-standard it is not intuitive.

user doesn't have to remember a single thing !!! Maybe you saw the reference card "keyboard.jpg" in TeXtminator drawer. It can be easily printed and kept by hand... so user can anytime look at it until he remembers the keys as you wrote

Yea, I did it once for some MS-DOS program from 1984. If an application has a screen menu with shortcuts (a feature avaliable on Amiga since the beginning), I do not have to print anything. I just use the mouse and this "reference card" is just built into program.

Of course I know you will resist my opinions just because there is no simple way to create a screen menu in Hollywood. But this approach "if my preferred programming tool does not support some technique, this technique is for sure useless" is plain wrong.