Okay, Apple: make up your mind about the Dock. - Page 2  

System Preferences is one of the few applications that I consistently keep running even when its window is closed. It is MUCH handier that way. I cant understand why anyone would want that particular application to quit when closed. Luckily, I can still use it the old way until I find the time to buy and install Panther. I am sure that Panther is great for all sorts of other reasons, but this change is not one that I relish.

Incidentally, for future versions of OS X, the ideal would be if some form of centralized something Applications Preferences menu allowed you to specify the behaviour of each application in this regard (and a few other regards as well such as its behaviour when you press the green button). This ideal would allow a single modified behaviour across all applications, as well as behaviours tailored to each application, if you would instead prefer to specify different behaviours depending on the application. All of this would be done through a panel in "System Preferences" itself, not in "Preferences" in each application.

Question: Is this something that OS X could do on its own or would it require complimentary modifications to applications for which this preference would be available? It would be nice if OS X could override the default behaviour in these regards without requiring application manufacturers to make modifications, but I dont know enough about OS and application programming to know if this is possible.

Hey Eugene, you convinced me. When I first started reading this thread, I thought you were being a little hardline, but I see your logic now. Consistency has always been what made the Mac the Mac.

I did have one idea though that might solve the window closing issue. In apps like the System Prefences, instead of the typical round red close button, have more of a rounded, longer red rectangle that indicates that this action quits the app. Just a subtle difference but would allow for gui consistency. (it could even have rollover text that says quit)

I disagree on the cmd-w tab thing though...

I too was happy that it closed sys prefs, but then Eugene scolded me `, and told me about the contextual menu in the dock, and now I wish it didn't quit \

actually, that's what i agree with him the most. sometimes when i have a lot of tabs open, i will instinctively reach for the red "close" widget to close the active tab if my hands already on the mouse, and then... *poof* all tabs gone. dammit! it would be nice if apple could AT THE VERY LEAST include a warning dialog box (with a checkbox saying "do not show this warning again") saying "You are about to close a window with additional tabbed pages that have not been bookmarked. Are you sure you would like to close the window?" and then have an option saying "cancel," an option saying "close window and tabs," and an option to bookmark tabs to the menu for later reference (though that would be a really long button, but you understand what i mean).

that way, everyone's happy (and i don't lose unbookmarked tabs by accident anymore).

apple, i know you read these threads. use this feature, darn it!

I too often accidentally close all my tabs because I instinctively went to the window close button because that's always how I made stuff go away. And then as it fades away, I see my poor other tabs screaming out in agony as they too go the way of /dev/null

With tabs, perhaps the close window should close just the taba nd option+close will close the whole thing. Or a warning as rok suggested is also good.

When I first got X, I HATED that the system prefs didn't quit when I closed the window. I NEVER use the menu bar in system prefs. There is nothing there worth using, and that inlcudes Quit. I don't even access the system prefs the same way as any other application because it comes from the apple menu.

In the pre X days, things like this were not applications but behaved as control panels or desk accessories and didn't launch into their own programs. When you closed them, they went away. That's the way I still treat the sys prefs: as something that I open to change something and then close it with the close button.

Maybe it is inconsistent, but 3 years after my first installation of X and I'm still always having to lick back into the sys prefs just to quit it when I realize that it hasn't quit.

So now you propose changing the definition of Option-Command-W to mean something other than "Close All Windows?" Fantastic.

I'm with you Eugene. Just because Mac is trying to recruit windows users does not mean OS X should behave like windows users are used to!. The mac way is better for a reason. Sheesh. I know this has been said, but with the mac, everything needs to be UNIFORM. Cmd+W should not sometimes do this or sometimes do that. Ick! Those of you disagreeing are stupid and wrong !

The dock is where the apps reside that I run on an almost daily basis. The finder sidebar contains shortcuts to certain folders that I use somewhat frequently.

Basically the stuff I want to run is ALWAYS right in front of me. I only use the finder when I need to find something (pun intended ) That's why I reserve the sidebar for links to folders I want to get to quickly.

Besides, just because you may think that one obsoletes the other ignores that different people like to work differently. Using the dock for CMD-Tab was a lousy interface IMHO for the simple reason that your eye gets bounced around as the CMD-Tab skips icons in your dock that aren't active. The change to CMD-Tab is one good thing Apple has taken from Windows.

When I take over the planet, they're going to wish they were never born!

Mozilla on my windows machine pops up dialog if I click the close window when there are multiple tabs open. I like this.

I would like a nice system-wide cmd-[closeTabKey] and cmd-w doing what they do seperately. That would be ideal. There just needs to be a better seperation between tabs you can close (safari) and ones you can't (sys prefs).

As far as having different keystrokes for safari tabs and safari windows, that makes no sense. To a me as a user, each tab is really a web page. If there are three tabs, there are three web pages. If there is just the one, then there is one web page. That last page needs to close in the same way as the other ones. Maybe if I press command-[closeTabKey] on the last page and am left with just the safari bar that would be OK, but closing the last page (tab) in a different way from every other one make no sense.

I'm with Eugene. it's Real annoying when you close Real or WiMP and the app quits, but then again why would you use these apps instead of MPlayer.

It would be nice to see the Dock let you close windows in any app with the contextual menu. Did the other hidden features like Pinning make it in to Panther, like Hide, which in Jag are only accessible through things like Transparent Dock? And Suck In? There are so many cool OS X features that have been hiding for so long, it's weird.

It would be neat to have some global undo at the event processing level. Like journaling, the state of each program would be saved before *certain* events were processed. Then, the user could undo *lots* of actions (even just the last event would bring back your window of tabs). However, I wouldn't doubt that this would slow down systems and cost more than insignificant amounts of resources (like RAM). But it would be so cool.

Eugene, I wholeheartedly agree with you about your second point concerning tabs, but I'm a bit conflicted about the first. I tend to side with traditional Apple UI guidelines which state that a single window application should quit when the user closes that single window. Dock menus have nothing to do with the equation because they are simply another way to access commands; they aren't windows. However, you do have a valid point about the behavior being inconsistent, which I do agree with. The thing is, Apple has always had that UI policy, and to change it now may well be more inconsistent than it would be to leave it alone. One poster asked whether it would be possibly to set a preference for this on a global and application level. I don't know whether or not either is feasible, but this I do know. Allowing it on the application level would be a complete disaster. I could envision a global preference for it, though. You could either maintain default application behavior or force all applications to either stay open or quit upon the closure of the last window.

On your second point, you're most definitely right about command+w and tabs. If a browser window with tabs gets a command+w event, it should close the entire window, because anything else is inconsistent. Command+W should always be equivalent to clicking the close widget, and it most always has until now. Think of the UI nightmare we'd have if clicking the close widget only closed the current tab, and then realize that command+w should always be equivalent to clicking the red widget. I've gotten used to the non-standard behavior, but it was definitely something I protested against when I first experienced it.

Not too many were receptive to my cries. People reason that the user usually doesn't intend to destroy all of the open tabs, but I don't necessarily agree. Whatever the case maybe, there should be a separate keyboard command to close tabs. They aren't windows; they don't get spawned like windows (new tab is command+t, thankfully, not command+n), and they shouldn't be closed like windows. I could see a preference setting that would prompt the user after receiving a command to close a window with tabs: "Are you sure you want to close the window and all of its tabs? Close All, Close Current Tab, Cancel" But that would be an option not foisted upon those who wouldn't want it. The plain and simply fact is an established UI convention shouldn't be altered by any application without providing the user a way to restore the regular behavior. And that's why I reluctantly reject Eugene's arguments concerning single window applications while concurring with his tabs contention.

Actually, OS X cleaned up a lot of legacy Mac OS behavior, and I wouldn't mind if they finished the job. The inconsistent behavior of the window-closing widget is a problem. Way back in the day, single-window apps used to look different. Had Apple hewn to some standard, like "single window apps use brushed metal" then there'd be a visual cue - the "window" looks and acts like a single, physical object. Where we are now, there is no way to tell whether or not closing a window will quit the app, and there are so many reasons why that's stupid on OS X (what is the difference, really, between leaving an app open but windowless and quitting it, given OS X's virtual memory system and the Dock?).

I can only agree with the argument that command-W should close a window. That's the way it's always been. The Mac's interface is superior precisely because it is the most consistent one - it's intuitive because taking a particular action always has the same consequence. By the same token, it's unintuitive when the same action has different consequences.

But no, people just had to demand that Apple gum up the interface with MDI...

You tell 'em Eugene!

What is MDI?

EVIL

...is what it is.

MDI = Multiple Document Interface, having a single application windows containing multiple document windows. Think MS Office for Windows and Photoshop for Windows.

It's a solution looking for a problem, and OLE (Object Linking and Embedding, the ability to embed an IRC client into Photoshop for example) is a solution to a problem caused by a solution looking for a problem. Welcome to Windows.

Barto

"Mac OS X doesn't use MDI" Hmmm...

Basically, MDI stands for Multiple Document Interface, where a window can represent several files at once. Think of most applications in Windows like the Adobe suite of apps: they have one big "parent" window and a bunch of smaller windows trapped inside that are your actual documents. Also, tabbed UIs like in Safari are also a form of MDI. MDI is where there isn't a vis-a-vis relationship between a window and a document. In Mac OS 9, the vast majority of apps maintain a relationship where window = file. That's not necessarily true any more.

Hm, time to revisit that "What do you want back from OS 9?" thread!

One further comment: In my case, the reason that I prefer to Close rather than Quit System Preferences is not some philosophical stand about the way that Macs should work, but simply is based on the wait for launch. One way or the other I find myself in System Preferences quite often, but when I am in it, my verification or change of settings usually takes only a few seconds. Since I am only going to be in this application for a moment, waiting for launch seems especially annoying. I want System Preferences to be always instantly available, but at the same time I do not want to leave it up and have it cluttering my screen or have it minimized and cluttering up my Dock. Closed with a single click on the red button - but not Quit - is perfect for System Preferences.

One further theory: Could some of the disagreement on this issue (and overall, it is still a pretty small issue) be about processor speed? I have a measly, but well-loved iMac G3 500 which takes some time to launch applications. I test-drove an iMac G4 1GHz for a weekend not long ago and was amazed how much faster it was on launching. I suppose if you have a fast machine, you might not differentiate that much between Quit and Close.

MDI is short for Multiple Document Interface. I believe it's the interface Windows uses - where each document you have open is one specific instance of an application. If you have Notepad open, for example, and you select "open" from its menu bar (note that the menu bar is contained within the document/application window, not static along the top of the screen), the file it opens will take the place of the current one you have open. In order to have two documents open in Notepad simultaneously, you have to run Notepad twice - double click its icon again and open the second document. Other applications work differently too - some have a large "parent window" that all other windows must stay within, like mIRC. It actually prevents you from moving or resizing the smaller windows to be outside of the parent window. If you want your windows to be wherever you want, you have to make the parent window full screen. That's kind of like tabs but much, much worse because they actually trick you into thinking you have draggable, resizeable windows when you really don't.

Anyway, one really inconsistent thing about Macs is how they delete things. If you press the delete key in a word processor, the letter is deleted IMMEDIATELY but if you delete something in Finder, it goes to the trash and you have to delete it AGAIN by emptying the trash. Then you get into iPhoto and its own trash, and iTunes where it asks if you want to remove it from your library and move to the trash, etc. So inconsistent.

Oh, and the green "zoom box" as it was called in OS 9 is weird also. In most applications, it'll switch between my current window size/shape/position and the previous size/shape/position. But in Safari, it'll switch between two other sizes, never returning to my normal placement. As much as people dislike it when you say you have a browser window open full screen, I do it anyway and I don't know why it won't recognize it as one of the configurations I use. Oh, and when I open a new browser window it always is shifted a small amount to the right, so the right edge falls off the screen. Why is that? It's so dumb! An app should know not to open a window with the edge off the screen.

disagree, like it that way.

So just open it in a tab

re: multiple trashes.

i liked the fact that the "trash/wastebasket" allowed for a last second retrieval of stuff destined for the ether. call it paranoia, but it always made me feel as though i had a safety net.

but i do agree with you that having INDIVIDUAL ADDITIONAL TRASH folders in other apps is downright maddening.

Thank you for the great MDI explanations!

If I press the delete key in the Finder, nothing happens. Command-Delete is different from Delete itself.

As for why there are multiple Trash cans in iApps and the Finder, you can choose to interpret it like this. The Trash that lives in the Dock is the facility for file deletion in the application we know as the Finder. The trash can in iMovie is the iMovie equivalent. It exists in iMovie as the main trash can exists in the Finder.

You can delete files in iPhoto, iTunes, iMovie, etc. by dragging the files to the Trash icon in the dock, but they won't move the files there. That is admittedly a questionable feature as files dragged to the trash in such a manner do not actually get placed in the trash...they are simply erased.

It really depends. Frankly, it would be a very cool thing if all Apple apps deleted files into the Trash can where they could be recovered as needed or confirmed for complete erasure.

More nitpicking please! Maybe we'll spawn some cool ideas...

Yeah, Apple sort of misses a good opportunity with having the user's Trash in the Dock, therefore accessible to all apps.

Seems to me that a lot of these issues potentially all have a common denominator. I think the issues people have with the Dock, metal windows, quitting when closing a window, the Trash icon, etc. can all be resolved in a rather elegant way all at once. Apple hasn't gotten their collective act together with regard to the Human Interface Guidelines. I having trouble explaining this as I write, but it's like there's one word, one concept that glues them all together (plus some third party apps with them) that would collect all these inconsistencies into a single category of use, behavior and appearance. Something beyond the "digital hub" container, something more flexible and inclusive.

It's like iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, the Panther Finder and maybe even Mail are all indexes. That is, they don't create content per se, they manage them. (Mail being sort ofin between: it both manages and creates content.) You could probably say the same for Safari, but probably not for iMovie or iDVD right now. If you had something like QT's favorites in a single app, you would be closer to a true "iMovie" in the same family as iTunes from that perspective. The index/management apps all could use a (primarily) single window UI that uses the metal appearance, uses the quit-on-window close behavior (preferably with a modified close widget sort of like the dot for modified files is a warning), they should all use the Dock Trash as their common receptacle, and all that.

It's funny, Apple's HI teams are working on actual projects rather than working in an ivory tower. It seems to have its benefits and faults. On the one hand, I think Apple has introduced some nice new ideas to some apps' user experiences. On the other, it's like no one is keeping everyone on the same page with regard to these ideas. It's like some teams find these things out when we do, but at least they see it in action, they don't just read about it in some white paper.

As for the Dock, the original topic at hand, well, I know since I started using Panther, as as I use Expose more and more, I've started leaving my Dock hidden most of the time since I don't minimize windows much any more, and I open most apps I need on startup and go through the much more convenient Finder for the others. I thought the app switching via the Dock was rather elegant if too subtle I suppose. Losing the Dock in the ned for what I consider a more direct way of working is rather nice. The Dock might have an identity crisis, but maybe it can gain a new identity. Maybe we'll see the return of a split Dock a la NeXT and OpenStep so you only use the half that's useful to you. Maybe we'll see the return of Docklets as the menubar gets more crowded for oft-used functions (though I took the volume and eject menulings off some time ago). Maybe the Dock can incorporate more clipboard-like and shelf-like functions for temporary storage and management (another management app? ) of all these floating and often too-hidden bits of data we juggle all the time. Maybe it incorporates multiple workspaces and stores workflow settings and arrangements (like the snapshot script from Apple's Applescript site). 10.4 could be a real opportunity for the Dock to get a major overhaul like the Panther Finder (which will hopefully have some important improvements of its own).

MDI means multiple documents per window, not one document per application. Think Opera for Windows (or Photoshop for Windows), not Notepad. Tabbed interfaces are a form of MDI.

As for the Dock, its central principle has always been "if you want it, click it." Dock menus follow cleanly from that - you still want something from whatever you're clicking on. Command-Tab interacts with applications in a different way that the Dock isn't as well suited to, and Apple's attempt to map it to the Dock were generally considered unsuccessful, so it's not too surprising that they came up with another, clearer behavior.

Deleting a word in a word processing program is far different-far less destructive-from deleting a file. You are correct, though, that it's difficult to manage things at the file level among the iApps because of their disparate interfaces. The big problem is there isn't a great way to differentiate between the removal of a symbolic link (pressing delete after selecting a song in an iTunes playlist) vs. the true deletion of a file (pressing delete after selecting a song from the iTunes library). The other poster made an incisive comment-Apple failed to take advantage of user-wide trash icon access. Consistent behavior would be to have all real files go over to the user trash, rather than a trash internal to each application. Alas, Jobs likes the concept of other applications being in charge of specific resources, and so that's how we get trash can inconsistencies. Either all the iApps that deal with real files should have their own trash can, or they should all rely on the user-wide trash (like iTunes does). It's really too bad that no one's paying attention to these UI inconsistencies, and I'm afraid things will only get worse.

oops - how embarrassing ... I just worked out that it was F10 Launcher (that I liked so much) which added this functionality.

Here's a screen shot:

...

well, I'd put a screen shot here - except I don't know how to capture one at a small size nor how to insert it in an AI post.
Somebody please PM me to work out how to do this... Thanks.

btw - excellent reading in this thread!

I have a fix for Preferences window (quitting when you close).

If you still want to acess the menus in the Preferences dock icon WITHOUT a window in your face... simply try this trick.

Open System Preferences
Press CMD-H

...And you're done.

Have a nice day.

Are you proposing this as a be-all fix for every app that quits when you close the last window?

I for one agree with you Eugene. It's good to be able to have the option to close the window of an app and keep it open (even the preferences) so that you can clear the desk and keep it running in the background for quicker access next time you need to use it (ie don't have to completely relaunch the program).

I like stories.

Jimzip

Hiding is fine for short periods where you want to reduce clutter. Closing a window more closes emulates the behavior I want most of the time. And as for new windows popping up after you bring an app to the front, I'd also like the option for new windows not to pop up when I switch to them.

Parent and child windows are unspeakably evil, and that's what most people mean by "MDI". Tabs can be useful, especially in apps like web browsers where you'll often be viewing lots of unrelated "documents" and usually don't need to see more than one at once.

Regarding Cmd-W, I know it's technically "inconsistent" to close the tab, but it's also closer to "do what I want". I want to close a single tab far more often than I want to close all of them, and Cmd-W is a natural way to do that since I think of tabs as just a convenient form of window management. And the "consistent" Cmd-W action can be very destructive, so I don't mind erring on the side of safety.

i always felt that's a big advantage over ms windows.
--> the macos app is still running although the last window is gonna closed. I fell better that way.

it has something to to with that particular "spatial feeling" regarding macos. even spatial becomes smaller these days;-)

best

Right on, 3.1416. Non-destructive (and frequent!) behavior absolutely trump the ideal of letter-perfect consistency. Consistency is a important principle, but it can't get in the way of good UI -- different apps occasionally have to work differently, depending on how they operate.

Apple made the right choice with command-W closing a tab in Safari.