or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Okay, Apple: make up your mind about the Dock.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Okay, Apple: make up your mind about the Dock. - Page 3  

post #81 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes

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

No they didn't. You mean to tell me they 100+ key keyboards and we somehow need to share command-key combinations for such integral actions as closing windows and something else? Please...

Why not shift-command-w or shift-command-t or option-command-t.

I propose:

Shift-Command-T - Close this Tab
Option-Command-T - Close all other Tabs
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #82 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
So nobody's going to tackle my questions then?

Quite frankly I'm shocked and dismayed by the support for this CRAPPY new direction Apple is heading in.

It's especially disconcerting coming from a person who has "In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows" as a signature. Having apps quit when you close them is basically a Microsoft Windows concept born out of necessity because they don't have a global menubar (a huge transparent window). No app in Mac OS is a true single-window application.

Eugene, I basically agree with you. But there is one glaring problem that is at least the #2 most confusing thing to new users. That is the app that has no windows open but is still running and has its menu bar up, and you can see through to the window(s) of another application. It absolutely confuses the shit out of new users. Like closing the last window in Safari and you see MS Word's document but with Safari's menu bar. Drives new users NUTS. They can't grasp the concept.
--Johnny
--Johnny
post #83 of 144
If you are a truly new computer user like my mom was a few years ago, you have no preconceptions of what an app is or when it is running. My mom immediately grasped the concept of the application being more than just an open window because she had never used Microsoft Windows before.

The only problem lies in Windows switchers, some of which are too inflexible to grasp the better concept that Mac OS allows. If we give up these intrinsically Mac features, then we just lose yet another Mac advantage just to satiate some switchers' feeble minds.

Excuse me while I puke.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #84 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
No they didn't. You mean to tell me they 100+ key keyboards and we somehow need to share command-key combinations for such integral actions as closing windows and something else? Please...

Why not shift-command-w or shift-command-t or option-command-t.

I propose:

Shift-Command-T - Close this Tab
Option-Command-T - Close all other Tabs

How user friendly

Cmd-W makes sense since you are using the same shortcut to close the current document (in this case a web site) all the time, and you don't have to check if a site is opened in a tab or a window.

Get over it!
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
post #85 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
How user friendly

Cmd-W makes sense since you are using the same shortcut to close the current document (in this case a web site) all the time, and you don't have to check if a site is opened in a tab or a window.

Get over it!

It is user friendly.

T for tabs. Or maybe U because it comes after T and will prevent people from accidentally opening/closing tabs. Command-U to close a tab. Command-Option-U to close all other tabs in the current window. I'm sorry you feel that tabs should be treated like windows. It's twisted logic. A window is a window is a window. A tab is a tab and not a window within a window, unless you are going to admit that you love MDI. Do you love MDI? I think you do.

I expect the actual window that looks like a window to close when I hit Command-W. I associate the red widget with Command-W. It's what it was designed for. It's what makes most sense spatially. The minute you support tabs, you are supporting subordinate interfaces within a parent window. Subordinate interfaces get subordinate command-key combinations. At least Microsoft understood this when they developed MDI. They almost never share command-key combinations between parent windows and child windows...for a very good reason.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #86 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by lundy
Like closing the last window in Safari and you see MS Word's document but with Safari's menu bar. Drives new users NUTS. They can't grasp the concept.

I think this problem is exacerbated by the fact that it's sometimes difficult to tell which window is on top -- at a glance. This is especially true with textured (brushed metal) windows, and extra-especially true for the "faked" ones like iPhoto and QuickTime Player. However, it's definitely not a reason to automatically quit an app when its last window is closed.

This has been improved with Panther's new titlebars, but it's nowhere as obvious as it is in Windows (ugly as it may be) or the 'classic' Mac OS.

Apple could remedy the situation by indicating which Dock icon belongs to the frontmost application, standardizing (or minimizing) its use of textured windows, and making it really damn apparent which window has focus (hopefully in a tasteful way).
post #87 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by JLL
Hmm, funny since it's been here since at least System 6. Calculator?

The calculator's acted that way since it shipped with System 1.0. FYI, the old calculator and similarly black-titlebar'd apps were called desk accessories: their special property was that they ran alongside running apps at a time when you could only run one application at a time.

That's why it originally 'quit' when its window was closed -- it actually wasn't an application. Why it behaves that way now is beyond me; I would rather see Apple disable the close button than make it synonymous with 'quit'.
post #88 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Pais

Apple could remedy the situation by indicating which Dock icon belongs to the frontmost application, standardizing (or minimizing) its use of textured windows, and making it really damn apparent which window has focus (hopefully in a tasteful way).

The frontmost application's name is listed in the menubar already. What they could do is improve the way running applications are represented in the Dock. The little black triangles don't really mean anything to the unsuspecting.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #89 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
No they didn't. You mean to tell me they 100+ key keyboards and we somehow need to share command-key combinations for such integral actions as closing windows and something else? Please...

Why not shift-command-w or shift-command-t or option-command-t.

I propose:

Shift-Command-T - Close this Tab
Option-Command-T - Close all other Tabs

I think they did. I may be weird, but it makes since to me to have this kind of consistency: Command+W closes a web page view, always.
Trainiable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
Trainiable is to cat as ability to live without food is to human.
post #90 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by ryaxnb
I think they did. I may be weird, but it makes since to me to have this kind of consistency: Command+W closes a web page view, always.

Just wait until Apple does it in another app. Then another. And another. All because you guys don't recognize the sanctity of certain features of the UI and what it means for Mac OS.

Some apps quitting when you close windows, and some apps not, and some apps only conditionally doing so...

Some apps having Command-W mean something else...

This will be the death of Apple.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #91 of 144
And therein lies the real problem with MDI: It breaks the correlation between a document and a window, forcing some degree of ambiguity. It is impossible to come up with a solution as elegant as you get free by keeping 1 document per window and 1 window per document.

So the question boils down to, which counterintuitive behavior, or which additional rules, do you introduce to handle this new inconsistency? Either way you give something up.
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
"...within intervention's distance of the embassy." - CvB

Original music:
The Mayflies - Black earth Americana. Now on iTMS!
Becca Sutlive - Iowa Fried Rock 'n Roll - now on iTMS!
post #92 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
I'm sorry you feel that tabs should be treated like windows. It's twisted logic. A window is a window is a window. A tab is a tab and not a window within a window

Ok, suppose there were no tabs, as such. Suppose instead each browser page had its own window, but when you selected a different window it automatically positioned itself directly on top of the previous window. And suppose that each window contained a list of all other open windows, which you could select by clicking on them. This would look exactly the same as a tabbed interface, and now Cmd-W would really be closing a window, but effectively closing a tab.

That was probably confusing, but the point, which I mentioned before, is that you can look at tabs as just another way to manage multiple windows.

Quote:
unless you are going to admit that you love MDI. Do you love MDI? I think you do.

"tabs==MDI==bad" isn't an argument. The parent-child form of MDI *is* bad, for a variety of reasons that we'd probably all agree on. (Microsoft did this because Windows has no global menu bar, but their solution was worse than the problem). However, tabs can be useful in certain places; I like them in iTerm as well, in which Cmd-W also closes a tab.

Quote:
The minute you support tabs, you are supporting subordinate interfaces within a parent window. Subordinate interfaces get subordinate command-key combinations.

Not really. As I look at it, there are no child and parent views; there's just a set of "windows" (not really, but effectively) that occupy the same screen area, only one of which is visible at a time. And I wouldn't object to making the close button in the titlebar close a tab, which would make the metaphor fully consistent (although probably not in the way you want).

I recall reading the Camino (then Chimera) mailing lists back when it first got tab support. Initially it used Cmd-E to close a tab and Cmd-W to close the entire window, but Cmd-W to close a tab was so intuitive, and so many users were accidentally closing entire tab sets (myself included), that it was changed. Actual experience trumps theory.

Quote:
This will be the death of Apple.

If this is Apple's greatest threat, they're in even better shape than I thought
post #93 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by 3.1416
Ok, suppose there were no tabs, as such. Suppose instead each browser page had its own window, but when you selected a different window it automatically positioned itself directly on top of the previous window. And suppose that each window contained a list of all other open windows, which you could select by clicking on them. This would look exactly the same as a tabbed interface, and now Cmd-W would really be closing a window, but effectively closing a tab.

It's not confusing. It's nonsense. You're describing lobotomized windows. A true window can be positioned. A true window will close when you ask it to. You still ignore the fact that the parent window *is* different from the *child* tab. The easiest way to prove it is to open two parent windows, each with tabs. Unless you plan on changing something, the red-widget means "Close Window." The red-widget has always been associated with Command-W. The new interface, the new tab close button gets its own Command-key sequence. It's as easy as that. Unless also want to make the red widget close tabs one at a time...

Quote:
That was probably confusing, but the point, which I mentioned before, is that you can look at tabs as just another way to manage multiple windows.

Spin it all you want. This is MDI.

Quote:
"tabs==MDI==bad" isn't an argument.

It's not an argument, it's a fact.

Quote:
The parent-child form of MDI *is* bad, for a variety of reasons that we'd probably all agree on. (Microsoft did this because Windows has no global menu bar, but their solution was worse than the problem). However, tabs can be useful in certain places; I like them in iTerm as well, in which Cmd-W also closes a tab.

Tabs are only useful when they cannot be created, destroyed, or duplicated without limits...Where they are constant, such as with in set Preference Panels and palettes. Tabs are not useful as the lobotomized window you describe. Look how you've confused yourself into thinking windows minus the very features that make them windows are windows. They change the entire model of the UI. How far can tabs go? What about tabs within tabs? Wouldn't that be great?

Quote:
Not really. As I look at it, there are no child and parent views; there's just a set of "windows" (not really, but effectively) that occupy the same screen area, only one of which is visible at a time. And I wouldn't object to making the close button in the titlebar close a tab, which would make the metaphor fully consistent (although probably not in the way you want).

If it's really just a set of windows, then how can you have two sets of windows with tabs? That is proof of a hierarchy. The window is the parent to the tab.

Quote:
I recall reading the Camino (then Chimera) mailing lists back when it first got tab support. Initially it used Cmd-E to close a tab and Cmd-W to close the entire window, but Cmd-W to close a tab was so intuitive, and so many users were accidentally closing entire tab sets (myself included), that it was changed. Actual experience trumps theory.

If we did everything according to casual appeal and not according to greater deliberation, then the world would be a terrible place.

Quote:
If this is Apple's greatest threat, they're in even better shape than I thought

Apple's greatest threat is losing what makes it better than the competition. A functional, ideal UI is very important to its continued existence.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #94 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
If you are a truly new computer user like my mom was a few years ago, you have no preconceptions of what an app is or when it is running. My mom immediately grasped the concept of the application being more than just an open window because she had never used Microsoft Windows before.

The only problem lies in Windows switchers, some of which are too inflexible to grasp the better concept that Mac OS allows. If we give up these intrinsically Mac features, then we just lose yet another Mac advantage just to satiate some switchers' feeble minds.

Excuse me while I puke.

I agree the Mac is the better concept. It's just been my experience that the "app with no window open" is very confusing to new users, your mom notwithstanding.

N00b (Having closed the last MS Word window to "get rid" of it, and seeing the Safari website behind it): "How come this website is up here?"

Mac Addict: "That's Safari that you are seeing through Word's empty space because Word has no windows open because you closed the last one."

N00b: "HUH?"

Mac Addict: "See where it says "Word" in the upper left corner? That means you are still in Word, but there are just no windows open."

N00b: "Why would I want to be in Word with no windows open? I thought I got rid of it by clicking that little red button. What do you mean I am 'in Word', anyway?"

Mac Addict: "No, you see, the application is still running, but it doesn't have any windows open. So if you want to write a letter or something, you choose "New Document" from the "File" menu. Or you could open another document from the 'Open' menu item. That's why Apple designed it that way on the Mac - so you could close one document and then open another without having to quit the program."

N00b: "Well, I don't want to do any more word processing. I see Safari's window here - how come I don't have my 'Bookmarks' menu?"

Mac Addict: "Because like I said, you are still in Word. If you want to be in Safari, just click in the Safari window."

N00b: "Click where in the Safari window? How do I know which one is the Safari window?"

Mac Addict: "Anywhere! Just click {dammitt}! "

N00b: "Should I click in a blank space?"

Mac Addict: "CLICK ANYWHERE! YOU JUST NEED TO BRING SAFARI TO THE FRONT!!!"

N00b: "The front? It looks like it's already in the front. There isn't anything in front of it - It's right here."

Mac Addict: "I TOLD YOU, WORD IS IN THE FRONT - SEE WHERE IT SAYS "WORD" IN THE UPPER LEFT CORNER???!! SAFARI IS BEHIND!!! YOU HAVE TO BRING SAFARI TO THE FRONT BEFORE YOU CAN USE IT!!!"

N00b: "OK I clicked - now what?"

Mac Addict: "Does it say "Safari" in the upper left corner now?"

N00b: "No. It says 'Excel'."

--Johnny
--Johnny
post #95 of 144
Like I said, a true newbie has no preconceptions of what an app is or isn't. As a computer illiterate first-timer, I have no reason to believe an app isn't still running just because it is out of view. Something doesn't cease to exist just because you can't see it. When I load an app, I will expect an equal and opposite procedure to unload the app. When I open a document, I see that it doesn't spawn a new application process. When I close a window I would expect to see no application process shutdown.

In your example, both people are retards. The newbie isn't listening, and the Mac fool doesn't even know how to use Command-Tab or the Dock.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #96 of 144
That should have been in Monty Python!!!
ROFL!


Jimzip
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
"There's no time like the present, and the only present you'll never get, is time." - Me
post #97 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
In your example, both people are retards. The newbie isn't listening, and the Mac fool doesn't even know how to use Command-Tab or the Dock.

(continued)

N00b: I wanna surf the Web.

Addict: You need to go to Safari.

N00b: OK how do I get Safari?

Addict: Click the Safari icon in the Dock.

N00b: What's the Dock?

Addict: That strip of icons on the ... let's see, that's Leroy's machine and he keeps his Dock on the right, so... the strip of icons running up the right side of the screen.

N00b: Which one of these pictures is for Safari?

Addict: The one that looks blue, circular, and like a compass with a red needle.

N00b: I can't find it.

Addict: It's about ... let's see, that's Leroy's machine and he keeps Safari about the fourth icon down from the top.... It's about the fourth one down from the top.

N00b: The fourth one says "Fetch 4.0.3".

Addict: {Sigh}.....Leroy's running Fetch to get build 7C107.... OK check the ones below that one. Does it say "Safari" when you scrub it with the mouse?

N00b: No, it just made a little puff of smoke. It doesn't say anything.

Addict:
--Johnny
--Johnny
post #98 of 144
More idiocy. Don't make up stupid scenarios like this. Now you're talking about apps that aren't currently running? What the hell does that have to do with quit behavior?

If a person wants to run Safari, I wouldn't suggest he find it in the Dock. I would tell him to *gasp* go to the Applications folder and click on the icon labeled "Safari." OMG!!!!
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #99 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by lundy
(continued)

N00b: I wanna surf the Web.

Addict: You need to go to Safari.

N00b: OK how do I get Safari?

Addict: Click the Safari icon in the Dock.

N00b: What's the Dock?

Addict: That strip of icons on the ... let's see, that's Leroy's machine and he keeps his Dock on the right, so... the strip of icons running up the right side of the screen.

N00b: Which one of these pictures is for Safari?

Addict: The one that looks blue, circular, and like a compass with a red needle.

N00b: I can't find it.

Addict: It's about ... let's see, that's Leroy's machine and he keeps Safari about the fourth icon down from the top.... It's about the fourth one down from the top.

N00b: The fourth one says "Fetch 4.0.3".

Addict: {Sigh}.....Leroy's running Fetch to get build 7C107.... OK check the ones below that one. Does it say "Safari" when you scrub it with the mouse?

N00b: No, it just made a little puff of smoke. It doesn't say anything.

Addict:

Maybe an option to "Lock" the dock so you can't remove anything? And this COULD be a true story. Not everybody wants to load an applications folder with 50 items in it (probably more for you guys) every time they want to open something.

What I would tell somebody is to click the little compass in on the right side of the screen. They usually get it after that.
Jason [thebox] - Software Developer
Creative Box - http://www.creativebox.net
Jason [thebox] - Software Developer
Creative Box - http://www.creativebox.net
post #100 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by jwill

What I would tell somebody is to click the little compass in on the right side of the screen. They usually get it after that.

If a newbie asks you how to surf the web and you aren't physically present like the implied scenario, you're going to use the most basic directions. That involves telling him to go to the Applications folder and clicking on the icon labeled Safari.

I wouldn't assume anything about the dock configuration.

However, do realize that Lundy's scenarios are flawed beyond belief. He seems to be creating them only to be defiant. The second scenario doesn't even revolve around anything we've been talking about in the thread.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #101 of 144
You know what ? Maybe Apple can make an option like this :
Go to system preferences, click on Appearance and then you have a new choice for the red dot and for the green dot.
Red : Option 1 : Close only the window
Red : Option 2 : Close the application
Green : Option 1 : Fit to content
Green : Option 2 : Full screen

Oh, and I would like also a lot an option to lock the dock. Even for administrator user.
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
"I like workin on my Mac to jazz. A pianist doesn't spend time peeking inside the piano." Neville Brody
post #102 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
However, do realize that Lundy's scenarios are flawed beyond belief. He seems to be creating them only to be defiant. The second scenario doesn't even revolve around anything we've been talking about in the thread.

Geez, this is a tough crowd.
--Johnny
--Johnny
post #103 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by lundy
(continued)

N00b: I wanna surf the Web.

Addict: You need to go to Safari.

N00b: OK how do I get Safari?

Addict: Click the Safari icon in the Dock.

N00b: What's the Dock?

Addict: That strip of icons on the ... let's see, that's Leroy's machine and he keeps his Dock on the right, so... the strip of icons running up the right side of the screen.

N00b: Which one of these pictures is for Safari?

Addict: The one that looks blue, circular, and like a compass with a red needle.

N00b: I can't find it.

Addict: It's about ... let's see, that's Leroy's machine and he keeps Safari about the fourth icon down from the top.... It's about the fourth one down from the top.

N00b: The fourth one says "Fetch 4.0.3".

Addict: {Sigh}.....Leroy's running Fetch to get build 7C107.... OK check the ones below that one. Does it say "Safari" when you scrub it with the mouse?

N00b: No, it just made a little puff of smoke. It doesn't say anything.

Addict:

you should write articles for macworld like this i find it really funny
Nano
Nano
post #104 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by 3.1416
Ok, suppose there were no tabs, as such. Suppose instead each browser page had its own window, but when you selected a different window it automatically positioned itself directly on top of the previous window. And suppose that each window contained a list of all other open windows, which you could select by clicking on them. This would look exactly the same as a tabbed interface, and now Cmd-W would really be closing a window, but effectively closing a tab.

Think about this for a moment. If each windows contained a list of all other open windows, how does this scenario work ?

Open a window, load cnn.com. open a new tab with nbc.com. Open a new window with apple.com. open a new tab with microsoft.com.

What's the result ? Two windows with two tabs each, so as you can see, the tab is the *child* to its *parent* window. Otherwise, each window would have a list of four tabs.

Even worse is the fact that if you are looking at cnn.com and want's to switch to your loaded version of microsoft.com you need to first change windows (clicking on it, or using the 'window' menu-bar), and THEN click on the 'microsoft.com' tab.

So what have you created ? A way to hide information so that it isn't easily accessable any more. "Now where did I put that window that holds the tab for xxx ?". Not even Expose will tell you that!

That being said, I must admit that the way browsers are built, I kinnda like the tabs. But I guess that's mainly because that's because I like opening up a handfull of websites and then browsing through them once at a time. On the other hand, I kinnda found the "open behind this window" option in OmniWeb just as useful, as I usually read through a website completely and then close it. There's hardly any "tabbing" between them.

.:BoeManE:.
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
In the real world, ignorance is truly a bliss.
post #105 of 144
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Eugene
Quote:
Tabs are only useful when they cannot be created, destroyed, or duplicated without limits...Where they are constant, such as with in set Preference Panels and palettes. Tabs are not useful as the lobotomized window you describe.



They are useful to me, and several million other Safari/Camino/Mozilla users. Again, experience beats theory. The usage patterns of web browsers are very different from document-based applications, so it shouldn't be surprising that different interfaces can be effective.

Quote:
If it's really just a set of windows, then how can you have two sets of windows with tabs? That is proof of a hierarchy. The window is the parent to the tab.

Of course there's not really a set of windows. That's just the metaphor I use, and it's useful and intuitive. (And I normally don't use more than one window, unless I have a whole lot of pages open, in which case I'd rather manage 2 windows with 6 tabs each than 12 windows).

Quote:
If we did everything according to casual appeal and not according to greater deliberation, then the world would be a terrible place.

As I said, there was a great deal of considered discussion on the Camino mailing list. Just because you don't like a decision doesn't mean it was made without thought.
post #106 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by BoeManE
That being said, I must admit that the way browsers are built, I kinnda like the tabs.

Exactly my point. Despite the theoretical objections, in practice they are useful, largely because of the unique usage patterns of web browing.
post #107 of 144
I remember when I got my first mac, back in 97, I was a bit confused as too why the menubar still displayed the application after the last window was closed, and I didn't even come from a windows background.

However, it didn't take long to realize the difference between the two, and now I fully agree with Eugene. It was better the old way IMO,

I only use windows at the moment, (though not for long :-)...) and i do get thoroughly PO when I close the last window in an app and the app shuts down, ie QT, IE, Netscape, when all I wanted to do was start afresh in the same app.

I suspect thats why windows has TSR, as a workaround to loading up the same appeach time

Go Eugene
post #108 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by 3.1416

They are useful to me, and several million other Safari/Camino/Mozilla users. Again, experience beats theory. The usage patterns of web browsers are very different from document-based applications, so it shouldn't be surprising that different interfaces can be effective.

Exactly, though I am starting to want the option to have tabs in a word processor. I often have many documents open and would love to be able to switch back and forth between than like I can with tabs in a browser. I can see exactly which pages is where and can zip over to it. It's much cleaner and much more convenient that a bunch of stacked hidden windows.

Right now, I have 8 tabs open. 2 are different forums. The rest are info I saw when browsing but haven't had time to read yet. Before tabs, I used to have a gazillion windows open. Now it's all together and convenient.
post #109 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
Like I said, a true newbie has no preconceptions of what an app is or isn't. As a computer illiterate first-timer, I have no reason to believe an app isn't still running just because it is out of view. Something doesn't cease to exist just because you can't see it. When I load an app, I will expect an equal and opposite procedure to unload the app. When I open a document, I see that it doesn't spawn a new application process. When I close a window I would expect to see no application process shutdown.

In your example, both people are retards. The newbie isn't listening, and the Mac fool doesn't even know how to use Command-Tab or the Dock.

CAn anyone tell me if Eugene is normally this abusive towards people who hold different opinions than he does?

This is not a religion. This is no, in the grand scheme of things, important.

And yes, I have many brilliant friends who hated their time on my Macs precisely because they would close all the windows in a program, then go to launch another program and be told they were out of memory, because they hadn't quit Word/Excel/Photoshop/Netscape/etc, they'd just closed all the windows. These were not stupid people, these were just people who were very experienced with Windows. I'm not saying Windows' interface is proper, just that you're being a real jerk about all of this. Calm the hell down and stop berating people for thinking differently than you.
post #110 of 144
Yes, tabs are by far the best new user interface model to come to the web browser in a long, long time. Religious objections to the contrary, they work because the web browser doesn't actually deal in documents, but simply in viewer windows.

I have seen this debate rage many times, about what keyboard shortcut should close a tab versus close a window. Everytime control/command-W has won out. Why? Because while it does mean "close a window" it means more instinctively "make what I'm looking at right now go away." It's not a broken interface, it's a flexible interface. If the anti-tab bigots want, they can turn off tabs completely, and be happy with their less efficient browsers.

Now comes the part where Eugene berates me and castigates me for daring to have a different opinion that his, which of course is gospel. All bow before Eugene, haver of the golden cow.
post #111 of 144
This wasn't even originally about how sucky tabs were, but obviously it's a contentious issue. Aside from the fact that now we somehw have to bend the rules just for a web browser, tabs ARE a flawed interface.

Here's how *I* would do things. I would add the ability to enable a palette that shows all open windows in an app. I would put this menu option in... the Window Menu. This eliminates SEVERAL problems.

There is no equality problem. There are no child or parent windows. Every window is just that, a plain window.

Command-W vs another Command-key combo is no longer an issue.

Instead of the flawed logic in arranging the tabs in one row, they would be in a column. The problems with the titles being obscured by bunching would disappear.

The detached Window palette, it would float on top of all windows. All your "tabs" would be visible all the time, unlike with two parent windows that each have tabs.

You can now reposition your "tabs" because they're really just windows. You can access your tab just as easily, but now you can actually view two pages side-by-side.

Of course I mentioned all this before. Doesn't it make sense? This is why the existing window paradigm is so much more powerful. Tabs are just crippled windows. Why would you want crippled interfaces?

Tabs aren't new. Tabs have been in applications forever, but they had a specific purpose. You couldn't create them before. They were stationary objects, which made them easier to navigate with motor memory. You can't say tabs are an innovation with respect to web browsing because of the simple fact they're just crippled windows.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #112 of 144
I want tabs because they cut down on clutter. I'm currently visiting eight web pages. I have one window open. That's efficiency, that's a major improvement over having eight windows open.

The first thing I do when I get to work in the morning is click on a special item on my bookmark bar which opens four different websites in one window. No clutter, only one step, couldn't be easier. Please explain to me how this interface, which makes my web usage so much easier and more enjoyable, is "crippled."

If you don't like tabs, don't use them. Everyone else seems to think they're just peachy, and seems to have no problem recognizing that a web browser, as just a viewer, is a different beast than a program that actually creates documents, so having slightly different window-management behavior is not a cardinal sin.

Yes, this is MDI. But this is perhaps the one place where MDI works. I have MDI as much as the next person for Photoshop, Word and so on. Because those are document-creation programs, and MDI generally requires that the programs be maximized to work efficiently, and I hate maximized programs. A web browser with a tabs-based MDI, however, is a major improvement over a single window/single page browser. Precisely because it does the opposite of what MDI in Word does -- it frees my screen real estate, it makes the program take up less room.

Tabs are optional. If you want a crippled, inefficient web experience without tabs, go right ahead. But don't condemn others for finding useful a tool you despise. Your opinion is not gospel.

I agree that tear-off menus would be a good thing. I wish that all OS X menubar menus could be torn off into floating palettes, actually. That would eliminate another one of the common Windows user gripes about Macs, the need to mouse all over the screen to get to the menubar. I don't consider it a particularly weighty complaint, but a lot of Windows people continue to bring it up.
post #113 of 144
I've already changed my mind about tear-off menus. Tear-off menus wouldn't work as well switching from app to app as a simple window switcher. Menus all differ from app to app. A Window switcher would be a constant in all apps. Merely the context, not the options would change.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #114 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
CAn anyone tell me if Eugene is normally this abusive towards people who hold different opinions than he does?


Hell if I know. I even said twice that I agreed with him and he still went atomic on me.
--Johnny
--Johnny
post #115 of 144
Why would torn off menus need to endure from app to app? If they were implemented as palettes the menus torn off in Program A would vanish when you switched to Program B, like all palettes do.
post #116 of 144
Quote:
Please explain to me how this interface, which makes my web usage so much easier and more enjoyable, is "crippled."

Browsing the web with one window is not efficient at all. Web browsing isn't serial by design. It's the world-wide-web for a reason. You're tangled in it. To get the fullest experience, you don't view one page at a time.

Tabs promote serialization when technology has clearly propelled us into a parallel mindset. We're supposed to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Mac OS X wants you to do more than one task at a time. Viewing one thing at a time is a draconian MS philosophy. It is so ingrained in their OS, the maximize button truly means maximize. Windows users tend to only work in one app at a time, with the windows maximized. I don't. Even when I'm IRCing in Windows, I have 4 separate chat windows all visible at once. Not only does this make me have to click less to read a conversation, the entire body of the window is a big-ass tab I can click on...it's not a tiny sliver of a clickable target near the top of my screen.

If your problem really is with clutter, then how about this...a selectable option to stack browser windows... a pile of windows as it turns out. If you drag that pile, all the windows are dragged. If you resize it, all the windows are resized.

As long as I never have to see Windows WITHIN Windows on OS X.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #117 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland
Why would torn off menus need to endure from app to app? If they were implemented as palettes the menus torn off in Program A would vanish when you switched to Program B, like all palettes do.

The palette would probably be the best option. As is the case, not all apps have a X menu anyway. It would just be bad to have menus from one app endure to the next.

Tear-off menus as palettes...I'd have to see where it goes in actual usage to make up my mind about that one.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #118 of 144
Quote:
Originally posted by Eugene
Browsing the web with one window is not efficient at all. Web browsing isn't serial by design. It's the world-wide-web for a reason. You're tangled in it. To get the fullest experience, you don't view one page at a time.



No, I read one window at a time. I don't jump between windows, or if I do, I can do that easily with tabs.

Quote:
We're supposed to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time. Mac OS X wants you to do more than one task at a time. Viewing one thing at a time is a draconian MS philosophy.

Where the hell did you get the idea that I'm only doing one thing at a time? At any given time I tend to have one web window with multiple tabs, several IM conversations, my novel, a screenwriting project, a DVD, NetNewsWire, Mail, iJournal and often iTunes rolling at the same time (though obviously not iTunes and a DVD at the same time). That's another reason I like tabs -- it lets me have more of those windows on screen, less space wasted on pages I'm not reading at the moment. I only have 1.3 million pixels to divvy out, after all.

Quote:
If your problem really is with clutter, then how about this...a selectable option to stack browser windows... a pile of windows as it turns out. If you drag that pile, all the windows are dragged. If you resize it, all the windows are resized.

Where's my one click button to switch to that other window, as in tabs with my tab?
post #119 of 144
Quote:
Where's my one click button to switch to that other window, as in tabs with my tab?

This:


It leads to:
http://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~ceugene/adm/switcher2.png

Except in your case the windows would be stacked and not cascading.
I can change my sig again!
I can change my sig again!
post #120 of 144
Ugh, no, that would be horrible. I don't want to have to go hunting through a menu. Tabs work perfectly for how I work in a web browser. I'm sorry that you can't accept that the tabbed-window paradigm might be more efficient for some users. It's a sad case of arrogant myopia that you think that the way you work should be good enough for everyone.

EDITED for clarity.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Okay, Apple: make up your mind about the Dock.