or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Next-generation OS smackdown, circa '06.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Next-generation OS smackdown, circa '06.

post #1 of 81
Thread Starter 
So, come 2006 (or thereabouts), Microsoft will have at last caught up with OS X with Longhorn in the snazzy UI effects dept.

What can Apple do to advance the state of the art in UI? Can they have something twice as impressive as Longhorn in the next 2-3 years? Will they take a evolutionary strategy, advancing with significant ".1" updates every year, or will they additionally have a new Mac UI-project running in secret Infinite Loop labs on the side? Could Pixar play a role on such a project? Can the WIMP model be improved on, or will the next-next gen OS still WIMP-based?

Finally, is this an area that Apple should even be focusing on? Is a radically new, different interface model....a good business model? Should Apple be redirecting its interface resources and know-how and focusing instead on new consumer devices like the iPod? How important are snazzy effects to a successful OS strategy, anyway?

Let's hear your thoughts.
post #2 of 81
Effects are only good if they increase productivity. Expose is good. Having windows that look like glass is bad.

The desktop metaphor seems to be working pretty well. I say Apple should just continue to add in time-saving features and release some new iApps. There doesn't need to be a major redesign in the way we use computers. Productivity is the key. An OS can have as many snazzy effects as it wants, but it wont (shouldn't, at least) succeed unless it helps increase productivity.
"What we're doing is that which is currently doable in the way that we're doing it." - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
Reply
"What we're doing is that which is currently doable in the way that we're doing it." - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
Reply
post #3 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by hyperb0le
Effects are only good if they increase productivity. Expose is good. Having windows that look like glass is bad.

The desktop metaphor seems to be working pretty well. I say Apple should just continue to add in time-saving features and release some new iApps. There doesn't need to be a major redesign in the way we use computers. Productivity is the key. An OS can have as many snazzy effects as it wants, but it wont (shouldn't, at least) succeed unless it helps increase productivity.

What change in the current "desktop metaphor" do you think could be as great as the leap from the command line interface to the GUI? People keep bringing up the idea of some type of 3D interface but I just don't see it. It might look cool but how is it going increase my productivity. The current desktop seems like a natural because it is the way people work. To increase my productivity someone is going to have to come up with a way to make it even easier and faster for me to get to and manipulate my data. How are they going to do that? Is it going to be something like Tom Cruise used in Minority Report? Eliminate the mouse and use gestures.

Lets hear some ideas?

bob spears
post #4 of 81
1. In the snazzy FX department: specular highlights, pixels shaders, texture mapping, and careful, subtle use of real-time lighting would make for magnificent eye candy. Brushed metal that looks like real metal, anyone?

And why not: today's GPUs are more than capable and every Mac now comes with one. I like to imagine a desktop environment where the color and temperature of the light change with the time of day. A gentle orange-red tinge to the edges of windows during sunset? Yeah, call me crazy but you know it'd be cooler than words.

2. Everyone talks about metadata but it's really just a means to an end. What's the end? Helping users manage the enormous quantities of real data we'll all be collecting over the course of our lives.

I want a system that actively assists me with organizing all my digital stuff. Remember the classic System folder? I could just drop a file (font, extension, control panel) onto its icon and the Finder knew right where to put it. Well why the hell doesn't everything work like that? I can drop or save a file into Documents and it just goes to the right place.

This system will handle versioning automagically. Nothing is thrown away or abandoned, everything is saved. If I want to see what my resume looked like two years ago I simply go to it and scrub backwards along the time axis. Documents present themselves as a single entity but can expand to reveal all prior revisions.

Of course this system will let me find things very easily and very, very quickly. Imagine the responsiveness of iTunes' library search working on the scope of your entire filesystem. Add a revamped file browser with intuitive filtering UI and real-time zooming for scanning through large sets of data.

If this isn't enough and Apple wants to really push the limits, they'll begin by ditching the concept of file paths altogether (Newton users: think soup). To a very slight extent I believe Apple has already started down this path in OS X.

I am not suggesting that files shouldn't have a 'location' (folder/directory), or that those locations can't be nested. Spatial metaphors are a perfectly reasonable means of organizing things. What I am suggesting is that a file can - and should - be organized/viewed/displayed by means other than (and in addition to) its location. Moreover, that location should be abstracted from the mechanics of the storage system. Among other things this would let me add a second hard drive to my system and immediately realize it not as 'another place' but simply 'more space'.

dglow
post #5 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by bspears
What change in the current "desktop metaphor" do you think could be as great as the leap from the command line interface to the GUI? People keep bringing up the idea of some type of 3D interface but I just don't see it. It might look cool but how is it going increase my productivity. The current desktop seems like a natural because it is the way people work. To increase my productivity someone is going to have to come up with a way to make it even easier and faster for me to get to and manipulate my data. How are they going to do that? Is it going to be something like Tom Cruise used in Minority Report? Eliminate the mouse and use gestures.

Lets hear some ideas?

bob spears

Well, if Apple can get iSight to interpret gestures (ala ToySight) without mistaking background movement as gestures (and possibly causing irreparable damage like deleting a file) and translate them into specific actions, it would be pretty neat.

Combined with a killer voice-recognition framework, this thing would really be like Star Trek...today!
post #6 of 81
Combined with a killer voice-recognition framework, this thing would really be like Star Trek...today!

Edit: Why are the forums so stinky today?
post #7 of 81
How about something really simple:

Close means exit.

It is very, very annoying to close a window then go into the the menu to exit out of the application. Or to click and hold on the dock icon to exit.

Come on Apple. Simple usability testing would reveal this obvious flaw.

And please, hold all the replies about how you do things. At the very least Apple should provide an option to do what I want.

And don't get me started about the home and end key behavior! Command left and right... ridiculous!
post #8 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by dglow
Great Ideas
You mean you read this far?
Reply
You mean you read this far?
Reply
post #9 of 81
FormatC2: I don't agree that this should always be the case, and this is one of the things that annoys me when I work on Windows. I think it should be as it is now: up to the program to exit if the last window is closed.

As an example where this is a nice behavior: When I am working with AppleScript Studio Applicaitons I want to be able to quickly view the Scripting dictionaries of the application I am working with, and the easiest way of doing that is to have the script editor open and drag the icon of the application onto the dock icon for the Script Editor. I don't always want to have Script Editor windows open, and I don't want to have the icon in my dock permanently. The current behavior is perfect for this.

A second example is for OmniWeb. When I am not activly viewing any content I don't want to have widows cluttering up my workspace, but since it serves as my RSS checker, I do want the program running so that I can get updates through the dock icon.

To me Window's way of solving the last item (system tray items) is a bit clunky since it means that more files are spatted somewhere in the system (meaning more things to go wrong in install/upgrade/uninstall processes). That is even ignoring the nice features of the dock vs the application bar + launch tray + system tray.

All of that being said, there are a few apps from Apple that should close by themselves that don't. For example: Internet Connect. Since there is rarely a time where you are going to want multiple windows open (not never, just rarely), and it is not document-centric, it should exit when you close the window.

I was glad when they got this corrected for System Preferences.
post #10 of 81
Quote:
Come on Apple. Simple usability testing would reveal this obvious flaw.

And please, hold all the replies about how you do things. At the very least Apple should provide an option to do what I want.

It's most definitely not a flaw. The only time it becomes an issue is with those who have started using the Mac after extensive Windows experience or vice versa.

Mac user who want to close an app will simply just quit the application knowing that the windows will shut. Sure Apple could make preference change options for every possible method of utilizing an application but do you really want to wade through the plethora of preference choices? I think neither way is wrong or right. It all despends on the application being used.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #11 of 81
If you dig around in General discussion and News Comment about longhorn and you will find a link and the guy says 2007 at the earliest. So, longhorn got pushed back another year.
post #12 of 81
I'm personally not big on effects - an OS IMO should be as unobtrusive as possible or at least should be capable of being unobtrusive. When you use a computer it should be all about the application. Flashy, CPU-chugging effects do *nothing* for me. And in this regard XP is actually superior to X - you can turn all that crap off and actually have a speedy OS. Everything responds instantly. And Longhorn, wisely, will continue to allow you to work in a "no frills" environment.

Now while I love X's technical underpinings I have to be as productive as possible at work and all the additional graphical fluff (transparency, shadows, way-to-heavy-antialiased type, transitions, icon-based dock) just gets in the way. Frills are fine for home use, but not for serious work IMO. I find I'm much more productive in OS 9 - it's fast, light(ish) and isn't in your face with a LOOK AT ME... LOOK AT MEEEEEE!!!! interface.

I keep asking - why couldn't Apple allow users to have the *option* of working in a fast and light OS 9-like environment? That was a huge mistake IMO.


C.
post #13 of 81
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by hyperb0le
Effects are only good if they increase productivity. Expose is good. Having windows that look like glass is bad.

Absolutely. I was being a bit flip saying Longhorn will at last catch up to OS X in snazzy effects -- after all, Longhorn will also be adding a database-driven metadata-loaded filesytem (albeit still currently rather sluggish), stacks, a new notification system, plus not to mention (alongside the aforementioned snazzy effects like drop shadows and windows with glass-like, semi-transparent edges) a slightly Expose-like alt-tab that tiles your windows up as you rifle through them.

Anyway, point being, it'd be foolish to think Longhorn won't add functionality along with the snazziness -- cool technology is only cool if it furthers a greater end, ideally ease-of-use, productivity, or at the very least aesthetics. Longhorn will surely still be overcomplicated, bloated with wizards, and chock full of MS marketing and sneaky Windows-only strategies like XAML, but even MS understands that (well, to some degree).

I'm not scared of Longhorn, by the way. Apple is full of incredibly smart people and there's nothing Jobs enjoys more than being just a liiiiiitle bit ahead of MS. So I expect great things from them in 2006. Dare I expect... insanely great?

The thing I'm curious about is... what, exactly? What are the big problems that need to be addressed, and even re-thought? Which leads to...

Quote:
The desktop metaphor seems to be working pretty well. I say Apple should just continue to add in time-saving features and release some new iApps. There doesn't need to be a major redesign in the way we use computers.

I agree that WIMP isn't going away any time soon -- we sure won't come close to navigating in a fully 3-D Minority Report-like interface until (as mentioned) the gestural technology comes of age, and a very clear vocabulary is developed, and perhaps not even then.. But is all we have to look forward to visually in the next 3 years more realistic drop shadows, smoother animations, and more realistic textures? I can't help but think Apple needs to be cooking up something more impressive than that.
post #14 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Concord
I find I'm much more productive in OS 9 - it's fast, light(ish) and isn't in your face with a LOOK AT ME... LOOK AT MEEEEEE!!!! interface.

You mustn't use too many apps at one time or there's no way you could make that claim. In all honesty though none of those frills slow work down given the human input rate is slower than the computer's response rate. If you dislike the dock just make it hide but personally I find a simple one click system that'll float over windows easier to use than minimising a half dozen things so I can hunt through via the desktop.
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
"When I was a kid, my favourite relative was Uncle Caveman. After school, wed all go play in his cave, and every once and awhile, hed eat one of us. It wasnt until later that I discovered Uncle...
Reply
post #15 of 81
Concord is talking out of his ass as usual.

There's hardly any effect in OS X that isn't meant to give important visual feedback. And most of them are so subtle, you hardly notice them unless you really pay attention to them (such as the double-clicking an app or document file in the Finder.

10.0's Aqua used to be the 'look-at-me' type of interface...I admit. It was loud but it's purpose was to lure people to it.

10.3 interface was toned down lots.
post #16 of 81
Quitting an application by closing its window is only useful for non-document-based, modal applications. For example, iTunes and iPhoto qualify, GarageBand shouldn't (even though it does currently). Obviously it would be a horrible mistake to "quit when window closes" with apps like Photoshop or Word or web browsers. Or the Finder.

One size does not fit all, and frankly there should be no "global option" to activate this sort of behavior, because it would have a lot of potential to screw up a lot of company's workflows in multi-user environments where machines have only one account, per IT policy.

Getting back to the original question, I think 10.4 will be the last version of OS X most likely. It will be replaced by what Apple will market as a completely new system (a ".0" version), although it will obviously have many things in common with OS X from a user perspective and a programmatic perspective. I think though, that the look will be enhanced significantly both in terms of more subtle but beautiful eye candy and flexibility / user customization out of the box.

This will enable them to legitimately market it as a new OS, and basically ensure that whatever MS comes out with, Apple's stuff will still look better perform more reliably on the whole. Either way, Longhorn is just vaporware / MS-initiated rumor in order to give the appearance that they have had "something new" in the pipeline, when in reality it probably got off the drawing board only recently.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #17 of 81
Quote:
Quitting an application by closing its window is only useful for non-document-based, modal applications. For example, iTunes and iPhoto qualify...

I find the fact that iTunes stays running in the background to be immensely useful.
post #18 of 81
The only penalty from leaving an application open after closing the last window is that its icon sits in the Dock, ready to respond to being clicked. I just don't see any good reason to have all apps quit when you close the last window. It wastes time and CPU cycles re-opening the app, and it is a nuisance with any sort of multi-document app like PS, Quark, Word or whatever. There are some limited cases where it might be OK, but while I wouldn't put up much resistance to something like this so long as the logic is apparent to the user, it's really unnecessary and unobtrusive just to leave things running. Perhaps a better solution would be to hide apps' Dock icons that don't have any windows open and haven't been used in a while. Quit when you shut down or log off. This isn't OS 9 and we have to stop thinking of these things in terms of old limitations.

Effects should not be distracting because they should be focused on the foreground action, or to call attention where needed from the background. The effects in OS X that don't pertain to this are optional, you can turn them off; things like changing desktops and iChat's alerts and status changes. Effects are not menat to improve productivity per se, they neer have been. Effects that serve the purpose of user orientation (that is, clarity, knowing hat's going on where) should be there, and shouldn't be optional. Turning everything into options makes a computer more complicated to use, defeating the point of turning off the effects for the sake of simplicity. One might appear more complicated, but the other truly is to use. Besides, OS X has certainly improved on their effects, it's already less distracting than the current Windows effects and so far is an order of magnitude less ditracting than Longhorn's demonstrated (which, to be fair, seem more hypothetical at this point) effects.

Anyway, back to the original topic, I find it so interesting how Apple develops its UI now. I remember all the hubbub when Apple under Jobs dissolved their HI team. We all thought that it meant the end of interface improvements to the Mac. (Though it seems some don't want any changes in the first place. ) Instead, Apple moved many of these people or their equivalents into project teams. It's a totally different approach to these things. Rather than making seismic shifts in the UI once in a while, applications introduce new ideas in smaller doses at a steady pace. Also, it means that ideas are put into the realm of praxis more often rather than being left as a white paper. This is why OS X's and other Apple software yearly upgrade cycles are so important. Slow and steady wins the race, as the saying goes. We can see how lessons from iTunes has affects the other iApps and the Finder. We see how UI ideas from NeXT have helped the Macintosh user experience. We can see when some applications don't always match up, where one app has a great feature but it hasn't been brought into others yet. Apple sacrificed some consistency for more advancement of UI improvements. Try it in one place, one team thinks of an idea, and if it's helpful, others pick up on it. These things sort of add up over time, and make the transition of users to new ways of working easier. I get the feeling that much of what OS X (I still think they will keep OS X by then) will be like is under our noses, with some notable exceptions, like the example of Expose.

It's easier to think of these things by addressing immediate concerns and seeing how a small improvement might lead to a new concept and become more pervasive, find implementations in other areas. For example, we keep talking about smart playlist functionality in other apps like the Finder, Mail and so forth because it addresses how we like to organize by criteria on the fly, making the process more automated. To me, it still feels like the Dock is sort neither here-nor-there in terms of its role in the OS. So what is it, what do we need one for? I use mine simply to access certain tools or places system-wide very quickly. I use it less for window management, but it's nice to get things out of the way with it every so often. So it's a universal accessibility tool, either to get to things or to put them aside for the moment. I'm trying to wrack my brain for things I'd like to do more easily from the OS. If we keep track of this sort of stuff, we can probably get some idea of what Apple will improve. Problem is, we take how we work for granted, at least I do. It's harder to think about what we're missing when we learn to work with the limitations of the OS so well.
post #19 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Telomar:
You mustn't use too many apps at one time or there's no way you could make that claim.

I keep open all the apps I need (PS, Quark, Suitcase, Acrobat, Filemaker, couple of Misc apps) - that's more ram dependent than anything else.
Quote:
In all honesty though none of those frills slow work down given the human input rate is slower than the computer's response rate.

You're kidding, right? Maybe on a dual proc. G5, but certainly not on my 1.25 G4.
Quote:
If you dislike the dock just make it hide but personally I find a simple one click system that'll float over windows easier to use than minimising a half dozen things so I can hunt through via the desktop.

It's not about "hiding" the dock (which I do) - it's about finding what you want quickly on it. When you regularly use, oh I don't know... 20 or so different apps it's easier to find stuff on the OS 9 Apple menu than dock. Especially when some have the same icon (Quark 4 and 5 for example) or similar themed icons (Adobe CS). I've got a folder on the dock now that acts like an apple menu but there will always be those little annoying pauses (the dock has to pop up, the folder menu has to slide open) that make you feel that you're wading in molassas.
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol:
Concord is talking out of his ass as usual.

There's hardly any effect in OS X that isn't meant to give important visual feedback. And most of them are so subtle, you hardly notice them unless you really pay attention to them (such as the double-clicking an app or document file in the Finder.

10.0's Aqua used to be the 'look-at-me' type of interface...I admit. It was loud but it's purpose was to lure people to it.

10.3 interface was toned down lots.

Well I don't have 10.3 so I can't speak to that. If they have toned it down - great but I still say Apple should have given users the option to turn that stuff off from the very beginning. I am, however, running 10.2.8. and I can tell you those animations, transitions and CPU-eating shadows are not "important user feedback". We certainly got along fine in 9 without them. And since working on the Mac pays my mortgage I feel I have the right to voice where I feel there is room for improvement.

Cheers,

C.
post #20 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by fiddler
I find the fact that iTunes stays running in the background to be immensely useful.

This is why iunes in windows need to run in the tray - had to say it
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #21 of 81
Quote:
Close means exit.

No, close means close this window. Quit means exit this program. What's so difficult about typing Command-Q?

I hate it when an application exits if I close it's last window. It's a Windows concept and it is not needed under OS X, nor wanted.
post #22 of 81
I suggested this before, but I think that an easy solution to the close window/app issue would be to change the red button from a circle to a square on apps that quit when the window is closed. There are good reasons for both kinds of behaviour.
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
"I'm learning how to meditate, so far so good."
Donald Fagen and Walter Becker
Reply
post #23 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Carbonide
No, close means close this window. Quit means exit this program. What's so difficult about typing Command-Q?

I hate it when an application exits if I close it's last window. It's a Windows concept and it is not needed under OS X, nor wanted.

Actualy, if you use windows CORRECTLEY, then you can close windows without exit, there is a document/toolpalette/program component close then there is the X in the upper right which acts as a shortcut to the file->quit function.

Mac os, however is a differant ball of wax that acts mutch the same way, the red dot closes the window without exiting the app, that is a good thing, but why not allow the user if they wish to add a button to the right side of each title bar (eccept for those of tool palettes) that closes the entire app? the feature could be toggled on or off as easley as you would change a wallpaper.
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
You can't quantify how much I don't care -- Bob Kevoian of the Bob and Tom Show.
Reply
post #24 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by a_greer
Actualy, if you use windows CORRECTLEY, then you can close windows without exit, there is a document/toolpalette/program component close then there is the X in the upper right which acts as a shortcut to the file->quit function.

Mac os, however is a differant ball of wax that acts mutch the same way, the red dot closes the window without exiting the app, that is a good thing, but why not allow the user if they wish to add a button to the right side of each title bar (eccept for those of tool palettes) that closes the entire app? the feature could be toggled on or off as easley as you would change a wallpaper.

I don't think people should care or worry about launched or unlaunched apps.

Why do you care so much?
post #25 of 81
My preference:

1. All apps should stay running if the red close button is clicked.

2. All apps should quit if the user option-clicks the red close button.

3. Holding option should change the red close widget to it's rollover state showing the X.

4. Global preference settable by user: [ ] Always Quit Application Upon Closing Last Window

5. Individual application can override the Global setting based on user setting.

We would gain consistency, but allow for flexibility and customization for powerusers.

Now, proceed to ream me out for daring to suggest an iota of change to your Precious, as per usual...

"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
"The Roots of Violence: wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, commerce without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice, politics...
Reply
post #26 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
2. All apps should quit if the user option-clicks the red close button.

Sorry, but the option button is already being used. It serves to propagate the chosen windowing function to all open windows of that application.
post #27 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by FormatC2
How about something really simple:

Close means exit.

It is very, very annoying to close a window then go into the the menu to exit out of the application. Or to click and hold on the dock icon to exit.

Come on Apple. Simple usability testing would reveal this obvious flaw.

And please, hold all the replies about how you do things. At the very least Apple should provide an option to do what I want.

And don't get me started about the home and end key behavior! Command left and right... ridiculous!

God, why do you want to adopt some of the worst Windows interface elements, and bring them over to the Mac? There's nothing more annoying on Windows than trying to figure out how to get my cursor to the start or end of a document.
post #28 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Carbonide
I hate it when an application exits if I close it's last window. It's a Windows concept and it is not needed under OS X, nor wanted.

Agreed. I'd hate to relaunch an app just because I closed the last window. I have a tendency to close old windows before opening new ones.
Sold my beige.
Reply
Sold my beige.
Reply
post #29 of 81
I agree with johnq, it would be nice to option cick a app off with the red button, or have a pref to do it. We need more of those options. Also, Im all for the zippiness that OS9 had, I hope apple continues to hone later verions of OSX to be as responsive as possible, just as much as OS9. Especially on older powermacs, I use a B&W G3 300 with 512 ram, which helps, but the quicker the better for me.
post #30 of 81
Options are not necessarily a good thing. That's the main usability problem with open source software -- to many options. The key to a good UI is to have solid defaults, and only a minimum of configurable options. You also shouldn't have options that fundamentally change the functioning of the operating environment. Option-close has a well-established function on the Mac. Any option to change it would wreak chaos as users move from machine to machine.
post #31 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Kirkland:
Options are not necessarily a good thing. That's the main usability problem with open source software -- to many options. The key to a good UI is to have solid defaults, and only a minimum of configurable options.

Strongly disagree.

Defaults are fine (as would be "reset defaults" button) but IMO a lack of configurable options is a weakness, not a strength. As the computing world becomes more technically savvy with each passing year having the option to work the way *you want to work* is becoming increasingly important IMO. Even *my parents* are making strides in making their working environment suit them better. Power users *should* have the ability to even change the functions of the operating environment. You want to move from machine to machine? Create your own user profile - that's why we have them!

C.
post #32 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by dglow
[/B]

dglow has the only interesting reply in this thread. Great ideas, btw. I hope the database driven finder you describe makes it to 10.4 instead of the next iteration of 'the last operating system you will ever need...'
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
Most of us employ the Internet not to seek the best information, but rather to select information that confirms our prejudices. - Nicholas D. Kristof
Reply
post #33 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Concord
As the computing world becomes more technically savvy with each passing year

The very opposite is the case. More and more "illiterates" to computing get machines, every single year.
post #34 of 81
In other design arts, total flexibility (i.e., options) amounts to a total lack of commitment to any issue and ends up hurting the design. There ultimately needs to be a balance of both.

Anyway, the whole options out the wazoo issue is like the experiment in the 1970's with schools that only had flexible pertitions. Seemed great in plan, but then you had sound pollution problems, maintenence problems, a lack of good lighting, etc. A more high-profile example is the Pompidou Centre in Paris. It was totally flexible inside, with no permanent installations. They had to go back and add some fixed-layout galleries because their permanent collections were at risk for abuse and damage, it made managing the galleries unnecesarily difficult because of the fights between how to handle temporary galleries and expositions versus their collections, storage was difficult, etc. So most schools and museums have both fixed and permanent teaching areas and galleries respectively. Having all of one or the other is crippling. It's more a matter of how to discern between what gets fixed and what is left malleable. Thinking of the situation in polarizing terms defeats the ultimate purpose of these GUIs: ease of use.
post #35 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by BuonRotto:
Thinking of the situation in polarizing terms defeats the ultimate purpose of these GUIs: ease of use.

No, you're looking at this the wrong way. What works best and easiest for me isn't necessarily the same as what works easiest for you or Jimmie or Uncle Bob. *This very thread* has proven that. Defaults (or starting points) are a good thing, but options are *never* bad especially since it doesn't have to affect how anyone else works (again this is why we have User Profiles). This is why your comparison to a mallable gallery doesn't hold water here. On a computer a better analogy is that *each person* has their *own* gallery to arrange as they choose.

C.
post #36 of 81
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think computers need conventions to orient and keep at least a lowest common denominator experience for all users, or else every time you get a new computer or use one that isn't yours, you're starting at square one each time.
post #37 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Concord
but options are *never* bad

Utterly, completely, totally wrong.

There has been a flurry of recent research that points out quite clearly that people in general do *NOT* like tons of options... it strongly and sharply reduces usability, accessibility, and adoption rates across the board. For a quick overview, see _The Tyranny of Choice_ in the April 2004 Scientific American.

You're just feeling strongly about this because the option *you* want isn't available.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #38 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Well, if Apple can get iSight to interpret gestures (ala ToySight) without mistaking background movement as gestures (and possibly causing irreparable damage like deleting a file) and translate them into specific actions, it would be pretty neat.

Combined with a killer voice-recognition framework, this thing would really be like Star Trek...today!

Been done.

My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #39 of 81
I have this image of playing charades with my Mac. Voice of Fred: "OK, it's five words, first word sounds like..."
post #40 of 81
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha:
Utterly, completely, totally wrong.

There has been a flurry of recent research that points out quite clearly that people in general do *NOT* like tons of options... it strongly and sharply reduces usability, accessibility, and adoption rates across the board.

Tsk. Tsk. Sorry, you're confusing applications with *user interfaces*. Too many options in an application can be detrimental because those options are "in your face" every time you click a menu or open a palette. However, UI customizability is *not* a bad thing because those options are not in your face in day-to-day use. You set them the way you like and that's it.

Hey, if you've got evidence otherwise - feel free to share.

C.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Next-generation OS smackdown, circa '06.