or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's iChat to gain tabs, integration with iTunes
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's iChat to gain tabs, integration with iTunes - Page 2

post #41 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by mattjohndrow
i want there to be further integration with itunes, like this:

i want to be able to just drag songs from itunes nito my ichat windows, instead of having to locate them in the finder and then drag and drop



i know this will never happen, but still, would be nice

post #42 of 160
I'm a big fan of the drawer in proteus, and in Colloquy - as other people have covered, in a chat windows, they tend to be thin and tall, you have loads of horizontal space, so I would use a drawer. Having a '3paned' layout would be overkill, as I very rarely have more than 2 conversations going on at once. In my case, a retractable drawer is the perfect solution. The tabs in adium are nice, very slick but I'm just a proteus guy at heart

In web browsers, they have to be wide horizontally, so tabs work best. I can't stand omniweb, and it's tab implementation, it's just... wrong

iChat being fully multi-protocol would be great, but they would have to offer a choice with drawer and tabs before I'd even consider it
post #43 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol chat windows tend to be small horizontally and larger vertically (this allows people to see a history of short text messages). I don't think Adium is very usable beyond 3 or 4 tabbed conversations with the small horizontal size footprint I want.

I don't believe that it's possible to use less space than with Adium and the "Tül" message style. It makes window proportions largely irrelevant to functionality. You can see it here: http://www.adiumxtras.com/index.php?a=xtras&xtra_id=473
post #44 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by mathuaerknedam
I don't believe that it's possible to use less space than with Adium and the "Tül" message style. It makes window proportions largely irrelevant to functionality. You can see it here: http://www.adiumxtras.com/index.php?a=xtras&xtra_id=473

It's also the worst message style ever. How anyone can follow a conversation easily with that mess of a message style is beyond me.
post #45 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
It's also the worst message style ever. How anyone can follow a conversation easily with that mess of a message style is beyond me.

Sounds like a personal problem to me.

Myself, I have more of a problem following conversations that include all sorts of on irrelevant timestamps, icons, and buddy names. If I need more info, it's in a tooltip. My text is grey and my buddy's is blue. It's easy to see at a glance who said what, and in what order. What other cues do you need in order to follow a conversation?

You certainly don't have to like it, but I know that it's used every day by myself and others who find it extraordinarily functional. I don't know, maybe you're just vertically oriented.
post #46 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by mathuaerknedam
...maybe you're just vertically oriented.

Most humans are.
post #47 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by LoonyPandora
I'm a big fan of the drawer in proteus, and in Colloquy - as other people have covered, in a chat windows, they tend to be thin and tall, you have loads of horizontal space, so I would use a drawer. Having a '3paned' layout would be overkill, as I very rarely have more than 2 conversations going on at once.

Actually a 3-paned interface would be more in-tune with what Apple has been doing lately.

I remember when Adium 1.x had the 3-pane interface and I thought it was brilliant. With some modifications iChat could bring Adium's 1 window 3-pane interface and improve on it.

The contacts would all be on the left side of the window, the chat area would be the top right area and the chat input area would be bottom right. Much like Mail 2.0, it would bring the ease-of-use of iApps and Mail and the clutter free environment some people are clamoring for.

Instead of tabs, the people that are in an active conversation would be moved to the top of the contact list pane and act as tabs. In fact, the contact list pane would pretty much be tabs to all the contacts. One click and chat.
post #48 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
Tabs for browsing and tabs for chatting are not the same thing, for me.

It sounds like you've just never experienced a good tabbed design

Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
I need the spatial separation of (random examples) work chat on left, friends chat on the right, wife chat in the middle of the screen.

A good tabbed IM client will let you automatically separate your message tabs by group. A window with tabs for work on the left, a window with tabs for friends on the right, a window for family members in the center of your screen. Allow the user to drag and reorder or re-group these tabs however they like, toss in a few pretty animations, and you've got something very flexible and easy to use.

Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
It's dangerous to get the recipients confused, something that is inevitable in a tabbed interface.

A good tabbed IM client will minimize this as much as possible by placing the tabs near where you enter text (so they're right in your field of view!) and using user icons to help distinguish the appearance of different conversations.

It's amusing to hear you guys discuss these issues and ideas, it really is Someone's already solved these issues and implemented your ideas, you just need to know where to look.

post #49 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
chat windows tend to be small horizontally and larger vertically (this allows people to see a history of short text messages).

But this is exactly why we prefer tabs! If my window is tall & skinny, I'd like to keep it tall & skinny. A drawer is a short & wide control and does not fit well with a message window.

Opinion, of course, and I understand (after looking at many different screenshots) why certain people prefer a drawer over tabs.

post #50 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Actually a 3-paned interface would be more in-tune with what Apple has been doing lately.

Instead of tabs, the people that are in an active conversation would be moved to the top of the contact list pane and act as tabs. In fact, the contact list pane would pretty much be tabs to all the contacts. One click and chat.

Yeah, it would be more in tune, I agree - it's just that i don't need to see that I'm only chatting to one person all of the time - with a drawer, you can retract it when you are only chatting to one person.

The three paned idea of your is interesting... I would have to try it out in real-life to see how it would 'feel' - but it's an interesting idea /me plots and schemes...
post #51 of 160


Adium had something similar to this and it was brilliant.

Top left would be the recent and active conversations. Below that is the normal contact list. And the right side is the familiar chat window.

Adam...bring this back. You don't understand what I mean by chat are being horizontally skinny. You're thinking the whole window has to be skinny...not so. Just the text area.

Still...I don't think Apple should touch tabs. I was surprised they did with Safari and I'd be even more surprised if they did with iChat. The casual browser or chatter doesn't need tabs.

To this day, I know no one personally that uses the tabs in Safari. The only time I hear of people using it is on web forums.
post #52 of 160
^^ *bleghaaaahhhhhhh*
:P sorry, i couldn't resist. I actually love adium the way it is now (.7b), and have to voice my opposition to... that.
post #53 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by ShallowThroat
^^ *bleghaaaahhhhhhh*
:P sorry, i couldn't resist. I actually love adium the way it is now (.7b), and have to voice my opposition to... that.

It looks like shit because it's a mockup, but it could look very elegant and would be more useful than tabs.
post #54 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Most humans are.

No, human perception tend to be horizontal due to the spatial orientation of eyes and ears. A few perfect example would be widescreen monitors and stereo speakers.

Without gravity, humans have a terrible time interpreting vertical orientation. A few examples of this include people getting sick the first time they experience weightlessness in zero-G or divers getting disoriented underwater and not sure which way is up.

Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
To this day, I know no one personally that uses the tabs in Safari. The only time I hear of people using it is on web forums.

I am afriad you are incorrect here as well. Both Safari and Gecko-based browsers (Mozilla, Firefox, Camino) all use tab and anectodal evidence support tab's popularity.
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
One iMac G5, one iPod, many PCs.
Reply
post #55 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Still...I don't think Apple should touch tabs. I was surprised they did with Safari and I'd be even more surprised if they did with iChat. The casual browser or chatter doesn't need tabs.

To this day, I know no one personally that uses the tabs in Safari. The only time I hear of people using it is on web forums. [/B]

I don't know a single person who isn't my mother who doesn't use tabs. That's asinine.
post #56 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by klinux
No, human perception tend to be horizontal due to the spatial orientation of eyes and ears. A few perfect example would be widescreen monitors and stereo speakers.

Without gravity, humans have a terrible time interpreting vertical orientation. A few examples of this include people getting sick the first time they experience weightlessness in zero-G or divers getting disoriented underwater and not sure which way is up.



I am afriad you are incorrect here as well. Both Safari and Gecko-based browsers (Mozilla, Firefox, Camino) all use tab and anectodal evidence support tab's popularity.

I'm afraid *you're* wrong...we're talking in a context where people have to read text. People do much better reading text paragraphs that are narrow than a line of text that spans the whole width of, say, a monitor. In fact, diagonal reading wouldn't be effective at all without narrow paragraphs or lines of text. In general, diagonal reading becomes easier when paragraph widths are narrower (but like everything, there's a limit to how narrow the lines can get before they become a nuisance to diagonal reading.)

Picture yourself reading books in 'landscape' mode. That would seriously suck.

Also...people might not know where up is underwater or in zero-G but they probably would know where right or left is either. So that has absolutely nothing to do with anything but inner ear fluid.

Also IE is the most popular browser by far and people are doing fine with it. Most don't feel the need to move to a Gecko-based browser to use tabs.
post #57 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by evands
I don't know a single person who isn't my mother who doesn't use tabs. That's asinine.

You must hang around the Linux and Mac crowd...lucky you. I mostly know average users that use Windows.
post #58 of 160
kim kap sol is right. Reading is *MUCH* easier in narrow columns than wide bands for most people. There is no question on this. I can explain why, but when I have a bit more time to type.

klinux, the reason people get sick in zero-G is *NOT* because of any visual orientation problem, it is because the hairs in their inner ear, the ones that register direction from norm, start signaling every direction at once from the lack of gravity. Once that is recalibrated for by the body, the nausea goes away. It has nothing to do with visual orientation.

Tabs are (oh god, do we *have* to go through this again?) a kludge to compensate for the PISS POOR window management on most systems. They are, at *best* a nice extra under MacOS X. Personally, I find Expose to be more efficient in general. It works across all applications, it lets each window be optimized for its own space and contents, it uses no extra screen space, and it allows for fast visual selection of windows. Perfect.

I use tabs in Safari for *one* reason - because I can't get Safari to open up new windows *behind* the current one *AND* in the same location. If Safari opened up windows in the same spot, but a layer down, I'd never bother with tabs again.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #59 of 160
Newspapers and magazines are laid out in narrow columns and most commercial websites also have narrow content columns for a reason. I keep my IM client (proteus) to a standard width with each message starting on a new line and keep it very clean.

I also keep the window reasonably short because otherwise the drawer (which I like in this context) takes up way to much empty space for just a few conversations. Making the drawer automatically hide with only one conversation is just the way it should be so that it doesn't take up space not being used.

My biggest problem with tabs in safari (and other webbrowsers) is that either the bar is there all the time, or the window moves up and down when you open a new tab. But I do use Safari tabs most of the time. If it were to act as kickaha suggests, I really don't know whether I'd use them or not. Hopefully I'll have the chance to find out!

-Code Master
post #60 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by johnq
If we don't factor in human foibles/habits/realities into human interface design, then we aren't doing our job.

Any number of perfectly valid, non-silly situations could occur by mixing up which chat you are in. The UI should bend over backwards to reduce this potentiality.

Now, again, mistakes can be made even in separate windows, so it's not a total anti-tab thing with me. I like tabs. But we need to think about using them just *anywhere*.

I don't doubt there are better ways to do this (manage multiple chats safely), I hope Apple can find them.

Another potential nightmare is the drag and drop in iChat. You can accidentally drop a file to someone and then it is a race to cancel before the other person accepts. The "drop" should not be equivalent to a "send" command. You should have a chance to mull it over one last time and click a Send button. (I can't test right now perhaps I'm misremembering that feature).

Anyway, yeah the user has to be ultimately responsible, no argument. I just think that chatting is inherently more risky or problematic. This is not merely a problem of showing multiple windows in tabbed interface. Chats are profoundly different than spreadsheets or webpages.

Let's not clamor for tabs for chats until it is really well thought out - we might miss out on a better way to do it.

for reference: I think it counts as a send command when you drag the file onto the contact's name in the contact list -- a potentially dangerous thing with the contacts so close together. dragging it into the conversation's chat box, however, is much safer
post #61 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Reading is *MUCH* easier in narrow columns than wide bands for most people. There is no question on this. I can explain why, but when I have a bit more time to type.

How does this translate to cultures whose language flows vertically, rather than horizontally? How is this not a culturally ingrained, and therefore learned, preference?
post #62 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
People do much better reading text paragraphs that are narrow than a line of text that spans the whole width of, say, a monitor.

Do you have problems reading paragraphs that contain dialog from multiple people (such as newspaper articles)? If not, then why must your chats separate each post onto a new line in order for you to follow a conversation?

Not to say that I'm not the freak here, but I still don't understand your vehement objection.
post #63 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol


Adium had something similar to this and it was brilliant.

Top left would be the recent and active conversations. Below that is the normal contact list. And the right side is the familiar chat window.

Adam...bring this back. You don't understand what I mean by chat are being horizontally skinny. You're thinking the whole window has to be skinny...not so. Just the text area.

Still...I don't think Apple should touch tabs. I was surprised they did with Safari and I'd be even more surprised if they did with iChat. The casual browser or chatter doesn't need tabs.

To this day, I know no one personally that uses the tabs in Safari. The only time I hear of people using it is on web forums.


The actual proof of concept is here:



Nobody on the team is against single window mode, but nobody wants to spend the time to make it currently either. And that's the rub here, only a small amount of people want this feature, and at the same time, nobody is around to implement it currently. Overmind was the one who originally did this one, but he's moved on to other things.


As to this tabs vs drawer debate, it's really silly. If you like tabs, you use those, and if you like drawers, you use those. There is a client that has both. If someone wanted to implement a drawer in adium it would probably be accepted, so if anyone here who wants drawers is code savvy they could implement it as well.


If you mix up tabs.. then perhaps you should look at how you use tabs and maybe read the tabs before you type something to that person, as it should have their name in it. *shrug*


Other than that, there are people who like both, and don't care which. I personally like adium tabs more because they are more customizable for my preferences, and also I can hit cmd+# to switch tabs, rather than scroll through a bunch. On that same idea though, colloquy has implemented adium tabs as well, but doesn't support cmd+#, which I think is a bummer and kills some usability. *sigh*

Either way, this argument is silly
post #64 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Personally, I find Expose to be more efficient in general. It works across all applications, it lets each window be optimized for its own space and contents, it uses no extra screen space, and it allows for fast visual selection of windows. Perfect.

As an avid tab user, Expose doesn't even come close for me.

Tabs offer greater flexibility for keyboard navigation. Cmd left/right to cycle through tabs, or cmd-# to jump directly to one. The tabs are always visible so it's easy to see how many cycles are necessary to reach a message with unviewed content.

It is difficult to discern expose'd IM windows. IM windows contain text and small images, and with several open it is difficult to distinguish between then when using expose. With expose I have to hover my mouse from one window to the next until I find the one with the conversation I want to read.

Expose does not consistently place windows. which makes the hunting and hovering even worse once I press the expose key. With tabs I can order my tabs in a specific way and then switch between them while they remain in this order.

Expose does not provide an overview of IM state like tabs. Tabs will show which contacts are typing and which have messages waiting for you, right on the message window in a central place. You cannot duplicate this functionality with expose.

Expose is far from perfect for IM, and I find statements that Expose is better than tabs for IM to be laughable at best.


Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Tabs are (oh god, do we *have* to go through this again?) a kludge to compensate for the PISS POOR window management on most systems. They are, at *best* a nice extra under MacOS X.

Could one not make the same statement about Expose? Expose is a PISS POOR solution for managing multiple inner-application windows, especially multiple windows of text.

The expose argument may fly with web browsing where pages look different, but when you're dealing with multiple similar looking windows it falls short and doesn't even begin to handle display of state, which tabs do very well.

You state that expose uses no additional screen space. But having multiple windows open DOES use additional screen space, much more so than a 20 pixel tall row of tabs.

Right now tabs (and drawer, depending on personal taste) are the best we have. If you have any suggestions for improving them we're all ears (and we have tried many suggestions in the past, even wild stuff like that single window mode mockup Tick posted a few up).

post #65 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by resimada
As an avid tab user, Expose doesn't even come close for me.

Tabs offer greater flexibility for keyboard navigation. Cmd left/right to cycle through tabs, or cmd-# to jump directly to one. The tabs are always visible so it's easy to see how many cycles are necessary to reach a message with unviewed content.

Expose is direct access, no 'cycling' needed.

Quote:
It is difficult to discern expose'd IM windows. IM windows contain text and small images, and with several open it is difficult to distinguish between then when using expose. With expose I have to hover my mouse from one window to the next until I find the one with the conversation I want to read.

Hurm, never had a problem with this one.

Quote:
Expose does not consistently place windows. which makes the hunting and hovering even worse once I press the expose key. With tabs I can order my tabs in a specific way and then switch between them while they remain in this order.

True. But I thought we were talking about window/task *switching*, not *ordering*? Heck, just tile the suckers in that case. :P

Actually, as long as you don't move the windows, Expose *does* put them right back where they were the last time you invoked it.

Quote:
Expose does not provide an overview of IM state like tabs. Tabs will show which contacts are typing and which have messages waiting for you, right on the message window in a central place. You cannot duplicate this functionality with expose.

Errrr... you're talking about a specific hypothetical implementation of tabs, yes?

And the windows in Expose are actually live... Can't get much more 'state' than that.

Quote:
Expose is far from perfect for IM, and I find statements that Expose is better than tabs for IM to be laughable at best.

And I find the idea that tabs are just better in general to be laughable.

Quote:
Could one not make the same statement about Expose? Expose is a PISS POOR solution for managing multiple inner-application windows, especially multiple windows of text.

'Multiple inner-application windows'? Ahhhh, you mean MDI. That Windows concept that everyone, including Windows, is moving away from ASAFP?

And you misread what I said. I didn't say tabs were piss poor, I said they were a hack to get AROUND a piss poor windows management system.

Tabs are a throwback in general UI use. They were designed specifically to get around the nasty NASTY window cycling in Windows (and that Linux GUIs adopted, the idjits.). MacOS X does it right. Cmd-` for window cycling within an app by keystrokes, Expose for graphical random access selection with the mouse. I really don't see the utility of tabs anymore.

Quote:
The expose argument may fly with web browsing where pages look different, but when you're dealing with multiple similar looking windows it falls short and doesn't even begin to handle display of state, which tabs do very well.

See above.

Quote:
You state that expose uses no additional screen space. But having multiple windows open DOES use additional screen space, much more so than a 20 pixel tall row of tabs.

But you're only using one window at a time. So... the Windows 'menu-bar-in-every-window' is *not* a waste of space then?

Quote:
Right now tabs (and drawer, depending on personal taste) are the best we have. If you have any suggestions for improving them we're all ears (and we have tried many suggestions in the past, even wild stuff like that single window mode mockup Tick posted a few up).


I don't see any real way to improve tabs - they're a UI evolutionary dead-end in my opinion.

The only reason they exist is due to lousy window management on other systems... a problem that MacOS X simply doesn't have in the first place.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #66 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Errrr... you're talking about a specific hypothetical implementation of tabs, yes?

No.
post #67 of 160
Perhaps the solution to people not being able to discern windows in Expose mode is for Apple to add a bit more to it. Think of icons. They scale to different sizes based on a few key sizes. At some point when scaling, a decision is made to switch to the next key size. I think the same should be done to windows. A window should be able to request to be notified if it is being scaled by more than X%. Then, the window could opt to redraw itself differently in this case.

In the case of a small instant message window, once it is scaled to half size or less, the window could just display the username of who you are chatting with along with the status (typing, away, available, etc) and number of unread messages. Basically, just give the user the information needed to know what this window is and choose it. All of the data displayed when the window is not scaled is irrelevant as this text is too small for some/most people to read anyway.

Of course, if the window isn't requesting this notification, it would just scale as it currently does. Maybe this could be the big feature of Expose 2.0?
post #68 of 160
Adam, you're exaggerating. I know you're proud of your tab implementation...it's certainly the best out of everything I've seen but as Kickaha points out, it's a solution in search of a problem.

Exposé is not nearly as bad as you say it is.

How many conversations do you normally have simultaneously? 7? 8? 12?

Exposé has no problem displaying 12 Adium chat windows at 1028x768. With buddy picture and decent size buddy name somewhere in the window, anyone can easily identify any window. Much more so that 12 tabs inside a window. And the windows are much larger targets to hit.

You could say that tabs are meant for 10.2 users. I'd accept that. But tabs over Exposé?
post #69 of 160
*sigh*

Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Expose is direct access, no 'cycling' needed.

No. Expose is not direct access, it requires (for a primarily text window) hovering the windows to see their titles and figure out which one you want, as I said.

Without tabs, cycling is needed (cmd-~) to switch between conversations. There is no sense of placement when cycling with cmd-~. This is what I meant.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Errrr... you're talking about a specific hypothetical implementation of tabs, yes?

I am talking about the tabs in Adium.

No offense, but your replies to my points are pretty weak and a lot of them do not follow from what I've said. I'm a little surprised to see such a post from one of the moderators here.
post #70 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by rrabu
Perhaps the solution to people not being able to discern windows in Expose mode is for Apple to add a bit more to it. Think of icons. They scale to different sizes based on a few key sizes. At some point when scaling, a decision is made to switch to the next key size. I think the same should be done to windows. A window should be able to request to be notified if it is being scaled by more than X%. Then, the window could opt to redraw itself differently in this case.

In the case of a small instant message window, once it is scaled to half size or less, the window could just display the username of who you are chatting with along with the status (typing, away, available, etc) and number of unread messages. Basically, just give the user the information needed to know what this window is and choose it. All of the data displayed when the window is not scaled is irrelevant as this text is too small for some/most people to read anyway.

Of course, if the window isn't requesting this notification, it would just scale as it currently does. Maybe this could be the big feature of Expose 2.0?

That would be interesting but it can be done right now. Any theme that has a large enough buddy picture will scale decently. Proteus allows you to put buddy picts in the toolbar...sure, the picture is small but you'd need over 8 windows to really start having difficulties distinguishing between picts.

People aren't stupid. It's actually quite easy to differentiate using just a few visual cues...the way the text is laid out, the buddy pict...you don't need much more than that.
post #71 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by resimada
*sigh*


No. Expose is not direct access, it requires (for a primarily text window) hovering the windows to see their titles and figure out which one you want, as I said.

You're exaggerating. I don't know anyone who has had major problems distinguishing between even similar looking plain text TextEdit files let alone chat windows with the buddy pict plastered all over it.

If there something people have trouble distinguishing is truncated names...especially French hyphenated names. Jean-Francois, Jean-Paul, Marc-Andre, Marc-Antoine.

What do you do when you're confronted with 3 tabs that look like this: Jean-...?
post #72 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
You're exaggerating. I don't know anyone who has had major problems distinguishing between even similar looking plain text TextEdit files let alone chat windows with the buddy pict plastered all over it.


/me raises hands

I have a slight vision problem..
post #73 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by The_Tick
/me raises hands

I have a slight vision problem..

Then you'd probably have trouble seeing those small tabs.

I have a slight motor-control problem and I can't properly hit the small tabs.
post #74 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by resimada
No. Expose is not direct access, it requires (for a primarily text window) hovering the windows to see their titles and figure out which one you want, as I said.

Actually, I can't say I've ever really had that problem. I do primarily coding (text), and haven't had the issue you're claiming.

In iChat, I've never had a need to hover, the user pics clue me in immediately. *shrug* (As do the titlebars, but maybe my eyes are just better at picking out tiny text.)

So, for me, Expose is quite direct access. "I want *that* chat window *click*"

Quote:
Without tabs, cycling is needed (cmd-~) to switch between conversations. There is no sense of placement when cycling with cmd-~. This is what I meant.

Why is placement important in cycling? They're orthogonal issues. "I want that window" is a different idea than "I want *this* window *there*" One does not preclude the other.

Quote:
I am talking about the tabs in Adium.

No offense, but your replies to my points are pretty weak and a lot of them do not follow from what I've said. I'm a little surprised to see such a post from one of the moderators here.

Then refute them. Rebuttal time. You have 90 seconds.

Look, I know a lot people like tabs. They're funky, they're cool, and they're the hip UI widget du jour.

But they were made to solve a problem that the Mac simply doesn't have.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #75 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Then you'd probably have trouble seeing those small tabs.

I have a slight motor-control problem and I can't properly hit the small tabs.

I can see the tabs perfectly fine. I have problems differentiating multiple documents in expose. Same with separated out adium windows.

As to your motor control problem, that's different than what people have been arguing here.
post #76 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by kim kap sol
But tabs over Exposé?

For inter-application windows in an IM client, yes. Tabs provide much better window cycling and state visibility than separate windows with expose.

Sure, expose helps manage a cluttered screen and find lost windows (and does a very good job of it!). But with tabs, we prevent both these trouble situations from happening, rather than simply providing a means to deal with them.

This is why tabs (or some form of window management, such as a source list in a drawer) are better than expose for this particular application.
post #77 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by resimada
For inter-application windows in an IM client, yes. Tabs provide much better window cycling and state visibility than separate windows with expose.

Sure, expose helps manage a cluttered screen and find lost windows (and does a very good job of it!). But with tabs, we prevent both these trouble situations from happening, rather than simply providing a means to deal with them.

This is why tabs (or some form of window management, such as a source list in a drawer) are better than expose for this particular application.

Okay, let's do a gedanken experiment. Take the tabs idea to the logical conclusion: all windows, from all apps, tabbed.

If tabs prevent clutter, than that seems like a natural direction to go.

Silly? Yup. You bet. Which means that the initial idea is probably a less then elegant solution.

Now, think about Cmd-`/Cmd-tab cycling alone. It gets you the ability to cycle within *just the windows of one app* at a time. Now, why tabs? To reduce the number of windows open? Why? Well, because it causes clutter and you might lose a window... which is what Expose solves. For all apps. All the time. For as many windows as you may have. Cmd-`/Cmd-tab scales. Expose scales. They both work for any app, any window size, any content. (Yes, you point out that pure text *can* be problematic - in my experience, it is not.) This is a set of scalable and orthogonal solutions that work exceedingly well.

Other UIs don't allow you to cycle just within the current app's windows, so tabs were invented to get around that problem - a way of quickly selecting the pseudo-window you want in just that one app, without having to cycle through other apps' windows.

We don't have that problem.

Tabs don't scale well. They don't work for all applications, and they really don't work for situations where windows need to be various sizes. They are, simply put, inelegant and a workaround.

Now, that being said, there are some nice implementations of tabs. Adium looks to have one. Kudos. But it is still a UI widget that is in search of a problem on the Mac. *shrug*
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #78 of 160
Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Then refute them. Rebuttal time. You have 90 seconds.

If you really want me to... (Keep in mind I am referring to tabs in an IM client - one of the topics in this thread - not the proliferation of tabs into apps where they do not solve a particular need, which I am against).

Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
And the windows in Expose are actually live... Can't get much more 'state' than that.

Actually you can, using a bar of tabs with simple icons on them.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
'Multiple inner-application windows'? Ahhhh, you mean MDI. That Windows concept that everyone, including Windows, is moving away from ASAFP?

No, I do not. I mean the simplification of application interfaces by moving away from multiple windows. The source list in iTunes, the account drawer in mail, the tabs in safari, the source list in iPhoto. Interfaces simplified into a single window (for great benefit!) by using some sort of tab or source list control.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
And you misread what I said. I didn't say tabs were piss poor, I said they were a hack to get AROUND a piss poor windows management system.

Tabs are not a hack, and tabs in an IM client work in addition to the window management system, they are not meant to replace it.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
Tabs are a throwback in general UI use. They were designed specifically to get around the nasty NASTY window cycling in Windows (and that Linux GUIs adopted, the idjits.).

Tabs (or a source list in a drawer) are used in an IM client to simplify the interface by keeping related information together in an organized fashion in a common place. Tabs are not a "throwback".

Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
MacOS X does it right. Cmd-` for window cycling within an app by keystrokes, Expose for graphical random access selection with the mouse. I really don't see the utility of tabs anymore.

Tabs offer many advantages over Cmd-`, I've already stated them in my previous reply.

Quote:
Originally posted by Kickaha
But you're only using one window at a time. So... the Windows 'menu-bar-in-every-window' is *not* a waste of space then?

Without tabs, there are many conversation windows on my screen (clutter). With tabs, there is a common conversation window on my screen that holds all my conversations (organization). Did I explain it more clearly that time?
post #79 of 160
http://img32.exs.cx/img32/4757/Expose769.png

No problems distinguishing 9 conversations with Exposé.

Maybe others wouldn't but I could probably even read conversation text and see who's replied and who didn't. 9 conversations!!! I rarely have more than 5 simultaneous conversations.

1024x768...one step above the lowest sane res on OS X. I think this either an average resolution or maybe even low compared to today's standard monitor/LCD flat screen resolution.

If you're still using 640x480, you probably shouldn't be using OS X.
post #80 of 160
Adam, let me know when your tabs allow drag and drop of text clippings or images.

Let me know when I can follow to conversations at the same time. A private and a group chat. You'll probably answer "easy, separate them", to which I will reply, "why tabs". Tabs simply kill the multitasking aspect of Mac OS.

It's fine on Windows where things such as full-screen windows and MDI exist which go against multitasking but on Mac OS X? Unnecessary.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › Apple's iChat to gain tabs, integration with iTunes