or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Safari - tabs - done!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Safari - tabs - done! - Page 6

post #201 of 358
Exactly.
Tabs enhance my user experience.

Thank you Eugene!


(note: this applies to Eugene's post ABOVE the post above my post.....how was I to know he'd post again?)

[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: drewprops ]</p>
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #202 of 358
i'm using tabbed tabs right now....i have the bookmark bar on with the site i use the most and i have tabs open to the sites i use the most...kinda redundant right now...g
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
it's all fun till somebody loses an eye
Reply
post #203 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>It's like the other thread I started... Apple only added the single-window app quit/close behavior because Windows users were leaving apps open unknowingly.</strong><hr></blockquote>? I remember there being close & quit apps in the original Mac System software in 1985.
post #204 of 358
Desk Accessories did that, but I don't recall full-blown apps doing it.
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
My brain is hung like a HORSE!
Reply
post #205 of 358
This is not conformance to the Windows UI at all. Just because they did it first, doesn't mean that it's evil.

Tabbed browsing may be a flawed UI idea, but opening tons of new windows and accessing them via first clicking on a menu just to display the content isn't perfect as you would like us to think. In fact, it's rather dirty.

Simply because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's the root of all evil and must be culled. I hate baseball. Others enjoy it. So what? I'm not about to sit there and talk them into giving up baseball and becoming a football fan simply because my philosophy is in disagreement with theirs.
post #206 of 358
Tab-fans answer this question:

What happens when the tab bar gets full? What happens when the browser window's width is reduced?

You will rapidly find the answer to why the horizontal tab interface is flawed.

I hate the concept...but if it were to be implemented to satisfy people following the Tab Fad, for f**k's sake, implement it so that there's less of a name truncation problem.

Gawd...what is Apple doing. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
post #207 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>It's not just the web not working how the UI guidelines say it should, browsers inherently don't work that way either. Web browsers, to be specific. And it's treading on thin ice to say that web pages are merely documents.</strong><hr></blockquote>

The web certainly sucks thanks as much to this UE as anything else too. But I digress.

What was I saying? Oh yes, web pages are documents! They are content, not tools, ergo they are documents.
post #208 of 358
first of all, i'm not a huge eugene fan, but i admire his ability to stick to his guns for this many posts. JLL, i might say the same about you, but you told me to go shoot myself, so...

anyway, mousing distances or not, i still don't think tabs are a great solution in their current state because:

1. they don't show as much information as they contain (since each tab is an entire session -- if they put command-clicking the tab to see the history for that tab, it would help, i think)

2. they tend to truncate VERY easily, sometimes losing CRITICAL distinguishing name information. hell, i can't stand it when i run into a dialog box that doesn't allow me to resize the columns to see the full names. i also hate the "double arrow" for rows that are too long for the toolbar. sometimes there are ways around it (like bookmark folders in safari to save space), but often it's just the "&gt;&gt;" and you're left to guess what's over there outside the window. it amazes me that apple would not consider this when they have sold LOTS of machines (like every ibook and most imacs) over the past 2-3 years running OS X with a maximum resolution of 800x600 or 1024x768. i guess they'r ebanking on everyone eventually buying a 23" display.

[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #209 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by kim kap sol:
<strong>Tab-fans answer this question:

What happens when the tab bar gets full? What happens when the browser window's width is reduced?

You will rapidly find the answer to why the horizontal tab interface is flawed.

I hate the concept...but if it were to be implemented to satisfy people following the Tab Fad, for f**k's sake, implement it so that there's less of a name truncation problem.

Gawd...what is Apple doing. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Seriously, just shut up already. We know you don't like tabs. That's fine. Just shut up though. Your comments are just getting annoying.
post #210 of 358
kim kap sol, you're an idiot. I suppose you have a perfect and flawless solution.

BuonRotto, by your definition, web pages cannot function as tools. They are merely documents, and can only inform. In that case, why am I able to send email, post on a web board, or remotely administer a Terra server via Web interface? Web pages are sometimes document-like, sometimes application-like. You cannot so easily classify the trillions of web pages out there under so narrow a definition.
post #211 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>? I remember there being close & quit apps in the original Mac System software in 1985.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Go to the other thread and see my comments there. I don't recall the behavior of the original Calculator app, but even if it did quit when you hit the close button, I consider that behavior evil and wrong.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #212 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by rok:
<strong>first of all, i'm not a huge eugene fan, but i admire his ability to stick to his guns for this many posts. JLL, i might say the same about you, but you told me to go shoot myself, so...

anyway, mousing distances or not, i still don't think tabs are a great solution in their current state because:

1. they don't show as much information as they contain (since each tab is an entire session -- if they put command-clicking the tab to see the history for that tab, it would help, i think)

2. they tend to truncate VERY easily, sometimes losing CRITICAL distinguishing name information. hell, i can't stand it when i run into a dialog box that doesn't allow me to resize the columns to see the full names. i also hate the "double arrow" for rows that are too long for the toolbar. sometimes there are ways around it (like bookmark folders in safari to save space), but often it's just the "&gt;&gt;" and you're left to guess what's over there outside the window. it amazes me that apple would not consider this when they have sold LOTS of machines (like every ibook and most imacs) over the past 2-3 years running OS X with a maximum resolution of 800x600 or 1024x768. i guess they'r ebanking on everyone eventually buying a 23" display.

[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Point 1: The same is true of any other method of window organization.

Point 2: That's been said over and over again and accepted. Must you rehash it?
post #213 of 358
re: point 1 -- glad i point out the obvious so well. i'll try and focus on the arcane and ridiculous from here on out. plus, i think i offered a possible band-aid that has become an acceptable fix, namely command-clicking the name to see the history (or file path or whatever). so why you're getting on my case about that is beyond me. re: point 2, well, sorry spart, i got better things to do than read 4 pages of JLL and Eugene going at it... well, at leats not in detail. so sorry i hadn't noticed that the whole "names truncate" issue had been doen to death. sheesh.

oh please. kim kap sol's comments are outnumbered roughly 7 million to one on this thread, so he's hardly harping on this issue like others around here. so shut yer pie hole. what's that? you know that hole? the one you eat pie with? yeah, that one. shut it.

[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #214 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by rok:
<strong>sorry spart, i got better things to do than read 4 pages of JLL and Eugene going at it... well, at leats not in detail. so sorry i hadn't noticed that the whole "names truncate" issue had been doen to death. sheesh.

oh please. kim kap sol's comments are outnumbered roughly 7 million to one on this thread, so he's hardly harping on this issue like others around here. so shut yer pie hole. what's that? you know that hole? the one you eat pie with? yeah, that one. shut it.

[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

If you're not willing to come to this thread and read through it, then make some intelligent commentary, then you probably shouldn't come at all.

I'm not going to shut up on your whim. Now I can see why JLL told you to kill yourself. Please, do. By all means. Die. Slowly.
post #215 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>

If you're not willing to come to this thread and read through it, then make some intelligent commentary, then you probably shouldn't come at all.

I'm not going to shut up on your whim. Now I can see why JLL told you to kill yourself. Please, do. By all means. Die. Slowly.</strong><hr></blockquote>

what the hell did i say to deserve any of that?!? i try to contribute intelligent commentary every time i step digital foot on these forums, and have been here darn long enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. i was merely sticking up for someone who i didn't think deserved your comments, and tried to explain and defend what i thought were pretty innocuous observations on my part. guess i know better now.

:confused: <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #216 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by rok:
<strong>re: point 1 -- glad i point out the obvious so well. i'll try and focus on the arcane and ridiculous from here on out. plus, i think i offered a possible band-aid that has become an acceptable fix, namely command-clicking the name to see the history (or file path or whatever). so why you're getting on my case about that is beyond me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Christ, kid. If you're going to edit your post that much you should probably post again.

Your 'band-aid' is solving a problem that's not there. Why do I need to see the history of a tab? That isn't the issue at hand. The issue is whether tabs are a viable and correct solution for organization of multiple pages within web browsers.

Again, read the damned thread.
post #217 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>kim kap sol, you're an idiot. I suppose you have a perfect and flawless solution.

BuonRotto, by your definition, web pages cannot function as tools. They are merely documents, and can only inform. In that case, why am I able to send email, post on a web board, or remotely administer a Terra server via Web interface? Web pages are sometimes document-like, sometimes application-like. You cannot so easily classify the trillions of web pages out there under so narrow a definition.</strong><hr></blockquote>

But a document can send e-mail too. Mail.app does this either in a main window or in a separate window. Documents can be either actively created and manipulated, or passively utilized. Acrobat Reader opens documents, but you can only read (and print) them. Are PDFs not documents? A terminal session is a document as much as a Photoshop image. Yes, you manipulate and use tools within the document. I see that as being part of the document itself, the process, the sum of those manipulations.

Content can certainly generate more content. Documents obviously incorporate tools: searches, feedback, etc. That's part of what I called active creation and manipulation, part of the document.

I did a poor job with my language in the last post, but I hope it's a little clearer now even if it does depend on an anecdotal definition. I guess I'm trying to define a document as any content, simply put.

Hm, maybe I'm not making my point clearer. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
post #218 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>

Christ, kid. If you're going to edit your post that much you should probably post again.</strong><hr></blockquote>

okay, you're just looking for a fight (and about TABS... utterly amazing), and i've lived long enough to know when to walk away from one before it gets out of hand. yell all you want at whomever you want, 'cause i'm outta here.

p.s. don't bother replying, 'cause i ain't reading another word in this thread.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #219 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by rok:
<strong>what the hell did i say to deserve any of that?!? i try to contribute intelligent commentary every time i step digital foot on these forums, and have been here darn long enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. i was merely sticking up for someone who i didn't think deserved your comments, and tried to explain and defend what i thought were pretty innocuous observations on my part. guess i know better now.

:confused: <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

You know exactly what you said. In fact, you haven't edited it out yet. For no reason at all, you told me to go away and shut up, as you obviously have no points to give. I responded with my thoughts on that issue. And no, I don't care about your little smiley. It's mocking, not joking.

kim stepped in, delivered a bit of redundant stupidity to pad his weak post count, and stepped out. What he said contained no factual information, just personal views that were not necessary nor intelligent.

And I don't file redundant posts under 'inteligent commentary.'

[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>
post #220 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>

But a document can send e-mail too. Mail.app does this either in a main window or in a separate window. Documents can be either actively created and manipulated, or passively utilized. Acrobat Reader opens documents, but you can only read (and print) them. Are PDFs not documents? A terminal session is a document as much as a Photoshop image. Yes, you manipulate and use tools within the document. I see that as being part of the document itself, the process, the sum of those manipulations.

Content can certainly generate more content. Documents obviously incorporate tools: searches, feedback, etc. That's part of what I called active creation and manipulation, part of the document.

I did a poor job with my language in the last post, but I hope it's a little clearer now even if it does depend on an anecdotal definition. I guess I'm trying to define a document as any content, simply put.

Hm, maybe I'm not making my point clearer. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

Under this definition, there are no applications. They are documents. If its got a window and you're doing something to its contents, then whatever is doing something to its contents is a part of the document. Umm, no.

Let's just go with applications are tools, documents contain info modified by said tools. Though the web pages you download are actually documents that link to other documents, compiled files are also documents.
post #221 of 358
I'm just gonna go ahead and stick a fork in here...

This thread's just about done.
post #222 of 358
Good contribution. I like your enthusiasm.

A little debate never killed anyone.
post #223 of 358
By my definition, applications take a back seat to documents, and thus we get back to document-centric vs. application-centric UE, and therefore we're back to MDI versus interleaving window schemes, and thus we're back to tabs in browsers!

Me tired. Me no thinky good.
post #224 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>

Under this definition, there are no applications. They are documents. If its got a window and you're doing something to its contents, then whatever is doing something to its contents is a part of the document. Umm, no.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Segue...
Well, unix *was* designed around the "everything is a file/doc" metaphor...and Bell Labs took it to the extreme with Plan 9.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #225 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Spart:
<strong>Good contribution. I like your enthusiasm.

A little debate never killed anyone.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Oh I debated the hell out of this thread up to , I think, page three. I have pretty much given up as I haven't read anything new here since about the fourth page. I personally think that tabs are helpful in some cases. But then again, they are just tabs. I cared for about 4 hours last night when this thread first blew up.
post #226 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

Segue...
Well, unix *was* designed around the "everything is a file/doc" metaphor...and Bell Labs took it to the extreme with Plan 9. </strong><hr></blockquote>

This is Mac OS, not some random UNIX philosophy. I know full well that X is based on UNIX, but that doesn't mean it has to inherit its UI tendencies.
post #227 of 358
I think Eugene was just being facetious.
post #228 of 358
You guys need to realize that you're participating in history...this thread will long be remembered as the "Great Tab Debate of '03" to future AI members. They'll only know it via reference, they won't remember any of the passionate arguments, the eloquent metaphors or the stupid pig-headedness of it all.

Mostly that last part.
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
Steve Jobs ate my cat's watermelon @ drewprops.com
Oldest Member of AI (Jan 99) until JRC snaps to his senses and starts posting again. (the blackout borked my join date)
Reply
post #229 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>I think Eugene was just being facetious.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Good observation!

And I doubt this thread will be remembered by anyone more than a month from now. And definitely will be erased from the minds of everyone once the 970 arrives.
post #230 of 358
Spart...I'm sorry but you'll have to calm down. Could a mod tell Spart to calm down?
post #231 of 358
Eugene,

I admire your stand on standards. I'm the same way, if something is done in a particular manner I then expect to use that learned standard for the rest of the subject, task, etc. However, standards are only a part of the total. Logic, efficiency and what "feels" natural comes into play as well. By reading your posts I can tell you are well versed with Mac history and it's UI logic, I therefore assume that you know how the Mac UI came to be. Yes, I'm talking about the desktop metaphor.

Fast forward to today. The desktop has become more of an office than a desktop - this desk is way too cluttered, too many apps with too many windows open all over the place. But nonetheless let's look at it as a desktop. Now, you have piles of paper all over your desk. Most likely you have them organized in some manner, but because you have too many categories you have them piled up on top on top of each other. When you want to do work on a certain category you "naturally" grab the entire pile for that category. Do you want any file from this category lost in with the others? No, you don't, so you keep it separate from the others. (Example: Preferences Window) Yes, sometimes you do need to grab a file out from it's category so you can use it with a file from a different category.

My point is this. There's no perfect solution, however, any reduction to the number of windows you have open is surely the best. The use of Tabs is a good solution when implemented properly. When I'm browsing the web I don't really need windows opening on top of each other. With some other app I might need to have windows opening separately (example: Photoshop), but not for browsing the Internet. It's more efficient to have a visual identification of what windows I have open and what order they where opened in (a new tab is always created to the right). It's more natural to use tabs in this fashion then not. Why? Because when I'm working with files in the real world, I usually tab between them. I don't refer to a list (menu bar) to find the file nor do I open up a drawer (Dock) to get it. It's an annoyance when I need to move the browser's window aside to refer some other apps file and finding another window from the browser in my way (see real world example above: move a pile from a category to get something else from another) . Even with apps whose work type requires separate windows like Photoshop, it would be beneficial to have a tab implementation of some sort giving a visual reference to open files so as to easily switch between each. Yes, it's great that I can do it via the Dock, but via the app itself is more efficient for when my mind is on the app. It feels unnatural to go to the Dock for this. The Doc is a place I go to get other files or other apps that I'm not currently working with.

Yes, yes, yes, standards are a good thing, but there is no reason why we can't have standards within each app, the app itself has a standard within itself. Look at the iTunes's UI, it behaves different than any other app, I see no one complaining, why? Because it feels natural and it works perfect for what it needs to do.
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/stormyjohn/art/art.html" target="_blank">Homepage </a>
Reply
<a href="http://homepage.mac.com/stormyjohn/art/art.html" target="_blank">Homepage </a>
Reply
post #232 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by kim kap sol:
<strong>Tab-fans answer this question:

What happens when the tab bar gets full? What happens when the browser window's width is reduced?

You will rapidly find the answer to why the horizontal tab interface is flawed.

I hate the concept...but if it were to be implemented to satisfy people following the Tab Fad, for f**k's sake, implement it so that there's less of a name truncation problem.

Gawd...what is Apple doing. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>I suppose what will happen is the same thing that happens now when elements of a toolbar or bookmark bar are hidden by a short window. A little double arrow appears on the right and you can click on it to see a list of the items. Just because it's limited doesn't mean it's flawed.

Menus can get out of control too when too many items are in them and you have to scroll them past the bottom of the screen. Are menus flawed? I fill up my desktop with docs so much that icons start overlapping - are desktop icons flawed? No, I just have to use them properly and stop scattering them all over the place like I do.

Same with tabs. If you use them to excess it gets unwieldy (just like too many windows or desktop icons), but used appropriately, it's fine.

How about this: A new bookmark bar item with a pop-up menu containing all the "tabs." That way you don't run into the problem of too many tabs bumping up against the limited width of the window. I think that would be better than the window menu because then the windows aren't all over the screen, and one click can close all the tabs in that browser window.

Question for Safari 62 users - when tabs are enabled, how do you tell the browser to open a new window vs. a new tab? Which one happens when a new window would normally open?
post #233 of 358
It basically goes down to how we browse. I, like others, open many windows concurrently, so I can start one site opening while I'm reading another, etcetera. Let's call this "paralell browsing". Others, click on a link, then wait for it to load, then read it, then click on another, etc. This we'll call "serial browsing".

Tabs are incredibly useful for the paralell browsers out there. We can flip back and forth very quickly in a non-linear fashion. We can see all of the titles all at once before we even start to move the mouse.

For serial browsers, tabs are unnecessary. They can use back/forward, cmd-(tilde) and the Window menu very efficiently. Having multiple pages open concurrently is probably only needed when copying and pasting content - a scenario where tabs (unless they have a pop-up action) are useless, and side-by-side browser windows are vital.

If I have 15 pages open all at once, I certainly don't want to have to go through a menu to select the one I want, finding it in a randomly tiled location. I'd rather click on a tab and have the page render exactly where I expect it to be.

If I need to copy and paste, I'll open a new window. The thing is, unlike the System Preferences app, I can have a bunch of tabs and a few windows. This, to me, and to most paralell browsers, is highly preferable.

If I had two displays or a CinemaHD and broadband 100% of the time, I probably wouldn't need tabs. VoilÃ*! Eugene probably doesn't need tabs.

I ask any of you opposing tabs if you're using a 1024x768 or smaller screen. I bet you're not. Perhaps your perspective might change if you were.

GIVE US THE OPTION TO CHOOSE!

PRO CHOICE, BABY!
P R O C H O I C E.
post #234 of 358
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by rok:
<strong>JLL, i might say the same about you, but you told me to go shoot myself, so...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, you said I was full of crap, so

[ 02-25-2003: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
JLL

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

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #235 of 358
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by BuonRotto:
<strong>But a document can send e-mail too. Mail.app does this either in a main window or in a separate window. </strong><hr></blockquote>

You're stretching!

It's Mail that's sending the mail, not the document.

It's not the browser that's sending a webmail but the application inside the window (and the document being a text window).

Why do you think that Microsoft concetrated on killing Netscape? Because web browsers are able to run applications without relying on the OS.
JLL

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

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #236 of 358
One thing I like about tabs is that you can immediately see how many pages are open. With separate windows, you have to go to the menu or the dock icon. Sometimes I end up having windows open that I don't even remember opening. Or I close the last window when I don't want to. Or I close a window and realize I should have hit back instead. With tabs, I usually only have one window open so I don't have to worry about accidentally opening new ones or closing the last one. I also don't have to use the back and forward commands very often because any links I want I use a tab for.

I would also like it if Safari allowed you to open new windows in the background instead of the foreground. It helps a lot for browsing forums.

I did temporarily set my mouse to switch windows with the up and down buttons (it's a Logitech MX700), but it's not as convenient as using those same buttons for switching tabs. Not that tabs don't have their flaws, but in my particular case they aren't as good. Tab switching with the mouse buttons is easier than window switching with the mouse buttons, but if not for that mouse I think I'd prefer a no-tabs browser.

I still would use Chimera, though, if only for the keychain. I love that. If Safari gets that, I will seriously consider switching to Safari. I like that much more than tabs.
post #237 of 358
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>
Question for Safari 62 users - when tabs are enabled, how do you tell the browser to open a new window vs. a new tab? Which one happens when a new window would normally open?</strong><hr></blockquote>

Cmd-N to open new window - Cmd-T to open new tab.
JLL

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

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #238 of 358
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
<strong>
I would also like it if Safari allowed you to open new windows in the background instead of the foreground. It helps a lot for browsing forums.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Cmd-Shift-Click
JLL

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

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #239 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
<strong>I would also like it if Safari allowed you to open new windows in the background instead of the foreground. It helps a lot for browsing forums.</strong><hr></blockquote>

press cmd when clicking on a link. only in OmniWeb tough.
post #240 of 358
What's with all the helpful, informative posts. Back to the flaming:

You can tell tab-fans are user-interface-dyslexic because they can't even tell the difference between browser tabs, standard Apple HIG tabs, and the Amazon-style internet tabs.

And Apple is listening to these guys! The inmates are running the asylum.

Anyone remember the Simpsons episode when Homer gets to design his perfect car:

[quote]I want a horn here, here, and here.
You can never find a horn when you're mad.
And they should all play `La Cucaracha'.
-- Homer, designing a car, ``Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?''<hr></blockquote>

a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Safari - tabs - done!