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

Safari - tabs - done! - Page 8

post #281 of 358
I think I just realized why I've always preferred GNOME to KDE in terms of UI, though KDE seems to be getting a lot more work put into it these days...not sure if that's a good thng considering typical FSF-esque interface design.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #282 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:
<strong></strong><hr></blockquote>

<a href="http://ktown.kde.org/~dirk/kde-3.1/fullsize/1.png" target="_blank">http://ktown.kde.org/~dirk/kde-3.1/fullsize/1.png</a>

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #283 of 358
Oh no! It's that slippery slope again! You know, that argument people use when they can't think of any other!

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #284 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by DiscoCow:
<strong>TABS POLL!

On a scale of 1 to 5 how much do you like tabs:

1: Tabs are the epitome of all the UI evil in this world. Yes, I realize that some people like, or even need them, but those people do not understand the evil they are unleashing, they are deceived, addicted (and probably gay to.) The devil sent tabs from hell to destroy us, and if they stay on this earth another day, OS X will begin on an unstoppable decent until its UI is less bearable then using DOS on a 486 with a broken keyboard and bleeding fingers.

2: Tabs are a bad idea. Trying (and failing) to solve a problem that wasnt really there in the first place. If you want to use them, fine. But I will have no part in your MDI hell.

3: Tabs? Huh? WIll they make the 970 get here any faster?

4: Tabs are a cool Idea, and in my opinion they reduce clutter allow me quick and easy access to the web pages I have loaded. Easier then say, using the windows menu or minimizing them in the dock. If you dont like them, dont use them. But quit raining on my parade.

5:I would rather sell my family, give up both heroin and crack cold turkey, then loose my precious precious tabs. I will NEVER allow those UI Nazis to take my precious. MY PRECIOUSSSSSSSSSSS</strong><hr></blockquote>

4.5. UI Nazis must die. I've ALWAYS advocated following GUI guidelines in all cases EXCEPT when it is bleeding obvious there is a better way. Eg tabs in web browsing.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #285 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>Oh no! It's that slippery slope again! You know, that argument people use when they can't think of any other!</strong><hr></blockquote>

I prefer to think of it as a social dilemma, everyone acting in their own rational self-interest ends up ruining it for everyone, including themselves. A tragedy of the commons, if you will.

In these cases, the very nature of things means that there *is* a slippery slope.

read more:
<a href="http://www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/sd.html" target="_blank">http://www.magnolia.net/~leonf/sd/sd.html</a>

[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #286 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>

4.5. UI Nazis must die. I've ALWAYS advocated following GUI guidelines in all cases EXCEPT when it is bleeding obvious there is a better way. Eg tabs in web browsing.

Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>

If it was clear-cut, the debate wouldn't be raging on at MacNN or Ars Technica's message boards.

I e-mailed Bruce Tognazzini for his opinion on the subject. He seems to have dropped off the face of the planet though.

[quote]Oh no! It's that slippery slope again! You know, that argument people use when they can't think of any other!<hr></blockquote>

From what I've seen, the pro argument can be simplified to "Tabs are cool because they are right in front of me."

The con side goes into a bit more detail... Deconstruction of the traditional Mac OS application/window metaphor, ignorance of existing solutions, specific problems with tabs, mesh problems with existing UI devices, KISS, etc.

[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #287 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

From what I've seen, the pro argument can be simplified to "Tabs are cool because they are right in front of me."

The con side goes into a bit more detail... Deconstruction of the traditional Mac OS application/window metaphor, ignorance of existing solutions, specific problems with tabs, mesh problems with existing UI devices, KISS, etc.

[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly the point I'm trying to make! Much of the time tabs are evil. However, there are a few cases (like 2 or 3 preference panes, and web browsing) where it is fairly obvious that tabs increase usability by decreasing onscreen clutter. You generally arn't going to be drag'n'dropping between browser windows and preference panes.

You can be a Nazi if you want. I'm prepared to be flexible when that is warranted.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #288 of 358
I think Tog disappeared off the face of the Earth when myself and many others flamed him off it.

That is, for his illogical hatred of the dock. Another example of flexibility in guideline following where it is warranted

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #289 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>

Exactly the point I'm trying to make! Much of the time tabs are evil. However, there are a few cases (like 2 or 3 preference panes, and web browsing) where it is fairly obvious that tabs increase usability by decreasing onscreen clutter. You generally arn't going to be drag'n'dropping between browser windows and preference panes.

You can be a Nazi if you want. I'm prepared to be flexible when that is warranted.

Barto</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's too bad my complaints refer to tabbed web browsing specifically. At least with simple application controls and preferences, drag'n'drop isn't really an issue. And with all existing tabbed interfaces in OS X, tabs don't appear and disappear.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #290 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Barto:
<strong>
However, there are a few cases (like 2 or 3 preference panes, and web browsing) where it is fairly obvious that tabs increase usability by decreasing onscreen clutter.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Please, please, please, could people stop comparing preference tabs to browser tabs.

They are utterly different things and Apple's avoidance of using the existing Aqua tab widget is one of the best things about their implimentation.

In many dimensions preference tabs are static where browser tabs are dynamic.

When have you ever created a new preference tab, or closed an existing one?

When have you seen preference tabs fill up and overflow out of their allocated space?

When have you seen preference tabs whose titles all begin with the same three letters followed by "..."?

When have you ever felt the need to move a preference tab from one preference window to another?

No-one is worried about the correct use of static 'preference-style' tabs. No-one.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #291 of 358
I can't believe you guys are arguing about tabs that you have the option of using, or not. My question is why is there no contextual menu item for Back?

The new version is probably going to be even faster. Noticable faster! and Using the back button will be practically instataneous. The forward button too! This is reason enough to be happy.
post #292 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by PooPooDoctor:
<strong>

Eugene, you do realized the menu IS actually a multi tab UI, don't you?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I almost missed your edit.

The menu as a whole is nothing like a browser tab. The root menus don't change. Menus list items vertically. You don't edit anything in menus. Need I go on?

The Window menu is one reason why tabs are entirely unecessary. That's my whole point. The underappreciated Window menu becomes the red-headed stepchild of Mac OS because you guys have gone tab-crazy.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #293 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by wwwork:
<strong>I can't believe you guys are arguing about tabs that you have the option of using, or not. My question is why is there no contextual menu item for Back?</strong><hr></blockquote>

The 'back' button? There is.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #294 of 358
Just a growl from me on the stupid At Ease reference....

When I'm doing real work, between all of my MANY Adobe apps (and others) and the Finder, I may have jillions of windows open so I can do my draggy droppy willy nilly.

I know when I need this method of operation.

I also know when I'd like to switch to another method of operation/organization.

Seeing this argued as a 'camel's nose under the tent' argument by you three folks is something I can't wrap my mind around because I can't see Apple TAKING AWAY power user options.

I doubt that any of you freaked out when you found out about the Simple Finder option....in fear that it would soon be implemented as the ONLY way of navagiting the Mac OS.

I've hardly seen a response to why it's wrong for the tabbed nav being just an OPTION.

&lt;&lt;ahem&gt;&gt;

AN OPTION

[ 02-26-2003: 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 #295 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>The 'back' button? There is.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I think he means right-clicking on the page giving a context menu with "back" as an option.

Whereas you seem to be talking about the history list that drops down from the back button.

Personally I think this is another area where adding the option is seen as the obvious thing to do but is again wrong. What benefit do you get from having back, forward, refresh and stop cluttering up the context menu when buttons that do those things are found permenantly at the top of the window.

Refresh is the only one that really fits the 'context' i.e. it operates on the thing you are right clicking on ('the page') and even that link is broken when a load is in progress.

[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #296 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by drewprops:
<strong>
Seeing this argued as a 'camel's nose under the tent' argument by you three folks is something I can't wrap my mind around because I can't see Apple TAKING AWAY power user options.

I doubt that any of you freaked out when you found out about the Simple Finder option....in fear that it would soon be implemented as the ONLY way of navagiting the Mac OS.

I've hardly seen a response to why it's wrong for the tabbed nav being just an OPTION.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

You haven't been paying attention to either Apple or this thread then because:

A big part of Apple's modus operandi and house style is the removal of (or the pre-emptive non-implementation of) power user options. I actually, literally, cannot believe that I'm having to spell that out.

Jesus, people are still bitching about the advanced functions of SoundJam that disappeared when Apple turned it into iTunes.

Just a couple of OS revisions ago, the ability to choose what kind of CD you were burning disappeared... and no-one gave a monkeys!

Really think about it, is there any better way to sum up the iApp philosophy than doing the basics really well? Do you see how they are linked? That it wasn't two separate decisions: you can only reasonably aim for one of ease-of-use and feature-completeness.

One-muther-lovin'-mouse-button!

The classic geek rant about Macs, and I've told them to buy a damn mouse with as many buttons as they want just like you can use any damn browser instead of killing the goose that lays the golden egg by constantly adding features to something that is good *because* (in part) it has less features.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #297 of 358
I just don't see how tabs are any better than the Windows 3.1 interface. Everything positive that's been said about tabbed browsing and ubiquitous tabs in app --oops, I mean document -- windows was true of that UI.

[added:]

[quote]When I'm doing real work, between all of my MANY Adobe apps (and others) and the Finder, I may have jillions of windows open so I can do my draggy droppy willy nilly.

...Seeing this argued as a 'camel's nose under the tent' argument by you three folks is something I can't wrap my mind around because I can't see Apple TAKING AWAY power user options.<hr></blockquote>

This isn't a power user option. It's a very basic, fundamental part of working with content that should not only be fully accessible, but also encouraged for "newbie" and casual users especially. I'd rather see some sort of tabbed/inspector UI for power users than a tabbed document window for casual users.

My whole argument here is that this is the tip of the iceberg, it has a snowball effect, we're opening a Pandora's box, and other such cliches!

[OK, another addition]

I certainly don't object to a better way of managing clutter in the OS. That's a big issue Apple is even trying to address with OS X, though some of their earlier efforts have also been criticized or they couldn't get them to work well. I just don't think that creating application windows with tabs is the right way to solve the clutter problem. I'd rather see an improved Dock that handles window management better than to turn document windows into app windows and remove the default ability to drag and drop directly onto windows for users.

[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
post #298 of 358
Well wherever this new 'Tab' fad is going I think it's Apple's best interest to create a solution at the OS level and not at the app level.

And for the love of gawd...not tabs. Horizontal listing takes waaay too much space...it's easier to cram more info in a vertical list. This is why menus are listed vertically...why change a good thing?

My half-baked solution that haunts my mind night and day now is somekind of 'minimize-in-place'-looking icon. All tabbed windows would be stacked on that icon.

When the mouse is hovered over it, the stack of iconic windows seperate (in a fluid animation) to show all windows. They'd also act like the Dock icons. Hoevering over a specific window would display the name of the window. When the mouse is elsewhere, they return into the stacked icon.

And I think this idea could definitely replace the 'minimize-to-dock' horseshit. I think the Dock should concentrate on only listing favorite apps and launched apps. Nothing more.

Bring back some form of advanced minimize-in-place + some variation of my stacking concept, Apple!

[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: kim kap sol ]</p>
post #299 of 358
I'd have to say that the window menu is almost as dynamic as the tabs. Eugene, you say that it's not because it's always in the same place. But the tab bar is always in the same place too. And the listing in the window menu is obviously always changing as long as you have multiple browser windows open. Since they are in alphabetical order, it's actually more dynamic because opening a new window could put it anywhere in the list, not at the bottom. Also, if you change the location in one of the windows and it ends up changing the alphabetical order of the windows, the windows will be rearranged in the menu even if there's the same amount there! With tabs, if you change the location in one tab, it stays in the same place. I don't see how you can argue that the Window menu is any more static and consistant than tabs. In fact, it is less so. And as I've said before, there's absolutely no way to see at a glance how many web pages you're looking at if you're doing multi-window browsing. Tabs are an advancement that allow you to quickly and easily see just what you're doing, and unlike floating windows to display which windows are open, they don't get in the way of anything.

I agree with you that Apple should drop the ADC connection, man, but I sure don't agree with you on the tab issue.

EDIT: KKS, why should Apple put tabs everywhere? I think that would get annoying. I like tabs in my browser because of how I browse, but I always use icon view in Finder because I drag things around a lot more in Finder. Tabs are (arguably, of course) fine for a browser, but not for navigating the Finder! I suppose I'd have to use it before I could really make a judgement, but I have a feeling I'd like it even less than column view.

[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>
post #300 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:
<strong>EDIT: KKS, why should Apple put tabs everywhere? I think that would get annoying. I like tabs in my browser because of how I browse, but I always use icon view in Finder because I drag things around a lot more in Finder. Tabs are (arguably, of course) fine for a browser, but not for navigating the Finder! I suppose I'd have to use it before I could really make a judgement, but I have a feeling I'd like it even less than column view.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

I didn't say that...

I said it should be an option at the OS level. Like 'single-window' mode was back in DP3.

It would be an option for people that want a single-window experience. You'd click a widget. And all windows from a certain app would be shrunk into a stacked iconic view attached to the edge of a window...

Hovering the mouse over it would expand the stack to show all windows.

This would be an option. Not forced.
post #301 of 358
OK, after reading this 8 page thread in its entirety, this is what I have to say. (part of me just doesn't want to get involved, but the other part of me says that after 8 pages, I should say something )

When Safari came out, and I first heard the tabs v. no tabs argument, I was confused. I had never heard anyone speak out against tabs before that, and I couldn't really see what anyone had against them. I read the arguments, and sort of began to see the point. After reading this whole thread, I can't say I entirely disagree with Eugene and his camp. Tabs really don't seem to be the best solution to a problem (which, btw, I do think exists). But they may be the best solution we have.

I hate having multiple browser windows open. In fact, until I started using Safari, I don't think I ever really worked with multiple browser windows. The thing is, Chimera got me so used to dealing with multiple sites at once (because of tabs), that I couldn't go back to "serial browsing" as its been dubbed. Now, I suppose that using multiple windows as opposed to multiple tabs wouldn't be so bad except for a few things. I browse with the window taking up the whole screen. That means tha when I open a new browser window in Safari, the right edge of it is offscreen. That is no good, because then I have to move the window over to scroll down, to see al of its content, etc. This could be fixed, by not only automatically moving new windows over, but resizing them as well, so that they were entirely onscreen. Also, when I hold cmd and shift, the message in the status bar says "Open...in a new window behind the current window" but when I cmd-shift-click a link, where does the new window open? That's right, in front of the current window. Now, I know that both these things are "bugs" (or at least just a fluke for me, since I haven't heard anyone else complain aboutthe cmd-shift-click thing) which can be fixed, but they are still things that are making me want tabs right now.

In answer to the oft-made objection that tabs truncate page names. A truncated page name still gives me a lot more information than a window which is completely hidden (page name and all) behind another window. In fact, not only can I not tell what is in the window, I may not even realize the window is there. That's helpful. Give me truncated page names any day.

Also, I am glad that some people have finally realized that having tabs implemented does not restrict you from using multiple windows. While some of the arguments against tabs are valid, even good, arguments, things like "I can't drag and drop between tabs" really don't hold a lot of water. Just open two windows if you want two windows. Anyway, that's been covered, moving on...

As far as tabbed browsing creating an MDI, that would require web pages being documents, which I would argue they are not (at least not in the traditional sense) (seems kind fo funny to say traditional senes, since even "documents in the traditional sense" as I mean it, that is computer documents, are not really documents in the traditional sense. But I diverge). But there have been whole books written on whether web pages are documents, applications, somewhere in between, etc. We are not going to resolve that debate here.

In closing (I hope) Itend to agree that tabs are not necessarily a good thing from a UI standpoint. That doesn't stop me from wanting them. They improve my workflow, they make browsing more organized, etc. (One of my most common uses of tabs is at AI. Since external links always open in a new window, I instead have them load in new tabs in the background while I continue reading the thread and flip through them once they've loaded). Maybe tabs will be bad for the UI in the long run, I really can't say. But I'm going to be selfishly happy if/when we get them in Safari. Maybe there is a better way to implement a similar feature. If there is, Apple will probably find it; that's what they're good at. But it's going to take a while to find. So give us tabs now, and swap it for the new method come v. 2.0 (I can already feel the heat of the flames). As for complaints about the "current" implementation of Safari tabs: criticizing a hidden feature in an unreleased beta is really lame. I am sure things will have been cleaned up by the time tabs go public.

So, finally (really this time), Eugene, you've convinced me. Tabs are not good.
But I still want them.
(maybe I'm just selfish)
Room to Rant
Frodo's Notebook
Model: TiBook, Speed: 500mhz, RAM: 512 megs, OS: 10.4.1, Name: Rendezvous
Reply
Room to Rant
Frodo's Notebook
Model: TiBook, Speed: 500mhz, RAM: 512 megs, OS: 10.4.1, Name: Rendezvous
Reply
post #302 of 358
Wanted to add...
I don't know about Google snap back, but as for the URL snapback, it woul behave no differently in different tabs than it does in different windows. When you switch tabs, the URL in the location bar changes, why couldn't the snapback.

Of course, the Google snapbak becomes less relevant for me when I have tabs, because I open open the links from my search results in new tabs, so that I can load several at once, and continue looking through the list. I suppose you could also argue the inverse: that the Google snapback makes tabs less relevant...
Room to Rant
Frodo's Notebook
Model: TiBook, Speed: 500mhz, RAM: 512 megs, OS: 10.4.1, Name: Rendezvous
Reply
Room to Rant
Frodo's Notebook
Model: TiBook, Speed: 500mhz, RAM: 512 megs, OS: 10.4.1, Name: Rendezvous
Reply
post #303 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by SledgeHammer:
<strong>I suppose you could also argue the inverse: that the Google snapback makes tabs less relevant...</strong><hr></blockquote>

I get the feeling that everyone has given up and gone home but, on that note, there are several things making tabs less relevant.

faster internet connections
faster browsers
link pre-caching
faster response to back button
snapback, and Google snapback
bigger screens/better resolutions

and for people using Safari, on 1/2 or 1Mbit broadband connection, on a fast Mac with a big screen, tabs (or any type of multi-page browsing) can actually become a hindrance.

I personally find it much faster/easier to navigate around this forum using the back button to get out of threads and the quickjump dropdown to move onto the next forum.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #304 of 358
No matter. The official release of the next Beta will come within two weeks. Anything out there now is not what is coming, exactly.
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
Things Ain't What They Seem!
Reply
post #305 of 358
hee hee!

I smell a double-standard!

kim kap sol said (much to my delight):

[quote] Hovering the mouse over it would expand the stack to show all windows.

This would be an option. Not forced. <hr></blockquote>


So at least we're starting to agree that there should be some degree of customization to the interface? I was talking about just a single app's idiosyncratic behavior....

Yeah, I think people are getting tired of seeing us jumping up and down on this horse....
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 #306 of 358
Eugene, you have started to nit pick. Would a polished implementation of tabs therefore satisfy you? For instance, only allowing a certain number of tabs in a window (based on the window size)?

I generally have about 2 or 3 browser windows with 2 or 3 tabs in each. It's fantastic what it's done to minimize on screen clutter. I DON'T like the tabs in Excel, because they interfere when working across sheets/charts. However, that's not a worry in web browsing, as you don't generally between web pages.

Where you do, the user has the ultimate flexibility to decide how many windows and how many tabs in each window. It just makes sense for Safari! IT JUST MAKES SENSE!

Whenever someone claims that this is the start of a slippery slope, that's the instant I don't care. Apple prides itself on usability. I argue that this IS usability.

Barto
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
Self Indulgent Experiments keep me occupied.

rotate zmze pe vizspygmsr minus four
Reply
post #307 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

Dude, any and all tabs are the best thing since the George Foreman Grill. How can you hate At Ease?!</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />

Dude... breath... that's it... breath... relax... take a nap or something... it's not the end of the world just because some of us find your "tabs will destroy the UI" silly. Your sarcasm clearly shows you have not grasped anything I have said. Maybe you can't. So @%^$ it. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />

Edit to add: By the way, you must really hate iTunes since it's a tab based UI. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: PooPooDoctor ]</p>
<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 #308 of 358
Is there anyone that can truly take a person named PooPooDoctor serious here?
post #309 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by PooPooDoctor:
<strong>
Your sarcasm clearly shows you have not grasped anything I have said. Maybe you can't. So @%^$ it. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

No, it means you aren't worth my effort.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #310 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

No, it means you aren't worth my effort.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's ok, I realize it's part of your culture to never admit being wrong. It's not your fault.
<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 #311 of 358
Why would the use of tabs preclude the use of drag and drop? I would think that if you can have spring-loaded folders, you could have spring-loaded tabs (hover over a tab with a dragged file, and it pops to the front).

Just curious. I'll throw my vote in for tabs, as they suit the way I prefer to browse. Other apps, such as Microsoft's Excel, already use tabs in a similar fashion (dynamic creation and deletion, etc.), so it isn't as if Apple is utterly changing the landscape.

John
post #312 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by John Whitney:
<strong>Why would the use of tabs preclude the use of drag and drop? I would think that if you can have spring-loaded folders, you could have spring-loaded tabs (hover over a tab with a dragged file, and it pops to the front).

Just curious. I'll throw my vote in for tabs, as they suit the way I prefer to browse. Other apps, such as Microsoft's Excel, already use tabs in a similar fashion (dynamic creation and deletion, etc.), so it isn't as if Apple is utterly changing the landscape.

John</strong><hr></blockquote>

My point isn't that you can't have spring-loaded behavior, my point is that it's more complex than simple-drag-ndrop onto documents, maybe more delicate and complex than it should be. I thought of spring-loaded tabs when I first posted this problem, the point was more in the line of thinking that tabs would be a default or beginner's way of working with documents, and I think it would have to be an option to more advnaced users if it were done. I feel that it's more important to encourage simple drag-n-drop onto documents directly for basic or casual users.

By using a normal window as the default, a casual or beginner user would figure to place items them where they want within the document quickly, have a nice big target, and have a more obvious choice to make. Seems easier to learn and try this than to drag an item to a tab, wait, then drag the item into the revealed document. In that latter scenario, you arrive at the same problem Apple found with spring-loaded folders: the destination would either hide the original document, making cancelling or repeating the operation harder, or lese it would have to open the destination in a separate window so you can see both the origin and destination of whatever you're moving, thus cancelling the neat-and-tdy argument to some degree (though not totally). So it would seem more forgving for relative tyros to deal with windows without tabs.

So would advanced users make better use of tabs? Yes and no. Yes because they would knnow and understad just how to juggle what is otherwise a rather delicate operation for drag-n-drop. No because anyone relatively expert in managing windows and multiple apps, would probably be doing even more dragging and dropping, so the spring-loaded tab behavior might be more intrusive than helpful. Advanced users usually have more documents open, and are able to manage them better than a newbie anyway. So maybe tabs aren't ideal for advanced users either.

As for Excel and others, it's true there are others, and I have seen in Excel, SketchUp and another obscure Windows app (I'm not thinking of anything like the Windows Display control panel and its tab hell) how limiting tabs are for these apps.

--------------

I think people are certainly used to the way Windows works, and even Mac OS 9 was app-centric. While Apple has compromised to be more inclusive of Windows users and even Classic Mac OS users in a sense, I think they've though a lot about how the GUI is structured and they decided that a document-centric user experience would be more efficient for users, and that elements like the new Finder and the Dock would help keep a proliferation of documents under control. As a general comment, not in response to this last post, I think a lot of people do not see the benefits of this new interface, and some are probably confused about the new system, not quite grasping the concept yet and wondering why a window in one application can get between windows of another app.
post #313 of 358
Damn it, get over the "fad" bullshit.

I hate moving windows to see what's behind them. I hate it in the Finder, I hate it in web browsing, I hate it in application pallettes (I love the Adobe/Macromedia use of tabbed pallettes).

I like the option of having five tabs from a forum site all in the same window so I can switch back and forthe between them without moving windows or going to the window menu. The Window menu is never in the same place across applications and half the time I have trouble finding the menu... THEN I have to find the window I want to select in the list and drag down to it. With tabs I can see EXACTLY where I'm going before I even start moving the mouse. That is why I prefer tabs for certain tasks.

IT'S NOT BECAUSE IT'S A FAD!!!!

I've been using the Mac OS since 1987 and I hate top 40 pop music, I think Eminem is complete shit and I like Norah Jones because she has a nice voice and great songs, not because she just won five Grammys. You couldn't find a stauncher individualist than me, and I LIKE TABS for web browsing, and think the proposed Safari implementation is superior to Chimera's.

But... tabs should be detachable, as a rule. If they're not, I'd still use them.
post #314 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>
I hate moving windows to see what's behind them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Nine pages later and you still think this is true?

BuonRotto, give up...there's no hope.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #315 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

Nine pages later and you still think this is true?

BuonRotto, give up...there's no hope.</strong><hr></blockquote>

You ignored my mention of the Windows menu in my post entirely. I know there are lots of ways to see what's behind a window:

Move the window
Minimize he window (I hate this too)
Use the Window menu
Use the dock contextual menu
Use tabs

I know which one I feel is more space and time efficient.
post #316 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>BuonRotto, give up...there's no hope.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I'm the one who said we should agree to disagree about two or three pages ago. I dunno, I guess I'm just thinking out loud. I don't expect to convince anyone per se, just getting my perspective across. I can be stubborn about that at least.
post #317 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>

You ignored my mention of the Windows menu in my post entirely.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Why'd you even mention moving windows if it's not a problem?

Man I hate tabs because Florida oranges are sour.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #318 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>But... tabs should be detachable, as a rule. If they're not, I'd still use them.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Actually, that might be the best idea I've heard. It reminds me of the NextStep menus too.

Though I'm still a bit perplexed about whether we have document windows or application windows at this point -- if I tab up a bunch of documents in Photoshop, assuming you [i]don't[i] want to actually create a single multipage document (how apps like Excel, SketchUp, etc. work), how would one indicate that these are separate documents and part of one app, not part of the same file? This effectively creates an application window, though there isn't really one because there's no parent window per se, just whichever is the first or last document that retains the window area when others are gone.

It's sort of confusing from the standpoint that documents are supposed to be semi-autonomous and interleave regardless of which app they belong to. I mean, are they app windows or document windows? Maybe I'm being very formal about this, but I'm trying to think conceptually about what these windows are -- part of an app, or part of a document, or both or something else.

Could you tab up/glue together several different documents from different apps or do they have to belong to the same app? Can you aribtrarily "pile up" documents in work groups? But then dragging and dropping can be messy even if the windowing situation is cleaned up. In that scenario, I would probably group up documents so that I could always have at least two open and fully visible so I can drop fro one to the other while hiding everything else in tabs behind them.

Really, this goes back to the whole "tabs are MDI" argument.

There I go again.
post #319 of 358
Interesting...I had that multi-app tab idea dancing around in my head too. It would never work, and it's completely ridiculous, but...I'm sure some people would love it.

Tonton, would you love or hate a Windows style taskbar in OS X? Did you ever use Power On's GoMac?

Do you think this type of recursive windowing has limits? The desktop is basically a window after all. Web browser tabs are windows within a window within a window. At what point does this become a bad thing?

[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #320 of 358
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>Interesting...I had that multi-app tab idea dancing around in my head too. It would never work, and it's completely ridiculous, but...I'm sure some people would love it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wouldn't be one of them.
[quote]<strong>Tonton, would you love or hate a Windows style taskbar in OS X? Did you ever use Power On's GoMac?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I prefer the functionality of the dock. But I did like the way tabbed windows worked in the OS 9 finder. Besides docking pallettes, these were the closest thing to detachable tabs we've seen on Mac.
[quote]<strong>Do you think this type of recursive windowing has limits? The desktop is basically a window after all. Web browser tabs are windows within a window within a window. At what point does this become a bad thing?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Good question. I don't envision recursive windows ever going deeper than a tab (unless you count sheets as yet another level deeper) but if there were a case where it were useful and not confusing to the user, I would think about that question when it arises. To me tabs within windows within the desktop would not confuse many users. And if it did, they aren't forced to use tabs anyway.

Right now I'm thinking about how the close widget would best be used in a window full of tabs. I don't like the Chimera way. I've "accidentally" closed a window full of tabs when all I wanted to do was close the top tab before.

I'm leaning toward the red widget being greyed out if a window contains multiple tabs. I don't like the idea of a dialog box asking me "are you sure?" and I don't like the Chimera way.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac Software
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac Software › Safari - tabs - done!