or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › A peek at Apple's new QuickTime X interface
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A peek at Apple's new QuickTime X interface - Page 3

post #81 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I get it.

You know, that noisy cctv footage is a large part of what they work with as well.

It's too bad that we can't have happen in reality, what happens on these mystery Tv shows. Magnifying a noisy SD, or sometimes a 1/2SD cctv video to supersharp footage, with well beyond 1080p's detail is humorous, but not when the show depends on that for the resolution (sic) of the story.

Khm... Will those guys at NYPD agree?? Doesn't better resolution sound like job cuts??? Alas.

Yet I loved Apple exactly for providing me with a minimal toolkit allowing to do what I like right out of the box. It was indeed astonishing that I modeled the plane path in Quartz Composer, selected "Export as QT movie", and... there was no progress bar shown at all! I thought it didn't work
It did.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #82 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

I do have to interject an opinion: I watch a lot of video on my Macs—particularly the Mini attached to my TV. I am constantly doing whatever I can to remove distracting UI elements while watching videos. Usually this entails using fullscreen mode, but a video window that transformed into a clean video box upon mouse-out or mouse-stop sounds awesome!

And, to be fair, a lot of the time the rest of the 'shit on my screen' is driving me up the walls. Maybe I'm just a neat freak. My bad.

Exactly, I'm much the same way. When watching videos on Hulu, for instance, I always hide all of Safari's toolbars and as many other UI elements as possible because Hulu's videos aren't meant for full-screen viewing.

Not only is the titlebar of a QuickTime video window distracting, the play controls, especially the playhead and time ticker, bug me because I don't need them to be visible all the time.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #83 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

No, it's not. What if you're trying to look at something in the video but the controls get in the way? Say for example, something catches your eye and you pause the video to take a closer look. And all you end up with is a control bar in your way. Floating controls make the most sense in Full Screen.

Agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig View Post

Then move the controls. They are draggable, you know.

Why should we, when they could be out of the way to start with? It's not like having them over the image has other advantages...

Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

Having the title bar of QuickTime videos disappear makes sense because it's a distracting element.

ADD much?

Actually, that's the whole point of full screen mode. If you don't want to be distracted with other things, put it in full screen. If you're not in full screen, then it nearly always means you want to be paying attention to something else as well as the video... in which case, removing useful features to avoid distraction is a stupid plan.
post #84 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Kim, you can't expect people to read every single thread to find statements that as far as they know, you MAY have made, or you may NOT have made. If you have an argument in any thread, you have to present it to people you're talking to.

Had he asked politely, I would have repeated what I had said in another thread or I would have linked to the post. But seeing as how he came off as a total jerk, I didn't feel like it.
post #85 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by ivan.rnn01 View Post

Khm... Will those guys at NYPD agree?? Doesn't better resolution sound like job cuts??? Alas.

No, just more people behind bars.

Quote:
Yet I loved Apple exactly for providing me with a minimal toolkit allowing to do what I like right out of the box. It was indeed astonishing that I modeled the plane path in Quartz Composer, selected "Export as QT movie", and... there was no progress bar shown at all! I thought it didn't work

Agreed.
post #86 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post

A
Why should we, when they could be out of the way to start with? It's not like having them over the image has other advantages...

It does. I pointed out several before.

Quote:
Actually, that's the whole point of full screen mode. If you don't want to be distracted with other things, put it in full screen. If you're not in full screen, then it nearly always means you want to be paying attention to something else as well as the video... in which case, removing useful features to avoid distraction is a stupid plan.

That would be true, except the on screen controls disappear with full screen.
post #87 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

Not only is the titlebar of a QuickTime video window distracting, the play controls, especially the playhead and time ticker, bug me because I don't need them to be visible all the time.

Like many have said, that's why the fullscreen option exists. If the titlebar or controls bother you, then the rest of the visual clutter on your screen won't help.

What's the point of hiding the titlebar or controls in fuckin' window-mode? People use window-mode for a reason...because they need to get as much info as possible. And people use fullscreen-mode for another reason...because they want to focus on a single thing and don't care what else is going on in the background.

There isn't a special rule about video that makes it OK for titlebars and controls to disappear while in window-mode. That rule *could* apply to *anything* because there will always be special cases where people feel that they don't want to be distracted by titlebars and controls. I'm sure anyone could extend this silly idea to other apps. If I looked hard enough, I could probably find someone that would like to browse the internet in a titlebar-less, control-less window when he's simply reading a web page. Wouldn't THAT be great?
post #88 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Had he asked politely, I would have repeated what I had said in another thread or I would have linked to the post. But seeing as how he came off as a total jerk, I didn't feel like it.

It was a challenge, as we all make to someone we're arguing with.
post #89 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No, just more people behind bars.

Ah. I seem to be ignorant of NY completely.

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply

We mean Apple no harm.

People are lovers, basically. -- Engadget livebloggers at the iPad mini event.

Reply
post #90 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post

ADD much?

Hah, no.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post

Actually, that's the whole point of full screen mode. If you don't want to be distracted with other things, put it in full screen. If you're not in full screen, then it nearly always means you want to be paying attention to something else as well as the video... in which case, removing useful features to avoid distraction is a stupid plan.

Again, I'm talking about when videos aren't high resolution enough to go fullscreen without getting horribly pixelated. I have a very serene desktop and the fewer distractions the better.

I also stated that I think playback controls, or at least the titlebar, will be visible when the video is paused and visible on mouse-over regardless.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #91 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

I am constantly doing whatever I can to remove distracting UI elements while watching videos

There is always QuickLook to play videos. There is no Menu bar that changes and the windows is very simple. You can then go to Fullscreen to see nothing but video. You also have Front Row at your disposal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

Exactly, I'm much the same way. When watching videos on Hulu, for instance, I always hide all of Safari's toolbars and as many other UI elements as possible because Hulu's videos aren't meant for full-screen viewing.

I don't understand that comment about Hulu. There is a fullpage option that is accessible with every Hulu video I've seen.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #92 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

Hah, no.


Again, I'm talking about when videos aren't high resolution enough to go fullscreen without getting horribly pixelated. I have a very serene desktop and the fewer distractions the better.

I also stated that I think playback controls, or at least the titlebar, will be visible when the video is paused and visible on mouse-over regardless.

Can we all agree that it wouldn't be so bad to lose titlebars, transport, frames, etc from a video window if the user plays (not just opens and lets it sit there) a video and the mouse is un-moved for 5 seconds or so IF all IU pieces snap back where they belong upon any input on the Mac (ie: moving the mouse, touching a key). IU, of course, returns when the movie is paused, or is scrubbed through.

My rationale is that if someone flips open a video, hits play and is not touching the mouse, the user is most likely just WATCHING THE VIDEO and not looking at what other details can be gleaned from titlebars, transport controls, etc. As soon as someone might become interested in such things all they need to do is touch the mouse and all the overlay titlebar, transport, etc appears again.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #93 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple, like every other company, experiments with the UI. They have to. Nothing is static.

I don't want them to change every program and the OS over all at once. What if it's a bomb? Try one program at a time. If people really don't like it, or it doesn't work, then they can go to something else.

It's a lot of work researching, and re-programming UI's.

It seems like they could do one experiment at a time rather than three. Having all three video programs operate so differently goes against the idea of keeping things consistent.
post #94 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Like many have said, that's why the fullscreen option exists. If the titlebar or controls bother you, then the rest of the visual clutter on your screen won't help.

See my above comments to Amorya.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

What's the point of hiding the titlebar or controls in fuckin' window-mode? People use window-mode for a reason...because they need to get as much info as possible. And people use fullscreen-mode for another reason...because they want to focus on a single thing and don't care what else is going on in the background.

Following that logic, fullscreen mode should have no controls at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

There isn't a special rule about video that makes it OK for titlebars and controls to disappear while in window-mode.

I never said, nor meant to imply there was one.

With that said, there are already examples of disappearing controls in window-mode in Mac OS X apps: iTunes videos and .MOVs played in Safari 4.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

That rule *could* apply to *anything* because there will always be special cases where people feel that they don't want to be distracted by titlebars and controls. I'm sure anyone could extend this silly idea to other apps. If I looked hard enough, I could probably find someone that would like to browse the internet in a titlebar-less, control-less window when he's simply reading a web page. Wouldn't THAT be great?

You can try to apply any idea specific to a given situation to everything else, that doesn't mean it would be practical.

Video is a very specific situation. It's largely about...watching it. QuickTime X is about ultra efficient playback first and foremost.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #95 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

There is always QuickLook to play videos. There is no Menu bar that changes and the windows is very simple. You can then go to Fullscreen to see nothing but video. You also have Front Row at your disposal.


I don't understand that comment about Hulu. There is a fullpage option that is accessible with every Hulu video I've seen.

Quicklook is a bigger window than a normal quicktime window and all the controls are on the outside of the window. No matter how long I leave the mouse untouched the UI is still there.

Front row is way too much work for a video that was casually downloaded on the internet.

Regardless of the other facilities in Mac OS to look at videos, I really like the ideas suggested in the article about a minimal video window in QTX that hides itself as much as possible while I am watching video.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #96 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I don't understand that comment about Hulu. There is a fullpage option that is accessible with every Hulu video I've seen.

I know, I'm saying the videos Hulu hosts aren't high enough quality to view in fullscreen without said videos getting pixalated (or chugging because my computer is old). So I remove as many UI elements as possible, I use Hulu's built-in "Dim the lights" feature, etc.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #97 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Like many have said, that's why the fullscreen option exists. If the titlebar or controls bother you, then the rest of the visual clutter on your screen won't help.

What's the point of hiding the titlebar or controls in fuckin' window-mode? People use window-mode for a reason...because they need to get as much info as possible. And people use fullscreen-mode for another reason...because they want to focus on a single thing and don't care what else is going on in the background.

There isn't a special rule about video that makes it OK for titlebars and controls to disappear while in window-mode. That rule *could* apply to *anything* because there will always be special cases where people feel that they don't want to be distracted by titlebars and controls. I'm sure anyone could extend this silly idea to other apps. If I looked hard enough, I could probably find someone that would like to browse the internet in a titlebar-less, control-less window when he's simply reading a web page. Wouldn't THAT be great?

You certainly can look no further than Adobe Creative Suite. All these applications have multiple editing modes that successively remove more and UI to permit the artist to focus more directly on the task at have. One of the best retouching modes in Photoshop is to remove the entire UI and use keyboard shortcuts to alter your clones stamp settings and edit on a screen filled only with the artwork and no clutter at all. There are several intermediate modes which are tradeoffs between UI centric and artwork centric views.

The only thing that would make these features better would be Adobe figuring out a way to automatically determine what the most appropriate level of UI is based on the context. This sounds like what Apple may be attempting with QTX.

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #98 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

Can we all agree that it wouldn't be so bad to lose titlebars, transport, frames, etc from a video window if the user plays (not just opens and lets it sit there) a video and the mouse is un-moved for 5 seconds or so IF all IU pieces snap back where they belong upon any input on the Mac (ie: moving the mouse, touching a key). IU, of course, returns when the movie is paused, or is scrubbed through.

My rationale is that if someone flips open a video, hits play and is not touching the mouse, the user is most likely just WATCHING THE VIDEO and not looking at what other details can be gleaned from titlebars, transport controls, etc. As soon as someone might become interested in such things all they need to do is touch the mouse and all the overlay titlebar, transport, etc appears again.

YES. Thank you.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #99 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

See my above comments to Amorya.

The nonsensical comment about low definition videos? Here's a tip: you can view videos at "actual size" in fullscreen. Nothing's forcing you to view them scaled up to ridiculous sizes.

Quote:
Following that logic, fullscreen mode should have no controls at all.

Nope...following that logic, however, fullscreen mode should hide the controls when there is no mouse or keyboard input. Window mode should NEVER hide the controls or any other information that has been around for 3 decades for a reason (info like the name of the file).

Quote:
I never said, nor meant to imply there was one.

With that said, there are already examples of disappearing controls in window-mode in Mac OS X apps: iTunes videos and .MOVs played in Safari 4.

Yes, that's why I never use iTunes for video. The first thing I usually do is set QuickTime Player as the default .mov or .m4v player rather than iTunes because it's such a crummy interface for video (but such an lovely interface for audio).

Embedded videos have an excuse not to have the normal set of controls since they're not in a full-fledged video player.

Quote:
You can try to apply any idea specific to a given situation to everything else, that doesn't mean it would be practical.

Video is a very specific situation. It's largely about...watching it. QuickTime X is about ultra efficient playback first and foremost.

Yeah...and for ultra efficient playback, people need ultra efficient playback controls and that means they have to be visible so that you don't need to guess where they'll appear inside the video playback area. In other words, the controls must always be visible and at the same place.

Putting a fullscreen GUI on what is supposed to be a window-GUI is asking for trouble.
post #100 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

It seems like they could do one experiment at a time rather than three. Having all three video programs operate so differently goes against the idea of keeping things consistent.

That's true. But I suppose they have a number of ideas and are trying to see what works best. We are computer users after all, we should be able to work with a few different interfaces without falling off the cliff.
post #101 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

You certainly can look no further than Adobe Creative Suite. All these applications have multiple editing modes that successively remove more and UI to permit the artist to focus more directly on the task at have. One of the best retouching modes in Photoshop is to remove the entire UI and use keyboard shortcuts to alter your clones stamp settings and edit on a screen filled only with the artwork and no clutter at all. There are several intermediate modes which are tradeoffs between UI centric and artwork centric views.

The only thing that would make these features better would be Adobe figuring out a way to automatically determine what the most appropriate level of UI is based on the context. This sounds like what Apple may be attempting with QTX.

Yeah, but the difference is that QTX is forcing this dumb idea on everyone instead of offering it as an option like Adobe.

Yes, there are lots of apps that offer fullscreen options or palettes that fade. But they're *options*.
post #102 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Yeah, but the difference is that QTX is forcing this dumb idea on everyone instead of offering it as an option like Adobe.

Yes, there are lots of apps that offer fullscreen options or palettes that fade. But they're *options*.

Admittedly, Apple, in its interest in making everything easier for the average consumer, can go overboard.

But Adobe's apps are for professionals. Sometimes we want all the junk on the screen, and sometimes we only need parts of it.
post #103 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

The nonsensical comment about low definition videos? Here's a tip: you can view videos at "actual size" in fullscreen. Nothing's forcing you to view them scaled up to ridiculous sizes.



Nope...following that logic, however, fullscreen mode should hide the controls when there is no mouse or keyboard input. Window mode should NEVER hide the controls or any other information that has been around for 3 decades for a reason (info like the name of the file).



Yes, that's why I never use iTunes for video. The first thing I usually do is set QuickTime Player as the default .mov or .m4v player rather than iTunes because it's such a crummy interface for video (but such an lovely interface for audio).

Embedded videos have an excuse not to have the normal set of controls since they're not in a full-fledged video player.



Yeah...and for ultra efficient playback, people need ultra efficient playback controls and that means they have to be visible so that you don't need to guess where they'll appear inside the video playback area. In other words, the controls must always be visible and at the same place.

Putting a fullscreen GUI on what is supposed to be a window-GUI is asking for trouble.

I agree window mode should not throw out the basic window interface permanently. I still think that there is room for windows to behave contextually.

I am getting the impression that you see the window interface as some kind of sacred cow. Three decades of beautiful tradition from Mac System 1 to Mac OS X Leopard is all fine and good, but if that kind of thinking were the prevailing philosophy in Cupertino we'd never even have video on a computer in the first place. We wouldn't have music on our Macs. either, so I guess the iTunes video browser would have never happened. Perhaps that would make you happier. Windows have been a great metaphor, but they are certainly not the ONLY metaphor. And it is a metaphor that can be extended. The HUI guidelines served us very well in the early days when the concept was fresh. Have you heard the expression 'You need to know the rules before you know when its okay to break them'?

The iPhone is a completely window-less interface that works pretty well. A lot of what makes it work is how the system anticipates what the user needs in front of him. If Apple brings some of that back to the desktop, that sounds great to me!

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #104 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

The nonsensical comment about low definition videos? Here's a tip: you can view videos at "actual size" in fullscreen. Nothing's forcing you to view them scaled up to ridiculous sizes.

Obviously it wasn't that nonsensical, otherwise you wouldn't have known how to respond.

Perhaps with Hulu videos you're right. I haven't watched any in a while, let alone in fullscreen.

But not in QuickTime, nor iTunes (unless I'm missing something).

*EDIT*

Ok, QuickTime can be made to do this by going into fullscreen mode, then mousing up to the Menu Bar > View > and pick from one of the predetermined sizes. However, it defaults to "fit to screen" every time. This is not possible in iTunes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Nope...following that logic, however, fullscreen mode should hide the controls when there is no mouse or keyboard input. Window mode should NEVER hide the controls or any other information that has been around for 3 decades for a reason (info like the name of the file).

Well then again, it's your logic. Just as there is no rule for controls/titlebar to disappear when playing videos, there is no rule against it either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Yes, that's why I never use iTunes for video. The first thing I usually do is set QuickTime Player as the default .mov or .m4v player rather than iTunes because it's such a crummy interface for video (but such an lovely interface for audio).

How is it crummy? iTunes doesn't have any real video editing capabilities. Your precious title bar is always visible, as are controls in the main iTunes window (and in the floating video window if you leave the pointer over the HUD controls).

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Embedded videos have an excuse not to have the normal set of controls since they're not in a full-fledged video player.

iTunes isn't a "full-fledged" video player by your description either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Yeah...and for ultra efficient playback, people need ultra efficient playback controls and that means they have to be visible so that you don't need to guess where they'll appear inside the video playback area. In other words, the controls must always be visible and at the same place.

Putting a fullscreen GUI on what is supposed to be a window-GUI is asking for trouble.

Who says QTX's playback controls have to always be visible in order to be "ultra efficient"? Right, you.

I'm sorry you're not very flexible on this matter. Nobody will be forcing you to upgrade to Snow Leopard, so that should come as some solace.

I think most people just want to see the video they opened and don't give a flying you-know-what about the titlebar (they know it's name if they opened it), time counter (distracting and unnecessary), playhead (distracting and unnecessary), volume controls (distracting and unnecessary), etc.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #105 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

I agree window mode should not throw out the basic window interface permanently. I still think that there is room for windows to behave contextually.

I am getting the impression that you see the window interface as some kind of sacred cow. Three decades of beautiful tradition from Mac System 1 to Mac OS X Leopard is all fine and good, but if that kind of thinking were the prevailing philosophy in Cupertino we'd never even have video on a computer in the first place. We wouldn't have music on our Macs. either, so I guess the iTunes video browser would have never happened. Perhaps that would make you happier. Windows have been a great metaphor, but they are certainly not the ONLY metaphor. And it is a metaphor that can be extended. The HUI guidelines served us very well in the early days when the concept was fresh. Have you heard the expression 'You need to know the rules before you know when its okay to break them'?

Apple can reinvent the metaphors when it is ready to reinvent the human-interface experience. Instead of using us as guinea pigs for future designs, Apple should use its billions of dollars to do its research internally.

Quote:
The iPhone is a completely window-less interface that works pretty well. A lot of what makes it work is how the system anticipates what the user needs in front of him. If Apple brings some of that back to the desktop, that sounds great to me!

The iPhone is also a tiny device with a tiny screen. And the only official method of input is the touch screen.

When I'm at the computer, I expect to use my mouse and keyboard because they're currently the most efficient in that particular context.
post #106 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

Obviously it wasn't that nonsensical, otherwise you wouldn't have known how to respond.

Perhaps with Hulu videos you're right. I haven't watched any in a while, let alone in fullscreen.

But not in QuickTime, nor iTunes (unless I'm missing something).

*EDIT*

Ok, QuickTime can be made to do this by going into fullscreen mode, then mousing up to the Menu Bar > View > and pick from one of the predetermined sizes. However, it defaults to "fit to screen" every time. This is not possible in iTunes.

Ohhhh, I think I know what kind of person you are. You're one of those computer newbs that needs hand-holding and can't be bothered looking further than what is directly displayed in front of him.

Here's another tip: you can change the default in the QuickTime Player preferences.

Quote:
Well then again, it's your logic. Just as there is no rule for controls/titlebar to disappear when playing videos, there is no rule against it either.

Yeah, the Apple HIGs are the rules. They exist. Go read them.

Quote:
How is it crummy? iTunes doesn't have any real video editing capabilities. Your precious title bar is always visible, as are controls in the main iTunes window (and in the floating video window if you leave the pointer over the HUD controls).


iTunes isn't a "full-fledged" video player by your description either.

Nope, you're right, it isn't. In fact, it's a downright pathetic video player.

Quote:
Who says QTX's playback controls have to always be visible in order to be "ultra efficient"? Right, you.

...and the rest of the world.

Quote:
I'm sorry you're not very flexible on this matter. Nobody will be forcing you to upgrade to Snow Leopard, so that should come as some solace.

I think most people just want to see the video they opened and don't give a flying you-know-what about the titlebar (they know it's name if they opened it), time counter (distracting and unnecessary), playhead (distracting and unnecessary), volume controls (distracting and unnecessary), etc.

I'm sure they don't. If you read most people's comments in this thread, you'll realize they don't like the new UI ideas in QTX.
post #107 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Apple can reinvent the metaphors when it is ready to reinvent the human-interface experience. Instead of using us as guinea pigs for future designs, Apple should use its billions of dollars to do its research internally.

Uh, is that not exactly what they're doing with QuickTime X (and Snow Leopard in general)?
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #108 of 149
Right, I agree with wobegon, I as a website designer has some philosophies bout how a design should be and what it should not but frankly speaking, the common public don't care bout this guidelines, they only care bout how it works and usually if its flashy, the better, as long as its usable. They care little bout usability for others or accessibility, what important is they are happy to use it, people are egocentric so yea, I understand that rules are there but rules are meant to be broken.

And what's wrong with the menu bar and control bar disappearing when the movie is playing? Its not like people want to see the menu bar when they are watching a movie, heck they wont even realize the menubar disappeared when watching a movie.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #109 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Ohhhh, I think I know what kind of person you are. You're one of those computer newbs that needs hand-holding and can't be bothered looking further than what is directly displayed in front of him.

You don't know me and don't pretend that you do. So I figured (wrong) that when I clicked on one of the view options that it would jump back out of fullscreen mode, so what? We all get things wrong. I'm willing to concede that point, but it doesn't change my original argument about unnecessary UIs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Yeah, the Apple HIGs are the rules. They exist. Go read them.

No, those are guidelines. And regardless, if they are broken or tweaked or thrown out entirely, no one is in danger of prison time or a time out. As long as the vast majority of end users like it, that's all that matters (at least to Apple).

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

...and the rest of the world.

Ah, forgot. Everyone thinks just like you (well other than me, but I'm just an obtuse ass clown).

Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

I'm sure they don't. If you read most people's comments in this thread, you'll realize they don't like the new UI ideas in QTX.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or delusional anymore.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #110 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

Can we all agree that it wouldn't be so bad to lose titlebars, transport, frames, etc from a video window if the user plays (not just opens and lets it sit there) a video and the mouse is un-moved for 5 seconds or so IF all IU pieces snap back where they belong upon any input on the Mac (ie: moving the mouse, touching a key). IU, of course, returns when the movie is paused, or is scrubbed through.

Sorry, no. The only time I want the controls removed is in full screen.

I can't ever think of a time where I wouldn't want title bars on an actual window. I have a LOT of windows on my screen -- here's my current desktop where I'm composing this post: (yes I have three monitors)



I don't have trouble fading other windows into the background mentally, while working in one. In fact, my desktop in the pic is less cluttered than usual, because I just closed down Xcode and friends.

If we really can't agree, I could concede making it a preference (and for those who know how much I hate adding preferences just for disagreement, that's rare for me to suggest that!). I do think that such a need is better served by third party software though.

As it happens, I've been playing with VLC recently and have got it playing videos with no title bar. (You can move them by dragging anywhere on the video, and the controls are in an external window.) I really do dislike the look: it's disconcerting to see video playing with no window chrome surrounding it.

Having the title bar appear when you move the mouse is just as bad, due to the problem of mystery meat navigation. Essentially, things should show UI that affords their action, so that you can predict what the action will be, without needing to mouse over them (or indeed mouse at all). With regards to the VLC windows without title bars, it requires some mental processing to be aware that I can still move them around like other windows. Sure, I'd soon learn that in Quicktime Player I have to make a mental exception to the standard ways of interacting with things, but if all apps added such an exception it would be chaos.

I firmly maintain that full screen mode is the way to go if you want reduced distractions. If the pixelation of video is a problem to you, maybe Quicktime should add a scale factor for full screen video (default to Fit to Screen, but you could choose 100% as well) -- that would IMO be a better solution to that problem.

Amorya
post #111 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post

Sure, I'd soon learn that in Quicktime Player I have to make a mental exception to the standard ways of interacting with things, but if all apps added such an exception it would be chaos.

But he wasn't suggesting all apps adopt this behavior. He specifically singled out QT video windows when the video is playing and no mouse movements have occurred for 5 seconds.
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
False comparisons do not a valid argument make.
Reply
post #112 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

I am getting the impression that you see the window interface as some kind of sacred cow.

Not so much... it's more that I haven't seen a good alternative yet. Quicktime Player has to fit into an environment with other windowed apps: if they were starting from scratch with no windows then maybe things would be different, but when windows are the main interaction mechanism of the OS then you can't just ignore that.

Regarding thinking outside the box, I am in fact designing an operating system at the moment, which abandons the whole concept of the file system. (Current design has Projects instead, which can hold documents, and have statuses like Active, On Hold or Completed.) Now, I am sure that this will never be coded, as I'm not that good a programmer, but I'm certainly thinking about alternative ways of human computer interaction. I'll probably write it up and put it online when it's finished. What I'm trying to say is, I don't think I'm protesting this issue just because it's what I'm used to... I have at least considered the alternative before denouncing it (and with the VLC thing, I've tried something that comes close).

Amorya
post #113 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

But he wasn't suggesting all apps adopt this behavior. He specifically singled out QT video windows when the video is playing and no mouse movements have occurred for 5 seconds.

Ah, yes... but if one app starts adding strange exceptions to the normal rules, it's a lot easier for another developer to go and do something equally strange... "But Quicktime does it..."

It's like the thing about broken windows in a building. See Wikipedia article. I quote:

A successful strategy for preventing vandalism, say the book's authors, is to fix the problems when they are small. Repair the broken windows within a short time, say, a day or a week, and the tendency is that vandals are much less likely to break more windows or do further damage.

If we ignore one app doing this, then others will follow. The only way the Mac UI stays consistent is by pouncing on every deviation when it appears.

Amorya
post #114 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Yeah, but the difference is that QTX is forcing this dumb idea on everyone instead of offering it as an option like Adobe.

Woah! Hold up on the assumptions a bit. QT X has indeed removed the normal windowing, but they've also removed many of the other options that are typical, like a Preferences option, so we don't know if they are going to add a refined windowed setup later one when they re-add the other app properties.

You can't even make QT the default app for other containers (though you can play other containers by opening up QT and then choosing Open..., as opposed to just clicking the file) so there is clearly a lot of work to be done on QT X.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #115 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Woah! Hold up on the assumptions a bit. QT X has indeed removed the normal windowing, but they've also removed many of the other options that are typical, like a Preferences option, so we don't know if they are going to add a refined windowed setup later one when they re-add the other app properties.

I'll officially stop bitching about it if it's optional

Amorya
post #116 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya View Post

Sorry, no. The only time I want the controls removed is in full screen.

I can't ever think of a time where I wouldn't want title bars on an actual window. I have a LOT of windows on my screen -- here's my current desktop where I'm composing this post: (yes I have three monitors)



I don't have trouble fading other windows into the background mentally, while working in one. In fact, my desktop in the pic is less cluttered than usual, because I just closed down Xcode and friends.

If we really can't agree, I could concede making it a preference (and for those who know how much I hate adding preferences just for disagreement, that's rare for me to suggest that!). I do think that such a need is better served by third party software though.

As it happens, I've been playing with VLC recently and have got it playing videos with no title bar. (You can move them by dragging anywhere on the video, and the controls are in an external window.) I really do dislike the look: it's disconcerting to see video playing with no window chrome surrounding it.

Having the title bar appear when you move the mouse is just as bad, due to the problem of mystery meat navigation. Essentially, things should show UI that affords their action, so that you can predict what the action will be, without needing to mouse over them (or indeed mouse at all). With regards to the VLC windows without title bars, it requires some mental processing to be aware that I can still move them around like other windows. Sure, I'd soon learn that in Quicktime Player I have to make a mental exception to the standard ways of interacting with things, but if all apps added such an exception it would be chaos.

I firmly maintain that full screen mode is the way to go if you want reduced distractions. If the pixelation of video is a problem to you, maybe Quicktime should add a scale factor for full screen video (default to Fit to Screen, but you could choose 100% as well) -- that would IMO be a better solution to that problem.

Amorya

Let me start off by acknowledging your obviously superior thinking as evidenced by your multitude of monitors. You must truly be a UI visionary with so many displays!

I see nothing in that screenshot that backs up your point.

We may as well have a peeing contest to see who's idea about QTX's interface is superior.

Just because you enjoy a mess doesn't mean the rest of us don't enjoy cleanliness.

Its awfully big of you to deign to grant me a preference for the behavior I am suggesting.

I've read web pages that suck before. That page is from 2002 and really is aimed at the old Flash designs that had navigation hidden behind bullets and obscure icons sprayed out 'artistically' over a window instead of in a heirarchy. I see how you are trying to link the two design philosophies (your parenthetical "or indeed mouse at all" statement) but they are not the same. In the hypothetical QTX interface I am advocating the only time the UI disappears is when the mouse is not moved and it instantly reappears whether the Player App has focus or not which is MUCH LESS OBTUSE than anything I've ever seen on web pages that suck.

For years apps have been adopting their own idiosyncrasies, even regarding how they can be gripped. QT windows can be gripped all around their oversized chrome. Finder and iTunes windows have a slim edge that can be gripped for moving. This is just another (perhaps insidious, if you see it from that perspective) movement in the same direction.

I see no reason that this is an either/or problem. For the most casual of video viewing there is the new QTX with its context sensitive UI. There is Legacy QT for the more traditional UI. There is Full screen available for each and the windowed experience is the main difference. Obviously anyone doing content creation or manipulation will not want the casual interface of the QTX player. They want all the UI they can get. This will still be available from Legacy QT.

What's the big deal?

nothing to see here

Reply

nothing to see here

Reply
post #117 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by polymnia View Post

Let me start off by acknowledging your obviously superior thinking as evidenced by your multitude of monitors. You must truly be a UI visionary with so many displays!

I see nothing in that screenshot that backs up your point.

The only point I was trying to make was that I am perfectly capable of focussing on one single thing without having the OS hide title bars from me. I'm trying to explain the opposite point of view: what we have here is some people who find the hiding behaviour confusing, and some people who find the non-hiding behaviour cluttered.

I wasn't trying to show off about having three screens. Sorry if it came off that way. I guess maybe I should reread my posts more, to check how they sound.

Quote:
I've read web pages that suck before. That page is from 2002 and really is aimed at the old Flash designs that had navigation hidden behind bullets and obscure icons sprayed out 'artistically' over a window instead of in a heirarchy. I see how you are trying to link the two design philosophies (your parenthetical "or indeed mouse at all" statement) but they are not the same. In the hypothetical QTX interface I am advocating the only time the UI disappears is when the mouse is not moved and it instantly reappears whether the Player App has focus or not which is MUCH LESS OBTUSE than anything I've ever seen on web pages that suck.

Yes, you're right, there are worse things than this interface. That's not a good argument though... just because this isn't the worst possible interface that man is able to design doesn't mean it is a good one.

Quote:
I see no reason that this is an either/or problem. For the most casual of video viewing there is the new QTX with its context sensitive UI. There is Legacy QT for the more traditional UI. There is Full screen available for each and the windowed experience is the main difference. Obviously anyone doing content creation or manipulation will not want the casual interface of the QTX player. They want all the UI they can get. This will still be available from Legacy QT.

What's the big deal?

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. I was not aware that the normal Quicktime app would be continuing its life.

You know, I take it, that Quicktime X has new, modern and presumably better decoding of video. Apps that link to the Quicktime frameworks will be able to call upon the old QT or the new QTX interchangeably to get the best combination of features they need. So, what's happening:

1. Old QT Player exists still, doesn't touch the QTX framework. In this case, the problem is that I'm stuck with less good playback just because I don't like a UI choice.

2. Old QT Player exists, but can call QTX (the framework). In this case, I'm completely happy.

3. Old QT Player does not exist still, in which case I will continue to bitch about this UI decision

4. Old QT Player does not exist, but the title bar thing is a preference, along with the weird floating controls. Again, I'd be completely happy in this scenario.

I thought 3 was what was going to happen. I guess I'll find out at WWDC... maybe I can go and talk with the team who designed it. (I enjoyed bitching about Quicktime at WWDC 06 actually... i was the guy who made the case for fullscreen in QT non-pro. Got me some applause from the rest of the audience )

Amorya
post #118 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon View Post

No, those are guidelines. And regardless, if they are broken or tweaked or thrown out entirely, no one is in danger of prison time or a time out. As long as the vast majority of end users like it, that's all that matters (at least to Apple).

Ok...you got me. They are guidelines. And nobody is forced to follow them...however, Apple wrote the frickin' thing and it is always deviating from its own guidelines.

It's a little pretentious of Apple to have a HIG and not follow it.

But like I said, most people don't seem to like the new UI idea. Seriously, read the thread and you'll notice that there's only about two of you here that actually like it.
post #119 of 149
Apple is known to make radical and controversy stuffs and that is why they are one of the market leader in design.

Apple is the only crazy enough company to change their MacBook design to all aluminum and use expensive equipments to ensure precision through all the MacBooks and this is not cheap at all but hey, the MacBook originally was never cheap to begin with and when Apple made this move, suddenly the Mac is value for money. Then multitouch trackpad, look now? Everyone seem to have some multi touch of their own and look at the mobile smartphone market, most new competitors are just iPhone knockoff design, these people copy Apple soo much till its not funny anymore. So yea, Apple always defy the odds like "who would buy an MP3 player with stripped down features", look at whos the market leader in MP3 now.
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
Apple is a hardware company, dont believe me? Read this Article!. For those who understand my message, help me spread this info to those who dont get it.
Reply
post #120 of 149
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol View Post

Ok...you got me. They are guidelines. And nobody is forced to follow them...however, Apple wrote the frickin' thing and it is always deviating from its own guidelines.

It's a little pretentious of Apple to have a HIG and not follow it.

But like I said, most people don't seem to like the new UI idea. Seriously, read the thread and you'll notice that there's only about two of you here that actually like it, you and that alter-ego, polywannacracker, that you created to support you.

Yes, you're absolutely right buddy.... Jobs&co. has no clue how to run a company. Apparently you are the one Apple should be looking for to tell them just exactly how to fix everything. $25b in the bank in a recession and they are the only real computer company still making money even during these hard times. Thanks to the powers-at-be that we have you to guide the way.

I found every one of the remarks you stated that people were too lazy to find. There were right up that backside of yours in plain sight once the smoke spewing out of it cleared up. Let me open up a window and fan you away!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › A peek at Apple's new QuickTime X interface