I think fit-to-content has to be programmed in all cases. And I think some programmers are doing a no-no by programming it to maximize (I've seen some apps do it).
Strangely enough, this is the default behavior when you create a new Cocoa app in XCode. Fit-to-content needs to be programmed manually. Strange considering apps are never supposed to maximize.
Pre OS X, option-clicking the zoom box would maximize the window to the screen (in most apps).
I don't know why this wasn't included with OS X-- best of all worlds.
Yeah, I think that was a Good Thing (tm). I like having the option key used to create the alternate or modified behavior, this included. Odd too that XCode doesn't get this right. I assume it's a weird thing it inherited from OpenStep? I didn't think OpenSTep did this either though. Hmm.....
How can you say it stops you from multi-tasking? That's what the dock and exposé are for.
I 100% agree with you. To claim that the Windows maximize button is bad interface design is not fair. Its simply another way of doing things. I for one CANT use a computer if it has windows all over the place. But this is ME. I also cant work if there are things all over my desk, in my room, etc. Its just the way I work. I multitask by hiding and using the dock or by cmd tabbing. I dont want to be distracted by an assortment of windows that all call for my attention, particularly if I am using Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc. Its just too much to look at all at once.
Maybe someone could tell me why having 3 inches of white space on the right of your document in Word increases your productivity because I just don't get it.
Or why you'd want the text of what your reading to stretch out so far you've got to actually move your eyes. I like stuff right in front of my eyes (I hate side scrolling WAY more than vertical scrolling).
Honestly, though, does maximizing windows increase ANYone's productivity? Aside from the rare times what you're working on NEEDS to take up the whole screen (image/video/audio editing are the only things that come to mind), when does not being able to maximize affect your productivity?
Or why you'd want the text of what your reading to stretch out so far you've got to actually move your eyes. I like stuff right in front of my eyes (I hate side scrolling WAY more than vertical scrolling).
Bingo!
People using (or encouraging the use of) maximized windows need to catch a clue from the press industry. Writers have known for well over a hundred years that printed text is best to use no more than a dozen words per line. It's no different on the computer screen.
That's why newspapers and magazines have columns!
When you zoom in, as you mentioned, that makes the problem as bad as putting more words on the line because at the end of each line your eyes still have to jump a huge, precise distance over a sea of high-contrast visual noise.
People using (or encouraging the use of) maximized windows need to catch a clue from the press industry. Writers have known for well over a hundred years that printed text is best to use no more than a dozen words per line. It's no different on the computer screen.
That's why newspapers and magazines have columns!
When you zoom in, as you mentioned, that makes the problem as bad as putting more words on the line because at the end of each line your eyes still have to jump a huge, precise distance over a sea of high-contrast visual noise.
*shrug*
More Bingo! I couldn't find better words to describe the subject above
People using (or encouraging the use of) maximized windows need to catch a clue from the press industry. Writers have known for well over a hundred years that printed text is best to use no more than a dozen words per line. It's no different on the computer screen.
That's why newspapers and magazines have columns!
This has always been one of my pet peeves with
the web.
Nearly all web technologies have ignored the fundamental
concept of limiting word-count per line. Someday, perhaps
html (and its host of related acronyms) will address the
issue. Right now, the path of least resistance for web
developers almost always results in resizable pages with a
potentially infinate number of words per line. Pathetic!
How can you say it stops you from multi-tasking? That's what the dock and exposé are for.
It doesn't stop multi-tasking, it does discourage it. The part of maximizing I don't like is that applications with palettes and utility windows always make maximizing more trouble than it's worth. Suddenly, your maximized content is occluded by all sorts of secondary info, but you still need access to it.
I still think the cliche that "out of sight, out of mind" pertains to user interfaces. If there's nothing to even act as a proxy for more content (disclosure triangles, background windows, Dock icons, etc.), then the user forgets the content exists.
Again, Single Windows Mode was supposed to address this issue in a superior way than maximizing, but it was canned due to implementation problems. I'd love to see its return, unless the problems were, of course, insurmountable.
People using (or encouraging the use of) maximized windows need to catch a clue from the press industry. Writers have known for well over a hundred years that printed text is best to use no more than a dozen words per line. It's no different on the computer screen.
That's why newspapers and magazines have columns!
That isn't the viewers fault ... it's up to the web designer to design the page so that it is formated for easy navigation and reading.
That isn't the viewers fault ... it's up to the web designer to design the page so that it is formated for easy navigation and reading.
This doesn't just apply to web pages; it applies to the whole system. The post of torifile's that I replied to, for example, referred to wasting several inches on either side of the screen in Word.
A few examples in the Windows word that I see daily used in full-screen mode that waste huge amounts of screen space, hindering multitasking and making things difficult to read:
This doesn't just apply to web pages; it applies to the whole system. The post of torifile's that I replied to, for example, referred to wasting several inches on either side of the screen in Word.
A few examples in the Windows word that I see daily used in full-screen mode that waste huge amounts of screen space, hindering multitasking and making things difficult to read:word processing documents e-mails web browsers file browsers chat windows
I would just like to point out that everyone needs to remember (including Apple/Microsoft/etc) that no two individuals work in the exact same way. I do not view maximizing as wasted space. I see it as streamlining the viewing experience (this is my personal preference of course, and I am not presenting this as a fact).
Currently, I am limited to 1024x768 on a 15" monitor (Im hoping to get the money to get a 20" Cinema over the summer), so side scrolling is not an issue. However, as mentioned before that is up to the web/application designers. I always take care of this issue in my web design and never leave it up to the browser. But I understand that that doesnt always work in every circumstance. In my situation, I see a larger monitor as a way of having more of one application viewable at one time (Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, DVD Studio Pro, Final Cut Pro), not having multiple applications viewable symultaneously.
While I agree with you on the sidescrolling issue, and would not let that happen if I had a large enough monitor, I simply do not want to see windows scattered all over the place. I believe this primarily has to do with personality type. But the truth of the matter is that options are always a welcome addition. Why not bring back the "option click - maximize" functionality? The default of course could then remain to resize to content (which I do find useful on a regular basis). By having both options, you appeal to both types of users rather than just one group.
As far as multitasking is concerned, I suppose I dont quite understand what you mean. I dont see how you can litterally do two things at once, but rather in a practicle sense go back and forth between two things quickly (which is what I think most of us would call multitasking). In that case, timewise, we are talking about split second differences between having multiple applications showing at the same time or hiding all but one and then switching. And getting the destraction away from my eyes is well worth the effort (and inconsequention amount of time) of hiding and switching in the dock or cmd tabbing. For instance, say you are manipulating an image in Photoshop and save it out in the final dimensions, resolution, etc. Now you need to place it in Indesign or Dreamweaver. It really doesnt take that long to hide and switch, or just switch between the two applications that are "maximized". By not having to share screen space between two applications you not only allow each application to have a greater amount of screen space, which in my opinion is more efficient and more organized, but also reduce screen "clutter"(which is what I call it, but you might find this as a useful way of multitasking).
At any rate, I am advocating options, not a full switch. I dont like to see any one way of doing things take over an OS. I realize that everyone works differently and everyone has their own preferences. And I dont think that having an option-click ability would confuse new users since they rarely even have a clue as to what the option key does anyway. And that way, we could all have it the way we want it.
To be honest with you, this is why I never use expose except to show off to my PC friends or to have some fun. Its simply doesnt work with my way of doing things. But again, I like options and if it works for someone then in most circumstances its a good thing
Options ARE a good thing - to a point. The option key is already being used quite effectively for other purposes. To overload it with the additional meaning of doing something completely different from what it already does would be inconsistent.
Right now, the option key, as it relates to window functions, applies a specific windowing command to ALL the application's windows. In Safari, and other well-coded apps, option+cmd+w would close all windows (edit: this is one reason the anti-tabs brigade doesn't like tabs - it spoils the consistency). Option+cmd+m minimizes all windows. Would option+green button maximize all windows? To continue to analogy further, option+green button should zoom all windows. And it does.
There are only limited options one key could enable (pun intended). To change the functionality of the key at this point, when it's already well established, would hinder the productivity of many more than it would help.
As far as I'm concerned, the removal of the option+zoom button is a step in the right direction for UI consistency. And this consistency is what makes the Mac such a pleasant computing experience.
Comments
Pre OS X, option-clicking the zoom box would maximize the window to the screen (in most apps).
I don't know why this wasn't included with OS X-- best of all worlds.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
I think fit-to-content has to be programmed in all cases. And I think some programmers are doing a no-no by programming it to maximize (I've seen some apps do it).
Strangely enough, this is the default behavior when you create a new Cocoa app in XCode. Fit-to-content needs to be programmed manually. Strange considering apps are never supposed to maximize.
Originally posted by Th0r
This was broken with OS X.
Pre OS X, option-clicking the zoom box would maximize the window to the screen (in most apps).
I don't know why this wasn't included with OS X-- best of all worlds.
Yeah, I think that was a Good Thing (tm). I like having the option key used to create the alternate or modified behavior, this included. Odd too that XCode doesn't get this right. I assume it's a weird thing it inherited from OpenStep? I didn't think OpenSTep did this either though. Hmm.....
Originally posted by hyperb0le
Strangely enough, this is the default behavior when you create a new Cocoa app in XCode. Fit-to-content needs to be programmed manually.
really??? i didn't know. who is responsible for that kind of behavior? I mean, it is not that mac-like?
best
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Maximizing windows and thus preventing myself from multitasking gives me Pre-System 6 flashbacks and makes me very sad indeed.
Say no to fullscreen windows.
I disagree completly. I don't want to see my desktop when I'm on the internet, in photoshop or whatever.
How can you say it stops you from multi-tasking? That's what the dock and exposé are for.
Originally posted by the cool gut
How can you say it stops you from multi-tasking? That's what the dock and exposé are for.
I 100% agree with you. To claim that the Windows maximize button is bad interface design is not fair. Its simply another way of doing things. I for one CANT use a computer if it has windows all over the place. But this is ME. I also cant work if there are things all over my desk, in my room, etc. Its just the way I work. I multitask by hiding and using the dock or by cmd tabbing. I dont want to be distracted by an assortment of windows that all call for my attention, particularly if I am using Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, etc. Its just too much to look at all at once.
I say bring back the option-zoom capability!
Originally posted by 4fx
Oh, BTW Camino always maximizes when you click the zoom button. If you click it again it will go back to your previous window size.
That's the default behavior for *any* application where the developers are too lazy to tell the window how to resize.
Or why you'd want the text of what your reading to stretch out so far you've got to actually move your eyes. I like stuff right in front of my eyes (I hate side scrolling WAY more than vertical scrolling).
Honestly, though, does maximizing windows increase ANYone's productivity? Aside from the rare times what you're working on NEEDS to take up the whole screen (image/video/audio editing are the only things that come to mind), when does not being able to maximize affect your productivity?
Originally posted by torifile
Or why you'd want the text of what your reading to stretch out so far you've got to actually move your eyes. I like stuff right in front of my eyes (I hate side scrolling WAY more than vertical scrolling).
Bingo!
People using (or encouraging the use of) maximized windows need to catch a clue from the press industry. Writers have known for well over a hundred years that printed text is best to use no more than a dozen words per line. It's no different on the computer screen.
That's why newspapers and magazines have columns!
When you zoom in, as you mentioned, that makes the problem as bad as putting more words on the line because at the end of each line your eyes still have to jump a huge, precise distance over a sea of high-contrast visual noise.
*shrug*
Originally posted by Brad
Bingo!
People using (or encouraging the use of) maximized windows need to catch a clue from the press industry. Writers have known for well over a hundred years that printed text is best to use no more than a dozen words per line. It's no different on the computer screen.
That's why newspapers and magazines have columns!
When you zoom in, as you mentioned, that makes the problem as bad as putting more words on the line because at the end of each line your eyes still have to jump a huge, precise distance over a sea of high-contrast visual noise.
*shrug*
More Bingo! I couldn't find better words to describe the subject above
Originally posted by Brad
People using (or encouraging the use of) maximized windows need to catch a clue from the press industry. Writers have known for well over a hundred years that printed text is best to use no more than a dozen words per line. It's no different on the computer screen.
That's why newspapers and magazines have columns!
This has always been one of my pet peeves with
the web.
Nearly all web technologies have ignored the fundamental
concept of limiting word-count per line. Someday, perhaps
html (and its host of related acronyms) will address the
issue. Right now, the path of least resistance for web
developers almost always results in resizable pages with a
potentially infinate number of words per line. Pathetic!
Originally posted by the cool gut
How can you say it stops you from multi-tasking? That's what the dock and exposé are for.
It doesn't stop multi-tasking, it does discourage it. The part of maximizing I don't like is that applications with palettes and utility windows always make maximizing more trouble than it's worth. Suddenly, your maximized content is occluded by all sorts of secondary info, but you still need access to it.
I still think the cliche that "out of sight, out of mind" pertains to user interfaces. If there's nothing to even act as a proxy for more content (disclosure triangles, background windows, Dock icons, etc.), then the user forgets the content exists.
Again, Single Windows Mode was supposed to address this issue in a superior way than maximizing, but it was canned due to implementation problems. I'd love to see its return, unless the problems were, of course, insurmountable.
Originally posted by Brad
Bingo!
People using (or encouraging the use of) maximized windows need to catch a clue from the press industry. Writers have known for well over a hundred years that printed text is best to use no more than a dozen words per line. It's no different on the computer screen.
That's why newspapers and magazines have columns!
That isn't the viewers fault ... it's up to the web designer to design the page so that it is formated for easy navigation and reading.
Originally posted by the cool gut
That isn't the viewers fault ... it's up to the web designer to design the page so that it is formated for easy navigation and reading.
This doesn't just apply to web pages; it applies to the whole system. The post of torifile's that I replied to, for example, referred to wasting several inches on either side of the screen in Word.
A few examples in the Windows word that I see daily used in full-screen mode that waste huge amounts of screen space, hindering multitasking and making things difficult to read:
Originally posted by Brad
This doesn't just apply to web pages; it applies to the whole system. The post of torifile's that I replied to, for example, referred to wasting several inches on either side of the screen in Word.
A few examples in the Windows word that I see daily used in full-screen mode that waste huge amounts of screen space, hindering multitasking and making things difficult to read:word processing documents
e-mails
web browsers
file browsers
chat windows
I would just like to point out that everyone needs to remember (including Apple/Microsoft/etc) that no two individuals work in the exact same way. I do not view maximizing as wasted space. I see it as streamlining the viewing experience (this is my personal preference of course, and I am not presenting this as a fact).
Currently, I am limited to 1024x768 on a 15" monitor (Im hoping to get the money to get a 20" Cinema over the summer), so side scrolling is not an issue. However, as mentioned before that is up to the web/application designers. I always take care of this issue in my web design and never leave it up to the browser. But I understand that that doesnt always work in every circumstance. In my situation, I see a larger monitor as a way of having more of one application viewable at one time (Photoshop, InDesign, Dreamweaver, DVD Studio Pro, Final Cut Pro), not having multiple applications viewable symultaneously.
While I agree with you on the sidescrolling issue, and would not let that happen if I had a large enough monitor, I simply do not want to see windows scattered all over the place. I believe this primarily has to do with personality type. But the truth of the matter is that options are always a welcome addition. Why not bring back the "option click - maximize" functionality? The default of course could then remain to resize to content (which I do find useful on a regular basis). By having both options, you appeal to both types of users rather than just one group.
As far as multitasking is concerned, I suppose I dont quite understand what you mean. I dont see how you can litterally do two things at once, but rather in a practicle sense go back and forth between two things quickly (which is what I think most of us would call multitasking). In that case, timewise, we are talking about split second differences between having multiple applications showing at the same time or hiding all but one and then switching. And getting the destraction away from my eyes is well worth the effort (and inconsequention amount of time) of hiding and switching in the dock or cmd tabbing. For instance, say you are manipulating an image in Photoshop and save it out in the final dimensions, resolution, etc. Now you need to place it in Indesign or Dreamweaver. It really doesnt take that long to hide and switch, or just switch between the two applications that are "maximized". By not having to share screen space between two applications you not only allow each application to have a greater amount of screen space, which in my opinion is more efficient and more organized, but also reduce screen "clutter"(which is what I call it, but you might find this as a useful way of multitasking).
At any rate, I am advocating options, not a full switch. I dont like to see any one way of doing things take over an OS. I realize that everyone works differently and everyone has their own preferences. And I dont think that having an option-click ability would confuse new users since they rarely even have a clue as to what the option key does anyway. And that way, we could all have it the way we want it.
To be honest with you, this is why I never use expose except to show off to my PC friends or to have some fun. Its simply doesnt work with my way of doing things. But again, I like options and if it works for someone then in most circumstances its a good thing
Right now, the option key, as it relates to window functions, applies a specific windowing command to ALL the application's windows. In Safari, and other well-coded apps, option+cmd+w would close all windows (edit: this is one reason the anti-tabs brigade doesn't like tabs - it spoils the consistency). Option+cmd+m minimizes all windows. Would option+green button maximize all windows? To continue to analogy further, option+green button should zoom all windows. And it does.
There are only limited options one key could enable (pun intended). To change the functionality of the key at this point, when it's already well established, would hinder the productivity of many more than it would help.
As far as I'm concerned, the removal of the option+zoom button is a step in the right direction for UI consistency. And this consistency is what makes the Mac such a pleasant computing experience.