I suggested this before, but I think that an easy solution to the close window/app issue would be to change the red button from a circle to a square on apps that quit when the window is closed. There are good reasons for both kinds of behaviour.
No, close means close this window. Quit means exit this program. What's so difficult about typing Command-Q?
I hate it when an application exits if I close it's last window. It's a Windows concept and it is not needed under OS X, nor wanted.
Actualy, if you use windows CORRECTLEY, then you can close windows without exit, there is a document/toolpalette/program component close then there is the X in the upper right which acts as a shortcut to the file->quit function.
Mac os, however is a differant ball of wax that acts mutch the same way, the red dot closes the window without exiting the app, that is a good thing, but why not allow the user if they wish to add a button to the right side of each title bar (eccept for those of tool palettes) that closes the entire app? the feature could be toggled on or off as easley as you would change a wallpaper.
Actualy, if you use windows CORRECTLEY, then you can close windows without exit, there is a document/toolpalette/program component close then there is the X in the upper right which acts as a shortcut to the file->quit function.
Mac os, however is a differant ball of wax that acts mutch the same way, the red dot closes the window without exiting the app, that is a good thing, but why not allow the user if they wish to add a button to the right side of each title bar (eccept for those of tool palettes) that closes the entire app? the feature could be toggled on or off as easley as you would change a wallpaper.
I don't think people should care or worry about launched or unlaunched apps.
It is very, very annoying to close a window then go into the the menu to exit out of the application. Or to click and hold on the dock icon to exit.
Come on Apple. Simple usability testing would reveal this obvious flaw.
And please, hold all the replies about how you do things. At the very least Apple should provide an option to do what I want.
And don't get me started about the home and end key behavior! Command left and right... ridiculous!
God, why do you want to adopt some of the worst Windows interface elements, and bring them over to the Mac? There's nothing more annoying on Windows than trying to figure out how to get my cursor to the start or end of a document.
I agree with johnq, it would be nice to option cick a app off with the red button, or have a pref to do it. We need more of those options. Also, Im all for the zippiness that OS9 had, I hope apple continues to hone later verions of OSX to be as responsive as possible, just as much as OS9. Especially on older powermacs, I use a B&W G3 300 with 512 ram, which helps, but the quicker the better for me.
Options are not necessarily a good thing. That's the main usability problem with open source software -- to many options. The key to a good UI is to have solid defaults, and only a minimum of configurable options. You also shouldn't have options that fundamentally change the functioning of the operating environment. Option-close has a well-established function on the Mac. Any option to change it would wreak chaos as users move from machine to machine.
Options are not necessarily a good thing. That's the main usability problem with open source software -- to many options. The key to a good UI is to have solid defaults, and only a minimum of configurable options.
Strongly disagree.
Defaults are fine (as would be "reset defaults" button) but IMO a lack of configurable options is a weakness, not a strength. As the computing world becomes more technically savvy with each passing year having the option to work the way *you want to work* is becoming increasingly important IMO. Even *my parents* are making strides in making their working environment suit them better. Power users *should* have the ability to even change the functions of the operating environment. You want to move from machine to machine? Create your own user profile - that's why we have them!
dglow has the only interesting reply in this thread. Great ideas, btw. I hope the database driven finder you describe makes it to 10.4 instead of the next iteration of 'the last operating system you will ever need...'
In other design arts, total flexibility (i.e., options) amounts to a total lack of commitment to any issue and ends up hurting the design. There ultimately needs to be a balance of both.
Anyway, the whole options out the wazoo issue is like the experiment in the 1970's with schools that only had flexible pertitions. Seemed great in plan, but then you had sound pollution problems, maintenence problems, a lack of good lighting, etc. A more high-profile example is the Pompidou Centre in Paris. It was totally flexible inside, with no permanent installations. They had to go back and add some fixed-layout galleries because their permanent collections were at risk for abuse and damage, it made managing the galleries unnecesarily difficult because of the fights between how to handle temporary galleries and expositions versus their collections, storage was difficult, etc. So most schools and museums have both fixed and permanent teaching areas and galleries respectively. Having all of one or the other is crippling. It's more a matter of how to discern between what gets fixed and what is left malleable. Thinking of the situation in polarizing terms defeats the ultimate purpose of these GUIs: ease of use.
Thinking of the situation in polarizing terms defeats the ultimate purpose of these GUIs: ease of use.
No, you're looking at this the wrong way. What works best and easiest for me isn't necessarily the same as what works easiest for you or Jimmie or Uncle Bob. *This very thread* has proven that. Defaults (or starting points) are a good thing, but options are *never* bad especially since it doesn't have to affect how anyone else works (again this is why we have User Profiles). This is why your comparison to a mallable gallery doesn't hold water here. On a computer a better analogy is that *each person* has their *own* gallery to arrange as they choose.
We'll just have to agree to disagree then. I think computers need conventions to orient and keep at least a lowest common denominator experience for all users, or else every time you get a new computer or use one that isn't yours, you're starting at square one each time.
There has been a flurry of recent research that points out quite clearly that people in general do *NOT* like tons of options... it strongly and sharply reduces usability, accessibility, and adoption rates across the board. For a quick overview, see _The Tyranny of Choice_ in the April 2004 Scientific American.
You're just feeling strongly about this because the option *you* want isn't available.
Well, if Apple can get iSight to interpret gestures (ala ToySight) without mistaking background movement as gestures (and possibly causing irreparable damage like deleting a file) and translate them into specific actions, it would be pretty neat.
Combined with a killer voice-recognition framework, this thing would really be like Star Trek...today!
There has been a flurry of recent research that points out quite clearly that people in general do *NOT* like tons of options... it strongly and sharply reduces usability, accessibility, and adoption rates across the board.
Tsk. Tsk. Sorry, you're confusing applications with *user interfaces*. Too many options in an application can be detrimental because those options are "in your face" every time you click a menu or open a palette. However, UI customizability is *not* a bad thing because those options are not in your face in day-to-day use. You set them the way you like and that's it.
Hey, if you've got evidence otherwise - feel free to share.
Tsk. Tsk. Sorry, you're confusing applications with *user interfaces*. Too many options in an application can be detrimental because those options are "in your face" every time you click a menu or open a palette. However, UI customizability is *not* a bad thing because those options are not in your face in day-to-day use. You set them the way you like and that's it.
Hey, if you've got evidence otherwise - feel free to share.
Gave you a pointer already. Seriously, read it.
And no, I'm not talking about applications, I'm talking about user interfaces specifically.
Check the research before you start tsking anyone.
Don't feel bad - it's a common mistake among laypeople "More *MUST* be better!" I blame Motif for starting that trend. Luckily, it's a mistake that's easily correctable by a little reading.
Comments
Originally posted by Carbonide
No, close means close this window. Quit means exit this program. What's so difficult about typing Command-Q?
I hate it when an application exits if I close it's last window. It's a Windows concept and it is not needed under OS X, nor wanted.
Actualy, if you use windows CORRECTLEY, then you can close windows without exit, there is a document/toolpalette/program component close then there is the X in the upper right which acts as a shortcut to the file->quit function.
Mac os, however is a differant ball of wax that acts mutch the same way, the red dot closes the window without exiting the app, that is a good thing, but why not allow the user if they wish to add a button to the right side of each title bar (eccept for those of tool palettes) that closes the entire app? the feature could be toggled on or off as easley as you would change a wallpaper.
Originally posted by a_greer
Actualy, if you use windows CORRECTLEY, then you can close windows without exit, there is a document/toolpalette/program component close then there is the X in the upper right which acts as a shortcut to the file->quit function.
Mac os, however is a differant ball of wax that acts mutch the same way, the red dot closes the window without exiting the app, that is a good thing, but why not allow the user if they wish to add a button to the right side of each title bar (eccept for those of tool palettes) that closes the entire app? the feature could be toggled on or off as easley as you would change a wallpaper.
I don't think people should care or worry about launched or unlaunched apps.
Why do you care so much?
1. All apps should stay running if the red close button is clicked.
2. All apps should quit if the user option-clicks the red close button.
3. Holding option should change the red close widget to it's rollover state showing the X.
4. Global preference settable by user: [ ] Always Quit Application Upon Closing Last Window
5. Individual application can override the Global setting based on user setting.
We would gain consistency, but allow for flexibility and customization for powerusers.
Now, proceed to ream me out for daring to suggest an iota of change to your Precious, as per usual...
Originally posted by johnq
2. All apps should quit if the user option-clicks the red close button.
Sorry, but the option button is already being used. It serves to propagate the chosen windowing function to all open windows of that application.
Originally posted by FormatC2
How about something really simple:
Close means exit.
It is very, very annoying to close a window then go into the the menu to exit out of the application. Or to click and hold on the dock icon to exit.
Come on Apple. Simple usability testing would reveal this obvious flaw.
And please, hold all the replies about how you do things. At the very least Apple should provide an option to do what I want.
And don't get me started about the home and end key behavior! Command left and right... ridiculous!
God, why do you want to adopt some of the worst Windows interface elements, and bring them over to the Mac? There's nothing more annoying on Windows than trying to figure out how to get my cursor to the start or end of a document.
Originally posted by Carbonide
I hate it when an application exits if I close it's last window. It's a Windows concept and it is not needed under OS X, nor wanted.
Agreed. I'd hate to relaunch an app just because I closed the last window. I have a tendency to close old windows before opening new ones.
Originally posted by Kirkland:
Options are not necessarily a good thing. That's the main usability problem with open source software -- to many options. The key to a good UI is to have solid defaults, and only a minimum of configurable options.
Strongly disagree.
Defaults are fine (as would be "reset defaults" button) but IMO a lack of configurable options is a weakness, not a strength. As the computing world becomes more technically savvy with each passing year having the option to work the way *you want to work* is becoming increasingly important IMO. Even *my parents* are making strides in making their working environment suit them better. Power users *should* have the ability to even change the functions of the operating environment. You want to move from machine to machine? Create your own user profile - that's why we have them!
C.
Originally posted by dglow
[/B]
dglow has the only interesting reply in this thread. Great ideas, btw. I hope the database driven finder you describe makes it to 10.4 instead of the next iteration of 'the last operating system you will ever need...'
Originally posted by Concord
As the computing world becomes more technically savvy with each passing year
The very opposite is the case. More and more "illiterates" to computing get machines, every single year.
Anyway, the whole options out the wazoo issue is like the experiment in the 1970's with schools that only had flexible pertitions. Seemed great in plan, but then you had sound pollution problems, maintenence problems, a lack of good lighting, etc. A more high-profile example is the Pompidou Centre in Paris. It was totally flexible inside, with no permanent installations. They had to go back and add some fixed-layout galleries because their permanent collections were at risk for abuse and damage, it made managing the galleries unnecesarily difficult because of the fights between how to handle temporary galleries and expositions versus their collections, storage was difficult, etc. So most schools and museums have both fixed and permanent teaching areas and galleries respectively. Having all of one or the other is crippling. It's more a matter of how to discern between what gets fixed and what is left malleable. Thinking of the situation in polarizing terms defeats the ultimate purpose of these GUIs: ease of use.
Originally posted by BuonRotto:
Thinking of the situation in polarizing terms defeats the ultimate purpose of these GUIs: ease of use.
No, you're looking at this the wrong way. What works best and easiest for me isn't necessarily the same as what works easiest for you or Jimmie or Uncle Bob. *This very thread* has proven that. Defaults (or starting points) are a good thing, but options are *never* bad especially since it doesn't have to affect how anyone else works (again this is why we have User Profiles). This is why your comparison to a mallable gallery doesn't hold water here. On a computer a better analogy is that *each person* has their *own* gallery to arrange as they choose.
C.
Originally posted by Concord
but options are *never* bad
Utterly, completely, totally wrong.
There has been a flurry of recent research that points out quite clearly that people in general do *NOT* like tons of options... it strongly and sharply reduces usability, accessibility, and adoption rates across the board. For a quick overview, see _The Tyranny of Choice_ in the April 2004 Scientific American.
You're just feeling strongly about this because the option *you* want isn't available.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
Well, if Apple can get iSight to interpret gestures (ala ToySight) without mistaking background movement as gestures (and possibly causing irreparable damage like deleting a file) and translate them into specific actions, it would be pretty neat.
Combined with a killer voice-recognition framework, this thing would really be like Star Trek...today!
Been done.
Originally posted by Kickaha:
Utterly, completely, totally wrong.
There has been a flurry of recent research that points out quite clearly that people in general do *NOT* like tons of options... it strongly and sharply reduces usability, accessibility, and adoption rates across the board.
Tsk. Tsk. Sorry, you're confusing applications with *user interfaces*. Too many options in an application can be detrimental because those options are "in your face" every time you click a menu or open a palette. However, UI customizability is *not* a bad thing because those options are not in your face in day-to-day use. You set them the way you like and that's it.
Hey, if you've got evidence otherwise - feel free to share.
C.
Originally posted by Concord
Tsk. Tsk. Sorry, you're confusing applications with *user interfaces*. Too many options in an application can be detrimental because those options are "in your face" every time you click a menu or open a palette. However, UI customizability is *not* a bad thing because those options are not in your face in day-to-day use. You set them the way you like and that's it.
Hey, if you've got evidence otherwise - feel free to share.
Gave you a pointer already. Seriously, read it.
And no, I'm not talking about applications, I'm talking about user interfaces specifically.
Check the research before you start tsking anyone.
Don't feel bad - it's a common mistake among laypeople "More *MUST* be better!" I blame Motif for starting that trend. Luckily, it's a mistake that's easily correctable by a little reading.