The computer goes to sleep or logs out when ever I'm doing something which takes a long time, thereby interrupting what I'm doing. Examples: downloading large files or rendering Final Cut Pro projects (I usually leave the computer for awhile and come back). This happens even though I've turned off the screesaver, set the "put computer to sleep" and "put screen to sleep" to never. Is pressing the keyboard keys the only way the OS knows that the computer is being used? I know that there are always processes running even when nothing is being done by a user, but why can't the OS tell that you are rendering or downloading so that the the computer is not shut down or put to sleep after long periods without keystrokes?
Don't know if this something peculiar to my machine or if this is an OS X thing, but I don't remember this happening with XP.
I believe this is particular to your computer, my powerbook stays on just fine. You could always try having itunes play songs mute in the background, that should keep it going.
The computer goes to sleep or logs out when ever I'm doing something which takes a long time, thereby interrupting what I'm doing. Examples: downloading large files or rendering Final Cut Pro projects (I usually leave the computer for awhile and come back). This happens even though I've turned off the screesaver, set the "put computer to sleep" and "put screen to sleep" to never. Is pressing the keyboard keys the only way the OS knows that the computer is being used?
Is this on battery?
On AC power, the computer shouldn't go to sleep if you have "put computer to sleep" turned off, regardless. I can leave my computer running overnight even when it's doing absolutely nothing.
Quote:
I know that there are always processes running even when nothing is being done by a user, but why can't the OS tell that you are rendering or downloading so that the the computer is not shut down or put to sleep after long periods without keystrokes?
The application needs to modify the system that what it's doing is significant enough to keep the computer from sleeping.
My computers have never done that before after I set everything to "never". I've left my iBook, MacBook, and eMac on all night and they still don't go to sleep or log out. Perhaps it's a machine error?
The behaviour you want is called click-through. John Gruber wrote about it extensively not once, but twice.
It's stupid, requires more clicks to do the same thing. And confuses the hell out of people who don't fully understand window focus like my mom's friend that I'm teaching.
It's stupid, requires more clicks to do the same thing. And confuses the hell out of people who don't fully understand window focus like my mom's friend that I'm teaching.
One small thing that annoys me about OS X is the Aqua task bar. The way it animates looks really pretty but its tricky too. Sometimes - just as an optical illusion - when it is actually standing still, it looks like its slowly moving forward.
A few times I've held my cursor there for a minute to see if it had moved.
I'm sorry I meant progress bar.
It animates and it can sometimes look as though it is crawling along slowly when in fact it is frozen.
But it would occur if the window was at the front and you accidentally clicked it.
Of course, but I'm talking strictly of cases where the control in question (which allows click-through) is not immediately obvious, e.g. not entirely visible.
For example, assume a toolbar button is 90% covered by another window, which is frontmost. In that window, there's a control near the left edge that you want to click. Since you frequently need to click it, you don't really think much about whether you're hitting it right: you almost always do. But this time, you accidentally hit 10 pixels to the left. No problem, you think, and click the control again.
It's not until much later that you discover, if at all, that when you missed the first time, you actually invoked another function (that of the nearly entirely hidden toolbar button) which ? oh, I dunno, let's say it cleared your browser history. Perhaps you don't realize at all that this was your doing, but even if you do, it won't help you any.
If such simple actions have such severe causes, there's something wrong. Therefore the problem is not in the lack of click-through, but in the developers of the application failing at usability, and not providing an Are You Sure? dialogue box?
Since you frequently need to click it, you don't really think much about whether you're hitting it right: you almost always do.
Ah, but that's one of the things I was talking about. It matters what you're used to. I *do* think about where my cursor is when I click because of the exact situation you talk about.
Quote:
It's not until much later that you discover, if at all, that when you missed the first time, you actually invoked another function...
Sorry, maybe I don't fully understand your scenario. But when you clicked the first time, didn't the backgroud app jump to the front? You wouldn't notice that?
... and not providing an Are You Sure? dialogue box?
Do you like Are You Sure? dialog boxes? They drive me up the wall. I would bet dollars to donuts that they encourage the very bad habit of blindly clicking until the job is done without bothering to actually take note of what is happening at the moment.
Personally, I love click-through, because it decreases the amount of aim I have to command to bring a window to the front. But I'm just saying, there are tons of aspects of the operating system, all operating systems, that have been along for god knows how long for no particularly definite reason that we take for granted. Sometimes it's worthwhile thinking about why things are how they are, because sometimes they shouldn't be that way. Why are applications in your applications folder double-click and the ones in your applications folder single-click? Why do contextual menus close when you click? Why do buttons activate upon letting your mouse up, not clicking down?
Haven't paid attention if this has hapenned on AC, but it definitely has happned on battery power, but not because the battery power ran out. The last time it happened there was still 60% power when I came back to the machine. There was a dialogue box which said something to the effect "Application has prevented log out", but I didn't tell the machine to log me out when I left it running.
Two more UI gripes. I work in a Mac computer lab and most of the kids have Windows XP at home and these are two common complaints that I hear from OS X noobs: 1) When hou tell them to click on the Apple Menu, they have no idea what the apple menu is. How is someone completely new to OS X supposed to know that the little Apple is actually a menu? The Start menu is pretty self-explanaatory and obvious in that respect.
2) the application icons (close, maximize, ect) are too small. This doesn't bother me, but I keep hearing it over and over.
And my personal pet-peeve: Speed. Maybe it is just me, but XP seems generally faster to me (the UI and tasks such as burning/encoding DVDs, ect). The new Intel MacBooks iMacs we've purchased for the lab are incredibly faster, but the OS (as mentioned hear before, particularly the Finder) is still not as fast as it could be.
Can we expect an exponential improvement in speed with Leopard, or just the usual incremental speed increases that we've seen from 10.2> 10.3 > 10.4?
If such simple actions have such severe causes, there's something wrong. Therefore the problem is not in the lack of click-through, but in the developers of the application failing at usability
And click-through isn't about usability?
Quote:
and not providing an Are You Sure? dialogue box?
"Are you sure?" Oh, you mean that terrible Microsoft-introduced idea pissing people off and causing the precise opposite of its intention? Namely, that people get so used to seeing "are you sure?" alerts everywhere that they start ignoring what they actually refer to, effectively making the destructive action more (not less!) likely to be performed accidentally?
If "Are You Sure?" dialogues use "Destroy File" and "Leave File" instead of "Yes" and "No", that problem solves itself.
Verb-based alerts are a vast improvements, but not an excuse to present the user with an excessive amount of such alerts. Destructive actions ought to be non-click-through.
Comments
Originally posted by Chucker
Oh.
But then, how does:
Fit in?
Don't know - he probably has an optical illusion himself
Originally posted by Neruda
Here's another one:
The computer goes to sleep or logs out when ever I'm doing something which takes a long time, thereby interrupting what I'm doing. Examples: downloading large files or rendering Final Cut Pro projects (I usually leave the computer for awhile and come back). This happens even though I've turned off the screesaver, set the "put computer to sleep" and "put screen to sleep" to never. Is pressing the keyboard keys the only way the OS knows that the computer is being used? I know that there are always processes running even when nothing is being done by a user, but why can't the OS tell that you are rendering or downloading so that the the computer is not shut down or put to sleep after long periods without keystrokes?
Don't know if this something peculiar to my machine or if this is an OS X thing, but I don't remember this happening with XP.
I believe this is particular to your computer, my powerbook stays on just fine. You could always try having itunes play songs mute in the background, that should keep it going.
Originally posted by Neruda
Here's another one:
The computer goes to sleep or logs out when ever I'm doing something which takes a long time, thereby interrupting what I'm doing. Examples: downloading large files or rendering Final Cut Pro projects (I usually leave the computer for awhile and come back). This happens even though I've turned off the screesaver, set the "put computer to sleep" and "put screen to sleep" to never. Is pressing the keyboard keys the only way the OS knows that the computer is being used?
Is this on battery?
On AC power, the computer shouldn't go to sleep if you have "put computer to sleep" turned off, regardless. I can leave my computer running overnight even when it's doing absolutely nothing.
I know that there are always processes running even when nothing is being done by a user, but why can't the OS tell that you are rendering or downloading so that the the computer is not shut down or put to sleep after long periods without keystrokes?
The application needs to modify the system that what it's doing is significant enough to keep the computer from sleeping.
Originally posted by Chucker
The behaviour you want is called click-through. John Gruber wrote about it extensively not once, but twice.
It's stupid, requires more clicks to do the same thing. And confuses the hell out of people who don't fully understand window focus like my mom's friend that I'm teaching.
Originally posted by Placebo
It's stupid, requires more clicks to do the same thing. And confuses the hell out of people who don't fully understand window focus like my mom's friend that I'm teaching.
And prevents data loss.
Originally posted by Danosaur
I mentioned this in another thread:
One small thing that annoys me about OS X is the Aqua task bar. The way it animates looks really pretty but its tricky too. Sometimes - just as an optical illusion - when it is actually standing still, it looks like its slowly moving forward.
A few times I've held my cursor there for a minute to see if it had moved.
I'm sorry I meant progress bar.
It animates and it can sometimes look as though it is crawling along slowly when in fact it is frozen.
Originally posted by Chucker
And prevents data loss.
How's that? You can still close windows that are in the background, how is this not inconsistent?
Originally posted by Placebo
How's that? You can still close windows that are in the background, how is this not inconsistent?
If Mail.app let you push the delete toolbar button while the mailbox window is not frontmost, you could accidentally click it.
So, at the very least, destructive actions should never allow click-through.
Originally posted by Placebo
But it would occur if the window was at the front and you accidentally clicked it.
Of course, but I'm talking strictly of cases where the control in question (which allows click-through) is not immediately obvious, e.g. not entirely visible.
For example, assume a toolbar button is 90% covered by another window, which is frontmost. In that window, there's a control near the left edge that you want to click. Since you frequently need to click it, you don't really think much about whether you're hitting it right: you almost always do. But this time, you accidentally hit 10 pixels to the left. No problem, you think, and click the control again.
It's not until much later that you discover, if at all, that when you missed the first time, you actually invoked another function (that of the nearly entirely hidden toolbar button) which ? oh, I dunno, let's say it cleared your browser history. Perhaps you don't realize at all that this was your doing, but even if you do, it won't help you any.
Originally posted by Chucker
Since you frequently need to click it, you don't really think much about whether you're hitting it right: you almost always do.
Ah, but that's one of the things I was talking about. It matters what you're used to. I *do* think about where my cursor is when I click because of the exact situation you talk about.
Quote:
It's not until much later that you discover, if at all, that when you missed the first time, you actually invoked another function...
Sorry, maybe I don't fully understand your scenario. But when you clicked the first time, didn't the backgroud app jump to the front? You wouldn't notice that?
Originally posted by Placebo
... and not providing an Are You Sure? dialogue box?
Do you like Are You Sure? dialog boxes? They drive me up the wall. I would bet dollars to donuts that they encourage the very bad habit of blindly clicking until the job is done without bothering to actually take note of what is happening at the moment.
Originally posted by Chucker
Is this on battery?
Haven't paid attention if this has hapenned on AC, but it definitely has happned on battery power, but not because the battery power ran out. The last time it happened there was still 60% power when I came back to the machine. There was a dialogue box which said something to the effect "Application has prevented log out", but I didn't tell the machine to log me out when I left it running.
Two more UI gripes. I work in a Mac computer lab and most of the kids have Windows XP at home and these are two common complaints that I hear from OS X noobs: 1) When hou tell them to click on the Apple Menu, they have no idea what the apple menu is. How is someone completely new to OS X supposed to know that the little Apple is actually a menu? The Start menu is pretty self-explanaatory and obvious in that respect.
2) the application icons (close, maximize, ect) are too small. This doesn't bother me, but I keep hearing it over and over.
And my personal pet-peeve: Speed. Maybe it is just me, but XP seems generally faster to me (the UI and tasks such as burning/encoding DVDs, ect). The new Intel MacBooks iMacs we've purchased for the lab are incredibly faster, but the OS (as mentioned hear before, particularly the Finder) is still not as fast as it could be.
Can we expect an exponential improvement in speed with Leopard, or just the usual incremental speed increases that we've seen from 10.2> 10.3 > 10.4?
Originally posted by Placebo
If such simple actions have such severe causes, there's something wrong. Therefore the problem is not in the lack of click-through, but in the developers of the application failing at usability
And click-through isn't about usability?
and not providing an Are You Sure? dialogue box?
"Are you sure?" Oh, you mean that terrible Microsoft-introduced idea pissing people off and causing the precise opposite of its intention? Namely, that people get so used to seeing "are you sure?" alerts everywhere that they start ignoring what they actually refer to, effectively making the destructive action more (not less!) likely to be performed accidentally?
Sounds like a brilliant replacement, yes.
Originally posted by Placebo
If "Are You Sure?" dialogues use "Destroy File" and "Leave File" instead of "Yes" and "No", that problem solves itself.
Verb-based alerts are a vast improvements, but not an excuse to present the user with an excessive amount of such alerts. Destructive actions ought to be non-click-through.
Originally posted by Kali
I hate the Dock.
Why do you own a warehouse there?