What I wanted to say is that Tiger actually have virtual desktop capability, it's just limited to two screens - one usual desktop and one for Dashboard. Leopard will offer essentially the same but with more screens. So instead of having two different virtual desktops (functionality is the same, but with different visual effects) why not just put dashboard to one of those screens?
What I wanted to say is that Tiger actually have virtual desktop capability, it's just limited to two screens - one usual desktop and one for Dashboard. Leopard will offer essentially the same but with more screens. So instead of having two different virtual desktops (functionality is the same, but with different visual effects) why not just put dashboard to one of those screens?
Sorry if it's still unclear, my english suck.
Perfectly understandable, now. Excellent idea actually. A preset dashboard "Space." I've been worried about the feature bloat with all these new interface deals. It would be great to consolidate some of these new interface features if it's consistent to do so.
What I wanted to say is that Tiger actually have virtual desktop capability, it's just limited to two screens - one usual desktop and one for Dashboard. Leopard will offer essentially the same but with more screens. So instead of having two different virtual desktops (functionality is the same, but with different visual effects) why not just put dashboard to one of those screens?
Sorry if it's still unclear, my english suck.
I understand now, however I don't think it is a good idea. Dashboard is something that you look at when you want something quick. You pop in, get it, pop back out. Spaces is supposed to be a place for new Workspaces. This is where you get work done, or have different applications running, or whatever.
The point I am trying to make is that the purpose behind the Dashboard is that it is a different environment entirely, and not a place for your day-to-day tasks.
You can look the same way at one of those screens. It's all in mind, but functionality behind it is 99% the same. It doesn't matter if you switch to screen for 5 seconds or for 5 hours. Also, widgets can live on main screen, not only on dashboard, it's an artificial limitation. And I know some people actually want to have widgets on main screen. This "pop in, get it, pop back out" functionality could be easily implemented by assigning shortcuts or Expose hotspors to each screen, that's all. And user will have freedom of locating widgets wherever he want. If you prefer to have them consolidated on one single screen - good. Someone might want to have widgets on different screens, why artificialy disable it?
You can look the same way at one of those screens. It's all in mind, but functionality behind it is 99% the same. It doesn't matter if you switch to screen for 5 seconds or for 5 hours. Also, widgets can live on main screen, not only on dashboard, it's an artificial limitation. And I know some people actually want to have widgets on main screen. This "pop in, get it, pop back out" functionality could be easily implemented by assigning shortcuts or Expose hotspors to each screen, that's all. And user will have freedom of locating widgets wherever he want. If you prefer to have them consolidated on one single screen - good. Someone might want to have widgets on different screens, why artificialy disable it?
That is true, it is an artificial limitation. However, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. This is the point of design. Yes, you are absolutely correct, it is basically the same technology as in Spaces. However, it isn't the point of the application. Dashboard's purpose is a place to put Widgets, and it is out of the way until you need them. It was done this way not from a technical perspective, but from a design perspective.
A similar question could be posed of Safari and Mail. Do you want to read your email in your web browser? Most people don't, even though many use web-based email. Could you, sure. It is an artificial limitation of Safari to not do that. It is that way because Safari was designed from conception to be nothing more than a web browser.
Sorry, I do not mean to sound belittling or mean about this. I am just trying to point out the difference between a design decision versus an implementation decision.
When designer limit your ability to do something "just because he can", without any apparent reason, because it won't comfort his concept - that's very bad design. I can understand why they made it in Tiger - because Tiger don't have virtual desktops and dashboard was palliative. In Leopard there's no reason (except designer's concept) to lock widgets inside dashboard.
Comments
Just thought that dashboard could just use one of those screens. Would more consistent.
i think you should stop thinking
Sorry if it's still unclear, my english suck.
What I wanted to say is that Tiger actually have virtual desktop capability, it's just limited to two screens - one usual desktop and one for Dashboard. Leopard will offer essentially the same but with more screens. So instead of having two different virtual desktops (functionality is the same, but with different visual effects) why not just put dashboard to one of those screens?
Sorry if it's still unclear, my english suck.
Perfectly understandable, now. Excellent idea actually. A preset dashboard "Space." I've been worried about the feature bloat with all these new interface deals. It would be great to consolidate some of these new interface features if it's consistent to do so.
What I wanted to say is that Tiger actually have virtual desktop capability, it's just limited to two screens - one usual desktop and one for Dashboard. Leopard will offer essentially the same but with more screens. So instead of having two different virtual desktops (functionality is the same, but with different visual effects) why not just put dashboard to one of those screens?
Sorry if it's still unclear, my english suck.
I understand now, however I don't think it is a good idea. Dashboard is something that you look at when you want something quick. You pop in, get it, pop back out. Spaces is supposed to be a place for new Workspaces. This is where you get work done, or have different applications running, or whatever.
The point I am trying to make is that the purpose behind the Dashboard is that it is a different environment entirely, and not a place for your day-to-day tasks.
You can look the same way at one of those screens. It's all in mind, but functionality behind it is 99% the same. It doesn't matter if you switch to screen for 5 seconds or for 5 hours. Also, widgets can live on main screen, not only on dashboard, it's an artificial limitation. And I know some people actually want to have widgets on main screen. This "pop in, get it, pop back out" functionality could be easily implemented by assigning shortcuts or Expose hotspors to each screen, that's all. And user will have freedom of locating widgets wherever he want. If you prefer to have them consolidated on one single screen - good. Someone might want to have widgets on different screens, why artificialy disable it?
That is true, it is an artificial limitation. However, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should. This is the point of design. Yes, you are absolutely correct, it is basically the same technology as in Spaces. However, it isn't the point of the application. Dashboard's purpose is a place to put Widgets, and it is out of the way until you need them. It was done this way not from a technical perspective, but from a design perspective.
A similar question could be posed of Safari and Mail. Do you want to read your email in your web browser? Most people don't, even though many use web-based email. Could you, sure. It is an artificial limitation of Safari to not do that. It is that way because Safari was designed from conception to be nothing more than a web browser.
Sorry, I do not mean to sound belittling or mean about this. I am just trying to point out the difference between a design decision versus an implementation decision.