This is not conformance to the Windows UI at all. Just because they did it first, doesn't mean that it's evil.
Tabbed browsing may be a flawed UI idea, but opening tons of new windows and accessing them via first clicking on a menu just to display the content isn't perfect as you would like us to think. In fact, it's rather dirty.
Simply because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's the root of all evil and must be culled. I hate baseball. Others enjoy it. So what? I'm not about to sit there and talk them into giving up baseball and becoming a football fan simply because my philosophy is in disagreement with theirs.
What happens when the tab bar gets full? What happens when the browser window's width is reduced?
You will rapidly find the answer to why the horizontal tab interface is flawed.
I hate the concept...but if it were to be implemented to satisfy people following the Tab Fad, for f**k's sake, implement it so that there's less of a name truncation problem.
Gawd...what is Apple doing. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong>It's not just the web not working how the UI guidelines say it should, browsers inherently don't work that way either. Web browsers, to be specific. And it's treading on thin ice to say that web pages are merely documents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The web certainly sucks thanks as much to this UE as anything else too. But I digress.
What was I saying? Oh yes, web pages are documents! They are content, not tools, ergo they are documents.
first of all, i'm not a huge eugene fan, but i admire his ability to stick to his guns for this many posts. JLL, i might say the same about you, but you told me to go shoot myself, so...
anyway, mousing distances or not, i still don't think tabs are a great solution in their current state because:
1. they don't show as much information as they contain (since each tab is an entire session -- if they put command-clicking the tab to see the history for that tab, it would help, i think)
2. they tend to truncate VERY easily, sometimes losing CRITICAL distinguishing name information. hell, i can't stand it when i run into a dialog box that doesn't allow me to resize the columns to see the full names. i also hate the "double arrow" for rows that are too long for the toolbar. sometimes there are ways around it (like bookmark folders in safari to save space), but often it's just the ">>" and you're left to guess what's over there outside the window. it amazes me that apple would not consider this when they have sold LOTS of machines (like every ibook and most imacs) over the past 2-3 years running OS X with a maximum resolution of 800x600 or 1024x768. i guess they'r ebanking on everyone eventually buying a 23" display.
What happens when the tab bar gets full? What happens when the browser window's width is reduced?
You will rapidly find the answer to why the horizontal tab interface is flawed.
I hate the concept...but if it were to be implemented to satisfy people following the Tab Fad, for f**k's sake, implement it so that there's less of a name truncation problem.
Gawd...what is Apple doing. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Seriously, just shut up already. We know you don't like tabs. That's fine. Just shut up though. Your comments are just getting annoying.
kim kap sol, you're an idiot. I suppose you have a perfect and flawless solution.
BuonRotto, by your definition, web pages cannot function as tools. They are merely documents, and can only inform. In that case, why am I able to send email, post on a web board, or remotely administer a Terra server via Web interface? Web pages are sometimes document-like, sometimes application-like. You cannot so easily classify the trillions of web pages out there under so narrow a definition.
<strong>? I remember there being close & quit apps in the original Mac System software in 1985.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Go to the other thread and see my comments there. I don't recall the behavior of the original Calculator app, but even if it did quit when you hit the close button, I consider that behavior evil and wrong.
<strong>first of all, i'm not a huge eugene fan, but i admire his ability to stick to his guns for this many posts. JLL, i might say the same about you, but you told me to go shoot myself, so...
anyway, mousing distances or not, i still don't think tabs are a great solution in their current state because:
1. they don't show as much information as they contain (since each tab is an entire session -- if they put command-clicking the tab to see the history for that tab, it would help, i think)
2. they tend to truncate VERY easily, sometimes losing CRITICAL distinguishing name information. hell, i can't stand it when i run into a dialog box that doesn't allow me to resize the columns to see the full names. i also hate the "double arrow" for rows that are too long for the toolbar. sometimes there are ways around it (like bookmark folders in safari to save space), but often it's just the ">>" and you're left to guess what's over there outside the window. it amazes me that apple would not consider this when they have sold LOTS of machines (like every ibook and most imacs) over the past 2-3 years running OS X with a maximum resolution of 800x600 or 1024x768. i guess they'r ebanking on everyone eventually buying a 23" display.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Point 1: The same is true of any other method of window organization.
Point 2: That's been said over and over again and accepted. Must you rehash it?
re: point 1 -- glad i point out the obvious so well. i'll try and focus on the arcane and ridiculous from here on out. plus, i think i offered a possible band-aid that has become an acceptable fix, namely command-clicking the name to see the history (or file path or whatever). so why you're getting on my case about that is beyond me. re: point 2, well, sorry spart, i got better things to do than read 4 pages of JLL and Eugene going at it... well, at leats not in detail. so sorry i hadn't noticed that the whole "names truncate" issue had been doen to death. sheesh.
oh please. kim kap sol's comments are outnumbered roughly 7 million to one on this thread, so he's hardly harping on this issue like others around here. so shut yer pie hole. what's that? you know that hole? the one you eat pie with? yeah, that one. shut it.
<strong>sorry spart, i got better things to do than read 4 pages of JLL and Eugene going at it... well, at leats not in detail. so sorry i hadn't noticed that the whole "names truncate" issue had been doen to death. sheesh.
oh please. kim kap sol's comments are outnumbered roughly 7 million to one on this thread, so he's hardly harping on this issue like others around here. so shut yer pie hole. what's that? you know that hole? the one you eat pie with? yeah, that one. shut it.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you're not willing to come to this thread and read through it, then make some intelligent commentary, then you probably shouldn't come at all.
I'm not going to shut up on your whim. Now I can see why JLL told you to kill yourself. Please, do. By all means. Die. Slowly.
If you're not willing to come to this thread and read through it, then make some intelligent commentary, then you probably shouldn't come at all.
I'm not going to shut up on your whim. Now I can see why JLL told you to kill yourself. Please, do. By all means. Die. Slowly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what the hell did i say to deserve any of that?!? i try to contribute intelligent commentary every time i step digital foot on these forums, and have been here darn long enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. i was merely sticking up for someone who i didn't think deserved your comments, and tried to explain and defend what i thought were pretty innocuous observations on my part. guess i know better now.
<strong>re: point 1 -- glad i point out the obvious so well. i'll try and focus on the arcane and ridiculous from here on out. plus, i think i offered a possible band-aid that has become an acceptable fix, namely command-clicking the name to see the history (or file path or whatever). so why you're getting on my case about that is beyond me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Christ, kid. If you're going to edit your post that much you should probably post again.
Your 'band-aid' is solving a problem that's not there. Why do I need to see the history of a tab? That isn't the issue at hand. The issue is whether tabs are a viable and correct solution for organization of multiple pages within web browsers.
<strong>kim kap sol, you're an idiot. I suppose you have a perfect and flawless solution.
BuonRotto, by your definition, web pages cannot function as tools. They are merely documents, and can only inform. In that case, why am I able to send email, post on a web board, or remotely administer a Terra server via Web interface? Web pages are sometimes document-like, sometimes application-like. You cannot so easily classify the trillions of web pages out there under so narrow a definition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But a document can send e-mail too. Mail.app does this either in a main window or in a separate window. Documents can be either actively created and manipulated, or passively utilized. Acrobat Reader opens documents, but you can only read (and print) them. Are PDFs not documents? A terminal session is a document as much as a Photoshop image. Yes, you manipulate and use tools within the document. I see that as being part of the document itself, the process, the sum of those manipulations.
Content can certainly generate more content. Documents obviously incorporate tools: searches, feedback, etc. That's part of what I called active creation and manipulation, part of the document.
I did a poor job with my language in the last post, but I hope it's a little clearer now even if it does depend on an anecdotal definition. I guess I'm trying to define a document as any content, simply put.
Hm, maybe I'm not making my point clearer. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Christ, kid. If you're going to edit your post that much you should probably post again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
okay, you're just looking for a fight (and about TABS... utterly amazing), and i've lived long enough to know when to walk away from one before it gets out of hand. yell all you want at whomever you want, 'cause i'm outta here.
p.s. don't bother replying, 'cause i ain't reading another word in this thread.
<strong>what the hell did i say to deserve any of that?!? i try to contribute intelligent commentary every time i step digital foot on these forums, and have been here darn long enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. i was merely sticking up for someone who i didn't think deserved your comments, and tried to explain and defend what i thought were pretty innocuous observations on my part. guess i know better now.
You know exactly what you said. In fact, you haven't edited it out yet. For no reason at all, you told me to go away and shut up, as you obviously have no points to give. I responded with my thoughts on that issue. And no, I don't care about your little smiley. It's mocking, not joking.
kim stepped in, delivered a bit of redundant stupidity to pad his weak post count, and stepped out. What he said contained no factual information, just personal views that were not necessary nor intelligent.
And I don't file redundant posts under 'inteligent commentary.'
But a document can send e-mail too. Mail.app does this either in a main window or in a separate window. Documents can be either actively created and manipulated, or passively utilized. Acrobat Reader opens documents, but you can only read (and print) them. Are PDFs not documents? A terminal session is a document as much as a Photoshop image. Yes, you manipulate and use tools within the document. I see that as being part of the document itself, the process, the sum of those manipulations.
Content can certainly generate more content. Documents obviously incorporate tools: searches, feedback, etc. That's part of what I called active creation and manipulation, part of the document.
I did a poor job with my language in the last post, but I hope it's a little clearer now even if it does depend on an anecdotal definition. I guess I'm trying to define a document as any content, simply put.
Hm, maybe I'm not making my point clearer. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Under this definition, there are no applications. They are documents. If its got a window and you're doing something to its contents, then whatever is doing something to its contents is a part of the document. Umm, no.
Let's just go with applications are tools, documents contain info modified by said tools. Though the web pages you download are actually documents that link to other documents, compiled files are also documents.
By my definition, applications take a back seat to documents, and thus we get back to document-centric vs. application-centric UE, and therefore we're back to MDI versus interleaving window schemes, and thus we're back to tabs in browsers!
Comments
Tabbed browsing may be a flawed UI idea, but opening tons of new windows and accessing them via first clicking on a menu just to display the content isn't perfect as you would like us to think. In fact, it's rather dirty.
Simply because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's the root of all evil and must be culled. I hate baseball. Others enjoy it. So what? I'm not about to sit there and talk them into giving up baseball and becoming a football fan simply because my philosophy is in disagreement with theirs.
What happens when the tab bar gets full? What happens when the browser window's width is reduced?
You will rapidly find the answer to why the horizontal tab interface is flawed.
I hate the concept...but if it were to be implemented to satisfy people following the Tab Fad, for f**k's sake, implement it so that there's less of a name truncation problem.
Gawd...what is Apple doing. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
<strong>It's not just the web not working how the UI guidelines say it should, browsers inherently don't work that way either. Web browsers, to be specific. And it's treading on thin ice to say that web pages are merely documents.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The web certainly sucks thanks as much to this UE as anything else too. But I digress.
What was I saying? Oh yes, web pages are documents! They are content, not tools, ergo they are documents.
anyway, mousing distances or not, i still don't think tabs are a great solution in their current state because:
1. they don't show as much information as they contain (since each tab is an entire session -- if they put command-clicking the tab to see the history for that tab, it would help, i think)
2. they tend to truncate VERY easily, sometimes losing CRITICAL distinguishing name information. hell, i can't stand it when i run into a dialog box that doesn't allow me to resize the columns to see the full names. i also hate the "double arrow" for rows that are too long for the toolbar. sometimes there are ways around it (like bookmark folders in safari to save space), but often it's just the ">>" and you're left to guess what's over there outside the window. it amazes me that apple would not consider this when they have sold LOTS of machines (like every ibook and most imacs) over the past 2-3 years running OS X with a maximum resolution of 800x600 or 1024x768. i guess they'r ebanking on everyone eventually buying a 23" display.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
<strong>Tab-fans answer this question:
What happens when the tab bar gets full? What happens when the browser window's width is reduced?
You will rapidly find the answer to why the horizontal tab interface is flawed.
I hate the concept...but if it were to be implemented to satisfy people following the Tab Fad, for f**k's sake, implement it so that there's less of a name truncation problem.
Gawd...what is Apple doing. <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Seriously, just shut up already. We know you don't like tabs. That's fine. Just shut up though. Your comments are just getting annoying.
BuonRotto, by your definition, web pages cannot function as tools. They are merely documents, and can only inform. In that case, why am I able to send email, post on a web board, or remotely administer a Terra server via Web interface? Web pages are sometimes document-like, sometimes application-like. You cannot so easily classify the trillions of web pages out there under so narrow a definition.
<strong>? I remember there being close & quit apps in the original Mac System software in 1985.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Go to the other thread and see my comments there. I don't recall the behavior of the original Calculator app, but even if it did quit when you hit the close button, I consider that behavior evil and wrong.
<strong>first of all, i'm not a huge eugene fan, but i admire his ability to stick to his guns for this many posts. JLL, i might say the same about you, but you told me to go shoot myself, so...
anyway, mousing distances or not, i still don't think tabs are a great solution in their current state because:
1. they don't show as much information as they contain (since each tab is an entire session -- if they put command-clicking the tab to see the history for that tab, it would help, i think)
2. they tend to truncate VERY easily, sometimes losing CRITICAL distinguishing name information. hell, i can't stand it when i run into a dialog box that doesn't allow me to resize the columns to see the full names. i also hate the "double arrow" for rows that are too long for the toolbar. sometimes there are ways around it (like bookmark folders in safari to save space), but often it's just the ">>" and you're left to guess what's over there outside the window. it amazes me that apple would not consider this when they have sold LOTS of machines (like every ibook and most imacs) over the past 2-3 years running OS X with a maximum resolution of 800x600 or 1024x768. i guess they'r ebanking on everyone eventually buying a 23" display.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Point 1: The same is true of any other method of window organization.
Point 2: That's been said over and over again and accepted. Must you rehash it?
oh please. kim kap sol's comments are outnumbered roughly 7 million to one on this thread, so he's hardly harping on this issue like others around here. so shut yer pie hole. what's that? you know that hole? the one you eat pie with? yeah, that one. shut it.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
<strong>sorry spart, i got better things to do than read 4 pages of JLL and Eugene going at it... well, at leats not in detail. so sorry i hadn't noticed that the whole "names truncate" issue had been doen to death. sheesh.
oh please. kim kap sol's comments are outnumbered roughly 7 million to one on this thread, so he's hardly harping on this issue like others around here. so shut yer pie hole. what's that? you know that hole? the one you eat pie with? yeah, that one. shut it.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: rok ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
If you're not willing to come to this thread and read through it, then make some intelligent commentary, then you probably shouldn't come at all.
I'm not going to shut up on your whim. Now I can see why JLL told you to kill yourself. Please, do. By all means. Die. Slowly.
<strong>
If you're not willing to come to this thread and read through it, then make some intelligent commentary, then you probably shouldn't come at all.
I'm not going to shut up on your whim. Now I can see why JLL told you to kill yourself. Please, do. By all means. Die. Slowly.</strong><hr></blockquote>
what the hell did i say to deserve any of that?!? i try to contribute intelligent commentary every time i step digital foot on these forums, and have been here darn long enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. i was merely sticking up for someone who i didn't think deserved your comments, and tried to explain and defend what i thought were pretty innocuous observations on my part. guess i know better now.
<strong>re: point 1 -- glad i point out the obvious so well. i'll try and focus on the arcane and ridiculous from here on out. plus, i think i offered a possible band-aid that has become an acceptable fix, namely command-clicking the name to see the history (or file path or whatever). so why you're getting on my case about that is beyond me.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Christ, kid. If you're going to edit your post that much you should probably post again.
Your 'band-aid' is solving a problem that's not there. Why do I need to see the history of a tab? That isn't the issue at hand. The issue is whether tabs are a viable and correct solution for organization of multiple pages within web browsers.
Again, read the damned thread.
<strong>kim kap sol, you're an idiot. I suppose you have a perfect and flawless solution.
BuonRotto, by your definition, web pages cannot function as tools. They are merely documents, and can only inform. In that case, why am I able to send email, post on a web board, or remotely administer a Terra server via Web interface? Web pages are sometimes document-like, sometimes application-like. You cannot so easily classify the trillions of web pages out there under so narrow a definition.</strong><hr></blockquote>
But a document can send e-mail too. Mail.app does this either in a main window or in a separate window. Documents can be either actively created and manipulated, or passively utilized. Acrobat Reader opens documents, but you can only read (and print) them. Are PDFs not documents? A terminal session is a document as much as a Photoshop image. Yes, you manipulate and use tools within the document. I see that as being part of the document itself, the process, the sum of those manipulations.
Content can certainly generate more content. Documents obviously incorporate tools: searches, feedback, etc. That's part of what I called active creation and manipulation, part of the document.
I did a poor job with my language in the last post, but I hope it's a little clearer now even if it does depend on an anecdotal definition. I guess I'm trying to define a document as any content, simply put.
Hm, maybe I'm not making my point clearer. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
Christ, kid. If you're going to edit your post that much you should probably post again.</strong><hr></blockquote>
okay, you're just looking for a fight (and about TABS... utterly amazing), and i've lived long enough to know when to walk away from one before it gets out of hand. yell all you want at whomever you want, 'cause i'm outta here.
p.s. don't bother replying, 'cause i ain't reading another word in this thread.
<strong>what the hell did i say to deserve any of that?!? i try to contribute intelligent commentary every time i step digital foot on these forums, and have been here darn long enough to be given the benefit of the doubt. i was merely sticking up for someone who i didn't think deserved your comments, and tried to explain and defend what i thought were pretty innocuous observations on my part. guess i know better now.
You know exactly what you said. In fact, you haven't edited it out yet. For no reason at all, you told me to go away and shut up, as you obviously have no points to give. I responded with my thoughts on that issue. And no, I don't care about your little smiley. It's mocking, not joking.
kim stepped in, delivered a bit of redundant stupidity to pad his weak post count, and stepped out. What he said contained no factual information, just personal views that were not necessary nor intelligent.
And I don't file redundant posts under 'inteligent commentary.'
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Spart ]</p>
<strong>
But a document can send e-mail too. Mail.app does this either in a main window or in a separate window. Documents can be either actively created and manipulated, or passively utilized. Acrobat Reader opens documents, but you can only read (and print) them. Are PDFs not documents? A terminal session is a document as much as a Photoshop image. Yes, you manipulate and use tools within the document. I see that as being part of the document itself, the process, the sum of those manipulations.
Content can certainly generate more content. Documents obviously incorporate tools: searches, feedback, etc. That's part of what I called active creation and manipulation, part of the document.
I did a poor job with my language in the last post, but I hope it's a little clearer now even if it does depend on an anecdotal definition. I guess I'm trying to define a document as any content, simply put.
Hm, maybe I'm not making my point clearer. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Under this definition, there are no applications. They are documents. If its got a window and you're doing something to its contents, then whatever is doing something to its contents is a part of the document. Umm, no.
Let's just go with applications are tools, documents contain info modified by said tools. Though the web pages you download are actually documents that link to other documents, compiled files are also documents.
This thread's just about done.
A little debate never killed anyone.
Me tired. Me no thinky good.