Why would the use of tabs preclude the use of drag and drop? I would think that if you can have spring-loaded folders, you could have spring-loaded tabs (hover over a tab with a dragged file, and it pops to the front).
Just curious. I'll throw my vote in for tabs, as they suit the way I prefer to browse. Other apps, such as Microsoft's Excel, already use tabs in a similar fashion (dynamic creation and deletion, etc.), so it isn't as if Apple is utterly changing the landscape.
<strong>Why would the use of tabs preclude the use of drag and drop? I would think that if you can have spring-loaded folders, you could have spring-loaded tabs (hover over a tab with a dragged file, and it pops to the front).
Just curious. I'll throw my vote in for tabs, as they suit the way I prefer to browse. Other apps, such as Microsoft's Excel, already use tabs in a similar fashion (dynamic creation and deletion, etc.), so it isn't as if Apple is utterly changing the landscape.
John</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point isn't that you can't have spring-loaded behavior, my point is that it's more complex than simple-drag-ndrop onto documents, maybe more delicate and complex than it should be. I thought of spring-loaded tabs when I first posted this problem, the point was more in the line of thinking that tabs would be a default or beginner's way of working with documents, and I think it would have to be an option to more advnaced users if it were done. I feel that it's more important to encourage simple drag-n-drop onto documents directly for basic or casual users.
By using a normal window as the default, a casual or beginner user would figure to place items them where they want within the document quickly, have a nice big target, and have a more obvious choice to make. Seems easier to learn and try this than to drag an item to a tab, wait, then drag the item into the revealed document. In that latter scenario, you arrive at the same problem Apple found with spring-loaded folders: the destination would either hide the original document, making cancelling or repeating the operation harder, or lese it would have to open the destination in a separate window so you can see both the origin and destination of whatever you're moving, thus cancelling the neat-and-tdy argument to some degree (though not totally). So it would seem more forgving for relative tyros to deal with windows without tabs.
So would advanced users make better use of tabs? Yes and no. Yes because they would knnow and understad just how to juggle what is otherwise a rather delicate operation for drag-n-drop. No because anyone relatively expert in managing windows and multiple apps, would probably be doing even more dragging and dropping, so the spring-loaded tab behavior might be more intrusive than helpful. Advanced users usually have more documents open, and are able to manage them better than a newbie anyway. So maybe tabs aren't ideal for advanced users either.
As for Excel and others, it's true there are others, and I have seen in Excel, SketchUp and another obscure Windows app (I'm not thinking of anything like the Windows Display control panel and its tab hell) how limiting tabs are for these apps.
--------------
I think people are certainly used to the way Windows works, and even Mac OS 9 was app-centric. While Apple has compromised to be more inclusive of Windows users and even Classic Mac OS users in a sense, I think they've though a lot about how the GUI is structured and they decided that a document-centric user experience would be more efficient for users, and that elements like the new Finder and the Dock would help keep a proliferation of documents under control. As a general comment, not in response to this last post, I think a lot of people do not see the benefits of this new interface, and some are probably confused about the new system, not quite grasping the concept yet and wondering why a window in one application can get between windows of another app.
<strong>BuonRotto, give up...there's no hope.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm the one who said we should agree to disagree about two or three pages ago. I dunno, I guess I'm just thinking out loud. I don't expect to convince anyone per se, just getting my perspective across. I can be stubborn about that at least.
<strong>But... tabs should be detachable, as a rule. If they're not, I'd still use them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, that might be the best idea I've heard. It reminds me of the NextStep menus too.
Though I'm still a bit perplexed about whether we have document windows or application windows at this point -- if I tab up a bunch of documents in Photoshop, assuming you [i]don't[i] want to actually create a single multipage document (how apps like Excel, SketchUp, etc. work), how would one indicate that these are separate documents and part of one app, not part of the same file? This effectively creates an application window, though there isn't really one because there's no parent window per se, just whichever is the first or last document that retains the window area when others are gone.
It's sort of confusing from the standpoint that documents are supposed to be semi-autonomous and interleave regardless of which app they belong to. I mean, are they app windows or document windows? Maybe I'm being very formal about this, but I'm trying to think conceptually about what these windows are -- part of an app, or part of a document, or both or something else.
Could you tab up/glue together several different documents from different apps or do they have to belong to the same app? Can you aribtrarily "pile up" documents in work groups? But then dragging and dropping can be messy even if the windowing situation is cleaned up. In that scenario, I would probably group up documents so that I could always have at least two open and fully visible so I can drop fro one to the other while hiding everything else in tabs behind them.
Really, this goes back to the whole "tabs are MDI" argument.
Interesting...I had that multi-app tab idea dancing around in my head too. It would never work, and it's completely ridiculous, but...I'm sure some people would love it.
Tonton, would you love or hate a Windows style taskbar in OS X? Did you ever use Power On's GoMac?
Do you think this type of recursive windowing has limits? The desktop is basically a window after all. Web browser tabs are windows within a window within a window. At what point does this become a bad thing?
Well, dare I say we're coming to a consensus (minus an obstanant few...). Although we disagree as to whether tabs are good now, we all think that there could be something better than tabs. So, what might this entail?
I see a few possibilities.
We have the windows task bar ideology, where all documents (open and closed) are listed in a bar of some sort. Perhaps it could go on the side of the screen, with the dock reserved at the bottom. But how do folders fit in to this scheme? They're not really windows...are they? Which bar would they go into?
There's a minimize in place option, where, instead of a window travelling all the way down to the dock, it just 'windowshades' or 'minimizes' (to a small photo) right where it is. This doesn't seem to address the problem of calling up a window that's behind another in one click, though.
Another option would be to have the universal, document-centric tabs, like Eugene has thought through. All windows would open as their own independent window at the beginning, but you could double click the title bar, and they would become anchored to the operating system's tab interface that is on the desktop just below the menubar. Another double click, and they're back into their own window. The biggest pitfall with this idea is the desktop. . . . It would have to be surrendered.
Any others?
My personal favorite is the extra dock on the side of the monitor. All windows would create a dynamically updated image of their contents, even if they are open. On mouse over, their names would pop up like in the dock. I imagine that this could even be done with a haxie.
Ah well, enough for 4 AM in the morning. I'm going to bed now. I hope that this makes sense since, well have you ever written something late at night and then later in the morning you look back on it and then realize that it was really poorly written at four am in the morning and that it doesn't make any sense because it repeats, and yeah, and see, I really don't want that to happen, and so I think I'll go to bed now. G'night.
Some may feel tabs hinder the interactive conceptual model used by the application, but that is better than reducing the practical usability for PC switchers, or Chimera users.
alt ideas:
--hold down a button, tabs un-hide.
--truncated multi-line URL field with moveable focus widget and/or clickable icons.
<strong>I see where Eugene is coming from regarding the danger of tabs becoming the ONLY way to implement documents within an app (like Preferences tabs) but I don't think this will happen. Apple can easily add a guideline to make sure that multi-window usage and detachment of tabs is always an option (they'd have to follow their own guidelines with the preference tabs first, of course).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really. This has nothing to do with interface builders adding tabs to apps and everything to do with how users decide to use them. I think it's highly unlikely most better app developers would remove the better way of doing things in favor of tabs only.
<strong>Well, dare I say we're coming to a consensus (minus an obstanant few...). Although we disagree as to whether tabs are good now, we all think that there could be something better than tabs. So, what might this entail?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would compromise with a limited tear-off menu idea (borrowed from NeXT.) Within the Window menu, there would be an option to show a floating palette with a list of open windows. This allows the windows to stay independent of each other while also providing instant visual feedback and access to all the open windows. It would be like the OS 9 Application Switcher, but for windows... There's already a helper app that performs a similar function.
This is better than tabs in several ways:
1) The palette would be resizable without changing the dimensions of a web page.
2) The palette could be set to always be on top, unlike having two windows with their own tabs.
3) The palette would list items vertically by default...horizontally if you're a masochist.
4) You don't have to worry about having certain tabs in other windows.
5) You won't lose all your tabs by closing the palette since it's just a visual representation of open windows and not an actual container.
I would compromise with a limited tear-off menu idea (borrowed from NeXT.) Within the Window menu, there would be an option to show a floating palette with a list of open windows. This allows the windows to stay independent of each other while also providing instant visual feedback and access to all the open windows. It would be like the OS 9 Application Switcher, but for windows... There's already a helper app that performs a similar function.
This is better than tabs in several ways:
1) The palette would be resizable without changing the dimensions of a web page.
2) The palette could be set to always be on top, unlike having two windows with their own tabs.
3) The palette would list items vertically by default...horizontally if you're a masochist.
4) You don't have to worry about having certain tabs in other windows.
5) You won't lose all your tabs by closing the palette since it's just a visual representation of open windows and not an actual container.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, yes. I like it. Instead of having an App-centric Window menu, have a universal Operating System Window menu, and it would be placed where the old application menu was in OS 9. You could then tear it off, if you so desired.
So, anyone know how to make a menubar haxie that could do this?
I haven't read this entire thread so hope not to be repeating...
I love my 12" PB. It has a beautiful small screen.
Tear off menus, floating palettes, NO!
Tabs are awesome for a small screen. They are also nice on my iMac 15" screen.
Adobe apps would be easier to use without all of the floating palettes...on this screen size.
I like tabs. I liked them on Chimera and I think I will like Safari's version even better.
Anyway, they are an option.
I would like to have the option of palettes or tabs in the same app. Maybe you could tear off the tabs and they would essentially then be floating palettes.
I don't like the idea IF it means that I still have multiple BROWSER windows littering my screen.
I used (and enjoyed) Action Utility's GoMac. It helped me a lot. BUT I never learned to use the pop-up listing of windows....too entrenched in using the WINDOWS menu in Photoshop, Illustrator...name an app.
The tear-off Finder app-switcher was something that I'd use on other machines when they didn't have GoMac installed. I believe this is all resolved around the fact that I just don't work on LARGE monitors. My habits might change MARKEDLY if that were to change (something I'm more than ready to try, depending on $$$ falling into my lap).
If you have a floating palette that obscures portions of windows then it might not be as happily received for people on small screens....that would be my only cautionary statement about the idea being batted around here.
A separate application DOCK that can HIDE is an interesting idea. Giving it a key command combo would be interesting too. One combo lets you flip between documents belonging to the application, another combo lets you switch between all open documents. How would this Dock let you "see" what these documents actually contain though? The previews, even magnified, are tiny.
Can you guys tell me how your various ideas would address these two situations:
I'm in Photoshop and I have seven images open and active. I only want to shop between one of my photoshop documents, not every open screen window. What will make your new document picker faster (or better) than going up to the WINDOW menubar or using the CMD-tilde command?
I'm in Microsoft Word and I want to see one of the five open browser windows in Safari. How will the application switcher let me do this?
Do YOUR methods allow me the option to HIDE other open windows until they are selected? Do your methods allow me to turn this OFF when I'm in the middle of drag-n-drop, multi-window fever?
When you use tabs you almost always know what each tab is with a great deal of familiarity, but there are still those pesky long page titles that don't help to jog your memory on the occasion that you forget what page a tab represents.
What's the solution here? Can the browser be improved to better parse the page code to give the page a better title? I don't want Safari to bloat on THAT account. Could Safari just number pages (AppleInsider#1, AppleInsider #2, etc)? Will it allow the user to assign their own tags for the page? If the page is frequently visited could there be a database of user-assigned names?
Micro-icons have become fairly popular, not sure if the mozilla project is responsible for their development BUT, what if websites had one more tag designed for browsers with tabs? The website designers would be responsible for providing concise descriptive names.
Would this work? I personally don't think so, especially on dynamically generated pages.
Anyway, those are some constructive thoughts for people who are fans of tabs in their browser.
As others have said, the problem with floating windows is that they obscure your browser window(s). That's okay if you have a large screen and you don't need your browser to take the entire screen, but a floating window would take LOTS of room, especially if you have lots of windows open and you make the window wide enough to display a sufficiently long portion of each window's title. Still, it could work.
I just thought of another reason I like tabs, other than having all my pages in a single place that doesn't take much room - they allow you to make your window the size you want and it won't be hampered by browsers that can't figure out what "full screen" is. Remember when Safari came out, how it drew new windows with the upper left corner centered on the screen? If it was tabbed, I wouldn't mind because I'd just resize and move that one window and then everything would be fine unless I wanted multiple windows. With a multi-window browser, though, you have to individually go through and fix each window's size, shape and position because you're opening lots of windows. Good programming can get rid of that problem, of course, but it's still kinda there. I have my dock on the left side of the screen but Safari's option-click of the green widget resizes the window to be nice to people who have their dock on the bottom like Apple wants them to. All browser makers have to adopt a better method of window resizing to be aware of the dock's size AND position, as well as the presence of a floating window associated with the browser.
Here's an idea for the floating palette window that might work....what if it only appeared when you hold down a key combination, and it was a nice translucent window with the entire <TITLE> tag's content spelled out...very much like OS 9's application switcher, but it fades away (or goes away) when it's not needed.
Still, I like tabs because I know that the leftmost one is (for instance) CNN, the next one is AppleInsider, the next one is Google, the next one is my own site. Move, click, BOOM. (By the way, using the WINDOW menubar option is "move, click, move up, move down, find the right thing, stay on top of it until it is highlighted, release".
That example was provided as a petty swipe at the anti-tab crowd, but mostly to push us toward the next page....hope it helps.
Comments
Just curious. I'll throw my vote in for tabs, as they suit the way I prefer to browse. Other apps, such as Microsoft's Excel, already use tabs in a similar fashion (dynamic creation and deletion, etc.), so it isn't as if Apple is utterly changing the landscape.
John
<strong>Why would the use of tabs preclude the use of drag and drop? I would think that if you can have spring-loaded folders, you could have spring-loaded tabs (hover over a tab with a dragged file, and it pops to the front).
Just curious. I'll throw my vote in for tabs, as they suit the way I prefer to browse. Other apps, such as Microsoft's Excel, already use tabs in a similar fashion (dynamic creation and deletion, etc.), so it isn't as if Apple is utterly changing the landscape.
John</strong><hr></blockquote>
My point isn't that you can't have spring-loaded behavior, my point is that it's more complex than simple-drag-ndrop onto documents, maybe more delicate and complex than it should be. I thought of spring-loaded tabs when I first posted this problem, the point was more in the line of thinking that tabs would be a default or beginner's way of working with documents, and I think it would have to be an option to more advnaced users if it were done. I feel that it's more important to encourage simple drag-n-drop onto documents directly for basic or casual users.
By using a normal window as the default, a casual or beginner user would figure to place items them where they want within the document quickly, have a nice big target, and have a more obvious choice to make. Seems easier to learn and try this than to drag an item to a tab, wait, then drag the item into the revealed document. In that latter scenario, you arrive at the same problem Apple found with spring-loaded folders: the destination would either hide the original document, making cancelling or repeating the operation harder, or lese it would have to open the destination in a separate window so you can see both the origin and destination of whatever you're moving, thus cancelling the neat-and-tdy argument to some degree (though not totally). So it would seem more forgving for relative tyros to deal with windows without tabs.
So would advanced users make better use of tabs? Yes and no. Yes because they would knnow and understad just how to juggle what is otherwise a rather delicate operation for drag-n-drop. No because anyone relatively expert in managing windows and multiple apps, would probably be doing even more dragging and dropping, so the spring-loaded tab behavior might be more intrusive than helpful. Advanced users usually have more documents open, and are able to manage them better than a newbie anyway. So maybe tabs aren't ideal for advanced users either.
As for Excel and others, it's true there are others, and I have seen in Excel, SketchUp and another obscure Windows app (I'm not thinking of anything like the Windows Display control panel and its tab hell) how limiting tabs are for these apps.
--------------
I think people are certainly used to the way Windows works, and even Mac OS 9 was app-centric. While Apple has compromised to be more inclusive of Windows users and even Classic Mac OS users in a sense, I think they've though a lot about how the GUI is structured and they decided that a document-centric user experience would be more efficient for users, and that elements like the new Finder and the Dock would help keep a proliferation of documents under control. As a general comment, not in response to this last post, I think a lot of people do not see the benefits of this new interface, and some are probably confused about the new system, not quite grasping the concept yet and wondering why a window in one application can get between windows of another app.
<strong>
I hate moving windows to see what's behind them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nine pages later and you still think this is true?
BuonRotto, give up...there's no hope.
<strong>BuonRotto, give up...there's no hope.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm the one who said we should agree to disagree about two or three pages ago.
<strong>
You ignored my mention of the Windows menu in my post entirely.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Why'd you even mention moving windows if it's not a problem?
Man I hate tabs because Florida oranges are sour.
<strong>But... tabs should be detachable, as a rule. If they're not, I'd still use them.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, that might be the best idea I've heard. It reminds me of the NextStep menus too.
Though I'm still a bit perplexed about whether we have document windows or application windows at this point -- if I tab up a bunch of documents in Photoshop, assuming you [i]don't[i] want to actually create a single multipage document (how apps like Excel, SketchUp, etc. work), how would one indicate that these are separate documents and part of one app, not part of the same file? This effectively creates an application window, though there isn't really one because there's no parent window per se, just whichever is the first or last document that retains the window area when others are gone.
It's sort of confusing from the standpoint that documents are supposed to be semi-autonomous and interleave regardless of which app they belong to. I mean, are they app windows or document windows? Maybe I'm being very formal about this, but I'm trying to think conceptually about what these windows are -- part of an app, or part of a document, or both or something else.
Could you tab up/glue together several different documents from different apps or do they have to belong to the same app? Can you aribtrarily "pile up" documents in work groups? But then dragging and dropping can be messy even if the windowing situation is cleaned up. In that scenario, I would probably group up documents so that I could always have at least two open and fully visible so I can drop fro one to the other while hiding everything else in tabs behind them.
Really, this goes back to the whole "tabs are MDI" argument.
There I go again.
Tonton, would you love or hate a Windows style taskbar in OS X? Did you ever use Power On's GoMac?
Do you think this type of recursive windowing has limits? The desktop is basically a window after all. Web browser tabs are windows within a window within a window. At what point does this become a bad thing?
[ 02-27-2003: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I see a few possibilities.
- We have the windows task bar ideology, where all documents (open and closed) are listed in a bar of some sort. Perhaps it could go on the side of the screen, with the dock reserved at the bottom. But how do folders fit in to this scheme? They're not really windows...are they? Which bar would they go into?
- There's a minimize in place option, where, instead of a window travelling all the way down to the dock, it just 'windowshades' or 'minimizes' (to a small photo) right where it is. This doesn't seem to address the problem of calling up a window that's behind another in one click, though.
- Another option would be to have the universal, document-centric tabs, like Eugene has thought through. All windows would open as their own independent window at the beginning, but you could double click the title bar, and they would become anchored to the operating system's tab interface that is on the desktop just below the menubar. Another double click, and they're back into their own window. The biggest pitfall with this idea is the desktop. . . . It would have to be surrendered.
- Any others?
My personal favorite is the extra dock on the side of the monitor. All windows would create a dynamically updated image of their contents, even if they are open. On mouse over, their names would pop up like in the dock. I imagine that this could even be done with a haxie.Ah well, enough for 4 AM in the morning. I'm going to bed now. I hope that this makes sense since, well have you ever written something late at night and then later in the morning you look back on it and then realize that it was really poorly written at four am in the morning and that it doesn't make any sense because it repeats, and yeah, and see, I really don't want that to happen, and so I think I'll go to bed now. G'night.
alt ideas:
--hold down a button, tabs un-hide.
--truncated multi-line URL field with moveable focus widget and/or clickable icons.
<strong>I see where Eugene is coming from regarding the danger of tabs becoming the ONLY way to implement documents within an app (like Preferences tabs) but I don't think this will happen. Apple can easily add a guideline to make sure that multi-window usage and detachment of tabs is always an option (they'd have to follow their own guidelines with the preference tabs first, of course).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not really. This has nothing to do with interface builders adding tabs to apps and everything to do with how users decide to use them. I think it's highly unlikely most better app developers would remove the better way of doing things in favor of tabs only.
<strong>Well, dare I say we're coming to a consensus (minus an obstanant few...). Although we disagree as to whether tabs are good now, we all think that there could be something better than tabs. So, what might this entail?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would compromise with a limited tear-off menu idea (borrowed from NeXT.) Within the Window menu, there would be an option to show a floating palette with a list of open windows. This allows the windows to stay independent of each other while also providing instant visual feedback and access to all the open windows. It would be like the OS 9 Application Switcher, but for windows... There's already a helper app that performs a similar function.
This is better than tabs in several ways:
1) The palette would be resizable without changing the dimensions of a web page.
2) The palette could be set to always be on top, unlike having two windows with their own tabs.
3) The palette would list items vertically by default...horizontally if you're a masochist.
4) You don't have to worry about having certain tabs in other windows.
5) You won't lose all your tabs by closing the palette since it's just a visual representation of open windows and not an actual container.
<a href="http://freespace.virgin.net/linux.users/step_main.html"; target="_blank">http://freespace.virgin.net/linux.users/step_main.html</a>;
<a href="http://www120.pair.com/mccarthy/nextstep/intro.htmld/Mac2NS3.html"; target="_blank">http://www120.pair.com/mccarthy/nextstep/intro.htmld/Mac2NS3.html</a>;
<strong>
I would compromise with a limited tear-off menu idea (borrowed from NeXT.) Within the Window menu, there would be an option to show a floating palette with a list of open windows. This allows the windows to stay independent of each other while also providing instant visual feedback and access to all the open windows. It would be like the OS 9 Application Switcher, but for windows... There's already a helper app that performs a similar function.
This is better than tabs in several ways:
1) The palette would be resizable without changing the dimensions of a web page.
2) The palette could be set to always be on top, unlike having two windows with their own tabs.
3) The palette would list items vertically by default...horizontally if you're a masochist.
4) You don't have to worry about having certain tabs in other windows.
5) You won't lose all your tabs by closing the palette since it's just a visual representation of open windows and not an actual container.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, yes. I like it. Instead of having an App-centric Window menu, have a universal Operating System Window menu, and it would be placed where the old application menu was in OS 9. You could then tear it off, if you so desired.
So, anyone know how to make a menubar haxie that could do this?
Is it possible we've reached... *GASP*... consensus?!?
Funny that we end up full circle back to a UI element from 1986 to replace tabs...
<strong>HOLY SCHNIBNITZ!
Is it possible we've reached... *GASP*... consensus?!?
Funny that we end up full circle back to a UI element from 1986 to replace tabs...
Yeah...back when UI ideas were actually researched.
I love my 12" PB. It has a beautiful small screen.
Tear off menus, floating palettes, NO!
Tabs are awesome for a small screen. They are also nice on my iMac 15" screen.
Adobe apps would be easier to use without all of the floating palettes...on this screen size.
I like tabs. I liked them on Chimera and I think I will like Safari's version even better.
Anyway, they are an option.
I would like to have the option of palettes or tabs in the same app. Maybe you could tear off the tabs and they would essentially then be floating palettes.
Choice is nice.
I used (and enjoyed) Action Utility's GoMac. It helped me a lot. BUT I never learned to use the pop-up listing of windows....too entrenched in using the WINDOWS menu in Photoshop, Illustrator...name an app.
The tear-off Finder app-switcher was something that I'd use on other machines when they didn't have GoMac installed. I believe this is all resolved around the fact that I just don't work on LARGE monitors. My habits might change MARKEDLY if that were to change (something I'm more than ready to try, depending on $$$ falling into my lap).
If you have a floating palette that obscures portions of windows then it might not be as happily received for people on small screens....that would be my only cautionary statement about the idea being batted around here.
A separate application DOCK that can HIDE is an interesting idea. Giving it a key command combo would be interesting too. One combo lets you flip between documents belonging to the application, another combo lets you switch between all open documents. How would this Dock let you "see" what these documents actually contain though? The previews, even magnified, are tiny.
Can you guys tell me how your various ideas would address these two situations:
INSTANCE #1
I'm in Photoshop and I have seven images open and active. I only want to shop between one of my photoshop documents, not every open screen window. What will make your new document picker faster (or better) than going up to the WINDOW menubar or using the CMD-tilde command?
INSTANCE #2
I'm in Microsoft Word and I want to see one of the five open browser windows in Safari. How will the application switcher let me do this?
Do YOUR methods allow me the option to HIDE other open windows until they are selected? Do your methods allow me to turn this OFF when I'm in the middle of drag-n-drop, multi-window fever?
There, that might help push you to 10 pages...
.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: drewprops ]</p>
When you use tabs you almost always know what each tab is with a great deal of familiarity, but there are still those pesky long page titles that don't help to jog your memory on the occasion that you forget what page a tab represents.
What's the solution here? Can the browser be improved to better parse the page code to give the page a better title? I don't want Safari to bloat on THAT account. Could Safari just number pages (AppleInsider#1, AppleInsider #2, etc)? Will it allow the user to assign their own tags for the page? If the page is frequently visited could there be a database of user-assigned names?
Micro-icons have become fairly popular, not sure if the mozilla project is responsible for their development BUT, what if websites had one more tag designed for browsers with tabs? The website designers would be responsible for providing concise descriptive names.
Would this work? I personally don't think so, especially on dynamically generated pages.
Anyway, those are some constructive thoughts for people who are fans of tabs in their browser.
I just thought of another reason I like tabs, other than having all my pages in a single place that doesn't take much room - they allow you to make your window the size you want and it won't be hampered by browsers that can't figure out what "full screen" is. Remember when Safari came out, how it drew new windows with the upper left corner centered on the screen? If it was tabbed, I wouldn't mind because I'd just resize and move that one window and then everything would be fine unless I wanted multiple windows. With a multi-window browser, though, you have to individually go through and fix each window's size, shape and position because you're opening lots of windows. Good programming can get rid of that problem, of course, but it's still kinda there. I have my dock on the left side of the screen but Safari's option-click of the green widget resizes the window to be nice to people who have their dock on the bottom like Apple wants them to. All browser makers have to adopt a better method of window resizing to be aware of the dock's size AND position, as well as the presence of a floating window associated with the browser.
Still, I like tabs because I know that the leftmost one is (for instance) CNN, the next one is AppleInsider, the next one is Google, the next one is my own site. Move, click, BOOM. (By the way, using the WINDOW menubar option is "move, click, move up, move down, find the right thing, stay on top of it until it is highlighted, release".
That example was provided as a petty swipe at the anti-tab crowd, but mostly to push us toward the next page....hope it helps.
har, har, hardee har
.
[ 02-28-2003: Message edited by: drewprops ]</p>