<strong>The people who do want tabs simply say, "I like them."</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that's just it - we like them. Do you want a page long post explaining why I like strawberries next?
[quote]Originally posted by rogue27:
<strong>TI do think Safari has the best implementation of tabbed browsing I've seen yet (ignoring the bugs) but I still think it is more troublesome than cycling through windows which,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the exact opposite, but I'm not allowed to think that
After trying to defend why I like tabs better I found that I just can't really. Separate windows aren't that different. Having tabs is really only like 2% more convenient.
<strong>My biggest observation after reading this whole thread was this:
The people who don't want tabs have rather elegant and technical explanations of why they don't want tabs.
The people who do want tabs simply say, "I like them."
Personally, I find the anti-tabs commentary to be more convincing, but you can't slam Apple if they add a feature that users are begging for, since listening to customer feedback is a good thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can, however, expect them to add a feature that users are asking for (quick access to multiple pages) in a way that doesn't break the UI consistency. For those calling consistency "elitist," it's the absolute bedrock of the Mac UI, and Apple's most fundamental contribution to the GUI. If you want to call it elitist rather than the conclusion of years of careful research in order to score a quick rhetorical point, fine. Just be aware that that's what you're doing.
[quote]<strong>However, listening to customer feedback when it may be bad advice is not necessarily good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Listening to customer feedback is always good. The trick is to look past the exact implementations they might come up with to the need or desire that's driving their attempts in the first place, and then implement that well.
At least the Safari developers are using things that don't look a blessed thing like standard Aqua tabs. That's a nod to UI consistency, at least, although their alternative still has almost all the weaknesses of the standard tab.
[quote]<strong>What I fear, and why I sort-of side with the no tabs crowd, is that if every user interface element from every operating system and application that somebody likes gets put into OS X, it will become a mess to use and it will confuse new users. Right now, OS X is only confusing to people who want the OS to behave exactly like Microsoft Windows and get frustrated when some behaviors are different. If people spend more time learning the way OS X was designed to work, they may start getting frustrated at how windows works, instead of vice-versa.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is exactly the reason to keep the UI consistent. Consistency is 90% of the Mac's user friendliness. Take it away, and you might as well be running Windows, or Motif.
<strong>And you can't change guidelines made almost 20 years ago?
The world changes and we use computers in a very different way than we did 20 years ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you come up with new ways to react to that, and retire the old ones. In the current case, where much of the world's changing is due to the adoption by various means of a completely bletcherous interface that cumulatively costs US industry alone billions of dollars a year, part of adopting to the changing world can simply involve insisting on consistency. After all, interfaces and use won't change all that much as long as WIMP + keyboard predominates.
Notwithstanding change, tabs are designed and purposed to statically organize related content. If the world changes in a way that requires a different need, you come up with a different solution, so that tabs continue to have a clear meaning and purpose. But if you find yourself tending toward MDI, you should really proceed cautiously. It's one of the very worst aspects of Windows. They are guidelines, in much the same way that science produces mere theories, but that does not mean that a responsible developer should not take them seriously.
Change for the sake of change helps nothing, and adopting solutions just because they're "good enough" helps Microsoft.
<strong>And you can't change guidelines made almost 20 years ago?</strong><hr></blockquote>The guidelines exist and are upheld still today because they *do* still apply, even if some parts may be 20 years old. You can't just throw away years of well-known and accepted behaviors on a whim because something new has been put out on Windows. Just because you like tabs doesn't mean they are good UI elements. Here's a cheap metaphor for you: Fast food is a booming industry in America. So, since people like super-sized cheeseburgers and fries as a quick and convenient meal, that means these greasy foods must be good for us, no?
Seriously, though, as you add more custom widgets like these tabs to the system (and I mean "system" as the whole of the UI between all apps, not just the OS), you add complications and inconsistencies across the board. If you can do something with tabs in Safari, then why doesn't it work the same with tabs in System Preferences or other apps? Questions like this MUST be thought out because these so-called "minor" inconsistencies iterate and add up. These "minor" inconsistencies are the reason that I and so many others here hate Windows and various Linux and Java apps with a passion. The more custom one-time behaviors Apple starts adding, the less "elegant" and intuitive the Mac UI becomes.
The end user shouldn't have to recognize custom UI elements for every single app he uses. It's just common sense in UI design that this is a terible thing. Apple has already started adding some strange custom elements in iChat and now in Safari that have behaviors which exist nowhere else in the system. Bad UI! Bad! I fear that by adding tabs as well, Apple is setting a very dangerous trend in the design on its apps. That, I believe, is why people are so upset about this issue. It's not just that we dislike single-window interfaces; it's also that we hate introducting these wild inconsistencies and setting a precedence for future inconsistencies.
To add to what Amorph said (he posted while I was typing), yes, the guidelines are indeed just guidelines. They can be bent and they can from time to time be broken. They still are a crucial part of the Mac experience, though. They must be upheld for the vast majority of apps' UI for users to truly appreciate and easily handle the UI.
<strong>And you can't change guidelines made almost 20 years ago?
The world changes and we use computers in a very different way than we did 20 years ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Guidelines should not be set in stone, but think how limiting tabs would be if/when we get multiple desktops. I guess you could have multiple windows tabs organized according to what you're working on, but that would kinda defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? I'm gonna go with the "no tabs" crowd because, well, consistency is the best thing about using a Mac. I don't want to lose that.
<strong>If you can do something with tabs in Safari, then why doesn't it work the same with tabs in System Preferences or other apps?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The tabs in Safari don't look like the standard tabs.
Only the guys responsible for Navigator made the tabs look like standard tabs - not Apple's fault.
but think how limiting tabs would be if/when we get multiple desktops. I guess you could have multiple windows tabs organized according to what you're working on, but that would kinda defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Why?
I don't want to switch windows, I don't want to switch desktops, I want to have my grouped tabs visible in one window.
All other ways require that you use mouse/keyboard to give you something as simple as a status of how many windows you have open (and perhaps not read yet).
Depends on the IDE. I've had to use Borland's C++ IDE, which is enough to tell anyone how thoroughly tabs can suck. Project Builder is much cleaner.
Again, the issue is appropriate use of tabs. If there's one row of tabs, they're always the same, and they group related content into named subgroups, I'm all for them.
I've learned this lesson the hard way, as a developer. It's true that one gets accustomed to wobbly applications with slapdash interfaces as a developer (especially on Windows, although MS' suite is at least nicer than Borland's in this regard), but that's hardly an excuse for foisting a shoddy UI on something as ubiquitous as web browsing.
If you feel tempted to violate a guideline, it's probably because following them will involve a great deal more work on your part. Do the work anyway. The fact that most developers don't explains the miserable state of most software.
Where did you get this again? How do all these people 'have' it if the apple site only has the 2/12/03 update? Did i miss something here? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Sorry if this has been already asked. I don't feel like sorting through 5 pages of thread for it.
<strong>Where did you get this again? How do all these people 'have' it if the apple site only has the 2/12/03 update? Did i miss something here? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Sorry if this has been already asked. I don't feel like sorting through 5 pages of thread for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I can't tell you, but perhaps you'll find the answer in this thread
God forbid that some of us might want to keep our browsing organized...
Saying that having a clutter of windows is just as convenient as using tabs is silly. If I've been doing a lot of stuff some are in viewable easily, some obscured behind others, some minimized etc.
Everyone acts like tabs are going to totally screw up OS X gui. I guess those tabs in the prefs panes dont count?
Whaaaatever... people need to light lighten up. I bet half of you cried and whined for windowshade to come back too. Pffft.
I'm just waiting for Apple to re-implement the volume knob in quicktime!!! (hehe no no just kidding... now THAT was bad gui...)
Sounds like most tab users are so brainwashed by Windows that they've not taken the time to learn how to use OS X properly.
It reminds me of how people complained that the Zoom widget didn't cause the app to take up the whole screen, as seeing other applications leering through from the background puts some switchers off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank Jebus.
I'm still wondering why people think mousing to the static "Window" menu and selecting one item is harder than mousing to a dynamic location on the screen to select a tab.
I'm still wondering why people enjoy scanning a one-dimensional list of tabs. As Brad illustrated, it quickly becomes confusing even with <10 tabs. I always list items in a column because the list becomes two dimensional. A single bulleted item is read left to right, while separate items are in their own row.
But I've already listed all my reasons, and tab-proponents are just rehashing lies about how difficult it is to use the built-in features of the OS instead. "To use the Window menu you have to chop off your pinkie, close one eye, mouse to the top of the screen, then make a wish, blah blah..." not.
Comments
<strong>The people who do want tabs simply say, "I like them."</strong><hr></blockquote>
But that's just it - we like them. Do you want a page long post explaining why I like strawberries next?
[quote]Originally posted by rogue27:
<strong>TI do think Safari has the best implementation of tabbed browsing I've seen yet (ignoring the bugs) but I still think it is more troublesome than cycling through windows which,</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the exact opposite, but I'm not allowed to think that
<strong>My biggest observation after reading this whole thread was this:
The people who don't want tabs have rather elegant and technical explanations of why they don't want tabs.
The people who do want tabs simply say, "I like them."
Personally, I find the anti-tabs commentary to be more convincing, but you can't slam Apple if they add a feature that users are begging for, since listening to customer feedback is a good thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
You can, however, expect them to add a feature that users are asking for (quick access to multiple pages) in a way that doesn't break the UI consistency. For those calling consistency "elitist," it's the absolute bedrock of the Mac UI, and Apple's most fundamental contribution to the GUI. If you want to call it elitist rather than the conclusion of years of careful research in order to score a quick rhetorical point, fine. Just be aware that that's what you're doing.
[quote]<strong>However, listening to customer feedback when it may be bad advice is not necessarily good.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Listening to customer feedback is always good. The trick is to look past the exact implementations they might come up with to the need or desire that's driving their attempts in the first place, and then implement that well.
At least the Safari developers are using things that don't look a blessed thing like standard Aqua tabs. That's a nod to UI consistency, at least, although their alternative still has almost all the weaknesses of the standard tab.
[quote]<strong>What I fear, and why I sort-of side with the no tabs crowd, is that if every user interface element from every operating system and application that somebody likes gets put into OS X, it will become a mess to use and it will confuse new users. Right now, OS X is only confusing to people who want the OS to behave exactly like Microsoft Windows and get frustrated when some behaviors are different. If people spend more time learning the way OS X was designed to work, they may start getting frustrated at how windows works, instead of vice-versa.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is exactly the reason to keep the UI consistent. Consistency is 90% of the Mac's user friendliness. Take it away, and you might as well be running Windows, or Motif.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
The world changes and we use computers in a very different way than we did 20 years ago.
<strong>And you can't change guidelines made almost 20 years ago?
The world changes and we use computers in a very different way than we did 20 years ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So you come up with new ways to react to that, and retire the old ones. In the current case, where much of the world's changing is due to the adoption by various means of a completely bletcherous interface that cumulatively costs US industry alone billions of dollars a year, part of adopting to the changing world can simply involve insisting on consistency. After all, interfaces and use won't change all that much as long as WIMP + keyboard predominates.
Notwithstanding change, tabs are designed and purposed to statically organize related content. If the world changes in a way that requires a different need, you come up with a different solution, so that tabs continue to have a clear meaning and purpose. But if you find yourself tending toward MDI, you should really proceed cautiously. It's one of the very worst aspects of Windows. They are guidelines, in much the same way that science produces mere theories, but that does not mean that a responsible developer should not take them seriously.
Change for the sake of change helps nothing, and adopting solutions just because they're "good enough" helps Microsoft.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
<strong>And you can't change guidelines made almost 20 years ago?</strong><hr></blockquote>The guidelines exist and are upheld still today because they *do* still apply, even if some parts may be 20 years old. You can't just throw away years of well-known and accepted behaviors on a whim because something new has been put out on Windows. Just because you like tabs doesn't mean they are good UI elements. Here's a cheap metaphor for you: Fast food is a booming industry in America. So, since people like super-sized cheeseburgers and fries as a quick and convenient meal, that means these greasy foods must be good for us, no?
Seriously, though, as you add more custom widgets like these tabs to the system (and I mean "system" as the whole of the UI between all apps, not just the OS), you add complications and inconsistencies across the board. If you can do something with tabs in Safari, then why doesn't it work the same with tabs in System Preferences or other apps? Questions like this MUST be thought out because these so-called "minor" inconsistencies iterate and add up. These "minor" inconsistencies are the reason that I and so many others here hate Windows and various Linux and Java apps with a passion. The more custom one-time behaviors Apple starts adding, the less "elegant" and intuitive the Mac UI becomes.
The end user shouldn't have to recognize custom UI elements for every single app he uses. It's just common sense in UI design that this is a terible thing. Apple has already started adding some strange custom elements in iChat and now in Safari that have behaviors which exist nowhere else in the system. Bad UI! Bad! I fear that by adding tabs as well, Apple is setting a very dangerous trend in the design on its apps. That, I believe, is why people are so upset about this issue. It's not just that we dislike single-window interfaces; it's also that we hate introducting these wild inconsistencies and setting a precedence for future inconsistencies.
To add to what Amorph said (he posted while I was typing), yes, the guidelines are indeed just guidelines. They can be bent and they can from time to time be broken. They still are a crucial part of the Mac experience, though. They must be upheld for the vast majority of apps' UI for users to truly appreciate and easily handle the UI.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
<strong>And you can't change guidelines made almost 20 years ago?
The world changes and we use computers in a very different way than we did 20 years ago.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Guidelines should not be set in stone, but think how limiting tabs would be if/when we get multiple desktops. I guess you could have multiple windows tabs organized according to what you're working on, but that would kinda defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? I'm gonna go with the "no tabs" crowd because, well, consistency is the best thing about using a Mac. I don't want to lose that.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
<strong>If you can do something with tabs in Safari, then why doesn't it work the same with tabs in System Preferences or other apps?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The tabs in Safari don't look like the standard tabs.
Only the guys responsible for Navigator made the tabs look like standard tabs - not Apple's fault.
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: JLL ]</p>
<strong>
but think how limiting tabs would be if/when we get multiple desktops. I guess you could have multiple windows tabs organized according to what you're working on, but that would kinda defeat the purpose, wouldn't it? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Why?
I don't want to switch windows, I don't want to switch desktops, I want to have my grouped tabs visible in one window.
All other ways require that you use mouse/keyboard to give you something as simple as a status of how many windows you have open (and perhaps not read yet).
Again, the issue is appropriate use of tabs. If there's one row of tabs, they're always the same, and they group related content into named subgroups, I'm all for them.
I've learned this lesson the hard way, as a developer. It's true that one gets accustomed to wobbly applications with slapdash interfaces as a developer (especially on Windows, although MS' suite is at least nicer than Borland's in this regard), but that's hardly an excuse for foisting a shoddy UI on something as ubiquitous as web browsing.
If you feel tempted to violate a guideline, it's probably because following them will involve a great deal more work on your part. Do the work anyway. The fact that most developers don't explains the miserable state of most software.
<strong>Notwithstanding change, tabs are designed and purposed to statically organize related content.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Says who?
This is from the Aqua guidelines:
The tab control provides a convenient way to present information in a multipage format.
Where does it say that the content should be static?
<strong>piracy = bad!
[ 02-24-2003: Message edited by: Brad ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Piracy is stealing. I was offering to buy it.
Sorry if this has been already asked. I don't feel like sorting through 5 pages of thread for it.
Try placing the cursor between two tabs - and just below them. The resize cursor appears.
I hope that they will be draggable too.
<strong>Where did you get this again? How do all these people 'have' it if the apple site only has the 2/12/03 update? Did i miss something here? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Sorry if this has been already asked. I don't feel like sorting through 5 pages of thread for it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well I can't tell you, but perhaps you'll find the answer in this thread
What have you all been talking about? (I didn't bother to read it all).
I mean, they're just tabs.
Saying that having a clutter of windows is just as convenient as using tabs is silly. If I've been doing a lot of stuff some are in viewable easily, some obscured behind others, some minimized etc.
Everyone acts like tabs are going to totally screw up OS X gui. I guess those tabs in the prefs panes dont count?
Whaaaatever... people need to light lighten up. I bet half of you cried and whined for windowshade to come back too. Pffft.
I'm just waiting for Apple to re-implement the volume knob in quicktime!!! (hehe no no just kidding... now THAT was bad gui...)
<strong>
Sounds like most tab users are so brainwashed by Windows that they've not taken the time to learn how to use OS X properly.
It reminds me of how people complained that the Zoom widget didn't cause the app to take up the whole screen, as seeing other applications leering through from the background puts some switchers off.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thank Jebus.
I'm still wondering why people think mousing to the static "Window" menu and selecting one item is harder than mousing to a dynamic location on the screen to select a tab.
I'm still wondering why people enjoy scanning a one-dimensional list of tabs. As Brad illustrated, it quickly becomes confusing even with <10 tabs. I always list items in a column because the list becomes two dimensional. A single bulleted item is read left to right, while separate items are in their own row.
But I've already listed all my reasons, and tab-proponents are just rehashing lies about how difficult it is to use the built-in features of the OS instead. "To use the Window menu you have to chop off your pinkie, close one eye, mouse to the top of the screen, then make a wish, blah blah..." not.