GUI ideas for Mac OS X.3? X.5?

12357

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 134
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    [quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:

    <strong>

    ...



    Follow the thought processes of a new user.



    "I want to do X to/with all the files in this folder."



    The user has been taught that you select a file, then do something with it.



    Now, would you rather teach them the Select All keystroke, that they can use *everywhere*, or would you rather explain to them that selecting a folder and 'doing X' to/with it doesn't actually do it to the *folder*, as they've been taught, but instead to the *files within*... but only for certain things.



    Welcome to Windows. Special cases everywhere because some developer somewhere in the bowels of MS thought it'd be cool to be able to do some funky action in some cases, but not all, and oh, by the way, you can't do it *there* because *that* folder is different...



    This isn't good design, this is a mess.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Think about it this way. What if I want to apply it to everything in that folder ... EVEN to sub folders and their contents. If I can't apply it to folders then I would have to open up every single folder and apply it to the contents.



    Allowing operations on folders means that I can select a folder and have EVERYTHING under that folder have that action performed in it. It simplifies things a great deal. Wouldn't it also be redunant to open each and every folder if you had a lot of folders to perform actions on. I don't personally have a problem with the way it is now but I'm trying to show you that 'this way is the best way' isn't always true. Unless I'm not seeing something here that you are.



    edit:

    A folder should not be treated like an object, but as a container.



    When you move a folder you aren't *just* moving the folder, but all of it's contents too. The only thing that makes up the folder IS what is inside of it. This is a property of folders that should be taught to new users as well that folders and files are different things, as they really are. I'm not saying that there should be exceptions upon exceptions like with windows, but I believe that the basic file-folder relationship shouldn't be platform specific, it makes sense everywhere.



    [ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: pyr3 ]</p>
  • Reply 82 of 134
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    [quote]Originally posted by Clive:

    <strong>I'm not sure why I should have to state what the improvements should be in order to show that the Dock is flawed from the ground up.



    But here goes:



    Despite what a lot of X boosters say, I think the old methods of Apple Menu, app switcher and window shade actually worked pretty well. The basic reason they did was that you had a good separation between apps that were running and aliases to apps that were regularly used (Apple must recognise this, having added "recent items" to the updated Apple Menu) and you had a hierarchical user storage system (which, wondorously sorts in alphabetical order and shows names and icons simultaneously).



    The nice thing about recent apps/documents/servers in 9.x is that they are self-modifying to the users specification - something that the doc completely misses out on.



    Window Shade, while originally a hack, came to be a great tool - and i admit that i thought it was a silly gimick originally. The power of WS is that all your windows stay where you left them - something that the Win task bar and the Dock cannot match. If you minimise in X you have to scrub around trying to find the window name - which may not be a lot of use to you if you have several windows with that name open. With WS you know where you left the window, you can see it's full title all the time, cmd-click the name and you can see it's folder hierarchy - these are all "clues" for the user that are missing with the dock.



    Take a typical desktop situation, you've maybe got 5-10 windows open, minimise them all and you've got 5-10 pretty much identical icons in the dock. Which is useful for what? The same applies with documents minimised to the doc.



    Ok, I think we have it, maybe setting that out does crystallise it in my mind. The problem with the dock is that it is overly reliant on distinguishing its elements by appearance, rather than "name", or appearance and name. The issue here is that the appearance of dock items are not unique - and Apple's new icon scheme does not help this.



    How would I make it better? I'd scrap window minimising altogether, and replace with Window Shade. I'd make the dock an App Switcher only. I'd have the Finder window list order alphabetically. I'd perhaps put the "recent" items folder in the dock, so that with a mouse over it would pop-up and show the contained items. I'd definitely split the recent items between docs and application, and I'd reinstate recent serveers. I'd make sure that there was distinctive separation between running apps and any "recent" folder in the dock.



    As far as the Finder goes I'd make the window widgets more distinguishable (colour doesn't work when you're in graphite mode), where you don't have to mouse over to get a clue. I'd reinstate non-proportional thumbs and clicks in scrollers move one screen down as a user setting ("move to the mouse point" in scrollers is less useful than move down one screen IMO, you can drag the thumb to that "point" but it's a hard guess as to jumping down a screen).</strong><hr></blockquote>



    The screen can get cluttered even with window shading. Since you can hide all the windows of an app this only would happen with browsers like IE, but if you use mozilla the tabbed interface solves that problem. (I have no idea why I decided to write this blurb...)
  • Reply 83 of 134
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,395member
    [quote]Originally posted by Clive:

    <strong>



    What do you mean "bottom menu bar"? You can hide the dock if you like, so that it only becomes visible when you mouse over.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I mean that if you set it as a bottom menubar, then these things would happen:

    1) The bottom of the desktop picture would adjust upwards and rest against the top of the dock just like the top of the desktop picture rests against the top menubar.

    2) The desktop icons would move up so that the dock does not cover them because its not desktop screen space.

    3) Open app windows would then behave with respect to the dock as they do to the top menubar.

    4) It would stretch all the way across the bottom of the screen, from edge to edge.



    In my mind, it would be just like a top menubar but it would be the dock and retain all that the dock can do (except the magnifiying effect).



    I know you can autohide it but then you have to mouse over it to see what status indicators are saying in it such as stock indicators or to see what apps are open.



    I just want the thing out of the desktop area and someplace where I can just glance at it to get information.



    There are some things one can put in the top menubar but I think Apple is making it harder to put 3rd party status indicators in it.



    I could also live with a bottom menubar that holds status indicators and icons of open apps but I doubt that would ever happen.
  • Reply 84 of 134
    [quote]Originally posted by Clive:

    <strong>



    Unfortunately I think it's beyond "refinements", it needs pretty much scrapping and starting all over again.



    [ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I completely agree. However, I disagree on the way to fix it.



    Give me virtual desktops and I'll find my apps myself. It'll also be ridiculously easy to find them.



    If you don't think the average user can figure them out, then set the default number of virtual desktops to be set to one and then hide the icon when there is only one virtual desktop. Add a system preference for the number of desktops and the icon shows up.
  • Reply 85 of 134
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by pyr3:

    <strong>



    This wasn't the intent of my original post. I was trying to say that using the fullscreen has it's uses. The person I was replying to thought that any program using the fullscreen was a waste of screen real-estate. And I never said that I use the fullscreen at high res, I said I do at low res.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And my point was to illustrate that in exactly those situations where fullscreen is useful, (low-res, for example), zoom *already does it*.



    Fullscreen, all the time, in every case (ie, the Windows way) *is* a waste of screenspace in the vast majority of cases.



    Anytime someone comes on here asking/requesting/demanding that Apple implement 'maximize' 'correctly', it's pretty obvious they haven't observed what zoom actually does, instead just seeing that it's not what they're used to, and jumping to conclusions.



    It's not maximize, it's zoom.



    In the cases where fullscreen makes sense, it uses it. In the rest of the cases, it's optimizing the use of your screenspace. If you still insist on having such a window take over your entire screen, resize it yourself, or use the option key to hide other apps and windows when switching between them.
  • Reply 86 of 134
    Some ideas I have I would like to see implemented.



    I want to be able to use a modifier-key to bring up the dock when the Dock is hidden so it?s not jumping up in some one?s user-space unless he/she wants it.



    I want to be able to name and re-name files and folders from title bar in apps and windows. When you rename a file though a sheet would appear with it?s new name, giving you a place to save it.



    Create a enclose folder: when you select multiples files or folders on your desktop or window, you could select ?Create Enclose folder? from the file menu. It creates folder and move all those items into that folder.



    An option, maybe a slider, in the ?Get info window? for each application to quit when you close its window, or quit after period of time, or to be left open all the time. So when hit the close button the System Preference, it will quit the App. Let?s say if you close a PhotoShop file and if you don?t create a new document in 20 minutes, the application quits. You set your time length for each app.



    Save Workspace similar to Photoshop 7 pallets, but instead of pallets it would be applications. So if select open Web Creation work Space. It would open up GoLive 7, PhotoShop 7, and Flash MX; if I open Finance Works Space it would open Quicken and my Banking website. Each time I select a new Work Space it close all apps in that Work Space and open the one?s to you selecte it.



    If you have a file that belongs to a workgroup, when you select ?Get info? it will show the history of all who work on that file and when it was work on.



    Notes: A selection under the Apple Menu that says Notes. When you selected it, a sheet comes down from top of the menu bar. You type as many lines you would like, then Right click or Control click and it will bring up a menu list of apps. Such as Stickies, Email, Word, etc. When you choose one, it closes the sheet, and sends the note to one of these Apps



    I have more but I'll post them later.
  • Reply 87 of 134
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by pyr3:

    <strong>Think about it this way. What if I want to apply it to everything in that folder ... EVEN to sub folders and their contents. If I can't apply it to folders then I would have to open up every single folder and apply it to the contents.



    Allowing operations on folders means that I can select a folder and have EVERYTHING under that folder have that action performed in it. It simplifies things a great deal. Wouldn't it also be redunant to open each and every folder if you had a lot of folders to perform actions on. I don't personally have a problem with the way it is now but I'm trying to show you that 'this way is the best way' isn't always true. Unless I'm not seeing something here that you are.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I doubt it, it's more likely just a philosophical difference. IMHO, the *primary* way the user should interact with a folder is *as a discrete unit*. You move a folder, you delete a folder, you rename a folder... it's a file system object *first*, and a folder second.



    [quote]<strong>edit:

    A folder should not be treated like an object, but as a container.



    When you move a folder you aren't *just* moving the folder, but all of it's contents too. The only thing that makes up the folder IS what is inside of it. This is a property of folders that should be taught to new users as well that folders and files are different things, as they really are. I'm not saying that there should be exceptions upon exceptions like with windows, but I believe that the basic file-folder relationship shouldn't be platform specific, it makes sense everywhere.

    [ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: pyr3 ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    You do realize, of course, that saying "it's not an object, it's a container" is really ironic, right?



    A container *IS* an object. It's an object that is a collection of other objects (even containers! Whoo-hoo!)



    What we're getting to here is whether an iterative per-item behaviour should be exposed to the user above the container level.



    Think of it this way: you have an array in your program that holds a collection of objects. There are three ways to iterate over the collection to perform a task:



    1) loop



    Access each item in turn, and for each item, do the operation.



    2) execute_on_subset



    Grab some subset of the collection, (all is valid), expose them externally, and perform the operation.



    3) for_each



    Tell the array to do the same task to every object in the container.



    1 is the manual method in the Finder, 2 is the Select All method, 3 is what you're advocating.



    I actually think that having such an iterative behaviour would be nice for the power user (I drop into the CLI on a regular basis to do such operations), but you can accomplish the same thing with a simple AppleScript. (Which you can keep in the toolbar as a drop target, to boot.) If folder actions were brought back, that would be an excellent tool for the power user.



    In the specific case of encryption, encryption is an attribute of a file system object. "Is this file encrypted?" "Is this folder('s items) encrypted?" In that way, it is very much like the permissions example you gave, and should be treated as such.



    Think about how clunky setting permissions would be given your iterative approach. :/
  • Reply 88 of 134
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    some big problems i see with with minimize in place:

    - how is the size of the window set?

    - is it based on the dock size?

    - would it scale when the dock scales?

    - would each minimized window be able to resize individually, or altogether?

    - and floating above EVERYthing is really tough to work with.



    though some major advantages of the method are:

    you get to see which app the window is tied to by its application "badge" (standard windowshade only left the name... not great if you have a lot of versions of similar-named files).



    you can quickly discern its contents from the thumbnail (so long as it isn't too small)



    also, rolled-up windows take up a lot of space on the screen comparitively.
  • Reply 89 of 134
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by Clive:

    <strong>

    I think the dock as it stands is close to useless, yes, and as it is supposed to be used I'd say that it is totally unusable and close to being some of the worst UI design I've ever seen.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, bully for you. I think that Windowshade is rather clumsy, vexed UI -- odd, truncated rolled-up windows that take up space, get stuck behind and in front of one another, and need to be constantly rearranged. It has a few niceties, but not enough -- I've always had issues with it.



    But hey, if it works for you, go for it.



    [quote]<strong>

    I have WindowShade X and AppMenu installed - the same of the whole issue is that Apple puts out an OS without these elements in place and I have to resort to purchasing hacks to get the thing running anything like smoothly. I also use FruitMenu, which IMO is pretty good, but needs some further work (ie its contextual menus should include the window view commands).

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Sounds to me like you're working with OS X as if it's OS 9, or trying to make it become 9. It isn't, really, it's different in some small but critical ways, and it sounds like you're going to be frustrated (or rely, as you do, on a bunch of 3rd-party utilities).



    <strong> [quote]

    Unfortunately I think it's beyond "refinements", it needs pretty much scrapping and starting all over again.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Uh...right.



    Apple has no intention of doing this, and it would frustrate and anger all of the people who do find the Dock both usable and efficient. Which seems to be, by the way, the majority of users.



    Talking about "scrapping and starting all over" is just pure silliness. Talking about the Dock being "utterly unusable" is equally silly, as evidenced by many posts on this board and elsewhere.



    Whether it's usable for you, Clide, is another matter. UI is notoriously subjective -- if the Dock works so badly for you, you should consider using Windows, or kill the Dock completely and rely on ASM, WindowShade, FruitMenu, DragThing, and the rest.



    I've heard a lot of strong emotion, but not very many concrete examples why the Dock UI is so worthless in your daily usage or work.



    Personally, I've found the Dock borderline unusable with primary Classic apps in heavy use (cough Quark cough) and without Yapasu.



    OS X native apps + Yapasu + LiteSwitch, the Dock works very well. Could be better. That's why we're here in this thread. But works well.



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
  • Reply 90 of 134
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    To the encryption discussion:

    I make a 'Disk Image' and keep anything I give a fig about in it. It's encrypted, it counts as one file for by backup script, and it mounts with a double click + password. Anyone coming by my computer while I'm logged in & not present can't access it.



    The minimize in place feature Apple was fiddling with but then left out of Jaguar looks like it will clear up one of my two remaining issues with the Dock. I have to check how spring loaded folders work with respect to the dock to see if the other is addressed.



    Features I want to see in 10.3:

    Multiple windowservers. Currently remote access is limited compared to where NeXt was. Using 'XWindows' might get part way, but to do what I really want they'd have to really redesign Xwindows from the ground up.



    Deprecated BSD commands. There's a long list of commands that are surviving in the BSD layer that have been 99% superceded - and remain because the replacement doesn't fill the other 1% of need. Fix the replacements, drop the cruft.



    Commando. Apple's first unix, AUX had an _amazing_ widget called 'Commando' that was basically an interactive GUI to the CLI. If the command you wanted to issue was 'list all files in the current directory in reverse time order', you'd type 'ls' and start clicking on radio buttons and check boxes & whatnot until the correct 'ls -lart' was arrived at. A very good merge point between the simplicity of a GUI with the raw power of the CLI.



    Integrate the man pages into the 'Help' pages. If I type 'disk mounting' into the current help, there is no info at all on any of the command line tools. I understand that that's not for everyone (certainly not my mom) but there should be a preference somewhere such that when I ask for help doing something it gives all the help it possibly can.



    Spit & Polish. There's probably 100 places where an OS 9 feature made it into Mac OS X... but only nominally. All of these need to be examined with an eye towards either bringing them up to OS 9 snuff - or surpassing it if something clearly better occurs. Contextual menus was one such thing, I hear Jaguar addresses this one somewhat. AppleScript Recording?



    Location Manager. There's _sort of_ a Location Manager now, but it's not the incredibly useful widget it was in my OS 9 days. With a laptop that connected to the net in no less than 4 different configurations, it was indescribably useful to click 'At Home' in one place and have my net connections, my monitor settings, even date & time set. The current one allows the network configuration to be altered, but since AppleScript is not the first class citizen it _was_, it's just not up to snuff. As an example, I switch from using a modem to using airport. You can set 'show modem status in menubar' and 'show airport status in menubar'. But when you switch locations, it doesn't actually reset all of these little toggles! It sets the network up to use airport, sure, but it leaves me with a little disabled modem icon and no airport signal strength indicator.
  • Reply 91 of 134
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by rok:

    <strong>some big problems i see with with minimize in place:

    - how is the size of the window set?

    - is it based on the dock size?

    - would it scale when the dock scales?

    - would each minimized window be able to resize individually, or altogether?

    - and floating above EVERYthing is really tough to work with.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Size -- a pre-set size: say 64 x 64. This is how it worked in early Jag builds.



    It would be very nice if this could be adjusted in Dock Preferences.



    Would it scale - nope. Independent of the Dock, which can't quite handle the task of heavy window management.



    Each indiv. window & floating willy-nilly -- those are good ones.



    I'm hoping that Apple pulled MIP because they realized that there needs to be a way to move, organize, magnetize, close and expand, and just plain group clusters of mini-windows. Otherwise I can see things getting cluttered real fast and having to be micromanaged, just like with windowshade.



    In one early build you were able to "fling" mini-windows to screen edges, but that was pulled.



    <strong> [quote]

    though some major advantages of the method are:

    you get to see which app the window is tied to by its application "badge" (standard windowshade only left the name... not great if you have a lot of versions of similar-named files).

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Agreed. At least they kept the badges in for Jaguar.



    <strong> [quote]

    you can quickly discern its contents from the thumbnail (so long as it isn't too small)



    also, rolled-up windows take up a lot of space on the screen comparitively.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Agreed!



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
  • Reply 92 of 134
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    Some great stuff here!



    [quote]Originally posted by Mike Ghost:

    <strong>

    I want to be able to name and re-name files and folders from title bar in apps and windows. When you rename a file though a sheet would appear with it?s new name, giving you a place to save it.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Totally! This is long overdue.



    [quote]<strong>

    Save Workspace similar to Photoshop 7 pallets, but instead of pallets it would be applications. So if select open Web Creation work Space. It would open up GoLive 7, PhotoShop 7, and Flash MX; if I open Finance Works Space it would open Quicken and my Banking website. Each time I select a new Work Space it close all apps in that Work Space and open the one?s to you selecte it.



    If you have a file that belongs to a workgroup, when you select ?Get info? it will show the history of all who work on that file and when it was work on.

    </strong><hr></blockquote>



    That's a great idea, a kind of simpler, more user-friendly version of *nixen virtual workspaces.



    That would be very useful.





    [quote]Originally posted by Nevyn:

    <strong>

    Location Manager. There's _sort of_ a Location Manager now, but it's not the incredibly useful widget it was in my OS 9 days. With a laptop that connected to the net in no less than 4 different configurations, it was indescribably useful to click 'At Home' in one place and have my net connections, my monitor settings, even date & time set. The current one allows the network configuration to be altered, but since AppleScript is not the first class citizen it _was_, it's just not up to snuff. As an example, I switch from using a modem to using airport. You can set 'show modem status in menubar' and 'show airport status in menubar'. But when you switch locations, it doesn't actually reset all of these little toggles! It sets the network up to use airport, sure, but it leaves me with a little disabled modem icon and no airport signal strength indicator.</strong><hr></blockquote>





    I also yearn for a return of a better Location Manager. My solution to create macros for quickly booting up the menu extras I need, and drag them off when done, but it's a clumsy workaround. Menu extras should instantly adjust to one's location settings...



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
  • Reply 93 of 134
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    [quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:

    <strong>



    And my point was to illustrate that in exactly those situations where fullscreen is useful, (low-res, for example), zoom *already does it*.



    Fullscreen, all the time, in every case (ie, the Windows way) *is* a waste of screenspace in the vast majority of cases.



    Anytime someone comes on here asking/requesting/demanding that Apple implement 'maximize' 'correctly', it's pretty obvious they haven't observed what zoom actually does, instead just seeing that it's not what they're used to, and jumping to conclusions.



    It's not maximize, it's zoom.



    In the cases where fullscreen makes sense, it uses it. In the rest of the cases, it's optimizing the use of your screenspace. If you still insist on having such a window take over your entire screen, resize it yourself, or use the option key to hide other apps and windows when switching between them.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    There is no 'zoom' feature for the browser. The only thing close is the changing of font sizes, but that doesn't come close to reformating a web page in the way that a 'zoom' feature does like in MS Word. I'm saying that fullscreen makes the most sense for browser. Other apps vary. Maxmize for the most part is a left-over feature from Windows 3.1 where there was no multi-tasking for fullscreen made more sense.



    Some people still prefer the maximize though, because to them it makes the computer act like it's in a certain 'mode'. I have the browser here at fullscreen so I'm in 'browser mode' for example. They don't think of things in such a multi-tasking way. They want to use the computer like it is a dedicated device where there are different 'modes' of operation. Like switch between audio inputs on your amp. You're using the audio from the DVD player, and then you switch and you're using the audio from the tape deck. I'm not saying this is the best way to think of it, but this is the way many people think of the computer. Whether or not we should cater to that, or just say learn it the correct way is up for debate.



    I personally think that there should be some sort of standards setting body that creates standards based on usability, and inuitivity. Standards that are applied to all desktop OSes. This would benefit us a lot, I think at least. I'm not saying that the standards should cover everything, but they should make general guidelines for basic usability so that people don't need to be 'de-programmed' from one way of thinking to another just to switch their OS.



    edit :



    I didn't realize what you were talking about with the 'zoom' feature. I thought that you meant a feature like in MS Word where you can look at the page at a % of the actual size. And it will scale the page to effectively 'zoom' in and out.



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: pyr3 ]</p>
  • Reply 94 of 134
    pyr3pyr3 Posts: 946member
    [quote]Originally posted by Kickaha:

    <strong>



    You do realize, of course, that saying "it's not an object, it's a container" is really ironic, right?



    A container *IS* an object. It's an object that is a collection of other objects (even containers! Whoo-hoo!)



    What we're getting to here is whether an iterative per-item behaviour should be exposed to the user above the container level.



    Think of it this way: you have an array in your program that holds a collection of objects. There are three ways to iterate over the collection to perform a task:



    1) loop



    Access each item in turn, and for each item, do the operation.



    2) execute_on_subset



    Grab some subset of the collection, (all is valid), expose them externally, and perform the operation.



    3) for_each



    Tell the array to do the same task to every object in the container.



    1 is the manual method in the Finder, 2 is the Select All method, 3 is what you're advocating.



    I actually think that having such an iterative behaviour would be nice for the power user (I drop into the CLI on a regular basis to do such operations), but you can accomplish the same thing with a simple AppleScript. (Which you can keep in the toolbar as a drop target, to boot.) If folder actions were brought back, that would be an excellent tool for the power user.



    In the specific case of encryption, encryption is an attribute of a file system object. "Is this file encrypted?" "Is this folder('s items) encrypted?" In that way, it is very much like the permissions example you gave, and should be treated as such.



    Think about how clunky setting permissions would be given your iterative approach. :/</strong><hr></blockquote>



    I hear what you are saying, there *are* more ways to do it than 1. Maybe this would be a better way to say it. When you select the folder have a menu option that has a "perform action on all contents of folder and all contents of sub-folders". This way the user doesn't think that they are performing it in the folder, but rather the contents of the folder. Would this not be an acceptable route, while still maintaining the "file/folder" relationship that you are talking about? I find it kind of annoying that a power user would have to go and program their own AppleScript just to get that sort of functionality. I'm not sure how hard AppleScript is, but maybe Apple could even make a 'power user mode' that would add that to the Finder when enabled, or have a set of AppleScripts pre-made in some 'power user package' for download. This would make things a lot easier, no? I think that it's kinda stupid for Apple to not include this functionality in some way for power users and expect them to program it on their own. You have to admit that this is a pretty basic functionality, maybe not the 'very' basic, but close.
  • Reply 95 of 134
    reidreid Posts: 190member
    I want the option of having to double-click an icon to launch the applications sitting in the dock. Just a check-box in the preference pane is all I'm asking for; it doesn't have to be a default configuration.



    I'm constantly hitting iPhoto or AppleWorks or something by accident, when I just meant to bring iTunes to the front. If launching a program required a double-click in the dock, like it has everywhere else in the Mac OS since time began, then I wouldn't have to sit through the iPhoto launch (or force-quit it) nearly so often.
  • Reply 96 of 134
    [quote]Originally posted by RolandG:

    <strong>What I am hoping for is a maximize function - like MS Windows - to enlarge windows to fullscreen with a single click.



    By-the-way, what is the single-app-mode people are talking about?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    There is a way to maximize a window for some apps. It takes one extra step compared to MS Windows (like a lot of things in Mac OS X in my opinion...) but it works.



    In apps with a "Window" menu (e.g. Finder) select "Zoom Window" from the "Window" menu.



    In OmniWeb it works if you hold down "Shift" while selecting "Zoom Windows".



    In some apps (TextEdit) it doesn't work at all...



    Different behavior in different applications.

    Not very intuitive...



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: a Martin ]</p>
  • Reply 97 of 134
    rokrok Posts: 3,519member
    Re: saving workspaces...



    actually, i'm not much of a linux geek (hell, i'm not a linux geek at all), but isn't this another thing that linux was famous for? not just workspaces, but entire sessions?



    so therefore, even if one session crashed, you had another session running as backup that could take over without a hiccup. you could have it doing exactly the same as what you're doing at the moment (kinda like a mirror mentality), or mostly, but with different things going (kinda like a different workspace, but more than just window arrangements and aliases and file organization).



    this is another one of those things that made linux uncrashable. at any gievn point in time, you had three other sessions ready to jump in if trouble arose.



    wonder if they're tinkering with that idea in cupertino.



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
  • Reply 98 of 134
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by a Martin:

    <strong>



    There is a way to maximize a window for some apps. It takes one extra step compared to MS Windows (like a lot of things in Mac OS X in my opinion...) but it works.



    In apps with a "Window" menu (e.g. Finder) select "Zoom Window" from the "Window" menu.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    This is identical to hitting the green zoom widget on the title bar. Identical.



    [quote]<strong>In OmniWeb it works if you hold down "Shift" while selecting "Zoom Windows".



    In some apps (TextEdit) it doesn't work at all...



    Different behavior in different applications.

    Not very intuitive...



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: a Martin ]</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Read mine and pyr3's discussion above. Each app determines what the optimal size is for the current data, and resizes to it. In the sense of what the app does under the hood, it is quite consistent. The size it zooms to, however, differs based on the data it is displaying.
  • Reply 99 of 134
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    [quote]Originally posted by pyr3:

    <strong>

    &lt;snip browser zoom misinterpretation&gt;



    Some people still prefer the maximize though, because to them it makes the computer act like it's in a certain 'mode'. I have the browser here at fullscreen so I'm in 'browser mode' for example. They don't think of things in such a multi-tasking way. They want to use the computer like it is a dedicated device where there are different 'modes' of operation. Like switch between audio inputs on your amp. You're using the audio from the DVD player, and then you switch and you're using the audio from the tape deck. I'm not saying this is the best way to think of it, but this is the way many people think of the computer. Whether or not we should cater to that, or just say learn it the correct way is up for debate.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    And again, there is already a way to do this.



    Hold down Cmd-Opt and click on any app in the Dock. It switches to that app and hides all the other apps at the same time. Voila. Modal.



    Immediately obvious? Nope, not really. But it is in the Help.



    The benefit of this is that you aren't hijacking one behaviour (window size) to satisfy another desire (modal operation).



    Window size and modal use are now untied, and you can have small windows that efficiently use the screen space, *and* a modal method of operation.



    [quote]<strong>I personally think that there should be some sort of standards setting body that creates standards based on usability, and inuitivity. Standards that are applied to all desktop OSes. This would benefit us a lot, I think at least. I'm not saying that the standards should cover everything, but they should make general guidelines for basic usability so that people don't need to be 'de-programmed' from one way of thinking to another just to switch their OS.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Er, can I run screaming now?



    Seriously, that would just be... bad. Bad, bad, bad on so many levels. Quick reality check: which UI do you think would 'win'? Numbers of user? Windows. Clout of company? Windows. Usability? Anything but Windows, but merit matters little in committee.



    Let the users and industry sort it out through innovations and neat ideas.



    [ 08-13-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
  • Reply 100 of 134
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    Option-click the Zoom widget (green button) in most browsers to resize window to maximum instead of optimal size.



    Not Mozilla, though. Hmph.



    I agree this needs to be part of Apple's HUI, and more consistently applied.
Sign In or Register to comment.