Xidius, those SpyMac pics look like someone customized the icons in OmniWeb. It's simple to do, and those icons are all availible elsewhere in the System folder. They turned off the Address bar and favorites bar, and set the toolbar to "Icon Only."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless they edited the picture, you can see in the dock that OmniWeb isn't running.
Xidius, those SpyMac pics look like someone customized the icons in OmniWeb. It's simple to do, and those icons are all availible elsewhere in the System folder. They turned off the Address bar and favorites bar, and set the toolbar to "Icon Only."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do a search. Seems those are actually her pictures..
However, I dont think they are meant to be real. Mearly a composit.
<strong>Unless they edited the picture, you can see in the dock that OmniWeb isn't running.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's right. Xidius' images are 100% edited and fake. Besides, the picture is a simply cobbled-together montage of the Finder and Internet Explorer, not OmniWeb. You can tell by the lack of antialiasing in the snapshots and by IE's ugly white button in the Google window.
<strong>Seems those are actually her pictures..</strong><hr></blockquote>Correct. That's his weird custom background on the desktop. I've seen it nowhere but on Xidius' setup.
The JPEGS had me fooled. I've just spent the last few seconds trying to move the scroll bar in the picture rather than my browser. <img src="graemlins/embarrassed.gif" border="0" alt="[Embarrassed]" /> Must get some more sleep... <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
I really don't see the disadvantage of the integration. Having standardized and reusable components available for such basic tasks as html rendering is a no-brainer from a development standpoint. The UI concerns for embedding this component into the finder are only important for people that think it doesn't make sense. The solution, don't type urls into the address box. Nobody has a gun to your head. I for one, like having my bookmarks for ftp, webdav, local folders, websites all in one place and be able to access any of them from my current window in 2 clicks on my windows box.
It's not hard-coded integration on windows either. Explorer just embeds showdocvw.dll component into the window like acrobat or any of the office apps whenever appropriate content is browsed.
<strong>Having standardized and reusable components available for such basic tasks as html rendering is a no-brainer from a development standpoint.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and MS did a poor job of it on their end, design-wise. I offered an example of how Apple could - and should - offer standardized and reusable components for web integration in this thread.
But that has nothing to do with changing Finder to browse web pages.
[quote]<strong>The UI concerns for embedding this component into the finder are only important for people that think it doesn't make sense. The solution, don't type urls into the address box.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The last time I ended up with a tiny Explorer window and three banner ads on my desktop, it wasn't because I typed a URL into the address box. What I did type in - a path - ended up directing me to MSN Search, or somesuch.
Dumb. If I'm browsing folders, I want to browse folders.
[quote]<strong>I for one, like having my bookmarks for ftp, webdav, local folders, websites all in one place and be able to access any of them from my current window in 2 clicks on my windows box.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then MS will love you. They love everything-and-the-kitchen-sink functionality. I'm still waiting for them to integrate Office into explorer, frankly.
[quote]<strong>It's not hard-coded integration on windows either. Explorer just embeds showdocvw.dll component into the window like acrobat or any of the office apps whenever appropriate content is browsed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's hardcoded integration into Windows, not into Explorer, and that's even more stupid.
[quote]They love everything-and-the-kitchen-sink functionality. I'm still waiting for them to integrate Office into explorer, frankly.<hr></blockquote>
Seriously, though. I'm surprised they've kept the Office applications discrete at this point. Seems like their philosophy to clump everything they can together in the name of interoperability.
Here's an old article I like to post on these occasions about OpenStep that applies to Mac OS X and Apple's philosophy in general. It's specifically about Services, but the first part of the article is the most pertinent here:
[quote]One of the OPENSTEP philosophies is that users want small tools that do a particular task very well. They don't want a monolithic Swiss Army Knife that tries to do everything and yet doesn't really do anything particularly well. The idea is that the user can choose a bunch of tools that suit their needs and then apply them to the task at hand. This may seem a foreign concept to the user of, say, Microsoft applications. Those applications are designed to take over the computer and the user is not expected to leave them until they are done with them. The OPENSTEP approach is to launch an armada of applications and have them all working on the document together, with the user jumping from one application to the next. In the Microsoft world, this wouldn't work because the applications do such a poor job of communicating with each other. OPENSTEP applications don't have this same problem, however...<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Seriously, though. I'm surprised they've kept the Office applications discrete at this point. Seems like their philosophy to clump everything they can together in the name of interoperability.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, they have to some extent. There are times I'm clicking on a link to a .doc on a webpage (why some places INSIST on using proprietary formats is beyond me...) and instead of downloading it, it actually OPENS in an explorer window. It doesn't happen all the time, but the hooks appear to be there.
I've never written anything using COM, so I can't speak first hand on ms' implementation. I do see a lot of people using it though.
[quote]The last time I ended up with a tiny Explorer window and three banner ads on my desktop, it wasn't because I typed a URL into the address box. What I did type in - a path - ended up directing me to MSN Search, or somesuch.<hr></blockquote>
When I type in junk, I get an html error page, but no search, banners or resizing. You might want to disable search from the address box, or maybe you have something else running.
[quote]It's hardcoded integration into Windows, not into Explorer, and that's even more stupid.<hr></blockquote>Could you be more specific? Inserting COM objects isn't 'hard-coding'.
I have separate, specialized apps that are primarily file explorers, ftp clients and web browsers, but they get used rarely most features I need are provided by IE/WE. Including these features can't slow down the finder by much if any. Why not include them?
Apple's strategy recently has been a modular approach that uses many small, focused applications in lieu of a single large, multifunctional application. This approach has the benefit of specialization, where a single program can be optimized for a particular task and have a level of functional refinement that is much more difficult to duplicate in a larger application with many different functions.
A case in point: Apple breaks up the tasks of audio, video, and still pictures into four different applications, with 1 set of apps that let the user passively interact with the media ( iTunes, Preview), or actively interact with the media (iPhoto, Quicktime). (notice that a app for actively interacting with audio files is missing? we need an iApp for recording and editing audio!)
Consider for a moment Quicktime and iTunes. Apple could easily combine these into a single application that played both audio and video. But it seems obvious that such an app wouldn't match iTune's refined functions for listening to audio files. And Quicktime's editing and streaming abilities are highly specialized and easy to use.
Similarly, Apple is NOT going to combine the functions of the Finder and a Web Broser. It is more in line with their design philosophy to work on further refining the Finder for the specialized task of managing files. it doesn't need to do MORE, but when it comes to file management, OS X's Finder certainly needs refinement in both function and performance. It needs to do what it does better.
Since rumors suggest that Apple may adopt Chimera as it's bundled browser, it seems even less likely that Apple will integrate a web browser into the Finder. Chimera fits with Apple's Open Source commitment, and it's also a bitchin' browser of the quality that would suit Apple. I personally would rather Apple left browsers to outside developers to foster more competition, but perhaps it would help if a single browser development team had the resources for development that Apple could give them.
Then again, i could be talking out of my ass. Maybe Apple will buy iCab, integrate it into the Darwin kernel, and also integrate it with the Quart compositor, as well as the Finder. Not only will Apple make it the default browser, but Apple will change existing APIs so that it's damn near impossible for outside developers to make competitive web browsers. And of course, Apple will fix the system preferences so that they continually reset to make Apple's web browser the default web browser. Apple will swiftly conquer the web browser market for OS X and drive current web browser developers away from the Mac platform. Then Apple will pimp-out iPhoto and run Adobe Photoshop away from the Mac platform. Next Apple will integrate Logic Platinum into the OS X kernel and conquer the pro-audio market.
Now tell me that isn't cool. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ok. That isn't cool. I think some people in this thread may be confusing the concept of not liking Explorer on the Mac with the thought that somehow an integrated browser would be better.
It's not, and those pictures clearly demonstrate one obvious reason as to why.
Tell us, when you click on the Eject button, what is a Webpage supposed to do? How do you view a page by list?
What does the Stop or Refresh button do in the Finder? Does Home take you to your user directory or to your homepage?
OK, so suppose the whole toolbar switches between browser and Finder modes. You're still stuck with icons representing the same concept but doing different tasks...Search (Web/files), Home (directory/page).
In the end, what do you really get that makes things easier/faster/better?
At best you could say that *IF* you are going to type in a URL, you don't have to click on the Explorer icon in the Dock *IF* you have a Finder window that you no longer want opened to a particular view. This offers nothing for bookmarks, since they can already be added to the Finder Toolbar. Of course you can't nest toolbar items, but hopefully this will change (for brower, folder, or any other bookmarks).
Wouldn't it be better if a universal key/mouse combo simply opened a new browser window with the address field in focus?
Quicktime is not an app. It is a framework, and a killer one at that. They should do the same thing for the web. Make a framework, and several specific apps that use that framework. 3rd parties can expand on those apps, creating specialized ones that utilize the framework protocols and rendering engines.
That is why Quicktime is so successful-- it's basic framework can be used for such a wide variety of tasks, from viewing and converting a simple image, to rendering to a specific codec, to creating an interactive application (all of the in store demos are done with qti).
Frameworks are the key to anything Apple develops at this point. Like address book, and Quicktime, they supply components they they then assemble under an application, or anyone else can for that matter. They can also adopt someone else's framework in this way. Services, plug-in architectures, even combining functions of a file browser and an internet broswer, are all afforded by frameworks. So if Apple doesn't take this path, someone else likely could using Apple's own code and just reassembling the pieces as they see fit.
Apple is replacing their HTML framework with the Mozilla engine as we speak. It'll be one of the major new features of Mac OS X 10.3. A new iApp - which will not _only_ be a web browser - will make use of it.
The iApp will be a central for your internet uses and will be closely connected to .mac in ways that - functionality-wise not design-wise - resemble some eWorld services.
I'll do my best to answer these. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>Tell us, when you click on the Eject button, what is a Webpage supposed to do? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing. Same thing it does when you are not in a removable drive.
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>How do you view a page by list?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When you click list or collumn, it would immediately switch back to your drive.
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>What does the Stop or Refresh button do in the Finder?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didnt see a stop or refresh button in those images. Unless you are refering to the "delete" icon?
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>Does Home take you to your user directory or to your homepage?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it would switch you back to your prefered view (icon/list/collumn), and then bring you to your home folder.
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>OK, so suppose the whole toolbar switches between browser and Finder modes. You're still stuck with icons representing the same concept but doing different tasks...Search (Web/files), Home (directory/page).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not necesarelly. The search bar would search as normal until a web url is typed in. Then the view would change to icon view, and the web page would then be loaded into the window. If something is inserted into the search bar that isnt a url, then the view switched back to your prefered view, and it searches the last folder you were in.
I'm sure Apple could come up with a much better solution to the navigation bar than Xidius did. (No offence ) As well, it would be doubtful the same icons would appear, representing different things than are assigned to them in the normal finder.
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>In the end, what do you really get that makes things easier/faster/better?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No need for an additional application. No need to depend on 3rd party vendors bug-wise/feature-wise because apple, when making applications, does enough research to know everything we want BEFORE they even begin. It would be faster because who could better optimize a feature for OSX or for the PPC than apple??
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>Wouldn't it be better if a universal key/mouse combo simply opened a new browser window with the address field in focus?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think not. Clicking in the search bar and typing "www.URL.com" would be alot easier than adding an additional "apple+LETTER". Besides, if you wanted that, all you would need to do is Apple+w, then click into the search bar. New window, as not to disturb your precious windows in which are open.
Yeesh, I hope I have answered these obnoxious questions as well as Xidius can. I actually have know clue what her "vision" was. Mearly what I see as being useful. Anyway, stop ganging up on the poor girl.
I think you're trying way too hard to justify Xidius' pics that he has already said were FAKED. Not only are they faked, but from an interface standpoint, they are very poorly thought out.
A few interesting points:
[quote]I didnt see a stop or refresh button in those images. Unless you are refering to the "delete" icon?
...
Not necesarelly. The search bar would search as normal until a web url is typed in.<hr></blockquote>First of all, you must realize that having all the necessary toolbar items for the finder AND a web browser would eat a HUGE amount of space. Sure, stop and refresh aren't there, but if this was a real app they WOULD be.
Second, changing the functionality of global buttons in the toolbar based on the content of the window is a TERRIBLE interface mistake. For example, in Xidius' pictures, the search field's functionality changes to an address fiend. Don't you think this would confuse the hell out of a lot of users? When it's a Finder window, how would you "switch" it to use that box as a web address? What if you want to search to files with the name "www.apple.com" in them? What about users who, accustomed to it normally doing searches in the Finder, thought that it would search the web too? Or search the content of the current web page? What would the New Folder or Eject or Burn or Path or View buttons do when in "web browser" mode?
The only solution I can think to solve this is precisely what MacSlut said: automatically removing all non-browser buttons from the toolbar when switching to browser mode. The same would happen when switching to Finder mode, hiding browser buttons and adding Finder buttons. This duality just adds a ridiculous level of complexity to the mess!
[quote]No need for an additional application. No need to depend on 3rd party vendors bug-wise/feature-wise because apple, when making applications, does enough research to know everything we want BEFORE they even begin.<hr></blockquote>Well, why not integrate EVERYTHING into the Finder? AppleWorks, iTunes, iPhoto, Final Cut Pro, etc. -- why have any third party apps AT ALL? These apps have about as much in common with the Finder as Internet browsers do. If that's what you like, you would really like Microsoft Windows, since MS is trying to integrate as much software into the core OS as possible.
Apple and Microsoft have distinctly different views of this subject, as has already been pointed out. Integrating a bunch of alien functions to the Finder would be a very non-Apple move. [quote]Besides, if you wanted that, all you would need to do is Apple+w, then click into the search bar.<hr></blockquote>Oh wonderful. Let's change the functionality of a key combo that has been standard across Mac apps for fifteen years. apple-W closes a window. Anyhow, the "standard" key combo for selecting the address bar in web browsers is apple-L. Whoops! Can use that in the Finder either because it's reserved for making aliases.
Again, the only solution here would be to introduce that duality of *changing* the key combos based on the content of the window like you changed the arrangement or functionality of the toolbar icons. Bad, bad UI design!
Comments
<strong>Sorry I was just reading this and i thought; what a choice of names apple and MS chose.
The Finder, to find your files.
The Explorer, to explor for your files
don't you think finder sounds like its simpler to find ur files?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes.
My favorite difference is "Assistant" vs. "Wizard". These are revealing glimpses into the designers' respective attitudes.
<strong>
Xidius, those SpyMac pics look like someone customized the icons in OmniWeb. It's simple to do, and those icons are all availible elsewhere in the System folder. They turned off the Address bar and favorites bar, and set the toolbar to "Icon Only."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless they edited the picture, you can see in the dock that OmniWeb isn't running.
<strong>
Xidius, those SpyMac pics look like someone customized the icons in OmniWeb. It's simple to do, and those icons are all availible elsewhere in the System folder. They turned off the Address bar and favorites bar, and set the toolbar to "Icon Only."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Do a search. Seems those are actually her pictures..
However, I dont think they are meant to be real. Mearly a composit.
<strong>Unless they edited the picture, you can see in the dock that OmniWeb isn't running.</strong><hr></blockquote>That's right. Xidius' images are 100% edited and fake. Besides, the picture is a simply cobbled-together montage of the Finder and Internet Explorer, not OmniWeb. You can tell by the lack of antialiasing in the snapshots and by IE's ugly white button in the Google window.
<strong>Seems those are actually her pictures..</strong><hr></blockquote>Correct. That's his weird custom background on the desktop. I've seen it nowhere but on Xidius' setup.
It's not hard-coded integration on windows either. Explorer just embeds showdocvw.dll component into the window like acrobat or any of the office apps whenever appropriate content is browsed.
<strong>Having standardized and reusable components available for such basic tasks as html rendering is a no-brainer from a development standpoint.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, and MS did a poor job of it on their end, design-wise. I offered an example of how Apple could - and should - offer standardized and reusable components for web integration in this thread.
But that has nothing to do with changing Finder to browse web pages.
[quote]<strong>The UI concerns for embedding this component into the finder are only important for people that think it doesn't make sense. The solution, don't type urls into the address box.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The last time I ended up with a tiny Explorer window and three banner ads on my desktop, it wasn't because I typed a URL into the address box. What I did type in - a path - ended up directing me to MSN Search, or somesuch.
Dumb. If I'm browsing folders, I want to browse folders.
[quote]<strong>I for one, like having my bookmarks for ftp, webdav, local folders, websites all in one place and be able to access any of them from my current window in 2 clicks on my windows box.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Then MS will love you. They love everything-and-the-kitchen-sink functionality. I'm still waiting for them to integrate Office into explorer, frankly.
[quote]<strong>It's not hard-coded integration on windows either. Explorer just embeds showdocvw.dll component into the window like acrobat or any of the office apps whenever appropriate content is browsed.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's hardcoded integration into Windows, not into Explorer, and that's even more stupid.
[ 10-29-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Seriously, though. I'm surprised they've kept the Office applications discrete at this point. Seems like their philosophy to clump everything they can together in the name of interoperability.
Here's an old article I like to post on these occasions about OpenStep that applies to Mac OS X and Apple's philosophy in general. It's specifically about Services, but the first part of the article is the most pertinent here:
<a href="http://www.stepwise.com/Articles/Technical/Services.html"; target="_blank">Service Call</a>
[quote]One of the OPENSTEP philosophies is that users want small tools that do a particular task very well. They don't want a monolithic Swiss Army Knife that tries to do everything and yet doesn't really do anything particularly well. The idea is that the user can choose a bunch of tools that suit their needs and then apply them to the task at hand. This may seem a foreign concept to the user of, say, Microsoft applications. Those applications are designed to take over the computer and the user is not expected to leave them until they are done with them. The OPENSTEP approach is to launch an armada of applications and have them all working on the document together, with the user jumping from one application to the next. In the Microsoft world, this wouldn't work because the applications do such a poor job of communicating with each other. OPENSTEP applications don't have this same problem, however...<hr></blockquote>
<strong>Seriously, though. I'm surprised they've kept the Office applications discrete at this point. Seems like their philosophy to clump everything they can together in the name of interoperability.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, they have to some extent. There are times I'm clicking on a link to a .doc on a webpage (why some places INSIST on using proprietary formats is beyond me...) and instead of downloading it, it actually OPENS in an explorer window. It doesn't happen all the time, but the hooks appear to be there.
I've never written anything using COM, so I can't speak first hand on ms' implementation. I do see a lot of people using it though.
[quote]The last time I ended up with a tiny Explorer window and three banner ads on my desktop, it wasn't because I typed a URL into the address box. What I did type in - a path - ended up directing me to MSN Search, or somesuch.<hr></blockquote>
When I type in junk, I get an html error page, but no search, banners or resizing. You might want to disable search from the address box, or maybe you have something else running.
[quote]It's hardcoded integration into Windows, not into Explorer, and that's even more stupid.<hr></blockquote>Could you be more specific? Inserting COM objects isn't 'hard-coding'.
I have separate, specialized apps that are primarily file explorers, ftp clients and web browsers, but they get used rarely most features I need are provided by IE/WE. Including these features can't slow down the finder by much if any. Why not include them?
[ 10-29-2002: Message edited by: xmoger ]</p>
A case in point: Apple breaks up the tasks of audio, video, and still pictures into four different applications, with 1 set of apps that let the user passively interact with the media ( iTunes, Preview), or actively interact with the media (iPhoto, Quicktime). (notice that a app for actively interacting with audio files is missing? we need an iApp for recording and editing audio!)
Consider for a moment Quicktime and iTunes. Apple could easily combine these into a single application that played both audio and video. But it seems obvious that such an app wouldn't match iTune's refined functions for listening to audio files. And Quicktime's editing and streaming abilities are highly specialized and easy to use.
Similarly, Apple is NOT going to combine the functions of the Finder and a Web Broser. It is more in line with their design philosophy to work on further refining the Finder for the specialized task of managing files. it doesn't need to do MORE, but when it comes to file management, OS X's Finder certainly needs refinement in both function and performance. It needs to do what it does better.
Since rumors suggest that Apple may adopt Chimera as it's bundled browser, it seems even less likely that Apple will integrate a web browser into the Finder. Chimera fits with Apple's Open Source commitment, and it's also a bitchin' browser of the quality that would suit Apple. I personally would rather Apple left browsers to outside developers to foster more competition, but perhaps it would help if a single browser development team had the resources for development that Apple could give them.
Then again, i could be talking out of my ass. Maybe Apple will buy iCab, integrate it into the Darwin kernel, and also integrate it with the Quart compositor, as well as the Finder. Not only will Apple make it the default browser, but Apple will change existing APIs so that it's damn near impossible for outside developers to make competitive web browsers. And of course, Apple will fix the system preferences so that they continually reset to make Apple's web browser the default web browser. Apple will swiftly conquer the web browser market for OS X and drive current web browser developers away from the Mac platform. Then Apple will pimp-out iPhoto and run Adobe Photoshop away from the Mac platform. Next Apple will integrate Logic Platinum into the OS X kernel and conquer the pro-audio market.
You never know, do you?
<strong>I think it's cool.
<a href="http://www.spymac.com/gallery/data/510/255webinfinder.jpg"; target="_blank">http://www.spymac.com/gallery/data/510/255webinfinder.jpg</a>;
<a href="http://www.spymac.com/gallery/data/510/255finderbrowser.jpg"; target="_blank">http://www.spymac.com/gallery/data/510/255finderbrowser.jpg</a>;
Now tell me that isn't cool.
Ok. That isn't cool. I think some people in this thread may be confusing the concept of not liking Explorer on the Mac with the thought that somehow an integrated browser would be better.
It's not, and those pictures clearly demonstrate one obvious reason as to why.
Tell us, when you click on the Eject button, what is a Webpage supposed to do? How do you view a page by list?
What does the Stop or Refresh button do in the Finder? Does Home take you to your user directory or to your homepage?
OK, so suppose the whole toolbar switches between browser and Finder modes. You're still stuck with icons representing the same concept but doing different tasks...Search (Web/files), Home (directory/page).
In the end, what do you really get that makes things easier/faster/better?
At best you could say that *IF* you are going to type in a URL, you don't have to click on the Explorer icon in the Dock *IF* you have a Finder window that you no longer want opened to a particular view. This offers nothing for bookmarks, since they can already be added to the Finder Toolbar. Of course you can't nest toolbar items, but hopefully this will change (for brower, folder, or any other bookmarks).
Wouldn't it be better if a universal key/mouse combo simply opened a new browser window with the address field in focus?
That is why Quicktime is so successful-- it's basic framework can be used for such a wide variety of tasks, from viewing and converting a simple image, to rendering to a specific codec, to creating an interactive application (all of the in store demos are done with qti).
<strong>Maybe Apple will buy iCab, integrate it into the Darwin kernel</strong><hr></blockquote>
The first part of that is highly unlikely as iCab's engine suckz.
The second part, though, is just DUMB. To integrate browser technology into the kernel will make it so instable that you're better off using Windows.
The iApp will be a central for your internet uses and will be closely connected to .mac in ways that - functionality-wise not design-wise - resemble some eWorld services.
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>Tell us, when you click on the Eject button, what is a Webpage supposed to do? </strong><hr></blockquote>
Nothing. Same thing it does when you are not in a removable drive.
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>How do you view a page by list?</strong><hr></blockquote>
When you click list or collumn, it would immediately switch back to your drive.
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>What does the Stop or Refresh button do in the Finder?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didnt see a stop or refresh button in those images. Unless you are refering to the "delete" icon?
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>Does Home take you to your user directory or to your homepage?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it would switch you back to your prefered view (icon/list/collumn), and then bring you to your home folder.
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>OK, so suppose the whole toolbar switches between browser and Finder modes. You're still stuck with icons representing the same concept but doing different tasks...Search (Web/files), Home (directory/page).</strong><hr></blockquote>
Not necesarelly. The search bar would search as normal until a web url is typed in. Then the view would change to icon view, and the web page would then be loaded into the window. If something is inserted into the search bar that isnt a url, then the view switched back to your prefered view, and it searches the last folder you were in.
I'm sure Apple could come up with a much better solution to the navigation bar than Xidius did. (No offence
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>In the end, what do you really get that makes things easier/faster/better?</strong><hr></blockquote>
No need for an additional application. No need to depend on 3rd party vendors bug-wise/feature-wise because apple, when making applications, does enough research to know everything we want BEFORE they even begin. It would be faster because who could better optimize a feature for OSX or for the PPC than apple??
[quote]Originally posted by macslut:
<strong>Wouldn't it be better if a universal key/mouse combo simply opened a new browser window with the address field in focus?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think not. Clicking in the search bar and typing "www.URL.com" would be alot easier than adding an additional "apple+LETTER". Besides, if you wanted that, all you would need to do is Apple+w, then click into the search bar. New window, as not to disturb your precious windows in which are open.
Yeesh, I hope I have answered these obnoxious questions as well as Xidius can. I actually have know clue what her "vision" was. Mearly what I see as being useful. Anyway, stop ganging up on the poor girl.
Thanks -
[ 10-30-2002: Message edited by: MovieMaker11xG4 ]</p>
I think you're trying way too hard to justify Xidius' pics that he has already said were FAKED. Not only are they faked, but from an interface standpoint, they are very poorly thought out.
A few interesting points:
[quote]I didnt see a stop or refresh button in those images. Unless you are refering to the "delete" icon?
...
Not necesarelly. The search bar would search as normal until a web url is typed in.<hr></blockquote>First of all, you must realize that having all the necessary toolbar items for the finder AND a web browser would eat a HUGE amount of space. Sure, stop and refresh aren't there, but if this was a real app they WOULD be.
Second, changing the functionality of global buttons in the toolbar based on the content of the window is a TERRIBLE interface mistake. For example, in Xidius' pictures, the search field's functionality changes to an address fiend. Don't you think this would confuse the hell out of a lot of users? When it's a Finder window, how would you "switch" it to use that box as a web address? What if you want to search to files with the name "www.apple.com" in them? What about users who, accustomed to it normally doing searches in the Finder, thought that it would search the web too? Or search the content of the current web page? What would the New Folder or Eject or Burn or Path or View buttons do when in "web browser" mode?
The only solution I can think to solve this is precisely what MacSlut said: automatically removing all non-browser buttons from the toolbar when switching to browser mode. The same would happen when switching to Finder mode, hiding browser buttons and adding Finder buttons. This duality just adds a ridiculous level of complexity to the mess!
[quote]No need for an additional application. No need to depend on 3rd party vendors bug-wise/feature-wise because apple, when making applications, does enough research to know everything we want BEFORE they even begin.<hr></blockquote>Well, why not integrate EVERYTHING into the Finder? AppleWorks, iTunes, iPhoto, Final Cut Pro, etc. -- why have any third party apps AT ALL?
Apple and Microsoft have distinctly different views of this subject, as has already been pointed out. Integrating a bunch of alien functions to the Finder would be a very non-Apple move. [quote]Besides, if you wanted that, all you would need to do is Apple+w, then click into the search bar.<hr></blockquote>Oh wonderful. Let's change the functionality of a key combo that has been standard across Mac apps for fifteen years. apple-W closes a window. Anyhow, the "standard" key combo for selecting the address bar in web browsers is apple-L. Whoops! Can use that in the Finder either because it's reserved for making aliases.
Again, the only solution here would be to introduce that duality of *changing* the key combos based on the content of the window like you changed the arrangement or functionality of the toolbar icons. Bad, bad UI design!
[ 10-30-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>