[quote]No need for an additional application...<hr></blockquote>
This is the crux of the argument. If the point were to minimize running applications, then this would be a good solution. But the point of all this is to perform each function as best as possible. The points addressed above show how the overlapping functions are only partial ,and create an inconsistent user expeience, creating all sorts of caveats and exceptional rules for dealing with the problems that arise. The aim of consistency would outweigh the few coincidences of functions in this scenario.
Apple has no qualms about creating many applications to get more consistent, specific and more useful function out of them. For example, iCal, Address Book, iChat, Mail and iSync could be a reconstituted Outlook, but instead we have 5 apps, all distinct interfaces and windows, but all sharing some frameworks however they can behind the scenes. That's why I could see Apple incporating some degree of html rendering in the Finder, by means of the HTML framework, but the top-level functionality is handicapped by trying to shoehorn all that stuff into one user experience.
(As an aside, isn't it interesting that while Apple is making all these discrete apps, they're trying to minimize the number of windows in each?)
<strong>I think you're trying way too hard to justify Xidius' pics that he has already said were FAKED.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I personally know her, and she is not a he. She helps me with my lesson plans before class every morning. (very sweet girl) Seeing as I am the only class on campus with Macs, it isnt hard to see why. When recomending this site, she mentioned that people think she is a man, but I really did not believe this. It's quite immature actually.
Now, she stated flat out in her last post that she is in fact a woman, and you still insist on offending her with downright wrong accusations. Grow up, will you?
If you insist on insulting Xidius, I would request you wait until 4pm pst when she can stick up for herself. She's in class right now, and my class will begin shortly.
[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong>Not only are they faked, but from an interface standpoint, they are very poorly thought out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I highly doubt she was going entirely for realism. She just doesn't think like that. I believe you mentioned earlier that all of her pictures are fake, and it's most likely because she doesn't take things seriously. Mind you this isn't exactly a problem, more of a personality trait.
[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I meant "Apple+N", for new window.
[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong>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!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, bad design.
---
I know this is off subject, But would you suggest I wait a month to buy an ibook for my daughter in November, supposing there will be an update, for ~$1600, or purchase a 1.6ghz Pentium 4 laptop now, for only $1200 with removable drives? (such as cd-rw)?
On a side note, I like the idea of an internet browser in the finder because the finder is for browsing. all be it, it is for browsing files, but browsing the internet isn't much different.
No I wouldnt want apple to integrate more than that. In addition, the "thirdparty" applications you listed were all made by apple. in other words, not third party. Also, Quicktime is integrated, why couldnt a web browser be?
No no no no no no no. No. Nope. No way. No. Keep web browsers and file navigation separate.
What I would like to see is future versions of OS X take greater advantage of XML. I want to attach notes to files that will appear in the Finder. I want the Finder to be all about finding and organization, without me actually having to do any of the organization part. I want a search for "donut" in the Finder to find not only documents called "donut", but text documents containing the word "donut", pictures of donuts, e-mails about donuts, notes I made in Address Book about which people like donuts, donut-related dates in iCal, and any songs I happen to have about donuts in iTunes.
And if I have a document that is about donuts, but doesn't use the word "donut", I'd like to be able to tag the document so it shows up in future searches.
And I don't want a "search results" window like that in Jaguar that just shows the file names of documents containing "donut". I want to view the files, take stuff out of them, chop them around. I want to see individual e-mails, not just the mbox containing the word.
It would be especially useful if Microsoft doesn't screw with the XML standard in the next version of office, too.
I would argue that the Finder is not for casual browsing but for finding -- a more direct pursuit than much of what we do on the internet. It's the difference between hanging out at the mall and running to the convenience store. I like the idea of rendering web pages in the Finder like you do with Quicktime, that is, as a preview.
Again, I am contending that integration doesn't mean gluing all this stuff into one interface. All these frameworks can be "integrated," that is, understand and communicate with one another, but how they do it at an end-user point of view is the issue. I simply do not use the internet like I use the Finder, and therefore their interfaces should be different too.
My other point is that if Apple doesn't do it, the components are all there for someone else to slap together a front end for this. Most frameworks are avilable to third parties to use as they wish. So it would be win-win for those who want this type of application.
<strong>Now, she stated flat out in her last post that she is in fact a woman, and you still insist on offending her with downright wrong accusations.</strong><hr></blockquote>Whatever. He/she/whatever has also said that she is a man both on these boards and over iChat. <sarcasm>Of course, for all I know you could be another one of her multiple personalities.</sarcasm> I don't trust her/him. I've seen lies and charades from Xidius.
Regardless, this kind of discussion about individual members is off topic and ends here.
As for your hardware purchase, I *always* recommend waiting as long as possible before byuing Apple hardware since no one usually has any good idea when updates are coming.
[quote] On a side note, I like the idea of an internet browser in the finder because the finder is for browsing. all be it, it is for browsing files, but browsing the internet isn't much different.<hr></blockquote>Web browsing is VERY different than browsing a simple file structure. There are countless differences. File browsing is an abstract of a simple list. Web browsing has FAR more complex rules that must be followed including completely custom layouts and functionality. File browsing serves the purpose of finding and opening files. Web browsing serves the purpose of displaying and interacting certain types of files.
Rather than go through a list of differences, I'd like to see what you think are the similarities. The only similarities I see is that they both use the term "browsing" and that the path names are similar.
[quote]In addition, the "thirdparty" applications you listed were all made by apple.<hr></blockquote>I do realize that. Perhaps I should have said just said "all Apple applications". Though, would you expect Apple to be able to integrate Office or Maya or Mathemaetica or other third party software to which it doesn't have code? No. Apple would integrate their *own* apps into whatever conglomerate beast it made. [quote]Also, Quicktime is integrated, why couldnt a web browser be?<hr></blockquote>Huh? I don't see ANYTHING that resembles the QuickTime Player in the Finder except a rarely-seen preview pane.
What I would like to see is future versions of OS X take greater advantage of XML. I want to attach notes to files that will appear in the Finder. I want the Finder to be all about finding and organization, without me actually having to do any of the organization part. I want a search for "donut" in the Finder to find not only documents called "donut", but text documents containing the word "donut", pictures of donuts, e-mails about donuts, notes I made in Address Book about which people like donuts, donut-related dates in iCal, and any songs I happen to have about donuts in iTunes.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Belle's got Krispy Kreme on the brain.
On a more serious note, this is exactly where I'm hoping Apple goes. XML-based, pervasive metadonut- er, data. Not only are the possibilities endless, but with the sheer bulk of files, and the sheer size of storage media, more sophisticated means of handling and retreiving data are necessary.
I'm sorry, Moviemaker, but how is browsing files like browsing the web? One (currently) involves poking through an exposed directory structure, the other involves formatting, running scripts and executables, and navigating independent of any underlying directory structure. Browsing files can be done in a relatively small window - browsing the web rarely can, unless you're using lynx. iPhoto and iTunes both have browsers as well; should they be integrated into Finder? How about Sherlock? All databases come with ways to browse data as well. Maybe Oracle should be integrated into Finder?
The main advantages to using lots of little apps with discrete frameworks behind them are: streamlined interfaces dedicated to a particular task, and much greater ease of maintenance on the vendor's side. COM-style integration is OK (although MS' implementation is wonky); frameworks are better.
As far as the rumor that Apple will ship Gecko as a framework: I'll buy that. The developer made a comment about how he'd really like to strip out all the libraries that make up its almost paranoid approach to cross-platform compatibility - Gecko has its own string libraries, for example - and map the actual rendering engine to native APIs. That would be sweet, especially if it came with a set of Cocoa classes. Cocoa is way overdue for a robust objective-C interface to handle XML (currently, Cocoa programmers have to drop all the way down to CoreFoundation, or use Carbon).
<strong>I don't see ANYTHING that resembles the QuickTime Player in the Finder except a rarely-seen preview pane.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is because the Finder is pulling stuff through the Quicktime media layer which is part of the system (hence it has a control pane in System Preferences). That said, I use that preview pane in Column View a heck of a lot: massively useful when you're hunting through a folder full of audio or video clips.
I find it interesting that we're talking about apps having distinct functionality, since OS X has actually returned the Finder to its original intent of being the app that allows you to control and navigate through your files, leaving the System Menu to deal with all the gumph that got tacked into the Special Menu. Wasn't there a tiime when the Finder and System had different version numbers, way, way back in the darkest days of Macintosh history?
<strong>Which is because the Finder is pulling stuff through the Quicktime media layer which is part of the system (hence it has a control pane in System Preferences).</strong><hr></blockquote>I know how all this works. QuickTime is a framework that any app can use. That's what I and others have been suggesting all along for this HTML thing -- that it should be a framework, not something built into the Finder *itself* or any one specific browser app.
The reason I pointed this out is because the first poster made it sound as if the Finder had somehow integrated the functionality of QuickTime Player into itself. It hasn't. It's just accessing the framework to display a preview of QuickTime movies.
[quote]<strong>Wasn't there a tiime when the Finder and System had different version numbers, way, way back in the darkest days of Macintosh history?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, the System and Finder versions have frequently been out of sync for many years.
<strong>Belle's got Krispy Kreme on the brain. </strong><hr></blockquote>
Whatever makes you say that?
[quote]<strong>On a more serious note, this is exactly where I'm hoping Apple goes. XML-based, pervasive metadonut- er, data. Not only are the possibilities endless, but with the sheer bulk of files, and the sheer size of storage media, more sophisticated means of handling and retreiving data are necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I also hope that this is the direction Microsoft will take with future versions of Windows. I suspect it won't happen, and that XML at Redmond will become MSXML or some other bastard son of XML, but we can always hope.
Comments
This is the crux of the argument. If the point were to minimize running applications, then this would be a good solution. But the point of all this is to perform each function as best as possible. The points addressed above show how the overlapping functions are only partial ,and create an inconsistent user expeience, creating all sorts of caveats and exceptional rules for dealing with the problems that arise. The aim of consistency would outweigh the few coincidences of functions in this scenario.
Apple has no qualms about creating many applications to get more consistent, specific and more useful function out of them. For example, iCal, Address Book, iChat, Mail and iSync could be a reconstituted Outlook, but instead we have 5 apps, all distinct interfaces and windows, but all sharing some frameworks however they can behind the scenes. That's why I could see Apple incporating some degree of html rendering in the Finder, by means of the HTML framework, but the top-level functionality is handicapped by trying to shoehorn all that stuff into one user experience.
(As an aside, isn't it interesting that while Apple is making all these discrete apps, they're trying to minimize the number of windows in each?)
[ 10-30-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
<strong>I think you're trying way too hard to justify Xidius' pics that he has already said were FAKED.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I personally know her, and she is not a he. She helps me with my lesson plans before class every morning. (very sweet girl) Seeing as I am the only class on campus with Macs, it isnt hard to see why. When recomending this site, she mentioned that people think she is a man, but I really did not believe this. It's quite immature actually.
Now, she stated flat out in her last post that she is in fact a woman, and you still insist on offending her with downright wrong accusations. Grow up, will you?
If you insist on insulting Xidius, I would request you wait until 4pm pst when she can stick up for herself. She's in class right now, and my class will begin shortly.
[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong>Not only are they faked, but from an interface standpoint, they are very poorly thought out.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I highly doubt she was going entirely for realism. She just doesn't think like that. I believe you mentioned earlier that all of her pictures are fake, and it's most likely because she doesn't take things seriously. Mind you this isn't exactly a problem, more of a personality trait.
[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong>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.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I meant "Apple+N", for new window.
[quote]Originally posted by Brad:
<strong>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!</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree, bad design.
---
I know this is off subject, But would you suggest I wait a month to buy an ibook for my daughter in November, supposing there will be an update, for ~$1600, or purchase a 1.6ghz Pentium 4 laptop now, for only $1200 with removable drives? (such as cd-rw)?
Thanks -
[ 10-30-2002: Message edited by: MovieMaker11xG4 ]
[ 10-30-2002: Message edited by: MovieMaker11xG4 ]</p>
No I wouldnt want apple to integrate more than that. In addition, the "thirdparty" applications you listed were all made by apple. in other words, not third party. Also, Quicktime is integrated, why couldnt a web browser be?
I have to go now -
What I would like to see is future versions of OS X take greater advantage of XML. I want to attach notes to files that will appear in the Finder. I want the Finder to be all about finding and organization, without me actually having to do any of the organization part. I want a search for "donut" in the Finder to find not only documents called "donut", but text documents containing the word "donut", pictures of donuts, e-mails about donuts, notes I made in Address Book about which people like donuts, donut-related dates in iCal, and any songs I happen to have about donuts in iTunes.
And if I have a document that is about donuts, but doesn't use the word "donut", I'd like to be able to tag the document so it shows up in future searches.
And I don't want a "search results" window like that in Jaguar that just shows the file names of documents containing "donut". I want to view the files, take stuff out of them, chop them around. I want to see individual e-mails, not just the mbox containing the word.
It would be especially useful if Microsoft doesn't screw with the XML standard in the next version of office, too.
Again, I am contending that integration doesn't mean gluing all this stuff into one interface. All these frameworks can be "integrated," that is, understand and communicate with one another, but how they do it at an end-user point of view is the issue. I simply do not use the internet like I use the Finder, and therefore their interfaces should be different too.
My other point is that if Apple doesn't do it, the components are all there for someone else to slap together a front end for this. Most frameworks are avilable to third parties to use as they wish. So it would be win-win for those who want this type of application.
<strong>Now, she stated flat out in her last post that she is in fact a woman, and you still insist on offending her with downright wrong accusations.</strong><hr></blockquote>Whatever. He/she/whatever has also said that she is a man both on these boards and over iChat. <sarcasm>Of course, for all I know you could be another one of her multiple personalities.</sarcasm> I don't trust her/him. I've seen lies and charades from Xidius.
Regardless, this kind of discussion about individual members is off topic and ends here.
As for your hardware purchase, I *always* recommend waiting as long as possible before byuing Apple hardware since no one usually has any good idea when updates are coming.
[quote] On a side note, I like the idea of an internet browser in the finder because the finder is for browsing. all be it, it is for browsing files, but browsing the internet isn't much different.<hr></blockquote>Web browsing is VERY different than browsing a simple file structure. There are countless differences. File browsing is an abstract of a simple list. Web browsing has FAR more complex rules that must be followed including completely custom layouts and functionality. File browsing serves the purpose of finding and opening files. Web browsing serves the purpose of displaying and interacting certain types of files.
Rather than go through a list of differences, I'd like to see what you think are the similarities. The only similarities I see is that they both use the term "browsing" and that the path names are similar.
[quote]In addition, the "thirdparty" applications you listed were all made by apple.<hr></blockquote>I do realize that. Perhaps I should have said just said "all Apple applications". Though, would you expect Apple to be able to integrate Office or Maya or Mathemaetica or other third party software to which it doesn't have code? No. Apple would integrate their *own* apps into whatever conglomerate beast it made. [quote]Also, Quicktime is integrated, why couldnt a web browser be?<hr></blockquote>Huh? I don't see ANYTHING that resembles the QuickTime Player in the Finder except a rarely-seen preview pane.
[ 10-30-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
<strong>
What I would like to see is future versions of OS X take greater advantage of XML. I want to attach notes to files that will appear in the Finder. I want the Finder to be all about finding and organization, without me actually having to do any of the organization part. I want a search for "donut" in the Finder to find not only documents called "donut", but text documents containing the word "donut", pictures of donuts, e-mails about donuts, notes I made in Address Book about which people like donuts, donut-related dates in iCal, and any songs I happen to have about donuts in iTunes.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Belle's got Krispy Kreme on the brain.
On a more serious note, this is exactly where I'm hoping Apple goes. XML-based, pervasive metadonut- er, data. Not only are the possibilities endless, but with the sheer bulk of files, and the sheer size of storage media, more sophisticated means of handling and retreiving data are necessary.
I'm sorry, Moviemaker, but how is browsing files like browsing the web? One (currently) involves poking through an exposed directory structure, the other involves formatting, running scripts and executables, and navigating independent of any underlying directory structure. Browsing files can be done in a relatively small window - browsing the web rarely can, unless you're using lynx. iPhoto and iTunes both have browsers as well; should they be integrated into Finder? How about Sherlock? All databases come with ways to browse data as well. Maybe Oracle should be integrated into Finder?
The main advantages to using lots of little apps with discrete frameworks behind them are: streamlined interfaces dedicated to a particular task, and much greater ease of maintenance on the vendor's side. COM-style integration is OK (although MS' implementation is wonky); frameworks are better.
As far as the rumor that Apple will ship Gecko as a framework: I'll buy that. The developer made a comment about how he'd really like to strip out all the libraries that make up its almost paranoid approach to cross-platform compatibility - Gecko has its own string libraries, for example - and map the actual rendering engine to native APIs. That would be sweet, especially if it came with a set of Cocoa classes. Cocoa is way overdue for a robust objective-C interface to handle XML (currently, Cocoa programmers have to drop all the way down to CoreFoundation, or use Carbon).
<strong>I don't see ANYTHING that resembles the QuickTime Player in the Finder except a rarely-seen preview pane.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Which is because the Finder is pulling stuff through the Quicktime media layer which is part of the system (hence it has a control pane in System Preferences). That said, I use that preview pane in Column View a heck of a lot: massively useful when you're hunting through a folder full of audio or video clips.
I find it interesting that we're talking about apps having distinct functionality, since OS X has actually returned the Finder to its original intent of being the app that allows you to control and navigate through your files, leaving the System Menu to deal with all the gumph that got tacked into the Special Menu. Wasn't there a tiime when the Finder and System had different version numbers, way, way back in the darkest days of Macintosh history?
<strong>Which is because the Finder is pulling stuff through the Quicktime media layer which is part of the system (hence it has a control pane in System Preferences).</strong><hr></blockquote>I know how all this works. QuickTime is a framework that any app can use. That's what I and others have been suggesting all along for this HTML thing -- that it should be a framework, not something built into the Finder *itself* or any one specific browser app.
The reason I pointed this out is because the first poster made it sound as if the Finder had somehow integrated the functionality of QuickTime Player into itself. It hasn't. It's just accessing the framework to display a preview of QuickTime movies.
[quote]<strong>Wasn't there a tiime when the Finder and System had different version numbers, way, way back in the darkest days of Macintosh history?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, the System and Finder versions have frequently been out of sync for many years.
[ 10-30-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
<strong>Belle's got Krispy Kreme on the brain.
Whatever makes you say that?
[quote]<strong>On a more serious note, this is exactly where I'm hoping Apple goes. XML-based, pervasive metadonut- er, data. Not only are the possibilities endless, but with the sheer bulk of files, and the sheer size of storage media, more sophisticated means of handling and retreiving data are necessary.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I also hope that this is the direction Microsoft will take with future versions of Windows. I suspect it won't happen, and that XML at Redmond will become MSXML or some other bastard son of XML, but we can always hope.
<strong>I know how all this works</strong><hr></blockquote>
Sorry Brad, I wasn't suggesting you didn't, just expanding on the point for those who don't.