What should have been added with 10.5's finder updates

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 57
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Maybe its a Safari bug but it doesn't really take you back several levels. What it does is it scrolls back to the beginning. if you scroll the horizontal scroll bar back to the right you are in the new folder. Or just hit enter after you create the new folder to save it there. But I can see how you think it undid all your digging.
  • Reply 22 of 57
    Here's my list of wanted Finder improvements that may or may not have been improved in Leopard:



    1. Auto-expanding column width option.

    2. Breadcrumbs seconded.

    3. More options when moving/copying files and conflicts are found (replace, replace all, skip, skip all).

    4. Better handling of smb shares when network connection is lost. I like how Explorer handles connected shares.

    5. Folder sorting at the top. I want this option too. Folders are inherently different from files so I don't see an inconsistency of having them at the top even when sorting by name. Let me make that clear. There is a big difference between folders and files and they deserve special treatment in the list. They deserve to break to the front of the line, so to speak.



    Some of the things I was hoping for seem to be there like alternating highlighting of rows in details view and thumbnail previews for more file types.
  • Reply 23 of 57
    macvaultmacvault Posts: 323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Daffy_Duck View Post


    Here's my list of wanted Finder improvements that may or may not have been improved in Leopard:



    1. Auto-expanding column width option.

    2. Breadcrumbs seconded.

    3. More options when moving/copying files and conflicts are found (replace, replace all, skip, skip all).

    4. Better handling of smb shares when network connection is lost. I like how Explorer handles connected shares.

    5. Folder sorting at the top. I want this option too. Folders are inherently different from files so I don't see an inconsistency of having them at the top even when sorting by name. Let me make that clear. There is a big difference between folders and files and they deserve special treatment in the list. They deserve to break to the front of the line, so to speak.



    Some of the things I was hoping for seem to be there like alternating highlighting of rows in details view and thumbnail previews for more file types.



    Awsome list! I second all off it! And the lack in Mac OS X of your 3rd item really VEXES my SOUL... like if I try backing up my documents folder over SMB to a Windows share it always kills the process on some strange character or something and I'm like, WHY CAN'T IT TELL ME THE OFFENDING FILE AND GIVE ME THE OPTION TO SKIP AND CONTINUTE THE PROCESS??? This better be fixed in Leopard!
  • Reply 24 of 57
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Wow. Anger leads to hate, hate leads to... oh you know the rest.



    Dude. Relax. You're going to make that vein in your forehead pop.
  • Reply 25 of 57
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Null.
  • Reply 26 of 57
    macvaultmacvault Posts: 323member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kickaha View Post


    Wow. Anger leads to hate, hate leads to... oh you know the rest.



    Dude. Relax. You're going to make that vein in your forehead pop.



    No... what pops the veins in my forehead is when I'm copying gigabytes of many files and the process fails 30 mintues later because that's the only thing Mac OS X knows to do when it encounters some special character in the filename. That is what totally POPS my veins!
  • Reply 27 of 57
    pt123pt123 Posts: 696member
    > Because it makes no sense to "Maximize" everything.

    Didn't MacOS 9 maximize to full screen? When did it start not making sense?
  • Reply 28 of 57
    pbpb Posts: 4,242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pt123 View Post


    Didn't MacOS 9 maximize to full screen?



    When? How?
  • Reply 29 of 57
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    It never did. Zoom has always been Zoom.



    Screens were a heck of a lot smaller, don't forget. An 8.5x11 page was wider than an original Mac screen. So, going to 'as big as possible to show all content (but no bigger)' *was* the entire screen. Even a 13" screen gets filled pretty quickly with many documents. But a 30"? Naw.
  • Reply 30 of 57
    outsideroutsider Posts: 6,008member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pt123 View Post


    > Because it makes no sense to "Maximize" everything.

    Didn't MacOS 9 maximize to full screen? When did it start not making sense?



    No, it zoomed between the last 2 sizes.
  • Reply 31 of 57
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Null.
  • Reply 32 of 57
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,838member
    WooHoo!!!!!!! Another "why is there no maximise???" thread! Yay!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thedillydotcom View Post


    1. How about a maximize button?



    I think by far and away the biggest problem with the Zoom button is that it is totally fucking broken. It would be great if it worked properly. In general, I agree with most of Kickaha's sentiments on the issue, he explains it well when he cares to.



    However, having said that, I hope he's still reading, as I have a challenge for him: can he name at least five Apple applications that use the Zoom button correctly?



    Finally, I'm in the "just make option-clicking the zoom button maximise the window" camp. You could make it even less default (hmmm... odd grammar, but I think you know what I mean) by requiring people to check a preferences tick box "option-click zoom button to maximise".



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thedillydotcom View Post


    2. How about folders sorted to the top of a folder?



    I don't think this should be default behaviour. There are times when it's useful, and times when it isn't. Obvious solution - make it optional on a folder-by-folder basis (i.e. add it to the "view options" of the folder).





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thedillydotcom View Post


    3. Is it too hard to add an OPTIONAL breadcrumb trail?



    NeXT had one. I think the Finder did actually have it at one point in OS X. I agree that it should be optional.
  • Reply 33 of 57
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,838member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macvault View Post


    Ok... Instead of "hate" I should say, "I am very displeased with the graphical elements of the column view."



    Exactly. Out of Icon View, List View, Windows Explorer's hierarchical view, and Column View, I find that Column View is easily the best concept for browsing and manipulating a file structure. However, I remain highly disappointed that Apple's implementation of it has left it very much a third-class citizen. More on that in my next post?



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Daffy_Duck View Post


    Here's my list of wanted Finder improvements that may or may not have been improved in Leopard:



    1. Auto-expanding column width option.

    2. Breadcrumbs seconded.

    3. More options when moving/copying files and conflicts are found (replace, replace all, skip, skip all).

    4. Better handling of smb shares when network connection is lost. I like how Explorer handles connected shares.



    Yes, yes, yes, yes.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Macvault View Post


    Awsome list! I second all off it! And the lack in Mac OS X of your 3rd item really VEXES my SOUL... like if I try backing up my documents folder over SMB to a Windows share it always kills the process on some strange character or something and I'm like, WHY CAN'T IT TELL ME THE OFFENDING FILE AND GIVE ME THE OPTION TO SKIP AND CONTINUTE THE PROCESS??? This better be fixed in Leopard!



    Well said.
  • Reply 34 of 57
    gongon Posts: 2,437member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slewis View Post


    Because it makes no sense to "Maximize" everything. This is something Windows has from it's DOS days of single tasking! It makes even less sense because Windows XP is already so damn ugly that I would end up Maximizing Firefox just so I couldn't see anything behind it, it was clutter! With OS X and the proper use of Drop Shadows it's not even a problem, and not having a "Maximize" button is one of the best features in Mac OS X! Any App that needs it can implement Full screen themselves and it's usually only a Command+F away.



    Meh. On 1024x768 screen I want far more apps maximized than not. It could easily be added to opt+Zoom or similar input, without adding any complexity for newbies or the Zoom purists. There are very few apps where I would never maximize, so I definitely want this to be standard in the windowing system, and with the same input everywhere. Individual fullscreen modes, with varying shortcuts and inputs to reach that mode, are not the same in function. They are a ragtag bunch that tends to hide the Dock and the menus, and make multitasking more difficult. It's valid in specialized apps like video players, but I wouldn't want that in typically multitasked stuff like office software.



    Zoom is not a substitute for Maximize. Many kinds of data have no physical dimensions or form that allow an app to determine a size that's more "correct" than any other. Furthermore, you frequently want to add data outside the existing data, or there is no data. Take Excel, for instance. With a blank document open, telling such an app to use all the screen space you have available - Maximize - is a reasonable command, while Zoom doesn't really do anything for you. In all likelihood the blank document is already opened in the size that would be programmed to Zoom for use on blank documents or documents whose content fits under a certain size. If you Zoom on a non-blank document but want to add data outside the borders of existing data, you're going to have to drag anyway.



    It's my understanding that hitting Zoom once should produce the app's impression of "optimal" size, and clicking it again should restore your manual settings. This is not so in Preview, and it is not so in Safari. iTunes' Zoom button does something that has nothing to do with Zoom. A Finder window in icon view that has "keep arranged by" checked does not use horizontal space correctly (actually, at all), and it scales wrong, leaving a horizontal scroll bar in Zoomed window. In iPhoto, finally, Zoom works right with no problems.



    So, while I understand the concept of Zoom and think it makes sense, the implementation even in Apple's own apps is just not there. With Apple setting such a shining example, it's no surprise 3rd party folks have spit on Zoom as well. Maximize, on the other hand, works without support from the apps.



    Both Zoom and Maximize should have a standard keyboard shortcut, IMO.



    I use Column View in lieu of something better. Icon view with breadcrumbs, hidden sidebar and toolbar would be one possible "better". Column View uses a lot of space, and that space is weirdly proportioned. It is strongly horizontal and an optimally sized Column View window tends to be 2/3 of the width, 1/4 of the height of my HD display. That's just awkward no matter which way you slice it. If you keep the window smaller, horizontal scrolling is way too difficult while dragging and dropping and doing other stuff - at the very least the scroll zone should extend a lot farther towards the center of the window from the edges. The Sidebar makes the window even wider than it already is - but with no breadcrumbs, you pretty much have to have the sidebar out to retain a good grip on your location - and most of the space of the toolbar is wasted on a window of this shape. It isn't a very good fit with web browser or text editor windows open on the same screen.
  • Reply 35 of 57
    physguyphysguy Posts: 920member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    However, having said that, I hope he's still reading, as I have a challenge for him: Can he name at least five Apple applications that use the Zoom button correctly?




    OK, I almost never use zoom/maximize on either windows or os X (both of which I use), but I just tried the follow 5 apps from Apple and green button worked magnificently. I need to use it more.



    Safari - If no horizontal scroll bar just went full height, if horizontal scroll bar present went just wide enough to eliminate the bar.



    iPhoto - full screen as I would like for this app



    iTunes - went to small control window - which is what I wanted



    Keynote - sized perfectly to size of current slide, then back no matter what I magnification the slide. If the slide is bigger than the screen it went full screen.



    iChat - sized the width to something to allow easy reading of the text and went full height.



    Overall I actually find these brilliant. I need to use this more. I've avoided it because of my 'hate' for the full-screen in Windows which, when I accidently hit it really ruins my current train of thought by hiding all the other things I was working on.



    To each his own and neither is right or wrong. We have choices.





    Now to this



    Quote:

    3. More options when moving/copying files and conflicts are found (replace, replace all, skip, skip all).



    What am I missing. When I do this I get a dialog that has two checkboxes (replace/skip) (apply to all). This gives me all of these choices???
  • Reply 36 of 57
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,081member
    Null.
  • Reply 37 of 57
    spockiespockie Posts: 22member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    NeXT had one. I think the Finder did actually have it at one point in OS X. I agree that it should be optional.



    I am one of the few who came from Nextstep to the Mac. I don't understand why Apple stripped the Nextstep Workspace Manger to what seems to be a crippled Finder. Column view, icon view, drag'n drop are ok. But the two core things that made the Workspace Manager outstandig were axed: the visible path and the shelf.



    The visible path was more than just breadcrumbs. The user was able to drag items into the folders in the path to copy or move things. And the shelf is the thing I am missing most. You coud "park" items there, navigate to the destination and drop the parked items into the destination folder. That's a truely single window concept. Much more pleasant than the current Finder and obviously the next version as well. If something should be additionally implemented in Leopards Finder, I would plead for those two things.
  • Reply 38 of 57
    pbpb Posts: 4,242member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by spockie View Post


    If something should be additionally implemented in Leopards Finder, I would plead for those two things.



    Well, I had the opportunity to check those out for a very short time more than a decade ago, and I agree with you. I still cannot forget how much handy they were, especially the shelf.
  • Reply 39 of 57
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,838member
    Are you ready for a mammoth post? It's time for me to collate all of the posts I've made about the Finder. Here goes: (Macvault, you should like point 21.)





    1.) Shift-arrow selection behaviour. This is not limited to the Finder, but is worth mentioning because it is IMHO the single most annoying thing in OS X. It really pisses me off. Really.



    \tUsing iTunes as an example: In an iTunes playlist, multiple tracks can be selected by clicking on a track, then holding down the shift key whilst pressing the up/down arrow keys.



    \tPressing the down arrow key always extends the selection downwards, whilst pressing the up arrow key always extends the selection upwards. This means that it is impossible to contract your selection, you can only make it bigger.



    \tI find this highly annoying and think that the selection process should work like selection of text in other applications such as TextEdit. This would make the interface more consistent and more intuitive. The function of the up/down arrow keys should depend on the direction in which the selection was originally extended.



    \tFor example, imagine wanting to make a selection starting at a particular song and extending downwards: if you overshoot your intended selection, you should be able to contract the selection by pressing the up arrow key. Correspondingly, if your original selection was upwards, pressing the down arrow key should then contract the selection.





    2.) The current Finder is poorly threaded. Apparently this has improved markedly with Leopard's new Finder. I hope the reports are accurate.





    3.) The current Finder handles networked storage poorly. Again, apparently this has improved markedly with Leopard's new Finder.





    4.) Icon only display for the sidebar in the Finder:



    At the moment, the separator between the sidebar and the main part of the window can be moved so that the names of the items in the sidebar are no longer displayed. However, this also means that the eject buttons that show up for removable items in the sidebar are not displayed. There should be an option in the sidebar Finder preferences to show icon only, text only or icon and text, just like there is for the toolbar. All three views should ensure that any eject buttons are visible.



    Sadly, it looks like this is definitely not happening in Leopard. Can't they at least make it so that the full names of all items in the sidebar are always visible?





    5.) "Open new windows in column view" Finder preference:



    I am constantly wondering what the point of this preference is. I have it checked, but I can't remember the last time a new window (e.g. a newly mounted CD, Network drive or Disk Image) actually opened in column view. When the "Open new windows in column view" Finder preference is checked, a new Finder window should NEVER open in anything other than column view. It's as simple as that.





    6.) View options for column view in the Finder:



    Why are the only view options for column view: "text size", "icon" and "preview column"? Why aren't there options for "icon size", "keep arranged by...", and "background colour" and why is there not a persistent column width for each folder? At the moment, the view options for column view seem to be global. Surely each folder can have its own individual preferences for when it is viewed in column view, just like for other views such as "list". At the very least, it would be nice to have a preference to "auto size" all column widths (i.e. set the Finder to automatically perform the task that is performed currently if a user double-clicks on the bottom of a column separator).



    Why are the names of files put only on one line? (hello Apple! if you allowed bigger icons in column view, you could put the name onto three, four, five lines, and then we'd be able to read the whole name! How novel).





    7.) Cut and paste of files in the Finder:



    At the moment, a file can be selected in the Finder, "copy" selected from the edit menu, a new location navigated to, and "paste" selected from the edit menu in order to copy a file to a new location. It should also be possible to select "cut" from the edit menu in order to move a file from one location to another, just like in Windows.



    I know there are issues with this in relation to the Cut/Paste metaphor and in some people's opinion it would therefore violate consistency of interface. If this is why the feature has not yet been implemented, why not call it something other than "cut" (for example, it could be called "move"), and give it a different keyboard shortcut?





    8.) The addition of a "shelf" to Finder windows would be very helpful when moving files. The shelf could be implemented as a "drawer", and the user could choose which side the drawer should open from.



    Let's say I have the shelf set to open on the right. I have file "A" that I want to move from its current directory to a new one. I click and drag file "A" outside of the Finder window to the right, and the shelf drawer opens. I let go and the file is now on the shelf. Now I navigate to the new directory, drag and drop the file from the drawer, the drawer automatically closes, and the file has been moved.





    9.) Switching between items in the Finder sidebar using the arrow keys:



    Picture the following scenario: The Finder sidebar contains hard-drives, removable devices, the network, applications, the home folder, documents, movies etc. In the Jaguar Finder, pressing the left arrow key when in the "documents" folder in column view would scroll the user back to the home folder, then "Users", then to the root level of the hard drive. However, in the Panther & Tiger Finder, if "documents" is selected from the sidebar and column view is active, it is not possible to scroll up the folder hierarchy using the left arrow key. This is fair enough. It would be extremely useful however, if pressing the left arrow key in this case made the sidebar like the "active" column, so that the items in the sidebar could then be navigated using the up and down keys. So, for example if "documents" is selected in the sidebar, but I want to go to my music folder, I can press "left" to make the sidebar active, then "down" until my music folder is selected, then "right" to navigate the music folder.





    10.) Unzipping files stored on read-only media



    If you double-click on a zip file in the Finder, the archive will be decompressed. The Finder will attempt to write the decompressed files to the same directory as the source zip file, so if the zip file happens to be in a read-only location, such as a CD-ROM, the decompress will fail. The resultant error message by the Finder is deeply unhelpful, simply stating that the archive could not be decompressed. It would be better if the Finder checked to see if the intended destination is writable, and if not, ask the user to choose a destination for the decompressed files.





    11.) There should be alternate line colourings for List View and Column View.





    12.) It should be possible to set your own colours for labels.





    13.) The "get info" window should look a lot more like iTunes' get info window, to allow for better editing of metadata, and including the option of adding your own tags. The window should have the green window control widget to switch between Finder's current Get Info window style and this new suggested style.





    14.) Update the appearance of Finder windows to bring it inline with iLife 06. Woot! Leopard Finder does this.





    15.) FTP with write ability.





    16.) When you press command-f, a window that looks like this appears:







    Quite why that is the default, I don't know. It is possible to change the default behaviour to something you'd prefer, but Apple should expose that possibililty to the GUI. It isn't only advanced users who get sick of changing a Finder Search window to what they want it to be every single time they open a search window.





    17.) Sticking with the Finder Search, I have my default set up like this:







    But when the window is invoked, the search bar in the window's toolbar is highlighted and given focus. So if I start typing, I'll get a search by content and file name, rather than just by file name. Still, having to make the "name contains" box the focus is less annoying than having to make the other changes I'd have to make if I didn't know about the default_smart.plist trick.



    You may wonder what happens if you remove the search box from the toolbar. It adds a "search for" box to the search bar, which, you guessed it, searches by content and file name, and cannot be removed.



    Hello Apple! Yes, I get it, Spotlight is amazing and fast and can search the contents of all my files in a flash, but sometimes - actually, most of the time - I don't want to search by content, and I should be able to easily set that as a default.





    18.) I submitted this one as a bug report and unbelievably they told me that it "works as intended".



    Take a look at the screen shots of this Finder search window at different sizes:











    The third shot shows the window with all elements of the window visible. The first two shots demonstrate an appallingly sloppy approach that I would expect from Microsoft, not Apple. In the first, how is the user supposed to know that any elements are missing? Nothing looks wrong or amiss.



    In the second shot, it just looks ugly.



    This problem has already been encountered and properly solved elsewhere in OS X, even in the Finder. For example, make a Finder window too small to display the full contents of the Toolbar, and a double arrow appears indicating that content is missing.



    Why don't they do the same for search-bar buttons?





    19.) If you try to use illegal characters in your filename, a dialogue box like this will appear (don't know why the "OK" button is missing from the screenshot):







    This is extremely lazy programming and certainly not an example of "attention to detail". It is easy for the Finder to work out whether the name is too long or contains illegal characters, or both, and appropriate dialogue boxes should be shown in each case:



    a.) Illegal characters: the dialogue box should read: "The character : (a colon) cannot be used in filenames, please use another name without using a colon", underneath, it should say "If you need to maintain compatibility with Windows systems, you should also avoid the following characters: * . " / \\ [ ] ; | =".



    b.) Name is too long: box should say: "Names cannot be longer than 256 characters, please use a shorter name. Your filename is currently x characters long".



    c.) Name is too long and has illegal characters: the dialogue box should make both these things clear, using a combination of the phrases from a.) and b.)





    20.) Sticking with renaming of files, when you try to rename a file and the new name is illegal, the dialogue box pops up, and when you press "OK", the name is reverted back to what you had before. This is extremely annoying if you have made extensive changes to the filename. What should happen instead is that the filename remains highlighted and in its illegal state, so that you can easily remove/change illegal characters and/or shorten the filename without having to start all over again.





    21.) If you try to copy one file over SMB and it has Windows illegal characters, the following dialogue appears:







    This is not nearly as helpful as it should be.



    The problem gets worse if you are copying multiple files. Let's say you are copying ten thousand files, only one of which has an illegal filename. You get exactly the same dialogue box as before. So now, there is an added layer of unhelpfulness. Which file(s) has/have illegal names?



    Why should you have to rename the source files just because the destination can't handle the names? The problem should be handled thus:



    A dialogue stating: "some of the files have illegal names for the destination. The destination files can be automatically or manually renamed; the source file names will remain unchanged" and give four options: "Automatically Rename", "Manually Rename", "Stop Copy", "Continue Copy Skipping These Items".



    Choosing "Manually Rename" would continue the copy, and as each file with an illegal name is encountered, a box entitled "Rename Destination File" would appear, with the source name and reason for illegality (illegal characters, too long, or both) indicated. Underneath would be a text box with the whole illegal name ready for editing. The buttons would read: "Rename & Continue", "Automatically Rename", "Skip This File", "Stop Copy". A tick box with "apply to remaining items" would also be present, which would apply "Automatically Rename" and "Skip" to all remaining items (necessary incase someone presses the "manually rename" button by mistake in the first instance).



    This may sound complicated, but wouldn't be in practice. It could potentially save a lot of time if this were implemented.





    22.) If a file extension is displayed in the Finder, then you can change the extension by highlighting it and typing whatever extension you want. If you do this, a dialogue box will appear:







    This dialogue box should incorporate a tick-box that says next to it "don't warn me about changing filename extensions". Having to deal with that box when you know exactly what you are doing is extremely annoying.
  • Reply 40 of 57
    mr. hmr. h Posts: 4,838member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by physguy View Post


    I just tried the follow 5 apps from Apple and green button worked magnificently. I need to use it more.



    Safari - If no horizontal scroll bar just went full height, if horizontal scroll bar present went just wide enough to eliminate the bar.



    iPhoto - full screen as I would like for this app



    iTunes - went to small control window - which is what I wanted



    Keynote - sized perfectly to size of current slide, then back no matter what I magnification the slide. If the slide is bigger than the screen it went full screen.



    iChat - sized the width to something to allow easy reading of the text and went full height.



    Nice try - but iPhoto's behaviour is not correct. The button is meant to be zoom, not maximise. Also, iTunes is a special case - I wouldn't want the zoom button to function differently for iTunes, but it certainly can't be used as an example of "zoom" working correctly.



    My point really was that hardly any applications do actually fit to content when you press the zoom button:



    Address Book - does nothing

    Automator - maximises

    Calculator - special case, switches between modes

    Dictionary - maximises

    iCal - maximises

    iMovie - maximises

    Mail - maximises both main window and compose new message window

    Activity Monitor - maximises

    Airport Admin - maximises

    Audio Midi Setup - maximises height even though that's not necessary to see all content

    Bluetooth file exchange - maximises

    Disk Utility - maximises

    Keychain Access - maximises

    Netinfo Manager - maximises

    Network Utility - maximises

    ODBC Administrator - maximises

    Printer Setup Utility - maximises

    System Profiler - maximises

    Terminal - maximises

    Mac Help - maximises



    Hold on! What's the O/P complaining about? Nearly all Apple apps already do maximise when you press the Zoom button.
Sign In or Register to comment.