I can't believe you guys are arguing about tabs that you have the option of using, or not. My question is why is there no contextual menu item for Back?
The new version is probably going to be even faster. Noticable faster! and Using the back button will be practically instataneous. The forward button too! This is reason enough to be happy.
Eugene, you do realized the menu IS actually a multi tab UI, don't you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I almost missed your edit.
The menu as a whole is nothing like a browser tab. The root menus don't change. Menus list items vertically. You don't edit anything in menus. Need I go on?
The Window menu is one reason why tabs are entirely unecessary. That's my whole point. The underappreciated Window menu becomes the red-headed stepchild of Mac OS because you guys have gone tab-crazy.
<strong>I can't believe you guys are arguing about tabs that you have the option of using, or not. My question is why is there no contextual menu item for Back?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Just a growl from me on the stupid At Ease reference....
When I'm doing real work, between all of my MANY Adobe apps (and others) and the Finder, I may have jillions of windows open so I can do my draggy droppy willy nilly.
I know when I need this method of operation.
I also know when I'd like to switch to another method of operation/organization.
Seeing this argued as a 'camel's nose under the tent' argument by you three folks is something I can't wrap my mind around because I can't see Apple TAKING AWAY power user options.
I doubt that any of you freaked out when you found out about the Simple Finder option....in fear that it would soon be implemented as the ONLY way of navagiting the Mac OS.
I've hardly seen a response to why it's wrong for the tabbed nav being just an OPTION.
<strong>The 'back' button? There is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think he means right-clicking on the page giving a context menu with "back" as an option.
Whereas you seem to be talking about the history list that drops down from the back button.
Personally I think this is another area where adding the option is seen as the obvious thing to do but is again wrong. What benefit do you get from having back, forward, refresh and stop cluttering up the context menu when buttons that do those things are found permenantly at the top of the window.
Refresh is the only one that really fits the 'context' i.e. it operates on the thing you are right clicking on ('the page') and even that link is broken when a load is in progress.
Seeing this argued as a 'camel's nose under the tent' argument by you three folks is something I can't wrap my mind around because I can't see Apple TAKING AWAY power user options.
I doubt that any of you freaked out when you found out about the Simple Finder option....in fear that it would soon be implemented as the ONLY way of navagiting the Mac OS.
I've hardly seen a response to why it's wrong for the tabbed nav being just an OPTION.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You haven't been paying attention to either Apple or this thread then because:
A big part of Apple's modus operandi and house style is the removal of (or the pre-emptive non-implementation of) power user options. I actually, literally, cannot believe that I'm having to spell that out.
Jesus, people are still bitching about the advanced functions of SoundJam that disappeared when Apple turned it into iTunes.
Just a couple of OS revisions ago, the ability to choose what kind of CD you were burning disappeared... and no-one gave a monkeys!
Really think about it, is there any better way to sum up the iApp philosophy than doing the basics really well? Do you see how they are linked? That it wasn't two separate decisions: you can only reasonably aim for one of ease-of-use and feature-completeness.
One-muther-lovin'-mouse-button!
The classic geek rant about Macs, and I've told them to buy a damn mouse with as many buttons as they want just like you can use any damn browser instead of killing the goose that lays the golden egg by constantly adding features to something that is good *because* (in part) it has less features.
I just don't see how tabs are any better than the Windows 3.1 interface. Everything positive that's been said about tabbed browsing and ubiquitous tabs in app --oops, I mean document -- windows was true of that UI.
[added:]
[quote]When I'm doing real work, between all of my MANY Adobe apps (and others) and the Finder, I may have jillions of windows open so I can do my draggy droppy willy nilly.
...Seeing this argued as a 'camel's nose under the tent' argument by you three folks is something I can't wrap my mind around because I can't see Apple TAKING AWAY power user options.<hr></blockquote>
This isn't a power user option. It's a very basic, fundamental part of working with content that should not only be fully accessible, but also encouraged for "newbie" and casual users especially. I'd rather see some sort of tabbed/inspector UI for power users than a tabbed document window for casual users.
My whole argument here is that this is the tip of the iceberg, it has a snowball effect, we're opening a Pandora's box, and other such cliches!
[OK, another addition]
I certainly don't object to a better way of managing clutter in the OS. That's a big issue Apple is even trying to address with OS X, though some of their earlier efforts have also been criticized or they couldn't get them to work well. I just don't think that creating application windows with tabs is the right way to solve the clutter problem. I'd rather see an improved Dock that handles window management better than to turn document windows into app windows and remove the default ability to drag and drop directly onto windows for users.
Well wherever this new 'Tab' fad is going I think it's Apple's best interest to create a solution at the OS level and not at the app level.
And for the love of gawd...not tabs. Horizontal listing takes waaay too much space...it's easier to cram more info in a vertical list. This is why menus are listed vertically...why change a good thing?
My half-baked solution that haunts my mind night and day now is somekind of 'minimize-in-place'-looking icon. All tabbed windows would be stacked on that icon.
When the mouse is hovered over it, the stack of iconic windows seperate (in a fluid animation) to show all windows. They'd also act like the Dock icons. Hoevering over a specific window would display the name of the window. When the mouse is elsewhere, they return into the stacked icon.
And I think this idea could definitely replace the 'minimize-to-dock' horseshit. I think the Dock should concentrate on only listing favorite apps and launched apps. Nothing more.
Bring back some form of advanced minimize-in-place + some variation of my stacking concept, Apple!
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: kim kap sol ]</p>
I'd have to say that the window menu is almost as dynamic as the tabs. Eugene, you say that it's not because it's always in the same place. But the tab bar is always in the same place too. And the listing in the window menu is obviously always changing as long as you have multiple browser windows open. Since they are in alphabetical order, it's actually more dynamic because opening a new window could put it anywhere in the list, not at the bottom. Also, if you change the location in one of the windows and it ends up changing the alphabetical order of the windows, the windows will be rearranged in the menu even if there's the same amount there! With tabs, if you change the location in one tab, it stays in the same place. I don't see how you can argue that the Window menu is any more static and consistant than tabs. In fact, it is less so. And as I've said before, there's absolutely no way to see at a glance how many web pages you're looking at if you're doing multi-window browsing. Tabs are an advancement that allow you to quickly and easily see just what you're doing, and unlike floating windows to display which windows are open, they don't get in the way of anything.
I agree with you that Apple should drop the ADC connection, man, but I sure don't agree with you on the tab issue.
EDIT: KKS, why should Apple put tabs everywhere? I think that would get annoying. I like tabs in my browser because of how I browse, but I always use icon view in Finder because I drag things around a lot more in Finder. Tabs are (arguably, of course) fine for a browser, but not for navigating the Finder! I suppose I'd have to use it before I could really make a judgement, but I have a feeling I'd like it even less than column view.
<strong>EDIT: KKS, why should Apple put tabs everywhere? I think that would get annoying. I like tabs in my browser because of how I browse, but I always use icon view in Finder because I drag things around a lot more in Finder. Tabs are (arguably, of course) fine for a browser, but not for navigating the Finder! I suppose I'd have to use it before I could really make a judgement, but I have a feeling I'd like it even less than column view.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't say that...
I said it should be an option at the OS level. Like 'single-window' mode was back in DP3.
It would be an option for people that want a single-window experience. You'd click a widget. And all windows from a certain app would be shrunk into a stacked iconic view attached to the edge of a window...
Hovering the mouse over it would expand the stack to show all windows.
OK, after reading this 8 page thread in its entirety, this is what I have to say. (part of me just doesn't want to get involved, but the other part of me says that after 8 pages, I should say something )
When Safari came out, and I first heard the tabs v. no tabs argument, I was confused. I had never heard anyone speak out against tabs before that, and I couldn't really see what anyone had against them. I read the arguments, and sort of began to see the point. After reading this whole thread, I can't say I entirely disagree with Eugene and his camp. Tabs really don't seem to be the best solution to a problem (which, btw, I do think exists). But they may be the best solution we have.
I hate having multiple browser windows open. In fact, until I started using Safari, I don't think I ever really worked with multiple browser windows. The thing is, Chimera got me so used to dealing with multiple sites at once (because of tabs), that I couldn't go back to "serial browsing" as its been dubbed. Now, I suppose that using multiple windows as opposed to multiple tabs wouldn't be so bad except for a few things. I browse with the window taking up the whole screen. That means tha when I open a new browser window in Safari, the right edge of it is offscreen. That is no good, because then I have to move the window over to scroll down, to see al of its content, etc. This could be fixed, by not only automatically moving new windows over, but resizing them as well, so that they were entirely onscreen. Also, when I hold cmd and shift, the message in the status bar says "Open...in a new window behind the current window" but when I cmd-shift-click a link, where does the new window open? That's right, in front of the current window. Now, I know that both these things are "bugs" (or at least just a fluke for me, since I haven't heard anyone else complain aboutthe cmd-shift-click thing) which can be fixed, but they are still things that are making me want tabs right now.
In answer to the oft-made objection that tabs truncate page names. A truncated page name still gives me a lot more information than a window which is completely hidden (page name and all) behind another window. In fact, not only can I not tell what is in the window, I may not even realize the window is there. That's helpful. Give me truncated page names any day.
Also, I am glad that some people have finally realized that having tabs implemented does not restrict you from using multiple windows. While some of the arguments against tabs are valid, even good, arguments, things like "I can't drag and drop between tabs" really don't hold a lot of water. Just open two windows if you want two windows. Anyway, that's been covered, moving on...
As far as tabbed browsing creating an MDI, that would require web pages being documents, which I would argue they are not (at least not in the traditional sense) (seems kind fo funny to say traditional senes, since even "documents in the traditional sense" as I mean it, that is computer documents, are not really documents in the traditional sense. But I diverge). But there have been whole books written on whether web pages are documents, applications, somewhere in between, etc. We are not going to resolve that debate here.
In closing (I hope) Itend to agree that tabs are not necessarily a good thing from a UI standpoint. That doesn't stop me from wanting them. They improve my workflow, they make browsing more organized, etc. (One of my most common uses of tabs is at AI. Since external links always open in a new window, I instead have them load in new tabs in the background while I continue reading the thread and flip through them once they've loaded). Maybe tabs will be bad for the UI in the long run, I really can't say. But I'm going to be selfishly happy if/when we get them in Safari. Maybe there is a better way to implement a similar feature. If there is, Apple will probably find it; that's what they're good at. But it's going to take a while to find. So give us tabs now, and swap it for the new method come v. 2.0 (I can already feel the heat of the flames). As for complaints about the "current" implementation of Safari tabs: criticizing a hidden feature in an unreleased beta is really lame. I am sure things will have been cleaned up by the time tabs go public.
So, finally (really this time), Eugene, you've convinced me. Tabs are not good.
I don't know about Google snap back, but as for the URL snapback, it woul behave no differently in different tabs than it does in different windows. When you switch tabs, the URL in the location bar changes, why couldn't the snapback.
Of course, the Google snapbak becomes less relevant for me when I have tabs, because I open open the links from my search results in new tabs, so that I can load several at once, and continue looking through the list. I suppose you could also argue the inverse: that the Google snapback makes tabs less relevant...
<strong>I suppose you could also argue the inverse: that the Google snapback makes tabs less relevant...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I get the feeling that everyone has given up and gone home but, on that note, there are several things making tabs less relevant.
faster internet connections
faster browsers
link pre-caching
faster response to back button
snapback, and Google snapback
bigger screens/better resolutions
and for people using Safari, on 1/2 or 1Mbit broadband connection, on a fast Mac with a big screen, tabs (or any type of multi-page browsing) can actually become a hindrance.
I personally find it much faster/easier to navigate around this forum using the back button to get out of threads and the quickjump dropdown to move onto the next forum.
[quote] Hovering the mouse over it would expand the stack to show all windows.
This would be an option. Not forced. <hr></blockquote>
So at least we're starting to agree that there should be some degree of customization to the interface? I was talking about just a single app's idiosyncratic behavior....
Yeah, I think people are getting tired of seeing us jumping up and down on this horse....
Eugene, you have started to nit pick. Would a polished implementation of tabs therefore satisfy you? For instance, only allowing a certain number of tabs in a window (based on the window size)?
I generally have about 2 or 3 browser windows with 2 or 3 tabs in each. It's fantastic what it's done to minimize on screen clutter. I DON'T like the tabs in Excel, because they interfere when working across sheets/charts. However, that's not a worry in web browsing, as you don't generally between web pages.
Where you do, the user has the ultimate flexibility to decide how many windows and how many tabs in each window. It just makes sense for Safari! IT JUST MAKES SENSE!
Whenever someone claims that this is the start of a slippery slope, that's the instant I don't care. Apple prides itself on usability. I argue that this IS usability.
Dude... breath... that's it... breath... relax... take a nap or something... it's not the end of the world just because some of us find your "tabs will destroy the UI" silly. Your sarcasm clearly shows you have not grasped anything I have said. Maybe you can't. So @%^$ it. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" />
Edit to add: By the way, you must really hate iTunes since it's a tab based UI. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Your sarcasm clearly shows you have not grasped anything I have said. Maybe you can't. So @%^$ it. <img src="graemlins/cancer.gif" border="0" alt="[cancer]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Comments
The new version is probably going to be even faster. Noticable faster! and Using the back button will be practically instataneous. The forward button too! This is reason enough to be happy.
<strong>
Eugene, you do realized the menu IS actually a multi tab UI, don't you?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I almost missed your edit.
The menu as a whole is nothing like a browser tab. The root menus don't change. Menus list items vertically. You don't edit anything in menus. Need I go on?
The Window menu is one reason why tabs are entirely unecessary. That's my whole point. The underappreciated Window menu becomes the red-headed stepchild of Mac OS because you guys have gone tab-crazy.
<strong>I can't believe you guys are arguing about tabs that you have the option of using, or not. My question is why is there no contextual menu item for Back?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The 'back' button? There is.
When I'm doing real work, between all of my MANY Adobe apps (and others) and the Finder, I may have jillions of windows open so I can do my draggy droppy willy nilly.
I know when I need this method of operation.
I also know when I'd like to switch to another method of operation/organization.
Seeing this argued as a 'camel's nose under the tent' argument by you three folks is something I can't wrap my mind around because I can't see Apple TAKING AWAY power user options.
I doubt that any of you freaked out when you found out about the Simple Finder option....in fear that it would soon be implemented as the ONLY way of navagiting the Mac OS.
I've hardly seen a response to why it's wrong for the tabbed nav being just an OPTION.
<<ahem>>
AN OPTION
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: drewprops ]</p>
<strong>The 'back' button? There is.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think he means right-clicking on the page giving a context menu with "back" as an option.
Whereas you seem to be talking about the history list that drops down from the back button.
Personally I think this is another area where adding the option is seen as the obvious thing to do but is again wrong. What benefit do you get from having back, forward, refresh and stop cluttering up the context menu when buttons that do those things are found permenantly at the top of the window.
Refresh is the only one that really fits the 'context' i.e. it operates on the thing you are right clicking on ('the page') and even that link is broken when a load is in progress.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: stupider...likeafox ]</p>
<strong>
Seeing this argued as a 'camel's nose under the tent' argument by you three folks is something I can't wrap my mind around because I can't see Apple TAKING AWAY power user options.
I doubt that any of you freaked out when you found out about the Simple Finder option....in fear that it would soon be implemented as the ONLY way of navagiting the Mac OS.
I've hardly seen a response to why it's wrong for the tabbed nav being just an OPTION.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
You haven't been paying attention to either Apple or this thread then because:
A big part of Apple's modus operandi and house style is the removal of (or the pre-emptive non-implementation of) power user options. I actually, literally, cannot believe that I'm having to spell that out.
Jesus, people are still bitching about the advanced functions of SoundJam that disappeared when Apple turned it into iTunes.
Just a couple of OS revisions ago, the ability to choose what kind of CD you were burning disappeared... and no-one gave a monkeys!
Really think about it, is there any better way to sum up the iApp philosophy than doing the basics really well? Do you see how they are linked? That it wasn't two separate decisions: you can only reasonably aim for one of ease-of-use and feature-completeness.
One-muther-lovin'-mouse-button!
The classic geek rant about Macs, and I've told them to buy a damn mouse with as many buttons as they want just like you can use any damn browser instead of killing the goose that lays the golden egg by constantly adding features to something that is good *because* (in part) it has less features.
[added:]
[quote]When I'm doing real work, between all of my MANY Adobe apps (and others) and the Finder, I may have jillions of windows open so I can do my draggy droppy willy nilly.
...Seeing this argued as a 'camel's nose under the tent' argument by you three folks is something I can't wrap my mind around because I can't see Apple TAKING AWAY power user options.<hr></blockquote>
This isn't a power user option. It's a very basic, fundamental part of working with content that should not only be fully accessible, but also encouraged for "newbie" and casual users especially. I'd rather see some sort of tabbed/inspector UI for power users than a tabbed document window for casual users.
My whole argument here is that this is the tip of the iceberg, it has a snowball effect, we're opening a Pandora's box, and other such cliches!
[OK, another addition]
I certainly don't object to a better way of managing clutter in the OS. That's a big issue Apple is even trying to address with OS X, though some of their earlier efforts have also been criticized or they couldn't get them to work well. I just don't think that creating application windows with tabs is the right way to solve the clutter problem. I'd rather see an improved Dock that handles window management better than to turn document windows into app windows and remove the default ability to drag and drop directly onto windows for users.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
And for the love of gawd...not tabs. Horizontal listing takes waaay too much space...it's easier to cram more info in a vertical list. This is why menus are listed vertically...why change a good thing?
My half-baked solution that haunts my mind night and day now is somekind of 'minimize-in-place'-looking icon. All tabbed windows would be stacked on that icon.
When the mouse is hovered over it, the stack of iconic windows seperate (in a fluid animation) to show all windows. They'd also act like the Dock icons. Hoevering over a specific window would display the name of the window. When the mouse is elsewhere, they return into the stacked icon.
And I think this idea could definitely replace the 'minimize-to-dock' horseshit. I think the Dock should concentrate on only listing favorite apps and launched apps. Nothing more.
Bring back some form of advanced minimize-in-place + some variation of my stacking concept, Apple!
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: kim kap sol ]</p>
I agree with you that Apple should drop the ADC connection, man, but I sure don't agree with you on the tab issue.
EDIT: KKS, why should Apple put tabs everywhere? I think that would get annoying. I like tabs in my browser because of how I browse, but I always use icon view in Finder because I drag things around a lot more in Finder. Tabs are (arguably, of course) fine for a browser, but not for navigating the Finder! I suppose I'd have to use it before I could really make a judgement, but I have a feeling I'd like it even less than column view.
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: Luca Rescigno ]</p>
<strong>EDIT: KKS, why should Apple put tabs everywhere? I think that would get annoying. I like tabs in my browser because of how I browse, but I always use icon view in Finder because I drag things around a lot more in Finder. Tabs are (arguably, of course) fine for a browser, but not for navigating the Finder! I suppose I'd have to use it before I could really make a judgement, but I have a feeling I'd like it even less than column view.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I didn't say that...
I said it should be an option at the OS level. Like 'single-window' mode was back in DP3.
It would be an option for people that want a single-window experience. You'd click a widget. And all windows from a certain app would be shrunk into a stacked iconic view attached to the edge of a window...
Hovering the mouse over it would expand the stack to show all windows.
This would be an option. Not forced.
When Safari came out, and I first heard the tabs v. no tabs argument, I was confused. I had never heard anyone speak out against tabs before that, and I couldn't really see what anyone had against them. I read the arguments, and sort of began to see the point. After reading this whole thread, I can't say I entirely disagree with Eugene and his camp. Tabs really don't seem to be the best solution to a problem (which, btw, I do think exists). But they may be the best solution we have.
I hate having multiple browser windows open. In fact, until I started using Safari, I don't think I ever really worked with multiple browser windows. The thing is, Chimera got me so used to dealing with multiple sites at once (because of tabs), that I couldn't go back to "serial browsing" as its been dubbed. Now, I suppose that using multiple windows as opposed to multiple tabs wouldn't be so bad except for a few things. I browse with the window taking up the whole screen. That means tha when I open a new browser window in Safari, the right edge of it is offscreen. That is no good, because then I have to move the window over to scroll down, to see al of its content, etc. This could be fixed, by not only automatically moving new windows over, but resizing them as well, so that they were entirely onscreen. Also, when I hold cmd and shift, the message in the status bar says "Open...in a new window behind the current window" but when I cmd-shift-click a link, where does the new window open? That's right, in front of the current window. Now, I know that both these things are "bugs" (or at least just a fluke for me, since I haven't heard anyone else complain aboutthe cmd-shift-click thing) which can be fixed, but they are still things that are making me want tabs right now.
In answer to the oft-made objection that tabs truncate page names. A truncated page name still gives me a lot more information than a window which is completely hidden (page name and all) behind another window. In fact, not only can I not tell what is in the window, I may not even realize the window is there. That's helpful. Give me truncated page names any day.
Also, I am glad that some people have finally realized that having tabs implemented does not restrict you from using multiple windows. While some of the arguments against tabs are valid, even good, arguments, things like "I can't drag and drop between tabs" really don't hold a lot of water. Just open two windows if you want two windows. Anyway, that's been covered, moving on...
As far as tabbed browsing creating an MDI, that would require web pages being documents, which I would argue they are not (at least not in the traditional sense) (seems kind fo funny to say traditional senes, since even "documents in the traditional sense" as I mean it, that is computer documents, are not really documents in the traditional sense. But I diverge). But there have been whole books written on whether web pages are documents, applications, somewhere in between, etc. We are not going to resolve that debate here.
In closing (I hope) Itend to agree that tabs are not necessarily a good thing from a UI standpoint. That doesn't stop me from wanting them. They improve my workflow, they make browsing more organized, etc. (One of my most common uses of tabs is at AI. Since external links always open in a new window, I instead have them load in new tabs in the background while I continue reading the thread and flip through them once they've loaded). Maybe tabs will be bad for the UI in the long run, I really can't say. But I'm going to be selfishly happy if/when we get them in Safari. Maybe there is a better way to implement a similar feature. If there is, Apple will probably find it; that's what they're good at. But it's going to take a while to find. So give us tabs now, and swap it for the new method come v. 2.0 (I can already feel the heat of the flames). As for complaints about the "current" implementation of Safari tabs: criticizing a hidden feature in an unreleased beta is really lame. I am sure things will have been cleaned up by the time tabs go public.
So, finally (really this time), Eugene, you've convinced me. Tabs are not good.
But I still want them.
(maybe I'm just selfish)
I don't know about Google snap back, but as for the URL snapback, it woul behave no differently in different tabs than it does in different windows. When you switch tabs, the URL in the location bar changes, why couldn't the snapback.
Of course, the Google snapbak becomes less relevant for me when I have tabs, because I open open the links from my search results in new tabs, so that I can load several at once, and continue looking through the list. I suppose you could also argue the inverse: that the Google snapback makes tabs less relevant...
<strong>I suppose you could also argue the inverse: that the Google snapback makes tabs less relevant...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I get the feeling that everyone has given up and gone home but, on that note, there are several things making tabs less relevant.
faster internet connections
faster browsers
link pre-caching
faster response to back button
snapback, and Google snapback
bigger screens/better resolutions
and for people using Safari, on 1/2 or 1Mbit broadband connection, on a fast Mac with a big screen, tabs (or any type of multi-page browsing) can actually become a hindrance.
I personally find it much faster/easier to navigate around this forum using the back button to get out of threads and the quickjump dropdown to move onto the next forum.
I smell a double-standard!
kim kap sol said (much to my delight):
[quote] Hovering the mouse over it would expand the stack to show all windows.
This would be an option. Not forced. <hr></blockquote>
So at least we're starting to agree that there should be some degree of customization to the interface? I was talking about just a single app's idiosyncratic behavior....
Yeah, I think people are getting tired of seeing us jumping up and down on this horse....
I generally have about 2 or 3 browser windows with 2 or 3 tabs in each. It's fantastic what it's done to minimize on screen clutter. I DON'T like the tabs in Excel, because they interfere when working across sheets/charts. However, that's not a worry in web browsing, as you don't generally between web pages.
Where you do, the user has the ultimate flexibility to decide how many windows and how many tabs in each window. It just makes sense for Safari! IT JUST MAKES SENSE!
Whenever someone claims that this is the start of a slippery slope, that's the instant I don't care. Apple prides itself on usability. I argue that this IS usability.
Barto
<strong>
Dude, any and all tabs are the best thing since the George Foreman Grill. How can you hate At Ease?!</strong><hr></blockquote>
<img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
Dude... breath... that's it... breath... relax... take a nap or something... it's not the end of the world just because some of us find your "tabs will destroy the UI" silly. Your sarcasm clearly shows you have not grasped anything I have said. Maybe you can't.
Edit to add: By the way, you must really hate iTunes since it's a tab based UI. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 02-26-2003: Message edited by: PooPooDoctor ]</p>
<strong>
Your sarcasm clearly shows you have not grasped anything I have said. Maybe you can't.
No, it means you aren't worth my effort.
<strong>
No, it means you aren't worth my effort.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's ok, I realize it's part of your culture to never admit being wrong.