Think web pages at fullscreen. You see more of the page. Same with word processing and programming. Anything that manipulates text or images works best at fullscreen because you can see more of the whole than a little tiny window of the whole thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Er... exactly how small *is* your screen?
Word processing: a full 8.5x11" sheet of text, width-wise, takes up about 60% of my screen. Fullscreen = 40% of the space wasted.
Image processing: the only image processing I do is minimal editing. Fullscreen is *EXACTLY* what happens when hitting zoom if the image is larger than the current screen size. If not... well, then you have a big wasted border around it. Lovely.
Try zoom mode. It goes fullscreen *when appropriate*, and doesn't when it is just going to waste space.
I fail to see what the problem is. Perhaps you are just not understanding what zoom does?
think 'non-tech' users. The more steps there are in doing something the more people will complain about it not being simple enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think 'Windows'. The more redundant ways you add in to do simple tasks, the more cumbersome and more difficult to learn the UI gets.
To paraphrase Albert E.: "One must strive to make things as simple as possible... but no simpler."
That would be cool. I would like a 'encrypt folder' option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's this fetish with '<perform action on> folder' options? What would be the actual result of this operation?
- A single encrypted file with the entire folder in it, ala a tar file, or...
- A folder with a bunch of encrypted files in it
See, 'encrypt folder' to me suggests the former (you're operating on a single object - you should get a single object in the end) - in which case an invisible action of coalescing the files into one bundle is occurring. Bad to do invisible and unexpected actions.
The latter is equivalent to opening the folder, hitting Cmd-A, and selecting 'Encrypt'. This exactly matches the concept of 'encrypt all the files in this folder', is already a simple and easy mechanism, and matches the thought process. You aren't wanting to encrypt the *folder*, but *all the files within it*.
It is much, much better for the user if there is a small number of simple concepts they need to learn to do many tasks effectively. 'Select All' is one of these.
[quote]<strong>Like in Windows2k/XP. I don't use it on my PC desktop, </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, this explains wanting the Windows UI 'features'... it is what you're used to. Just out of curiosity, what's the result when you encrypt a folder in WinXP?
I'm not sure why I should have to state what the improvements should be in order to show that the Dock is flawed from the ground up.
But here goes:
Despite what a lot of X boosters say, I think the old methods of Apple Menu, app switcher and window shade actually worked pretty well. The basic reason they did was that you had a good separation between apps that were running and aliases to apps that were regularly used (Apple must recognise this, having added "recent items" to the updated Apple Menu) and you had a hierarchical user storage system (which, wondorously sorts in alphabetical order and shows names and icons simultaneously).
The nice thing about recent apps/documents/servers in 9.x is that they are self-modifying to the users specification - something that the doc completely misses out on.
Window Shade, while originally a hack, came to be a great tool - and i admit that i thought it was a silly gimick originally. The power of WS is that all your windows stay where you left them - something that the Win task bar and the Dock cannot match. If you minimise in X you have to scrub around trying to find the window name - which may not be a lot of use to you if you have several windows with that name open. With WS you know where you left the window, you can see it's full title all the time, cmd-click the name and you can see it's folder hierarchy - these are all "clues" for the user that are missing with the dock.
Take a typical desktop situation, you've maybe got 5-10 windows open, minimise them all and you've got 5-10 pretty much identical icons in the dock. Which is useful for what? The same applies with documents minimised to the doc.
Ok, I think we have it, maybe setting that out does crystallise it in my mind. The problem with the dock is that it is overly reliant on distinguishing its elements by appearance, rather than "name", or appearance and name. The issue here is that the appearance of dock items are not unique - and Apple's new icon scheme does not help this.
How would I make it better? I'd scrap window minimising altogether, and replace with Window Shade. I'd make the dock an App Switcher only. I'd have the Finder window list order alphabetically. I'd perhaps put the "recent" items folder in the dock, so that with a mouse over it would pop-up and show the contained items. I'd definitely split the recent items between docs and application, and I'd reinstate recent serveers. I'd make sure that there was distinctive separation between running apps and any "recent" folder in the dock.
As far as the Finder goes I'd make the window widgets more distinguishable (colour doesn't work when you're in graphite mode), where you don't have to mouse over to get a clue. I'd reinstate non-proportional thumbs and clicks in scrollers move one screen down as a user setting ("move to the mouse point" in scrollers is less useful than move down one screen IMO, you can drag the thumb to that "point" but it's a hard guess as to jumping down a screen).
<strong>Ok, I think we have it, maybe setting that out does crystallise it in my mind. The problem with the dock is that it is overly reliant on distinguishing its elements by appearance, rather than "name", or appearance and name. The issue here is that the appearance of dock items are not unique - and Apple's new icon scheme does not help this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
wow. you hit the nail right on the head, in my opinion. they've gotten it a "little" bit better by badging the windows with the app icon, but when the dock is already at less than, say, 30 pixels high, those badges are indistinguishable (my suggestion to apple was that the badges not go below 16x16, and the dock not below 32x32 to fix this problem... don't know if they'll listen).
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>How would I make it better? I'd scrap window minimising altogether, and replace with Window Shade. I'd make the dock an App Switcher only.</strong><hr></blockquote>
funny, that is how i have my computer set up now. the dock was gettign too cluttered with aliases, running apps, aliased folders for aliases to apps, aliased folders with apps. i'm currently trying to find a shareware or free ware app with slightly fewer bells and whistles than dragthing to get the job done... don't get me wrong, dragthing is a great app, but it's got so many settings, my head explodes.
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>I'd have the Finder window list order alphabetically. I'd perhaps put the "recent" items folder in the dock, so that with a mouse over it would pop-up and show the contained items. I'd definitely split the recent items between docs and application, and I'd reinstate recent servers. I'd make sure that there was distinctive separation between running apps and any "recent" folder in the dock.</strong><hr></blockquote>
agreed on all counts. they are getting there with every revision, though, so i have hope. it'll just cost me another $500 in the long run to see it work.
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>As far as the Finder goes I'd make the window widgets more distinguishable (colour doesn't work when you're in graphite mode), where you don't have to mouse over to get a clue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
funny you should mention this. there was a theme someone on the macnn forums was working on that handled this great, where the window widgets were discernable shapes as opposed to all spheres. for instance, the close button was a square with a faint "x" in it all the time, the minimize widget was a down-pointing orange arrow (which makes a HELL of a lot of sense, since most of your windows are being minmized, so there is an association with "lower" or "smaller," and i forget the last shape. maybe it stayed a sphere, mostly because in physics, the sphere is the 3d shape that economizes volume the best (which, in essence, is what that widget is supposed to do). don't know whatever happened to that theme, though.
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>I'd reinstate non-proportional thumbs and clicks in scrollers move one screen down as a user setting ("move to the mouse point" in scrollers is less useful than move down one screen IMO, you can drag the thumb to that "point" but it's a hard guess as to jumping down a screen).</strong><hr></blockquote>
unless i am reading your post wrong, i think this has been in the finder preferences pane for a while as a "scroll one page" or "scroll to here" option. if not, it is now in jaguar.
by the way, folks, the last thing i want to see in this thread is to see people getting on each other's cases for suggesting what they see as "windows-esque" features. their just ideas, folks, and by the looks of it, we certainly have a lot of them.
So your main critique of the Dock is that you find its window management weak. (Something that we probably all agree could use some improvement -- even Apple, as the glimpse of the still-being-tweaked Minimize-in-Place showed.)
This makes the Dock utterly useless?
Methinks you exaggerate.
Meanwhile, a haxie like WindowShade X pretty much solves all of your Dock issues. For 7 bucks. Go get it.
* * *
It's hard (though kind of fascinating) to try to figure out how the GUI should evolve in future versions of the OS. There are so many potential directions.
We'll definitely be seeing "smarter" folders, some more flexibility, improved Open/Save dialogs (one can only hope!) and so on.
The Dock is real tricky to figure out where to go next. It works well, it's simple and effective, but the window management could use some serious work and refinement and it could be even more of a control center.
Some obvious improvements:
- spring-loaded Dock folders (why this hasn't been done already I have no idea)
- selective magnification -- only magnify when a hot key is pressed
- preferences for auto-hide in user-defined applications
Beyond this... a haze of questions.
- Tabs? But tabs don't sit well with the Dock's philsoophy. A running application should has to be visible at all times, not hidden behind a tab.
- Mutiple Docks? What's the advantage of multiple Docks, exactly? Is it worth giving up the simplicity of a single place for switching and launching applications for slightly more specialized Docks, each taking up a different screen edge, getting in the way? The only advantage I could think is would be the ability to have different sizes for an Apps & Folders Dock and a Windows Dock, as the former can be considerably smaller than the latter and still be useful. But selective magnification (e.g. just hold down option while looking over windows) would help address this.
- More text-oriented than visually-oriented? Like...say...the Windows TaskBar? Apple would rather eat nails.
So... what then? I'm not sure. Minimize-in-Place certainly looked interesting, and I hope Apple is working on it (or something even better). For the moment all I can think of is refinements, like:
- Tool tips (can be turned off, of course) for the Dock, for novices and switchers.
- Minimize-in-Place, with something (?) to address
the lots-of-tiny-little-windoids-floating-above-everything-everywhere problem.
- Ability to lock the Dock.
- Refined organization tools: ability to create dividers, and dock groups. (e.g. drag and drop an entire design, writing, or office "suite" at once)
What's this fetish with '<perform action on> folder' options? What would be the actual result of this operation?
- A single encrypted file with the entire folder in it, ala a tar file, or...
- A folder with a bunch of encrypted files in it
See, 'encrypt folder' to me suggests the former (you're operating on a single object - you should get a single object in the end) - in which case an invisible action of coalescing the files into one bundle is occurring. Bad to do invisible and unexpected actions.
The latter is equivalent to opening the folder, hitting Cmd-A, and selecting 'Encrypt'. This exactly matches the concept of 'encrypt all the files in this folder', is already a simple and easy mechanism, and matches the thought process. You aren't wanting to encrypt the *folder*, but *all the files within it*.
It is much, much better for the user if there is a small number of simple concepts they need to learn to do many tasks effectively. 'Select All' is one of these.
Ah, this explains wanting the Windows UI 'features'... it is what you're used to. Just out of curiosity, what's the result when you encrypt a folder in WinXP?
I only use Windows as and EXAMPLE. I'm sorry, but I didn't know that using something as an example warranted this "ah, I see you're ONE OF THOSE..." responses. The difference between just sending them to a file and encrypting a folder (and all sub directories) is that it's transparent. The OS will decrypt all the files when I need them. This is more of a feature than an option. It basically excrypts all the files in that directory and it's subs. This is a lot nice than having to parse through all those directories. One-by-one and do that. Also it prevents people from seeing the directory structure too. It's kinda liek just setting the permissions on that folder and everything under it to only give YOU read/write/execute privileges except that it's encrypted to boot, so even if someone hacked the FS, the would need to hack the encryption. Think about things that you would encrypt like this. You would encrypt things like financial records, ie quicken-type stuff (don't give me quicken examples I'm talking generally). I would want to be able to access these without having to decrypt a zip/rar/tar/etc file and then extract the file and then open it and then put it all back and encrypt it again. You would want it to be transparent, where you just have to provide the password when you open the file and that program has authenticated itself for the remainder of the time it is open or when the file is no longer open whichever comes first (maybe a feature to un-authenticate, could be in order too? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> ). Know what I mean?
Note: I have never used this feature in WinXP. I assume that these are the features. If they are not, then this is the way that I want this feature to work.
Word processing: a full 8.5x11" sheet of text, width-wise, takes up about 60% of my screen. Fullscreen = 40% of the space wasted.
Image processing: the only image processing I do is minimal editing. Fullscreen is *EXACTLY* what happens when hitting zoom if the image is larger than the current screen size. If not... well, then you have a big wasted border around it. Lovely.
Try zoom mode. It goes fullscreen *when appropriate*, and doesn't when it is just going to waste space.
I fail to see what the problem is. Perhaps you are just not understanding what zoom does?</strong><hr></blockquote>
My screen flucuates between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor. When coding having lots of screen real-estate is prime. At least to me. I only do fullscreen browsing on smaller resolutions, since I'm used to web pages displaying more.
<strong>I'm not sure why I should have to state what the improvements should be in order to show that the Dock is flawed from the ground up.
But here goes:
Despite what a lot of X boosters say, I think the old methods of Apple Menu, app switcher and window shade actually worked pretty well. The basic reason they did was that you had a good separation between apps that were running and aliases to apps that were regularly used (Apple must recognise this, having added "recent items" to the updated Apple Menu) and you had a hierarchical user storage system (which, wondorously sorts in alphabetical order and shows names and icons simultaneously).
The nice thing about recent apps/documents/servers in 9.x is that they are self-modifying to the users specification - something that the doc completely misses out on.
Window Shade, while originally a hack, came to be a great tool - and i admit that i thought it was a silly gimick originally. The power of WS is that all your windows stay where you left them - something that the Win task bar and the Dock cannot match. If you minimise in X you have to scrub around trying to find the window name - which may not be a lot of use to you if you have several windows with that name open. With WS you know where you left the window, you can see it's full title all the time, cmd-click the name and you can see it's folder hierarchy - these are all "clues" for the user that are missing with the dock.
Take a typical desktop situation, you've maybe got 5-10 windows open, minimise them all and you've got 5-10 pretty much identical icons in the dock. Which is useful for what? The same applies with documents minimised to the doc.
Ok, I think we have it, maybe setting that out does crystallise it in my mind. The problem with the dock is that it is overly reliant on distinguishing its elements by appearance, rather than "name", or appearance and name. The issue here is that the appearance of dock items are not unique - and Apple's new icon scheme does not help this.
How would I make it better? I'd scrap window minimising altogether, and replace with Window Shade. I'd make the dock an App Switcher only. I'd have the Finder window list order alphabetically. I'd perhaps put the "recent" items folder in the dock, so that with a mouse over it would pop-up and show the contained items. I'd definitely split the recent items between docs and application, and I'd reinstate recent serveers. I'd make sure that there was distinctive separation between running apps and any "recent" folder in the dock.
As far as the Finder goes I'd make the window widgets more distinguishable (colour doesn't work when you're in graphite mode), where you don't have to mouse over to get a clue. I'd reinstate non-proportional thumbs and clicks in scrollers move one screen down as a user setting ("move to the mouse point" in scrollers is less useful than move down one screen IMO, you can drag the thumb to that "point" but it's a hard guess as to jumping down a screen).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry that maybe I seemed a little aggressive in my reply before, but this is a thread to post suggestions, not to just yell out "the dock sucks" and leave.
I think that you are contradicting yourself though, you say that the dock is flawed from the ground up, but you list a few things that will fix it. If it was truely flawed from the grounnd up, would it not be irrepairable?
<strong>I think that you are contradicting yourself though, you say that the dock is flawed from the ground up, but you list a few things that will fix it. If it was truely flawed from the grounnd up, would it not be irrepairable?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so, most of things I mentioned actually disable dock functionality. The only thing I left in it were running applications and the possibility that you duplicate "recent items" in there. This would effectively make the dock into an app switcher, rather than the all singing, all dancing UI it's supposed to be.
I'll slightly modify my original statement, so then maybe we'll agree: as long as the dock tries to handle as much as it is currently then it will remain an unusable piece of crap".
So, without a complete overhaul, or the user being self-disciplined enough, the dock is useless IMO.
<strong>unless i am reading your post wrong, i think this has been in the finder preferences pane for a while as a "scroll one page" or "scroll to here" option. if not, it is now in jaguar.[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: rok ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not in 10.1.5 that I can see, so must be in Jaguar.
So, without a complete overhaul, or the user being self-disciplined enough, the dock is useless IMO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I like it. I just want it out of the desktop (and, out of the way). If Apple could make it so that the dock behaved like a bottom menu bar, I'd be happy.
<strong>So your main critique of the Dock is that you find its window management weak. (Something that we probably all agree could use some improvement -- even Apple, as the glimpse of the still-being-tweaked Minimize-in-Place showed.)
This makes the Dock utterly useless?
Methinks you exaggerate.
Meanwhile, a haxie like WindowShade X pretty much solves all of your Dock issues. For 7 bucks. Go get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the dock as it stands is close to useless, yes, and as it is supposed to be used I'd say that it is totally unusable and close to being some of the worst UI design I've ever seen.
I think the only way it is usable is as an app launcher/switcher or file drag-drop on app icon.
That's it.
Unfortunately this is about 10% of what it's supposed to be used for.
I have WindowShade X and AppMenu installed - the same of the whole issue is that Apple puts out an OS without these elements in place and I have to resort to purchasing hacks to get the thing running anything like smoothly. I also use FruitMenu, which IMO is pretty good, but needs some further work (ie its contextual menus should include the window view commands).
[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:
<strong>We'll definitely be seeing "smarter" folders, some more flexibility, improved Open/Save dialogs (one can only hope!) and so on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aren't they just the pits at the moment?
I don't know about anyone else but I find the column views in open/save dialogues just about the most confusing thing ever - I'm never quite sure where I'm saving a file to!? The pop-up in the dialogue above the columns should be the folder hierarchy, not a list of shortcuts/recent folders and "home" etc - ok, put bot if you like, but folder hierarchy is primary.
And, you can't use a key to jump alphabetically to a file position.
[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:
<strong>Some obvious improvements:
- spring-loaded Dock folders (why this hasn't been done already I have no idea)...
- More text-oriented than visually-oriented? Like...say...the Windows TaskBar? Apple would rather eat nails.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Spring-loaded folders would help. More text-orientated doesn't mean the Win task-bar.
I think though, saying it again, this piece of UI is FUBAR. You cannot put this level of complexity into a single element without causing complete confusion: it's not simple and it's not elegant.
[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:
<strong>So... what then? I'm not sure. Minimize-in-Place certainly looked interesting...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhh..... (me diving out the window).
Minimise in place is just more stuff that should never have made it outside the lab. It's almost worse than the dock.
Really, the only think that works here is WindowShade. MacOS 9.x proves it, as does the Win task bar (ie how not to do it). You need a placeholder that stays where you left it, moves out of the way so you can see other thing, is still viewable to remind you it's still there and is application specific (option-[whatever] effects all windows in an app, hiding the app hides what your util has done...).
And WindowShade does all these things.
[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:
<strong>and I hope Apple is working on it (or something even better). For the moment all I can think of is refinements, like:</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately I think it's beyond "refinements", it needs pretty much scrapping and starting all over again.
<strong>I like it. I just want it out of the desktop (and, out of the way). If Apple could make it so that the dock behaved like a bottom menu bar, I'd be happy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean "bottom menu bar"? You can hide the dock if you like, so that it only becomes visible when you mouse over.
I'm not saying make it redundant, I'm saying get rid of the 5-step process and make it a 1-step process.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless you're advocating getting rid of the Select All method, then yes, it would be redundant. That's what redundant means: to have multiple ways of accomplishing the exact same thing.
[quote]<strong>No?</strong><hr></blockquote>
...
Follow the thought processes of a new user.
"I want to do X to/with all the files in this folder."
The user has been taught that you select a file, then do something with it.
Now, would you rather teach them the Select All keystroke, that they can use *everywhere*, or would you rather explain to them that selecting a folder and 'doing X' to/with it doesn't actually do it to the *folder*, as they've been taught, but instead to the *files within*... but only for certain things.
Welcome to Windows. Special cases everywhere because some developer somewhere in the bowels of MS thought it'd be cool to be able to do some funky action in some cases, but not all, and oh, by the way, you can't do it *there* because *that* folder is different...
This isn't good design, this is a mess.
[quote]<strong>It's like saying : "Why have iChat? That's just redundant. I can have AIM instead."</strong><hr></blockquote>
I only use Windows as and EXAMPLE. I'm sorry, but I didn't know that using something as an example warranted this "ah, I see you're ONE OF THOSE..." responses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it merely explained why you want it this way - it's because it's what you are used to. No judgement implied on your OS use.
The judgement was strictly on the pros/cons of the suggested changes.
[quote]<strong>The difference between just sending them to a file and encrypting a folder (and all sub directories) is that it's transparent. The OS will decrypt all the files when I need them. This is more of a feature than an option. It basically excrypts all the files in that directory and it's subs. This is a lot nice than having to parse through all those directories. One-by-one and do that. Also it prevents people from seeing the directory structure too. It's kinda liek just setting the permissions on that folder and everything under it to only give YOU read/write/execute privileges except that it's encrypted to boot, so even if someone hacked the FS, the would need to hack the encryption.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See how easy that was?
You get to thinking about it out loud, and it comes out that what you want isn't an action on a folder, but a folder *attribute*.
Two completely different things, from a design point of view.
And I agree, having folders that auto-encrypt their contents would be handy. (Of course, you'd have to have some way to manage the keys for the individual files within. Could have handled this with 9's folder actions, actually.)
[quote]<strong><kersnip>
Know what I mean?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I do. I never had a problem with the idea of encryption, what I took issue with was the mechanism by which you wanted to 'apply to all in this folder'. It's not a well thought out method.
[quote]<strong>Note: I have never used this feature in WinXP. I assume that these are the features. If they are not, then this is the way that I want this feature to work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, the way you presented it indicated that you *had* used those features, so I was asking how it actually worked. It wasn't clear that you were just surmising and dreaming.
My screen flucuates between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor. When coding having lots of screen real-estate is prime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Waitaminnit... you've got all that screenspace, and you want to waste most of it in fullscreen mode by showing
just
one
window
at
a
time?
Ouch. I can't imagine a less efficient workflow for coding.
Try the zoom button. Really. If you're in an IDE, where the space is already partitioned, it *should* go as large as possible. If you're in a text editor, it'll go large enough to show you the entire code width, if possible. If you're in a Terminal window, it just gives up and because it can't tell what you want, goes fullscreen too.
I'm not sure what is missing here for you...
[quote]<strong>At least to me. I only do fullscreen browsing on smaller resolutions, since I'm used to web pages displaying more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So some of the time you do fullscreen browsing, some of the time you don't... and the fullscreen browsing is at smaller resolutions, when the zoom button, exactly as it works, would give you fullscreen.
So some of the time you do fullscreen browsing, some of the time you don't... and the fullscreen browsing is at smaller resolutions, when the zoom button, exactly as it works, would give you fullscreen.
Seems like it does just what you want it to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This wasn't the intent of my original post. I was trying to say that using the fullscreen has it's uses. The person I was replying to thought that any program using the fullscreen was a waste of screen real-estate. And I never said that I use the fullscreen at high res, I said I do at low res.
Comments
<strong>
Think web pages at fullscreen. You see more of the page. Same with word processing and programming. Anything that manipulates text or images works best at fullscreen because you can see more of the whole than a little tiny window of the whole thing.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Er... exactly how small *is* your screen?
Word processing: a full 8.5x11" sheet of text, width-wise, takes up about 60% of my screen. Fullscreen = 40% of the space wasted.
Image processing: the only image processing I do is minimal editing. Fullscreen is *EXACTLY* what happens when hitting zoom if the image is larger than the current screen size. If not... well, then you have a big wasted border around it. Lovely.
Try zoom mode. It goes fullscreen *when appropriate*, and doesn't when it is just going to waste space.
I fail to see what the problem is. Perhaps you are just not understanding what zoom does?
<strong>
think 'non-tech' users. The more steps there are in doing something the more people will complain about it not being simple enough.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Think 'Windows'. The more redundant ways you add in to do simple tasks, the more cumbersome and more difficult to learn the UI gets.
To paraphrase Albert E.: "One must strive to make things as simple as possible... but no simpler."
<strong>
That would be cool. I would like a 'encrypt folder' option.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What's this fetish with '<perform action on> folder' options? What would be the actual result of this operation?
- A single encrypted file with the entire folder in it, ala a tar file, or...
- A folder with a bunch of encrypted files in it
See, 'encrypt folder' to me suggests the former (you're operating on a single object - you should get a single object in the end) - in which case an invisible action of coalescing the files into one bundle is occurring. Bad to do invisible and unexpected actions.
The latter is equivalent to opening the folder, hitting Cmd-A, and selecting 'Encrypt'. This exactly matches the concept of 'encrypt all the files in this folder', is already a simple and easy mechanism, and matches the thought process. You aren't wanting to encrypt the *folder*, but *all the files within it*.
It is much, much better for the user if there is a small number of simple concepts they need to learn to do many tasks effectively. 'Select All' is one of these.
[quote]<strong>Like in Windows2k/XP. I don't use it on my PC desktop, </strong><hr></blockquote>
Ah, this explains wanting the Windows UI 'features'... it is what you're used to. Just out of curiosity, what's the result when you encrypt a folder in WinXP?
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</p>
But here goes:
Despite what a lot of X boosters say, I think the old methods of Apple Menu, app switcher and window shade actually worked pretty well. The basic reason they did was that you had a good separation between apps that were running and aliases to apps that were regularly used (Apple must recognise this, having added "recent items" to the updated Apple Menu) and you had a hierarchical user storage system (which, wondorously sorts in alphabetical order and shows names and icons simultaneously).
The nice thing about recent apps/documents/servers in 9.x is that they are self-modifying to the users specification - something that the doc completely misses out on.
Window Shade, while originally a hack, came to be a great tool - and i admit that i thought it was a silly gimick originally. The power of WS is that all your windows stay where you left them - something that the Win task bar and the Dock cannot match. If you minimise in X you have to scrub around trying to find the window name - which may not be a lot of use to you if you have several windows with that name open. With WS you know where you left the window, you can see it's full title all the time, cmd-click the name and you can see it's folder hierarchy - these are all "clues" for the user that are missing with the dock.
Take a typical desktop situation, you've maybe got 5-10 windows open, minimise them all and you've got 5-10 pretty much identical icons in the dock. Which is useful for what? The same applies with documents minimised to the doc.
Ok, I think we have it, maybe setting that out does crystallise it in my mind. The problem with the dock is that it is overly reliant on distinguishing its elements by appearance, rather than "name", or appearance and name. The issue here is that the appearance of dock items are not unique - and Apple's new icon scheme does not help this.
How would I make it better? I'd scrap window minimising altogether, and replace with Window Shade. I'd make the dock an App Switcher only. I'd have the Finder window list order alphabetically. I'd perhaps put the "recent" items folder in the dock, so that with a mouse over it would pop-up and show the contained items. I'd definitely split the recent items between docs and application, and I'd reinstate recent serveers. I'd make sure that there was distinctive separation between running apps and any "recent" folder in the dock.
As far as the Finder goes I'd make the window widgets more distinguishable (colour doesn't work when you're in graphite mode), where you don't have to mouse over to get a clue. I'd reinstate non-proportional thumbs and clicks in scrollers move one screen down as a user setting ("move to the mouse point" in scrollers is less useful than move down one screen IMO, you can drag the thumb to that "point" but it's a hard guess as to jumping down a screen).
<strong>Ok, I think we have it, maybe setting that out does crystallise it in my mind. The problem with the dock is that it is overly reliant on distinguishing its elements by appearance, rather than "name", or appearance and name. The issue here is that the appearance of dock items are not unique - and Apple's new icon scheme does not help this.</strong><hr></blockquote>
wow. you hit the nail right on the head, in my opinion. they've gotten it a "little" bit better by badging the windows with the app icon, but when the dock is already at less than, say, 30 pixels high, those badges are indistinguishable (my suggestion to apple was that the badges not go below 16x16, and the dock not below 32x32 to fix this problem... don't know if they'll listen).
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>How would I make it better? I'd scrap window minimising altogether, and replace with Window Shade. I'd make the dock an App Switcher only.</strong><hr></blockquote>
funny, that is how i have my computer set up now. the dock was gettign too cluttered with aliases, running apps, aliased folders for aliases to apps, aliased folders with apps. i'm currently trying to find a shareware or free ware app with slightly fewer bells and whistles than dragthing to get the job done... don't get me wrong, dragthing is a great app, but it's got so many settings, my head explodes.
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>I'd have the Finder window list order alphabetically. I'd perhaps put the "recent" items folder in the dock, so that with a mouse over it would pop-up and show the contained items. I'd definitely split the recent items between docs and application, and I'd reinstate recent servers. I'd make sure that there was distinctive separation between running apps and any "recent" folder in the dock.</strong><hr></blockquote>
agreed on all counts. they are getting there with every revision, though, so i have hope. it'll just cost me another $500 in the long run to see it work.
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>As far as the Finder goes I'd make the window widgets more distinguishable (colour doesn't work when you're in graphite mode), where you don't have to mouse over to get a clue.</strong><hr></blockquote>
funny you should mention this. there was a theme someone on the macnn forums was working on that handled this great, where the window widgets were discernable shapes as opposed to all spheres. for instance, the close button was a square with a faint "x" in it all the time, the minimize widget was a down-pointing orange arrow (which makes a HELL of a lot of sense, since most of your windows are being minmized, so there is an association with "lower" or "smaller," and i forget the last shape. maybe it stayed a sphere, mostly because in physics, the sphere is the 3d shape that economizes volume the best (which, in essence, is what that widget is supposed to do). don't know whatever happened to that theme, though.
[quote]Originally posted by Clive:
<strong>I'd reinstate non-proportional thumbs and clicks in scrollers move one screen down as a user setting ("move to the mouse point" in scrollers is less useful than move down one screen IMO, you can drag the thumb to that "point" but it's a hard guess as to jumping down a screen).</strong><hr></blockquote>
unless i am reading your post wrong, i think this has been in the finder preferences pane for a while as a "scroll one page" or "scroll to here" option. if not, it is now in jaguar.
by the way, folks, the last thing i want to see in this thread is to see people getting on each other's cases for suggesting what they see as "windows-esque" features. their just ideas, folks, and by the looks of it, we certainly have a lot of them.
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: rok ]</p>
This makes the Dock utterly useless?
Methinks you exaggerate.
Meanwhile, a haxie like WindowShade X pretty much solves all of your Dock issues. For 7 bucks. Go get it.
* * *
It's hard (though kind of fascinating) to try to figure out how the GUI should evolve in future versions of the OS. There are so many potential directions.
We'll definitely be seeing "smarter" folders, some more flexibility, improved Open/Save dialogs (one can only hope!) and so on.
The Dock is real tricky to figure out where to go next. It works well, it's simple and effective, but the window management could use some serious work and refinement and it could be even more of a control center.
Some obvious improvements:
- spring-loaded Dock folders (why this hasn't been done already I have no idea)
- selective magnification -- only magnify when a hot key is pressed
- preferences for auto-hide in user-defined applications
Beyond this... a haze of questions.
- Tabs? But tabs don't sit well with the Dock's philsoophy. A running application should has to be visible at all times, not hidden behind a tab.
- Mutiple Docks? What's the advantage of multiple Docks, exactly? Is it worth giving up the simplicity of a single place for switching and launching applications for slightly more specialized Docks, each taking up a different screen edge, getting in the way? The only advantage I could think is would be the ability to have different sizes for an Apps & Folders Dock and a Windows Dock, as the former can be considerably smaller than the latter and still be useful. But selective magnification (e.g. just hold down option while looking over windows) would help address this.
- More text-oriented than visually-oriented? Like...say...the Windows TaskBar? Apple would rather eat nails.
So... what then? I'm not sure. Minimize-in-Place certainly looked interesting, and I hope Apple is working on it (or something even better). For the moment all I can think of is refinements, like:
- Tool tips (can be turned off, of course) for the Dock, for novices and switchers.
- Minimize-in-Place, with something (?) to address
the lots-of-tiny-little-windoids-floating-above-everything-everywhere problem.
- Ability to lock the Dock.
- Refined organization tools: ability to create dividers, and dock groups. (e.g. drag and drop an entire design, writing, or office "suite" at once)
...?
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
<strong>
Think 'Windows'. The more redundant ways you add in to do simple tasks, the more cumbersome and more difficult to learn the UI gets.
To paraphrase Albert E.: "One must strive to make things as simple as possible... but no simpler."</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm not saying make it redundant, I'm saying get rid of the 5-step process and make it a 1-step process. No?
It's like saying : "Why have iChat? That's just redundant. I can have AIM instead."
<strong>
What's this fetish with '<perform action on> folder' options? What would be the actual result of this operation?
- A single encrypted file with the entire folder in it, ala a tar file, or...
- A folder with a bunch of encrypted files in it
See, 'encrypt folder' to me suggests the former (you're operating on a single object - you should get a single object in the end) - in which case an invisible action of coalescing the files into one bundle is occurring. Bad to do invisible and unexpected actions.
The latter is equivalent to opening the folder, hitting Cmd-A, and selecting 'Encrypt'. This exactly matches the concept of 'encrypt all the files in this folder', is already a simple and easy mechanism, and matches the thought process. You aren't wanting to encrypt the *folder*, but *all the files within it*.
It is much, much better for the user if there is a small number of simple concepts they need to learn to do many tasks effectively. 'Select All' is one of these.
Ah, this explains wanting the Windows UI 'features'... it is what you're used to. Just out of curiosity, what's the result when you encrypt a folder in WinXP?
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Kickaha ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I only use Windows as and EXAMPLE. I'm sorry, but I didn't know that using something as an example warranted this "ah, I see you're ONE OF THOSE..." responses. The difference between just sending them to a file and encrypting a folder (and all sub directories) is that it's transparent. The OS will decrypt all the files when I need them. This is more of a feature than an option. It basically excrypts all the files in that directory and it's subs. This is a lot nice than having to parse through all those directories. One-by-one and do that. Also it prevents people from seeing the directory structure too. It's kinda liek just setting the permissions on that folder and everything under it to only give YOU read/write/execute privileges except that it's encrypted to boot, so even if someone hacked the FS, the would need to hack the encryption. Think about things that you would encrypt like this. You would encrypt things like financial records, ie quicken-type stuff (don't give me quicken examples I'm talking generally). I would want to be able to access these without having to decrypt a zip/rar/tar/etc file and then extract the file and then open it and then put it all back and encrypt it again. You would want it to be transparent, where you just have to provide the password when you open the file and that program has authenticated itself for the remainder of the time it is open or when the file is no longer open whichever comes first (maybe a feature to un-authenticate, could be in order too? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" /> ). Know what I mean?
Note: I have never used this feature in WinXP. I assume that these are the features. If they are not, then this is the way that I want this feature to work.
<strong>
Er... exactly how small *is* your screen?
Word processing: a full 8.5x11" sheet of text, width-wise, takes up about 60% of my screen. Fullscreen = 40% of the space wasted.
Image processing: the only image processing I do is minimal editing. Fullscreen is *EXACTLY* what happens when hitting zoom if the image is larger than the current screen size. If not... well, then you have a big wasted border around it. Lovely.
Try zoom mode. It goes fullscreen *when appropriate*, and doesn't when it is just going to waste space.
I fail to see what the problem is. Perhaps you are just not understanding what zoom does?</strong><hr></blockquote>
My screen flucuates between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor. When coding having lots of screen real-estate is prime. At least to me. I only do fullscreen browsing on smaller resolutions, since I'm used to web pages displaying more.
<strong>I'm not sure why I should have to state what the improvements should be in order to show that the Dock is flawed from the ground up.
But here goes:
Despite what a lot of X boosters say, I think the old methods of Apple Menu, app switcher and window shade actually worked pretty well. The basic reason they did was that you had a good separation between apps that were running and aliases to apps that were regularly used (Apple must recognise this, having added "recent items" to the updated Apple Menu) and you had a hierarchical user storage system (which, wondorously sorts in alphabetical order and shows names and icons simultaneously).
The nice thing about recent apps/documents/servers in 9.x is that they are self-modifying to the users specification - something that the doc completely misses out on.
Window Shade, while originally a hack, came to be a great tool - and i admit that i thought it was a silly gimick originally. The power of WS is that all your windows stay where you left them - something that the Win task bar and the Dock cannot match. If you minimise in X you have to scrub around trying to find the window name - which may not be a lot of use to you if you have several windows with that name open. With WS you know where you left the window, you can see it's full title all the time, cmd-click the name and you can see it's folder hierarchy - these are all "clues" for the user that are missing with the dock.
Take a typical desktop situation, you've maybe got 5-10 windows open, minimise them all and you've got 5-10 pretty much identical icons in the dock. Which is useful for what? The same applies with documents minimised to the doc.
Ok, I think we have it, maybe setting that out does crystallise it in my mind. The problem with the dock is that it is overly reliant on distinguishing its elements by appearance, rather than "name", or appearance and name. The issue here is that the appearance of dock items are not unique - and Apple's new icon scheme does not help this.
How would I make it better? I'd scrap window minimising altogether, and replace with Window Shade. I'd make the dock an App Switcher only. I'd have the Finder window list order alphabetically. I'd perhaps put the "recent" items folder in the dock, so that with a mouse over it would pop-up and show the contained items. I'd definitely split the recent items between docs and application, and I'd reinstate recent serveers. I'd make sure that there was distinctive separation between running apps and any "recent" folder in the dock.
As far as the Finder goes I'd make the window widgets more distinguishable (colour doesn't work when you're in graphite mode), where you don't have to mouse over to get a clue. I'd reinstate non-proportional thumbs and clicks in scrollers move one screen down as a user setting ("move to the mouse point" in scrollers is less useful than move down one screen IMO, you can drag the thumb to that "point" but it's a hard guess as to jumping down a screen).</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm sorry that maybe I seemed a little aggressive in my reply before, but this is a thread to post suggestions, not to just yell out "the dock sucks" and leave.
I think that you are contradicting yourself though, you say that the dock is flawed from the ground up, but you list a few things that will fix it. If it was truely flawed from the grounnd up, would it not be irrepairable?
<strong>I think that you are contradicting yourself though, you say that the dock is flawed from the ground up, but you list a few things that will fix it. If it was truely flawed from the grounnd up, would it not be irrepairable?</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think so, most of things I mentioned actually disable dock functionality. The only thing I left in it were running applications and the possibility that you duplicate "recent items" in there. This would effectively make the dock into an app switcher, rather than the all singing, all dancing UI it's supposed to be.
I'll slightly modify my original statement, so then maybe we'll agree: as long as the dock tries to handle as much as it is currently then it will remain an unusable piece of crap".
So, without a complete overhaul, or the user being self-disciplined enough, the dock is useless IMO.
<strong>unless i am reading your post wrong, i think this has been in the finder preferences pane for a while as a "scroll one page" or "scroll to here" option. if not, it is now in jaguar.[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: rok ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
It's not in 10.1.5 that I can see, so must be in Jaguar.
<strong>
So, without a complete overhaul, or the user being self-disciplined enough, the dock is useless IMO.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I like it. I just want it out of the desktop (and, out of the way). If Apple could make it so that the dock behaved like a bottom menu bar, I'd be happy.
<strong>So your main critique of the Dock is that you find its window management weak. (Something that we probably all agree could use some improvement -- even Apple, as the glimpse of the still-being-tweaked Minimize-in-Place showed.)
This makes the Dock utterly useless?
Methinks you exaggerate.
Meanwhile, a haxie like WindowShade X pretty much solves all of your Dock issues. For 7 bucks. Go get it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think the dock as it stands is close to useless, yes, and as it is supposed to be used I'd say that it is totally unusable and close to being some of the worst UI design I've ever seen.
I think the only way it is usable is as an app launcher/switcher or file drag-drop on app icon.
That's it.
Unfortunately this is about 10% of what it's supposed to be used for.
I have WindowShade X and AppMenu installed - the same of the whole issue is that Apple puts out an OS without these elements in place and I have to resort to purchasing hacks to get the thing running anything like smoothly. I also use FruitMenu, which IMO is pretty good, but needs some further work (ie its contextual menus should include the window view commands).
[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:
<strong>We'll definitely be seeing "smarter" folders, some more flexibility, improved Open/Save dialogs (one can only hope!) and so on.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Aren't they just the pits at the moment?
I don't know about anyone else but I find the column views in open/save dialogues just about the most confusing thing ever - I'm never quite sure where I'm saving a file to!? The pop-up in the dialogue above the columns should be the folder hierarchy, not a list of shortcuts/recent folders and "home" etc - ok, put bot if you like, but folder hierarchy is primary.
And, you can't use a key to jump alphabetically to a file position.
[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:
<strong>Some obvious improvements:
- spring-loaded Dock folders (why this hasn't been done already I have no idea)...
- More text-oriented than visually-oriented? Like...say...the Windows TaskBar? Apple would rather eat nails.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Spring-loaded folders would help. More text-orientated doesn't mean the Win task-bar.
I think though, saying it again, this piece of UI is FUBAR. You cannot put this level of complexity into a single element without causing complete confusion: it's not simple and it's not elegant.
[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:
<strong>So... what then? I'm not sure. Minimize-in-Place certainly looked interesting...</strong><hr></blockquote>
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrghhhhhhhhhhh..... (me diving out the window).
Minimise in place is just more stuff that should never have made it outside the lab. It's almost worse than the dock.
Really, the only think that works here is WindowShade. MacOS 9.x proves it, as does the Win task bar (ie how not to do it). You need a placeholder that stays where you left it, moves out of the way so you can see other thing, is still viewable to remind you it's still there and is application specific (option-[whatever] effects all windows in an app, hiding the app hides what your util has done...).
And WindowShade does all these things.
[quote]Originally posted by Hobbes:
<strong>and I hope Apple is working on it (or something even better). For the moment all I can think of is refinements, like:</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unfortunately I think it's beyond "refinements", it needs pretty much scrapping and starting all over again.
[ 08-12-2002: Message edited by: Clive ]</p>
<strong>I like it. I just want it out of the desktop (and, out of the way). If Apple could make it so that the dock behaved like a bottom menu bar, I'd be happy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
What do you mean "bottom menu bar"? You can hide the dock if you like, so that it only becomes visible when you mouse over.
<strong>
I'm not saying make it redundant, I'm saying get rid of the 5-step process and make it a 1-step process.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Unless you're advocating getting rid of the Select All method, then yes, it would be redundant. That's what redundant means: to have multiple ways of accomplishing the exact same thing.
[quote]<strong>No?</strong><hr></blockquote>
...
Follow the thought processes of a new user.
"I want to do X to/with all the files in this folder."
The user has been taught that you select a file, then do something with it.
Now, would you rather teach them the Select All keystroke, that they can use *everywhere*, or would you rather explain to them that selecting a folder and 'doing X' to/with it doesn't actually do it to the *folder*, as they've been taught, but instead to the *files within*... but only for certain things.
Welcome to Windows. Special cases everywhere because some developer somewhere in the bowels of MS thought it'd be cool to be able to do some funky action in some cases, but not all, and oh, by the way, you can't do it *there* because *that* folder is different...
This isn't good design, this is a mess.
[quote]<strong>It's like saying : "Why have iChat? That's just redundant. I can have AIM instead."</strong><hr></blockquote>
Hardly.
<strong>
I only use Windows as and EXAMPLE. I'm sorry, but I didn't know that using something as an example warranted this "ah, I see you're ONE OF THOSE..." responses.</strong><hr></blockquote>
No, it merely explained why you want it this way - it's because it's what you are used to. No judgement implied on your OS use.
The judgement was strictly on the pros/cons of the suggested changes.
[quote]<strong>The difference between just sending them to a file and encrypting a folder (and all sub directories) is that it's transparent. The OS will decrypt all the files when I need them. This is more of a feature than an option. It basically excrypts all the files in that directory and it's subs. This is a lot nice than having to parse through all those directories. One-by-one and do that. Also it prevents people from seeing the directory structure too. It's kinda liek just setting the permissions on that folder and everything under it to only give YOU read/write/execute privileges except that it's encrypted to boot, so even if someone hacked the FS, the would need to hack the encryption.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See how easy that was?
You get to thinking about it out loud, and it comes out that what you want isn't an action on a folder, but a folder *attribute*.
Two completely different things, from a design point of view.
And I agree, having folders that auto-encrypt their contents would be handy. (Of course, you'd have to have some way to manage the keys for the individual files within. Could have handled this with 9's folder actions, actually.)
[quote]<strong><kersnip>
Know what I mean?
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes, I do. I never had a problem with the idea of encryption, what I took issue with was the mechanism by which you wanted to 'apply to all in this folder'. It's not a well thought out method.
[quote]<strong>Note: I have never used this feature in WinXP. I assume that these are the features. If they are not, then this is the way that I want this feature to work.</strong><hr></blockquote>
See, the way you presented it indicated that you *had* used those features, so I was asking how it actually worked. It wasn't clear that you were just surmising and dreaming.
<strong>
My screen flucuates between 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 on a 19" monitor. When coding having lots of screen real-estate is prime.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Waitaminnit... you've got all that screenspace, and you want to waste most of it in fullscreen mode by showing
just
one
window
at
a
time?
Ouch. I can't imagine a less efficient workflow for coding.
Try the zoom button. Really. If you're in an IDE, where the space is already partitioned, it *should* go as large as possible. If you're in a text editor, it'll go large enough to show you the entire code width, if possible. If you're in a Terminal window, it just gives up and because it can't tell what you want, goes fullscreen too.
I'm not sure what is missing here for you...
[quote]<strong>At least to me. I only do fullscreen browsing on smaller resolutions, since I'm used to web pages displaying more.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So some of the time you do fullscreen browsing, some of the time you don't... and the fullscreen browsing is at smaller resolutions, when the zoom button, exactly as it works, would give you fullscreen.
Seems like it does just what you want it to.
<strong>
So some of the time you do fullscreen browsing, some of the time you don't... and the fullscreen browsing is at smaller resolutions, when the zoom button, exactly as it works, would give you fullscreen.
Seems like it does just what you want it to.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This wasn't the intent of my original post. I was trying to say that using the fullscreen has it's uses. The person I was replying to thought that any program using the fullscreen was a waste of screen real-estate. And I never said that I use the fullscreen at high res, I said I do at low res.