John Siracusa's Jaguar review

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 46
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    (sigh) Just two more points.



    John: [quote]Like I said above, I use it, but it could be a lot better. There are so many browser-style features that the Jaguar Finder lacks (see a web browser for some examples). I wouldn't hold the OS X Finder up as a stellar example of a browser-style interface.<hr></blockquote>



    But the Finder is different than a web browser, as well it should be -- the kind of data it browses is different.



    What specific examples from a web browser would you like to see from a web browser folded into the Finder? Windows 98 tried some of these (very stupid ones, in any case, like one-click links for files, and throbbers). They were awful.



    self: [quote](In fact, he does say "It is not always obvious 'where I am' in the column view control," w/o mentioning the new subtle feature of white-outline arrow/solid arrow that addresses exactly this issue.)<hr></blockquote>



    John: [quote]...probably because it was so subtle that I never even noticed it. The current input target should be a lot more obvious than that. I have yet to find anyone who routinely and fearlessly navigates open/save dialog boxes in OS X using only the keyboard. Try forcing yourself not to use the mouse in open/save dialog boxes in OS X for one week and tell me how it affects your efficiency...<hr></blockquote>



    Yeah, it took me a little while to notice the Column View selection outline/solid arrow thing, and I agree, it could and should be more obvious.



    And agreed, open/save dialogues are not where they should be. Worst of all is that infernal bug in Carbon open/saves that screw up keyboard navigation. That Apple hasn't fixed this one by now is getting downright embarassing.



    Anyway. All this is to say, I appreciate your appreciation of UI -- you clearly know a great deal about it, and care deeply. But I do think there's a difference between not agreeing with a vision (of which the OS X Finder's browse-in-place is one part), and saying that none exists.



    [ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
  • Reply 22 of 46
    John, is [email protected] your correct address? Using the link provided in your article, I tried to send you a message around 1:20 AM EST last night saying that Apple's new font is Adobe Myriad, but I got an error message back saying "Warning: message still undelivered after 4 hours. Will keep trying until message is 5 days old." Just wondering...



    About the haxies and non-apple drivers, well, I would like to think that drivers are tested a bit more thoroughly than these haxies and .menus. Surely you've read some of the reports of mysterious problems they've caused on some users' systems, no? As I mentioned above, I have personally experienced several problems with them and reluctantly keep dropping them in the trash, hoping the next version will work better.



    Maybe I've just had a run of bad luck. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
  • Reply 23 of 46
    John, if you're still lurking, I have a couple of questions:



    1) Has the evolution of computing away from what I'll call a 'single user disconnected' mode and toward a 'multi user networked' mode been the real reason that Apple has gone from spatial to browser with the Finder? IOW, has the change in computing made the spatial metaphor too much of a stretch to pull off and still be relavent in this 'multi user networked' environement? Or could this still be done well but Apple chose not to...?



    2) For machines without the capability of employing Quartz Extreme, is there any noticeable speed-up in the GUI?



    Thanks!



    [ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Hudson ]</p>
  • Reply 24 of 46
    [quote]Originally posted by Hudson:

    <strong>2) For machines without the capability of employing Quartz Extreme, is there any noticeable speed-up in the GUI?</strong><hr></blockquote>I'm not John, but I can answer this one. YES. It's not as extreme (pardon the pun), but it is a tad better than 10.1.
  • Reply 25 of 46
    johnjohn Posts: 99member
    [quote]What I think is left out in your reviews, however, is that many people who have thought long and hard about user interface are arriving at the conclusion that spatial navigation is not perfect, and in some significant ways has not aged well.<hr></blockquote>



    See my comments in the <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=174096756&m=2730963235&r=2 420914235#2420914235" target="_blank">Ars discussion</a> for my take on this.



    [quote]I'm sorry that this loss makes you so unhappy, but I don't see what the alternative is, aside from dumping browse-in-place altogether. I don't think the many users who prefer browse-in-place would be very happy about that.<hr></blockquote>



    The simplest alternative is to separate the spatial and browser-style interfaces. Browser windows should be functionally and visually distinct from spatial windows, and a window of one type should never be able to "transform" into a window ofteh other type. This would free up both approaches to greatly expand their capabilities. They could even be separate applications running simultaneously, like the Dock and the Finder are today.
  • Reply 26 of 46
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    [quote]Originally posted by stupider...likeafox:

    <strong>



    I think the reviewer's point was that the change in transparancy caused an increase in contrast for the menu text. Different text-rendering could also have caused this effect.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Well, he didn't say that, but a casual observer is going to assume that the bolder menu text is a result of tweaking instead of changing the font-smoothing option.
  • Reply 27 of 46
    johnjohn Posts: 99member
    [quote]What specific examples from a web browser would you like to see from a web browser folded into the Finder?<hr></blockquote>



    How about history menus on back and forward, bookmarks, "open link in new window" (well, "folder" I guess :-) modifier keys, tabbed browsing, persistent history, "last visited" color coding (perhaps graduated to show age), and an address bar with auto-completion?



    [quote]I do think there's a difference between not agreeing with a vision (of which the OS X Finder's browse-in-place is one part), and saying that none exists.<hr></blockquote>



    I don't think there's a clear vision. It seems more like someone just said, "we should add some browser-style navigation." If Apple had gone whole-hog, turning the Finder into a super-browser (imagine a combination of iTunes and Mozilla :-) then I'd say at least they went for it. I still think it'd be the wrong overall approach, but at least it'd be a clear vision
  • Reply 28 of 46
    johnjohn Posts: 99member
    [quote]John, is [email protected] your correct address? Using the link provided in your article, I tried to send you a message around 1:20 AM EST last night saying that Apple's new font is Adobe Myriad, but I got an error message back<hr></blockquote>



    There was a typo in that email link that has since been fixed. (The "n" was missing, IIRC). You should resend the email to the correctly spelled address
  • Reply 29 of 46
    johnjohn Posts: 99member
    [quote]Has the evolution of computing away from what I'll call a 'single user disconnected' mode and toward a 'multi user networked' mode been the real reason that Apple has gone from spatial to browser with the Finder?<hr></blockquote>



    If that is their motivation, it is not a logically sound one, IMO. As I wrote in the <a href="http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=174096756&m=2730963235&r=2 420914235#2420914235" target="_blank">Ars thread</a>, "the world has changed", but humans haven't. That is the invariant (for non-geological time scales :-) in the usability equation.
  • Reply 30 of 46
    [quote]Originally posted by John:

    <strong>"open link in new window" (well, "folder" I guess :-) modifier keys</strong><hr></blockquote>Hold command when double-clicking a folder. Voila! New window!

    [quote]<strong>an address bar with auto-completion?</strong><hr></blockquote>It's not always available like in a web browser, but command-shift-g does exactly this. And it has auto-completion too.
  • Reply 31 of 46
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by John:

    <strong>



    How about history menus on back and forward, bookmarks, "open link in new window" (well, "folder" I guess :-) modifier keys, tabbed browsing, persistent history, "last visited" color coding (perhaps graduated to show age), and an address bar with auto-completion?</strong><hr></blockquote>



    "Open folder in a new window" (command-double-click) is indeed invaluable -- it's there. A better address bar (better than "Go to Folder", which has auto-complete) would be interesting. The rest... hmm. I'm not sure. As I said before, data browsing is not the same as web browsing, and the addition of a persistent history (for example) -- of repeated moves to the same places over and over -- doesn't strike me as necessary. What is needed is the ability to move speedily into a nested folder hierarchy, and still "see" where one is, something that Column View is very good at.



    [quote]Originally posted by John:

    <strong>

    I don't think there's a clear vision. It seems more like someone just said, "we should add some browser-style navigation." If Apple had gone whole-hog, turning the Finder into a super-browser (imagine a combination of iTunes and Mozilla :-) then I'd say at least they went for it. I still think it'd be the wrong overall approach, but at least it'd be a clear vision </strong><hr></blockquote>



    Wow. Well, I strongly disagree with you here. That is not my reaction at all, and it's surprising to me that you see it that way. Nor do I think having the Finder act like Mozilla equals vision in any way. (iTunes, on the other hand... But we'll no doubt have to wait for the FS revamp for this.)



    The Finder is clearly in the middle of evolving. Some of the vision is cloudy, but it is, along with the iApp philosophy, building up to (IMO) a coherent UI philosophy. I too see lots of room for improvement, but I do not see the basic structure as flawed. On the contrary, I love being able to shift quickly back and forth between browse-in-place and spatial modes (or, ah, demi-spatial). I think breaking the Finder in two different windowing modes, or applications, solely to perserve a 1-to-1 folder/window correspondence would be absurd -- not to mention very complex and confusing.



    Like everyone, I'm looking forward to what's next, but today's Finder, for the most part, is a very good first step.





    [edit: sorry for duplicating your comments, Brad; this was sitting in the edit field a while for sending.]



    [ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
  • Reply 32 of 46
    johnjohn Posts: 99member
    [quote]hat is not my reaction at all, and it's surprising to me that you see it that way. Nor do I think having the Finder act like Mozilla equals vision in any way. (iTunes, on the other hand... But we'll no doubt have to wait for the FS revamp for this.)<hr></blockquote>



    I know the combo sounds bad, but I meant it in a good way: a combination of only the best of both



    [quote]I think breaking the Finder in two different windowing modes, or applications, solely to perserve a 1-to-1 folder/window correspondence would be absurd -- not to mention very complex and confusing.<hr></blockquote>



    It would be less confusing, since the two kinds of windows would be both visually and functionally distinct. I've actually considered doing a whole article in the vein of "okay, wiseguy, how should the OS X Finder work?", but I think the Photoshop time making all those mockups would kill me



    [quote]Like everyone, I'm looking forward to what's next, but today's Finder, for the most part, is a very good first step.<hr></blockquote>



    First step towards what? A muddle of mediocrity? All I can say is that the (theoretical) super-secret "new" OS X Finder better knock my socks off when it's introduced...and if it does, I suspect it will share little or nothing with the current OS X Finder.
  • Reply 33 of 46
    I still wonder why the quartz layer is so slow-it's giving the whole system a bad reputation-all of the other Cocoa graphics API's are fast-extremely fast,but their capabilities are being thwarted.
  • Reply 34 of 46
    nevynnevyn Posts: 360member
    [quote]Originally posted by John:

    <strong>



    The simplest alternative is to separate the spatial and browser-style interfaces. Browser windows should be functionally and visually distinct from spatial windows, and a window of one type should never be able to "transform" into a window ofteh other type. This would free up both approaches to greatly expand their capabilities. They could even be separate applications running simultaneously, like the Dock and the Finder are today.</strong><hr></blockquote>



    Heh. Sounds like we should go talk to the Omni people to do interesting things given a 'file://' URL. I think that'd rock -&gt; pretty clearly something separate from the 'Finder', should integrate the features you were discussing fairly easily etc.
  • Reply 35 of 46
    hobbeshobbes Posts: 1,252member
    [quote]Originally posted by John:

    <strong>



    It would be less confusing, since the two kinds of windows would be both visually and functionally distinct. I've actually considered doing a whole article in the vein of "okay, wiseguy, how should the OS X Finder work?", but I think the Photoshop time making all those mockups would kill me

    </strong><hr></blockquote>





    Let me see if I can try to step into your shoes for a moment or two.



    Here's one way I could see your separation idea put into design: first, browse-in-place is eliminated in the Finder. Opening a folder will now always open a new window. Clicking a toolbar icon will open the folder in a new window. Column view is eliminated, leaving the Icon and List views. Command-N returns to "new folder".



    However, a new menu item in the Finder, say command-B, offers the command "Open New Browser." This opens a window which browses the hard drive, in Icon or Column View. The browser window is visually distinct from a normal Finder window -- perhaps even textured (hey, why not? every app is doing it! ) Multiple browsers can of course be opened (just press command-B multiple times). In addition, browser windows offer auto-completing address bars, and have a number of features taken from web browsers: an auto-complete address bar, forward and back histories, and a history drawer.



    Is something like this what you're looking for?



    [ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Hobbes ]</p>
  • Reply 36 of 46
    johnjohn Posts: 99member
    [quote]Is something like this what you're looking for?<hr></blockquote>



    That description was a little tame, but you're at least headed in the right direction But I'd include a bunch of whizzy new features in both the browser and spatial parts that'd make users drool (mostly because they're probably really hard to implement....ah, vaporware Some examples...



    The Copland-esque live search folders would be one kind of browser-style window, only it'd really be a "psuedo-spatial" view." IOW, the "container" itself would obey the rules of a spatial folder (only shown in one location, etc.) but the contents would be the continuously updated results of some sort of query. The individual items "in" the "view folder" would be proxies for the actual files (like the proxy icons in titlebars today).



    Entourage views and iTunes smart playlists are examples of what the contents would be like. We have no good examples of what the "view folders" themselves would be like, unfortunately.



    As you alluded to, an iTunes like browser with as-you-type one-shot searching across all relevant data (file names, file sizes, creation dates, comments, labels, title, author, keywords, content...you know, "metadata") is an obvious feature for the browser side. But we need some serious infrastructure improvement for that to be feasible, sadly.



    I'd also like some sort of (also psuedo-spatial) "workspace" browser windows. Think of it as a custom browser window dedicated to an individual task, saved for later reuse. It'd be like a normal browser window, but tailored to a particular workflow. For example, one "saved browser" meant for working with images might have shortcuts to image editing apps and folders that contain images, a big preview pane, and buttons for simple image operations like cropping and resizing. Another saved browser meant for working on HTML files in a web site might have a tree view, links to the actual web site, buttons for validating HTML and uploading files, links to W3C specs, etc.



    These "saved browsers" could even be auto-opened when descending into a particular spatial folder (e.g. using folder actions). The point is to have browser windows that are arranged and customized by the user according to the task, and then saved for later use. The "one size fits all" browser window is much too limiting, IMO, and no one wants to rearrange/reconfigure their browser window every time they do something different. So you get wishy-washy middle of the road browser windows. Bleh.



    One last feature for now: there'd be an open plug-in architecture for third parties to add modules to both parts of the new Finder: modules for previewing files, modules for changing/converting metadata, modules for enabling network transparency for new protocols (e.g. FTP, but working this time :-) and so on. This, like many really good ideas, was actually talked about in the Copland-Rhapsody timeframe, but never came to pass.



    Anyway, that's enough pie in the sky for now. Maybe I will eventually write that Super Finder article. But I still hope that Apple beats me to it by actually making one
  • Reply 37 of 46
    John, thanks for all of that sharing of ideas. Here's a different kind of question that you may some opinion on: You've certainly heard about the two BeOS engineers who were instrumental in developing the Be file system, now working for Apple. Does this say anything to you about where Apple may be headed with the Finder? Once again, thanks.
  • Reply 38 of 46
    torifiletorifile Posts: 4,024member
    I just want a finder that thinks like I do: a random combination of dates, types of data and content. I want to be able to find it the way I can find stuff on my desk: I was working on it over here using a yellow notepad around this date. I know all of this stuff can be stored in metadata, should that ever come around, but I never think in the same way twice, so I'd never label things the same way twice. Dealing with our arbitrary methods of organization would be the ideal finder. Is it doable? Probably not. Or maybe it is. Who knows...
  • Reply 39 of 46
    I'd like to see a clipboard tha can be made visible and can hold several,rather than one item-I use Text edit in this way,but it isn't integrated into the system the way the clipboard is.



    [ 09-06-2002: Message edited by: Rick1138 ]</p>
  • Reply 40 of 46
    kukukuku Posts: 254member
    As always with John's reviews. It's a read-wince reaction.



    This is in no way a personal attack, but John does have a habit of putting the self first. While there is nothing wrong about this in a capital type economy as a review, uninformed readers might not notice this and readily think of it as "it sucks, article".



    OSs are cookie-cutter ideas. After all apple can't make options and ideas of every single user. So there is a certain amount of give-take on both sides.



    Most everyday users will be perfectly happy with Apple's UI, and will only say "wow" when changes are made. They know they are paying a $100 OS and not a $1 billion personally made for them OS.



    It's always good to C&C idea's to help them polish it. But there are just times when they will say "No way man, it just won't work for anyone else besides you"



    The haxie thing... enough said...it really shouldn't be in that article or at least the wording of it. I don't think developers are really blinking an eye to such a minor thing.



    ~Kuku
Sign In or Register to comment.