Okay, Apple: make up your mind about the Dock.

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 143
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    So nobody's going to tackle my questions then?



    Quite frankly I'm shocked and dismayed by the support for this CRAPPY new direction Apple is heading in.



    It's especially disconcerting coming from a person who has "In a world without doors or walls, there is no need for Gates or Windows" as a signature. Having apps quit when you close them is basically a Microsoft Windows concept born out of necessity because they don't have a global menubar (a huge transparent window). No app in Mac OS is a true single-window application.




    Eugene, I basically agree with you. But there is one glaring problem that is at least the #2 most confusing thing to new users. That is the app that has no windows open but is still running and has its menu bar up, and you can see through to the window(s) of another application. It absolutely confuses the shit out of new users. Like closing the last window in Safari and you see MS Word's document but with Safari's menu bar. Drives new users NUTS. They can't grasp the concept.
  • Reply 82 of 143
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    If you are a truly new computer user like my mom was a few years ago, you have no preconceptions of what an app is or when it is running. My mom immediately grasped the concept of the application being more than just an open window because she had never used Microsoft Windows before.



    The only problem lies in Windows switchers, some of which are too inflexible to grasp the better concept that Mac OS allows. If we give up these intrinsically Mac features, then we just lose yet another Mac advantage just to satiate some switchers' feeble minds.



    Excuse me while I puke.
  • Reply 83 of 143
    jlljll Posts: 2,709member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    No they didn't. You mean to tell me they 100+ key keyboards and we somehow need to share command-key combinations for such integral actions as closing windows and something else? Please...



    Why not shift-command-w or shift-command-t or option-command-t.



    I propose:



    Shift-Command-T - Close this Tab

    Option-Command-T - Close all other Tabs




    How user friendly



    Cmd-W makes sense since you are using the same shortcut to close the current document (in this case a web site) all the time, and you don't have to check if a site is opened in a tab or a window.



    Get over it!
  • Reply 84 of 143
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    How user friendly



    Cmd-W makes sense since you are using the same shortcut to close the current document (in this case a web site) all the time, and you don't have to check if a site is opened in a tab or a window.



    Get over it!




    It is user friendly.



    T for tabs. Or maybe U because it comes after T and will prevent people from accidentally opening/closing tabs. Command-U to close a tab. Command-Option-U to close all other tabs in the current window. I'm sorry you feel that tabs should be treated like windows. It's twisted logic. A window is a window is a window. A tab is a tab and not a window within a window, unless you are going to admit that you love MDI. Do you love MDI? I think you do.



    I expect the actual window that looks like a window to close when I hit Command-W. I associate the red widget with Command-W. It's what it was designed for. It's what makes most sense spatially. The minute you support tabs, you are supporting subordinate interfaces within a parent window. Subordinate interfaces get subordinate command-key combinations. At least Microsoft understood this when they developed MDI. They almost never share command-key combinations between parent windows and child windows...for a very good reason.
  • Reply 85 of 143
    paispais Posts: 34member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by lundy

    Like closing the last window in Safari and you see MS Word's document but with Safari's menu bar. Drives new users NUTS. They can't grasp the concept.



    I think this problem is exacerbated by the fact that it's sometimes difficult to tell which window is on top -- at a glance. This is especially true with textured (brushed metal) windows, and extra-especially true for the "faked" ones like iPhoto and QuickTime Player. However, it's definitely not a reason to automatically quit an app when its last window is closed.



    This has been improved with Panther's new titlebars, but it's nowhere as obvious as it is in Windows (ugly as it may be) or the 'classic' Mac OS.



    Apple could remedy the situation by indicating which Dock icon belongs to the frontmost application, standardizing (or minimizing) its use of textured windows, and making it really damn apparent which window has focus (hopefully in a tasteful way).
  • Reply 86 of 143
    paispais Posts: 34member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by JLL

    Hmm, funny since it's been here since at least System 6. Calculator?



    The calculator's acted that way since it shipped with System 1.0. FYI, the old calculator and similarly black-titlebar'd apps were called desk accessories: their special property was that they ran alongside running apps at a time when you could only run one application at a time.



    That's why it originally 'quit' when its window was closed -- it actually wasn't an application. Why it behaves that way now is beyond me; I would rather see Apple disable the close button than make it synonymous with 'quit'.
  • Reply 87 of 143
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Pais



    Apple could remedy the situation by indicating which Dock icon belongs to the frontmost application, standardizing (or minimizing) its use of textured windows, and making it really damn apparent which window has focus (hopefully in a tasteful way).




    The frontmost application's name is listed in the menubar already. What they could do is improve the way running applications are represented in the Dock. The little black triangles don't really mean anything to the unsuspecting.
  • Reply 88 of 143
    ryaxnbryaxnb Posts: 583member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    No they didn't. You mean to tell me they 100+ key keyboards and we somehow need to share command-key combinations for such integral actions as closing windows and something else? Please...



    Why not shift-command-w or shift-command-t or option-command-t.



    I propose:



    Shift-Command-T - Close this Tab

    Option-Command-T - Close all other Tabs




    I think they did. I may be weird, but it makes since to me to have this kind of consistency: Command+W closes a web page view, always.
  • Reply 89 of 143
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ryaxnb

    I think they did. I may be weird, but it makes since to me to have this kind of consistency: Command+W closes a web page view, always.



    Just wait until Apple does it in another app. Then another. And another. All because you guys don't recognize the sanctity of certain features of the UI and what it means for Mac OS.



    Some apps quitting when you close windows, and some apps not, and some apps only conditionally doing so...



    Some apps having Command-W mean something else...



    This will be the death of Apple.
  • Reply 90 of 143
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    And therein lies the real problem with MDI: It breaks the correlation between a document and a window, forcing some degree of ambiguity. It is impossible to come up with a solution as elegant as you get free by keeping 1 document per window and 1 window per document.



    So the question boils down to, which counterintuitive behavior, or which additional rules, do you introduce to handle this new inconsistency? Either way you give something up.
  • Reply 91 of 143
    3.14163.1416 Posts: 120member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    I'm sorry you feel that tabs should be treated like windows. It's twisted logic. A window is a window is a window. A tab is a tab and not a window within a window



    Ok, suppose there were no tabs, as such. Suppose instead each browser page had its own window, but when you selected a different window it automatically positioned itself directly on top of the previous window. And suppose that each window contained a list of all other open windows, which you could select by clicking on them. This would look exactly the same as a tabbed interface, and now Cmd-W would really be closing a window, but effectively closing a tab.



    That was probably confusing, but the point, which I mentioned before, is that you can look at tabs as just another way to manage multiple windows.



    Quote:

    unless you are going to admit that you love MDI. Do you love MDI? I think you do.



    "tabs==MDI==bad" isn't an argument. The parent-child form of MDI *is* bad, for a variety of reasons that we'd probably all agree on. (Microsoft did this because Windows has no global menu bar, but their solution was worse than the problem). However, tabs can be useful in certain places; I like them in iTerm as well, in which Cmd-W also closes a tab.



    Quote:

    The minute you support tabs, you are supporting subordinate interfaces within a parent window. Subordinate interfaces get subordinate command-key combinations.



    Not really. As I look at it, there are no child and parent views; there's just a set of "windows" (not really, but effectively) that occupy the same screen area, only one of which is visible at a time. And I wouldn't object to making the close button in the titlebar close a tab, which would make the metaphor fully consistent (although probably not in the way you want).



    I recall reading the Camino (then Chimera) mailing lists back when it first got tab support. Initially it used Cmd-E to close a tab and Cmd-W to close the entire window, but Cmd-W to close a tab was so intuitive, and so many users were accidentally closing entire tab sets (myself included), that it was changed. Actual experience trumps theory.



    Quote:

    This will be the death of Apple.



    If this is Apple's greatest threat, they're in even better shape than I thought
  • Reply 92 of 143
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by 3.1416

    Ok, suppose there were no tabs, as such. Suppose instead each browser page had its own window, but when you selected a different window it automatically positioned itself directly on top of the previous window. And suppose that each window contained a list of all other open windows, which you could select by clicking on them. This would look exactly the same as a tabbed interface, and now Cmd-W would really be closing a window, but effectively closing a tab.



    It's not confusing. It's nonsense. You're describing lobotomized windows. A true window can be positioned. A true window will close when you ask it to. You still ignore the fact that the parent window *is* different from the *child* tab. The easiest way to prove it is to open two parent windows, each with tabs. Unless you plan on changing something, the red-widget means "Close Window." The red-widget has always been associated with Command-W. The new interface, the new tab close button gets its own Command-key sequence. It's as easy as that. Unless also want to make the red widget close tabs one at a time...



    Quote:

    That was probably confusing, but the point, which I mentioned before, is that you can look at tabs as just another way to manage multiple windows.



    Spin it all you want. This is MDI.



    Quote:

    "tabs==MDI==bad" isn't an argument.



    It's not an argument, it's a fact.



    Quote:

    The parent-child form of MDI *is* bad, for a variety of reasons that we'd probably all agree on. (Microsoft did this because Windows has no global menu bar, but their solution was worse than the problem). However, tabs can be useful in certain places; I like them in iTerm as well, in which Cmd-W also closes a tab.



    Tabs are only useful when they cannot be created, destroyed, or duplicated without limits...Where they are constant, such as with in set Preference Panels and palettes. Tabs are not useful as the lobotomized window you describe. Look how you've confused yourself into thinking windows minus the very features that make them windows are windows. They change the entire model of the UI. How far can tabs go? What about tabs within tabs? Wouldn't that be great?



    Quote:

    Not really. As I look at it, there are no child and parent views; there's just a set of "windows" (not really, but effectively) that occupy the same screen area, only one of which is visible at a time. And I wouldn't object to making the close button in the titlebar close a tab, which would make the metaphor fully consistent (although probably not in the way you want).



    If it's really just a set of windows, then how can you have two sets of windows with tabs? That is proof of a hierarchy. The window is the parent to the tab.



    Quote:

    I recall reading the Camino (then Chimera) mailing lists back when it first got tab support. Initially it used Cmd-E to close a tab and Cmd-W to close the entire window, but Cmd-W to close a tab was so intuitive, and so many users were accidentally closing entire tab sets (myself included), that it was changed. Actual experience trumps theory.



    If we did everything according to casual appeal and not according to greater deliberation, then the world would be a terrible place.



    Quote:

    If this is Apple's greatest threat, they're in even better shape than I thought



    Apple's greatest threat is losing what makes it better than the competition. A functional, ideal UI is very important to its continued existence.
  • Reply 93 of 143
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    If you are a truly new computer user like my mom was a few years ago, you have no preconceptions of what an app is or when it is running. My mom immediately grasped the concept of the application being more than just an open window because she had never used Microsoft Windows before.



    The only problem lies in Windows switchers, some of which are too inflexible to grasp the better concept that Mac OS allows. If we give up these intrinsically Mac features, then we just lose yet another Mac advantage just to satiate some switchers' feeble minds.



    Excuse me while I puke.




    I agree the Mac is the better concept. It's just been my experience that the "app with no window open" is very confusing to new users, your mom notwithstanding.



    N00b (Having closed the last MS Word window to "get rid" of it, and seeing the Safari website behind it): "How come this website is up here?"



    Mac Addict: "That's Safari that you are seeing through Word's empty space because Word has no windows open because you closed the last one."



    N00b: "HUH?"



    Mac Addict: "See where it says "Word" in the upper left corner? That means you are still in Word, but there are just no windows open."



    N00b: "Why would I want to be in Word with no windows open? I thought I got rid of it by clicking that little red button. What do you mean I am 'in Word', anyway?"



    Mac Addict: "No, you see, the application is still running, but it doesn't have any windows open. So if you want to write a letter or something, you choose "New Document" from the "File" menu. Or you could open another document from the 'Open' menu item. That's why Apple designed it that way on the Mac - so you could close one document and then open another without having to quit the program."



    N00b: "Well, I don't want to do any more word processing. I see Safari's window here - how come I don't have my 'Bookmarks' menu?"



    Mac Addict: "Because like I said, you are still in Word. If you want to be in Safari, just click in the Safari window."



    N00b: "Click where in the Safari window? How do I know which one is the Safari window?"



    Mac Addict: "Anywhere! Just click {dammitt}! "



    N00b: "Should I click in a blank space?"



    Mac Addict: "CLICK ANYWHERE! YOU JUST NEED TO BRING SAFARI TO THE FRONT!!!"



    N00b: "The front? It looks like it's already in the front. There isn't anything in front of it - It's right here."



    Mac Addict: "I TOLD YOU, WORD IS IN THE FRONT - SEE WHERE IT SAYS "WORD" IN THE UPPER LEFT CORNER???!! SAFARI IS BEHIND!!! YOU HAVE TO BRING SAFARI TO THE FRONT BEFORE YOU CAN USE IT!!!"



    N00b: "OK I clicked - now what?"



    Mac Addict: "Does it say "Safari" in the upper left corner now?"



    N00b: "No. It says 'Excel'."



  • Reply 94 of 143
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Like I said, a true newbie has no preconceptions of what an app is or isn't. As a computer illiterate first-timer, I have no reason to believe an app isn't still running just because it is out of view. Something doesn't cease to exist just because you can't see it. When I load an app, I will expect an equal and opposite procedure to unload the app. When I open a document, I see that it doesn't spawn a new application process. When I close a window I would expect to see no application process shutdown.



    In your example, both people are retards. The newbie isn't listening, and the Mac fool doesn't even know how to use Command-Tab or the Dock.
  • Reply 95 of 143
    jimzipjimzip Posts: 444member
    That should have been in Monty Python!!!

    ROFL!





    Jimzip
  • Reply 96 of 143
    lundylundy Posts: 4,466member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Eugene

    In your example, both people are retards. The newbie isn't listening, and the Mac fool doesn't even know how to use Command-Tab or the Dock.



    (continued)



    N00b: I wanna surf the Web.



    Addict: You need to go to Safari.



    N00b: OK how do I get Safari?



    Addict: Click the Safari icon in the Dock.



    N00b: What's the Dock?



    Addict: That strip of icons on the ... let's see, that's Leroy's machine and he keeps his Dock on the right, so... the strip of icons running up the right side of the screen.



    N00b: Which one of these pictures is for Safari?



    Addict: The one that looks blue, circular, and like a compass with a red needle.



    N00b: I can't find it.



    Addict: It's about ... let's see, that's Leroy's machine and he keeps Safari about the fourth icon down from the top.... It's about the fourth one down from the top.



    N00b: The fourth one says "Fetch 4.0.3".



    Addict: {Sigh}.....Leroy's running Fetch to get build 7C107.... OK check the ones below that one. Does it say "Safari" when you scrub it with the mouse?



    N00b: No, it just made a little puff of smoke. It doesn't say anything.



    Addict:
  • Reply 97 of 143
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    More idiocy. Don't make up stupid scenarios like this. Now you're talking about apps that aren't currently running? What the hell does that have to do with quit behavior?



    If a person wants to run Safari, I wouldn't suggest he find it in the Dock. I would tell him to *gasp* go to the Applications folder and click on the icon labeled "Safari." OMG!!!!
  • Reply 98 of 143
    jwilljwill Posts: 209member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by lundy

    (continued)



    N00b: I wanna surf the Web.



    Addict: You need to go to Safari.



    N00b: OK how do I get Safari?



    Addict: Click the Safari icon in the Dock.



    N00b: What's the Dock?



    Addict: That strip of icons on the ... let's see, that's Leroy's machine and he keeps his Dock on the right, so... the strip of icons running up the right side of the screen.



    N00b: Which one of these pictures is for Safari?



    Addict: The one that looks blue, circular, and like a compass with a red needle.



    N00b: I can't find it.



    Addict: It's about ... let's see, that's Leroy's machine and he keeps Safari about the fourth icon down from the top.... It's about the fourth one down from the top.



    N00b: The fourth one says "Fetch 4.0.3".



    Addict: {Sigh}.....Leroy's running Fetch to get build 7C107.... OK check the ones below that one. Does it say "Safari" when you scrub it with the mouse?



    N00b: No, it just made a little puff of smoke. It doesn't say anything.



    Addict:




    Maybe an option to "Lock" the dock so you can't remove anything? And this COULD be a true story. Not everybody wants to load an applications folder with 50 items in it (probably more for you guys) every time they want to open something.



    What I would tell somebody is to click the little compass in on the right side of the screen. They usually get it after that.
  • Reply 99 of 143
    eugeneeugene Posts: 8,254member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by jwill



    What I would tell somebody is to click the little compass in on the right side of the screen. They usually get it after that.




    If a newbie asks you how to surf the web and you aren't physically present like the implied scenario, you're going to use the most basic directions. That involves telling him to go to the Applications folder and clicking on the icon labeled Safari.



    I wouldn't assume anything about the dock configuration.



    However, do realize that Lundy's scenarios are flawed beyond belief. He seems to be creating them only to be defiant. The second scenario doesn't even revolve around anything we've been talking about in the thread.
  • Reply 100 of 143
    jerombajeromba Posts: 357member
    You know what ? Maybe Apple can make an option like this :

    Go to system preferences, click on Appearance and then you have a new choice for the red dot and for the green dot.

    Red : Option 1 : Close only the window

    Red : Option 2 : Close the application

    Green : Option 1 : Fit to content

    Green : Option 2 : Full screen



    Oh, and I would like also a lot an option to lock the dock. Even for administrator user.
Sign In or Register to comment.