# usability



## designer (Nov 13, 2002)

Usability btw Aqua and Luna(?) 




> "If I compare Aqua to Windows XP, ignoring what's under the hood, I tend to think XP is ahead of the Aqua interface in terms of usability," says Marion Buchenau, a senior designer with San Francisco industrial design firm Smart Design.



So XP is more user friendly than Auqa?

What's your thought?


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 13, 2002)




----------



## plastic (Nov 13, 2002)

MacLuv and the rest of the friends I have made in here... I think the older Mac users have come a long way to discuss Win OS issues and WIN PC Hardware for the longest time. And I have seen more Mac users bash PCs less and learn to look at them and appreciate some of the goodness that is in them to appreciate them as a platform, though some of us hardcore loyal fans will always be standing on Apple's side when push comes to shove in a flame war. 

There are things I like about Wintel machines and there are more things I like about Mac and there also things I hate about OS X because I am a very fast worker. And OS X is slowing me down. But unlike OS 9 era, when I get to work too fast, I get major crashes, all I get in OS X is a spinning rainbow ball and after that process is done, I continue again (lots of nail biting at times though, but I come out unscathed). 

Thanks for giving me so much insight into both Wintel and Mac OS, everyone here, and I do hope that we move on to learn more about each platform instead of going into war.

Maybe I feeling a little sentimental with the rain pattering on my window at this moment, but I am glad I am part of the community in this forums and I have learnt lots and made lots of friends.

Thanks. And let's learn and grow and stop many of those PC bashing things we do in the past. We have our preferences, and let's put that aside. 

I have grown to be more knowledgable on both platforms since.


----------



## serpicolugnut (Nov 13, 2002)

I've been a longtime Mac user since my start in Graphic Design back in the early 90's. I've purchased (on average) a new, Pro Mac every year since 1994. Actually, it's probably more than that (what can I say, I like to keep my machines new, it's a curse...).

Since 1999 I have been forced into using PCs at my day job (I'm a web designer). Back in 99 it was on NT4. While NT4 didn't have anything on the Mac in terms of interface and usability, it did have a solid foundation and it was rock solid, something that OS 9 wasn't.

When Windows2000 came out, I deemed it good enough to justify putting together a franken PC and using a Wintel box to get some work done that couldn't be done on the Mac.

I've just bought my first "real" PC, meaning, a PC that I actually built with the intention of it being a serious workstation, not just a helper machine to my Mac (which is now a QS 800 DP). 

I've now had a month with XP, and while I still prefer most of OS X to it, it does narrow the usability gap, and does some things right that the Mac does wrong. 

XP's low level system has a huge leg up on OS X in maturity. Simply put, in XP, I NEVER get an hourglass spinning when doing mundane tasks like navigating through the system. Keep in mind my XP machine has 512MB of RAM, whereas my G4 has 1.5GB, and is still plagued by random spinning cursor of death outbreaks.

Lightwave runs much better on the PC (again, with 1/3rd the RAM and a much weaker GPU than the G4). 

However, OS X is still a heck of a lot easier to use than XP. The iApps trounce anything MS includes with XP, or is available in commercially for that matter. 

As MacLuv states, XPs help system is better than OS Xs (why is OS X's help system SO slow?). But of course, under OS X, you shouldn't need to use the help section that much, because it is easier to use.

OS X is designed to be intuitive and logical. XP is completely illogical, but provides built in Wizards that simplify the tasks as best they can. 

Another thing that completely IRKs me about XP (and just about every Windows flavor) is that there is no enforcement of common key commands for repeated tasks. Sure, most apps use CNTRL X, C, and V for cut, copy and paste. But what about CNTRL W for close window? Hell, even Microsoft can't standardize this within it's own apps (Outlook still doesn't recognize it). 

Bottom line, both machines are nothing more than tools. The Mac isn't always the best tool for every job, ditto for the PC. I'm glad I was finally able to quell the RDF, put away the koolaid, and think CLEARLY and see that true nirvanna is a mixed environment. 

Heck, I might even get me a Linux box...


----------



## BBenve (Nov 13, 2002)

Well. i admit.. i haven't used XP so much..but i have to say... i really do not believe XP is more friendly than X....not because i am ahuge Apple fan...but becauseof facts..

XP and X are very similar...but XP tent to be more intrusive than Aqua.

XP menus are far too big...yes you can see better...but too intrusive..

The dock..is remarkably useful..not only it lunches apps and minimize icons (like the task bar in XP) but it allows you to see the progress of your apps....like Toast and Photoshop bplug ins...and it enables also live icons...like clock and information on the dock from the internet....it has a  Zoom effect that XP lacks of... and you can get rid of it hiding it...without loosing so much...while if you hide the taskbar in XP ...you pretty much lost all your control.

Navigation...well... Apple had a lot to learn from Windows... a back and forward butto are very appreciated....and now.. i do not consider XP better than  X ...we have those 2 buttons...plus spring loaded folders plus 3 way of viewing  the content.. we can not chose the size...we can choiose where we want the text...and we can have additioonal info on the content without opening the folder.

As for Apple being the computer for the rest of us...well it still is....as someone pointed...UNIX is VERY very hard to digest...
Well...think about it...you re using it everyday..without even noticing...well that is PRETTY amazing...everyone even the common user now can use UNIX....something that everyone would have ever dreamed...Apple made it possible...of course....is gonna take a little time for us to get used to the new features and for the regular user to get used to the changes...but...is a stepo that even Windows users will make one day or another...and we will be ahead of time...
Apple did not used an OS already made and modified it...the completely changed the way that OS worked..BSD was for the GEEKS only till 2 years ago..and now...is probably the most common UNIX ever used.

XP has some good features... Apple has to learn from it...and make it even better... there is no perfect os... 

My final Judgement... we re all different people...we all need different things from an OS and especially ...the gui..we have different tastes... i personally hate blue and green together andiask myself...how can that be...friendly??? but some people like it...i respect them for that... but i can bet..no GRAPHIC designer would like to use that GUI while DESIGNING...something you can do using AQUA.

May be the Luna GUI is better for something else....what .. i honestly don't know...  but  some people probably do.


----------



## drash (Nov 13, 2002)

As a support engineer, I cannot give you a fair estimation of either WindowsXP or Mac OS X usability.  Except that as far as support goes, Windows XP really did a nice job of moving things around and under several layers, just as I got used to Windows 2000.  One thing I don't like about OS X is setting up printers.  They buried that one just like they did with the control panels on XP.  The Chooser was a lot easier to get to and set up printers than the Print Center.  And what the heck came over Microsoft to hide My Computer on XP?  Heck at least OS X shows all drives on the desktop.  Go ahead and put a USB hard drive or Firewire drive onto an XP system and you'll be perplexed if it really is there.  As a Solaris and FreeBSD user, OS X is a far more refined GUI-based UNIX.  Several things are different, such as standard locations of files like /etc/passwd or /etc/group.  This makes the use of NetInfo mandantory.  Things like dragging a folder onto a command line to have its path typed before your eyes is way cool.  WindowsNT/2000 has been doing this for years but cd'ing into a directory on another drive still leaves you in the same drive brings chuckles to most UNIX geeks.  And speaking of Unix geeks, I found O'Reilly's book "Mac OS X for Unix Geeks" is absolutely indespensible.  

Oops, back to user friendliness, another thing I would improve is the Help system.  XP's help system is about 5 years ahead of OS X and tons faster.  Apple should concentrate on that little item for their next release, big time.  As for getting to an application and starting it, I think it's a toss up.  For everything, XP makes you click on the Start button and then Programs to see what is there.  Of course they only show you what you've used the most and I've had several (dozen) users call me in a panic that they lost all of their applications until you show them that clicking on the arrows will show all of them.  That's not greatly intuitive but then Mac OS X makes you first click on the Finder icon, then do a new window under the file menu, and then click on the Applications button.  Or double click on the disk, then double click on the Applications icon.  Again not very intuitive.  I know you'll chuckle when you hear this, but I've had more than one Windows user tell me they don't know where to go on a Mac or how to "start" something.  If I were Apple I would probably stick the Applications button right in the Dock.  And here's a hint to Apple: if a user installed an Application you think he might want to use it?  I believe, if it were me, I would open the Applications window on the Finder with the just installed Application sitting right there.  Or maybe just ask if they want a copy of the app in the Dock. Of course once an application is open, Mac OS X is much easier to deal with it via the Dock.  I can take a document and drag it right onto an app icon in the Dock to start it up (if I don't want to use the default application).  All I get is an error message on XP that says something about not being able to drag a document onto the Taskbar but you have to drag it into an open window.  My scorecard so far is:

Printing:    			XP - Apple?!?!? I hate to tell you this but we seem to have lost about 1,500 printers.
Help System: 			XP - OS X Users, you might want to budget a couple of books along with that new computer.
Application Launch:		XP
Application Installation:	OS X - close. I still encounter "DLL hell" and older Apps leaving too much behind on XP.
Existing Documents:		Tie
System Admininstration:		OS X - This is still easy; when something misbehaves delete its preferences.
Dock/Taskbar usability:		OS X - not even close, 7 years and they made the taskbar worse.  When Microsoft gets rid of their random Taskbar mover we'll talk.
Networking:			OS X - I know I didn't talk about this but all the tools are there and they work correctly.
Existing/legacy tech setup:	XP - and not by much. A lot of the drivers for older technology (if they exist) are buggy.
New technology setup:		OS X - except for monitors.


----------



## twister (Nov 13, 2002)

Aqua is nicer when you take out the horizontal lines.  Looks much more professional.

Twister


----------



## fryke (Nov 13, 2002)

Usability is a difficult thing to measure. Is an operating system targetted at the first time user, the business user, the professional coder, a graphics artist or a dork?

Windows XP Professional, for example, should be targetted at the professional business user. But then why does it tell him/her to go chatting and using other cool new media features all the time? Why does it urge the user to do this and that? Why doesn't it assume that the user knows what he/she does? Those features might be okay for first time home users, but even those are bound to get angry after some time.

Mac OS X has differentiated targetted user groups from the beginning. Apple is clearly aiming at first time users, moms (no offence meant) and 'PC-haters' with the iMac and the iBook. Those are served quite well with how easily they get going. The second targetted group are design people (graphics design). Those are a bit harder to please, as they have a hard time letting go of OS 9 for various reasons. We _have_ to admit that coming from OS 9, X has a definite learning curve. Same for audio, video and 3D professionals.

Someone mentioned that Windows XP has a better help system. I must say that I never found it very useful. Neither on Mac or on XP. But more importantly, Mac OS X is much more cleanly laid out in what you find where than Windows XP. There are so many inconsistencies in Windows XP that even a long-time computer user (whatever system he/she prefers) will have to find his way around. For example, MS introduced Windows 95 and put network settings to the properties of 'Network Environment' (on the desktop). With Windows 2000, the settings got better. With Windows XP, they tried to simplify a good properties-system with wizards and, mainly, more steps to the same goal. Bad, bad, bad. The OS also has VERY bad manners. For example, it tells you that your network cable has been disconnected. Cool. But most of the time that it tells you that, it's simply not true. Just today I had three calls from users that went like this... User: "Windows tells me I have disconnected my network cable, but I haven't. I'm sure I haven't." I: "Well, sometimes Windows thinks you have, although you haven't. Try deactivating and reactivating the network connection." User: "Okay. Still the same." I: "What exactly have you done just now?" User: "I have taken the cable out of the network card and put it back in." I: "No, no, I meant with the contextual menu. Right-click on the connection..." User: "But Windows said there's something wrong with the cable..." You see? Windows XP is trying to push the user into hardware-related problem thinking. But most of the time, the issue is software related.

Those are the usability issues I have to fight. And I can plainly claim that usability-wise, Apple has done a very good job with Mac OS X 10.2, while Microsoft has produced the usual mix of new features, fixing some that needn't be fixed and making some things worse.


----------



## Col. Sanders (Nov 13, 2002)

Bah...not looking under the hood, and the frequent crashes it gives me, Win XP does not appeal to me. Aqua is so much simpler and professional. Those green and blue of XP, give me nightmares. I use both OSes at almost equal amounts.


----------



## celeborn (Nov 14, 2002)

I just wish Apple had thought before making silly traffic light widgets with no other visual cues apart from the color. And as any user interface expert (and Apple's own Human Interface Guidelines) will tell you, colour alone is not enough! All UI elements should be obvious without colour (like the platinum widgets), and THEN perhaps color can be added to emphasize the design.
Well, thank God for Max Rudberg's Rhapsodized theme!


----------



## bbloke (Nov 15, 2002)

Just thought I'd put in my two cents as well...

I use Windows XP (Professional) at work on Dell hardware because I have no option of using a Mac, basically, and I know I will have my pro-Mac bias but I try to keep an open mind about XP.

 I've had XP lock up on me a few times (needing to physically switch off the computer), but in general it has been very stable.  With OS X running on a QuickSilver G4, I have never had a kernel panic, but there have probably been a similar number (i.e. rare) of occurrences over a similar period of time where it seems to have not been responding and I rebooted in the end.  However, I'd expect in those instances that if I had another computer connected with through ssh, I would have been able to kill offending processes and kick start OS X again without having to reboot (?).

Windows XP is not that bad for me, but I greatly prefer OS X.  The Unix core really makes a big difference to me and opens up all sorts of possibilities to users, such as the installation of Unix/X11 programs.  I often wondered about the relative arguments involved in the old BeOS vs. NeXT debate but, without wanting to start a different topic, I think opening up the Mac to the Unix world and all its existing software was actually a major bonus for Mac users.  In my case, this makes OS X much more "usable," particularly as I can bring work home from Unix workstations in the office and communicate with them easily from home too.  

In terms of the GUI, I do prefer Aqua, but that is perhaps a matter of opinion.  I do not find the changes to the taskbar in XP (eg grouping of windows) to be a great improvement.  One example is being able to move items around in the Dock is a good idea, which is something you can't do with the Windows XP taskbar to my knowledge.  The iApps are also very good and I certainly use iTunes very frequently.

I'm also slightly perplexed when some people (not necessarily on this forum!) say OS X inhibits the user and XP doesn't.  For instance, I am the administrator for this XP machine and when I first started it up, it hid the hard drive from me and would only allow access to "My Documents!"  I also find the numerous assistants rather intrusive, though I can systematically start switching things off.  To me, Aqua feels more friendly, while Luna feels a bit patronizing.

We will all have different definitions of usability and will have different opinions on what is important, so this is a difficult thing to nail down.  In short, my opinion is that the Unix core really empowers Mac users and that Aqua is, overall, a more pleasant experience than Luna.  Anyway, that's enough rambling for now, as I've been up early this morning and my brain has not yet started working!  More factual/useful posts may follow some other time!


----------



## boi (Nov 15, 2002)

i would just like to say that this is the most amount of text in a thread i've seen in a long time.

okay, as you were.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## BBenve (Nov 15, 2002)

First i want to reply to this sentence...:

And as any user interface expert (and Apple's own Human Interface Guidelines) will tell you, colour alone is not enough! All UI elements should be obvious without colour (like the platinum widgets), and THEN perhaps color can be added to emphasize the design. 


Well that is what Apple didi...if you hover on the "silly traffic lights" you will see SIGNS coming out...that is more than a clue to me... even if you use the gray one..and the 3 buttons looks the same....hovering you ll still SEE the same thing...pretty obvious to me

AS FOR

And quite frankly, who the hell wants to use UNIX? Once upon a time we laughed at DOS, and now I find myself opening up a Terminal window again. 

Well ... no one really wanted UNIX...but everyone wanted more APPS...the UNIX side  gave us many programs....to name one... MAYA .....maya has been waiting for Apple  to do something likre OS X for ages...even Lightwave...it was avaiable for os 9..but...man have you used the one on X?

PLus...DOS is not a UNIX operating system.... saying that DOS and UNIX are similar only because they have a similiar "interface" is like saying that an German and a Japanese are the same cause they speak a foreign language from the one you are used to...

I did not ask for UNIX... i Have it..and i am happy aboutit...cause i got more apps more support ....and more important..we gained a lot of users....that means to me...a bigger community...more places to find softwares (LEGAL shareware demo and freeware) and more people to chat with about my mac and my OS, more way to solve problems....and more way to play online and have some fun..

OH and of course... i do not have a crashing problem every hour.... that is what UNIX is for me.... not enought for you? well OS 9 is still avaiable..may be next release of X wuill be better for you.....i honestly hope for you...

NO one asked for USB and Firewire...but we re all glad they re here...no one asked for dual CPU...but they are here and w  re happy about it...no one asked about UNIX...but many many many of us are happy about it..

You do not need to open the terminal....if you do...is because you are taking advantage of the UNIX side you did not ask for....but you re glad it's there...cause it let you do something you are trying to


----------



## bbloke (Nov 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *The dock has definately been the subject of much debate all over the web. As some may know I felt I had to install ASM just to get some work done. I'm now using the dock, but I don't like the responsiveness at all. If everything is open, it becomes a bit sluggish.
> *



I have to say I haven't noticed any sluggish Dock behavior before.  I agree the Dock has been quite a contentious issue!  I think it can possibly be improved, but overall I am happy with it.  I don't tend to minimize windows though, I prefer to Hide applications instead.  The difficulty is that if Apple were to start adding features to it, such as putting tabs on the Dock to order things by category for instance, it would become more complex and unwieldy, which would defeat the object.  It's a tricky area...




> *
> Well, I don't like SPAM or springloaded folders. Folder navigation is faster through hotkeys, not waiting for springloaded folders to open. Oh yeah, have you ever "missed" the location you were trying to put a springloaded folder and had to start over?
> *



I've never found spring-loaded folders to be too slow, but then I set them to maximum speed.  Also, if I "miss" when opening folders, I can usually drag the file one level up again to only close one window.  Admittedly this does not always work smoothly, and I take your point; perhaps the windows should open more spread out on screen?

Also, there are several navigation methods available, such as the column view, typing a path in a text field, one could create a quick link to a folder in the tool bar of windows by dragging the folder there, or a folder can be dragged to the Dock too.



> *
> I really love the ability to see more information about the folders without opening an info file.
> *



Can you not do this with 10.2, or have I misunderstood?



> *
> But right now OS X implementation of the view preferences is terrible, as we've discovered in the "ALL WINDOWS" thread. It's impossble to implement a global change to your folders.
> *



I definitely agree with you!  Wasn't this also the case with OS 8.5, and then 8.5.1 or 8.6 fixed this?  There seems to be a historical precedent!





> *
> Apple has in no way or form made it "easier" for the common person to use Unix. I understand what you're trying to say, but let's stay on target here. The Darwin core of our new operating system has presented us with a system not unlike XP in that the features we were so accustomed to in 7-9 are now moot. Aqua GUI looks similar to our old system, and some of the new features are definately a step in the right direction. But there's still that Darwin core to contend with. For example, rename your "music" folder to "bob" or move it to a new location and suddenly iTunes doesn't know where your music is anymore.
> 
> And quite frankly, who the hell wants to use UNIX? Once upon a time we laughed at DOS, and now I find myself opening up a Terminal window again. What's the point of using Apple products anymore if suddenly we're tinkering with the frickin' terminal? I'm a geek by default, so I don't mind so much, but try to tell my in-laws at 52 who barely understand Macs at all that they might have to configure a chmod setting and watch the lights go out. *



Well, I partly disagree here.  I understand what you are saying about paths causing a few headaches at times, fair enough.  I would not compare Unix to DOS though.  Unix is vastly superior and more flexible.  I'm quite happy OS X is built on Unix because it means we have a very stable and very powerful OS running underneath our GUI, which power users can access but which novice users are not forced to touch.  We also inherit other applications from the Unix world, and this is a good thing at a time when Linux has been on the rise too.  I understand that permissions perhaps need dealing with from time to time, but I see these as bugs which are being ironed out by Apple; for example, I haven't yet had to change file permissions when normally working within Aqua but I acknowledge that other have encountered such problems.  I would argue that Apple has indeed made Unix "easy" for the masses, but that is coming from my experiences of having used (to varying degrees!) Solaris and IRIX systems.

I hope all of the above is taken in its intended (i.e. good natured  ) form by all readers!  I'm interested in discussing the relative usability of OS X, including both its pros and cons; that is, I'm interested in the discussion, I'm not out to bash anyone else's opinions!


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## fryke (Nov 15, 2002)

Okay, this went a bit off-topic, I guess. 

The Terminal, CUPS, the whole UNIX layer is well hidden in Mac OS X. Apple has finally delivered what many have tried: A user-friendly UNIX. If you go back in history and look at what other companies, organisations or the Open Source movement have tried (and what they've achieved), you'll see that it's quite a big task.

There was _one_ company before Apple that actually did it. And it was Steve Jobs' NeXT.

You don't have to learn the Terminal to use Mac OS X professionally as a graphics designer, a audio or video pro. There's no reason to - unless you want to (which many people do).

Yes, there ARE interface issues with Mac OS X. And they're being solved. It's not like it was Apple's _strategy_ to have icons in the Finder lose their masks sometimes. It's a bug. It will be fixed.

On the other hand, there are a lot more inconsistencies in Windows. More than ever in fact in Windows XP. The saddest thing about Windows is that people have been using it for such a long time that the worst UI failures have already been adopted by the general community. Fixing them now (and MS is on the way of fixing some of them) is only making things worse. People have come to EXPECT some buttons in button bars to behave like menus (and effectively doubling some menus from the menubar).

There are other examples. For instance, MS introduced movable and resizable button bars in IE and Office for Windows. The *menu* is one of those button bars. A user can hide the menu with buttons. Try to explain a user to go to 'Extras' and then 'Internet Options' if he has hidden part of his menu with the location bar? Well, what's MS' solution? They FIX the locations of those bars and make the user find out how to unlock the setting!

Many, many others can be found in those galleries of interface hell. Let me post a link here:

http://www.iarchitect.com/stupid.htm


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## bbloke (Nov 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *I'm don't think it would be tricky at all... open twenty finder windows and hide them all. What happens to your dock? You've got twenty windows side by side. Adopting the XP idea of one window graphic "holder" that you click on is much better. Really, can you honestly tell me you know which window is which? *



I was really referring to other ideas that I have seen for modifying the Dock to "make it more usable," but OK.  You can indeed tell which window is which in the Dock by hovering the cursor over the minmized window to get its title.  Maybe grouping of minimized windows by their application (eg all Finder windows) would not be a bad idea, as long as you could switch off this behavior (yes, as you can do with XP).  *However*, as I said, my approach is actually not to minimize windows but to hide the application.  You can get the contextual menu for the application in the Dock, listing all the open windows.  I therefore find hiding applications much more convienent in terms of reducing clutter, easily switching to the correct window, and so on.


----------



## Da_iMac_Daddy (Nov 15, 2002)

> I'm don't think it would be tricky at all... open twenty finder windows and hide them all. What happens to your dock? You've got twenty windows side by side. Adopting the XP idea of one window graphic "holder" that you click on is much better. Really, can you honestly tell me you know which window is which?




Well you could just hide the application, but this means you have to hide all of the windows. When you hide an app you can click and hold or control-click to see a list of windows. I think if Apple made it so that the minimize window button just  minimized it into it's parent application's icon in the dock it would solve this problem.


----------



## cellfish (Nov 15, 2002)

Well I use both XP and Mac OS X and my experience with Mac OS X so far has been ok but very far from good enough to replace Windows for me.

There's a speed and responsiveness issue with XP that you don't have with X. XP responds to all commands very quickly. If you want to open up a program, it comes up right after you click on it. With X, you have to wait through a few bounces no matter how fast your G4 is and how much RAM you have it. It's annoying. Also, with XP you know you can use all of your old programs unless they're unreasonably old. With X, Classic mode will probably work but it's incredibly slow.

I like X because it's great when you want to organize programs or get rid of them (dragging the icons will actually move the program to a new location whereas with Windows, good luck). However, I find Windows a lot easier to use. I know I'll get insulted for this but whatever, that's my opinion.


----------



## boi (Nov 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *
> 
> There's a speed and responsiveness issue with XP that you don't have with X. XP responds to all commands very quickly. If you want to open up a program, it comes up right after you click on it. With X, you have to wait through a few bounces no matter how fast your G4 is and how much RAM you have it. It's annoying. Also, with XP you know you can use all of your old programs unless they're unreasonably old. With X, Classic mode will probably work but it's incredibly slow.*



everything opens pretty much instantly for me. for those things that don't (chimera, ichat) i just leave them open. 
that said, i'd like to make the point that X is the greatest multitasking environment there is. i never imagined i could do the stuff i do, all at the same time. i've never gotten a buffer underrun. i know a lot of pc users who wished they could claim the same. i don't really have to worry about it at all. i just hit 'burn' and then i watch my DVD or download my stuff or upload my stuff or do it all at the same time. it doesn't matter. 
re: the dock. the dock, to me, is like the taskbar, only better. it basically does everything the task bar does and more-- i don't see how people can prefer the taskbar in that sense. we can make as many dang start buttons as we please, we have the ability to hide applications in one fell swoop. and as for the "hide a billion zillion finder windows and then pick out which one you want"... you right click on the finder icon and pick your window. voila. minimize a billion My Computer / Windows Explorer windows and you've got a lot of little bitty slivers of an icon stuck in your taskbar. 
no one mentioned Apple's GUI standards yet. this makes sure that not only X is intuitive, but every program made for X thereafter is just as intuitive (barring many pro apps). 
okay, that's all from me. buhbye.


----------



## fryke (Nov 15, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Actually fryke baby, as much as I appreciate your zest for Apple, the truth about NeXT is that it SuCKED. In fact, NeXT sucked so much, the only person who thought it was worth a crap was Gil Amelio, and look what happened to him. *



Quite frankly, too, that is an opinion. I've used a black NeXT-Station that worked quite well. On a 68030 processor at 33 MHz, we had quite a good UNIX at that time. So count me in with Gil Amelio, and of course don't forget every software engineer I've ever met, also don't forget Steve Jobs and his crew.

Opinions are nice, but looking at the base of Mac OS X objectively (pun not, or yes, pun intended) will show you that it's actually worth all the money you pay for. Or what Gil/Apple paid for.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## edX (Nov 15, 2002)

macluv - please provide a link or credit for the quote in your previous post or face having it removed. see site rules if you have a question or problem with that.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 15, 2002)




----------



## edX (Nov 15, 2002)

perfect - thanks!!


----------



## MDA (Nov 16, 2002)

The things wrong with XP are the same things that have always been wrong with Windoze. As an operating system it has way too much control and reminds you way too often that you are merely a user of a Microsoft product. The wizards and reminders drive me absolutely crazy. One of the problems that Windoze users have with the Mac OS is that it lets you decide way too much on your own without trying to dictate or "help" you put everything exactly where it thinks you should. That freedom seems to confuse a lot of PC users. It has been and remains my favorite part of the Mac OS. I don't feel like I'm constantly being told how to do things or how the OS thinks I should be doing something. PC users on the other hand are way too used to being guided every inch of the way down the Microsoft path. Windoze, I don't care what version, is never going to give the freedom to the end user that the Mac OS does. It really isn't the contest that a lot of people make it out to be.

MDA


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## fryke (Nov 16, 2002)

I must say, MacLuv, you're quite heavy on this thread. I don't know why exactly, but everything you do is bashing the Mac and NeXT here.

As if you wouldn't understand what sets the Mac apart from other computers. But then, why would you choose MacLuv as a nickname, why would you choose macosx.com as a forum to be on?

But back on track. Your O'Reilly reference is a well written piece of history-article. Of course it's also opinion-based, but most importantly, it a) doesn't counter what I've said (as I was not talking about NeXT hardware specifically) and b) even tells you the same again I've told you: That the OS and its frameworks were (and are) great. That NeXT blew it is true. No argueing here, right? The reasons for it? That's very much opinion based. There's several reasons, isn't there. First, NeXT tried from scratch. (Like Be.) They took good technology, they were thinking forward, but they also tried to enter a market that was already divided in two: Windows and Macintosh. Now, even though the NeXT operating system and developing environment was superior to both Windows and Macintosh, you couldn't get your hands on cheap NeXT hardware. But that wasn't NeXT's goal. They wanted to get into higher education, banking and the like. And they did that, too. There's a reason why the Web was basically developed on a NeXT machine. It did much for the reorganisation of information. Services were great, too, btw. Then, Steve Jobs (this is an anecdote) threw out Bill Gates of his office, saying something like "We don't need your software support." Guess if NeXT *had* Microsoft's support and MS Office on NeXT, this would have been a great advantage for both companies. Maybe today we would be using something like MS NeXT OS on Dell hardware... Well, Steve Jobs _didn't_ yell at Bill Gates again, when Bill invested into Apple and promised to develop Office for the Mac for five years.

*But back to the User Interface discussion, right?* Okay. It's always difficult to actually write those things down that I know feel much better on a Mac than on a Windows machine. Just some things that spring to mind.

*1. Text Selection*
Select the )lol( part with your mouse in the following sentence (copy it to TextEdit, please): (Alright)lol(Try_again) ... You can try by starting, moving, stopping, by double-clicking, whatever. Mac OS X has a history of knowing stuff about graphics, fonts, text. In Windows you'll sometimes get the strangest selections, while on the Mac, you can select the right objects.

*2. System Graphics Palettes*
While every operating system nowadays can handle more than 16bit colour, the system and its GUI usually use a basic set of 256 chosen colours. Apple has simply chosen the better ones, like, since forever. Windows chose, for example, the full green, red and blue tones that you can get from RGB to be used in the system, plus shaded versions of them. You also had that full cyan and full magenta colours. Remember them? Well, even if you choose blue Aqua in Mac OS X, the widgets, the menu bar, the window titlebars, they don't hit your eyes too hard, compared to BLUE and GREEN in Windows XP for Christ's (replace 'Christ' with your current religious figure) sake.

*3. Visual Feedback*
The possibility alone that I can double click IE in the QuickLaunch bar in Windows and get _two_ instances of the application is bad interface. Not that it only needs one click, but that I get two instances. Users that tend to get nervous if nothing happens for some time, tend to re-hit those icons. Which slows down the computer, because it tries to open many, many instances of the same application. I often saw my boss double click IE while his system was still starting, then doubleclicking it AGAIN and finally go get some coffee, and when he got back he had FIVE IE windows open (one was on autostart, anyway), Outlook Express open and a message about why the process Explorer failed and must be killed. On the Mac, you see that you've clicked Explorer in the Dock. You can even doubleclick it, just to make sure. Either the jumping icon or the blinking triangle will instantly give you the satisfaction of knowing that all is well in the world of your computer.

*4. Copy & Paste*
I can go to Terminal (I know, I know) and connect to some arcane service. Get the information I want and copy it by selecting with the mouse. Can't do that in Windows' 'Terminal Window', the DOS-window or the Telnet window. Copy/Paste doesn't work, which is a pity, as long and strange commands tend to get mixed up if you try and keep them in mind between applications. Well, my point is: Copy and Paste should work system wide, not on an application basis. And the Mac does that right.

*5. The Menu Bar*
There's a User Interface law about this, but I don't remember its name right now. Basically, you're bound to fail to hit the 'File' menu in Windows, because it's never at the top of the screen. It's somewhere, some 25 pixels below the top. On the Mac, you don't have that problem (unless your multimonitor setup is second screen on top of main screen), as the menu bar is always at the top of your main screen.

Well, I'll provide more if you want. But first think about them. Don't answer fleeing my post, answer answering it. Maybe you can even AGREE on some points. But you're not the agreeing type, are you.


----------



## MDA (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *I must say, MacLuv, you're quite heavy on this thread. I don't know why exactly, but everything you do is bashing the Mac and NeXT here.
> 
> As if you wouldn't understand what sets the Mac apart from other computers. But then, why would you choose MacLuv as a nickname, why would you choose macosx.com as a forum to be on?
> ...



Very well put. Someone earlier in this thread mentioned how much they like having a separate toolbar at the top of every bloody window within an application.
This is one of the things about Windows, among many,  that I have always hated. As you point out it is also thought badly of by real user interface designers.

MDA


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## MDA (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Actually I bet I can find more users that appreciate this feature than not. I used to hate it when I first started using windows, and now I miss it. If you think it's really bad, perhaps you should ask yourself why Apple adopted the toolbar on top of the finder windows, which basically is the same thing.
> 
> *



Okay I asked myself... and I still hate them. The Finder window toolbar serves a different purpose than the one in Windows and I find that I almost never use it anyway. Maybe in your own little world of users you can find people who like the Windows toolbars but I'll bet you that the vast majority of Mac users hate them.

MDA


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 16, 2002)

Ok, well i'm 18 now, and since about 95', i've used Windows, and Come to learn this that and the other. But i saw OS X, liked what i saw, and well, jumped aboard! 

But being, underlyingly, a "windows user", i often find things GUI wise, that seem weird or wrong, and i guess this is the right kinda time to point them out, and discuss! 

Since purchasing my iBook, and picking up little things, and being able to use OS X "competently", i've found some cool things, i wished i had, had on my XP Machine! Personally, i think Aqua Looks Better (hence why PC Doesn't even have Luna!), but there are still many things within XP, i do Like!

1) Toolbars - I love on X, on how Customizable they are. You are free to drag and drop things in and out, Whereas, with XP, you always felt limited, and means to organise the toolbar was more complicated (not to say i couldn't do it, but it's by no means easy, by comparison) Being able to see the toolbar, in "Customize toolbar Mode" on X Seems So much more "user friendly" IMO. Whereas, in the shot on XP, you can see, it looks far from easy, upon first impression. You have Select the icon (+text), then use the up and down arrows, to shift the icon around, or add / delete it. Taking GUI design and such into consideration, i consider it bad design, that to move icons to the left of the Toolbar, you have to use the "Shift Up" Button? Somehow that doesn't make much sense really. Comparably, on X, you simply Click and Drag it left or right, not have to work out "if i do this, it'll *fingers crossed* go there". 







2)Windows Media Player - Yes, i know Essentially its not "GUI Design" orientated, but i like where M$ are @ with it. Often you hear X users quoting within flame wars, how they can do "this, that and the other" without having iTunes open. Well, i don't know how many of you have XP up to date, or care to try BETA Stuff?! Windows Media Player 9, for me has brought the same kinda feature, integrated to the toolbar, that allows you to control you media, just like the Dock Popup with X. It Really intergrates well, and allows you:

Pause / Play
Stop (where, WHY isn't Stop apart of iTunes, unless you open an iTunes window, and select a playlist that is not playing?! that really bugs me! Can someone explain that?
Previous / Next Track
Volume
Mute (More handy than you realise, when its there!)
Also, Maximize (Because the Taskbar player comes into play, if you minimize WMP, and activate the taskbar player.)

When you're playing Media, a Popup window which is, not very optrusive in my opinion, pops up, and display Track information and such (i thought that was a neat little extra), and Also, if the Track is playing, or even paused, On Mouseover of the M$ Logo, it displays the track which is paused, in another little popup like window. (Screenshot Attached). As you can see, it fades in and out too! Pretty Cool, eh?! 






3) Show in Groups. This is something i like, which i miss, in X. yes, if you switc to Detail view, you can do a sort by name, or by File type, etc. But, i find this, a far better way, (obviously in Windows, you can do the same Detail View Sort) because its far easier to read the files, often, you find in detail view, it seemed "Crammed" and it makes things hard to read. But with the feature, you can distinguish files within a directory, by First Name, Total Size, Comments, Type, and Free Space. This is a neat feature, that GUI wise, helps a user to not just find files, but to organize their files. 






4)Recycle Bin - Why in Windows, is it on the DESKTOP, alone?! That Does bug me, i love having the bin there in the dock, allowing me to dump stuff from many sources EASILY. And Yet in Windows, i either have to minimize Windows, or a particular one, If i can remember where i last left the bin?! I'd like to see the Bin implemented into the taskbar, if they can implement the WMP App into it, i am sure this too will be done with the next Edition of Windows, it makes a Hell of a lotta sense to me! For me, the GUI of Windows means a lot, using X, and XP, i find it just, to modify things a lot, to fit the kind of enviroment i want, and luckily, Windows Does offer a lot of Customizing, which allows not only 3rd part Apps, to extend the way YOU work, but little inhouse "extra's" out of the box, or PowerToys. For me, i made a new toolbar, and have the Recycle Bin in the Taskbar, which does the job it should, but it bugs me, why M$ Decide to leave that on the desktop, and shift more commonly used links, ie "My Computer" Away from the desktop?! Maybe they Forgot?!

I had loads to write about, maybe i am going off on a slight tangent here, but i felt just to post in this discussion, because being natively a "Windows User", my opinions differ (i imagine!), from the majority around the place! Sorry if that i wrote wasn't exactly on topic, but it does validate some points and such, right?!

Neyo


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *
> And I can't stand the XP media player skins--they're terrible.
> *



Yea, The Skins Do suck, and 7.1 and > skins are much like goldust, unlike Winamp.  But i cannot stand Winamp, i don't know why, i've just hated it! I've never really used WMP Before, but after using my iBook rather intensively, and then "returning home" to my XP machine, and also have the WMP 9 Beta, i like the Toolbar Intergration, and continued using it. it Plays mp3's well, and i Don't care for the skin @ all, it HARDLY ever moves from the toolbar, to a Skin or "Full View Mode" Anyhow. One thing, i cannot stand, is these STUPID Visualisations? Whats the Deal with it?! i DON'T want to look at my monitor while i SOLELY play music, if i am on my PC, i am on it for a purpose other than to listen to music (i have a stereo to do that!  ) So Why am i forced to have Visualisations, IF i have WMP in Skinned Mode?! If i am in the "Default View", i can switch to Album Art, luckily, but in Skin view, i cannot Disable it! I hate how they look, and they obviously DON'T do ya CPU usage any favours!  

Referring back to the topic in hand, when i am using my iBook, i do find, Minimizing Windows on a Mac, Doesn't Seem right, like someone pointed out, Multiple minimized windows ONLY leads to confusion. But the hidden apps thing seems a pain too, there needs to be better intergration with that in my view. Often, after being a Windows User for a long time, i have a window open (in X) that i don't wish to close, but Simply "put aside" for a while, but in X, what is the best suggestion to do so. If i were to take notice of the Widgets, it'd obviously point to Minimize to the dock, but like "we" said, thats not always best in OUR eyes? Is it not possible for Apple to Swap the Minimize widget for Hide?! is it the general consensus, that this method, of getting rid of Application windows temporarily is the BEST way?! 

Oh! And while i am here, Anyone know an answer, as to why "STOP" in iTunes is So ilusive?! Its the only media player that makes it so hard to find, why should i have to click onto an alternative playlist to get it to appear? Anything that uses' media, whether it be Home Entertainment DVD Units, Video's, CD Players, MD Decks etc, they ALL have STOP (...plain to see) As Do all the media software i have used, up until iTunes. Why?!  

Neyo


----------



## MDA (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *Ok, well i'm 18 now, and since about 95', i've used Windows, and Come to learn this that and the other. But i saw OS X, liked what i saw, and well, jumped aboard!
> 
> But being, underlyingly, a "windows user", i often find things GUI wise, that seem weird or wrong, and i guess this is the right kinda time to point them out, and discuss!
> ...



I don't really understand how what you've shown is any better than this:


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 16, 2002)

Firstly, mine was FAR easier to Read! LOL, dude, that some mix of Colours there, NOT Good for ya eyes! 
Secondly, my view is, its how you get to that same functionality that differs. In this instance, Customizing the File Setup for the window is EASIER, a Simply right click, which leads to a Contextual Menu, which offers MORE means of Data sort, that in X. Also, Windows adds in those dividers, which makes it easier to decify what label you are reading, this is VERY Helpful when you have a LOT of Files in that Directory! ie /Windows/System32/

Agreed?!

Neyo


----------



## MDA (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Now you're just being stubborn. You're arguing for the sake of it.
> 
> So I'll elaborate for you.
> ...



Because you don't like what I have to say doesn't mean I being stubborn or arguing only for the sake of it. There are very detailed, well written, and thought out arguments describing why the user interface works so well in the Mac OS vs. Windows. If you don't wish to believe them that is your business. I've been using OS X since it's beta days and I have never used the Finder toolbars. I find that I'm more effiecient doing things in other ways. One thing I really do like in OS X are the sheets that appear when you save a document in an application that are attached to the document window. I don't believe Windows has anything like that, does it?

MDA


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDA _
> *One thing I really do like in OS X are the sheets that appear when you save a document in an application that are attached to the document window. I don't believe Windows has anything like that, does it?
> 
> MDA *



You right, Windows DOESN'T have them, and yet, i am Glad! Often, the File name can refer to the content within, and having a floating window means you can move the Save Window, and refer to the Content below. I've lost count, how many times i've had to Cancel Save, because the Dialog box is in the way of something!  I Like the Animations, that is cool, but in my opinion, i prefer the Floating window, of "Windows".

Neyo


----------



## MDA (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *Firstly, mine was FAR easier to Read! LOL, dude, that some mix of Colours there, NOT Good for ya eyes!
> Secondly, my view is, its how you get to that same functionality that differs. In this instance, Customizing the File Setup for the window is EASIER, a Simply right click, which leads to a Contextual Menu, which offers MORE means of Data sort, that in X. Also, Windows adds in those dividers, which makes it easier to decify what label you are reading, this is VERY Helpful when you have a LOT of Files in that Directory! ie /Windows/System32/
> 
> ...



Sorry I tried to make it pretty for you, oh well.
I do think OS X has a ways to go in this area but it is still a young and developing OS. You're right that XP gives you more sort options but one thing I don't like about Windows is the drive letter designation that OS X doesn't use. I also know that it used to be the case that CD's and floppies and other external media didn't mount on the desktop when they were inserted, a real pain. Has that changed?
Also what's with the letters beneath the groups? Don't think much of that.

MDA


----------



## MDA (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *You right, Windows DOESN'T have them, and yet, i am Glad! Often, the File name can refer to the content within, and having a floating window means you can move the Save Window, and refer to the Content below. I've lost count, how many times i've had to Cancel Save, because the Dialog box is in the way of something!  I Like the Animations, that is cool, but in my opinion, i prefer the Floating window, of "Windows".
> 
> Neyo *



Okay how bout this. Why is Windows so bloody ugly compared to OS X?

MDA


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDA _
> *Sorry I tried to make it pretty for you, oh well.
> I do think OS X has a ways to go in this area but it is still a young and developing OS. You're right that XP gives you more sort options but one thing I don't like about Windows is the drive letter designation that OS X doesn't use. I also know that it used to be the case that CD's and floppies and other external media didn't mount on the desktop when they were inserted, a real pain. Has that changed?
> Also what's with the letters beneath the groups? Don't think much of that.
> ...



You Don't Like Drive Letters?! Thats Cool, i mean opinions, and all. In a sense, it adds Simplicity, but at the same time, how would you refer to a drive?! i mean, if i am in an Explorer Window, sometimes, i may hit F4, and type "G:", and i am into my DVD Drive. How does that work on X?! Could you NOT Navigate to the Drive, without using the Mouse?! ...would it take a Tonne of Tabs? (can you tab through icons, and Apps enough to get there?) Just Curious mate, nothing personal! 

As For the Sort by File Name thing, Check this out, (attached File). Sorting through a tonne of files is easy! You Don't have to work out when the last file beginning with D is, and where E begins, its broken down, and easier on the eye. I like it Far better, you can do the same as X, but this, in my opinion is an advantage for a user (especially, one who doesn't want to have to shell out for Glasses in 10 yrs Time!  )

Neyo

Excuse the Blur in the jpg, i had to save in Photoshop @ Low (4) to getit below 100Kb


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDA _
> *Okay how bout this. Why is Windows so bloody ugly compared to OS X?
> 
> MDA *



LOL! i Don't question that, we aren't talking that, After all, Beauty is MORE than Skin deep, Right? I Prefer X in many ways, but X is still a BABY! 

 

NeYo

...Dude, i plan to sell my PC, for a iMac in the spring, and so am far from bill Gates' Son, its just even tho i will eventually "SWITCH", X is not the B-all, and End of things, its Progressing, and needs to take such ideas and such from "big brother"


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## edX (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *MDA, one more thing, unless you're quoting a huge post to *bump* it and make a statement on the whole thing for emphasis, please use the {...} edit marks to tell us there's material edited for space... since we're on the subject of functionality it makes no sense for me to be scrolling through miles of posts just to get to your comments.
> *



i'm glad someone other than me had the sense to say this!! Thank you MacLuv!! whiel there is no official rule against quoting an entire post for no good reason, it is certainly some of the worst forum ettiquitte around.

my 2 cents - as MacLuv pointed out earlier, many of the usability issues boil down to which platform you have been more trained on. I admit having much more training, and for a much longer period of time, on a mac. that being said, i was using my first mac within days to make money with as a desktop publishing setup. My first experiences with windows required me to contantly ask questions of others in order to do things as simple as open or save a file - for many weeks. 

while mac and windows have both evolved from those early days, the trend has almost always been for windows to try and be more mac like and less dos like. so while i believe there are one or two things about windows that make better sense in a gui, i am wholeheartedly against the idea that an apple os should be altered to make it more windowslike simply to satisfy the switchers  or people who use both platforms so that they have less differences to deal with. this would be selling out the mac faithful for the worst possible reasons. and a step backwards on top of that.

that's my opinion and no amount of arguing about it could change my mind.


----------



## MDA (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Okay, this is what I was replying to:
> 
> In my book that doesn't really look like a "very detailed, well written, and thought out argument" on your part, so please, don't yank my chain.
> ...



Exactly when did I claim I was an expert on the design function and usability requirements of a GUI? What I did say is that there have been numerous articles written by people who know far more than you do about the GUI and the end user experience. It wouldn't hurt you to read some of them. What you failed to understand from my reply is that by using OS X since it's beta release I've had ample time to adapt to it and have learned to work in it nearly as quickly and efficiently as I do in OS 9. It has never really occurred to me to use the toolbar in the Finder windows partly because I never really use Finder windows. I mostly navigate to files by using folder aliases from the dock. There still is a sluggish factor with OS X that I'm sure will be worked on in future releases. 




> *Um, I'm not really sure what you're talking about here. Are you talking about the dialog boxes? I've already commented about those. Did you read my post or just scan over it? *



It is quite possible that I missed your comment because you do tend to go on a bit.

MDA


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDA _
> *
> 
> 
> ...



LOL!! *Ding Ding* 

Neyo


----------



## MDA (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *Firstly, mine was FAR easier to Read! LOL, dude, that some mix of Colours there, NOT Good for ya eyes!
> Secondly, my view is, its how you get to that same functionality that differs. In this instance, Customizing the File Setup for the window is EASIER, a Simply right click, which leads to a Contextual Menu, which offers MORE means of Data sort, that in X. Also, Windows adds in those dividers, which makes it easier to decify what label you are reading, this is VERY Helpful when you have a LOT of Files in that Directory! ie /Windows/System32/
> 
> ...



I just jumped into XP using VPC to take a look at the group sorting and I've got to tell you that it doesn't do much for me. I'd rather view in a list or by column myself. This grouping feature just seems to make the list take up more room and take longer to scroll through. If I want to move to a file beginning with a specific letter I just type that letter and I go right to that section of the listing.

MDA


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 16, 2002)




----------



## MDA (Nov 16, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Could you direct me to where you said this to me? Can you direct me to some of these articles where people know more than me about this "GUI stuff" and the "end user experience"? *



Actually yes, if I can find the bookmark I created for the site I will post it for you to visit. I found it to be fascinating reading.



> *Yeah, it wouldn't hurt to write some of them, either.
> 
> Now you're just getting upset. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't know anything about (tk comany's) GUI standards and guidelines. Once again you seem to be infering that you have "expert" status here and I know nothing. Shame on you.*



If computer interface design were my forte I would write something about it. My expertise happens to be in Mac support since that's what I do for a living at an ad agency.




> *I'm going to pull my Trump card here and let you know--I put myself through college designing front ends for the Mac a long time ago when the Apple IIci was the sh*t. That's all I did, all day long, was design front ends. So please, don't insult my intelligence on this stuff. I've given you enough leeway to try and make a valid point in this thread.*



I'm sorry but I have an extremely hard time believing that. It seems to me that you would be better at this argument if that were true and that you would have more class about it.




> *I use just as many notes as the song requires bud, sorry. Not my fault you're another victim of "Short Attention Span Theatre". As far as I'm concerned, you don't deserve the time I've wasted trying to have a decent debate over this subject matter.*



I did join this discussion a bit late in the game and as a consequence missed a few hundred of your posts. The problem with this discussion is that we are both convinced we are right. It's like me trying to convince a republican that they are wrong, it's never going to happen.



> *AMD-- > My cat is 46 years old, dig? *



46 just happens to be my age. I've been around computers a while myself.

MDA


----------



## kendall (Nov 16, 2002)

This is such a lame thread.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 17, 2002)




----------



## MDA (Nov 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Uh huh, well I figured. Would you like references? Citicorp, 111 Wall Street, New York, New York, Worldwide Securities Services. Developed 4D front ends for Oracle back ends.  Not only did I have to develop the front ends to match Apple standards, I had to basically recreate a great deal of functionality already present in native Mac applications. The 4D IDE offered widgets just like any other Mac applcation.
> 
> And my reference to "writing guides" was at me... at one point in my career there I had to write a 21 page presentation to justify to the Corporate Leverage department why we were still using Macintosh computers. It included a lot of the same stupid arguments that you and Fryke are quipping about. It took me three weeks and a lot of research on my part to come up with a convincing argument. The presentation also got me offered a job at National Instruments to be the project coordinator of the LabView technical publications department which at the time had  six writers. As far as Citicorp was concerned, despite our best efforts to keep the Mac GUI as a mainstay the IIci machines were deemed too slow and cumbersome and were replaced by Windows 3.0. *



That's great stuff and I except that you are an expert in this field. Did you get the reference I sent you to Bruce Tognazzini's web site? He has very good insights into the GUI and specifically the Windows windowed toolbar.


*quoted material and reply edited out - Ed*

MDA


----------



## fryke (Nov 17, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Actually I bet I can find more users that appreciate this feature than not. I used to hate it when I first started using windows, and now I miss it. If you think it's really bad, perhaps you should ask yourself why Apple adopted the toolbar on top of the finder windows, which basically is the same thing.
> 
> *



I didn't want to quote your long post, so I just took one of your next ones.

First: NeXT has very much to do with what we're using today in Jaguar. (You said there isn't anything left in Mac OS X of NeXT.) The example of the toolbar is one of them. I don't know if you ever actually USED NeXT-STEP or OpenStep, but today's Finder is basically an evolution/combination of NeXT's Workspace application and parts/ideas of the classic Mac OS Finder.

You also claim that in order to make a User Interface useable, it has to be a 'standard' used by many people.

I don't know how you cound, but 5 million OS X users (even if the number is wrong that Apple puts out, which is likely, so let's say 2-3 million people) is a large number. OS X is also 'the standard' on Apple's Macintosh computers. It's quite useless to state that Apple only covers some 2-5% of the overall desktop computer market, because _if_ your statement has anything to say, you have to look at the actual numbers, not the percentage.

And: Only because so many people have learned to _use_ a bad UI design like the multiple toolbars in Windows and other MS' applications doesn't make it good UI design at all. It's only bad UI design that is ubiquitous.

Also, I don't like you to bash on me saying things like that you've been into computers forever without knowing what I've done with computers myself. I never called you someone who doesn't know anything about computers, but I've used datasettes myself and also have a history of knowing operating systems. I've not only followed the path from Macintosh System 3 to Mac OS X 10.x, I've also followed DOS 3.x through Windows XP and NeXT-STEP through Mac OS X 10.x. And then some. I have used Amigas (an Amiga 500 and a 2000, an Amiga 3000 at my uncle's place) and Atari ST (I've had a 1040 STf myself, coded for it in my days of youth).

But this thread is mainly about User Interface Design. And it's a simple truth that while everyone makes errors here, Microsoft is basically the creator of the list of errors in UI Design.

Remember those, don't know what they were called in English, dial-wheels we had on old telephones? They certainly weren't good UI Design, and I hope you agree here, but they did stick around for quite a long time. Of course, people learned to use them. Of course people were used to using them. Doesn't make it good UI Design, though. Same for Windows (or at least many, many parts of Windows).


----------



## kendall (Nov 17, 2002)

Much of NeXT is left over in OS X.  NetInfo, startup, login, logout, the Dock, toolbars, the spinning beach ball, the UNIX foundation, application packaging, install routines, etc.  

There's probably 100 things I'm missing but you get the idea.  If you've ever used NeXT or OpenStep extensively you should be right at home with OS X.

NeXT and OpenStep are awesome.  I can't believe they're not still being developed for for the x86 platform.  People whine about how they want OS X on Intel, well, its just not going to happen, but, if some good programers would have gotten behind OpenStep, Intel hardware could have something very similar to OS X today.

Anyway, NeXT and OpenStep rock!


----------



## fryke (Nov 17, 2002)

Well OpenStep was NeXT's baby, and we all know that NeXT bought Apple, erhm... Apple bought NeXT.

But there's hope in form of GNUstep, although high-profile Cocoa developers and old OpenStep hats don't believe that the project will be in a usable and interchangeable state anytime soon. (Goal is to be able to use the same source for OS X and GNUstep applications. Works for some stuff, though...) -> http://www.gnustep.org ...


----------



## kendall (Nov 17, 2002)

GNUStep seems at a stand-still since 2001.  OpenStep was much more usable on x86 than NeXT.  They should have just continued where OpenStep left off.  They would have been much farther ahead then they are now.

The release of OS X basically killed OpenStep.  It just made no sense to me why people would develop for BeOS and not OpenStep.  They are both dead now so I guess it doesn't matter.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 17, 2002)




----------



## fryke (Nov 17, 2002)

You're right, GNUstep is in development. There are two linux distros that want to create packages that provide a complete desktop environment. This would be cool, but then again, this appeals to linux developers more than to linux desktop users, as RedHat, SuSE, Caldera and others have created quite complete desktop linux solutions.


----------



## theed (Nov 18, 2002)

Here's something Apple has done right: System wide conventions.  Clipboard, keyboard shortcuts, filetypes, etc.  There was a question about where the stop button is in iTunes ... it's Apple-period.  That's been the stop command forever.  It was the first thing I thought of, and it worked as expected.  It'll work in most good mac apps and wirtually any Apple designed app.  The space bar toggles play/pause.  That's intuitive for you.  Not necessarily intuitive to the totally uninitiated, but intuitive to someone who has seen something similar before, and is likely to extrapolate.  Why that command isn't listed in the Controls menu ... I have no idea.

The sheets thing, sweet in their association, bad in their flexibility.  I think each sheet should have an "invisify" button on it so that you can see below it.  Or maybe a detach button so you can make it float once you need it to.

Dock grouping:  I simply don't minimize windows, but what if the windows hid under the app in the dock, and popped out on mouse-over like the name does so you could go straight to your window with mini icon, but it remained grouped to your app?  ... Yeah, the dock doesn't scale very well.

That grouping thing in XP ... neat.  But I'm not sold on its time saving functionality.  It seems like a bullet point feature instead of a useful feature.

Windows responds fast to the user, usually.  Scrolling is fast, opening apps is fast.  That's sweet.  One window doesn't hold up another window.  The Finder by contrast is soooo 1992 in its current state.  The dock has similar issues.  Basically IO handling on different and high latency media sucks on OS X and apps block on it.  Windows handles it well by caching everything.  Refreshing on Windows is dumb though, but that's the price you pay I guess.

window widgets:  9 had em pretty straight.  X and Win have 'em so wrong it's not worth arguing about.  The not saved icon with X is nice, Be did it better I believe.  What about the difference between closing a window vs killing an app?  Not shown.  Kill button next to other non kill functionality?  yuck.  A toggle button indicating noxt state instead of current state in windows min/max button?  A horrid and now ubiquitous computer convention.

Here's the nail in the coffin for me though, and why Windows infuriates me daily: dialogue boxes with meaningless drivel, modal OK's, yes/no answers to questions that don't have yes/no answers, negatively worded questions, and inane pestering about things when I'm just trying to work!  "It looks like you're creating a list..." Yes I am, and if I wanted your help I'd ask for it, go away!  Mac OS X doesn't do as much for me as I'd like sometimes, but I'd much rather it stayed out of my way and let/made me work than got in my face while helping me to / keeping me from working.  That's just me perhaps.

And I won't say what I do, because I feel that if I speak the truth, the words will stand on their own merit.  If not, all the better I didn't try and pimp them.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 18, 2002)




----------



## Hypernate (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *
> 1) Toolbars - I love on X, on how Customizable they are. You are free to drag and drop things in and out, Whereas, with XP, you always felt limited, and means to organise the toolbar was more complicated (not to say i couldn't do it, but it's by no means easy, by comparison) Being able to see the toolbar, in "Customize toolbar Mode" on X Seems So much more "user friendly" IMO. Whereas, in the shot on XP, you can see, it looks far from easy, upon first impression. You have Select the icon (+text), then use the up and down arrows, to shift the icon around, or add / delete it. Taking GUI design and such into consideration, i consider it bad design, that to move icons to the left of the Toolbar, you have to use the "Shift Up" Button? Somehow that doesn't make much sense really. Comparably, on X, you simply Click and Drag it left or right, not have to work out "if i do this, it'll *fingers crossed* go there".
> 
> Neyo *



Even easier way of moving stuff without even having to go into preferences or customization boxes is to just command + drag it on the toolbar as it usually would be. i.e. as in the pic (imagine my mouse cursor on it 

~*~

Also, what REALLY annoys me in Internet Explorer, and indeed in many other apps on the Mac platform (OS 9 and X) is that when I am typing and the text moves past the bottom of the screen, it doesn't automatically scroll down, allowing me to see the rest of what I'm typing without me having to take my hands off the keyboard.

This is also a major issue in Finder, as in list view, when I click the triangle to expand a folder, if it continues, or opens completely past the bottom of the window, it doesn't scroll down allowing me to see the contents. 

Windows does all of this for me.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 18, 2002)

I Notice a LOT of you have Problems, Or queries with the Windows Taskbar grouping?! Thats fair, i can see how it might even be considered annoying, that it may seem to be doing TOO much tidying, that it slows you up. 

However, i was JUST reading my emails on my iBook...

I loaded mail, and in my Junk mail box, was 5 forum replies, i looked @ the title's and thought, yeah i'll check those, later! So i went to delete them, i usually just hit Apple + A to select all the mail in the folder, then hit Backspace to trash it. Now, as i went to hit backspace, i accidently hit ENTER. Now, you can guess what this did, opened ALL 5 mails up. Fair enough it was MY fault, i had pressed the wrong key, i accept that. You may now have an idea where i am getting to now...

With XP, it would and does group the mail, and so if i DID make an error, i could just right click the group...







With X, whats the Alternative?!  






I am certain, i didn't want to open all those windows, and it could, if i had not been so economical, had led to a LOT of mail open, and i'd of been forced to close the app. 

Now, isn't this M$ feature actually kinda cool?! It Serves MORE than the obvious purpose, and does something i'd like the dock to be able to replicate. (not only with grouping) but with options like so.

Neyo


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 18, 2002)




----------



## bbloke (Nov 18, 2002)

In case anyone was unclear about the "grouping" of windows from an application under Windows XP, here is a screenshot from my machine in the office to demonstrate the effect.  (Excuse the very low quality of the image)






NeYo has also pointed out the "minimize group" and "close groups" and there have been other attachments showing the grouping of volumes, for example, so I think grouping takes several forms in total.

Oh, NeYo, can you use "option-click" on the close button to close all the message windows, or would it close the mailbox window too?  I'm guessing it would do the latter.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *I think NeYo is totally kicking me in the ass... this is a good thing.
> 
> All I can say is, with visual examples, it's hard to debate the man... I only hope Apple is watching as well, 'cause I'm really getting envious.
> ...



HAHA! Well, like i said, i feel natively, a Windows user, and so, my views and such kinda differ a lot, to many or the majority of you guys around here. Hey, i am not trying to wash you all into a Windows world, hey, i am on the way out myself, but its not about that, right?
...I remember reading not so long ago, about Multi Desktop setups, on one machine, and how they'd like to see it implemented in X. I agree, it'd be cool, often when i am working, i spread my time over a couple or more desktops, using the XP Built in multi desktop thing. MacLuv, i don't know if you know of this at all? 

Well, here's a shot, Four Desktops, note that you can run different apps, in each instance, and change with a simple click of one button (above the clock) in the taskbar. This is great for say, working, maybe browsing, chatting? Or maybe you want to run four Apps full screen, and not have to switch over, minimize and such. You can just flip to desktop 2 or 3 etc. You could span this more so, by even using Win+L, and switching users, thats the feature i probably love most about XP, i wish X had that!  

anyhow, here's Multi Desktop for all you who maybe never saw it?!






i apologise if it appears i hitchhiked and took the thread off a little, but its cool, right?

Neyo


----------



## fryke (Nov 18, 2002)

that's been around GUIs for a long time, though, NeYo. You'll find it in about every instance of X Window System (for example on a linux system).

However, while I appreciate that feature on a UNIX machine, where I myself keep an order of what's on what desktop, I think it's a bit difficult for a 'mom'-type user to grasp.

I've been mailing Apple begging for multiple desktops in OS X for years, myself, though. I guess they won't implement it for the everyday user, but maybe will make it a user activateable feature. Remember 'Simple Finder'? I sometimes think I want an 'Advanced Finder' feature nowadays.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 18, 2002)




----------



## fryke (Nov 18, 2002)

Finally. This is your first constructive thought on this thread, I believe. Yes: Make a good implementation of Virtual Desktops for Mac OS X.

I'll even pay a shareware fee for it. There's only bad versions around for Mac OS X right now afaik.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *that's been around GUIs for a long time, though, NeYo. You'll find it in about every instance of X Window System (for example on a linux system).
> 
> However, while I appreciate that feature on a UNIX machine, where I myself keep an order of what's on what desktop, I think it's a bit difficult for a 'mom'-type user to grasp.
> ...



Yeah, i hear what you're saying Fryke, for the "average" user, i assume something like that may seem a little far fetched, or a little confusing?! But, IMO, thats the good thing in some respects about windows. I know people talk of "bloatware" and such, and yes, to an extent i agree, but like people in the past have said, Windows tends to throw as much as it can in (well thats "kinda" my view), and as a result, the system can be tailored accordingly. Also, things like this Desktop Manager Don't "officially" come with Windows. They are one of a Collection of the official Microsoft Powertoys, and well, they are kinda cool. I don't know how clued up with windows you are Fryke ... Often when i read your posts regarding "openstep, GNUstep" i am like, wow, he knows his S**T! LOL, is that knowledge passed through with Windows too?!

Anyhow, yea, IMO, i like how XP can be used for a range of people, in a range of ways, for which the user, often inadvertently, decides.

Hey, thats ENOUGH Good comments directed to Mr Gates! I have to also comment, that maybe its "bloatware" which STILL leads my system to FREQUENT BSOD's. I have to say, for Stability, i've a better experience with Windows 2000!  

Have any of you guys seen the Freeware Docks in Development!? they are kind of cool! 

Neyo


----------



## Decado (Nov 18, 2002)

dont be mean to eachother. and dont write so much, i really need to sleep and it took me half an hour reading through this thread! 
Only like to say that i would sell my soul to satan (or, as fryke would say, insert the ugliest guy from your religion) for column-view. its so pretty and userfriendly, and i have a really hard time getting the hang of xp's navigation system (although, i have not used it often enough to make my opinion anything close to professional). 

Just like to say it again, so the point is not missed: I love column-view! my brains love column view too cuz now i think of everything in column-view and i always know the paths to things.  

and it was a very good point about the xp colors, fryke!


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Decado _
> *
> and it was a very good point about the xp colors, fryke! *



What was that?! ... i have read the thread, but i maybe missed it! Sorry! i dont' fancy scouring six pages twice! 

Oh, and yea, i like Column view, the amount i use XP, i wish that had it in! the only quarm i had, is that, i wish the columns could maybe auto adjust to fiit filenames, ... i mean, often i'd have a tonne of mp3's and the names would be too long, and so i'd have to switch to detail view! 

But, yea, its COOL 

Neyo


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 18, 2002)




----------



## Decado (Nov 18, 2002)

Ey, neyo! sorry about that. can't find it either. but he said something about that windows (all the way from the early versions have favored the brighter and fuller colours of the 16 bit palette (correct me if i'm wrong, fryke. i'm tired). like the green and the blue. And they are a bit intrusive to the eye.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Decado _
> *Ey, neyo! sorry about that. can't find it either. but he said something about that windows (all the way from the early versions have favored the brighter and fuller colours of the 16 bit palette (correct me if i'm wrong, fryke. i'm tired). like the green and the blue. And they are a bit intrusive to the eye. *



Oh! I See, yea, i don't like luna neither, i find it patronising really, the layout is probably welcomed to new-ish users, but i think to someone who knows considerable stuff, they find it annoying, would anyone agree? 

thanks anyway mate  ... i do remember reading something about that now!

Neyo


----------



## Decado (Nov 18, 2002)

no problemo, neyo.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 18, 2002)

Decado - Hey, Swedish? Cool 

Sven Sven Sven ... LOL ... He's a lovely Geezer... 

NeYo


----------



## Decado (Nov 18, 2002)

yeah you mean the soccer guy, right? i believe he was dubbed "judas" in swedish press after the latest world championship in japan/korea 
England rock! was there all last summer. Love the "stressed eric" cartoon


----------



## edX (Nov 18, 2002)

Theed - well said.


----------



## kendall (Nov 18, 2002)

NeYo, its only my opinion but why do you do such silly things to your XP?  I think it looks absolutely horrible.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 18, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *NeYo, its only my opinion but why do you do such silly things to your XP?  I think it looks absolutely horrible. *



thats cool mate, each and everyone to their own, What things?!


----------



## kendall (Nov 18, 2002)

The theming you do.  They look awful.  Jagged and awkward.


----------



## edX (Nov 18, 2002)

*edit*


----------



## theed (Nov 18, 2002)

I just wanted to say that this has been one of the most interesting,  mature, truly two sided debates I've seen on this board in a long time.  It's had it's moments and all, but generally a good ride, especially when it remained on topic.


Hi, Ed.


----------



## designer (Nov 19, 2002)

Hi all,

I started this topic and I learned so much stuff from you guys.

As a web designer, I thought usuability is a good topic to discuss. And I thank to everybody for mature debates as THEED mentioned above.

I love this forum.


----------



## edX (Nov 19, 2002)

designer - i think you picked an excellent topic to discuss. but it probably should have gone in the opinions forum. it isn't really news and it isn't a rumor. but since times are slow for real news & rumors, i decided to let this one stay here till this forum picks up next month as we approach mwsf. i think this is one of those worth discussing. i've enjoyed most of it. 

but my point in explaining this is that we do have a forum dedicated to OPINIONS that people don't seem to use. Many good opinion threads get started here or even in that forum that never go anywhwere.

Frankly, those of you who love to editorialize should be spending more of your time and effort there. it's only a slow forum because you guys don't participate there. Given the number of people we have around here who always seem to have an opinion on everything, that should be the second most popular forum outside of os x: system & software. 

of course as it is now, if i want to kill a thread, i don't close it, i just move it to the Opinions Forum.  

ok, shameless plug for the opinions forum is over. 

oh, and  HI Theed


----------



## satanicpoptart (Nov 19, 2002)

i read through all of the main osx complaints and the number one complaint is the same as what it was a year ago, slowness. well i had the same complaint i hated the spinning ball so i did something about it.  

i installed mox optimize and turned the window server level up. now no more ball.  i also installed the milk theme which makes the intire system flow much faster.  

the slowness of the finder can be ended by the end of horizontal lines and window server power increase.


MOX OPTIMIZE-SIMPLE THEME=FAST OSX


----------



## boi (Nov 19, 2002)

what are you using to successfully change the X.2 theme? i'm paranoid ^_^.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 19, 2002)




----------



## Da_iMac_Daddy (Nov 20, 2002)

About my earlier post on the minimizing feature. Jaguar had an option to minimize in place and I thought that to be very cool. But it never showed up in the final release so here is a link to some software that will set it up to minimize in place.

http://mcgavern.com/mac/mip/


----------



## fryke (Nov 20, 2002)

Everyone using it should REALLY consider that the Dock will - after the patch - be the 6C48 Build's version.

I remember that build not to be of the really stable variant, but it was the last build to have that particular feature.

So be warned...  Now you are.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 20, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *Everyone using it should REALLY consider that the Dock will - after the patch - be the 6C48 Build's version.
> 
> I remember that build not to be of the really stable variant, but it was the last build to have that particular feature.
> ...



Yea, i used that Dock.App for a while, but well, things seemed to go wrong, and MIP isn't so great after all. The MIP Windows have the same Z layer as the dock, what use is that?  
It was something cool to try out, but i think apple didn't really lost anything, leaving it out 10.2

Neyo


----------



## kendall (Nov 20, 2002)

The true nature of the "Dock" was  never intended to house minimized windows.  

Minimized windows should go into the "Sea" or desktop as its called.  You should however be able to hide windows into their application icon in the Dock.  The Dock really should indicate when an application's window is hidden.  I'm gussing the axed it because it didn't comply in some way with their UI guidelines.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 23, 2002)

I Got my hands on a copy of the Longhorn Release 3683 today, and there were a few things there i thought could be added to this discussion...

Firstly, something that i noticed by accident, but now LOVE! 

(See Attached shot for reference)

Basically, when you have the Address shown, each directory is split OBVIOUSLY by the "/" now, if you mouse over the section between the "/'s" then a popup will show you what else, is in that directory, and on one click take yo to it. Now this is VERY neat, and allows you to get back and forward, kinda simular to Column view, whatcha think Kids?! 

Neyo


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 23, 2002)

Deleting Stuff. 

I've found more system wide in this Longhorn release, Wherever possible, the system tries not only to just LABEL a file bin.jpg, but go a step further... 

Often, you navigate around, and click on files, and you get previews, and relative information for that file. 

Take deleting a file for example, this JPEG image (See attachement) 

The "are you sure" Dialog now consists of NOT jus "Do you wish to send bin.jpg to the Recycle Bin", but rather gives you a prompt of the file you are deleting! Thats a nice touch if you ask me! 







The picture below shows the "My Pictures" folder open, with Common tasks enabled. 
See the "9 of 9" in the top right? thats kinda neat, allowing you to move through your files in a slideshow manner, if you wish!





NeYo


----------



## edX (Nov 23, 2002)

sorry neyo, i don't see anything here that i don;t already have with osx. granted some of it is because i use Default Folder X, but a basic preview is not that big of a deal unless i'm missing something because i'm just looking at a pic. seems like just another instance of windows copying apple and apple's 3rd party developers. not that i expect that to ever stop.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *sorry neyo, i don't see anything here that i don;t already have with osx. granted some of it is because i use Default Folder X, but a basic preview is not that big of a deal unless i'm missing something because i'm just looking at a pic. seems like just another instance of windows copying apple and apple's 3rd party developers. not that i expect that to ever stop. *



Hey, no need to apologise, but did i miss something?! The Finder seems quite bare by contrast to this, maybe all the stuff seems a little overwhelming, thats a personal choice, but i haven't seen this stuff in X. I know you can do thumbnail views on Folders, but you have to set that up, right? Whereas, you have Common Tasks which provide the preview, whether or not Explorer is displaying Thumbnails/Tiles/Icons/Details etc... 

Does that make more sense, or did ui miss something Ed?! 

Holla! 

Neyo


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 23, 2002)

Have to say, Microsoft have NOT taken a step forward from Luna with Plex. Its Far From pleasant really! I love the Taskshelf, it can be  hidden with a click of a button (next to the clock) but the theme is awful! Fortunately, while this still, underlyingly, is very much Windows XP, Styles can be used from the original msstyle 1.0 standard, so there's still a lot of choice. 

I Like what they've done with the common tasks, comparing to XP, but the theme, NO NO NO!! 

Neyo


----------



## theed (Nov 23, 2002)

OK, the preview thing, that's good.  But mac OS X does the preview thing if you are in column view, which is the way X was meant to be navigated.  The other views are only there for legacy users and particular workflow needs.  So, it's good, but hardly new.

I'd send you a screen shot but my screen shots are all in pdf and I don't feel like spending time converting them into something reasonable for the web.  That's a bad thing.  I was loving screen shot to PNG, why did Apple lock us into pdf only screen shots?

Anyway, the preview almost makes up for the unintuitive choices.  The selection and the choices should make the actual question superfluous.  Windows still misses that one.  "Jpeg, yes or no ... why yes, that is a jpeg.  Wait, what's it asking?"

Next, why do you need confirmation on a completely undoable action?!?  That's the point of the trash can, call it whatever PC term you want it's still a trash can.  An undoable action needs no confirmation!  That's why it's undoable!  Windows teaches people to click dialog boxes without looking at them ... or to read reeeeaaaallly fast.

Next, congratulations, M$ has blurred IE and Windows Explorer into one mass, but which slash is the file delimiter?  NeYo even messed it up in his reference.  Do you know what a tech support nightmare the backslash is?  You tell someone to type a slash, and every time you do you have to tell them "no, regular slash, not backslash.  The one that's on the same key as the question mark."  If Windows wants to improve things, it could move to the slash that everyone else uses and make the internet and Windows a little more unified and tolerable.

In all, kudos to XP for raising the bar.  But I still think that improving windows is like trying to carve a gold statue out of horse manure.  The problem isn't the size of your chisel, it's the big hunk of crap that you're carving.

As for stealing from Xerox, I have lots of bones to pick about that piece of revisionist history, but in the end, competition improves product, and IP shouldn't be hoarded.  I agree with MacLuv, Everybody copy everybody, but let's hurry up and get the suck out.  Computers have had too much suck factor for too long!  Mine, yours, everybody's.  If you don't think your computer has suck factor, just make sure you kept the receipt for your soul.

... I hope that wasn't too raving and maniacal.  Those improvements just really rubbed me the wrong way.  Perhaps I just need the touch of a woman... am I off topic?


----------



## edX (Nov 23, 2002)

like i said Neyo (and MacLuv), get Default Folder X and give it a whirl. i've been using it since os 9 days so these functions seem really old to me. it slows your finder down just a wee bit when opening to folders with huge numbers of files in them while in a browser, but other than that, the organization tools are huge time savers plus all those "common tasks" are always right there when you open up.

i must say that when it comes to finder window usability, this program greatly enhanced my experience long ago and only continues to improve. the developer is one of the best at listening to what users want. i even got to beta test the features i requested. he is dedicated to making a quality product that is worth every penny. 

hey at least give it a demo and then tell me what seperates your longhorn from it.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by theed _
> * NeYo even messed it up in his reference.  "no, regular slash, not backslash.  The one that's on the same key as the question mark."   *



So, ACTUALLY i did it RIGHT, and Windows was Wrong?! i used Forward Slashes 

NeYo


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Ed Spruiell _
> *like i said Neyo (and MacLuv), get Default Folder X and give it a whirl. i've been using it since os 9 days so these functions seem really old to me. it slows your finder down just a wee bit when opening to folders with huge numbers of files in them while in a browser, but other than that, the organization tools are huge time savers plus all those "common tasks" are always right there when you open up.
> 
> i must say that when it comes to finder window usability, this program greatly enhanced my experience long ago and only continues to improve. the developer is one of the best at listening to what users want. i even got to beta test the features i requested. he is dedicated to making a quality product that is worth every penny.
> ...



Sure Thing, i will look for it later, i hadn't heard of it previously. We could drag out the typical "bandwagon" 

This Comes outta the Box with Longhorn, as Does Multi-Desktop, As Does...

But well, the same ol' response would follow 

"NT has been in development how long by contrast" LOL ...so we won't go there

MacLuv, What was the thread to VENT (u like my Rhymes?! )   hehe

Neyo


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Okay I'll give it a whirl. But all those PC guys don't have to d/l a third party app like we do to enjoy the same features...
> 
> 
> ...



Great Minds think alike?! 

MacLuv, You're not fortunate to wake up, and see you're Room in a Cold BLUE Glow ... Lit by a welcoming message

Win32.sys has caused an error in:

(LOL)

...Longhorn hasn't crashed yet! ... but XP Crashes OFTEN, so i don't have ANY Confidence in an Alpha build based upon XP  

NeYo


----------



## theed (Nov 23, 2002)

is that a red line through the Print This Picture option in your screen shot above?  If so, what does that mean?  Aren't those contextual menus?  If something isn't available, isn't it just not there?  Or rather, on the previous page?


----------



## edX (Nov 23, 2002)

> As far as that touch of a woman thing... um... as much as I'm trying to be a kinder, gentler MacLuv, I don't think I can help you in that department...



oh, so you'll blow me kisses, but not theed, huh?


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by theed _
> *is that a red line through the Print This Picture option in your screen shot above?  If so, what does that mean?  Aren't those contextual menus?  If something isn't available, isn't it just not there?  Or rather, on the previous page? *



Hey, yes it is a Red Line, but it doesn't represent what you thought it does. I admit, it looks like who you, yourself interpreted it, but infact, its just apart of the styling in the "Common Tasks" section of the Window ... See how the red line moves RIGHT accross the Window, past the JPEG Preview?! 

Here it is again, in the "My Music Folder"







NeYo

Oh, and they aren't Contextual Menu's. Think of the Window as like a HTML page divided by Frames, there's a left frame, then a top frame, and the bottom with Files in, they are very dynamic, and alter upon almost every click (the top frame is not always there, dependant on the folder you are in, or whether a file is selected).

Edit: 

You can turn off the Preview Pane (the part above the Files) Via the View Menu (in the same way you'd select Icons/Tiles/Thumbnails)

And common tasks (the left pane) can be ditched via Folder Options (Control Panel)


----------



## theed (Nov 23, 2002)

So the red line is just there, far more obvious in this screen shot.  Thanks.

The major menu sections change upon selection as appropriate, but the individual items in them are just there, not really contextual based on availability.  Just menus that give options supposedly reasonable for the item you've selected?

Hmmm, quasi-contextual.  Useful if it has what you want, I'm sure.  But does it help you find what you want if it isn't there?  I've seen windows play this game a bit, and I never really understood what qualified the list of choices that showed up.

Oh, and holy lack of screen space.  3/4 of your folder view is showing something other than the contents of the folder.  How long till they start selling the screen space in your folder to advertisers?  :-/


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by theed _
> *So the rod line is just there, far more obvious in this screen shot.  Thanks.
> 
> The major menu sections change upon selection as appropriate, but the individual items in them are just there, not really contextual based on availability.  Just menus that give options supposedly reasonable for the item you've selected?
> ...



Umm, as you can see, windows does decide what is appropiate, as per file. Those options, as far as i am aware cannot be changed by the user, so yea, it could be a bit of pain! It isn't too bad, you can see in the My Music Folder, it does have a lot of relative links for commands, and applications (which is new in LH) which relate. 

But Honestly, i DON'T use Common tasks. They, for me offer commands and navigational purposes i can get to by other means as quickly. Via keyboard and other toolbar buttons etc. In my opinion, i think the common tasks are more relative to newer or less "experienced" users. People who may not think to look in for "Copy" or "Paste" in the "Edit" menu. Instead, such commands reside plain to see. Do you agree?!

Neyo


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> *Is it me or does XP seem to be more visually stimulating? *



What do you mean?! 

NeYo

PS: this is Longhorn, not XP (But Close!)


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 23, 2002)




----------



## edX (Nov 23, 2002)

personally, and i'm just going on neyo's photos here, i think it looks cheesy, commercial and takes up way too much real estate. important things are too small and stock photo art is huge. it looks more like an ad than a product. which in a way is what you're saying it should look like Macluv. but i don't buy it. i think we still are amused by an ad the first time or two we see it while becoming sick of it quickly after that. You know my 13 year old doesn't watch the same movie 50 times anymore like he did when he was 6. with maturity we learn to discriminate and hopefully your nephews will too. os x is art. art that will look dated with time no doubt, but at least i'm not looking at some stranger with headphones when i want to get into my files. (and i'm assuming neyo hasn't had this long enough to have bastardized it like he does everything else  )


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 24, 2002)




----------



## ex2bot (Nov 24, 2002)

I think I'm contributing some new ideas here (although I could be wrong - this is a looong thread):

XP issues:

Ugly = Luna

I put a shortcut of the C drive on the desktop, so that I could access it without going through My Computer (or whatever). Often, when I tried to select it from a save file window, my filename would be replaced by "C drive.lnk". Awful (also true for other flavors of Windows)

Start menu - annoying, silly, accessing programs is a pain, must be skillful with the mouse.

Close window button on the RIGHT side of window - Who was the idiot who thought that one up? The original close window button (on the left) requires a double-click

Crappy window refresh -  I click on "Get mail" from I Explorer and the contents of the explorer window are left on the screen until Outlook refreshes. UGLY UGLY UGLY UGLY - OS X refresh is soooo much more professional.

Crappy window refresh part 2 - I minimize a window and the desktop is drawn on the screen starting from the top and going down erasing the minimized window as it goes. UGLY UGLY UGLY (true for other versions of Windoze)

Messenger will not go away - Messenger will not go away. I had to rename the program's folder. What the HELL? Oops, not an interface issue

Control panels - I can't ever FIND anything and I've been using Windoze since 2.0! One example: the advanced tab for Internet properties has a gazillion stupid check boxes for stuff they couldn't find places for. Oh, I love options. But how about organizing them? No, they are not all well organized. No, they aren't. No, really. They could be simplified. It would save time trying to find controls. 

I could go on and on and on . . .  and those are just the interface issues.


----------



## MDA (Nov 24, 2002)

What I see in the screen captures of Longhorn are the same things that have always bothered me about Windows. Microsoft confuses giving someone 5000 ways of doing something with making things easier for the end user, and Microsoft gives you the list of ways rather than let you decide how you want to do something. Apple has always tried to give the user the ability of doing things the way they want to do them and I've always really appreciated the lack of interference on the part of the operating system. As for the OS being more visually stimulating, I have to agree with Ed Spruiell on this, it's just more commercial not more appealing. I suppose this is all pretty subjective though.

MDA


----------



## kendall (Nov 24, 2002)

I like OS Xs interface better than Windows.  OS X is why I got a Mac.


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 24, 2002)




----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 24, 2002)

Guys, the same Point had been brought up twice now. Summing that up, it'd be "CHOICE" 

See, now, here's TWO Shots For the same folder "My Pictures". 











OK, now whats WRONG with CHOICE? Why should a user not have many ways to represent the data?! Why should they be stuck with plain RAW Data (ie Merely filenames) in the age of Kickass GPU's and Comparably (x86) KICKASS CPU's

(Sorry guys that was LOW, i didn't mean it, don't kick my butt, i HAD TO! )

Personally, despite what some of you guys say yourselves, CHOICE will ALWAYS be a good thing, whether we talk OS System wide, or buying a Ford over a Honda!? At the same time, like i said previously, in my opinion the choice is reflective upon the potential end user. By that i expect this more graphical presentation to be used by family's, newer user's to "XP / Longhorn". In my opinion, that view there is FAR more "welcoming" to me, that /user/neyo/pictures ever is (****! i almost sound like i know what i am talking ABOUT!!!  )

Yea, So the problem with choice kinda confuses me, how can it be bad?!

Addresing some points here, ummmm...



> Ugly = Luna



Agreed, most definately. And Plex is not much better, personally, i like plex in certain ways, i don't mind the taskbar, but its the windows that aren't right, and at this stage, the system cannot really have that much blue in it (although i am sure a LOT more in Longhorn will develop to allow more diversity.

Here's more shots, to give a reflection of what i am saying, tell me whatcha think of "Plex"  

Desktop Pic Here 


Look at the "File / Edit" Menu's, black and darkish blue?! 


> Start menu - annoying, silly, accessing programs is a pain, must be skillful with the mouse.



In what way do you find it "silly or Annoying"? I agree, skill is kinda required to get that "all Programs" to popup, i think that needs moving somewhere else. Besides that, i don't think all too much is  wrong with it, it really is NOW, the "start" for your computer, your one way into everywhere now. Whether thats a good thing is down to the user i guess, but once more, you can always set it into Classic mode, for which the typical Win 2k start menu will be used, as does the desktop icons. (Here's that "choice" thing once more )



> Crappy window refresh part 2 - I minimize a window and the desktop is drawn on the screen starting from the top and going down erasing the minimized window as it goes. UGLY UGLY UGLY (true for other versions of Windoze)



I know what your reffering to, the instance for which it refreshes / redraws on like a horizontal line?! Yea, that "DID" Suck, but i've NEVER seen that in XP. In earlier versions, most definately, but not since XP. Maybe that was a Video Card issue?!?
(oh, and yes, it is NASTY!! ...And slow!)



> Messenger will not go away - Messenger will not go away. I had to rename the program's folder. What the HELL? Oops, not an interface issue



Yea, i agree totally, a LOT of people have said the same thing, it can be a little "in your face", and it DID take some disabling. I think now (Don't hold me to this) you can remove it from the system if you so wish. The SP1 update definately allows you to get rid of IE6 and WMP8, so i assume you can get rid of that too. Within the options menu in Messenger, you can disable it starting up automatically, which does stop it being so "in your face!", is that what you was after?!

Control Panels, Yea, i agree, there's ALOT to digest, and it can take some time to work where stuff is, but in time you pick it up. Maybe they will address this, with that Avalon technology, they've already changed the Display Properties Control Applet, you guys have seen the modified one, right?

** the Task Shelf **

I think this is pretty cool, and like macLuv mentioned, microsoft are using XML and .Net tech alot, to bring some cool things together, and here's an example, i think at this stage, its just like a "demo" of the kind of things possible, i imagine M$ will try shoving all those Crappy MSN Features into the TaskShelf (like MSN Explorer), but as long as you can still add and remove tiles from it, it'll be ok i guess. Merging the Taskbar and Taskshelf is quite cool, although at this time, it DOESN'T have a place for Minimized windows, (the joys of an M3 Alpha build), but i am sure that will come along in time! 

TaskShelf 


opinions guys?! 

NeYo


----------



## fryke (Nov 24, 2002)

There's nothing wrong with choice in viewing a directory. But I think the preview in Mac OS X is perfect for stuff like that. Because if I want to *work* with the file, I'll open it after seeing the preview... And for a bunch of pictures, Preview.app is perfect, too, I guess...

So, no, I don't want the Finder to add things like that...


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *There's nothing wrong with choice in viewing a directory. But I think the preview in Mac OS X is perfect for stuff like that. Because if I want to *work* with the file, I'll open it after seeing the preview... And for a bunch of pictures, Preview.app is perfect, too, I guess...
> 
> So, no, I don't want the Finder to add things like that... *



Yea, i see what your saying Fryke, but like Preview.app, XP has Windows Picture viewer (or whatever) and does the same thing as preview, but i always thought it was good to cut down the amount of stuff the user had to do. Let the computer do this, show me that etc.  Having options doesn't inhibit you. I guess where i am headed with this is, what would kids prefer?! Your mum? (dependant i guess, upon her computer skills) i aplogise for stereotyping there, but you get my meaning! 



> and i'm assuming neyo hasn't had this long enough to have bastardized it like he does everything else



LOL Ed, i didn't really notice the guy, well i did, but in reality terms, i don't like all this common task crap in MY Face, its my PC, and i know how i organize my files / folders, and so i don't need such prompts all the time. Fair enough from time to time i might turn them on, if i feel it may help me scour the directory for files or whatever, but "usually" i am in Classic Explorer views, so i am free of that dude with the Earphones!!   Phew!! 

Neyo


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Nov 24, 2002)

I had a Mishap earlier, with Longhorn (my on fault) which led to a Windows Re-Install... so the pics went down too!  

...If anyone i interested in Longhorn, its GUI, Features and more... or to extend upon stuff i had said, this link maybe of some interest...

http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/longhorn_alpha.asp

NeYo

(Back on XP for now "YAY"  )


----------



## MacLuv (Nov 24, 2002)




----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 1, 2002)

Sorry for raising this topic, from the dead... but something came to mind, i wanted to bring up. 

Okay, well most of you know, i use my PC more than my iBook (its a desktop machine... so well YEA!) 

Anyhow, it was about the Window Widgets really, and the "Start Menu" ...The "Apple Menu" ... and how the user navigates to them.

Ok, well, If you maximize a Window, say IE on XP... you can close the window, without having to Look ... you just grab the mouse, and drag it to the top right! SIMPLE! 

If you want the Start Menu, you Drag the mouse to the Bottom left ... and Voila, you are there! 

now, by contrast, try closing a Maximized Window on X. Or getting into the Apple Menu ... Why is there that Stupid Gap to the left?! you should be able to get to navigate TOP RIGHT and Click... But "Oh No" ... Why is this is?! I love the Aqua interface, but for me, below the look, in this instance, Windows is ahead of the game! Do u see my point?! 

Neyo


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 1, 2002)

I guess, as a result of Apple's User Interface, Mac Users as a rule, have better Mouse Skills! 

HAHAH! ... Is that Apple's game, underlyingly, they want more skilled user's on their platform?! SNEAKY!!! LOL

Neyo


----------



## MDA (Dec 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *Ok, well, If you maximize a Window, say IE on XP... you can close the window, without having to Look ... you just grab the mouse, and drag it to the top right! SIMPLE!
> 
> If you want the Start Menu, you Drag the mouse to the Bottom left ... and Voila, you are there!
> ...



Here's one for you. Why is Windoze still so damn dumb that it can't manage to resize a window so that it's just large enough to hold the contents when you click on the resize button like the Mac OS does?

MDA


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDA _
> *Here's one for you. Why is Windoze still so damn dumb that it can't manage to resize a window so that it's just large enough to hold the contents when you click on the resize button like the Mac OS does?
> 
> MDA *



i am not looking for an argument, if u don't like Windows... thats FINE... i couldn't care less, i am just inputting valid points to a a relevant thread.

Neyo


----------



## MDA (Dec 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *Ok, well, If you maximize a Window, say IE on XP... you can close the window, without having to Look ... you just grab the mouse, and drag it to the top right! SIMPLE!
> 
> If you want the Start Menu, you Drag the mouse to the Bottom left ... and Voila, you are there!
> ...



Here's one for you. Why is Windoze still so damn dumb that it can't manage to resize a window so that it's just large enough to hold the contents when you click on the resize button like the Mac OS does?

MDA


----------



## Jason (Dec 1, 2002)

im all for debating but do we need "windoze is dumb, and osx is stuupid" comments?


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BuddahBobb _
> *im all for debating but do we need "windoze is dumb, and osx is stuupid" comments? *



Nope, thats where interlect falls, and plain arrogance begins.  

NeYo


----------



## kendall (Dec 1, 2002)

I wish the Dock indicated when apps in the Dock are hidden and I wish hiding an app was one of the options when clicking on its Dock icon.

Also, when minimizing windows into the Dock, I wish you could have them minimize into themselves as an option.  Its clumsy when I have seven IE windows minimized into the Dock.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by itanium _
> *I wish the Dock indicated when apps in the Dock are hidden and I wish hiding an app was one of the options when clicking on its Dock icon.
> 
> Also, when minimizing windows into the Dock, I wish you could have them minimize into themselves as an option.  Its clumsy when I have seven IE windows minimized into the Dock. *



Yea, i agree, although the Hide on Context Menu can be found if you use Transparent Dock! When i right click an app, i now have Hide Alongside Quit and Show In Finder.

I thought the dock Greyed out Apps that were hidden?! ... i never liked it anyhow, so i disabled it, but i remember it being in 10.1.X

hmmm...

The minimize thing is something i too have a problem with, i guess being a "Windows user" for many years, Mr Gates brought me up, telling 2 minimize stuff, whereas Now, Mr Jobs is saying NO NO, this way! ... minimizing doesn't seem right in X, but i guess thats why we have the hide feature, and Windows Doesn't?! 

Neyo


----------



## MDA (Dec 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by BuddahBobb _
> *im all for debating but do we need "windoze is dumb, and osx is stuupid" comments? *



Oh come on. In my opinion it's stupid that Windoze can't do that. Don't take it so personally.

MDA


----------



## MDA (Dec 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *i am not looking for an argument, if u don't like Windows... thats FINE... i couldn't care less, i am just inputting valid points to a a relevant thread.
> 
> Neyo *



You've been rubbing in our faces all of the wonderful things you think XP can do and you can't take a little back?

MDA


----------



## fryke (Dec 1, 2002)

Hmm... The Apple menu is on the top left, NeYo, because that's where you're used to find the start. Open a book and you know that the text will start in the upper left corner. Look on a document's page and you know that its content starts on the upper left corner. The menubar is the integrating user interface element on the Macintosh's GUI, that's why it's at the top edge so you can't accidentally move beyond it. That's why the close box of a window is on the upper left corner (why all widgets but the new 'show toolbar' widget are).

Having the menu inside an application's window (Windows) is bad UI design. Statistically, a user uses the menu of an application more often than 'maximize', 'minimize' or 'close window'. So it's important to have the _menu bar_ always in an easy to reach position.

You suggest that Apple should mimic 'the standard', which is Windows. But it's still very clear that Apple has the better UI design in these matters. So no, Apple should do what's best, not follow a bad example.

Why would Microsoft make the close box of a window on the top right corner? In order to be able to say 'We did not copy the Macintosh (entirely)'. And they won that case in court (after like 10 years...). Microsoft did a lot of strange things like that only to avoid the lawyers. For example, they chose the \ instead of the / to separate directories in a path for the very same reason. (And now that the internet has come, starting on UNIX and UNIX-like systems, the Windows user has to learn that actually '/' would have been the right choice.) As a web design teacher I've gotten many questions from students like the following: "Why can't the internet just adhere to the standard and replace all the /'s with \'s?" And I answered something like this: "That's a bit like the US thinking the world should use CDMA for mobile phone systems instead of the world standard GSM." And my students got that explanation after a while.

There are many do's and don't's in interface design. And sometimes you _have_ to make compromises. But you have to decide _where_ to make them and _how_. Overall, Apple did more things right than Microsoft. The fact that Windows is on 95% of the world's desktops and Apple has only 5% doesn't make the Windows UI mistakes right. They're still mistakes. Only: It may not matter that much any more, because it's become a standard.

But even the most commonly accepted standards can contain mistakes in user interface design. And it's hard to replace them. Take, for instance, a design of the past. Remember those dial-wheels on phones? Wheels were 'in style' when the first dial-wheels were invented. But it would certainly have been better interface design to rather have a dialpad, wouldn't it? Still it took YEARS and DECADES to correct the mistake. I guess I might even have brought up that example on this board, this forum or this thread already.


----------



## Jason (Dec 1, 2002)

like i said im all for debate but keep it clean guys, this isnt about you two thinking each other is stupid this is about operating system usability

if you have insults to throw at each other do it somewhere else

also i am pretty intolerable on statements such as "X operating system sucks because i say so" it would be a little nice if you say something like "i dislike X operating system"

random insults thrown at anything or anybody is not something i take lightly, so i'd appreciate if you guys dont insult each other... in public at least 

play nice


----------



## kendall (Dec 1, 2002)

Rotary phones were necessary because the technology of the time required pulses to be sent to the automated switchboard instead of tones.  

Dialpad, touch-tone phones didn't come about until  the 60's when the technology changed.

It really wasn't due to style but because turning a wheel was the easiest way to create a pulse in such a small device.


----------



## cellfish (Dec 1, 2002)

Stop fighting you guys.

I'm posting this as a user of both Windows XP and OS X.2.2

I think both platforms have their strengths. PC is better for the cost-conscious user who wants to share files, have a program for every imaginable task, and needs hardware support that doesn't cost him a pretty penny.

The Mac is better for the people who just need a computer that works, and won't require constant upgrading and maintenance.

I like both platforms and while I'm leaning more toward the Mac side, I have to admit that I would miss a few of the programs I have on the PC, and the speed I have of my Athlon XP 2000+. On the other hand, I enjoy knowing that when I put my Mac to sleep, it wakes up properly. I don't have to deal with spyware or viruses, and everybody just looks at my computer whenever they pass by me at work or on the train because of its elegance.

Instead of fighting, hope that the strengths of both platforms will one day come together to create the platform of dreams. What's the use of fighting when it won't affect anything?

Andre


----------



## fryke (Dec 1, 2002)

While I'm perfectly with you here, cellfish (I also think PC/Mac flamewars don't lead anywhere, really), I think UID (User Interface Design) is a really important matter. However, the thread isn't 'news' or 'rumours', so I'm moving it to the Opinion forum.

itanium: That surely IS a better reason for doing it that way. Still doesn't make that wheel good user interface design. My reason for using this example is that although people of course DID use the ubiquitous standard and DID learn how to use it, it didn't make it easy to use or natural: It still was a user interface mistake.


----------



## Ricky (Dec 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MacLuv _
> * *


...Someone steal your password, MacLuv?


----------



## theed (Dec 1, 2002)

the UI of the menu bar ... if you drag down from the corner then the gap isn't an issue.  A lot of mac users drag their menus down rather than click them down, and that may be the UI change that starts making Mac OS X making sense to you, Neyo.  Or maybe not.

In general I've found that mac users are much worse at mousing than Windows users.  At a typical level of proficiency a mac user tends to use more keyboard shortcuts than Windows users.  This may be changing though.  Macs have taught cut, copy, paste, undo, print, close window, quit application, and get info to almost every mac user.  Windows users I've found have a tendency to use an icon or contextual menu for these tasks.

I happen to think that Apple-Q is a lot more memorable than alt-F4.  Thus it's more likely to get used.  As for hiding an app, if you option click out of an app, the app you're leaving will hide itself.  This works option clicking in the dock too.


----------



## robotguy (Dec 2, 2002)

```
If people are arguing that Apple seems to 
have some sort of logic in place with the Finder 
menu, why is it that Apple's very own dock 
contradicts Apple's own user-interface guidelines?

I would illustrate these flaws myself, but 
someone has already done it for me.
```

*Top Ten Reasons Why the Apple Dock Sucks*

```
Although some of the issues Tog makes with the dock have been 
addressed, there are still some very important 
issues present that void Fryke's argument.

Two points Fryke makes that Apple's 
own design contradict are:
```



> _from Fryke:_
> The Apple menu is on the top left, NeYo, because that's where you're used to find the start. Open a book and you know that the text will start in the upper left corner. Look on a document's page and you know that its content starts on the upper left corner.




```
Fryke is talking about motor memory. 
However, Apple's design of the dock 
contradicts why they ever came up with the 
menu bar in the first place. From Tog's site:
```



> *Users cannot build motor memory*
> 
> Because everything in the Dock jumps around when you add new items, items do not have a stable location on the screen. Motor memory was always a strong consideration in the original Macintosh. Hence, the Apple, File, and Edit menus always came first, in that order. Now, "demoability" takes precedence.




```
Fryke also points out in the same post:
```



> The menubar is the integrating user interface element on the Macintosh's GUI, that's why it's at the top edge so you can't accidentally move beyond it. That's why the close box of a window is on the upper left corner




```
Here Fryke is talking about what's known as 
[B][URL=http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~cs5724/g1/]Fitts' Law[/URL][/B], which is a [B]model of human psychomotor behavior 
developed in 1954[/B] based on [B]time[/B] and [B]distance[/B]. 
Although Fitt's law has been used as a 
guideline to create user interfaces, there are 
disadvantages to the system that should be 
considered. As quoted from the source:
```



> One such disadvantage is that *Fitts' law predicts movement in only one dimension. *Fitts' original experiments tested human performance in making horizontal moves toward a target. Both the amplitude of the move and the width of the terminating region were measured along the same axis. It follows that the method is inherently one-dimensional. So, when dealing with two-dimensional target acquisition tasks, new interpretations of "target width" must be considered. Another major deficiency is the absence of a consistent technique for dealing with errors. Researchers have developed a method to handle errors, but it has been largely ignored because of its complexity. *Still another disadvantage is a lack of consensus in the measures found in across-study comparisons.*




```
If we are to defend the logic of the Apple menu 
bar using Fitts' Law as Fryke has done, we 
would also have to apply the law to other 
conventions of OS X design--namely the dock. 
If this is the case, once again Tog points out 
the following:
```



> *
> The Dock ignores Fitts's Law *
> 
> The corners and edges of the screen are predicted by Fitts's Law to be the most easily reached targets. The Dock hovers just above the bottom of the screen where it can safely avoid being in any way efficient.




```
A futher examination of Tog's reasons may 
suggest that he is not too familiar with Fitts' 
Law in that his 5th reason for the Apple dock 
sucking is as follows:
```



> *Hiding the Dock makes things worse*
> 
> Apple's latest solution to the firestorm of protest over the Dock is to allow the user to hide it. That way, it doesn't float over all your applications. Slide below the screen with your mouse and the Dock appears. This further Windows copy job, unfortunately, suffers from the same defect as the Windows Task Bar: You can't predict where a given object is until you reach the bottom of the screen and cause the Dock to reappear. Worse than with Windows, your job is not now over. Now, you begin the task of scrubbing back and forth vertically, trying to force the labels to appear, hoping you won't go far enough out of range in the process to cause the bar to disappear on you.




```
Clearly as this relates to motor behavior, this 
falls under Fitts' Law as well--yet Tog doesn't 
seem to think so. 

So which way do we go from here? 
If we adopt Fitts' Law to justify the Apple 
menu bar logic then we must disregard the 
dock as it clearly contradicts everything Fitts' 
law resolves. Also, since Apple is contradicting 
it's own human-interface guidelines, it 
becomes apparent Apple has recognized the 
evolution of  user behavior in an event-driven environment. 

The internet is mostly to blame: unless the 
user is using the computer as a tool [B]there 
are no rules for navigation.[/B] Users are often 
presented with any number of navigation 
devices that can appear anywhere. The 
question is no longer [B]what[/B] the 
procedure is, which is what Apple's menu 
interface hoped to clarify within an application, 
but rather [B]where[/B] the procedure is. In 
other words we all know that there must be an 
exit someplace, all we have to do is find it. This 
is the [B]extra dimension[/B] that Fitts' Law 
does not recognize--that we are indeed more 
than just machines with motor skills. Logical 
behavior patterns must be accounted for at some point.

Although Fryke advocates Apple's design guidelines as a 
more logical alternative to Windows, Apple has obviously broken 
it's own GUI regiment. This indicates that there really are no set 
rules for GUI design. As Windows has become the standard, users'
motor behavior is adapting to Windows GUI. 
It is in our best interests to adopt any features 
that make our computing experience more enjoyable. 
If these features happen to be on 
the Windows platform, does it really matter?
```


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 2, 2002)

Hey, i don't mean to "flame" ... and i don't know if i am considered to be doing so?! Outside of this thread, i eventually won't own a PC, so well, its not the case i am "hating" on Apple, or OS X, just pointing out things that i feel should or could be discussed ... not argued about. 

Moving back on topic. Fryke, maybe i didn't express my self too clearly. What i was referring to, was the fact you cannot move the mouse to the top left of the screen and click... the cursor needs to be moved Right about 10 pixels for you to hit the Apple Menu. That to me seems kinda of silly, why have that extra space, which does little?! Why not make, from point (0,0) a hotspot, and allow the user to be able to navigate to the VERY TOP LEFT, and click (without having to even look). Do you see my point?! I agree, and see the logic behind why it is positioned where it is, and i never questioned that. My points were, on my Windows Machine, i can hit the start Menu, and close a Maximized window without having to even look at the screen, now to me, that is Good UI. Do you agree?! 
I am not saying Apple should change their ways at all, but i am merely pointing out what makes sense to me (yes me, maybe no-one else! LOL). Like i said, what is the point of that void area next to the Apple Menu?! 

Anyhow, i know, having the apple menu there, means you could never maximize the window, and close it like you could in windows (without looking) due to the Finder bar. 

Counter-Balacing my so called "X hatred", i have to say, i much prefer the Vertical scroll arrows next to one another, rather than one at the top of the scroller, and one beneath it, that is nice 

Theed: thanks mate, i never realised the Click and Hold thing worked like that?! That is kinda cool, so you can click hold, and then move the mouse across the menu, that is kinda neat (still bugs me why there's the gap tho) but i'll take what you said, and put into action from now on! That makes me wonder, can i do that on Windows, i wonder what happens?! i'll have to try that later!

MDA, "rubbing your face in it"? Like i said, i am no Apple Hater here, just a guy who is far more familar with the "dark side", and to some people what i was demonstrating to them brought some good points to air, so no, i wasn't "showing off" or anything like that, just bring valid points to the topic. If you too have things to bring up, thats cool, but like many already said, we don't need "why is windows so dumb", we are all mature, and can use Diplomacy, amidst conversation! 

NeYo


----------



## theed (Dec 2, 2002)

thinking about it a bit, I can't really come up with a reason for those menus to be away from the corners by that little margin, unless it's actually to keep you off of them by accident.  I think that used to make sense, but I'm not sure it does any more.

The twitchy dock, is twitchy.  yeah.  And Windows still seems to win in the alt-tab implementation.  My dock is on the right to preserve my precious vertical screen space.  Something that Windows, MS Office, Photoshop 7 and Dreamweaver MX seem to think there's plenty of.  I still think it's a precious commodity.  And my dock is anchored to the bottom so at least my trash is to be found by motor memory.

On Windows I put the start bar on the side for the same reason, but by the selections being words, this tends to make my start bar rather thick, and wastes horizontal screen space.  I'd still rather do that than waste my vertical space though.


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 2, 2002)

i too, have the taskbar on vertically! I have it left hand side about 100px wide. that seems fine, and whenever i actually want to work, i just hit Auto-Hide, and it works fine! Coincedently, having it on the left situates the start button on the top left of the screen, and falls in line with Fryke's own comments 

NeYo


----------



## MDA (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *MDA, "rubbing your face in it"? Like i said, i am no Apple Hater here, just a guy who is far more familar with the "dark side", and to some people what i was demonstrating to them brought some good points to air, so no, i wasn't "showing off" or anything like that, just bring valid points to the topic. If you too have things to bring up, thats cool, but like many already said, we don't need "why is windows so dumb", we are all mature, and can use Diplomacy, amidst conversation!
> 
> NeYo *



Oh my god. Okay drop my reference to Windows being dumb since it seems people are way to sensitive to an operating system, not a person mind you, being called dumb. I do find it incredibly irritating that Windows doesn't resize it's windows the same way that the Mac OS does.

MDA


----------



## cellfish (Dec 2, 2002)

In response to window resizing. As much as I like the Mac, I do enjoy the way Windows' maximize feature actually maximizes the window to take the full screen, not 3/4 of the screen like Mac. That's my opinion.


----------



## theed (Dec 2, 2002)

it's funny, because it's just a completely different desired workflow.  The original Mac OS X demo had the Windows style maximize button, Jobs was trying to hype it up and all.  Mac users generally hated it and it was removed.  It's technologically possible, it was actively fought by the community.

I have heard people make statements of hatred both ways about Macs free floating window lifestyle, and Windows(tm) windows inside of other windows approach.  But the full screen thing is apparently just totally anti macintosh.  Way too many mac users hate full screen mode.

In reference to the dock and UI ... the dock does some neat things, but it's UI is not terribly smooth, and it doesn't really comply to the UI that drove the original MacOS.  The same UI guidelines that are largely adhered to by the OS today, but not completely or really consistently.  A lot of the inconsistency with Mac apps now can be directly attributed to adopting the DeFacto Windoid standards.  Some are good, some are bad.  The end result is that the Mac OS becomes a little more familiar to Windows users, and a little less intuitive to those who have never used a computer before.  Considering the numbers of new users vs. switchers, this focus makes market sense for Apple.  It is also implicitly straying away from the idealistic UI design concepts that drove the original macintosh both into greatness, and into near extinction.

Anyway, the Dock adopts auto hiding, single click launching, right click control of applications, a listing of open applications that you can drag things to, always in plain view, and is movable.  Pretty much everything that runs away from MacOS UI guidelines are adopted Windows standards.  Like the filename.ext naming convention.  Yuck.  That's a windows evil adopted by the masses.  Not all of these things are bad, and making users learn one thing rather than two things is a good thing in its own right, even if we're making them learn something that's arbitrary and ill-suited to the task.  I'm happy to see the OSes converging.  What OS X needs is a Finder that as threaded and snappy as Windows explorer, while retaining the smarts to not require manual refresh. 

And once again, anyone who can't admit that their OS sucks in some manner is deluded, and serves no purpose in an intellectual debate.


----------



## fryke (Dec 2, 2002)

Robotguy said: " Although Fryke advocates Apple's design guidelines as a more logical alternative to Windows, Apple has obviously broken it's own GUI regiment. This indicates that there really are no set rules for GUI design. As Windows has become the standard, users' motor behavior is adapting to Windows GUI. It is in our best interests to adopt any features that make our computing experience more enjoyable. If these features happen to be on the Windows platform, does it really matter?"

You're right there. But we don't have to copy the BAD things, surely, so I don't want menus inside windows, for example.

I, too, think that the Dock isn't a very good example for UID, so I guess it would be good of Apple to improve it or replace it at some time.


----------



## MDA (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by cellfish _
> *In response to window resizing. As much as I like the Mac, I do enjoy the way Windows' maximize feature actually maximizes the window to take the full screen, not 3/4 of the screen like Mac. That's my opinion. *



I can't think of a situation when I'd want a window to open full screen. I see Windows users constantly resizing a window after they've opened it because it is full screen and in the way of other windows. If you watch a PC user open a window on a Mac you'll notice that out of habit they resize the window for no reason. With the Mac OS adjusting the window size isn't nearly as necessary or time consuming.

MDA


----------



## Langley (Dec 2, 2002)

Is this the Essay thread? 

Short and sweet.  I network XP and 10.2.2 together and to me it seems seemless.  I get the best of both worlds! Yaaaaaaaaa! Finally


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDA _
> *I can't think of a situation when I'd want a window to open full screen. I see Windows users constantly resizing a window after they've opened it because it is full screen and in the way of other windows. If you watch a PC user open a window on a Mac you'll notice that out of habit they resize the window for no reason. With the Mac OS adjusting the window size isn't nearly as necessary or time consuming.
> 
> MDA *



i only really use Maxmized Windows on Internet Explorer Windows, i am reading a page, so i have it maximized, if i wish to switch another window, i minimize it, or Alt Tab it, or something like that. 

Langley, Yea i network XP Pro and X.2.2 and it is sweet, RDC is Helpful too, although it crashes a lot! 

NeYo


----------



## cellfish (Dec 2, 2002)

I see a few faults in the Mac operating system. But the fact remains that I would love to sell my PC, Office XP and Windows XP with it and get myself a flatscreen iMac. I'll sacrifice my NHL 2003, but at least I'll have something nice to look at (crisp image).

Andre


----------



## theed (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by fryke _
> *I, too, think that the Dock isn't a very good example for UID, so I guess it would be good of Apple to improve it or replace it at some time. *



Please stop using UID ... it looks too much like IUD.  I'll let you figure out what that is.  ;-)

glad to hear XP and X.2 work well together.  My dad should be moving from ME to XP soon, and it should make networking between his PC and my mom's iMac easy enough for them to actually use.


----------



## MDA (Dec 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *i only really use Maxmized Windows on Internet Explorer Windows, i am reading a page, so i have it maximized, if i wish to switch another window, i minimize it, or Alt Tab it, or something like that.
> NeYo *



In Internet Explorer on the Mac you just hold down the option key while clicking on the resize button to open it full screen. That does come in handy. I was talking about Finder windows.

MDA


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDA _
> *In Internet Explorer on the Mac you just hold down the option key while clicking on the resize button to open it full screen. That does come in handy. I was talking about Finder windows.
> 
> MDA *



Oh OK! << takes note >> ...Yea, i can't see the point in maxmized Finder / Explorer Windows neither! 

Neyo


----------



## MDA (Dec 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ~~NeYo~~ _
> *Oh OK! << takes note >> ...Yea, i can't see the point in maxmized Finder / Explorer Windows neither!
> 
> Neyo *



Good, then we finally agree on something.

MDA


----------



## ~~NeYo~~ (Dec 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by MDA _
> *Good, then we finally agree on something.
> 
> MDA *



Yes, i guess so! ... now i have to convince you XP isn't as bad as you think! ... i still don't understand why no-one see's my point about being able to do actiosn without even looking at the screen, we talk of motor memory, this is like a progression, Because you know where it is, and also you can get there that little bit Quicker! ... i have to say i quite like how you can click and hold menu's on X, rather than hit menu's with a click, seems a little weird, but i am learning! 

any little tips then MDA?! ...after all, i am pretty much a "n00b" 

NeYo


----------



## fryke (Dec 4, 2002)

neyo: i DID understand that. that's how i always find the menu bar on top. or apple-w for closing windows etc... it's the same for the Mac really, only other things are in focus...


----------

