An Open letter to Apple and the OS X Client Development Team
Gordon Mulcaster
An Open letter to Apple and the OS X Client Development Team.
Dear leade...@apple.com;
IÄ…ve been an avid Mac user for over ten years, ever since I bought a Mac
512K. A Mac IIci, Quadra 950, and Power Mac 8100/100 later IÄ…m still an
advocate of the Macintosh Way. IÄ…ve also owned Dos/WinTel PCs during most
of that time and always preferred to use my Mac for Å‚workË› even though, at
times, my PC was over four times faster. IÄ…m currently employed as a
desktop technician supporting both WinTels and Macs.
IÄ…ve been reading about and been excited about Mac OS X since the days it
was called Pink*. What I have been reading since the recent WWDC has
tarnished that excitement. I will attempt to describe why in the following
paragraphs but I want to summarise it now.
I am speaking, I believe, on behalf of the majority of Mac users when I
say: Mac users donÄ…t want a version of NeXT that runs Mac programs. Mac
users want a version of the Mac OS that harnesses the strengths of NeXT.
When I start up (and log-into) a Mac OS X Client (hereafter referred to as
OSX) machine I want to see the familiar Mac Desktop; an icon for each
mounted volume in the top right hand corner; a Trash icon in the lower
left; a control strip on one side; and a multitude of files and aliases
sprinkled willy nilly -- exactly where I left them.
I want to be able to do the same things the same way I do now; drag icons
between folders to copy/move files; double click a printer icon to switch
printers; rename a volume (including the startup volume) on a whim; move
or rename the system folder; double click a file and have the application
that created it automatically open; drag files to an alias of an
application and it highlight if the application can open it; move a file
without its alias(es) breaking; use any character, other than a colon, in
a file name.
I want to look inside the system folder and be able to know what each file
in there does (this is hard enough now, donÄ…t make it harder). I want to
be able to control what system extensions load and donÄ…t load at startup.
I want to be able to configure the system without ever looking at or
modifying a text file. I want to rebuild the desktop database by holding
down the command and option keys. I want the menu to be glued to the top
of the screen and not part of any application window.
On a more technical note; I want OSX to natively support HFS+, creator
codes, file types, resource and data forks, and the desktop database; I
donÄ…t want OSX to store anything in the file name except the file name; I
want all the files that make up the Å‚Darwin coreË› to be contained in a
special disk image file in the system folder.
Basically I want OSX to support the things that makes Mac OS better than
the competition.
To illustrate some of these points letÄ…s take a look at the Finder.app
demonstration in the WWDC keynote. LetÄ…s start with the name, what is that
.app extension doing there? It does nothing to enhance the user interface
and is a potential cause of great frustration.
From what was shown Finder.app doesnÄ…t do anything the Finder doesnÄ…t do
in a more elegant way, or could with a couple of minor tweaks.
- Putting an alias to Network Browser on my desktop gives me quick
and easy access to my network without the need to open the chooser.
- The complete path to any window is displayed by command-clicking
the window title and any parent can be opened by choosing it from
the list that appears.
- Holding the option key while opening a folder will also close the
current folder, an option to make this the default mode could be
added, as could an option to open the folder in the same window
(ala Windows 9x/NT)
If the multi-column function is desired, why not just add it as an option
to the list view? I just donÄ…t see the multi-column view to be a
particularly great revolution, and judging from the complete lack of oos
and ahs at the demo, neither does anyone else. The Å‚dockË› at the top of
the window is just puzzling... How did this idea get past the bull-session
it was conceived at? If I want an alias to a volume, folder, file, etc.,
IÄ…ll make an alias to it and put it where ever the heck I want it.
There seems to be a tendency at the new Apple (i.e. post NeXT acquisition)
to ignore the Apple Human Interface Guidelines and the Mac Å‚look and
feelË›. Take QuickTime Player for example, while its Å‚brushed aluminiumË›
look might be nice but it doesnÄ…t add any functionality to justify not
using standard windows. In fact it loses functionality, for example you
canÄ…t collapse the window to the title bar because the entire window is a
title bar. The Å‚trayË› functions would be better handled by a normal menu
just like the Bookmarks menu in Netscape Navigator. In a word itÄ…s
Å‚flashË›, when it should be Å‚eleganceË›.
One of the key factors to why the Mac is the best is the Apple Human
Interface Guidelines. All of the ex-NeXT developers now working at Apple
should be made to study them until they Å‚Get itË›. If they canÄ…t accept the
Å‚Macintosh WayË› they shouldnÄ…t be allowed to work on the interface design.
* I know that Pink was shelved years ago and has no direct connection
to Mac OS X.
cc: comp.sys.mac.system, comp.sys.mac.misc
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Danny Engels
a look at the User interface of this Mac OS X server software, and it
resembles a lot of Next /Unix and Windows and not of the Mac OS. It's for
sure not a improvement over the existing Mac OS. Maybe they did this is as a
marketing thing; if I was a Windows or Unix administrator i would feel almost
right at home and that's maybe the idea behind it. Apple stated that the Mac
OS X (client) won't be like this, but will be a real improvement over
anything else. We have to wait and see with this. It's the first time Apple
is really going away from our beloved Mac Os interface and were are worried.
It's a good thing you pointed this out and I really like to read Apple's
reply to your letter.
sincerely.
stated Mulcaster wrote:
> May 24, 1999
>
> An Open letter to Apple and the OS X Client Development Team.
>
> Dear leade...@apple.com;
>
> I1ve been an avid Mac user for over ten years, ever since I bought a Mac
> 512K. A Mac IIci, Quadra 950, and Power Mac 8100/100 later I1m still an
> advocate of the Macintosh Way. I1ve also owned Dos/WinTel PCs during most
> of that time and always preferred to use my Mac for 3work2 even though, at
> times, my PC was over four times faster. I1m currently employed as a
> desktop technician supporting both WinTels and Macs.
>
> I1ve been reading about and been excited about Mac OS X since the days it
> was called Pink*. What I have been reading since the recent WWDC has
> tarnished that excitement. I will attempt to describe why in the following
> paragraphs but I want to summarise it now.
>
> I am speaking, I believe, on behalf of the majority of Mac users when I
> say: Mac users don1t want a version of NeXT that runs Mac programs. Mac
> users want a version of the Mac OS that harnesses the strengths of NeXT.
>
> When I start up (and log-into) a Mac OS X Client (hereafter referred to as
> OSX) machine I want to see the familiar Mac Desktop; an icon for each
> mounted volume in the top right hand corner; a Trash icon in the lower
> left; a control strip on one side; and a multitude of files and aliases
> sprinkled willy nilly -- exactly where I left them.
>
> I want to be able to do the same things the same way I do now; drag icons
> between folders to copy/move files; double click a printer icon to switch
> printers; rename a volume (including the startup volume) on a whim; move
> or rename the system folder; double click a file and have the application
> that created it automatically open; drag files to an alias of an
> application and it highlight if the application can open it; move a file
> without its alias(es) breaking; use any character, other than a colon, in
> a file name.
>
> I want to look inside the system folder and be able to know what each file
> in there does (this is hard enough now, don1t make it harder). I want to
> be able to control what system extensions load and don1t load at startup.
> I want to be able to configure the system without ever looking at or
> modifying a text file. I want to rebuild the desktop database by holding
> down the command and option keys. I want the menu to be glued to the top
> of the screen and not part of any application window.
>
> On a more technical note; I want OSX to natively support HFS+, creator
> codes, file types, resource and data forks, and the desktop database; I
> don1t want OSX to store anything in the file name except the file name; I
> want all the files that make up the 3Darwin core2 to be contained in a
> special disk image file in the system folder.
>
> Basically I want OSX to support the things that makes Mac OS better than
> the competition.
>
> To illustrate some of these points let1s take a look at the Finder.app
> demonstration in the WWDC keynote. Let1s start with the name, what is that
> .app extension doing there? It does nothing to enhance the user interface
> and is a potential cause of great frustration.
>
> From what was shown Finder.app doesn1t do anything the Finder doesn1t do
> in a more elegant way, or could with a couple of minor tweaks.
>
> - Putting an alias to Network Browser on my desktop gives me quick
> and easy access to my network without the need to open the chooser.
> - The complete path to any window is displayed by command-clicking
> the window title and any parent can be opened by choosing it from
> the list that appears.
> - Holding the option key while opening a folder will also close the
> current folder, an option to make this the default mode could be
> added, as could an option to open the folder in the same window
> (ala Windows 9x/NT)
>
> If the multi-column function is desired, why not just add it as an option
> to the list view? I just don1t see the multi-column view to be a
> particularly great revolution, and judging from the complete lack of oos
> and ahs at the demo, neither does anyone else. The 3dock2 at the top of
> the window is just puzzling... How did this idea get past the bull-session
> it was conceived at? If I want an alias to a volume, folder, file, etc.,
> I1ll make an alias to it and put it where ever the heck I want it.
>
> There seems to be a tendency at the new Apple (i.e. post NeXT acquisition)
> to ignore the Apple Human Interface Guidelines and the Mac 3look and
> feel2. Take QuickTime Player for example, while its 3brushed aluminium2
> look might be nice but it doesn1t add any functionality to justify not
> using standard windows. In fact it loses functionality, for example you
> can1t collapse the window to the title bar because the entire window is a
> title bar. The 3tray2 functions would be better handled by a normal menu
> just like the Bookmarks menu in Netscape Navigator. In a word it1s
> 3flash2, when it should be 3elegance2.
>
> One of the key factors to why the Mac is the best is the Apple Human
> Interface Guidelines. All of the ex-NeXT developers now working at Apple
> should be made to study them until they 3Get it2. If they can1t accept the
> 3Macintosh Way2 they shouldn1t be allowed to work on the interface design.
Steinar Moum
<eng...@cable.a2000.nl> wrote:
> It's a good thing you pointed this out and I really like to read Apple's
> reply to your letter.
Yes, thar would be interresting. However, I think we can be absolutly sure
that no response from Apple will surface.
The most we can hope for, is that somebody high in the Apple pyramid has
the strength to build upon the GUI Apple has refined. Apples GUI is rather
consistent and we shall be thankful for that. From what I have seen of
Quicktime 4.0 and the arriving Sherloc 3.0, I am afraid Apple has entered
a totally unneccesarry road to "modernization".
Simlicity and style should still be the goal. If new options are needed -
and I for one is looking foreward to a robust, stable OS with industry
features. This should be presented in the "oldfascioned" Mas OS way.
Yours
Steinar Moum
--
Steinar Moum, USIT, University of Oslo,
Postboks 1059 Blindern, 0316 Oslo, Norway
E-mail: Steina...@usit.uio.no
Sjekk ut: http://mac.uio.no/
phil...@nospam.c-com.net
: May 24, 1999
: An Open letter to Apple and the OS X Client Development Team.
: Dear leade...@apple.com;
Well put - my hopes are that smart shareware developers will be able to
modify the new MacOS to make it look like the Mac and not like NeXT.
It looks like Steve et al are going to remake the Mac interface to be "not
something a bozo would come up with" or whatever.
--
Charles D Phillips
<mailto:phil...@c-com.net>
Check the Macintosh Logic Board Battery web page at:
<http://www.academ.com/info/macintosh>
"I Don't Do Windows, I Have A Macintosh"
Miguel Cruz
>
Ditto. The great thing about the Mac was always that you could move things
around and put them places and they would behave in a logical, intuitive
way. With Windows and various Unix GUIs, it's more that you're moving things
by puppet strings - they sort of follow what you're doing, but not really,
and it's no secret that there's an underlying structure that's totally
different from the representation you see on the screen.
To do that to the Mac interface would be unacceptable, and a tremendous
shame as well - a huge step back in usable computing, I'd say.
miguel
Jon S.
This is a very well written letter.
Thank you for sending it to Apple. I've written something similar re:
Sherlock and Quicktime, but nothing as encompassing. I'm beginning to
the Steve from the Netherlands was right. Jobs seemed pretty jazzed
about the interface at WWDC.
Can I sign on as a digital, usenet petitioner? :)
In fact, let's flood this group with petition signers to this.
Design changes? I can handle that. But, if you look at all of the
features/additions to the OS since early 7.1, you'll find that they
been incremental, unobtrusive additions which don't change the
original user's basic interface. Window shade, the folder pops at the
bottom of the screen, the magically opening windows when you're moving
items, etc. have all increased usability to those who wanted it and
changed nothing to those who were used to the old method.
I already curse at Windows for have two types of file searching
interfaces (desktop windows and Windows Explorer)... both of which
don't do everything I get in MacOS's simple finder!
Simplicity is the key, and, well, I want to be able to have my
desktop, my documents file, and my utilities file all open and
viewable at the same time. I fail to see how the new finder/browser
can let me be in a "forked" directory view (where the folders aren't
in a linear progression).
Please, please, please Jobs and Co. Don't force a non-hierarchical,
non-textual "tray" interface on the world like Quicktime and Sherlock
are showing, and don't force switch MacOS users to that damn
finder/browser interface. MacOS's interface is nearly perfect, and
that's why people have prefered it despite it's lack of quote/unquote
"modern operating system features" that are fully buzzword compliant
and the horrible Apple Co. management before Jobs came back.
Signed,
Jon S.
Gordon Mulcaster
jonce...@nospammiesno.earthlink.net (Jon S.) wrote:
> Gordon,
>
> This is a very well written letter.
Thank you.
> Thank you for sending it to Apple. I've written something similar re:
> Sherlock and Quicktime, but nothing as encompassing. I'm beginning to
> the Steve from the Netherlands was right. Jobs seemed pretty jazzed
> about the interface at WWDC.
>
> Can I sign on as a digital, usenet petitioner? :)
>
> In fact, let's flood this group with petition signers to this.
Bad idea, this group doesn't need a bunch of "me too" posts when there are
two better solutions; email leade...@apple.com (and be polite, rude
messages will just be ignored); start a read petition, I don't know how to
make a web petition or I'd start one myself.
> MacOS's interface is nearly perfect, and
> that's why people have prefered it despite it's lack of quote/unquote
> "modern operating system features" that are fully buzzword compliant
> and the horrible Apple Co. management before Jobs came back.
Well said.
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Gordon Mulcaster
> WOW, you really pointed it out here, your letter is great.
Thanks.
> I also have taking a look at the User interface of this Mac OS X server
> software, and it resembles a lot of Next /Unix and Windows and not of
> the Mac OS.
I probably should have made it clearer that I was only writing about Mac
OS X Client, I have no problem with Mac OS X Server being more NeXT like.
> It's for sure not a improvement over the existing Mac OS. Maybe they did
> this is as a marketing thing; if I was a Windows or Unix administrator i
> would feel almost right at home and that's maybe the idea behind it.
They are doing this becuase the key people in charge are all ex-NeXT. IMO:
They see this as a chance to be vindicated for the failure of NeXT. There
has been some indications that they will compromise (e.g. promoting Java
over Objective C) but they have to stop letting the programmers design the
interface.
> Apple stated that the Mac
> OS X (client) won't be like this, but will be a real improvement over
> anything else. We have to wait and see with this. It's the first time Apple
> is really going away from our beloved Mac Os interface and were are worried.
And that's the main problem. The Mac _is_ the interface. From the looks of
it, OS X might as wll me called "OS NeXT", the Mac is being terminated at
8.7.
> It's a good thing you pointed this out and I really like to read Apple's
> reply to your letter.
So would I, I'm not holding my breath though... (I will post it if by some
miracle I get on -- unless they request that I don't)
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Gordon Mulcaster
<not-250599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
mei...@primenet.com wrote:
> Oh, please! Will you footdraggers ever evolve? I don't need to point out
> that the world does move on, do I? You're oneof those cranks who
> complained when 8.5 switched to the Platinum appearance, aren't you? You
> probably complained when color was added with system 7.0 as well...
The Platinum appearance showed up in 8.0. I prefer the Windows of System
7, they waste less space, but at least the extra space has a benefit
(dragging the window from any edge).
The abnormal window design of QuickTime Player has no such benefits.
> > Simlicity and style should still be the goal.
The "Goal" should be an adherance to the Apple Human Interface Guidelines.
> > If new options are needed -
> > and I for one is looking foreward to a robust, stable OS with industry
> > features. This should be presented in the "oldfascioned" Mas OS way.
>
> In your opinion, which you will find a signifigant minority.
In your opinion. As stated I believe (i.e. in my opinion) the opinions I
expressed in my letter are shared by the majority of Mac users. The
unscientific survey of replies to the post backs me up.
> As many, many glowing reviews have noted, the new Apple interface designs
> (incorporated into Final Cut Pro, the new DVD player, and QT 4.0) are not
> only attractive, they are intelligent and sleek.
Unfortunately the critical component missing from the above is "functional".
> If you are short-sighted, recalcitrant and pig-headed enough to judge a
> GUI by its superficial appearance, then by all means please go back to
> the command line.
If you are short-sighted, recalcitrant and pig-headed enough to judge a
GUI by its superficial appearance then you're likely to think QuickTime
Player's interface is better than Movie Player's.
I think I'll pick it appart:
- I just opened a movie that is 160x120 pixels. The QTP window is about
320x340, or 5.666 time LARGER than the data. Why the waste of screen
space? Doubling the movie (i.e. making it four times larger) leaves a much
smaller border on the top and sides but it's still larger than normal
windows.
- If I use the grow handle to shrink the window the movie shrinks, but the
window stays the same size. If I grow the window the size doesn't match
the mouse movement but lags it on screen by approximately 5 inches (FIVE
INCHES!!!. The Window has a fixed height/width ratio.
- The window doesn't have a title bar (technically the entire window is a
title bar but it amounts to the same thing) so I can't collaspe the
window. I'm totally unable to determine what the benefit might be that
justifies this loss of functionality.
- It doesn't follow the Appearance manager, so it's windows don't change
as I change my Appearance settings.
- The slid out controls and copyright information panels are painfully
slow. Why doesn't Command-I start off with the appropriate info? It does
the same job, only faster. The new controls could have been added to the
bottom of MP's window and used less space than the "basic" controls use in
QTP.
- The Favourites Drawer is just a mystery to me. I expect crap like this
in Windows programs, not Macs. A better solution (i.e. one that doesn't
suck) would be to extend the Finder's alias fuction to include URLs, then
I could just make an alias of any net-based movie I wanted and organise
them using the Finder (leaving some on the desktop, some in (nested)
folders, others in the apple menu, etc.) I could already use save as... to
make a dependant movie, just extend that function to include net based
components.
Ther favourites Drawer doesn't even work consistantly, for example I can't
drap an open movie to it...
In conclusion, QuickTime Player is the worst Mac program I've seen since
Apple CD Audio Player.
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Ludwig
> In your opinion, which you will find a signifigant minority. As many, many
> glowing reviews have noted, the new Apple interface designs (incorporated
> into Final Cut Pro, the new DVD player, and QT 4.0) are not only
> attractive, they are intelligent and sleek.
Please elucidate on what exactly you feel is intelligent or sleek about
screen real estate wasted by blank expanses of aluminum texture, or
displaying a playlist as generic icons. What's the rationale for rounding
the corners? I haven't used Final Cut Pro or the DVD player, but
Quicktime 4's player interface is a disaster.
F Uy
> > As many, many glowing reviews have noted, the new Apple interface designs
> > (incorporated into Final Cut Pro, the new DVD player, and QT 4.0) are not
> > only attractive, they are intelligent and sleek.
Sleek? What is sleek about a gigantic window that goes off the
bottom edge of my screen so I can't use some of the features
when playing a large movie? What is intelligent about a product
that is more difficult to use than its predecessor was?
s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
> - I just opened a movie that is 160x120 pixels. The QTP window is about
> 320x340, or 5.666 time LARGER than the data. Why the waste of screen
> - The window doesn't have a title bar so I can't collaspe [it]
> - It doesn't follow the Appearance manager, so it's windows don't change
I agree with Gordon. QTP is simply BAD design in the name of
cross-platform compatibility. I want the damn thing to use
standard window protocols and follow Apple's own HIG.
-F
.
Dennis SCP
[Apple, stick with the UI guidelines]
I agree, accept for the following point:
> When I start up (and log-into) a Mac OS X Client (hereafter referred to as
> OSX) machine I want to see the familiar Mac Desktop; an icon for each
> mounted volume in the top right hand corner; a Trash icon in the lower
> left; a control strip on one side; and a multitude of files and aliases
> sprinkled willy nilly -- exactly where I left them.
When a new user starts up a Mac he sees volumes on the desktop, thats
logical. He also sees aliases, can be logical (so they want me to start
with this?). Soon you'll be using the desktop as a pasteboard, but
believe me it DOESN'T make sense because it is a multitude of desktops
all merged into one. Once the new user learns that the folders represent
a hierarcy, things get confusing as Mac OS insists on saying that not a
volume but the desktop is the root of a computer, but when trying to
move files between volumes one must learn that each volume has it's own
desktop, and that you must view each desktop as a special folder on each
of your disks.
This can be solved when the Finder is able to move between volumes (then
you don't have to know about the whole isue)
Or by only allowing aliases on the desktop.
--
Dennis SCP
+--HI, I'm a signature virus :-) Copy me into your sign to join in. ---+
Steven
>
> Gordon Mulcaster <s...@my.sig.com> wrote:
>
> [Apple, stick with the UI guidelines]
>
> I agree, accept for the following point:
>
> > OSX) machine I want to see the familiar Mac Desktop; an icon for each
> > mounted volume in the top right hand corner; a Trash icon in the lower
> > left; a control strip on one side; and a multitude of files and aliases
> > sprinkled willy nilly -- exactly where I left them.
>
> logical. He also sees aliases, can be logical (so they want me to start
> with this?). Soon you'll be using the desktop as a pasteboard, but
> believe me it DOESN'T make sense because it is a multitude of desktops
> all merged into one. Once the new user learns that the folders represent
> a hierarcy, things get confusing as Mac OS insists on saying that not a
> volume but the desktop is the root of a computer, but when trying to
> move files between volumes one must learn that each volume has it's own
> desktop, and that you must view each desktop as a special folder on each
> of your disks.
>
> This can be solved when the Finder is able to move between volumes (then
> you don't have to know about the whole isue)
>
> Or by only allowing aliases on the desktop.
So we don't have to think but instead have to switch between several desktops?
No thank you.
Gordon Mulcaster
<not-260599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
mei...@primenet.com wrote:
> In article <see-250599...@08-00-07-3e-42-3e.bconnected.net>,
> s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
>
> > The "Goal" should be an adherance to the Apple Human Interface Guidelines.
>
> You seem to have a real tough time with the concept of opinion.
You seem to have a real tough time realising that EVERYTHING on usenet is
opinion. Including your sentence above, I noticed you didn't preface it
with "In my opinion".
> You seem to consistently make the mistake of stating your opinion as fact.
The fact is it is my opinion.
> In some circles of psychiatry, that would be noted as a symptom of
> monomania.
Ooo, big words, did you have to look those up?
> Oh, and of course the Apple Human Interface Guidelines are a totally
> immutable and unchanging artifact, unable to be amended or altered in any
> way... right?
Where do you get this crap from? The AHIG were last updated to cover
advanments in OS 8.5. If OS 8.6 actually changed anything I'm sure they
would have been updated again.
> > > As many, many glowing reviews have noted, the new Apple interface designs
> > > (incorporated into Final Cut Pro, the new DVD player, and QT 4.0) are not
> > > only attractive, they are intelligent and sleek.
> >
> > Unfortunately the critical component missing from the above is "functional".
>
> Hey, if you can't figure out how it works, the loss is yours.
Perhaps you should look up the definition of functional, then find out
what "learning curve" and "intuitive" mean.
The interface for QTP is flashy, but it adds no fuctionality, in fact it
removes functionality.
> > - I just opened a movie that is 160x120 pixels. The QTP window is about
> > 320x340, or 5.666 time LARGER than the data. Why the waste of screen
> > space?
>
> I think it is safe to say that we're beyond the era of 640x480 display
> resolution. I'd actally like a larger cursor for my 1600x1200 display.
Goody for you, you may have a nice large display, but what about my Mom's
iMac? Her eyesight isn't what it used to be and so she uses 640x480
becuase she can't read it any smaller. There is no reason for wasting that
screen realestate, therefore it shouldn't be wasted.
> > Doubling the movie (i.e. making it four times larger) leaves a much
> > smaller border on the top and sides but it's still larger than normal
> > windows.
>
> That is because it is not a "normal" window in any sense.
Bingo! It should be a normal window, there is no reason why it can't be.
Movie Player got along jus find using normal windows.
> It is a player, an *application*--and as such the appearance is designed
> to tell the user at a glance that they are using the player application,
> not looking at a movie on a web page or embedded in a word processing
> document.
That reasoning is directly contrary to the AHIG which stress consistancy
of interface across ALL applications.
> This is a very common use of the GUI, if you've ever ventured outside of
> the Finder.
Not on the Mac it's not. With a few exceptions every program I have use
standard windows.
> My windows in Golive certainly look a lot different from the windows in
> PhotoShop or Deck II.
This is not a good thing. Consitancy _IS_ a good thing.
> > - If I use the grow handle to shrink the window the movie shrinks, but the
> > window stays the same size. If I grow the window the size doesn't match
> > the mouse movement but lags it on screen by approximately 5 inches (FIVE
> > INCHES!!!. The Window has a fixed height/width ratio.
>
> It seems you are wrong on two points. First of all, the lag is due to your
> slow CPU, not any problem with the window GUI.
What crap. My "slow" CPU is responsible for the mouse cursor being FIVE
INCHES away from the window grow outline? It sure seems to grow and shrink
in real time when I move the mouse, just five inches away from the cursor.
> There is absolutely no such lag on my G3.
There is the exact same lag on the G3-400 I tested it on at work.
> Second, the window heighth/width ratio is not fixed, but
> changes with the aspect ratio of the movie;
It's fixed for any particular movie.
> there is no ability to distort
> the movie out of aspect ratio because doing so doesn't make any sense and
> causes serious playback problems. That is a definite step forward in
> user-friendly issues; I've watched my mother (a less-experienced user) try
> for minutes to get a movie back to the correct aspect ratio after
> stretching it accidentally in the old MoviePlayer.
I hope yo showed her how to hit command-1.
> Or are you opposed to guardrails on highway turns as well?
Huh?
> > - The window doesn't have a title bar (technically the entire window is a
> > title bar but it amounts to the same thing) so I can't collaspe the
> > window. I'm totally unable to determine what the benefit might be that
> > justifies this loss of functionality.
>
> Again, you keep mistaking the behavior of an application for the Finder.
The Finder has nothing to do with this issue. QTP doesn't use a standard
window, it should.
> Applications have always been able to break this rule at will.
Good Mac program don't.
> Why would you want to collapse a movie window anyway?
What gives you the athority to tell me what windows I can and can't
collapse. Perhaps I want to saee what's beneth it? I collapse windows all
the time, I even have a button on my mouse specifically set to colapse
windows.
> > - It doesn't follow the Appearance manager, so it's windows don't change
> > as I change my Appearance settings.
>
> Well, duh. Again you it seems you mistake an application for the Apple
> Finder GUI. Netscape doesn't follow the Appearance manager either.
Netscape is a Windows program ported ot the Mac. Apple shouldn't be
following Netscape's example, and I just switched to the Drawing Board
theme and Netscape mostly appears correctly. Both programs SHOULD follow
the appearance manager, that's the point.
> > - The slid out controls and copyright information panels are painfully
> > slow.
>
> Reflection on your CPU speed, not the GUI.
It's slow on the G3-400 at the office. Not as slow as at home but it still lags.
> >Why doesn't Command-I start off with the appropriate info?
>
> And what, in your opinion (I mean fact) is the appropriate info?
The copyright info displayed by pressing the "i" button.
> > The new controls could have been added to the
> > bottom of MP's window and used less space than the "basic" controls use in
> > QTP.
>
> This statement doesn't make much sense.
What part don't you understand? The new controls (i.e. stereo left/right,
treble, and bass) could have been added to the MP window and all of the
controls would have taken up less space than the basic controls (i.e.
without the pop down tray) take up on QTP.
> > - The Favourites Drawer is just a mystery to me. I expect crap like this
> > in Windows programs, not Macs.
>
> Do you *always* run and hide when a new paradigm or interface metaphor
> creeps up on you?
If I did do you think I'd have Gnome installed on my Linux box? Why do you
not accept that I feel the new paradigm or interface metaphor being
advanced by Apple is NOT an improvement?
> Already works. Take a streaming movie from the net and choose Save As; the
> resulting icon is essentially an alias to the internet version. Apple did
> this on purpose to protect the copyrights of streaming content producers.
Cool, I've never tried that... I bet I could just drag it to the desktop
and accomplish the same thing. So why add this aberation of a dock?
> > Ther favourites Drawer doesn't even work consistantly, for example I can't
> > drap an open movie to it...
>
> That is what the Command-D shortcut is for;
See that word consistancy up there? I can drag files from my desktop to
the dock, but I can't drag an open movie--that's inconsistant, that's bad.
> Apple borrowed this from web browsers and their way of creating
> bookmarks/favorites, it seems.
Ummm, duh?
> Dragging an open movie to the favorites drawer doesn't make sense,
> because every movie window has a favorites drawer--get it?
No I don't get it. I can drag a movie from my desktop to it, why can't I
drag a movie open in my web browser to it? In fact, how do I put a movie
open in a browser in it?
> > In conclusion, QuickTime Player is the worst Mac program I've seen since
> > Apple CD Audio Player.
>
> In conclusion, you'll only be happy when every application looks, acts,
> and behaves like the Finder, regardless of function, purpose or origin.
Got it in one. Unless there is a valid reason, i.e. functionality*, for
deviating from the "Mac" interface programs should NOT deviate.
* For example, the functionality of the controls in MP justify adding them
to the standard window.
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Steven
>
> You seem
> to consistently make the mistake of stating your opinion as fact. In some
> circles of psychiatry, that would be noted as a symptom of monomania.
You don't know what you're talking about.
> Oh, and of course the Apple Human Interface Guidelines are a totally
> immutable and unchanging artifact, unable to be amended or altered in any
> way... right?
Anything can be screwed up, even psychiatric definitions as you just proved.
> > In your opinion. As stated I believe (i.e. in my opinion) the opinions I
> > expressed in my letter are shared by the majority of Mac users. The
> > unscientific survey of replies to the post backs me up.
>
> That, or only those with a bone to pick chimed in, and the sane ones just
> ignored you.
People who don't agree with you are insane? What's that make _you_?
> It is a common caveat of Usenet that only cranks post to
> flame-enhanced threads such as this one. Note that I include myself in
> that group.
Reason will always take you there.
> > > As many, many glowing reviews have noted, the new Apple interface designs
> > > (incorporated into Final Cut Pro, the new DVD player, and QT 4.0) are not
> > > only attractive, they are intelligent and sleek.
> >
> > Unfortunately the critical component missing from the above is "functional".
>
> Hey, if you can't figure out how it works, the loss is yours.
It seems to me that you have a pavlov-like attack reaction towards anyone who
has a bone to pick with the new direction of Apple. What's your psyciatrist
say about that?
> > > If you are short-sighted, recalcitrant and pig-headed enough to judge a
> > > GUI by its superficial appearance, then by all means please go back to
> > > the command line.
> >
> > If you are short-sighted, recalcitrant and pig-headed enough to judge a
> > GUI by its superficial appearance then you're likely to think QuickTime
> > Player's interface is better than Movie Player's.
> >
> > I think I'll pick it appart:
> >
> > - I just opened a movie that is 160x120 pixels. The QTP window is about
> > 320x340, or 5.666 time LARGER than the data. Why the waste of screen
> > space?
>
> I think it is safe to say that we're beyond the era of 640x480 display
> resolution. I'd actally like a larger cursor for my 1600x1200 display.
Still the movie player and Sherlock II designs suck. If the new member of the
board at Apple is any indication we can expect more stuff like that. Apple
will focus on being a consumer appliance company instead of a maker of
computer tools.
> >Doubling the movie (i.e. making it four times larger) leaves a much
> > smaller border on the top and sides but it's still larger than normal
> > windows.
>
> That is because it is not a "normal" window in any sense. It is a player,
> an *application*--and as such the appearance is designed to tell the user
> at a glance that they are using the player application, not looking at a
> movie on a web page or embedded in a word processing document. This is a
> very common use of the GUI, if you've ever ventured outside of the Finder.
> My windows in Golive certainly look a lot different from the windows in
> PhotoShop or Deck II.
Bull. You're just making this up aren't you?
> > - If I use the grow handle to shrink the window the movie shrinks, but the
> > window stays the same size. If I grow the window the size doesn't match
> > the mouse movement but lags it on screen by approximately 5 inches (FIVE
> > INCHES!!!. The Window has a fixed height/width ratio.
>
> It seems you are wrong on two points. First of all, the lag is due to your
> slow CPU, not any problem with the window GUI. There is absolutely no such
> lag on my G3. Second, the window heighth/width ratio is not fixed, but
> changes with the aspect ratio of the movie; there is no ability to distort
> the movie out of aspect ratio because doing so doesn't make any sense and
> causes serious playback problems. That is a definite step forward in
> user-friendly issues; I've watched my mother (a less-experienced user) try
> for minutes to get a movie back to the correct aspect ratio after
> stretching it accidentally in the old MoviePlayer. Or are you opposed to
> guardrails on highway turns as well?
>
> >
> > - The window doesn't have a title bar (technically the entire window is a
> > title bar but it amounts to the same thing) so I can't collaspe the
> > window. I'm totally unable to determine what the benefit might be that
> > justifies this loss of functionality.
>
> Again, you keep mistaking the behavior of an application for the Finder.
> Applications have always been able to break this rule at will. Why would
> you want to collapse a movie window anyway?
Name another application that doesn't let you collapse it's windows. 99% of
all Mac applications let you do that. An application that doesn't allow this
is usually a port from some other platform and is generally not considered a
Mac-like application.
> > - It doesn't follow the Appearance manager, so it's windows don't change
> > as I change my Appearance settings.
>
> Well, duh. Again you it seems you mistake an application for the Apple
> Finder GUI. Netscape doesn't follow the Appearance manager either.
Well, again, this is BS.
> > - The slid out controls and copyright information panels are painfully
> > slow.
>
> Reflection on your CPU speed, not the GUI.
Ah, we all need to buy G3 400 Macs to cope with this crappy drawer...
> >Why doesn't Command-I start off with the appropriate info?
>
> And what, in your opinion (I mean fact) is the appropriate info?
Nine out of ten times you want to set memory allocations when you hit
command-I. Yet memory information isn't what shows up first...
> >It does
> > the same job, only faster. The new controls could have been added to the
> > bottom of MP's window and used less space than the "basic" controls use in
> > QTP.
>
> This statement doesn't make much sense.
It does in my view.
> > - The Favourites Drawer is just a mystery to me. I expect crap like this
> > in Windows programs, not Macs.
>
> Hmm, 'crap'--an objective and scientific judgement if I've ever seen one.
Mmm, it's the only thing that comes to mind looking at this work of art...
> Do you *always* run and hide when a new paradigm or interface metaphor
> creeps up on you?
How is this a new paradigm or interface metaphor?
> >A better solution (i.e. one that doesn't
> > suck)
>
> Hmm, 'suck'--an objective and scientific judgement if I've ever seen one.
It's crap and it sucks. Who said that was scientific? Is Apple trying to
appeal to our scientific intellect with this stuff? Your opinions aren't
scientific either.
<SNIP>
> > In conclusion, QuickTime Player is the worst Mac program I've seen since
> > Apple CD Audio Player.
>
> In conclusion, you'll only be happy when every application looks, acts,
> and behaves like the Finder, regardless of function, purpose or origin. It
> must be exciting to live in a black-and-white world.
It's called consistence. It is describe in detail in Apple's Human Interface Guidelines.
Steven
>
<SNIP>
>
> > It is a player, an *application*--and as such the appearance is designed
> > to tell the user at a glance that they are using the player application,
> > not looking at a movie on a web page or embedded in a word processing
> > document.
>
> That reasoning is directly contrary to the AHIG which stress consistancy
> of interface across ALL applications.
>
> > This is a very common use of the GUI, if you've ever ventured outside of
> > the Finder.
>
> Not on the Mac it's not. With a few exceptions every program I have use
> standard windows.
>
> > My windows in Golive certainly look a lot different from the windows in
> > PhotoShop or Deck II.
GoLive and Netscape uses standard windows. What's inside those windows may be
somewhat non-standard. (Toolbars and tabs etc.) This is exactly the way Apple
should've handled the QTP design.
> This is not a good thing. Consitancy _IS_ a good thing.
Right.
<SNIP>
> > Well, duh. Again you it seems you mistake an application for the Apple
> > Finder GUI. Netscape doesn't follow the Appearance manager either.
>
> Netscape is a Windows program ported ot the Mac. Apple shouldn't be
> following Netscape's example, and I just switched to the Drawing Board
> theme and Netscape mostly appears correctly. Both programs SHOULD follow
> the appearance manager, that's the point.
It does follow the guidelines to a larger extend than QTP.
Alan Olson
>In article <yahoo_com-260...@iaaymac1.cty.jhu.edu>,
>yaho...@francis.uy (F Uy) wrote:
>
>> Sleek? What is sleek about a gigantic window that goes off the
>> bottom edge of my screen so I can't use some of the features
>> when playing a large movie?
>
>Do you come from a mystical land where they've never heard of keyboard
>shortcuts? Every vital function of the new QT player has a keyboard
>equivalent. Or did you just get so pissed off you didn't read the docs?
>
Keyboard equivalents should be clear from the interface. You shouldn't
have to hunt through documentation to find them. This is especially true
in the case of basic player controls. Besides, ask for help and you web
browser launches and takes you to some web site. Perhaps this is because
it is a beta version, but software should ship with a manual (either
printed or electronic) or full documentation in the program itself. You
shouldn't need an Internet connection to get documentation
For a good review of the QT4.0 player interface check
http://www.iarchitect.com/qtime.htm
For more fun, look around this site's "Hall of Shame" at
http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm
The QT4.0 review is dead on, although it concentrates on the Windows
version. Before you discount the review as Mac or Apple bashing, note
that the review starts by praising Apple as one of the most dogmatic
adherents the one of the fundamental principles of human interface design:
consistency. This is one of the failures of the QT4.0 interface - it
looks and operates like nothing else. Also, in their determination to
model "real world" objects (why is a mystery, I have never seen a movie
screen with trays or drawers behind it, and I never will) they have
needlessly restricted the capabilities of the program.
>>What is intelligent about a product
>> that is more difficult to use than its predecessor was?
>
>Do you know what forms of life do when they are confronted with a change
>in their habitat? They die...
>
>...or they evolve.
>
This is not the African savanna, and we are not in competition with our
computers. Why should we be forced to change in response to the whims of
some interface designer? This is not interior decorating, you don't re-do
your interface every so often to keep it stylish. When you make a change
it should be because it improves things, not because it fits current
fashion trends or it looks "Cool!".
>> I agree with Gordon. QTP is simply BAD design in the name of
>> cross-platform compatibility.
>
>What does the new interface have to do with cross-platform compatibility
>in any way? There's nothing quite like it on the PC side either. In fact,
>it brings a lot of Mac OS metaphors to Windows with it.
>
You are right about that. Some of the criticisms in the above review are
for using Mac metaphors in Windows; though the authors give no indication
that they realize this. The section on "Multiple Document Interface" will
be particularly amusing (or puzzling) to Mac users - the program uses the
Mac standards for multiple document applications.
>> I want the damn thing to use
>> standard window protocols and follow Apple's own HIG.
>
>See the part where you said 'Apple's own HIG?' Apple owns them; apple can
>change those guidelines any damn time they want to in any way that they
>feel like. You and gordons are the ones that look like fools for treating
>the HIG as if it is some sort of sacred covenant between Apple and its
>users.
>
It is, in a way. As I said above, one of the hallmarks of good interface
design is consistency. Consistency is what the human interface guidelines
are about. If everyone follows the guidelines then all programs look and
act alike. That is a _good_ thing, for the users at least. And its the
users who are the most important ones here, right?
Alan Olson
al...@eecs.umich.edu
Jon S.
Eilers) wrote:
>> In conclusion, QuickTime Player is the worst Mac program I've seen since
>> Apple CD Audio Player.
>
>In conclusion, you'll only be happy when every application looks, acts,
>and behaves like the Finder, regardless of function, purpose or origin. It
>must be exciting to live in a black-and-white world.
Actually, even though you're trying to be inflammatory and sarcastic,
the point is that, if you are going to sell a simplified, easy to use,
integrated interface (call it Apple's guidelines if you want), then,
it should be simplified, easy to use, and integrated.
Likewise, if you're going to label something "Mac OS", a point can be
made that, like the MacOS has for 15 years solid, it should adhere to
the basics of the MacOS interface.
Quicktime's interface (not just the aluminum brushing, but the whole
interface totality) is bad. I've used it since it was released, and I
still don't "get" everything about it. I've tried making a few things
favorites (like movies and mp3 clips) and they all have the same dumb
icon. There isn't even a way to create custom icons and put them in
an icon palette. When I have my tray open, I can't figure out
intuitively how to make it turn into the copyright screen or the
stereo controls and then back to the tray. It takes a pause... And,
a pause is bad.
Now, we see leaked builds of Sherlock with the EXACT SAME INTERFACE.
At the same time Steve and Co. talks up the Finder/Browser.
So, now we've got 3 interfaces milling around... classic MacOS, NeXT,
and this new fangled QT/Sherlock tray interface.
What the hell!!!!
Okay, I can understand making a change. I could even see the
justification, but to thrust 3 systems together and muddle everything
up? Well, I've already got that with my windows machine at work.
When something's simple and it works, you don't screw with it. If you
do change something, it should be a non-obtrusive addition.
The evolution of MacOS has followed that paradigm just fine since it
was introduced. Through all of Apple's management changes and
screw-ups, the MacOS has evolved very nicely, IMHO.
Now, all signs _don't_ point to that sort of logical progression. I
was a skeptic at first, but WWDC didn't show me what I wanted to see.
And, I fear Steven, from the monster thread a while back, was right
after all.
Jon
Ludwig
the new player. All you've done is dismiss the opinions of others as
being mere opinions, dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as a
hopelessly subjective crank, claim a vast silent majority in support of
your side, and generally engage in personal attacks instead of making any
actual points. If you like the new player so much, why don't you explain
why? Read that critique at http://www.iarchitect.com/qtime.htm that
someone else referred to and refute the points made therein -- without
copping out by focusing on the Windows-specific areas. Until then, please
stop lowering the signal-to-noise ratio around here.
Alexandre A. S.
<not-260599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
mei...@primenet.com wrote:
>In article <yahoo_com-260...@iaaymac1.cty.jhu.edu>,
>yaho...@francis.uy (F Uy) wrote:
>
>> Sleek? What is sleek about a gigantic window that goes off the
>> bottom edge of my screen so I can't use some of the features
>> when playing a large movie?
>
>Do you come from a mystical land where they've never heard of keyboard
>shortcuts? Every vital function of the new QT player has a keyboard
>equivalent. Or did you just get so pissed off you didn't read the docs?
>
That doesn't mean the UI shouldn't provide good widgets.
>>What is intelligent about a product
>> that is more difficult to use than its predecessor was?
>
>Do you know what forms of life do when they are confronted with a change
>in their habitat? They die...
>
>...or they evolve.
>
Sure, provided the changes come for the better. And the new QT
interface is not better than the previous one.
>> I agree with Gordon. QTP is simply BAD design in the name of
>> cross-platform compatibility.
>
>What does the new interface have to do with cross-platform compatibility
>in any way? There's nothing quite like it on the PC side either. In fact,
>it brings a lot of Mac OS metaphors to Windows with it.
>
It looks the same on both Mac and Windows. That's cross platform
compatibility for you.
>> I want the damn thing to use
>> standard window protocols and follow Apple's own HIG.
>
>See the part where you said 'Apple's own HIG?' Apple owns them; apple can
>change those guidelines any damn time they want to in any way that they
>feel like. You and gordons are the ones that look like fools for treating
>the HIG as if it is some sort of sacred covenant between Apple and its
>users.
>
Sure, but it doesn't mean we should all like their changes. I don't.
And I hope they stop this bullsh*t, since they have screwed Sherlock
already.
The Apple HIG is supposed to evolve, of course, but for the better,
not for the worse. The new interface is only better LOOKING, but far
less practical, not to mention that it breaks every rule in the book.
--
cheers!
alexandre a. siufy mailto:asi...@uol.com.br
visit the progrock mp3 listening booth http://sites.uol.com.br/asiufy
Protect privacy, boycott Intel: http://www.bigbrotherinside.org
Darryl Rosin
<not-270599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
n...@a.real.email.add (Michael M. Eilers) wrote:
> In article <alan-27059...@honda.umtri.umich.edu>,
> al...@eecs.umich.edu (Alan Olson) wrote:
> >
> > This is not interior decorating, you don't re-do
> > your interface every so often to keep it stylish. When you make a change
> > it should be because it improves things, not because it fits current
> > fashion trends or it looks "Cool!".
>
> Heh. You somehow managed to ignore the entire existence of the iMac, Blue
> G3 and new PowerBooks? "Coolness" is the primary factor behind their
> design--and a huge factor in their sales, from looking at how the
> reviewers (in both Mac and PC magazines) make a fuss over them. And
> looking at how the PC manufacturers are scrambling ass-over-teakettle to
> emulate them.
Do you _really_ think changing the colour and shape of the box is
comparable to changing the UI of the software? If not, why did you bring
it up?
> Jobs has realized what you and Gordon and the foot-draggers have yet to:
> in 1999, coolness does matter. As the computer audience expands away from
> geeks like you or me and to kids, trailer park dwellers and those who have
> a big retirement check burning up their pocket, coolness is most
> definitely going to matter. And if you don't like it, you are going to
> have to lump it. Computing is out of the hands of the geeks for good.
As the "non-geek" numbers rise, so will the need for easy-to-use software.
And what's the single biggest factor governing ease of use? Its the
consistancy of the interface. You _don't_ make the user learn a new
interface for each application. You _don't_ want to make the user feel
stupid by forcing them to search for basic functions.You want the user to
feel comfortable and relaxed, so you _don't_ suddenly pop up a new and
unusual element that makes them think "Oh my gosh, what's that? I've never
seen one of _them_ before".
> > >See the part where you said 'Apple's own HIG?' Apple owns them; apple can
> > >change those guidelines any damn time they want to in any way that they
> > >feel like. You and gordons are the ones that look like fools for treating
> > >the HIG as if it is some sort of sacred covenant between Apple and its
> > >users.
Apple can't force anyone else to follow the HIG, but they sure as hell
should follow it themselves. At the WWDC user experience feedback forum
they said there's a major revision of the HIG in the works, so _hopefully_
we're just in an uncomfortable interim period before the new standards are
rolled out. Hopefully.
> > It is, in a way. As I said above, one of the hallmarks of good interface
> > design is consistency. Consistency is what the human interface guidelines
> > are about. If everyone follows the guidelines then all programs look and
> > act alike. That is a _good_ thing, for the users at least. And its the
> > users who are the most important ones here, right?
>
> Nope. It is the _buyers_ who are the most important. Always has been.
> Welcome to the real world.
So, as you see it, most buyers are not users. This is a curious position
to take in the consumer product space. You further seem to be implying
that they are buying with no regard for the person who will be actually
using the machine that has been bought for them. I'm not sure these are
good assumptions.
Daz
Scott
<lud.wig-2605...@209-122-225-128.s128.tnt1.nyw.ny.dialup.rcn.co
m>, Ludwig <lud...@REMOVEerols.com> wrote:
>What's the rationale for rounding the corners?
>
Pssst, take a look at the corners of the screen before you go on about
rounded corners. :->
--
--
Scott Maxwell - scottm25 (at) bigfoot (dot) com
My shrink? I just go to him for refills!
Scott
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>Michael M. Eilers wrote:
>> Well, duh. Again you it seems you mistake an application for the Apple
>> Finder GUI. Netscape doesn't follow the Appearance manager either.
>
>Well, again, this is BS.
>
Actually, no it isn't. Nestcape DOESN'T support Appearance Manager. The
version of the Mercutio MDEF they're using doesn't know about it.
That's why you get white menus and such. Check http://www.macfixit.com
where they talk about it.
>Nine out of ten times you want to set memory allocations when you hit
>command-I. Yet memory information isn't what shows up first...
>
That's in the Finder. QuickTime Player was the application under
discussion.
Scott
the new player. QuickTime Player is just one program. It's sole purpose
is to view QT movies. It uses a vcr metaphor which is rather nice.
Yeah, I think the player is a bit oversized for some smaller movies but
it's not a really bad interface. Perhaps a "regular" title bar will be
placed on top of the player (which would be nice) but I can get along
without it.
Steven
>
> In article <374C7736...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >Michael M. Eilers wrote:
> >> Finder GUI. Netscape doesn't follow the Appearance manager either.
> >
> >Well, again, this is BS.
> >
> version of the Mercutio MDEF they're using doesn't know about it.
> That's why you get white menus and such. Check http://www.macfixit.com
> where they talk about it.
Michal was saying Netscape and GoLive use non-standard windows. That's not
true. Yes it's true that quite a few applications have this Mercutio problem.
That's no reason for Apple to dismiss it's own guidelines.
> >Nine out of ten times you want to set memory allocations when you hit
> >command-I. Yet memory information isn't what shows up first...
> >
> That's in the Finder. QuickTime Player was the application under
> discussion.
Have you even read Gordon's open letter that started this thread? It's scope
is much broader than the Quicktime Player. One of the points Gordon made in a
followup is about the command-I shortcut.
Alan Olson
<not-270599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
mei...@primenet.com wrote:
>In article <alan-27059...@honda.umtri.umich.edu>,
>al...@eecs.umich.edu (Alan Olson) wrote:
>
>> Keyboard equivalents should be clear from the interface.
>
>Did you read that sentance after you wrote it? It makes no sense! How does
>anything about the Mac interface--besides the actual keyboard shortcuts
>listed in the menus--make the keyboard equivalents 'clear'? How does a Mac
>OS window make clear to me that command-W closes the window--because
>'window' starts with W? The command is "close!" How about "put away"--that
>is command-Y!
>
Command key equivalents of menu commands are listed in the menu. They are
there every time you select the command from the menu. If you forget
them, you only need go to the menu to be reminded. If keyboard shortcuts
are found only in the documentation, you have to memorize them from the
documentation, and go back to the documentation if you forget. Most
people won't bother.
>> You shouldn't
>> have to hunt through documentation to find them.
>
>This is just silliness. Are you really attempting to make an argument
>based on such statements? How else could anyone find out the keyboard
>equivalents *whithout* reading a manual or the menus or using online
>help--GUI intuition? Mac OS Mind Meld?
>
Which of the three is the fastest way to find a keyboard shortcut: look in
the menu, open the online help and look up the command you want, pull the
manual off the shelf and look up the command you want? "Hidden" keyboard
shortcuts will never be used by most users because they don't know they
exist or they can't remember them and aren't willing to take the time to
look them up. Is a useful feature useful if most users can't use it?
>With the old movieplayer, you used the space bar to start and stop a
>movie. How is this any more or less intuitive than the new key equivalents
>for the qt4 player?
>
I wasn't aware that space would start and stop MoviePlayer. That
information isn't available from the interface. This problem is not
confined to the QT4.0 player, many programs have lots of hidden keyboard
shortcuts. But the sins of one program don't justify the sins of another.
>> The QT4.0 review is dead on, although it concentrates on the Windows
>> version. Before you discount the review as Mac or Apple bashing, note
>> that the review starts by praising Apple as one of the most dogmatic
>> adherents the one of the fundamental principles of human interface design:
>> consistency. This is one of the failures of the QT4.0 interface - it
>> looks and operates like nothing else.
>
>Where do you get this? All of the original keyboard shortcuts from the old
>MoviePlayer work perfectly; if you have used the old one, the new one is
>just an enhanced version. It looks--and operates--like a real-world VCR,
>exactly the metaphor Apple was going for. The scroll wheel for volume is
>certainly much more intuitive than the strange "vertical slider" volume
>control on the old player; the large play button makes a lot of sense,
>since that is the primary purpose of the player.
>
It never occurred to me that Apple was trying to model some kind of TV/VCR
combo. From the appearance I thought it was some kind of handheld
device. It certainly looks flat, and a thumbwheel is something you'd find
on a handheld device. The thumbwheel is a terrible choice for a control
since its not easily manipulated with a mouse. As the review points out,
novice users tend to employ a tedious click-drag, click-drag, click-drag
method. Of course, you can just continue to drag in the desired
direction, but that's not how a real thumbwheel operates, so there's no
indication that it will work. A horizontal or vertical slider would be a
much better choice here.
>Why can't you just admit you are attacking the QT4 interface because it is
>different than what you are used to? You sound like a fan of the old
>Volkswagon Beetle disdainfully kicking the tires of the 1999 design
>because it has a flower vase on the dashboard.
>
I do admit I'm attacking the QT4.0 player interface because its
different. When it comes to human interface, being different is bad. The
only excuse for being different is because the new way improves on the
old. There is nothing about the non-standard elements of the QT4.0 player
which couldn't be done _better_ with standard interface elements.
>>Also, in their determination to
>> model "real world" objects (why is a mystery, I have never seen a movie
>> screen with trays or drawers behind it, and I never will) they have
>> needlessly restricted the capabilities of the program.
>
>The only restriction (and it is a major one, I hope it is fixed) is the
>inability to controll playback speed. With just a cursory glance I can
>find 10 new features for the player that simply did not exist in the old
>Movie player. Please explain to me how adding this many features was a
>restriction.
>
Read the review. They point out things that the QT4.0 player could have
done, and probably should have done, but couldn't because of the
interface. For example, the size of the favorites tray limits the number
of items it can hold. More standard approaches like a favorites menu or a
list box could hold far more items and would allow the user to group
related items (like the favorites menu on your web browser). The tray
also can't be used at the bottom of the screen, it interferes with the
other trays, and that silly animation wears thin after a while.
>The metaphor is a VCR, not a movie screen. Don't you keep your tapes in a
>drawer below your VCR? My only guess is that you are purposefully
>misreading the interface to make your point. I certainly don't believe you
>are actually that obtuse.
>
I don't keep my tapes in a drawer below the VCR, they're on a shelf
nearby. My tapes are also labeled with text, not pictures.
>> This is not the African savanna, and we are not in competition with our
>> computers. Why should we be forced to change in response to the whims of
>> some interface designer?
>
>You do it every day. I can't think of the last software upgrade I
>installed that didn't signifigantly change the look and function of the
>program. Compare older versions of Netscape, IE, Golive, Photoshop,
>Freehand, Ray Dream Studio (I could go on) to their current versions;
>interfaces change all the time. No Apple HIG can stop this. They are
>_guidelines_, not cardinal rules.
>
Again, the sins of one program can't be used to justify the sins of
another. In any event, I doubt most of the updates you refer to changed
things nearly as much as QT4.0 player does, and I expect they follow the
HIG much more closely. Also, changing the way a program operates is not
quite the same as changing the interface. If the new version uses the
same interface elements (windows, menus, buttons, etc.) in the same way as
previous versions (and other programs) the user has a much easier time.
>> This is not interior decorating, you don't re-do
>> your interface every so often to keep it stylish. When you make a change
>> it should be because it improves things, not because it fits current
>> fashion trends or it looks "Cool!".
>
>Heh. You somehow managed to ignore the entire existence of the iMac, Blue
>G3 and new PowerBooks? "Coolness" is the primary factor behind their
>design--and a huge factor in their sales, from looking at how the
>reviewers (in both Mac and PC magazines) make a fuss over them. And
>looking at how the PC manufacturers are scrambling ass-over-teakettle to
>emulate them.
>
These are case designs, not user interfaces. If the case is ugly you
don't have to look at it. If the user interface makes your life
difficult, you're stuck.
>Jobs has realized what you and Gordon and the foot-draggers have yet to:
>in 1999, coolness does matter. As the computer audience expands away from
>geeks like you or me and to kids, trailer park dwellers and those who have
>a big retirement check burning up their pocket, coolness is most
>definitely going to matter. And if you don't like it, you are going to
>have to lump it. Computing is out of the hands of the geeks for good.
>
But Jobs doesn't know, or doesn't care, that "coolness" does not equate
with easy to use. If you sacrifice ease of use in order to look good, you
may gain sales in the short term, but lose them over the long term as the
coolness wears off.
The statement that computing is out of the hands of the geeks is strange.
Are you saying only geeks would prefer an unexciting but functional
interface to a flashy but non-functional one?
>Nope. It is the _buyers_ who are the most important. Always has been.
>Welcome to the real world.
>
The buyers are the users. Buyers are readily swayed by glitz, but users
are less impressed. A great looking car might sell well for a while, but
if people discover its slow, has terrible handling, and breaks down
constantly, they wont buy another, and they'll tell their friends to stay
away as well.
Read the review I pointed you towards. Post a reasoned critique if you
desire. Human interface design is not simply a matter of having lots of
graphics. It is a difficult task that requires some considerable
expertise. When someone sacficies the interface in order to make it look
good, you (the user) is the one getting screwed, and you should be upset
about it. If the automakers decided to replace the steering wheels on
their cars with two buttons, one for left turns and the other for right
turns, wouldn't you be upset? Would it matter if it looked 'Cool!"?
Alan Olson
al...@eecs.umich.edu
Karl B
>
> WIthout getting into this "discussion" too deeply I actually don't mind
> the new player. QuickTime Player is just one program. It's sole purpose
> is to view QT movies. It uses a vcr metaphor which is rather nice.
> Yeah, I think the player is a bit oversized for some smaller movies but
> it's not a really bad interface. Perhaps a "regular" title bar will be
> placed on top of the player (which would be nice) but I can get along
> without it.
>
Can somebody send me a screenshot (cmd-shift-3) of a QT4 window? I want to see
what all the fuss is all about. thanx!
-karl b
--
(NOTICE: Remove the extra @ from my address)
Steven
>
>
>
> But Jobs doesn't know, or doesn't care, that "coolness" does not equate
> with easy to use. If you sacrifice ease of use in order to look good, you
> may gain sales in the short term, but lose them over the long term as the
> coolness wears off.
Right. An attempt to look 'cool' is the first thing to look daft after a while.
Doug Brown
<scot...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> WIthout getting into this "discussion" too deeply I actually don't mind
> the new player. QuickTime Player is just one program. It's sole purpose
> is to view QT movies. It uses a vcr metaphor which is rather nice.
> Yeah, I think the player is a bit oversized for some smaller movies but
> it's not a really bad interface. Perhaps a "regular" title bar will be
> placed on top of the player (which would be nice) but I can get along
> without it.
It would also be nice to be able to open more than one movie at a time
inside the player.
Doug
JB Cole
<dgb...@eoni.com> wrote:
you can have multiple players open.
Brandon Blatcher
listening to people these days and it is still in beta release, so you
might still be able to do something.
--
-Brandon
Gordon Mulcaster
> WIthout getting into this "discussion" too deeply I actually don't mind
> the new player. QuickTime Player is just one program. It's sole purpose
> is to view QT movies. It uses a vcr metaphor which is rather nice.
> Yeah, I think the player is a bit oversized for some smaller movies but
> it's not a really bad interface. Perhaps a "regular" title bar will be
> placed on top of the player (which would be nice) but I can get along
> without it.
The problem isn't the new player itself, per se. The problem is this is
Apple's new style (eveything in OS X is going to look like it), and it's
ugly and less functional than the "standard" interface. Instead of
continuing to work on the Appearance Manager and Themes so that everyone
can have their own favourite consistant interface we are going to have
this "brushed chrome" interface forced on us becuase it's NeXT like.
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Alexandre A. S.
ourobo...@spam.mail.utexas.edu (Richard Persky) wrote:
>In article
><nomadic-2805...@host-209-214-98-112.sav.bellsouth.net>,
> Thanks for reminding me -- I just posted some of my thoughts to their
> forum.
Where exactly? And what would be the appropriate email address to
forward some comments?
Thanks.
Brandon Blatcher
<asi...@usa.net> wrote:
>In article <ouroboros.no-2...@192.168.1.2>,
>ourobo...@spam.mail.utexas.edu (Richard Persky) wrote:
>
>>In article
>><nomadic-2805...@host-209-214-98-112.sav.bellsouth.net>,
>>nom...@bellsouth.net (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>>
>>> You guys ARE sending these complaints to Apple right? They seem to be
>>> listening to people these days and it is still in beta release, so you
>>> might still be able to do something.
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me -- I just posted some of my thoughts to their
>> forum.
>
>
> Where exactly? And what would be the appropriate email address to
>forward some comments?
> Thanks.
Good question. All I could come up with was the follwing link to Apple's
Quicktime 4 open discussion webboard:
http://discuss.info.apple.com/boards/qtime.nsf/by+category?OpenView&Start=1&Count=110&Expand=7#7
--
-Brandon
Scott
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>Have you even read Gordon's open letter that started this thread? It's scope
>is much broader than the Quicktime Player. One of the points Gordon made in a
>followup is about the command-I shortcut.
>
Yes I read the open letter.
Scott
You can.
Paul McGrane
jbc...@home.com (JB Cole) wrote:
> > It would also be nice to be able to open more than one movie at a time
> > inside the player.
> >
> > Doug
>
> you can have multiple players open.
Of course this all stems from the QuickTime player operating differently
than *every* other Mac application out there.
I can't think of another program that lets you open multiple files, but
which normally replaces previously open ones when you do so (I'm aware
there's a preferences option to switch this).
Even the Picture Viewer doesn't work like this. Why is Apple doing this to us?
--
...Paul McGrane
*As always, my email is a fixer-upper*
Gordon Mulcaster
<nomadic-2905...@host-209-214-98-98.sav.bellsouth.net>,
nom...@bellsouth.net (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
> In article <asiufy-2905...@200.229.243.81>, "Alexandre A. S."
> <asi...@usa.net> wrote:
>
> > Where exactly? And what would be the appropriate email address to
> > forward some comments?
>
> Good question.
Start with leade...@apple.com
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Steven
>
>
>
> I can't think of another program that lets you open multiple files,
Huh? I can think of several, I mean, just about every Mac app lets you open
several documents.. In fact I have a hard time thinking of a program that
let's you open only one at a time.
Alexandre A. S.
s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
Who told you everything in OS X is going to look like it? Better yet,
how do you know that?
I don't think that "brushed" interface looks anything like NeXTstep.
Scott
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article
<not-290599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
Michael M. Eilers <n...@a.real.email.add> wrote:
>The volume knob needs tweaking, I agree, but it is a much more
>"concrete" and real-world device than the abstract "stick and ball"
>slider used before.
>
I agree. Perhaps a round knob with a little "dimple" in it. Just like
the ones on so many receivers.
>Here's my point: The new QT4 player is not *meant* for hardcore users. It
>is, essentially, a *toy.* It is unquestionably looks over function to a
>great degree--the fact that many of its functions are more logically
>grouped and illustrated by real-world paradigms is a bonus, not a
>drawback. It is designed to entertain the user, much like movies entertain
>the user.
>
That is correct sir! The player isn't meant to be a "serious"
application. It's a fun little program for playing movies. Akin to
macamp (although far les crash prone). Do people get in a tizzy over
the skins for MacAmp? No. I realize that it's not an Apple program but
it was just the first example of redoing an interface that popped into
my head.
Basically, QuickTime Player is fun. Enjoy playing with it. Remember
this isn't the Finder they did this to.
>Remember when I said "computing is out of the hands of the geeks"? That
>seemed to puzzle a few people. But I do belive it is true--the wants and
>desires of the hardcore computer users _are no longer a factor_ in the
>production of computers and software. The focus is now on consumers, many
>of whom think computer interfaces should look like those ultra-slick
>chrome-on-black UIs they see in movies and on TV whenever the art director
>decides they need a computer shot. Have you ever seen WebTV's interface?
>It looks like it was stolen from a James Bond flick.
>
Another good point. I brought my G3 to visit my grandmother (who's been
on-line for over a year now) and she loved the new player. Remember the
Mac started out as the "computer for the rest of us". The player goes
along with that tradition. IMHO.
>> Now, we see leaked builds of Sherlock with the EXACT SAME INTERFACE.
>>
>> At the same time Steve and Co. talks up the Finder/Browser.
>>
>> So, now we've got 3 interfaces milling around... classic MacOS, NeXT,
>> and this new fangled QT/Sherlock tray interface.
>>
>> Okay, I can understand making a change. I could even see the
>> justification, but to thrust 3 systems together and muddle everything
>> up? Well, I've already got that with my windows machine at work.
>
>See above, in reference to the new user market. You are going to see a
>consumer OS, not a hardcore user OS.
>
Sherlock is suppoed to make searches easy. Instead of being so afraid
of a little change think of the new users who will get so much out of
the easy to use interface. Also remember that it is BETA software.
Nothing is carved in stone. The Mac interface is evolving and that's
all there is to it. They're not trying to "turn it into NeXT".
Incorporating some of OpenStep's interface into the Mac isn't a bad
thing. I always enjoyed using OpenStep. Don't you want new Mac users to
get the same "WOW!" we all did when we first used the Mac?
Gordon Mulcaster
<asi...@usa.net> wrote:
Go watch the keynote from the recent WWDC (availble on Apple's web site
via QuickTime Streaming). It's unfortunate that the developers in the
audience where dumb struck by the demo, if they had booed on-mass Jobs
just may have had a re-think. He did backtrack before the end of the demo
and say (paraphrased) "This is all pre-alpha stuff, the final product will
look much different", hopefully he was picking up some of the bad vibes
that were fillig the room...
I encourage everyone who doesn't like the new interface (a prime example
of which is QuickTime Player) to email leade...@apple.com. Be polite and
articulate your objection to the wholesale abondonment of the Apple Human
Interface Guidelines. Apple has recently shown that it is willing to
listen to complaints and make changes, e.g. OS X server dropping from
$1,000 to $500 and AppleShare 6.2 update dropping from $500 to free. There
is hope...
> I don't think that "brushed" interface looks anything like NeXTstep.
First off I have nothing against the brushed chrome interface, it would
make a very nice Theme, but that's what it should be, a Theme!
The colours may not be NeXTish, but the whole dock and multi-paned "File
Manager" are exceedingly NeXTish. Do you guys realize that Next "desktop"
has an application Dock (more reminiscent of Windows 3.1 than anything
else)? The NeXT interface is very un-Mac like. The point has to be made to
Apple loud and clear that it's "Mac OS X" not "NeXT OS X".
From what I saw of the WWDC and other places, OS X is going to be more
NeXTish than Mac like, this is a bad thing.
Hope over to http://macosrumors.com/images/content/sherlock_3/ and have a
look at the new Sherlock interface. The top third of the window is taken
up by a dock for up to 18 search sets (none of which you can
differenciate), the bit at the bottom is reserved for Apple Ads, only HALF
the window is being used for information. At least it has a title bar...
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Gordon Mulcaster
<scot...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> That is correct sir! The player isn't meant to be a "serious"
> application. It's a fun little program for playing movies. Akin to
> macamp (although far les crash prone). Do people get in a tizzy over
> the skins for MacAmp? No. I realize that it's not an Apple program but
> it was just the first example of redoing an interface that popped into
> my head.
The problem isn't so much QTP (hell I've lived with AppleCD Audio Player
for years without complaiing) the problem is QTP is an example of the
future. This is the first example of the future interface for OS X.
> Basically, QuickTime Player is fun. Enjoy playing with it. Remember
> this isn't the Finder they did this to.
Not yet and that's the problem. QTP is an example of what the Finder is
going to be like, dock and all. Forget aliases, forget leaving folders and
files on your desktop, forget reorganizing files by just dragging them
between folders, forget reorganizing your applications. Forget it being
"Mac like".
> Sherlock is suppoed to make searches easy.
How is a dock full of identical icons being used to organize your search
sets "easy"? Why not just make it so you can drag your set to the desktop
and make a set file. Then you can start a particular search just by double
clicking the set file, or you could drop it in the apple menu and pick it
from there, or setup Quickeys to start them with a keystroke.
> Instead of being so afraid of a little change think of the new users
> who will get so much out of the easy to use interface.
Little change? It's a wholesale replacement! New users would better be
served by Apple following its own Human Interface Guidelines and
maintaining a consistant interface.
> Also remember that it is BETA software.
So you're saying don't complain until it's etched in Gold-Master status?
> Nothing is carved in stone.
The time to argue for changes is before the stone is cut, i.e. NOW!
> The Mac interface is evolving and that's all there is to it.
I've got no problems with the Mac interface evolving (I really like lot's
of the advances in OS 8.6), this isn't an evolution, this is a replacment.
The Mac interface is being replaced with an updated NeXT interface. In the
process functionality is being lost.
> They're not trying to "turn it into NeXT".
Yes they are. All the key guys are ex-NeXT engineers who don't "get the
Mac" -- Apple needs Guy Kawasaki like never before!
> Incorporating some of OpenStep's interface into the Mac isn't a bad
> thing.
I agree, e.g. the multi-paned finder would be a nice addition to the icon
and list views. As a replacement, it sucks. The Dock is just plain stupid,
aliases are much more convienient and flexable -- the ex-NeXT engineers
don't like aliases, or type and creater codes, or much of anything else
that is uniquely Macintosh, and are getting rid of them. This is NOT an
improvement.
> I always enjoyed using OpenStep.
I've got no beef against OpenStep, my beef starts when it's renamed it Mac OS X.
> Don't you want new Mac users to get the same "WOW!" we all did when
> we first used the Mac?
No, I could care less. I want them to get the same "WOW!" on the
ten-thousanth time they use their Mac, just like I do on my ten-millionth.
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Steven
>
> In article <374d4aaf...@news.earthlink.net>,
> jonce...@nospammiesno.earthlink.net (Jon S.) wrote:
>
> > Actually, even though you're trying to be inflammatory and sarcastic,
> > the point is that, if you are going to sell a simplified, easy to use,
> > integrated interface (call it Apple's guidelines if you want), then,
> > it should be simplified, easy to use, and integrated.
>
> Agreed. But we seem to disagree fundamentally on the application of that
> idea. Everone on this thread who is so worked up about the new MoviePlayer
> interface spends all of their time comparing it to the old MoviePlayer
> interface. I believe this is a mistaken comparison--lugnuts to peanuts.
>
> At first glance, there is a lot about the new player that makes it much
> more intuitive to the first-time user. It is bigger and more visible, for
> the children and old fogies now moving into the Mac market in droves.
If the old player isn't big enough to spot for you, you are legally blind.
> It
> reflects that fact that the majoriy of new users have 1024x768 or greater
> screen resolution. The most important functions are marked by large
> buttons. The volume knob needs tweaking, I agree, but it is a much more
> "concrete" and real-world device than the abstract "stick and ball" slider
> used before.
It sucks. I see no advantage at all.
> Here's my point: The new QT4 player is not *meant* for hardcore users. It
> is, essentially, a *toy.*
Just like Final Cut Pro?
> It is unquestionably looks over function to a
> great degree--the fact that many of its functions are more logically
> grouped and illustrated by real-world paradigms is a bonus, not a
> drawback. It is designed to entertain the user, much like movies entertain
> the user.
I'm not entertained but annoyed.
> I think there are many ways to defend the new interface. For one, all the
> controls are now available by mouse click alone--a definite bonus for new
> users. Everything is grouped together; things you don't want to use are
> hidden, not in your face.
Like the huge "PLAY" button and the one-inch frame?
> Your mistake is in comparing it to the old
> movieplayer, or any other aspect of the Mac GUI.
Why is that a mistake? Opening Apple's sample movie in both players shows you
that the old player uses 62853 pixels of screen real estate and the new player
124780 pixels to view the same size movie. That's twice the size. To make
things worse it's twice as ugly too! Why must the Mac interface look like
something else? Why can't it just look like the Mac interface?
> Just because Apple made
> it doesn't mean they can't bend the 'rules'--whatever those are.
Sure they can. Breaking down consistency is not a good thing. So you should
only "bend the rules" if you have a very compelling reason to do so. In this
case Apple doesn't have a compelling reason.
> You, and the others on this thread protesting so mightility, have to face
> up to a very important fact--one that Bill Gates has already faced years
> ago. The market of computer users is changing radically; no longer is it
> buisness and creative types, college students, geeks. Now it is grandmas
> and grandchildren, trailer types, 60+ folks going back to school, people
> with english as their second or third language, cultures that have no
> history of computing such as Africa or Eastern Europe.
And all these people need polished chrome? You're not making sense.
> Remember when I said "computing is out of the hands of the geeks"? That
> seemed to puzzle a few people. But I do belive it is true--the wants and
> desires of the hardcore computer users _are no longer a factor_ in the
> production of computers and software. The focus is now on consumers, many
> of whom think computer interfaces should look like those ultra-slick
> chrome-on-black UIs they see in movies and on TV whenever the art director
> decides they need a computer shot. Have you ever seen WebTV's interface?
> It looks like it was stolen from a James Bond flick.
Yeah, and cars should look like the vehicles you see in computer games.
_You_ are a geek if you think the general public is this dumb.
> Apple, like the other companies, is moving with the tide. The Mac OS is
> going to be aggresively dumbed down in some respects to reflect an
> audience of newbies. I'm not saying this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
> But it is reality.
Mac OS X will be a dumbed down Mac OS?
> > Likewise, if you're going to label something "Mac OS", a point can be
> > made that, like the MacOS has for 15 years solid, it should adhere to
> > the basics of the MacOS interface.
>
> Why?
Consistency is the most powerful way to improve usability.
> I'm serious; that's not a rhetorical question. What aspect of history are
> you basing that inference on? Windows GUI has changed substantially with
> each release, sometimes in quite startling ways (such as having your
> desktop merge with your web browser.) The idea that if something is
> working, it shouldn be "fixed" is antithetical to the very nature of
> computing!
How so? What is the nature of computing then?
> Think about how much change in this industry happens for the
> mere sake of change--more than any industry I can compare it to.
Without consistency this industry wouldn't even exist!
> My point is, the people coming into the Mac market haven't been _looking_
> at the Mac GUI for 15 years, or 5, or even 2.
So they are not in a position to demand changes to a UI that professionals
have relied on for years.
> They have no fixed idea in
> their heads about how something works or is supposed to work. They are a
> tabula rasa. Apple is free to do as they choose in that sense.
If Apple wants to annoy existing users...
Steven
>
>
> >The problem isn't the new player itself, per se. The problem is this is
> >Apple's new style (eveything in OS X is going to look like it), and it's
> >ugly and less functional than the "standard" interface. Instead of
> >continuing to work on the Appearance Manager and Themes so that everyone
> >can have their own favourite consistant interface we are going to have
> >this "brushed chrome" interface forced on us becuase it's NeXT like.
>
> Who told you everything in OS X is going to look like it? Better yet,
> how do you know that?
Even worse, it will probably be a mixture of looks.
Dennis SCP
'what about the females, that metallic interface introduced with QT4
can't appeal to them, can it?
It's just Steve's mid-life crisis. Why didn't you just buy a Harley
instead of shoving a boyish interface into OUR face.
(note: Steve already did that)
Why take away that friendly OS that looks so lovely, with it's softgrey
windows and babyblue buttons.
That OS that says, I'll be there for you, every time you see that bright
smile when he start ups. Why replace that. Why o why take that away...'
When I realized I had seen that interface before...
Yes, that's right. Just open that good old Calculator which they forgot
to update with Mac OS 8.
It's got those rounded corners, and that darker uperhalf.
It even has that metal look, by using a crude grey texture.
Yep, it seems true (even Sherlock will get that look)
Mac OS X is going back to the future
But my sincere question is:
What do the women think of it?
--
Dennis SCP
+--HI, I'm a signature virus :-) Copy me into your sign to join in. ---+
Dennis SCP
> Can somebody send me a screenshot (cmd-shift-3) of a QT4 window? I want to see
> what all the fuss is all about. thanx!
It's all at <www.apple.com> they're pretty proud and love showing it.
Steven
>
>
> Yes they are. All the key guys are ex-NeXT engineers who don't "get the
> Mac" -- Apple needs Guy Kawasaki like never before!
And Guy just struck a deal with Microsoft...
Steven
>
> make a very nice Theme, but that's what it should be, a Theme!
>
> The colours may not be NeXTish, but the whole dock and multi-paned "File
> Manager" are exceedingly NeXTish. Do you guys realize that Next "desktop"
> has an application Dock (more reminiscent of Windows 3.1 than anything
> else)? The NeXT interface is very un-Mac like. The point has to be made to
> Apple loud and clear that it's "Mac OS X" not "NeXT OS X".
I made that argument in this group about two months ago. A thread ("Mac OS X a
misnomer") with 223 messages evolved that turned out rather disappointing and
at times quite ugly. Maybe some people are waking up by now...
> From what I saw of the WWDC and other places, OS X is going to be more
> NeXTish than Mac like, this is a bad thing.
I fully agree.
Scott Lahteine
denni...@multiweb.nl (Dennis SCP) wrote:
>'what about the females, that metallic interface introduced with QT4
>can't appeal to them, can it?
I know some women who like metallic jewelry...
>It's just Steve's mid-life crisis. Why didn't you just buy a Harley
>instead of shoving a boyish interface into OUR face.
>(note: Steve already did that)
Steve the interface designer?
>Why take away that friendly OS that looks so lovely, with it's softgrey
>windows and babyblue buttons.
>
>That OS that says, I'll be there for you, every time you see that bright
>smile when he start ups. Why replace that. Why o why take that away...'
I agree it has shortcomings. That QT4 breaks all the rules. And why do
they continue to call it a Player, when it works so well as an Editor too?
>When I realized I had seen that interface before...
>Yes, that's right. Just open that good old Calculator which they forgot
>to update with Mac OS 8.
>
>It's got those rounded corners, and that darker uperhalf.
>It even has that metal look, by using a crude grey texture.
Actually that's the "Desktop Accessory" window style from System 7. You
can open any application in ResEdit and change its windows to use the
rounded style. It's generally not used any more, and QuickTime 4 doesn't
use it either. It has its own "WDEF" built into its application file.
>Yep, it seems true (even Sherlock will get that look)
>Mac OS X is going back to the future
Where did you hear Sherlock was getting that look? Is this just a projection?
>But my sincere question is:
>What do the women think of it?
They are empathetic to your feelings, though they neither agree nor
disagree with your opinion.
--
Scott Lahteine
"No Universe is perfect which leaves no room for improvement."
<mailto:sl...@things-of-the-non.org>
<http://www.things-of-the-non.org>
-----------== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeeds.com The Largest Usenet Servers in the World!
------== Over 73,000 Newsgroups - Including Dedicated Binaries Servers ==-----
Martin Nadeau
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <slur-30059...@192.168.0.1>, Scott Lahteine
<sl...@map.com> wrote:
> >Yep, it seems true (even Sherlock will get that look)
> >Mac OS X is going back to the future
>
> Where did you hear Sherlock was getting that look? Is this just a projection?
No, it's true. You can see screenshots of the new Sherlock at:
<http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/9905/sonata-part2.shtml>
As others have already suggested, if you don't like the new interface
please let Apple know by sending a polite e-mail to:
--
Martin Nadeau
nad...@videotron.ca
Judi Sohn
>'what about the females, that metallic interface introduced with QT4
>can't appeal to them, can it?
<snip>
>But my sincere question is:
>What do the women think of it?
<sarcasm> Oh, it should have had been pink and had little rosies and
flowers all around it. That's the only way that "the females" could
understand it. </sarcasm>
As a woman, I look at QT4 like I do any other utility. Does it do the job
without driving me nuts? If the answer is yes, I could care less what
color the interface is.
--
Judi Sohn
jud...@home.com
<http://members.tripod.com/juderi/home.html>
Gordon Mulcaster
<not-260599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
mei...@primenet.com wrote:
> Do you come from a mystical land where they've never heard of keyboard
> shortcuts? Every vital function of the new QT player has a keyboard
> equivalent. Or did you just get so pissed off you didn't read the docs?
Weren't you complaining a couple of messages back that your Mom didn't the
keyboard shortcut to get a movie back to its original size?
> > I want the damn thing to use
> > standard window protocols and follow Apple's own HIG.
>
> See the part where you said 'Apple's own HIG?' Apple owns them; apple can
> change those guidelines any damn time they want to in any way that they
> feel like.
Apple hasn't chnaged the HIG, they're ignoring them.
> You and gordons are the ones that look like fools for treating
> the HIG as if it is some sort of sacred covenant between Apple and its
> users.
The HIG are one of the main reasons the Mac interface is better than any
other Windowing system. If Apple wants to throw out the HIG then they
should stop calling it a Mac.
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Gordon Mulcaster
<not-290599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
mei...@primenet.com wrote:
> Agreed. But we seem to disagree fundamentally on the application of that
> idea. Everone on this thread who is so worked up about the new MoviePlayer
> interface spends all of their time comparing it to the old MoviePlayer
> interface. I believe this is a mistaken comparison--lugnuts to peanuts.
You're missing the point. The point isn't that QTP is non-Mac Like, the
point is QTP is what everything in OS X Client is going to be like.
> At first glance, there is a lot about the new player that makes it much
> more intuitive to the first-time user.
I disagree.
> It is bigger and more visible, for the children and old fogies now
> moving into the Mac market in droves.
If you have problems seeing what's on screen you use a lower resolution or
buy a bigger monitor. Wasting pixels because some people have less than
optimum eyesight is a blow to the face of the people who don't.
> It reflects that fact that the majoriy of new users have 1024x768 or
> greater screen resolution.
Not the people you refer to above. Besides that I have a "large" screen
and run at high resolution so I can get more on screen, I don't want
programmers going "he's got a big screen, we'll use more of it".
> The most important functions are marked by large buttons.
It's not a large button, it's a huge button.
> The volume knob needs tweaking, I agree, but it is a much more
> "concrete" and real-world device than the abstract "stick and ball" slider
> used before.
Disagree, the volume slider was simpler to use. The mouse movement for
both is the same but with the slider it was clear it was an up and down
motion and it was easy to see where you were, with the knob it appears to
require a curved motion. The "over-volume" function is also gone (or at
least I can't find it on QTP)
> Here's my point: The new QT4 player is not *meant* for hardcore users.
Here's my point: The new QTP is not a Mac application. It just runs on a Mac.
> It is, essentially, a *toy.*
Quicktime is an extremely important technology, it deserves better than a
toy interface. More importantly, QTP is a example of the interface of the
future. I don't want to use a *toy* interface.
> It is unquestionably looks over function to a
> great degree
Form over function is a BAD THING!!!
> --the fact that many of its functions are more logically
> grouped and illustrated by real-world paradigms is a bonus, not a
> drawback. It is designed to entertain the user, much like movies entertain
> the user.
The interface shouldn't entertain, the content should entertain, the
interface should disappear into the background noise and it won't do that
by being "in-your-face".
Take a look at this image: www.intergate.bc.ca/personal/sng/qtp.gif
The interface is 6.5 times LARGER than the movie! (340x367 vs. 160x120)
> You, and the others on this thread protesting so mightility, have to face
> up to a very important fact--one that Bill Gates has already faced years
> ago. The market of computer users is changing radically; no longer is it
> buisness and creative types, college students, geeks. Now it is grandmas
> and grandchildren, trailer types, 60+ folks going back to school, people
> with english as their second or third language, cultures that have no
> history of computing such as Africa or Eastern Europe.
All the more reason to maintain strict adherence to the HIG. One of the
main tenets of the HIG is consistency, the way something works in one
program should be the same as in every other program. Every other
non-modal window on my Mac has a title bar, QTP not having one is bad.
> Apple, like the other companies, is moving with the tide. The Mac OS is
> going to be aggressively dumbed down in some respects to reflect an
> audience of newbies. I'm not saying this is a good thing, or a bad thing.
> But it is reality.
It doesn't have to be, Apple has recently shown it is willing to listen to
criticism. Bad interface changes should be criticised, loudly.
> > Likewise, if you're going to label something "Mac OS", a point can be
> > made that, like the MacOS has for 15 years solid, it should adhere to
> > the basics of the MacOS interface.
>
> Why?
Because it should. The Mac interface is built on a metaphor which is
consistent across all applications (or should be).
> I'm serious; that's not a rhetorical question. What aspect of history are
> you basing that inference on? Windows GUI has changed substantially with
> each release, sometimes in quite startling ways (such as having your
> desktop merge with your web browser.) The idea that if something is
> working, it shouldn be "fixed" is antithetical to the very nature of
> computing! Think about how much change in this industry happens for the
> mere sake of change--more than any industry I can compare it to.
The Mac interface has changed substantially over it's life, just not its
basic metaphor. The basic metaphor hasn't changed because the original
design was "insanely great". Window's metaphor has changed a number of
times because it's original designs were crap!
Changing the interface just so it'll be different than last year is
stupid, particularly when it REDUCES functionality.
> My point is, the people coming into the Mac market haven't been _looking_
> at the Mac GUI for 15 years, or 5, or even 2. They have no fixed idea in
> their heads about how something works or is supposed to work. They are a
> tabula rasa. Apple is free to do as they choose in that sense.
So to paraphrase "Fuck the existing Mac Users"! And you wonder why I object...
> > Quicktime's interface (not just the aluminum brushing, but the whole
> > interface totality) is bad. I've used it since it was released, and I
> > still don't "get" everything about it. I've tried making a few things
> > favorites (like movies and mp3 clips) and they all have the same dumb
> > icon.
>
> If the movie has no icon, then it was improperly made without a poster
> frame or preview; Apple can't be blamed for that. As for MP3s, how would
> you represent them--a waveform of the first three seconds of the song? The
> song titles are often too long (all of my MP3s have 32-chjaracter names,
> as I like them to have artist and album--how to condese that in the square
> space?
EXACTLY! Designing an interface is not easy, lot's of problems such as
detailed above have to be solved. Apple didn't solve them. If there is no
icon to differentiate one MP3 from another you shouldn't use an icon to
identify them. An alias (which I'd be able to store, sort, and arrange
anyway I'd like) with 256 character filename (HFS+ supports 256 character
filenames) would be a great place to identify MP3s. I've got a couple of
hundred snd files in a folder -- I never have difficulty identifying which
is which even though they all have the same icon (and if I wanted I could
use _Get Info..._ to give them unique icons).
> I'm not saying that this is an ideal situation, but you keep expecting the
> player to do things it obviously can't do without breaking its internal
> paradigms.
The point is the internal paradigms BREAK the Mac's internal paradigms.
> Isn't that the exact same thing you are accusing it of doing? A
> middle-of-the-road solution would be to have a little text window pop up
> when you have your mouse over a tray well which tells you the name of the
> file.
The better solution would be to extend the Finder's alias function to
handle QuickTime "pointers".
> >There isn't even a way to create custom icons and put them in
> > an icon palette.
>
> I don't know what you are talking about. What do icons have to do with a
> movie player?
If you could change the icon in the QTP tray you would be able to tell the
icons apart after spending considerable time manually updating things.
> > When I have my tray open, I can't figure out
> > intuitively how to make it turn into the copyright screen or the
> > stereo controls and then back to the tray.
>
> It doesn't even do this! The trays are all seperate! How can you critique
> an interface you obviously don't understand? You have to be actively
> fighting comprehending this interface, I can;t believe that you are really
> so obtuse.
Hmmm, "ignore the standard Mac interface we've used for years, invent a
new interface and some people have a problem figuring it out" who would
have thought it!
> See above, in reference to the new user market. You are going to see a
> consumer OS, not a hardcore user OS.
This is a bad thing.
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Gordon Mulcaster
<not-270599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
mei...@primenet.com wrote:
> In article <see-260599...@08-00-07-3e-42-3e.bconnected.net>,
> s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
>
> > > In some circles of psychiatry, that would be noted as a symptom of
> > > monomania.
> >
> > Ooo, big words, did you have to look those up?
>
> Heh heh. I was hoping to keep the discussion above playground taunts, but
> I guess you broke that barrier.
Guess again. Implying (heck practicly stating flat out) that I suffer from
monomainia is "a playground taunt". I was just pointed out your
childishness.
> > > Oh, and of course the Apple Human Interface Guidelines are a totally
> > > immutable and unchanging artifact, unable to be amended or altered in any
> > > way... right?
> >
> > Where do you get this crap from?
>
> I was making fun of you, you bozo. Man, your sarcasm meter is seriously
> broken.
You were "making fun of me", I thought you wanted to keep this discussion
above playground taunts?
> > The AHIG were last updated to cover
> > advanments in OS 8.5. If OS 8.6 actually changed anything I'm sure they
> > would have been updated again.
>
> Oh yah. A vital document such as that should be updated hourly.
Grow up.
> > Bingo! It should be a normal window, there is no reason why it can't be.
> > Movie Player got along jus find using normal windows.
>
> Ah, the typical "ain't broke don't fix it" attitude of the foot-dragger
> and ultraconservative.
And yet more playground taunts.
> Has it ever occured to you that Apple changed the interface of the new
> movie player to make it more "fun"? To make it look "cool?" To try on
> some new "clothes" for a while?
Has it ever occured to you that making a tool less functional just so it
"looks cool" is not a good thing?
> Or are you one of those types wearing 15-year-old jeans ironed to a crease?
And yet more playground taunts.
> Face it, man, you sound incredibly dated and old-school.
Even more playground taunts.
> GUI is not gospel; never has been, never will be. It would be nice if
> Apple's HIG became law of the land, but that's just a book of ideals.
As far as the Mac interface goes, the HIG are Gospel, they are the law of
the land.
> Like comparing the constitution to our current form of government: the ideals
> look good, but the application is always messy and never quite what you
> intended.
Particularily if you just ignore them.
> > That reasoning is directly contrary to the AHIG which stress consistancy
> > of interface across ALL applications.
>
> A fascinating idea. Again with the monochrome world. I suppose we should
> enforce consistency of dashboard across all cars, or consistency of paint
> colors across all models of car.
How about consistency of how the gas and brake pedals work? Is that a good
thing? Wouldn't it be "cooler" if car designer invented new controls for
each new model?
> > This is not a good thing. Consitancy _IS_ a good thing.
>
> It is even better if you can spell it! (sorry, couldn't help myself.)
Hello Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. You should hardly be bad mouthing someone
for a spelling mistake.
> > What crap. My "slow" CPU is responsible for the mouse cursor being FIVE
> > INCHES away from the window grow outline? It sure seems to grow and shrink
> > in real time when I move the mouse, just five inches away from the cursor.
>
> I've tried this on three machines and have been unable to reproduce it.
> What was the aspect ratio of the movie you were resizing?
See the image: www.intergate.bc.ca/personal/sng/growbox-cursor.gif
Note where the grow box is, note where the cursor is. Why is the cursor so
far away from the grow box?
> You missed the point, no suprise there. Newbies such as my mom don't know
> about keyboard shortcuts yet; MoviePlayer's ability to stretch a movie out
> of aspect ratio is a flaw, not a benefit--at no time does stretching a
> movie out of aspect ratio make sense, ever.
What gives you the right to decide what does and doesn't make sense for me
to do? I'll agree that restricting the stretching to a fixed ratio may a
good idea for newbies, provided I can turn it off or over-ride it. Mac
standard would be to hold down the shift key to constain it to a fixed
ratio.
> > > Or are you opposed to guardrails on highway turns as well?
>
> These things just keep whizzing by you! I'll have to be less subtle in the
> future.
Or perhaps just stay on topic...
> > The Finder has nothing to do with this issue. QTP doesn't use a standard
> > window, it should.
>
> I'm curious about something. Why are you so admant that Apple can't have a
> little fun, fudge on their own rules?
Apple doesn't get to "have a little fun" when it makes it harder for me to
get work down and therefore impacts my ability to earn a living.
> Is it really that important?
Yes.
> I don't think anyone using the QT4 player for the first time was
> mystified as to how it works or totally stymied by the new controls
> or features.
I've been using Macs for over ten years, I couldn't make the volume
control on QTP work right until I saw someone else adjusting it and
realised I was "doing it wrong".
> I really don't think the average shmoe would even notice the missing 30
> pixels of screen real estate or scream and throw fits because the movies
> have a fixed aspect ratio.
The average user may not be able to articulate it, but they can identify a
program that isn't Mac Like.
> Why is the Apple HIG so gospel to you, when it gets violated willy-nilly
> all the time?
All of the major applicationa I have follow the HIG fairly well.
> Find me one video game that adheres to it -- 80% of the software home
> users buy is video games.
I don't make a living playing video games. Video games are a special case
they, in practice, take over the entire machine and contain their own
user-interface. Games aren't Mac applications, they are applications that
can be run on a Mac.
> > What part don't you understand? The new controls (i.e. stereo left/right,
> > treble, and bass) could have been added to the MP window and all of the
> > controls would have taken up less space than the basic controls (i.e.
> > without the pop down tray) take up on QTP.
>
> How so? The old movie player controls are already tiny and very crowded.
> it is fairly easy to click the wrong button, especially with your monitor
> in a high resolution. I don't see any room to add the dozens of new
> controls and functions provided by the QT4 player. Why don't you cook up
> an example in Photoshop for us.
Done. Browse on over to www.intergate.bc.ca/personal/sng/movieplayerplus.gif.
> > > Do you *always* run and hide when a new paradigm or interface metaphor
> > > creeps up on you?
> >
> > If I did do you think I'd have Gnome installed on my Linux box? Why do you
> > not accept that I feel the new paradigm or interface metaphor being
> > advanced by Apple is NOT an improvement?
>
> It was actually a rhetorical question, but we already discussed the
> problem with your sarcasm meter.
And yet another playground taunt.
> > Cool, I've never tried that... I bet I could just drag it to the desktop
> > and accomplish the same thing. So why add this aberation of a dock?
>
> Actually, you can drag it to the desktop. The dock serves a different
> purpose entirely, but you don't seem to get the point of it--you're just
> fighting it too hard to see how it works.
No I don't see the point of the dock. Please explain it and why it's
better than using aliases.
> I was referring to inside the QT4 movie player app itself--every window
> you open in the player has its own dock, so being able to drag an open
> movie to another dock is redundant.
All movies share the same dock. Let me rephrase the question. I have a
movie open and want to put it on the dock, why can't I drag it there? I'm
watching a movie in my web browser and want to save it on my dock, why
can't I drag it there?
> As for why you can't drag a movie from a web browser, neither IE nor
> Netscape handles drag-and-drop well or in a consistent manner. You can't
> drag clippings, URLs or mailtos either.
I can drag it to the desktop, then later double click it and it reopens.
Why doesn't the dock at least have the same functionality we had before?
> > In fact, how do I put a movie open in a browser in it?
>
> Save it to the desktop, drag it to the dock.
Why not just leave it on the desktop? Or if I want to be neater, drag it
into a folder of my "favorites".
> > > In conclusion, you'll only be happy when every application looks, acts,
> > > and behaves like the Finder, regardless of function, purpose or origin.
> >
> > Got it in one. Unless there is a valid reason, i.e. functionality*, for
> > deviating from the "Mac" interface programs should NOT deviate.
> >
> > * For example, the functionality of the controls in MP justify adding them
> > to the standard window.
>
> You bozo--
Again with the playground taunts...
> without the controls, movieplayer wouldn't exist!
That is why it's justifiable to include them.
> That's like saying "the benefits of the steering wheel, gas pedal and
> engine justify adding them to the car."
Right.
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
JB Cole
s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
> In article
> <not-290599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
> mei...@primenet.com wrote:
>
> > Agreed. But we seem to disagree fundamentally on the application of that
> > idea. Everone on this thread who is so worked up about the new MoviePlayer
> > interface spends all of their time comparing it to the old MoviePlayer
> > interface. I believe this is a mistaken comparison--lugnuts to peanuts.
>
> You're missing the point. The point isn't that QTP is non-Mac Like, the
> point is QTP is what everything in OS X Client is going to be like.
>
One could argue that since QTP is on a Mac, it is in fact Mac-like.
Scott
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>Michael M. Eilers wrote:
>>
>> At first glance, there is a lot about the new player that makes it much
>> more intuitive to the first-time user. It is bigger and more visible, for
>> the children and old fogies now moving into the Mac market in droves.
>
>If the old player isn't big enough to spot for you, you are legally blind.
>
Um, I think I take exception to that comment. I AM legally blind, thank
you. I like the fact that I don't have to lean in at all to see what
I'm doing.
>> Here's my point: The new QT4 player is not *meant* for hardcore users. It
>> is, essentially, a *toy.*
>
>Just like Final Cut Pro?
>
Haven't seen it in person yet but perhaps they're hoping to get more
home video types to use it as well as professionals.
>> Your mistake is in comparing it to the old
>> movieplayer, or any other aspect of the Mac GUI.
>
>Why is that a mistake? Opening Apple's sample movie in both players shows you
>that the old player uses 62853 pixels of screen real estate and the new player
>124780 pixels to view the same size movie. That's twice the size. To make
>things worse it's twice as ugly too! Why must the Mac interface look like
>something else? Why can't it just look like the Mac interface?
>
And as you so delicately put it earlier this is a boon to those of us
who are a bit hard of seeing as it were.
Steven
>
> In article <3750780D...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >Michael M. Eilers wrote:
> >>
> >> more intuitive to the first-time user. It is bigger and more visible, for
> >> the children and old fogies now moving into the Mac market in droves.
> >
> >If the old player isn't big enough to spot for you, you are legally blind.
> >
> you. I like the fact that I don't have to lean in at all to see what
> I'm doing.
Using a different resolution is a better solution.
> >> Here's my point: The new QT4 player is not *meant* for hardcore users. It
> >> is, essentially, a *toy.*
> >
> >Just like Final Cut Pro?
> >
> Haven't seen it in person yet but perhaps they're hoping to get more
> home video types to use it as well as professionals.
That would open the door to a complete overhaul of the Mac interface to
attract more fools. One more reason to strongly object.
> >> Your mistake is in comparing it to the old
> >> movieplayer, or any other aspect of the Mac GUI.
> >
> >Why is that a mistake? Opening Apple's sample movie in both players shows you
> >that the old player uses 62853 pixels of screen real estate and the new player
> >124780 pixels to view the same size movie. That's twice the size. To make
> >things worse it's twice as ugly too! Why must the Mac interface look like
> >something else? Why can't it just look like the Mac interface?
> >
> And as you so delicately put it earlier this is a boon to those of us
> who are a bit hard of seeing as it were.
Seems to me you want to look at a slightly bigger movie canvas instead of a
huge frame around a small canvas of the same size. With the new player
displaying a larger canvas is limited due to the space the player itself is
clogging up. I don't think you are thinking this through thouroughly. Like I
said earlier: it seems that defenders of this interface start with a fixed
conclusion and argue from there.
Robert P. Krajewski
<nad...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> > >Yep, it seems true (even Sherlock will get that look)
> > >Mac OS X is going back to the future
> >
> > Where did you hear Sherlock was getting that look? Is this just a
> > projection?
>
> No, it's true. You can see screenshots of the new Sherlock at:
>
> <http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/9905/sonata-part2.shtml>
>
> As others have already suggested, if you don't like the new interface
> please let Apple know by sending a polite e-mail to:
But it doesn't really look all that radical to me. I do think icon tray
is somewhat dumb unless there's descriptive text assoicated with them
(like hover help or labels), but aside from that it uses a standard
frame and list views.
The interesting thing here is that Apple might finally be modernizing
the "tool" window type (open the Calculator to see how it jars with
every else in OS 8). The burred metal look would become the default tool
window default in some future version of MacOS, I suppose.
Gordon Mulcaster
<asi...@usa.net> wrote:
> As I've written in my previous message, I don't believe OS X, the
> release, will use the NeXT (file) browser, as shown on the WWDC keynote.
Hmmm, I watched that section of the keynote twice, Steve used phrases such
as "Brand New Finder" and "The New Finder". Sounds to me like it's here to
stay. If they were keeping the Mac interface the paned file viewer would
just be another view option.
> I suppose they just HAD to demonstrate OS X, but didn't had a stable
> enough port of the Finder for OS X.
Then they should have made it clear that this was a demo and not "The New
Finder".
> I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
> think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
That's what I'm afraid of. That and the loss of the desktop database, file
types, creator codes, and aliases. I'm also afraid it's going to include
text configuration files and filename extensions. They have already
abandoned the HIG, with the demise of the above features we can say
"good-bye" to the Mac interface.
If I'm wrong here I'll be very happy, the more wrong I am the happier I'll
be. A clear statement from Apple regarding these issues would be very
welcome.
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Gordon Mulcaster
<scot...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Um, I think I take exception to that comment. I AM legally blind, thank
> you. I like the fact that I don't have to lean in at all to see what
> I'm doing.
For yourself the large buttons may be a boon. For everyone who isn't
legally blind it just wastes space. A better option for someone in your
position would be to buy a larger screen and use a lower resolution
setting. At which point the new interface is just going to waste too much
of your screen.
> > Why can't it just look like the Mac interface?
>
> And as you so delicately put it earlier this is a boon to those of us
> who are a bit hard of seeing as it were.
Not to be too indelicate, but what about those of use who aren't hard of
seeing? I paid extra for a larger monitor and a videocard capable of
higher resolutions so I can get more information on the screen, I don't
want to see Apple negate the advantages I paid for...
--
no sig... gozer(at)pop2.intergate.bc.ca
Steven
>
> In article <see-290599...@a2a01224.intergate.bconnected.net>,
> s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
>
> > Not yet and that's the problem. QTP is an example of what the Finder is
> > going to be like, dock and all. Forget aliases, forget leaving folders and
> > files on your desktop, forget reorganizing files by just dragging them
> > between folders, forget reorganizing your applications. Forget it being
> > "Mac like".
>
> assertion. You are rapidly basing your entire argument on a very slippery
> slope. Defend this assetion before you proceed any further.
>
> michael
I read an article today in a Dutch Designers Magazine about a Dutch interface
designer hired recently by Apple to work on the interface of Mac OS X.
One quote: "Many people (including me) think computers are dumb and unclear. I
was wondering why that is and what could be done about it. Computers have to
become more accessible and more fun. Now I have the chance to do something
about that."
Apparently Apple isn't going to stick with the current interface for Mac OS X.
It's already working on a new interface with a new look and new behavior.
We'll be waiting for years (again) for other developers to catch up with a new
interface for which we'll have to upgrade all applications again... And if
Sherlock II and QTP are any indication it will be ugly and silly. Why is Apple
wasting my time and money?
Alexandre A. S.
s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
>In article <asiufy-2905...@200.229.243.168>, "Alexandre A. S."
><asi...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <see-280599...@a2a01224.intergate.bconnected.net>,
>> s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
>>
>> > The problem isn't the new player itself, per se. The problem is
>> > this is Apple's new style (eveything in OS X is going to look like
>> > it), and it's ugly and less functional than the "standard"
>> > interface. Instead of continuing to work on the Appearance Manager
>> > and Themes so that everyone can have their own favourite
>> > consistant interface we are going to have this "brushed chrome"
>> > interface forced on us becuase it's NeXT like.
>>
>> Who told you everything in OS X is going to look like it? Better yet,
>> how do you know that?
>
>Go watch the keynote from the recent WWDC (availble on Apple's web site
>via QuickTime Streaming). It's unfortunate that the developers in the
>audience where dumb struck by the demo, if they had booed on-mass Jobs
>just may have had a re-think. He did backtrack before the end of the demo
>and say (paraphrased) "This is all pre-alpha stuff, the final product will
>look much different", hopefully he was picking up some of the bad vibes
>that were fillig the room...
>
I've seen pictures of what was demonstrated there, Sonata and Mac OS
X. None of the stuff (except Sherlock) looks like the crud in QTPlayer.
>I encourage everyone who doesn't like the new interface (a prime example
>of which is QuickTime Player) to email leade...@apple.com. Be polite and
>articulate your objection to the wholesale abondonment of the Apple Human
>Interface Guidelines. Apple has recently shown that it is willing to
>listen to complaints and make changes, e.g. OS X server dropping from
>$1,000 to $500 and AppleShare 6.2 update dropping from $500 to free. There
>is hope...
>
Yes, good idea. I'm preparing my letter...
>> I don't think that "brushed" interface looks anything like NeXTstep.
>
>First off I have nothing against the brushed chrome interface, it would
>make a very nice Theme, but that's what it should be, a Theme!
>
>The colours may not be NeXTish, but the whole dock and multi-paned "File
>Manager" are exceedingly NeXTish. Do you guys realize that Next "desktop"
>has an application Dock (more reminiscent of Windows 3.1 than anything
>else)? The NeXT interface is very un-Mac like. The point has to be made to
>Apple loud and clear that it's "Mac OS X" not "NeXT OS X".
>
Yes, that is NeXTstep's file manager, and that is because they're
using components from MacOS X Server. Have you ever thought that it
might be too early in the game, and they didn't had a stable OS X
Finder, so they had to do with the X Server/NeXTstep browser?
The NeXTstep Dock looks nothing like Win3.x. It's a strip of icons.
Win3.x had nothing like it.
>From what I saw of the WWDC and other places, OS X is going to be more
>NeXTish than Mac like, this is a bad thing.
>
Sure, NeXT-like, not QTPlayer-like, as you claimed.
>Hope over to http://macosrumors.com/images/content/sherlock_3/ and have a
>look at the new Sherlock interface. The top third of the window is taken
>up by a dock for up to 18 search sets (none of which you can
>differenciate), the bit at the bottom is reserved for Apple Ads, only HALF
>the window is being used for information. At least it has a title bar...
I've seen that. Plain stupid. They ruined Sherlock. Everybody should
complain about this. They can't ruin a perfectly fine utility. If that
"thing" ships, I'll be able to see all of 3 search results in my 832x624
screen, since the rest of my screen real state will be taken by the
stupid interface.
--
cheers!
alexandre a. siufy mailto:asi...@uol.com.br
visit the progrock mp3 listening booth http://sites.uol.com.br/asiufy
Stop the bombing in Yugoslavia! http://www.antiwar.com
Alexandre A. S.
wrote:
>Gordon Mulcaster wrote:
>>
>> make a very nice Theme, but that's what it should be, a Theme!
>>
>> The colours may not be NeXTish, but the whole dock and multi-paned
>> "File Manager" are exceedingly NeXTish. Do you guys realize that
>> Next "desktop" has an application Dock (more reminiscent of Windows
>> 3.1 than anything else)? The NeXT interface is very un-Mac like. The
>> point has to be made to Apple loud and clear that it's "Mac OS X"
>> not "NeXT OS X".
>
>I made that argument in this group about two months ago. A thread
>("Mac OS X a misnomer") with 223 messages evolved that turned out
>rather disappointing and at times quite ugly. Maybe some people are
>waking up by now...
>
As I've written in my previous message, I don't believe OS X, the
release, will use the NeXT (file) browser, as shown on the WWDC keynote.
I suppose they just HAD to demonstrate OS X, but didn't had a stable
enough port of the Finder for OS X.
I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
>> From what I saw of the WWDC and other places, OS X is going to be
>> more NeXTish than Mac like, this is a bad thing.
>
>I fully agree.
Don't count on it.
cphij
If not already mentioned in this thread, check
(apparently) impartial critique of "real world"
interface design and qt4...
Interface Hall of Shame - QuickTime 4.0
http://www.iarchitect.com/qtime.htm
Scott
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>> >If the old player isn't big enough to spot for you, you are legally blind.
>> >
>> Um, I think I take exception to that comment. I AM legally blind, thank
>> you. I like the fact that I don't have to lean in at all to see what
>> I'm doing.
>
>Using a different resolution is a better solution.
>
Using 800x600 on a 19" monitor would be the optimum solution but isn't
an option at the moment.
>That would open the door to a complete overhaul of the Mac interface to
>attract more fools. One more reason to strongly object.
>
I hope you're not calling potential new users fools in that statement.
>Seems to me you want to look at a slightly bigger movie canvas instead of a
>huge frame around a small canvas of the same size. With the new player
>displaying a larger canvas is limited due to the space the player itself is
>clogging up. I don't think you are thinking this through thouroughly. Like I
>said earlier: it seems that defenders of this interface start with a fixed
>conclusion and argue from there.
>
It keeps the player control portion of the window at a set size. It
realy doesn't bother me that much. I've thought it through and it
down't bother me. I don't need you telling me what I have and haven't
done.
Scott
Gordon Mulcaster <s...@my.sig.com> wrote:
>Not to be too indelicate, but what about those of use who aren't hard of
>seeing? I paid extra for a larger monitor and a videocard capable of
>higher resolutions so I can get more information on the screen, I don't
>want to see Apple negate the advantages I paid for...
>
Alright, let me rephrase... The player interface is geared for ease of
use. It makes it very obvious to anyone seeing it (even for the first
time) how to play a movie. Even if I had 20/20 vision I still don't
think this is a bad thing. If you're using the player to watch a movie
what other information are you getting on the screen? Just curious.
It's not like the player interface comes up on every embedded QT movie.
Steven
>
> In article <37513F0C...@sifre.demon.nl>, ste...@sifre.demon.nl
> wrote:
>
> >Gordon Mulcaster wrote:
> >>
> >> make a very nice Theme, but that's what it should be, a Theme!
> >>
> >> The colours may not be NeXTish, but the whole dock and multi-paned
> >> "File Manager" are exceedingly NeXTish. Do you guys realize that
> >> Next "desktop" has an application Dock (more reminiscent of Windows
> >> 3.1 than anything else)? The NeXT interface is very un-Mac like. The
> >> point has to be made to Apple loud and clear that it's "Mac OS X"
> >> not "NeXT OS X".
> >
> >I made that argument in this group about two months ago. A thread
> >("Mac OS X a misnomer") with 223 messages evolved that turned out
> >rather disappointing and at times quite ugly. Maybe some people are
> >waking up by now...
> >
>
> As I've written in my previous message, I don't believe OS X, the
> release, will use the NeXT (file) browser, as shown on the WWDC keynote.
> I suppose they just HAD to demonstrate OS X, but didn't had a stable
> enough port of the Finder for OS X.
> I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
> think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they won't.
> >> From what I saw of the WWDC and other places, OS X is going to be
> >> more NeXTish than Mac like, this is a bad thing.
> >
> >I fully agree.
>
> Don't count on it.
An article I read in a Dutch Designers magazine about a Dutch designer
recently hired by Apple to work on interface design for Mac OS X suggests
Apple is not keeping with the look and behavior of the current MacOS.
Jon S.
I can only say a few things... First, look at the Real Networks
Jukebox application. It completely kicks QT player's tray idea into
the sandbox. Even Apple, on their new picture of Sherlock, has put a
text description below it.
Second, I'm a semi-power user, and even _I_ found the Quicktime Player
interface confusing and frustrating. I personally have no problems
with the look of it or the screen space it takes up. (I do have the
problem with not being able to collapse it or easily see the time
remaining on certain clips or not have separate fast forward and
rewind buttons on it.) And if those are "pro" features, well, that's
silly since they give you bass and treble controls...
The "look" is fine with me. It is the usability (or lack there of)
that kills me. Apple can change the "look" of the OS all they want
(and tons of people already do with Kaleidescope.) But, when they
screw up usability, well... See, the problem with the tray is not
that it's a tray. It's that it isn't very functional for anything
other than bookmarking unique streaming "channels" which can provide
their own icons.
Why not give it a typical finder view? You could view it as launcher
buttons, but then also as a typical listed folder hierarchy. Then,
like the Apple menu list, you could make all of the changes and links
yourselves in the Finder itself. Then, anyone who knows how to use
the Finder would know how to use the Quicktime interface...
Or, how about just giving different sections to the tray for content
by type? Audio files in one tray style, streaming links in another?
I'm sorry Michael, you can throw up all of the sarcasm and name
calling you want, but the truth is that half of the people on this
thread are talking solely about functionality issues and not about
whether or not it's pretty.
The tray looks pretty, but it's not functional. The button bar looks
pretty, but it's lacking desire features. Etc. Etc. (Like, why
can't I shrink it into a header bar for MP3 and audio play? Why isn't
there a tool bar icon for it with controls (like the CD player)?)
I personally _like_ the look of the new Quicktime (and associated
technologies) but I hate the "feel". The new Quicktime player feels
like a "streaming" player, and not a movie and audio player.
BTW, why doesn't Apple combine the player with a picture viewer and
allow you to set up slide shows just like (hopefully) they will let
you set up playlists of albums. Putting a few audio tracks and still
pictures in a directory would let people set up very easy multimedia.
Okay, so Apple made it pretty and technically made it play all kinds
of great new formats. What they didn't do was make it very functional
and easy to use. The tray is just one symptom of that.
Jon
Jon S.
Eilers) wrote:
>In article <see-300599...@a2a01224.intergate.bconnected.net>,
>s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
>
>> > Agreed. But we seem to disagree fundamentally on the application of that
>> > idea. Everone on this thread who is so worked up about the new MoviePlayer
>> > interface spends all of their time comparing it to the old MoviePlayer
>> > interface. I believe this is a mistaken comparison--lugnuts to peanuts.
>>
>> You're missing the point. The point isn't that QTP is non-Mac Like, the
>> point is QTP is what everything in OS X Client is going to be like.
>
>You have no evidence of this; every time you assert it this undermines
>your argument. Paranoia is not a trait of a reasonable discussion.
There is very strong evidence of this. First, Quicktime came out with
a new interface that was shipped to millions! Final cut uses some of
the same interface features as does the new leaked pictures of
"Sherlock II". Paranoia doesn't enter into it. Good logic and
deduction conclude that these design features (like the tray) have
been looked at, studied, and agreed to MONTHS ago for inclusion on new
Apple applications and features.
Pull your head out of your butt, Michael and just have a normal
discussion instead of trying to start riots left and right. And BTW,
I too am an Apple shareholder.
Jon
Jon S.
jon
On Sat, 29 May 1999 01:07:13 -0300, "Alexandre A. S." <asi...@usa.net>
wrote:
>In article <ouroboros.no-2...@192.168.1.2>,
>ourobo...@spam.mail.utexas.edu (Richard Persky) wrote:
>
>>In article
>><nomadic-2805...@host-209-214-98-112.sav.bellsouth.net>,
>>nom...@bellsouth.net (Brandon Blatcher) wrote:
>>
>>> You guys ARE sending these complaints to Apple right? They seem to be
>>> listening to people these days and it is still in beta release, so you
>>> might still be able to do something.
>>
>> Thanks for reminding me -- I just posted some of my thoughts to their
>> forum.
>
>
> Where exactly? And what would be the appropriate email address to
>forward some comments?
> Thanks.
>
>--
>cheers!
>alexandre a. siufy mailto:asi...@uol.com.br
>visit the progrock mp3 listening booth http://sites.uol.com.br/asiufy
>Protect privacy, boycott Intel: http://www.bigbrotherinside.org
Jon S.
McGrane) wrote:
>Even the Picture Viewer doesn't work like this. Why is Apple doing this to us?
Paul, I believe this is because the new QT player seems to be designed
for standalone streaming of QT video content. Every other reason for
it seems to be left haphazard at the moment.
Jon
Jon S.
Eilers) wrote:
>In article <alan-28059...@honda.umtri.umich.edu>,
>al...@eecs.umich.edu (Alan Olson) wrote:
> The thumbwheel is a terrible choice for a control
>> since its not easily manipulated with a mouse.
>
>Actually, it is manipulated just fine--click and drag up, volume up; click
>anddrag down, volume down. Very logical.
The reason it's a poorly implemented device is that the volume
indicator goes in a different direction than the motion of the volume
control. An up/down indicator would make more sense (or, a small to
large line on the dial itself like many of my non-computer controls
would help also.)
Also, it's not logical what to do with it. A slider has a finite
range that equates it's exact movement to the actual volume.
Certainly much more intuitive than the unmarked thumb wheel that you
have to move up and down to get a side to side indicator to change.
There's no little speaker icon or anything to tell the initial user
what's going on!
(And, to answer another thread, yes, I did post this to Apple after I
first downloaded it. The tray and the volume knob were two of my very
first, very distinct impressions and dislikes.)
Jon
Kevin A. Scaldeferri
Alexandre A. S. <asi...@usa.net> wrote:
> I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
>think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
Boy, I hope so. While it shouldn't be the primary interface, there
are things that are much easier to do from a command line than from a
GUI. Say you want to run a search on several files, perform a
manipulation of the matching lines and send the result to another
program. Not an unreasonable thing to do if you are doing data
analysis. This is a one liner from a Unix command line. I have no
idea how to do it in an efficient manner on a Mac (or PC).
--
======================================================================
Kevin Scaldeferri Calif. Institute of Technology
The INTJ's Prayer:
Lord keep me open to others' ideas, WRONG though they may be.
David Burgun
On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:47:41 -0700, Kevin A. Scaldeferri wrote
(in message <7j1gtd$4...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>):
>
> In article <asiufy-0106...@200.229.243.182>, Alexandre A. S.
> <asi...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
>> think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
>
> Boy, I hope so. While it shouldn't be the primary interface, there are
> things that are much easier to do from a command line than from a GUI.
That depends on the GUI. If done properly, a GUI should be *far* superior than
a CLI.
Say
> you want to run a search on several files, perform a manipulation of the
> matching lines and send the result to another program. Not an unreasonable
> thing to do if you are doing data analysis. This is a one liner from a Unix
> command line.
You just need to figure out the best GUI metaphor to do this. Now, the "just"
really should be inverted comma's because designing and building a good GUI is
*very* difficult. That is why programmers often resort to a CLI instead of a
GUI.
If done properly a GUI to do the above search operation should be easier and
quicker than the CLI equivilent.
I hate typing "Commands" I don't mind typing program statements, but somehow
having to do type commands really bugs me.
CheersDave
Jerry Kindall
Burgun" <dbu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:47:41 -0700, Kevin A. Scaldeferri wrote
> (in message <7j1gtd$4...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>):
>
> Say
> > you want to run a search on several files, perform a manipulation of the
> > matching lines and send the result to another program. Not an unreasonable
> > thing to do if you are doing data analysis. This is a one liner from
a Unix
> > command line.
>
> You just need to figure out the best GUI metaphor to do this. Now, the "just"
> really should be inverted comma's because designing and building a good
GUI is
> *very* difficult. That is why programmers often resort to a CLI instead of a
> GUI.
>
> If done properly a GUI to do the above search operation should be easier and
> quicker than the CLI equivilent.
The way it's done in a GUI is to select all the lines (records) that
contain the information you want -- most databases, spreadsheets, etc.
have such a feature. (Heck, at least one _word_processor_ has it -- Nisus
Writer, of course.) Then you just copy those lines to the clipboard, or
export them to a file.
--
Jerry Kindall <mailto:kin...@mail.manual.com> Technical Writing, etc.
Manual Labor <http://www.manual.com/> We Wrote the Book!
Paul McGrane
<not-010699...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
mei...@primenet.com wrote:
> Even a complete newbie would recognize the movement of the "lcd" volume
> indicator; it is the same as on my VCR, my car CD player and my Camcorder.
I'll bet you a lot of these newbies don't know how to use their VCRs very
effectively either. Prettiness is fine, but functionality has to come into
this somewhere. Aside from a very few instances, using the new QuickTime
Player has seemed somewhat more of a hassle than the old one.
--
...Paul McGrane
Paul McGrane
> Again with the blanket statements. You keep seeing a major policy change
> or fundamental metaphor shift when only a single application (and an
> explicity cross-platform one) has shipped.
Have you seen how the QuickTime Player works in Windows? It makes even
less sense. Combined with leaked pictures of Sherlock (though MOSR's
usually pretty unreliable nowadays), this new sheet metal interface seems
to be Apple's direction, at least for utility software (as someone
suggested replacing the old rounded black windows).
At least it's not as distressing as Apple trying to turn the whole
interface over to this nonsense, but I really hope they make some
substantial refinements before anything final ships.
--
...Paul McGrane
Scott
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>An article I read in a Dutch Designers magazine about a Dutch designer
>recently hired by Apple to work on interface design for Mac OS X suggests
>Apple is not keeping with the look and behavior of the current MacOS.
>
Just because they have hired people to work on interface design doesn't
mean they're throwing out every aspect of the current interface. If
anything this would seem to indicate they aren't going with the NeXT
interface as you fear. If they were I don't think they'd be hiring
people for interface design since NeXTStep is done.
Steven
>
> In article <37528B2E...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >> >If the old player isn't big enough to spot for you, you are legally blind.
> >> >
> >> Um, I think I take exception to that comment. I AM legally blind, thank
> >> you. I like the fact that I don't have to lean in at all to see what
> >> I'm doing.
> >
> >Using a different resolution is a better solution.
> >
> Using 800x600 on a 19" monitor would be the optimum solution but isn't
> an option at the moment.
>
> >That would open the door to a complete overhaul of the Mac interface to
> >attract more fools. One more reason to strongly object.
> >
> I hope you're not calling potential new users fools in that statement.
If they would stay away if the interface wasn't all goofy I would.
> >Seems to me you want to look at a slightly bigger movie canvas instead of a
> >huge frame around a small canvas of the same size. With the new player
> >displaying a larger canvas is limited due to the space the player itself is
> >clogging up. I don't think you are thinking this through thouroughly. Like I
> >said earlier: it seems that defenders of this interface start with a fixed
> >conclusion and argue from there.
> >
> It keeps the player control portion of the window at a set size. It
> realy doesn't bother me that much. I've thought it through and it
> down't bother me. I don't need you telling me what I have and haven't
> done.
I'm trying to see your argument by following your logic.
Now I find there isn't any, and you just don't care...
Alan Olson
server. I made extensive revisions, then re-posted. My apologies if both
make it through.
In article
<not-290599...@hybrid-024-221-025-226.phoenix.speedchoice.com>,
mei...@primenet.com wrote:
[deletions...]
>I've asked several people on this thread to cook up a sample of how this
>would look in Photoshop. Please, go ahead, by all means. I would love to
>see your hypothesis illustrated.
>
I won't draw a picture, but I can give a general description. Start with
the old MoviePlayer (the Mac version, I'll stay on the Mac side since I'm
less familiar with Windows conventions).
The first step is to fix the problems with the controls. Disabled
controls should be made to look disabled. A "Player" or "Control" menu
will be added which duplicates the operations of the main player controls
(e.g., Play, Pause, Stop, ...) with the keyboard equivalents listed. The
volume control should be fixed - the current version is non-standard and
does a poor job showing the volume level - but no ideas come to mind
immediately.
Second step is to add a favorites menu, similar to the one in your web
browser. Like your browser's menu, you could divide, group, put into
submenus, rename, edit, and generally arrange things to your liking.
Third step is to create an "advanced" editing controls window. This
window would "float" like a palette window. This is not an ideal
solution, but would allow access to these functions without loading the
main viewer window down with lots of controls most users will never use.
It also allows flexibility in placing the controls wherever the user
wants.
[deletions...]
>Apple has more expertise in the matter than anyone. But you seem to simply
>be blind to the obvious advantages and paradigms of the new player, as is
>that "review"--which is not worthy of a reasoned critique, since it isn't
>one in the first place. It is a _toy_, as I mentionedin a another poston
>this topic--it is a consumer appliance, like a shiny chromed toaster, not
>an industrial tool. Get over it! Both you and the reviewer are guilty of
>comparing a toy to a tool, a straw man argument at best.
>
You have a lot of creative arguments: the new player has more functions,
it's sleek, it looks like a VCR, it's not a "real" program, and we should
trust that Apple knows what it is doing. You rarely address any of the
actual problems the reviewer, I, and others point out.
Here's an idea. Compare the user interface of the QT4.0 player to the
interface I described above. Make your best argument for the superiority
of the QT4.0 interface. Remember, this is the user interface we're
talking about. Good looks and neat features don't count (unless you argue
that these features are possible _only_ with the QT4.0 interface).
If you don't want to do that, post a critique of the review. Above you
say the review is "not reasoned". Tell us why. Pick the parts of the
review you think are weakest and tear them apart for us. Show us their
mistakes.
Others have made their case against the QT4.0 player interface. Make
yours in favor.
Alan Olson
al...@eecs.umich.edu
Steven
>
> In article <3753B400...@sifre.demon.nl>, Steven
> <ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>
> >An article I read in a Dutch Designers magazine about a Dutch designer
> >recently hired by Apple to work on interface design for Mac OS X suggests
> >Apple is not keeping with the look and behavior of the current MacOS.
Have you read the article?
> Just because they have hired people to work on interface design doesn't
> mean they're throwing out every aspect of the current interface. If
> anything this would seem to indicate they aren't going with the NeXT
> interface as you fear.
If it's going to be anything like the Quicktime Player, Final Cut and Sherlock
II I'd rather have NEXT. What I really want is the Mac interface which is the
best GUI around. Many of us have been advocating this passionately for years.
It is cynical that of all companies Apple is going to be its undoing. The most
important part of the term GUI is the U in the middle.
> If they were I don't think they'd be hiring
> people for interface design since NeXTStep is done.
By the same logic one can argue that Apple is not going to use the Mac
interface. If they were I don't think they'd be hiring people for interface
design since Mac OS is done. Thanks for making my point.
Jon S.
wrote:
>In article <290519991959384182%scot...@bigfoot.com>, Scott
><scot...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>> Incorporating some of OpenStep's interface into the Mac isn't a bad
>> thing.
>
>I agree, e.g. the multi-paned finder would be a nice addition to the icon
>and list views. As a replacement, it sucks. The Dock is just plain stupid,
>aliases are much more convienient and flexable -- the ex-NeXT engineers
>don't like aliases, or type and creater codes, or much of anything else
>that is uniquely Macintosh, and are getting rid of them. This is NOT an
>improvement.
What's funny about this (and really, hopefully, a good sign) is this
part of www.appleinsider.com's latest Sonata report:
Data Browser 1.0
One of the new features to ship with Sonata will be a new
appearance control called the Data Browser. Data Browser
provides a generic implementation of discrete data displays such
as the Finder's ListView. This control will allow developers to
add
the standardized table/list behavior and appearance of the Mac
OS 8.x Finder to any application, helping to provide a more user
friendly, universal look and feel between the Finder and other
applications.
Sheesh. I hope the MacOSX team and other teams get this clue from the
Sonata team. The Tray could really use this, IMHO.
And I agree with Gordon. Some of you guys are just flaming a--holes
who aren't looking at the picture. Gordon, myself, and many others
are just crazy Luddites screaming "don't change anything". There's
valid reasons that the new Quicktime interface doesn't work right, and
it has little to do with "brushed metal" or "big play buttons". It's
about functionality and usability.
For instance, the whole tray and button bar is clumsy and big, but a
small, "turn down" button could hide the whole thing and give us the
same controls as embedded movies on webpages in a slender view. You
know the code is there and finished. Why not give the option?
Window shade? Why not? It's a feature Mac users love...
It's things like this that are at the heart of the problem. The "big
play button" wouldn't be a big issue if there were an easy way to put
minimal controls on for maximizing the view. The "tray" wouldn't be a
problem if there were easy ways of identifying and classifying your
buttons.
Give me a "spiffed up" finder view if you want to make it brushed.
Set the normal icons on little raised bumps, give a list view with the
look of embossed metal tags with all of the normal information, etc.
But, make the environment simple _and_ powerful. Right now, it's
simple _and_ dumbed down. "If you make something idiot proof, only
the idiots will use it." (Don't know who to attribute that to.) The
point is that the MacOS is great because it's simple and powerful.
The new Quicktime looks simple on the surface, but it doesn't do
things very well beyond that.
Jon
Jon S.
You're defending things you don't know to be true and assuming we are
saying we "know" it's true.
*sigh*
Quit shouting, slamming, and arguing for a second and just listen to
what people are saying.
It's a silly and moot point to say that Quicktime and Sherlock are not
"part" of the OS. Even if they aren't in the system folder, they both
ship standard with the Operating System and install standard with the
Operating System. Hell, think what Microsoft would call them. They
put a friggin browser in as "integrated".
The problem is that the newest versions of MacOS components from Apple
all use the same design paradigm, and that is kind of scary since
components of the design paradigm are WIDELY held as somewhat flawed
(look at any other discussion list... except Apple's since they
cancelled many of the interface posts to the Quicktime list...)
Jon
On Tue, 01 Jun 1999 16:23:56 -0700, n...@a.real.email.add (Michael M.
Eilers) wrote:
>In article <3753f145...@news.earthlink.net>,
>jonce...@nospammiesno.earthlink.net (Jon S.) wrote:
>
>> >You have no evidence of this; every time you assert it this undermines
>> >your argument. Paranoia is not a trait of a reasonable discussion.
>>
>> There is very strong evidence of this. First, Quicktime came out with
>> a new interface that was shipped to millions!
>
>Millions of those were PC users. What is the signifigance of that, in your
>estimation?
>
>> Final cut uses some of
>> the same interface features
>
>I use Final Cut Pro on a daily basis; the resemblance is superficial,
>nothing more.
>
>> as does the new leaked pictures of
>> "Sherlock II". Paranoia doesn't enter into it.
>
>Both of these are applications; neither is the Finder. I'm still waiting
>for your proof.
>
>> Good logic and
>> deduction conclude that these design features (like the tray) have
>> been looked at, studied, and agreed to MONTHS ago for inclusion on new
>> Apple applications and features.
>
>Applications, yes. The Finder? Wait and see.
>
>> Pull your head out of your butt,
>
>Oh yes, quite a witty repartee. Obviously someone we should take seriously.
>
> Michael and just have a normal
>> discussion instead of trying to start riots left and right. And BTW,
>> I too am an Apple shareholder.
>
>Which proves what--that you are objective? :-)
>
>michael
>
>--
>Michael M. Eilers * Fearful Symmetry Designs * e-mail address in headers
Jon S.
Eilers) wrote:
>In article <3753f9bf...@news.earthlink.net>,
>jonce...@nospammiesno.earthlink.net (Jon S.) wrote:
>
>> The reason it's a poorly implemented device is that the volume
>> indicator goes in a different direction than the motion of the volume
>> control. An up/down indicator would make more sense (or, a small to
>> large line on the dial itself like many of my non-computer controls
>> would help also.)
>
>Are we using the same player? On my system, the motion of the wheel is
>animated up/down to match the up/down cursor movement. I just don't see
>what you are talking about.
When you move the dial up and down, it animates. But, the dial does
not show the volume level on it. The line bars to the right of it do
show the level. And those go left to right. So, it takes an up and
down motion on a dial that animates (but does not show it's position)
to move an indicator which travels from left to right.
It's not a huge point, but it is a point.
Jon
Kevin A. Scaldeferri
David Burgun <dbu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:47:41 -0700, Kevin A. Scaldeferri wrote
>(in message <7j1gtd$4...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>):
>>
>> <asi...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
>>> think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
>>
>> Boy, I hope so. While it shouldn't be the primary interface, there are
>> things that are much easier to do from a command line than from a GUI.
>
>That depends on the GUI. If done properly, a GUI should be *far*
>superior than a CLI.
In many respects this is true, but I don't think it's the case that a
GUI is superior in all respects for all purposes. I don't see any
reason why it ought to be true and there are certainly things that no
existing GUI does better than a command line. That's why you almost
always have an xterm open when running X Windows. If I could do this
on my Mac, it might completely replace my Unix machine.
>> Say
>> you want to run a search on several files, perform a manipulation of the
>> matching lines and send the result to another program. Not an unreasonable
>> thing to do if you are doing data analysis. This is a one liner from a Unix
>> command line.
>
>If done properly a GUI to do the above search operation should be easier and
>quicker than the CLI equivilent.
Maybe easier in that doing this rapidly in Unix requires understanding
grep, awk and pipes, but I really doubt you can make it faster to
enter the commands.
>I hate typing "Commands" I don't mind typing program statements, but somehow
>having to do type commands really bugs me.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess, but in my opinion
GUI's will never fully replace the command line interface until
someone designs one that can do a pipe or a redirect.
Kevin A. Scaldeferri
Jerry Kindall <kin...@mail.manual.com> wrote:
>In article <01HW.B379A7EC0...@news.earthlink.net>, "David
>Burgun" <dbu...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Jun 1999 13:47:41 -0700, Kevin A. Scaldeferri wrote
>> (in message <7j1gtd$4...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>):
>>
>>> you want to run a search on several files, perform a manipulation of the
>>> matching lines and send the result to another program. Not an unreasonable
>>> thing to do if you are doing data analysis. This is a one liner from
>a Unix
>>> command line.
>
>contain the information you want -- most databases, spreadsheets, etc.
>have such a feature. (Heck, at least one _word_processor_ has it -- Nisus
>Writer, of course.) Then you just copy those lines to the clipboard, or
>export them to a file.
Right, on a GUI I have to search the spreadsheet, put the results into
a new spreadsheet, manipulate that spreadsheet, export the file, go to
the other program and run it using the new file. A pain and I've
created two new files I don't particularly need.
On a Unix command line I can do a grep piped into an awk piped into
the program I want to run and I've accomplished what I want with one
line of typing and without any unwanted files laying around.
Now, your average user doesn't want to learn how to use grep or pipes
or such, and they shouldn't have to. However, for the power user who
wants to use their computer as efficiently as possible, this option
ought to be availible.
Steven
>
> When you move the dial up and down, it animates. But, the dial does
> not show the volume level on it. The line bars to the right of it do
> show the level. And those go left to right. So, it takes an up and
> down motion on a dial that animates (but does not show it's position)
> to move an indicator which travels from left to right.
>
> It's not a huge point, but it is a point.
>
> Jon
You can also directly drag the little sound cone to the right of the wheel
that
shows the volume.
Jon S.
wrote:
>You can also directly drag the little sound cone to the right of the wheel
>that
>shows the volume.
Hmm, that's kind of cool. :)
The dial moves along with your clicks. They should definitely add a
small to large line instead of just anonymous tick marks. It can't be
more than 20 or 30k worth of images.
Jon
Jon S.
Eilers) wrote:
>Windows 98 simply won't function without IE, wheras
>my Mac does just fine without QT4 (I've only got it on one system until it
>is out of beta).
he he. Have you not read anything about Microsoft's idiotic attempt
to "weave" IE into Windows 98? There are at least 2 methods I know of
to remove IE from Windows 98 and have it function perfectly well.
(Note to self: Why do I keep responding to this guy?)
Yesterday's DOJ trial testimony reports are a hoot. Throughout the
trial, they keep claiming that you have to consider Windows98 vs.
every single possible OS, including email readers on cell phones and
crap like that. Then, Bill Gates goes and writes an article for
Newsweek on how his company is betting their future on the continued
dominance of the desktop PC as the end all/be all of computing...
Jon
Alexandre A. S.
s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
>In article <asiufy-0106...@200.229.243.182>, "Alexandre A. S."
><asi...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> As I've written in my previous message, I don't believe OS X, the
>> release, will use the NeXT (file) browser, as shown on the WWDC keynote.
>
>Hmmm, I watched that section of the keynote twice, Steve used phrases such
>as "Brand New Finder" and "The New Finder". Sounds to me like it's here to
>stay. If they were keeping the Mac interface the paned file viewer would
>just be another view option.
>
That's a possibility, and a pretty interesting one, integrating
NeXTstep's (file) browser into the Finder.
>> I suppose they just HAD to demonstrate OS X, but didn't had a stable
>> enough port of the Finder for OS X.
>
>Then they should have made it clear that this was a demo and not "The New
>Finder".
>
Sure, they could've done that. But they also made sure to tell people
that the whole OS X thing was still in the early stages of development,
so you can fairly say that it was a demo after all.
>> I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
>> think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
>
>That's what I'm afraid of. That and the loss of the desktop database, file
>types, creator codes, and aliases. I'm also afraid it's going to include
>text configuration files and filename extensions. They have already
>abandoned the HIG, with the demise of the above features we can say
>"good-bye" to the Mac interface.
>
Did he mention those things would happen? I just can't see Jobs
admiting the possibility of text configuration files.
>If I'm wrong here I'll be very happy, the more wrong I am the happier I'll
>be. A clear statement from Apple regarding these issues would be very
>welcome.
Expect clear statements, or at least clearer news as DR2 ships. DR1
is supposed to be far too preliminary.
--
cheers!
alexandre a. siufy mailto:asi...@uol.com.br
visit the progrock mp3 listening booth http://sites.uol.com.br/asiufy
Stop the bombing in Yugoslavia! http://www.antiwar.com
Alexandre A. S.
wrote:
>Alexandre A. S. wrote:
>>
>> In article <37513F0C...@sifre.demon.nl>, ste...@sifre.demon.nl
>> wrote:
>>
>> As I've written in my previous message, I don't believe OS X, the
>> release, will use the NeXT (file) browser, as shown on the WWDC keynote.
>> I suppose they just HAD to demonstrate OS X, but didn't had a stable
>> enough port of the Finder for OS X.
>> I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
>> think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
>
>I haven't seen any evidence to suggest they won't.
>
Then you must be really new to the world of Macs. Have you ever seen
Apple touting OS X Server's shell? They only left it there because OS X
is an almost-Unix, and needs the shell to be there, but Apple included
plenty of GUI alternatives for the shell, in OS X Server. Because of
that, I don't think OS X will have a shell, first, because it's a
consumer OS, and doesn't require the shell, and also because OS X is not
as close to Unix as OS X Server is, again, eliminating the need of a
shell.
>> >> From what I saw of the WWDC and other places, OS X is going to be
>> >> more NeXTish than Mac like, this is a bad thing.
>> >
>> >I fully agree.
>>
>> Don't count on it.
>
>An article I read in a Dutch Designers magazine about a Dutch designer
>recently hired by Apple to work on interface design for Mac OS X suggests
>Apple is not keeping with the look and behavior of the current MacOS.
I've read about it too. But you claim above that OS X will be
NeXTish, and this is simply not the case. If anything, OS X will be
different from everything we've seen up to this day.
Alexandre A. S.
(Kevin A. Scaldeferri) wrote:
>In article <asiufy-0106...@200.229.243.182>,
>Alexandre A. S. <asi...@usa.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
>>think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
>
>Boy, I hope so. While it shouldn't be the primary interface, there
>are things that are much easier to do from a command line than from a
>GUI. Say you want to run a search on several files, perform a
>manipulation of the matching lines and send the result to another
>program. Not an unreasonable thing to do if you are doing data
>analysis. This is a one liner from a Unix command line. I have no
>idea how to do it in an efficient manner on a Mac (or PC).
You can do that with a GUI. It might take longer, but you can do
that. And it'll be far easier. Of course, YOU might think it's easier
and faster with a CLI because you already know all the arcane commands
and their respective syntaxes.
Alexandre A. S.
s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
>In article <310519990411312947%scot...@bigfoot.com>, Scott
><scot...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
>> > Why can't it just look like the Mac interface?
>>
>> And as you so delicately put it earlier this is a boon to those of us
>> who are a bit hard of seeing as it were.
>
>Not to be too indelicate, but what about those of use who aren't hard of
>seeing? I paid extra for a larger monitor and a videocard capable of
>higher resolutions so I can get more information on the screen, I don't
>want to see Apple negate the advantages I paid for...
Ha! What until you try the new Sherlock...
Alexandre A. S.
<scot...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>In article <see-310599...@08-00-07-3e-42-3e.bconnected.net>,
>Gordon Mulcaster <s...@my.sig.com> wrote:
>
>>Not to be too indelicate, but what about those of use who aren't hard of
>>seeing? I paid extra for a larger monitor and a videocard capable of
>>higher resolutions so I can get more information on the screen, I don't
>>want to see Apple negate the advantages I paid for...
>>
>Alright, let me rephrase... The player interface is geared for ease of
>use. It makes it very obvious to anyone seeing it (even for the first
>time) how to play a movie. Even if I had 20/20 vision I still don't
>think this is a bad thing. If you're using the player to watch a movie
>what other information are you getting on the screen? Just curious.
>It's not like the player interface comes up on every embedded QT movie.
Humm... I never thought getting a movie to play in the old
MoviePlayer was difficult. Actually, it's more intuitive than in the new
one. Press the Play button, and the movie plays. Press the Pause button,
and it pauses! Wow...
Alexandre A. S.
jonce...@nospammiesno.earthlink.net (Jon S.) wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 1999 15:40:15 -0700, n...@a.real.email.add (Michael M.
>Eilers) wrote:
>
>>In article <see-300599...@a2a01224.intergate.bconnected.net>,
>>s...@my.sig.com (Gordon Mulcaster) wrote:
>>
>>> > Agreed. But we seem to disagree fundamentally on the application of
>>> > that
>>> > idea. Everone on this thread who is so worked up about the new
>>> > MoviePlayer
>>> > interface spends all of their time comparing it to the old
>>> > MoviePlayer
>>> > interface. I believe this is a mistaken comparison--lugnuts to
>>> > peanuts.
>>>
>>> You're missing the point. The point isn't that QTP is non-Mac Like, the
>>> point is QTP is what everything in OS X Client is going to be like.
>>
>>You have no evidence of this; every time you assert it this undermines
>>your argument. Paranoia is not a trait of a reasonable discussion.
>
>There is very strong evidence of this. First, Quicktime came out with
>a new interface that was shipped to millions! Final cut uses some of
>the same interface features as does the new leaked pictures of
>"Sherlock II". Paranoia doesn't enter into it. Good logic and
>deduction conclude that these design features (like the tray) have
>been looked at, studied, and agreed to MONTHS ago for inclusion on new
>Apple applications and features.
>
This is not the case. The new QTplayer was only included on the very
last beta before its launch (at NAB). You can easily check that by
looking at the archives of AppleInsider, they've had articles about a
couple of QT4 betas.
You just need a quick look at the QTplayer to see that it was a quick
hack, made to impress by its look. It doesn't even support Navigation
Services!
Kevin A. Scaldeferri
Alexandre A. S. <asi...@usa.net> wrote:
>In article <7j1gtd$4...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ke...@cco.caltech.edu
>(Kevin A. Scaldeferri) wrote:
>
>>In article <asiufy-0106...@200.229.243.182>,
>>Alexandre A. S. <asi...@usa.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
>>>think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
>>
>>Boy, I hope so. While it shouldn't be the primary interface, there
>>are things that are much easier to do from a command line than from a
>>GUI. Say you want to run a search on several files, perform a
>>manipulation of the matching lines and send the result to another
>>program. Not an unreasonable thing to do if you are doing data
>>analysis. This is a one liner from a Unix command line. I have no
>>idea how to do it in an efficient manner on a Mac (or PC).
>
> You can do that with a GUI. It might take longer, but you can do
>that. And it'll be far easier. Of course, YOU might think it's easier
>and faster with a CLI because you already know all the arcane commands
>and their respective syntaxes.
That's why I said it shouldn't be the primary interface. Yes, the
average user shouldn't be required to learn about advanced and powerful
tools just to use their computer. But, those tools ought to be there
for those who want them. There's no good reason not to include a
shell that users can access if they want.
Kevin A. Scaldeferri
Alexandre A. S. <asi...@usa.net> wrote:
> I don't think you've noticed, but the shell was there. Do you REALLY
>think Apple is going to include a shell of any kind with OS X?
Here's another reason why OS X ought to have a shell. Presumably OS X
Server has a shell either because there are some administrative tasks
that need it or out of a recognition that many administrators will
prefer to have a shell availible for doing some things. However, it
is rarely the case that the administrator of a system actually logs on
to the server directly. Instead, the machine on the admin's desk is
usually going to be running the client as well. With this in mind,
you can see that OS X Client ought to have the same shell capabilities
as Server so administrators can use the shell from anywhere on the
network.
Ludwig
A. Scaldeferri) wrote:
> Here's another reason why OS X ought to have a shell. Presumably OS X
> Server has a shell either because there are some administrative tasks
> that need it or out of a recognition that many administrators will
> prefer to have a shell availible for doing some things. However, it
> is rarely the case that the administrator of a system actually logs on
> to the server directly. Instead, the machine on the admin's desk is
> usually going to be running the client as well. With this in mind,
> you can see that OS X Client ought to have the same shell capabilities
> as Server so administrators can use the shell from anywhere on the
> network.
They could just telnet to the server. Wouldn't even need to be running
OSX. Although I think it would be nice to have a CLI available with OSX
Client, just so as not to have to rely on new, GUI-based implementations
of established commands and tools.
Scott
<ste...@sifre.demon.nl> wrote:
>Have you read the article?
>
No and I never said I did. I was going by what information I was given
here.
>If it's going to be anything like the Quicktime Player, Final Cut and Sherlock
>II I'd rather have NEXT.
>
You've hit on the magic word there: "If". You don't know and neither do
I.
>What I really want is the Mac interface which is the best GUI around.
>
I agree it is. I've been using it for quite some time. I'm curious to
see what their plans are for the OS as a whole. I'm not jumping to the
conclusion that they're going to apply the QT4 player interface to the
entire OS. Frankly I don't think they're quite that stupid. Of course
stranger things have happened.
>> If they were I don't think they'd be hiring > people for interface
>> design since NeXTStep is done.
>
>By the same logic one can argue that Apple is not going to use the Mac
>interface. If they were I don't think they'd be hiring people for interface
>design since Mac OS is done.
>
So the OS isn't done. I'd like to see the OS evolve. No one but Apple
knows how it's going to evolve so there's no use getting yourself into
a tizzy until we see where they're headed. Make sense?
>Thanks for making my point.
>
I don't think I did. It can go either way.