Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Target Practice · May 24, 2002, 12:11 PM

Have you noticed how the drop-down URL auto-complete list in Internet Explorer handles transparency? It is semi-transparent and blurs the image beneath. This effect is cool and in my opinion better than OS X menus (which do not blur the background). This blur makes the background less distracting.

It's also interesting to note that the Amiga OS (although antique) had a transparent menu option which also blurred the background.

Check this out for yourself in IE and let me know what you think.

brachiator · May 24, 2002, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Target Practice:
Have you noticed how the drop-down URL auto-complete list in Internet Explorer handles transparency? It is semi-transparent and blurs the image beneath. This effect is cool and in my opinion better than OS X menus (which do not blur the background). This blur makes the background less distracting.

It's also interesting to note that the Amiga OS (although antique) had a transparent menu option which also blurred the background.

Check this out for yourself in IE and let me know what you think.

yeah, you are right... good spot. I do like it better, and I imagine that it takes less processor power, since the rendering is less precise?

On the other hand, I don't really like the transparency much at all in X. I find it distracting and unattractive. But, a lot of people like it, and find it functional. For functionality, crisper non-blurred transparency may be better, so that you can really see what it is underneath -- isn't that the functional reason for transparency?

starfleetX · May 24, 2002, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by brachiator:
I imagine that it takes less processor power, since the rendering is less precise?

No, quite the opposite. It should use more cpu because in addition to multiplying through the alpha, it also has to apply a blur filter.

ntsc · May 24, 2002, 01:46 PM

The other problem with it is that i don't think that IE's blurred transparency is live, or at least it wasn't in OS 9 ( i use OmniWeb mostly so i don't see IE too much

). For example if you typed a URL in and them for some reason the drop down remained but the content beneath it changed the transparent image would not change to reflect what is now there.

Personally i like the 'proper' transparency - sorry.

brachiator · May 24, 2002, 01:58 PM

Originally posted by starfleetX:
No, quite the opposite. It should use more cpu because in addition to multiplying through the alpha, it also has to apply a blur filter.

Ah, OK. I'd assumed that it would resolve the image in a linear fashion from rough to fine detail. And now I've showed how little I know about this subject, since that makes no sense in terms of reading digital image data...

foobars · May 24, 2002, 02:24 PM

I don't think that the IE dropdown uses a true transparency scheme like Quartz. I'm pretty sure it just takes a clip of the part of the webpage that is obscured by the menu and sets it as the background of the list, no alpha involved. Try loading a new page with the menu down or with an animated gif behind it, you'll notice it doesn't update like a real Quartz scheme would (OmniWeb). It probably takes a lot less processor power since there's no updating involved.

FERRO · May 24, 2002, 02:56 PM

I always found it strange that if you have that auto-link window drop down and then grab the actual window and move it... the auto-link window stays put where the window was...

ehhh... weird, you would think it would move around with the parent window...

moki · May 24, 2002, 04:43 PM

Originally posted by brachiator:
yeah, you are right... good spot. I do like it better, and I imagine that it takes less processor power, since the rendering is less precise?

Actually, it takes more processing power, because the underlying image must be blurred algorithmically.

Target Practice · May 24, 2002, 05:27 PM

I like the blurred effect... not necessarily how IE accomplishes it.

I am bothered by OS X's use of transparency. It's gratuitous and unrealistic. Plus, it does not (in any way) enhance usability... it seems to exist simply because it can be done... and for no other reason.

My point with the post... do transparency right or don't do it at all. And, by "right" I mean be realistic.

AJ · May 25, 2002, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Target Practice:
I am bothered by OS X's use of transparency. It's gratuitous and unrealistic. Plus, it does not (in any way) enhance usability... it seems to exist simply because it can be done... and for no other reason.

Actually, it seem to make sense to me. The menus are transparent, which indicates their temporary nature. Same goes with dock menus etc.

asxless · May 25, 2002, 06:46 AM

Originally posted by Target Practice:
...I am bothered by OS X's use of transparency. It's gratuitous and unrealistic. Plus, it does not (in any way) enhance usability... it seems to exist simply because it can be done... and for no other reason...

The answer to OS X transparency is for Apple to make the amount of transparency a system wide preference... including NONE

asxless in iLand

undotwa · May 25, 2002, 07:42 AM

This is a fun easter egg (or bug) in IE for X:

1. Type a URL in the Address Bar.
2. Make sure a auto complete list comes down.
3. Then click on the title bar and move the window. Keep on typing

You can also see by that how the background isn't 'live'. It's just a static image of the web page blurred.

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: undotwa ]

Fotek2001 · May 25, 2002, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by undotwa:

This is a fun easter egg (or bug) in IE for X:

1. Type a URL in the Address Bar.
2. Make sure a auto complete list comes down.
3. Then click on the title bar and move the window. Keep on typing

You can also see by that how the background isn't 'live'. It's just a static image of the web page blurred.

That's funny! It shows how this menu is really just a title and borderless window layered on top of the current window. I imagine that this will be updated in the next version (only 7 weeks to go) with some kinf of live transparency.

JLL · May 25, 2002, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by Fotek2001:
I imagine that this will be updated in the next version (only 7 weeks to go) with some kinf of live transparency.

Why? They haven't updated it in the 2+ years that IE has existed on Mac OS X.

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: JLL ]

Fotek2001 · May 25, 2002, 12:04 PM

Why? They haven't updated it in the 2+ years that IE has existed on Mac OS X.

Because the new version is supposed to have been extensively updated and largely re-written from scratch - even the Tasman rendering engine. I wouldn't be surprised to see sheets, a Cocoa style NSToolbar and better use of Quartz capabilities. They've already said (at various publicity events to do with Mac OS X) that it will have better support for new web standards, improved HTML layout rendering for tables, Quartz antialiased text and be significantly faster.

JLL · May 25, 2002, 12:14 PM

Originally posted by Fotek2001:


Because the new version is supposed to have been extensively updated and largely re-written from scratch - even the Tasman rendering engine. I wouldn't be surprised to see sheets, a Cocoa style NSToolbar and better use of Quartz capabilities. They've already said (at various publicity events to do with Mac OS X) that it will have better support for new web standards, improved HTML layout rendering for tables, Quartz antialiased text and be significantly faster.

But the update that you'll see in a few weeks won't be the big one.

Fotek2001 · May 25, 2002, 02:00 PM

But the update that you'll see in a few weeks won't be the big one.

Arsebiscuits...! How come?

JLL · May 25, 2002, 02:06 PM

Originally posted by Fotek2001:


Arsebiscuits...! How come?

Because the MBU have said that. They are working on the Office update and after that they'll work on IE.

In one of the other threads someone said that we shouldn't expect IE5.5 (or whatever the name will be) until next year.

Fotek2001 · May 25, 2002, 02:30 PM

Because the MBU have said that. They are working on the Office update and after that they'll work on IE.

In one of the other threads someone said that we shouldn't expect IE5.5 (or whatever the name will be) until next year.

Oh well... I suppose that's fair enough. After paying loads of ca$h for Office it's encouraging to know they're not shirking their responsbilities in keeping it up to date.

<hopless romantic>I want not to like M$ but the Mac BU keep a little spark of faith going in me.</hopeless romantic>

Back on the subject of menus though, I'm inclined to side with those who think menus shouldn't be transparent. The main reason is that I can't actually think of any circumstance in which it might be useful to have a see-through menu. For me something that would be much more useful would be tear off menus like NeXT Step used to have.

[ 05-25-2002: Message edited by: Fotek2001 ]