Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

SGen · Aug 15, 2002, 01:45 PM

This post started out as a reply to the post about what's changed in the 10.2 Dock, but then evolved into something more. I'd like to share it with you. WARNING, long post: summerizes a lot of my ideas over the past year, and where I'd like things to go. Most of it is just musing and speculation, but hopefully you'll find a few valid points ;-)

The basic answer is, almost nothing has changed with the Dock. What I find interesting about that is this: when OS X came out, everyone hated the Dock. Let's face it: as a user interface element, the Dock is pretty bad. Is it a launcher? Not really: it has nowhere near the features for that. Is it an app-switcher? I guess, but that's about it. (Actually it's worse: if you don't like the Dock as an app-switcher, you're still stuck with it, since there's no other way without a shareware app.)

So why is the Dock still there? Why wouldn't it make sense for apple to be taking all the original negative comments about the Dock, and making a Dock 2, or even just starting from scratch and creating something better? Possibly it's because people have stopped complaining about the dock, and accepted that it's just "always going do be there." From an engineering standpoint though, this doesn't sit well with me. There are plenty of things apple could do to improve the situation and at the same time, spark people's interest and sell more machines (which is exactly what they've done with the iApps.) Which brings me to my biggest beef with apple right now: why do they place so much empasis on these iApps anyway? And then go about making a revision 2 or 3, while at the same time neglecting other areas of the OS that are in sore need of attention? Now don't get me wrong: a lot of the iApps are cool, and serve their intended functions pretty well (most are somewhat lacking in features, but that's another issue.) I like iApps actually: they fill some needs in dealing with the digital lifestyle. But what about focusing on the basic functionality of what people need a computer to do? Stuff like the Finder. File management/organization. UI navigation. Window features. Undoing and remembering user position so you can return automatically to something you were working on. Reducing the number of clicks to do the most basic action.

When OS X was released, everyone knew that this would be a huge turning point. The basic foundations of the OS were finally being rewritten. Many saw this (myself included) as a brand new opportunty, for apple to get to the guts of the mac, redesign what sorely needed updating, and churn out the mac design that would be around for the next 10 years. Being a 9 user at the time, I like many was brought with both fear and excitement at what the future could hold. I knew it would be different: but it had the potential to be better. A whole new way of using a mac. I heard that apple was redesigning the mac interface, and so it got me interested, and I started reading about what's important in user interface design. It was then that I realized that apple was unfortuantely making some poor design decisions in the early OS X builds. Just going about it all the wrong way. If you remember: apple was doing silly things like putting an apple logo in the center of the menu bar (which served no purpose.) And making all the desktop icons huge. Playing around with Dock zooming and the Genie Effect, that while looking cool, are to a large extent "Demoware"-type features (has anyone out there honestly ever turned on Dock zooming? It's like trying to hit a moving target. Looks cute, but in day to day use is unacceptable.) Despite these flaws, I realized that the foundations of OS X could really be something special: Java 2, OpenGl, Quartz, pdf support in the finder, better networking, etc etc. So I had hoped that, once apple got OS X working properly, they would go back and revisit some of their design of the UI. And do things a lot smarter this time: get back to their roots.

If you've ever read about how the original mac design came about: it's facinating. Part of what made the mac so special and great in people's eyes was it's unique empasis on the human aspect of computing. Here's a quote from an original macintosh ad I have at work: "Then on a particularly bright day in Cupertino, California, some particularly bright engineers had a particularly bright idea: since computers are so smart, wouldn't it make sense to teach computers about people, instead of teaching people about computers? How they make mistakes, and change their minds. How they refer to file folders and save old phone numbers. How they labor for their livelyhoods, and doodle in their spare time." In order to get computers to understand humans, they had to completely shift the paradim around. Instead of typing commands: Use icons and symbols to represent files and other objects. Form a graphical representation, since people visualize in pictures, and must deal with pictures in daily life. Have direct, natural human actions translate into computer results (i.e. with the mouse.) It's true what's been said: the mac was revolutionary for it's time.

But did you know that like the folder/hierarchy scheme and the mouse, have still not changed in twenty years? As fast as computers are now, the basic elements are still there. Does that mean they are the best solutions? Well consiter this: People don't think interms of structure: they think in terms of content. Ever used Launch Bar? Now tell me, have you nearly any use for the finder anymore? This app is incredible, why? Because you no longer have to care WHERE something is: if you can remember any part of it's name, you can open/manipulate it. The reason I bring this up is: there's some things a mac could be that would be much more human oriented and intutive then the systems we're using now.

Ok, I'm finally getting to my main point ;-) I believe in order for the mac to break the mold, destroy windows, and regain market share, it has to become revolutionary again. But it will take some effort. It will take a willingness to move beyond the way everybody does things now. At a basic level, here's what I'd like to see start happening:

- Apple should study the efforts of shareware developers. Certain shareware has always been popular. Why is that? Could it be that someone just got it "right" in terms of the UI to a particular feature? What are the features that people like the most in a UI to something? How can we make all our stuff as most usable as possible? THESE are the questions apple should be asking.

- Take a hard look at OS X's feature set, and start upgrading the relvant apps with the best features from the above. I don't believe in "stealing" features from shareware authors. If a shareware apps is so damn good that you'd be taking almost all features from it, then apple should just do their duty and buy the thing. (Suggestion: apple should immediately buy up such apps as LaunchBar and Snax.) For the people that think this would scare away shareware authors: relax. OS makers have been quitely stealing features from shareware authors for years. I'm suggesting not only apple conpensate such authors, but even try bringing them on board. As them for suggestions. As a first start, intro say a "Finder 2" with new naviagion modes for people to test. And gradually build up. It might require two different "modes", but it IS possible.

- Stop ignoring the power user side of the OS. It IS possible to design an OS that is easy to use as well as having enough advanced features to satisfy the power user! Here is the key to accomplishing this: design really good UI elements to Unix features. This extremely important. OS X is a POWERFUL operating system, and this should be empansized, not hidden. The key paradim for apple is a ballence between the newbie and power user, and the way to do this is to make even the most complicated of features accessable and easy to use. Take the thought that went into designing the iApps, and create controls that allow an average user to easily access the most advanced features of the OS. If this is done right, it could set up a situation whereby OS X becomes more powerful the the competion for the average user. "If you're not using OS X, you can't do this as easily as we can." Fits RIGHT into the idea of the mac.

- Research new ways of using a computer. For example, I can't understand why apple doesn't make a big deal out of voice recognition built into the OS (and it's been there for a LONG time.) What about introducting a voice-activated finder? Or touch-activated screens? The point is not what direction to take, but that apple does something that takes computing to the next level of ease of use, intuitiveness etc. If anyone can do it, Apple can.

Adam Betts · Aug 15, 2002, 02:02 PM

Wait a min! Are you saying that everyone hated the dock? Do you have any evidence on that?

To be honest, your post is great and well-written but it's nothing new. I like the way Apple is progressing right now but that's just my opinion

Guy Incognito · Aug 15, 2002, 02:05 PM

I like the dock.

iamnid · Aug 15, 2002, 02:10 PM

I like the dock as well and I DO use dock zooming.

ratlater · Aug 15, 2002, 02:13 PM

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
I like the dock.

Me too.

I just want spring loaded folder support, and the LEFT side to not move when I drag a document over it.

Overall I love it though.

-matt

SGen · Aug 15, 2002, 02:14 PM

A lot of people didn't like the dock. Anyway, the dock was only an example.

I would say a modern example with similar priciples is in introduction of iChat.

- Apple intros new app/UI/feature that does things people have been doing for a while
- New said apple app does things in a completely new (sometimes intuitive, but often not) way
- New said apple app focuses heavily on on just two design issues: the "easy" aspect and on the "look". While sorely lacking thought in what features said app needs/requires

One of my points I guess is that apple should stop trying to reinvent the wheel, especially when they don't do it very well. Work on the things that make a mac a mac, and not as much on iApps. Don't kill iApps, but use shareware authors as a guide. Yea, that was what I was saying

SGen · Aug 15, 2002, 02:24 PM

With regard to my comments on new file structures: one thing I think is seriously lacking is easy file organization/manipulation. Uninstallers should not be necessary. All files installed/created should be linked, so you can trash/manipulate them all at once. The OS should automatically group together files that "work" together so you don't have to keep creating folders and forgetting where something is (or do a 5 minute search for something.) There should be better ways of organizing information then just a file name you have to remember.

Note I'm not exactly sure how this would work: but it's based on some ideas I've read about how people think in terms of content. Do a search on the the net for the "Humane Interface" OS. It was created by one of the original mac creators (Jef R-something). This is a guy that should be back at apple, he was brilliant in how he thought about how the mac should work.

Apple Pro Underwear · Aug 15, 2002, 03:05 PM

Jag is cool, but it's time for a new direction.

i think that it's not fair for you to start this thread until 4-5 months after Jaguar has been released.

how would you like me to call you a dumbass with out even meeting you?

SGen · Aug 15, 2002, 03:19 PM

Somehow, I knew someone would see fit to flamed me for starting this topic. Why? People think I'm complaining about Jag? Not at all. Jag kicks ass. Sorry you guys, but I don't fall into the community trap of "this **** sucks!" or "you're an apologizer!" or some BS like that. I use what I use, and I expect that others do the same. All I'm trying to do is start an intellegent conversation about where OS X has been, and where it's headed. If you don't care about that, if you're more interested in disussing Jag or the here and now, then fine. There are plenty of other topics in which to do that.

I guess the conversations are all about Jag, since it's new and people are interested. But I guess I'm introspective, since Jag (to me) represents the first full-featured and ligitamate version of OS X that apple has put out. This is finally OS X for the masses: OS X that we can get excited about. Overall, I think things are good at apple. But they also can be better.

Hehe, maybe I should just be done with it and go get a job at apple

Then I could explain to you people what I'm talking about.

SkullMacPN · Aug 15, 2002, 03:33 PM

Originally posted by SGen:
With regard to my comments on new file structures: one thing I think is seriously lacking is easy file organization/manipulation. Uninstallers should not be necessary. All files installed/created should be linked, so you can trash/manipulate them all at once. The OS should automatically group together files that "work" together so you don't have to keep creating folders and forgetting where something is (or do a 5 minute search for something.) There should be better ways of organizing information then just a file name you have to remember.

Umm, that's what Application Packages are for. I believe every cocoa app, and most carbon apps, uses it. It allows all graphics files, locilizations, and resources needed by an Application to be bundled with the executable without the clutter of a folder full of add-ons.

Its a feature that developers simply have to take advantage of.

Now, if you mean the app, its sub-components, support files, frameworks, and kernal extensions all being linked and tracked by the OS itself or everything breaks... think about the Windows registry for a moment. Yeah, bad idea.

Immortal K-Mart Employee · Aug 15, 2002, 03:41 PM

The dock is the best thing to ever happen to the MacOS. I like one dock with no tabs and a million dividers and sections.

unfaded · Aug 15, 2002, 04:19 PM

Me Like Dock.

And as for the multi-navigation modes of the Finder...that'd be great and all, but it's still all be based on a directory hierarchy. You can't have multiple forms of storing data on the same hard drive.

If you mean a different visual metaphor for accessing these files, then that's possible. And you probably did, and I probably just woke up a couple of minutes ago.

talisker · Aug 15, 2002, 04:41 PM

I dont mind the dock, and do use zooming, although I really cant see any great difference in concept between it and the Windows taskbar. If you replaced the lovely looking icons with rectangular grey boxes it wouldnt be a million miles away.

A simple idea for the Finder that would really make a fundamental difference to how people interacted with it would be user specified "continuous query" folders, like the Smart Playlists in itunes. (This fine idea has already been proposed by someone else in these forums, but it's so excellent I want to raise it again). For example you could set up the following folders "Word documents containing the text 'aardvark' ", or "Documents of any type I worked on in the last 48 hours", or "Email attachments received from John Smith". Where the original documents are stored is irrelevant, but the folders would automatically update and contain aliases of them. In a stroke this would allow people to organise files by meaning, rather than a computer-imposed "structure".

barbarian · Aug 15, 2002, 05:08 PM

You can always tell which part of an OS is weak by seeing the number of shareware titles that replace/modify particular system functions. In OS X you find scores of utilities that try to modify/enhance/replace the dock. While some of you think the dock is perfect for your needs, many of us find it woefully inadequate. Ever since the DR1 days there has been a steady drumbeat of complaint about it. While some of the shareware that has been born of the docks limitations has been excellent (launchbar for example), I believe Apple is being short sited by not giving the dock a number of new options/capabilities and by limiting it's extensibility.

In my perfect world Apple the dock would have many more options and the api would be opened up to 3rd parties. For example, I'd like the option to group open apps, to have multiple docks, to put the dock wherever I want (including the menubar... I'd love to have a process dock up there), to see finder windows as spring loaded tabs, to see persistent titles, and so on. I also hope to see the minimized window functionality of the early jag builds brought back. Nothing would change for the newbie who spends all day flipping between itunes and explorer, but for those of us with tons of apps and lots of open programs/windows, it would bring back some of the clean destktop organization that was possible in OS 9 (2 clicks to over 120 apps with only 6 small tabs on the screen, 1 click app switching with Taskmenubar).

In the meantime, it's Launchbar + DragThing f+ hidden dock + frustration for me.

Jim Paradise · Aug 15, 2002, 05:15 PM

The dock is my favourite part of OS X. I find it to be the most useful and functional organizational tool that I've ever used in an operating system.

dillerX · Aug 15, 2002, 05:22 PM

Me Like Dock.

karbon · Aug 15, 2002, 06:47 PM

Apple doesn't want to change the looks and behavior of the dock in every point release. The system must be consistent, even through updates. The App-switcher in the classic system didn't change much from system 7-9 either, did it? (except from the name shown maybe) I am sure Apple is working on a much better dock, but as we know very little of that is seen in Jaguar.

However, the dock has improved in a couple of ways:

- It's much more responsive, for instance it'll show "Force quit" in the app menu instantly while in 10.1.x it could take a while if the app was hanging. Folder views are fast as well!
- Alt-tab is now smart, like in Windows!
- It got rid of the stripes.

So the dock is improving, but no drastic news. I am sure the next major OS X update will give us more goodies to look forward to

For instance:
- Spring-loading (drag a file over a folder and let you navigate and drop into the sub-folder you'd like)
- A way to pin the app-section of the dock to the left, and the document/folder/trash icons to the right. (making the dock icon spacing consistent)
- Somehow "force" OS X to not give away screen realestate to other apps, like GoMac in OS 9 will or the Windows taskbar does.

Other than that, I am satisfied with the dock. It has room for improvement, but I find it a lot more useful then what we had in OS 9...

gorgonzola · Aug 15, 2002, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by barbarian:
You can always tell which part of an OS is weak by seeing the number of shareware titles that replace/modify particular system functions. In OS X you find scores of utilities that try to modify/enhance/replace the dock. While some of you think the dock is perfect for your needs, many of us find it woefully inadequate. Ever since the DR1 days there has been a steady drumbeat of complaint about it. While some of the shareware that has been born of the docks limitations has been excellent (launchbar for example), I believe Apple is being short sited by not giving the dock a number of new options/capabilities and by limiting it's extensibility.

In my perfect world Apple the dock would have many more options and the api would be opened up to 3rd parties. For example, I'd like the option to group open apps, to have multiple docks, to put the dock wherever I want (including the menubar... I'd love to have a process dock up there), to see finder windows as spring loaded tabs, to see persistent titles, and so on. I also hope to see the minimized window functionality of the early jag builds brought back. Nothing would change for the newbie who spends all day flipping between itunes and explorer, but for those of us with tons of apps and lots of open programs/windows, it would bring back some of the clean destktop organization that was possible in OS 9 (2 clicks to over 120 apps with only 6 small tabs on the screen, 1 click app switching with Taskmenubar).

In the meantime, it's Launchbar + DragThing f+ hidden dock + frustration for me.

That's not necessarily true. A lot of those utilities existed before the Dock was even an issue. It's more that a launcher/app switcher utility just happens to be one of the things where people have very differing tastes (IMHO). It also happens that there are a lot of things people want to change about the Dock, though, there's no denying that. I don't see why you couldn't just stop the Dock from running and use WindowShade X for your minimization, though -- that would be just like OS 9, no?

I think opening up the Dock APIs to third parties could definitely be interesting, but for right now, I find Dock + LaunchBar works very well for me.

SupahCoolX · Aug 15, 2002, 09:11 PM

I'll also toss my hat into the "I like the Dock" crowd. Of course, it's not perfect just yet. I'd like to see spring-loaded folders and such implemented. Otherwise, I enjoy the Dock's simplicity. Just one click to make things happen.

As for voice-based computing, I say "nay!" It's cool as a novelty and, of course, for those with handicaps, but imagine a classroom or office full of voice-controlled computers? �Ay caramba!

Apple Pro Underwear · Aug 15, 2002, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by SGen:
Somehow, I knew someone would see fit to flamed me for starting this topic. Why? People think I'm complaining about Jag?

i didn't think you were flaming or try to flame you in return

i think you should have the decency for the "real" thing to come out and see what they have to offer out of the box before you suggest how to improve it

dock rules. similar to the "taskbar" but apple made many improvements to it

kcmac · Aug 15, 2002, 10:31 PM

"You can always tell which part of an OS is weak by seeing the number of shareware titles that replace/modify particular system functions."

I think a lot of these 3rd party apps for OS X are simply to make people think they are still in OS 9. At least these people have switched to X. I still don't understand why people fight X so hard. It rocks. Can't wait for Jag!

Ron Goodman · Aug 15, 2002, 10:39 PM

As far as I can tell, what's driven a lot of the shareware produced for X aren't problems with X as much as nostalgia for Classic. Look at all the fuss about the Apple menu, for example. It seems that there was a substantial minority of users who expected the new system to be OS 9 with new innards, and when Apple took advantage of OS X to clean things up(and they didn't go far enough, in my opinion) people got upset.

King Bob On The Cob · Aug 15, 2002, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by ratlater:

the LEFT side to not move when I drag a document over it.
-matt

Apple-Click the icon-drag to dock and nothing will try and shift out from under you.

barbarian · Aug 16, 2002, 02:15 AM

>I still don't understand why people fight X so hard<

People just want to do things the way they want to do things. The nice thing about OS 9 is that you have plenty of options and can do the same thing (launching an app for example) several different ways. Until the right shareware comes along (or apple really improves things) this part of OS X will continue to frustrate me (launch bar and drag thing are almost enough, but it would be nicer if some of that functionality was built into the dock where it belongs). It's the same thinking that limits you from selecting the system font you want to use or trying to get rid of 3rd party menu extensions. My feeling is that it's my machine and I should be able to set it up any way I please and the OS should provide me plenty of options to change things that are easily changeable.

voodoo · Aug 16, 2002, 05:25 AM

LoL! I remember it clear as day when people didn't do anythig but complain about the Dock. Complaining about the space it takes, the crap magnfication effects (watching their system grind to a halt whenever the mouse is placed over the Dock) and on and on and on... Give this guy a break!

Sven G · Aug 16, 2002, 05:58 AM

BTW, as for the "newbie" computing problem, something interesting has just happened here:

http://www.oeone.com

http://www.oeone.com/products/desktop.html

... Not at all revolutionary, but nevertheless rather interesting as a "basic mode" UI solution - and Apple could, of course, also take some inspiration from it (perhaps as an evolution of the Mac OS 9 "Panels" mode?).

sadie · Aug 16, 2002, 06:25 AM

I agree that a lot of people have nostalgia for 9, or in a few cases nostalgia for Windows. But not everybody who dislikes the dock is hanging onto the past.

Personally, i can live with the dock, particularly with the few little improvements already mentioned. My favourite option so far was the OS 9 utility that put icons of running apps in the menu bar. I haven't seen it for X.

But there are a great many other areas where the OS could have been innovative, and so far hasn't. I do hope they are working on a million exciting, ground-breaking things. But unless they're prepared to tell us anything, which they clearly aren't, we just don't know.

Adam Betts · Aug 16, 2002, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by SGen:
A lot of people didn't like the dock. Anyway, the dock was only an example.

You know you sounded like an a$$hole close-minded prick if you continued to think that way without any great evidence. Maybe you should start a poll thread and see how many people dislike the dock.

I'm biggest fan of Dock. LIke Hans Solo said, it's the best thing since slicing bread.

BZ · Aug 16, 2002, 10:26 AM

The dock is now my friend.

I use the dock as a view into my computer. I can look at it at any point and see what is going on:

- The CPU monitor shows me what type of load is going on (and a Open Apple + T will bring up the terminal with top running.. VERY COOL)
- Network monitor shows me if I am downloading something or uploading something.
- It shows me all the apps that are running
- It shows me all the apps that are hidden
- Individual apps show m status and progress (Adium, Mail, OmniWeb, Photoshop, etc)
- It gives me one click to any of the apps I keep in it
- It gives me quick navigation through drives folders
- It gives me a place to drop things from any other app (drop a folder of html onto BBedit, or Graphic converter and see what I mean)

I keep it pinned to the left (since I always need more vertical space) and with no iCandy.

In fact, it is the one app I miss the most, all day long while I work in NT 4.0. I actually keep my task bar to the left just like the dock.

Is it perfect? No, it needs help.

- Spring loaded folders on the dock are a must
- More apps need to use the icon as a feedback to the user
- I would like to see a mini-icon (4 in the space of one normal icon) for things that can be launched or hidden). Think of four small icons in a square.

The menu extras have helped. I know I can look up there and see if I am connected to the internet, the weather, sound, battery life, etc.

Obviously, I am a power user, so what about the average Joe/Jane.

A few observations:
- My girlfriend loves the dock cause it is just so easy, I keep her apps there and she almost never has to go anywhere else.
- My Mom loves the dock for the same reason, it is feedback about what is running and where her "stuff" is.

I would also agree with some other poster's comments that Apple can't change everything in every release. Keeping something constant is good for most users. They want to know they can do what they could do before.

With coming releases Apple will further refine things. More short cuts, more power user type of widgets and controls and in the same breath make things just as easy for your Mom or girlfriend. That is where Apple has always been a winner, making the easy simple and the hard even easier.

my $1.50

BZ

dfiler · Aug 16, 2002, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by SGen:
...
Let's face it: as a user interface element, the Dock is pretty bad. Is it a launcher? Not really: it has nowhere near the features for that. Is it an app-switcher? I guess, but that's about it. (Actually it's worse: if you don't like the Dock as an app-switcher, you're still stuck with it, since there's no other way without a shareware app.)

The fact that the dock doesn't strongly distinguish between apps, folder, and documents is the best part of the dock. It gives people a place to stick things they use regularly without making the user categorize these things. On a basic level there is no difference, they are objects or windows. If you want something, you click on it. There is a cost associated with changing your workflow to fit what the dock has to offer. However, I think Apple made the right decision, and that the dock is worth it for both power users and novices.

Originally posted by SGen:
Playing around with Dock zooming and the Genie Effect, that while looking cool, are to a large extent "Demoware"-type features

Wrong again. Apple is simply improving the metaphore of representing things on your computer as objects which can be directly manipulated. We've finally got the software and hardware capable of making the representation less abstract. You don't have to subconsciously guess where an object went... you just saw it slither and morph to its new location and size.

Originally posted by SGen:
But did you know that like the folder/hierarchy scheme and the mouse, have still not changed in twenty years? As fast as computers are now, the basic elements are still there. Does that mean they are the best solutions? Well consiter this: People don't think interms of structure: they think in terms of content.

They have changed, maybe you just haven't noticed. Apple has undertaken a major shift in design philosophy with their iApps. They are making apps designed for organizing and using specific domains of data such as music or photos. No longer are many people using the finder to organize, find, or manipulate their music. You can manipulate the songs in iTunes as if they were the actual files represented in the finder. I can't even remember the last time I looked in my Music folder. This is because iTunes provides dynamic views which include instantaneous filtering and meta data associated with files.

Originally posted by SGen:
- Research new ways of using a computer. For example, I can't understand why apple doesn't make a big deal out of voice recognition built into the OS (and it's been there for a LONG time.)

They did research it and then bundle it with their products. However, they recognized that voice recognition just isn't that reliable or useful yet. Thus they haven't decided to hype voice recognition (anyone remember voice passwords?) Have you ever actually watched someone try to use a voice recognition system. The best ones on the planet are, at best, still flakey and aggrevating if not dangerous to your data.

===================

Apple just produced the Holy Grail of computing, OS X is the first stable OS that has an easy and compeling interface. They failed at this a couple of times in the past decade and wasted hundreds of millions of dollars. Microsoft has been racing to produce a stable/easy OS as well. Ever hear of Windows NT? A splendid effort but even its current incarnation doesn't approach OS X's ease of use.

OS X was a huge gamble by apple. They decided to code a complete operating system nearly from scratch. If they had failed (again) it could have been adios Apple. You obviously know very little about large scale software developement. The new paradigms of user interactions that you desire would have been impossible from an economic standpoint without a compeltely new OS. OS 9's underpinnings had too much baggage and had grown so convoluted over time that efforts to tack more features on were getting more and more expensive.

So yes, apple is taking a new direction, they just had to build a better foundation (OS X) so that new features didn't require as much developement work. With Apple's software development budget being less than Microsoft's R&D budget, they have to make every developement hour count.

manofsteel300 · Aug 16, 2002, 04:36 PM

I think the idea of taking human interaction with the macintosh to the next level is a great idea.. kinda like minority report.. that would be AWESOME.. however unrealistic.

But stil if apple could work on touch screen interaction instead of a mouse and the arrow on screen your hand controlled everything like you could open folders with your finger, drag icons, press teh dock.. etc.. now taht would be cool

Sven G · Aug 17, 2002, 04:19 AM

... If one thinks that it took 16 (!) years to implement the mouse "for the masses" (from the first 1968 Engelbart demo - http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html - to the the first Macintosh in 1984), well... progress may indeed be slow! So, probably, the next major short term advancement will be on the ink front, which is rather well-established from the past PDA experiences: tablet PCs and touch screens, rather than voice recognition, could indeed be the main focus of this decade.

OreoCookie · Aug 17, 2002, 04:51 AM

I love the Dock. I can't stand people complaining about it, saying �I worked a different way in 9'.

It's cool. At first a bit unusual to work with, but you quickly get used to it. Embrace the future and let it evolve.

neilnet · Aug 17, 2002, 06:16 AM

... If one thinks that it took 16 (!) years to implement the mouse "for the masses" (from the first 1968 Engelbart demo - http://sloan.stanford.edu/MouseSite/1968Demo.html - to the the first Macintosh in 1984), well... progress may indeed be slow! So, probably, the next major short term advancement will be on the ink front, which is rather well-established from the past PDA experiences: tablet PCs and touch screens, rather than voice recognition, could indeed be the main focus of this decade

We're getting there... slowly but surely.

IMO, computers still aren't up to scratch. Sure, OSX is practically the best OS available for consumer use, *but*, you have to ask yourself why we need an OS interface, such as Aqua.

In terms of progression, how long will it be until we can dispense with the mouse, handwriting input, finder navigation etc.?

I want to be able to walk into my home/work and say:

'I want to edit that text document I was working on yesterday Mac ... you know the one about the future of the Mac OS'

At this point up will pop up on a screen (it should guage where I'm looking and place a screen there, i.e. projection) with just the document. I'l be able to amend it accordingly with input via a touchscreen and vioce commands/dictation.

You've all seen 2001 ASO, right? Look how easy the input is. That's where we should be. Until then it is my opinion that computers aren't really ready for 'normal' consumer use. The fact that most break down and that it takes considerable time to learn new applications is ridiculous.

Apple pioneered the 'learn one app and you know them all' philosophy, but I think we've lost that in the race to build the best possible, fastest computer with best OS etc etc.

I agree with the first poster, it's time for Apple to do what it did all those years back and come up with something revolutionary, not just evolutionary.

The technology is out there but nobody has tamed it yet for acceptable use. Hopefully it'll be Apple that make the first leap into the next computing era.

N

mrchin · Aug 17, 2002, 08:56 AM

The dock is great! iChat is new and it will only get better with more features. Is a new line of a car model ever perfect when first introduced? No.

Finder is necessary. Sure, search for files through launch bar, but what if I need to see a list of files that I have in afolder and compare them with other docs. That's a finder.

King Bob On The Cob · Aug 17, 2002, 01:44 PM

Originally posted by sadie:
Personally, i can live with the dock, particularly with the few little improvements already mentioned. My favourite option so far was the OS 9 utility that put icons of running apps in the menu bar. I haven't seen it for X.

Look for a Program called Ambar on Versiontracker.com. It's what you are looking for. (Jag will break it probably without Unsanity's new Haxie but what's new?)

BuonRotto · Aug 17, 2002, 04:19 PM

I'm in the same ship as David Pogue who recently wrote a Circuits column about the limitations of speech interfaces. I think we will see more verbal interaction with computers, but I don't think the technology will surpass the usefulness or kinesthetic directness of a visual/touch interface. I don't think we'll be dropping out pencils either (neither the stylus nor the old-fashion graphite and wood variety). A good UI does three things: communicate, organize and manipulate. Everything else is in service of these things (filesystems, finders, tablets, speech interfaces, etc.) Jeff Raskin points out a kind of lowest common denominator for a UI: have a bunch of documents (papers? sheets? files? folders? nevermind.), do stuff on them (with any tools available -- like OpenDoc but somehow feasible and with a business plan) and move them aside for other documents. It's not very helpful in terms of organization, which is why I am a skeptic of his "airport" concept of a user interface. But ideally, with a little bit of refinement, this is as direct and powerful as you can get. Just do stuff directly on your screen/tablet/paper/widget and pull things up quickly later.

Perhaps we'll be using a 3D object instead of a 2D surface? I'm not sure that always useful. Besides, people talk about 3D interfaces and imagine them on 2D screens or other surfaces. To me, that's not really 3D nor would it take advantage of a third possible dimension. Another dimension in data means being able to manage another dimension of data. That could be overwhelming, a serious detriment to a good UI. And this coming from someone who designs for 3D!

As for this whole "new direction" thing, we're still righting the OS X ship!

kmkkid · Aug 17, 2002, 05:52 PM

I agree with everything SGen has said. You are definately on to something SGen, if only these things were implemented and thought about seriously, then computing would be alot better. I feel the dock is a clunky and not a very "smart" move for apple. Most people want screen realestate, hence the new 17" imacs, but why go up, if really all you'll have is 15" cause the dock takes up the extra 2" of the screen. I know it can go down to 16x16 icons, but then you dont know wth your clicking on, and it really isnt worth using that small. I feel the taskbar is 75% perfect, afterall all OS' use some sort of taskbar in their OS, BeOS, *Nix WM's, QNX etc... So it is something people want. Perhaps apple should lean more towards a taskbar idea. But the dock is usable I guess, and thats all that matters right?

Chris

sambeau · Aug 17, 2002, 07:15 PM

I like the dock a lot. And I always have the zoom effect on.

It breaks all the rules - yet it works. Why? Maybe because it is a pleasure to use. It feels good. It feels empowering. It also has that 'wow factor'.

It's like the gearshift on a manual car. It makes no sense in this day-and-age but still it remains. It just feels good to change gears. Vrrooom!

Every time my dock expands to meet my cursor I am reminded that there is only one OSX. No amount of clever folders, database driven filesystems and academia driven HCI consistency can replace the fact that the dock not only works well but it works well in a cool way.

wataru · Aug 17, 2002, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by neilnet:
I want to be able to walk into my home/work and say:

'I want to edit that text document I was working on yesterday Mac ... you know the one about the future of the Mac OS'

You've been watching too many science fiction movies. Frankly, I don't think that's a realistic way to operate computers. For example, it would add a whole new layer of abstraction between the user and the workings of the computer; unless you're planning on making a computer that never has any problems, then such a model would make it even harder for the average user to solve problems. (To build on your example,) it might be nice not to have to understand the basics of file layout and directory structures, but when everything goes to hell it really helps to have that fundamental knowledge.

BuonRotto · Aug 17, 2002, 09:19 PM

There is an inherent competition between content and context. That is, your tools, like the menus and Dock will always compete for screen space with the actual document. Though we look to the menu bar in the Mac OS as a kind of mantra for efficient use of space, it does make tradeoffs between screen space, clarity and consistency. (It is very efficient by the nature of using menus, but there are actually less intrusive means of doing the same thing, like the vertical NeXT menubar, and simply using context menus for everything.) It's not a matter of maximizing space for content per se. It's a matter of maximizing space for content given the tools needed to actually create the content.

One of the principles I like to add to Apple's list of basic UE concepts is, "out of sight, out of mind." The intention is that a user can't always think of how or what they could do with their content, but the computer should make all their options available to them as clearly as possible. You just don't want to be intrusive about it. Obviously if we put every single option under the sun on screen at the same time, we wouldn't have room for any content at all. The key to having all pertinent options before you is to take advantage of associations or relationships among these options. This can be implemented as a hierarchical system. This saves screen space by providing only signifiers to more specific options, and it (thus) keeps the user in better control by reducing the number of things they have to remember in any context. I mean, it makes things clearer.

So the menubar does exactly this pretty darn well. It is hierarchical, clear, efficient. Its role is to organize the tools you use to manipulate the document. As I'm writing this, I'm thinking that ideally, this places the available tools (aka, applications) in the menubar too. Since the Dock is hierarchical both vertically (in the menus) and horizontally (Apple menu = system, app menu, file, etc. from left to right), running or available applications could in concept be placed either in the app menu or between the apple menu and the current application menu. But what this does is it conceives as documents being essentially application agnostic. This isn't the case right now. Anyway, I'll come back to that later since my train of thought is going this way.

So that frees up the Dock as a kind of counterpoint to the menubar. (Nevermind about the graphical character of it for now.) That is, while the menubar organizes tools, the Dock organizes the documents. Another way of saying this is that the menubar holds verbs and the Dock holds nouns. Anyway, the principle is that having visual access to other content is important. So the idea of moving open documents to the Dock makes sense in this model.

Now I'm a bit stuck. (I'm doing this off the cuff so sorry if this is stupid. Feel free to dismantle this by the way.) On the one hand, applications are just collections of verbs. On the other hand, they are tools, things that perform actions but not the actions themselves. anyway, maybe i'm getting caught up in semantics. I'm just thinking maybe this is why Apple moved applications to the Dock -- they considered apps nouns, not verbs.

As far as representing these things, verbs are damn hard to represent visually. I can understand why it would be easier to represent them as words, like in the menubar. But displaying the content visually can be really useful. The stuff is inherently so specific, it's also hard to make a true "iconic" appearance beyond some generic representation, but that's not necessarily helpful depending on how you organize your documents. Verbal descriptions are also helpful for documents. So I can see Apple's dilemma. On the one hand, verbal descriptions have their limitations -- they're not as directly recognizable as a visual of the content itself. On the other hand, visual representation is not exactly easy to use in a way that's as small as possible. I like my minimized windows magnified because at their full 128 x 128 size, I can in fact identify them quickly. Magnification and "scrubbing" the Dock help, but is that good enough to be in sight, ergo in mind? Dunno.

I would say that the Dock could use more hierarchy as a good way to organize documents, but I tend to think for a user's content, the user should do most of the organizing. That is, there is a lowest common denominator that Apple should meet but not exceed. Forcing a user to organize a certain way is bad UE, but so is a lack of means to do this. This also means that a user can be as disorganized as they feel, which while a failure of the basic function of a computer, is entirely the user's problem so long as the computer gives them the means to be more organized. Is there a more intelligent way of helping the user stay organized with their documents?

Apple isn't completely off the mark for at least some if not large parts of the dock's function, but my little identity crisis with what applications really are is still unsettled. And the Dock could be a bit more hierarchical (just a bit more though, like the menubar -- like everything else, there is such a thing as too much hierarchy).

But where do apps belong?

mrtew · Aug 18, 2002, 12:55 AM

Originally posted by Ron Goodman:
As far as I can tell, what's driven a lot of the shareware produced for X aren't problems with X as much as nostalgia for Classic. Look at all the fuss about the Apple menu, for example. It seems that there was a substantial minority of users who expected the new system to be OS 9 with new innards, and when Apple took advantage of OS X to clean things up(and they didn't go far enough, in my opinion) people got upset.

Please stop spewing such nonsense! It's not nostalgia for OS9, it's that OS9 did some things BETTER and people want the good stuff back. How can you think that early adopters of a radical new OS would be the nostalgic type especially the ones that stick with it long enough to have waited for the haxies???

1. Apple Menu - Yes it has a great personality but we all used OSX for months and months before the Fruit Menu hack came out. And we snapped it up like hotcakes to the tune of 7$ a pop.... something that Apple could have included for free with no effort at all. I have 15 or so Applications and Utilities that I use all the time, hundreds of 'OSXapps' from versiontracker, and many games. All this carp won't fit in Apple's brilliant dock. How am I supposed to get to it? Before FruitMenu I had to open a finder window, adjust to it's latest random size and shape, and dig down to where I think the item should be. Either that or fill the dock with folders and wait and wait for the menus to pop up and start digging. The second FruitMenu came out I could naturally click on the Apple and instantly slide down to the app I want and know it will be where I left it. Why the hack is so much faster at showing the menu than the dock I will never know, but I think it has to do with not drawing pretty icons in the menus. Apple puts eyecandy above speed and function every time.

2. Window Shade - Before the hack when I had to see another window behind the one I was using I had three choices. Drag the current window almost all the way off the screen to look for the one below it and end up with a dozen little window corners on the sides of the screen, cycle thru the windows hoping that by the time I was done I'd still remember what I was looking for and what I'd found, or watch jerky animations of windows squeezing down into unrecognizable icons in a remote corner of the screen and going and fetching them when I needed them again. All three are maddening compared to the time tested and truly Mac way of flicking the window closed and then opened without even thinking about it. Why break what doesn't need fixing when you design a new OS? Another $7 well spent on something that didn't need to be destroyed by bad design in the first place.

3. Xounds - Apple came up with the sounds and many people loved them. It makes the computer feel like it is responding to you to the point that it's like a part of you. Why throw that away and leave people working in silence? Almost everyone that I knew that bought OSX emailed me to ask how to turn on the sounds and bought Xounds the second they knew it was available.

People aren't nostalgic for OS9 or they would just use it... it's only 5 clicks away. They just want friggin OSX to work as well and easy as OS9 did. So stop implying that we are a bunch of old ladies living in the past by buying the Haxies... we just don't want to fight the OS's 'simplicity' by doing everything the complicated way all the time. Once I had the Haxies I really began to love OSX. It's just sad that what kept me from loving it was Apple intentionally removing parts of their own sytem that made it so wonderful to use. You and Apple really need to get a clue.

Sven G · Aug 18, 2002, 06:36 AM

... BTW, personally (as I've tried to explain in other threads) I think that the real future on the "digital hub", etc. front is not so much in maintaining the 1980s "PC" concept - albeit evolved, of course, - but in finally implementing a modern, globally (Inter)networked form of the former Multics and UNIX time-sharing "architecture": no more the waste of a complete, individual CPU for each person (or family), but a new form of server-terminal concept � la .NET/.Mac/DotGNU.

If the security problems related to storing personal information on central servers can be effectively overcome (as with the DotGNU scheme, for example: see also http://www.dotgnu.org ) with a more decentralized (and, thus, also more freedom-oriented) server-terminal concept, then this would be a fundamental revolution in the way people intend computing devices: something "lighter", more dynamic, like the new cellphones (see also, in the past, the very successful Teletext system named "Minitel" in France, for example).

Not surprisingly, "The Woz" ( http://www.woz.org ) is a part of this new direction, with this terminal-like device:

http://www.danger.com/products.php

Tom C · Aug 19, 2002, 01:56 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mrtew:

1. Apple Menu - Yes it has a great personality but we all used OSX for months and months before the Fruit Menu hack came out. And we snapped it up like hotcakes to the tune of 7$ a pop.... something that Apple could have included for free with no effort at all. I have 15 or so Applications and Utilities that I use all the time, hundreds of 'OSXapps' from versiontracker, and many games. All this carp won't fit in Apple's brilliant dock. How am I supposed to get to it?

Put a folder in the Dock. Put aliases in that folder, just like you did with the Apple Menu. Click on the folder in the Dock. A menu of your aliases pops up. It works just like the old Apple Menu. You can even have multiple "Apple Menus" by putting multiple folders in the Dock. I have one for apps and one for frequently accessed documents. The Dock is far superior. I used the Apple Menu heavily in OS 9 and was worried when I heard they were doing away with it, but I don't miss it at all.

Yes, if you have a folder in the Dock, the menu can be a little slow to pop up sometimes, but that's not a design flaw; it's a performance problem. I'm hoping that Jag will speed that up.

Another nice things about the Dock: Try right-clicking on an app in the Dock. You'll get a list of all open documents in that app. This makes it far superior to the app switcher and Apple Menu combination. For example...let's say that I'm currently in Excel. I want to get to a Word document that I have open. I have 20 windows on the screen, and the Word document that I want to activate is buried deep under other Word documents. How do I get to my document?

In OS 9: Click on application switcher (click #1). List of apps pops up. Click on Word (click #2). Menu bar changes. Click on Word "Window" menu (click #3). List of documents pops up. Click on name of document (click #4). Four clicks to get to my document. (If you use the tear-off application switcher, you could accomplish #1 & 2 with one click, reducing the number of clicks to three, but the tear-off app switcher gets in the way far more than the Dock does.)

In OS X: Right-click (or left-click and hold button) on Word icon (click #1). Up pops list of document names. Click on name of document. (Click #2.) I've just accomplished something in two clicks that would have taken four clicks in OS 9.

[Edited to correct spelling.]

DamnDJ · Aug 20, 2002, 12:22 AM

I still think it's a sin not to include WindowShades.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tom C:

Originally posted by mrtew:

1. Apple Menu - Yes it has a great personality but we all used OSX for months and months before the Fruit Menu hack came out. And we snapped it up like hotcakes to the tune of 7$ a pop.... something that Apple could have included for free with no effort at all. I have 15 or so Applications and Utilities that I use all the time, hundreds of 'OSXapps' from versiontracker, and many games. All this carp won't fit in Apple's brilliant dock. How am I supposed to get to it?

Put a folder in the Dock. Put aliases in that folder, just like you did with the Apple Menu. Click on the folder in the Dock. A menu of your aliases pops up. It works just like the old Apple Menu. You can even have multiple "Apple Menus" by putting multiple folders in the Dock. I have one for apps and one for frequently accessed documents. The Dock is far superior. I used the Apple Menu heavily in OS 9 and was worried when I heard they were doing away with it, but I don't miss it at all.

Yes, if you have a folder in the Dock, the menu can be a little slow to pop up sometimes, but that's not a design flaw; it's a performance problem. I'm hoping that Jag will speed that up.

Another nice things about the Dock: Try right-clicking on an app in the Dock. You'll get a list of all open documents in that app. This makes it far superior to the app switcher and Apple Menu combination. For example...let's say that I'm currently in Excel. I want to get to a Word document that I have open. I have 20 windows on the screen, and the Word document that I want to activate is buried deep under other Word documents. How do I get to my document?

In OS 9: Click on application switcher (click #1). List of apps pops up. Click on Word (click #2). Menu bar changes. Click on Word "Window" menu (click #3). List of documents pops up. Click on name of document (click #4). Four clicks to get to my document. (If you use the tear-off application switcher, you could accomplish #1 & 2 with one click, reducing the number of clicks to three, but the tear-off app switcher gets in the way far more than the Dock does.)

In OS X: Right-click (or left-click and hold button) on Word icon (click #1). Up pops list of document names. Click on name of document. (Click #2.) I've just accomplished something in two clicks that would have taken four clicks in OS 9.

[Edited to correct spelling.]

Gee4orce · Aug 20, 2002, 03:07 AM

Well, whist we are doing one of those good old dock threads, here's my ideas for what would make it better (having used it for 2 years):

- Magnification 'in-place': I'd like to see the magnification effect, but without all the sliding and moving. Maybe the icon under the pointer could kind of 'pop forward' and get bigger, without pushing the others out of the way. The sliding of dock icons is one of the more frustrating things about using it.

- Window submenu should show minature versions of the windows. If you minimise to the dock you get a mini window, but if you control-click an application in the dock you just get a generic icon for each window. I'd like to see a kind of 'sub dock' shoot off at right angles, with all the application windows in it...