[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:

No, it states what can be done with tab panes. Period. There is no indication as to the *state* of the panes, static or otherwise.


No, it says that *other controls* you put into a pane may be used for global or local settings.


Apple isn't telling me anything about preferences. It's only telling me about "information" and "content".


Apple isn't say *anything* about using tabs statically. They only talk about, again, "information" and "content". They don't qualify what type of information is intended for tabs.



Guess what? I agree with you. I don't like tabbed browsing either. In fact, I hate it. I'm merely trying to point out that it's presumptuous to assume you know what Apple's intent is, and continually present it in these forums as fact without clear evidence to back it up. I offer again: if you can point me to supporting technical documents or articles from Apple which address tab usage, then I will accept that as corroboration.

Otherwise, you would do better service to advancing your ideas of UI by stating them as opinion, rather than touting them as some hard fact chiseled in stone.

Whatever floats your boat, fatboy. Post #200!!!

[Ghoser777]

Just to be nit-picky:

All objects in Objective-C are dynamically allocated, which means tabs can ONLY be created dynamically. QED. =)

Matt

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:


Whatever floats your boat, fatboy. Post #200!!!

Really, was this necessary? Can you at least admit that there's no document that states that Apple is against making tabs ala Mozilla and Adium? There simply is no document! At that point it becomes interpretation and argumentative. You've argued well (at least when you weren't attacking other people with unrelated insults) that having tabs suddenly pop up is bad UI design. Fine. But it's still legitimate to argue that Apple may not back you up, possible because they don't think it's a serious flaw in UI design, for arguments that haven't been mentioned in this discussion. It's really hard to say what Steve thinks without actually talking to Steve.

I remember hearing somewhere that when a person resorts to insults, it's because they've ran out of supporting arguments. Stick to your arguments, not the insults, please. It's your perogative, but the moderators probably won't tolerate you much longer.

Matt

[Guy Incognito]

Here's are the problems with tabs. Interface Hall of Shame.

And no where are dynamic tabs seen...all of them are grouping preferences or functions and are static.

In this page there's a description of tab sheets that explains that it groups property sets (or preferences if you will.) Intercface Rules

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
Here's are the problems with tabs. Interface Hall of Shame.

And no where are dynamic tabs seen...all of them are grouping preferences or functions and are static.

In this page there's a description of tab sheets that explains that it groups property sets (or preferences if you will.) Intercface Rules

Now this will be interesting. Note that it essentially critocozes BOTH our ideas. First, the idea of having a hundred tabs on different rows with each row having a different number of windows to open. This is entirely analogous to your Favorite's bar approach. Both my idea and the drawer get criticized because it makes poor users use the scroll bar.

So, we're all screwed. I guess they might think a hundred open windows would be better UI design, but I haven;t gotten any documents to back that up, so I won't state it as fact.

[ducks]

Matt

[Ghoser777]

And no where are dynamic tabs seen...all of them are grouping preferences or functions and are static.

Yeah, so? Just because it hasn't been used in any of those examples shown doesn't mean it can't be used. It's interesting that the concept of dynamic tabs hasn't be criticized by the UI hall of shame... I wonder why not. You'd think that it would follow to criticize not only bad static tabs, but also bad dynamic tabs. The only time it gets close to that conclusion is when windows files can have multiple tabs displayed for their "properties window," but they aren't criticizing the fact that it's changeable, only that Microsoft thought it would be a good idea to have the concept of having one tab, which Mozilla already avoids by default.

Matt

[Ghoser777]

A tab control is analogous to a divider in a file cabinet or notebook

That was from the second link. So, shouldn't users be able to add more dividers as they see fit, to better organize their data. No dynamic tabs seems like a limitation on the user, IMHO.

This isn't to say, of course, that theire aren't other ways to create dividers, which may be better.

Matt

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:


Yeah, so? Just because it hasn't been used in any of those examples shown doesn't mean it can't be used. It's interesting that the concept of dynamic tabs hasn't be criticized by the UI hall of shame... I wonder why not. You'd think that it would follow to criticize not only bad static tabs, but also bad dynamic tabs. The only time it gets close to that conclusion is when windows files can have multiple tabs displayed for their "properties window," but they aren't criticizing the fact that it's changeable, only that Microsoft thought it would be a good idea to have the concept of having one tab, which Mozilla already avoids by default.

Matt

Probably 'cuz it's too new of a concept...you have to realize that it's only been a year or so that this dynamic tabbing has started.

Give it time and it'll be added to the hall of shame.

Tabs are meant to group properties, preferences or whatever you wanna call it. Face the music.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Ghoser777:


Now this will be interesting. Note that it essentially critocozes BOTH our ideas. First, the idea of having a hundred tabs on different rows with each row having a different number of windows to open. This is entirely analogous to your Favorite's bar approach. Both my idea and the drawer get criticized because it makes poor users use the scroll bar.

So, we're all screwed. I guess they might think a hundred open windows would be better UI design, but I haven;t gotten any documents to back that up, so I won't state it as fact.

[ducks]

Matt

Actually it doesn't criticize mine, since my idea doesn't involve tabs and moving targets like the moving tab rows.

[Guy Incognito]

In fact, you guys are way to anal when it comes to this subject. You're trying to make me look for a website that states "You can't use tabs for dynamic purposes"...the fact is, there probably isn't any because the concept was never done until now. And the concept obviously sucks in Chimera's case because of name truncation.

Many UI guidelines state that tabs have to remain in place. Adding tabs dynamically will shift the tabs around and make other tabs moving targets. Bad!

No, there isn't a UI Bible. There is no UI police.

Ask Tog what he thinks of this new tab fad.

I mean, is there a guideline that says "Don't make the buttons move away from the cursor when the cursor is on top of the button"? No...it can be done though. Why isn't it in the guidelines? Because it's understood that buttons are static.

Edit: I gotta go study for a midterm...byes...I'll be back tomorrow to knock some sense into some of you.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:
I mean, is there a guideline that says "Don't make the buttons move away from the cursor when the cursor is on top of the button"? No...it can be done though. Why isn't it in the guidelines? Because it's understood that buttons are static.

No, buttons don't *have* to be static. I guess the question is, why would you have them move? Is there any reason behind having them move? If so, then there maybe something to argue about. It's nice to have a button stay in place because it's easier for users to click on them. There you go, an argument against it. It's not that buttons where made to be static, it's that static buttons have advantages over dynamic buttons (in the sense of movement).

These arguments from the hall of shame still do apply to your Favorites approach:

The sheer number of tabs in the dialog intimidates new users, and makes it difficult for the user at any experience level to locate a particular tab of interest. The arrangement of the tabs does not appear to be based on any meaningful construct. Visually, the additional rows of tabs contributes to a cluttered appearancee. Instead of a single tab object, there are now three tab objects, each consuming real estate with unnecessary visual distractions.

These are more critiques of the look than the fact that they are tabs. By comparing sample pictures of the Favorites idea and the tabs picture referenced by this quote, I think it's pretty obvious that their is at least some correlation.

I agree that you probably miss the big criticism, though, and that's the jumping issue. But a quick solution for a tab advodate would be to disable jumping, so I don't think it's a +1 advantage.

Enjoy your midterm - I enjoyed mine tonight. An hour and fifteen minutes of more work than should be possible in the given amount of time; now that's a CS test I like

Matt

[Ghoser777]

For those who didn't see the typo in my post about the download for TestBrowser, here's a better link:

TestBrowser

and here's the ugly source:

TestBrowserSource

Matt

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:


Whatever floats your boat, fatboy. Post #200!!!

I actually expected a more reasoned response than this non-sensical ad-hom, but gauging by the followup postings, clearly I was wasting my time.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:


I actually expected a more reasoned response than this non-sensical ad-hom, but gauging by the followup postings, clearly I was wasting my time.

It wasn't really an ad-hom...more like an "I don't give a **** about what you believe". It's not my problem if you have troubles reading between the lines. I'm sorry if you felt offended.

Oh...and I did extremely well on my midterm...I hope you're not offended by that either.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:


It wasn't really an ad-hom...more like an "I don't give a **** about what you believe". It's not my problem if you have troubles reading between the lines. I'm sorry if you felt offended.

Oh...and I did extremely well on my midterm...I hope you're not offended by that either.

Whatever. I'm done with this thread, carry on.

[Guy Incognito]

Originally posted by Silky Voice of The Gorn:


Whatever. I'm done with this thread, carry on.

I'm was done yesterday actually...I lost interest when I realized people were just disagreeing with me because they enjoy disagreeing with Guy Incognito.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by Guy Incognito:


I'm was done yesterday actually...I lost interest when I realized people were just disagreeing with me because they enjoy disagreeing with Guy Incognito.

That's too bad, because I was interested in where the arguments were going. Essentially, we're trying to establish a way of knowing when undocumented features comply with the HI guidelines. Your argument seems to be that it's obvious, while mine is that it requies testing. All GUI innoations at some point had to break with the old ways of doing things - sometimes it's a step forward,sometimes it's a step back. But just because it isn't documented doesn't mean it does or doesn't comply with the "Spirit" of the HI guidelines. We argue benefits versus costs, useability vs power, etc.

Matt

[clarkgoble]

Boys, lets drop the ad homen. Who cares whether people agree with you?

Anyway, on to the "interface hall of shame." While there are some elements of the Adobe scheme the author might not like, I do note that the author has nothing about Adobe in it. (Although the web site may simply be out of date) Certainly poorly done tabs ought to be relegated to criticism. However Adobe keeps the metaphor fairly clearly and doesn't have controls of the type outlined in the paper.

I still don't like tabs and I think multilined tabs are horrible. But overall I think Adobe's tabs are reasonably OK. I'd still prefer the drawer which is fairly similar to one of the author's suggested alternatives to tabs.