[- - e r i k - -]

Like why we have to try and understand your obsessing over having to restart and the merits of OS X as a server system?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Like why we have to try and understand your obsessing over having to restart and the merits of OS X as a server system?

I like stuff that works well for what I need it for. Does a pretty interface help you do your jobs a little better? Does this last, or is it like wearing clothes in that you get bored with a current style and need to change semi-frequently?

[Chuckit]

I for one am extremely pissed to find all this land is being used on art galleries, bookstores and parks when it could be turned into datacenters and Java server security research labs. I cannot understand why there seems to be such an imbalance here. Nobody is interested in things being beautiful, interesting and pleasant.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Does a pretty interface help you do your jobs a little better? Does this last, or is it like wearing clothes in that you get bored with a current style and need to change semi-frequently?

Yes. A well-designed interface helps my job a lot. This has to be a combination of form and function though with focus on the later.

No. A well done interface is not something you should get tired of. I'm not a person to download crappily designed "themes" and change them around on a weekly basis.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I for one am extremely pissed to find all this land is being used on art galleries, bookstores and parks when it could be turned into datacenters and Java server security research labs. I cannot understand why there seems to be such an imbalance here. Nobody is interested in things being beautiful, interesting and pleasant.

No, OS X is already beautiful and pleasant. What is being discussed here at great length is probably analogous to the posters in the ticket kiosk in the art gallery.

There is room for art galleries, but there also needs to be roads getting you to the art gallery, and a stable art gallery built on a solid structure.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Yes. A well-designed interface helps my job a lot. This has to be a combination of form and function though with focus on the later.

Then why don't we talk about this interface rather than shadows and reflections? The conversation we are having in the other thread about connecting to servers in the Finder is a great start.

Like I said, you guys are obviously welcome to talk about whatever you want, but I don't get why nobody seems interested in talking about this stuff, especially since there are already 3 or 4 other threads devoted to shadows, reflections, and the new menu bar.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

No, OS X is already beautiful and pleasant. What is being discussed here at great length is probably analogous to the posters in the ticket kiosk in the art gallery.

There is room for art galleries, but there also needs to be roads getting you to the art gallery, and a stable art gallery built on a solid structure.

Yes, but people are generally way more interested in talking about a cool new movie poster than they are in talking about a road. That's what I'm getting at. Design and style — the most obvious parts of a thing — are by and large more interesting to the general population than subtle functionality.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by jasong 

Seriously, when did "gross" re-enter the day to day lexicon? I've been seeing it a lot on this board lately, did the demographics here drop down to 11 year old girls?

Oh and just to pretend I have something useful to say. I prefer the new look and prefer Spotlight over 10.3's Find. It's pretty incredible to type Sarah and get a list of emails, IMs, and photos of my wife.

:tries it on his own machine:

Oh yeah! Incredible.

She's a real beaut, your wife is!

How long has she been into that stuff?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

But OS X is an operating system. People do work in it. It really isn't important that things are "pretty", as while this affects user experience, its impact on productivity is likely minimal.

Most people I've ever met are WAY more productive when they're enjoying themselves.

I realize that you have this deep-seated fear of actually having fun doing your job, but I assure you, there is a whole world of normal people out there.

You know, the kind that considers it *important* to have a picture of their daughter on their cubicle wall, or their favorite Dilbert comic taped to the monitor frame.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by jasong 

Why are people ignored the value of fun when it comes to approachability and usability?

Because it's not a game, it's just a tool. A good example of this is Kai's Power Tools - totally unintuitive interface, non-standard for Mac or Windows. Another is those web/Flash/interactive sites where the designers think it's clever to try to make you guess at what you're supposed to do.

I just want to click and move on, not play games.

There's definitely room for elegant design, but that doesn't equate to the eye candy Apple wants to use. Look at the mess they've made in the recent past - we've seen the silly stripes disappear, the brushed metal looks like it's just about to be obsolete.

The thing Apple doesn't seem able to grasp is that if something works, it's doesn't necessarily need to keep loading more and more "features" or "design" on it.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I know that most of you guys are probably graphic designers, is this sort of discussion just a sort of extension of your jobs, a part of you?

The problem with most graphic designers (and I'm qualified to speak on the subject, being a graphic designer myself), is that they want to leave their own mark on everything, they don't know how to "improve" something without destroying it - they always want to start again. The other problem is that a great many of them, and a great number of the general public, are turned on by cheap effects - overload from games and films - rather than by usability.

That's why I think Apple has really failed to improve the usability of its OS in any significant way since OS 9. Yes the system is more stable, but Apple is now just putting things back in that it ripped out of the 9/X transition - I've seen more than a couple of people comment that "stacks" is just a reworking of pop-up folders.

I remember the reasoning behind taking out things like the customisable Apple menu, control strip, floating app switcher, pop-up folders... too much clutter. Well, how much clutter have we got now: dock, stacks, widgets, menu bar controls, exposé, spaces, toolbars, sidebars... and there's more to come.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Then why don't we talk about this interface rather than shadows and reflections?

I brought up the shadows because I thought they were truly gross (in the dictionary sense of the word - ie large and unrefined). In general I agree with you that usability is much more important than "prettiness".

The problem is that I think Apple is focused on eye candy rather than fixing what they've broken.

Here are three, seemingly simple, long-standing bugs in the Finder:

1. file states don't get updated, you often have to click on a file to see if it's been updated - at which point its modified date will change.

2. When you set Finder views preferences (cmd-j), globally, or for specific folders, they never stick. Try it - set folders to globally show list views, calculate folder sizes and not show relative dates. Click around a bit and you'll soon find a folder that doesn't show this, and check the prefs again to find they have reverted to the default.

3. Click and drag in list view cannot completed a selection if you are "below" the bottom of the list. ie, show a folder in list view, so that there about ten items in the folder, but that the windows has room to view 20 or so - so that there is a blank space below the list of files. Now click in the empty space below the files and drag a marquee. Hmm, guess what, no marquee and you can't drag select either.

I've bugged these all with Apple - no fix has been forthcoming.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Yes, but people are generally way more interested in talking about a cool new movie poster than they are in talking about a road. That's what I'm getting at. Design and style — the most obvious parts of a thing — are by and large more interesting to the general population than subtle functionality.

Right, but try driving a movie poster.

Things can be elegant as well as functional, Apple seems to have lost its way on this issue somewhat though.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Clive 

That's why I think Apple has really failed to improve the usability of its OS in any significant way since OS 9.

If you don't think Expose is a significant usability improvement, I question whether you have any right to talk about anything even vaguely relating to this topic. Hence I'm not going to get into column view, the reinvented apple menu, trouble-free international text support, a network connection UI that works, fast user switching, or any of the many other usability improvements since OS 9. But I could.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Most people I've ever met are WAY more productive when they're enjoying themselves.

I realize that you have this deep-seated fear of actually having fun doing your job, but I assure you, there is a whole world of normal people out there.

You know, the kind that considers it *important* to have a picture of their daughter on their cubicle wall, or their favorite Dilbert comic taped to the monitor frame.

Yes, like I said I'm not taking anything away from the importance of user experience. I'm just saying that there is *far more* to a good user experience than shadows, reflections, other cosmetics, and the new menu bar.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you don't think Expose is a significant usability improvement, I question whether you have any right to talk about anything even vaguely relating to this topic. Hence I'm not going to get into column view, the reinvented apple menu, trouble-free international text support, a network connection UI that works, fast user switching, or any of the many other usability improvements since OS 9. But I could.

I wonder if the problem here is that we each have a different definition of usability? This list is mostly of new features, not of usability improvements.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by Clive 

Well, for a start it was easier to set which drives you were searching. By default the search was for a file/folder name (not combined with content)

I'd hate to be the first one to tell you this, but:

1. If you navigate to the specific drive or folder you wish to search, and use the search field at the top of all finder windows (unless you remove it) you just select Volume: "Drive Name" or Folder: "Folder Name", you can search everything under that specific directory.
   And it's important to note: it remembers between restarts if you prefer to search the entire computer or just the specific folder you're in.
   And of course, as other have pointed out, you can set it to list view if you like.
   
   
2. If you encase your search query in double quotes (e.g.: "query") it will search just for filenames that contain "query" and not within the content of files.

Sure, maybe it's obscure to some, but I figured this out within the first few days of using Tiger.

Originally Posted by Clive 

I don't know about you, but it drives me nuts when spotlight starts searching for "h, he, hel, hell, hello…". It's not like some kind of autofill/auto-complete function where you want the computer to guess what you may type.

I see your point, it can be annoying. I just try to type fast. There is a small delay. If it really bothers you, type your query in elsewhere and just paste it in. (Yes, i know this isn't ideal. It should be an option in the Spotlight preferences)

[analogika]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, like I said I'm not taking anything away from the importance of user experience. I'm just saying that there is *far more* to a good user experience than shadows, reflections, other cosmetics, and the new menu bar.

Yes. Isn't it nice to know that Apple has most of that stuff nailed, and that people will focus on the stuff that *isn't* quite right yet?

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

For instance, quickly accessing an arbitrary window when you had lots of them open was hard under OS 9. I used to spend a lot of time carefully arranging and selectively windowshading huge numbers of windows when I was working with several things at once. This no longer requires an arduous process — the OS just lets me work. That is usability.

Oh wow - flashback!

I wasted *so much* time with pixel-perfect window arrangement under OS 9 that would occasionally un-stick or that would get messed up when I inadvertently grabbed those idiotic three-pixel-wide window borders rather than the scroll bar...damn.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I wonder if the problem here is that we each have a different definition of usability? This list is mostly of new features, not of usability improvements.

Maybe. I'm using it to mean the ability to accomplish a thing's intended tasks easily and efficiently. All of these are features that correct problems in the usability of previous versions of the operating system. For instance, quickly accessing an arbitrary window when you had lots of them open was hard under OS 9. I used to spend a lot of time carefully arranging and selectively windowshading huge numbers of windows when I was working with several things at once. Now it's easy, I don't have to come up with some arduous process — the OS just lets me work. That is usability.

[analogika]

Time Warp!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Yes. Isn't it nice to know that Apple has most of that stuff nailed, and that people will focus on the stuff that *isn't* quite right yet?

There is a lot of stuff that works well, but there is a lot of stuff we can talk about too other than shadows and reflections and junk (such as the Leopard connect to server conversation with Erik that hasn't really caught on yet, but we could also talk about the usage of the zoom spotlight button, how Spotlight is used within workflows, dock notification, etc.)

I'm just itching to talk about something other than these cosmetic details. I've been on MacNN for a while, and it seems like with every release there is much hand wringing about pinstripes, brushed metal, unified looks, drop shadows, etc. I'm just thoroughly bored with this stuff, there is so much more that can be talked about. I just don't understand this level of obsession.

[analogika]

Isn't it wonderful how this forum software gives you the choice of posting new and interesting threads, and NOT reading the boring ones?

Now that's Freedom™, that is.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by analogika 

Isn't it wonderful how this forum software gives you the choice of posting new and interesting threads, and NOT reading the boring ones?

Now that's Freedom™, that is.

You guys are more than welcome to talk about whatever you want, I have no problems with that whatsoever. I'm just trying to coax some conversation about usability and other aspects of user experience.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

If you don't think Expose is a significant usability improvement, I question whether you have any right to talk about anything even vaguely relating to this topic.

Well, I've certainly got a right to talk about, your real question is whether I have any authority in talking about it.

Exposé is interesting, but I personally feel it doesn't achieve very much - I don't use it. To my mind you have to tackle screen "clutter" in the application level itself. For instance, I really think window interleaving is the spawn of the devil - and is the real culprit for a lot of Apple's usability woes. My preference over Exposé is Windowshade X – opt-double-click and you can see the title bars of all the open documents (which is usually enough for me - there's also an option to minimise in place).

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Hence I'm not going to get into column view.

Great, I can't stand that either. I find it minimally useful - where's the usability in clicking on a document and seeing a great big document icon? For me reveal triangles do exactly the same thing in a more usable way (ie you can see more information about the files/folders, more easily).

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

The reinvented apple menu.

Er, what's that? What's such a great stride in interface design to rob the user of a customisable Apple menu?

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

trouble-free international text support,

Nothing to do with interface design. Unicode support was in OS9 - the real problem was that there were no applications available for OS9 that could really use multi-byte character sets.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

a network connection UI that works

I never had a problem with the Chooser, but then I used to keep most of my network shortcuts in the Apple menu too. Pressing cmd-k and expecting people to be able to type in ip addresses or network host names seems a little unintuitive to me (if even a little Windows-like too.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

fast user switching

How many people do you think use that? I do occasionally, but only for testing. I don't really think it qualifies as a interface improvement.

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

or any of the many other usability improvements since OS 9. But I could.

Well, go on.

[besson3c]

Clive: what are you expecting? OS X offers some additional options, some additional refinements, but basically at the heart of OS X you have the same desktop paradigm, the same application centric concepts, and basically the same sort of hierarchical file management.

There have been some refinements though, such as the dock providing feedback about applications without having to click on a vague blinking alert in the upper right hand corner of the screen. I wish Apple would extend upon this even further, such as putting a little alert symbol on top of unresponsive/crashed applications so that I don't have to invoke top.

There is also the transparent overlays for volume adjustment keyboard commands, being able to invoke various application functions from the Dock, improvements for people with disabilities, CD burning improvements, etc.

Obviously there are a *ton* of technical improvements too. The glaring weak areas of the old Mac OS were always technicial in nature.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

I'd hate to be the first one to tell you this, but:

If you navigate to the specific drive or folder you wish to search...

I can disabuse you of that notion, I figured that one out, all by myself, a long time ago.

But that's not really the point I was making. The point is, as per the earlier screen shot from 10.2, when searching "specific places" you could see a list of the drives you were searching with a checkbox next to them. With 10.4 you can only see that list by clicking on "other places".

I think this is stated clearly enough above.

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

it remembers between restarts if you prefer to search the entire computer or just the specific folder you're in.

Great, but it still does not "remember" the last search criteria you used. I'm sure that was my point.

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

And of course, as other have pointed out, you can set it to list view if you like.

You seem to have read about ten percent of the messages in this thread - do you want to read the rest, and then make this point again (like, perhaps read my posts... where I specifically say that?).

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

If you encase your search query in double quotes (e.g.: "query") it will search just for filenames that contain "query" and not within the content of files.

I think you're wrong on this - all putting quotes around a string is doing is asking for that specific string to be returned. ie - hello world - will return any document with "hello" and "world" in it, regardless of the order they are in, or whether the two words are adjacent to each other. Whereas - "hello world" - will only return documents where the two words are adjacent and in that order.

For example, some of the files returned by the content search "hell" (complete with the quotes) are:

AntiqOliBol
Clare
GoudyExtBol
Helve...

I can't see "hell" in any of those, but tell me if you think otherwise.

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

I see your point, it can be annoying. I just try to type fast. There is a small delay. If it really bothers you, type your query in elsewhere and just paste it in. (Yes, i know this isn't ideal. It should be an option in the Spotlight preferences)

But that's a usability improvement, and the crux of what we're talking about. ie, eye candy v usability. It's a "wow" for Steve Jobs to say "Boom, and there's my search results even before I've finished typing" - but it's not a "wow" if it slows down the search function on a day to day basis, which I think we all agree it does.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Clive 

But that's a usability improvement, and the crux of what we're talking about. ie, eye candy v usability. It's a "wow" for Steve Jobs to say "Boom, and there's my search results even before I've finished typing" - but it's not a "wow" if it slows down the search function on a day to day basis, which I think we all agree it does.

I agree, I don't see what is accomplished by commencing a search automatically for you this way except annoy. At the very least, it could commence the search after a 3 or 4 second delay or something, so that you have a chance to correct your typos.

Regardless, I don't see how the premature commencing of a search will help me get my desired results faster.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

For instance, quickly accessing an arbitrary window when you had lots of them open was hard under OS 9.

I'm pretty sure every application that supported multiple windows had a "Windows" or "Documents" or similar menu - what's any easier than that?

Yes, for certain cycling through windows/apps is better - but I think we all know that Apple stole that directly from Windows.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by analogika 

How long has she been into that stuff?

you should see the stuff that's on the encrypted disk image

[Clive]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Clive: what are you expecting?

Yes, good question.

When I first started using Macs I suppose that I thought, by this stage (nearly 20 years later) we'd have no screens and a set of virtual reality glasses, and be literally swimming through the interface. By that I don't mean that I'd be visiting the room where the email resided, but that I could reach in and manipulate things with my hands, and virtual tools, rather than relying on a mouse and pointer. That voice recognition would be a ubiquitous and reliable way of "communicating" with the computer (no more keyboard input).

But alas, processing power and computer programming have failed to keep abreast of my ambition.

In reality, I suppose I want to see real progress, without throwing the baby out with the bath water. When Steve Jobs wants to "wow" us with something I want it to be a real step forward, not just a genie effect on opening dock icons.

What I'd like to see is a more customisable interface (ie a user customisable Apple menu), a choice of whether I like minimising windows or windowshading them, whether I have control elements in the menu bar (try that on a 12" PowerBook for usability) or a control strip, a dock or a floating applications pallet... that's real usability because it allows the end user to customise the workspace.

(Before anyone starts on "but you can get all those things" or "you just want OS9", the above are just examples of different ways of handling similar tasks, there are many more - and there's no way to kill the dock.)

[Clive]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Regardless, I don't see how the premature commencing of a search will help me get my desired results faster.

I'm sure it works for most people most of the time, but for me it just tends to annoy me more times than it pleases me. That paradigm works really well on auto-complete type functions (ie data entry, select menus), but I don't really see it as an improvement in starting to search tens of thousands of files - which is that starting position for a MacOS X boot disk.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Clive 

I'm pretty sure every application that supported multiple windows had a "Windows" or "Documents" or similar menu - what's any easier than that?

Exposé.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Clive 

Yes, good question.

When I first started using Macs I suppose that I thought, by this stage (nearly 20 years later) we'd have no screens and a set of virtual reality glasses, and be literally swimming through the interface. By that I don't mean that I'd be visiting the room where the email resided, but that I could reach in and manipulate things with my hands, and virtual tools, rather than relying on a mouse and pointer. That voice recognition would be a ubiquitous and reliable way of "communicating" with the computer (no more keyboard input).

But alas, processing power and computer programming have failed to keep abreast of my ambition.

Bullshit.

Common sense happened. People woke up from their "3D VR voice controlled" sci fi fantasies and realised that these thing would actually hamper usability at best, and be totally unfeasible at worst. Imagine working in an office where everyone's isolated behind their VR glasses waving their hands about and shouting at their computers.

Don't worry. I got sucked into the VR hype too. I'm just not that disappointed that it never happened.

[Visnaut]

Originally Posted by Clive 

Great, but it still does not "remember" the last search criteria you used. I'm sure that was my point.

Why not use smart folders if you find yourself searching for common criteria above and beyond the content/filename search?

Originally Posted by Clive 

You seem to have read about ten percent of the messages in this thread - do you want to read the rest, and then make this point again (like, perhaps read my posts... where I specifically say that?).

Sure: Did you know you can change the list view in Spotlight searches?

Originally Posted by Clive 

I think you're wrong on this - all putting quotes around a string is doing is asking for that specific string to be returned. ie - hello world - will return any document with "hello" and "world" in it, regardless of the order they are in, or whether the two words are adjacent to each other. Whereas - "hello world" - will only return documents where the two words are adjacent and in that order.

For example, some of the files returned by the content search "hell" (complete with the quotes) are:

AntiqOliBol
Clare
GoudyExtBol
Helve...

I can't see "hell" in any of those, but tell me if you think otherwise.

Yes, you're right, much like a google search like we're all used to, encasing it in quotes makes it a literal search. But the trick to it in spotlight is that, in addition to it being a literal search, encasing it in quotes limits it to filenames and keywords.

Try this small test:

Create a folder, and then create two files in TextEdit:

• Hello.rtf with the text "World" inside
• World.rft with the text "Hello" inside

Use Spotlight to search for World or Hello in that folder, and you'll get both files. Perform the same search again, only with "World" or "Hello", and you'll only get the filenames that match your query (and hence, not the content).

Now if you open World.rtf, go to File > Show Properties, and enter Hello in the Keywords field (any field, really) and Save, you'll notice that the same literal search for "Hello" will also yield World.rtf in addition to Hello.rtf

So in your example search, you got those fonts back in the query because Linotype-Hell is in the copyright field of the font metadata.

It's not a direct filename search, but it's most of the way there, and yields much less results than just typing in Hell, I bet.

And at the risk of annoying you further with redundant information, an absolute filename search is achieved with the use of the "Name" property, and then clear whatever query you have in the search box. And save it as a smart folder, in case you do that often

[- - e r i k - -]

Yes. Specialised environments...good. General computing...bad. There is a very well defined distinction here.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Bullshit.

Actually, this isn't bullshit at all. Just take a look at the iPhone, the interface is heavily dependent on gestures. There's no downside to having a "data" glove that let's you interact with the computer in different ways. Maybe wrap-around vr glasses aren't for everyone, but they certainly could improve data interaction in some environments. Proof of this is easy, take a look at the HUD displays in fighter aircraft, that are even making inroads into some cars these days.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

Why not use smart folders if you find yourself searching for common criteria above and beyond the content/filename search?

That really isn't the point - it's a usability feature to "remember" the last search. I'd have a couple of thousand "smart" folders by now if I wanted to recall all of the searches I've done since installing Tiger, wouldn't I?

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

Yes, you're right, much like a google search like we're all used to, encasing it in quotes makes it a literal search. But the trick to it in spotlight is that, in addition to it being a literal search, encasing it in quotes limits it to filenames and keywords.

Try this small test...

So in your example search, you got those fonts back in the query because Linotype-Hell is in the copyright field of the font metadata.

Well I'm pretty sure that Goudy is an ITC font, its copyright string says "Copyright (c) 1988, 1995 Adobe Systems Incorporated. All Rights Reserved.", and you'll note that "GoudyBol", "GoudyIta", etc don't show up in the search list.

Do you have another explanation?

Originally Posted by Visnaut 

And at the risk of annoying you further with redundant information, an absolute filename search is achieved with the use of the "Name" property, and then clear whatever query you have in the search box. And save it as a smart folder, in case you do that often

You did read this thread through, didn't you?

[Clive]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Yes. Specialised environments...good. General computing...bad. There is a very well defined distinction here.

So, you're saying that there is room for VR-type computing environments, but that you think the utility is limited? If I'm using Photoshop or Illustrator, wouldn't it be a better environment for the end user, from a usability stand point, you be able to manipulate objects with their hands - just tweak that bezier a little, scale that box, pick up that brush... take a view from the left hand side so that you can see the layering more easily

I don't think there can be much argument that those would be productivity enhancements. And are those really specialised environments?

The problem here is that the MacOS and most of its applications are very much 2D, while all of us live in (at least) a 3D world.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Exposé.

Exposé will certainly let you distinguish a couple of Photoshop documents from each other - I'm really not sure how good it is at helping you select between a dozen or so Word or HTML code documents though, or a practically any given set of Finder windows.

It's all about having different choices for different needs. That's what helped distinguish the MacOS from Windows in terms of usability. I think we've lost the fundamentals of that a little with eye candy. A good example of this is the rollover to reveal "2 places" or the folder path in Find dialogues. Another is the "wow" dock scaling - but I find when I have 20 apps in the dock I pretty much can't tell one from the other: they're all blue and blobby.

But at least Adobe addressed that with the CS3 application icons - simple coloured squares, now who would have expected that to work over "butterflies" and "feathers"?

Another dock problem is the way it loads up icons in launch order - to me this is totally non-sensical. You should have an option to sort them in name order, or group them by function... These are the real usability issues, but what do we get? Bigger shadows and reflections in the dock!

[Clive]

Oh, just for the fun of it, here’s yet another Finder usability bug:

In your favourite Finder window (ie, any window you like), cmd-click the title of the window - you'll get a pop-up menu that shows the folder path from the root. Select any of those parent folders and a new window opens showing that folder.

Great, you all knew that, didn’t you!

So, try this: cmd-opt-click the title of the same window. Hmm, nothing happening? Try, cmd-click the title, get the pop-up menu, now get the opt key, now select a parent folder... the parent folder will open and the original window will close.

The notion of this is a great piece of usability carried over from OS9 (perhaps even earlier, I can’t remember when it was introduced), but isn’t it obvious that there’s a bug in that you should be able to cmd-opt-click the window title straight off, rather than having to press opt after you've clicked? Doesn’t this deserve more attention than reflections in the dock?

[MindFad]

No, I don't see it as a bug. I can't really think of other functions that would essentially have two commands for the same thing. It makes sense to me for that function to happen in two steps like that rather than two separate commands. It feels more logical and "Mac OS-like" that it would have this function and then the "option" option, rather than assuming that the user will always know immediately whether they want to close the original window or not, thus making it two separate key commands. Seems more usable to me to just allow the function to browse the path and then allow the user decide whether or not they want to even open a window, do nothing at all, or open a window and close the original. Using this idea, it's not a problem—especially since the option key is right next to command anyway.

Wow, there's a functionality I never thought anyone would have a problem with! It can't be an issue of usability "speed"—the keys are right next to each other, and you're thumb is practically touching both keys anyway for this function. Is it that big a deal? Works fine and makes sense to me the way it has always functioned.

I'd much rather have FTP in Finder than CMD-OPT-Clicking of freakin' window titles!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by MindFad 

I'd much rather have FTP in Finder than CMD-OPT-Clicking of freakin' window titles!

I'm not sure if you've been a part of these sorts of past conversations, but do you realize that FTP is insecure, and that there is a protocol called secure FTP which is a better option all round?

[TETENAL]

I don't think people care about whether it's "FTP" or "secure FTP" or other technical buzzwords as long as they can easily upload files.

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I'm not sure if you've been a part of these sorts of past conversations, but do you realize that FTP is insecure, and that there is a protocol called secure FTP which is a better option all round?

I've read plenty of through the "conversations." I don't care what Apple does, I just want FTP/SFTP to work in the Finder, regardless of protocol paranoia sweeping MacNN discussions.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

I don't think people care about whether it's "FTP" or "secure FTP" or other technical buzzwords as long as they can easily upload files.

You're right, they don't care, and that is the problem.

[TETENAL]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You're right, they don't care, and that is the problem.

No, the problem is that you don't understand non-geek users. When people say they want FTP to work in Finder, what they actually want is being able to easily upload files. How the Finder does that is totally irrelevant for them. FTP, "secure FTP", WebDAV, you name it, they don't care. What you misunderstand is when people say "FTP" you get all outraged because it's not secure, but people give a crap about FTP actually. All they want is the thing to work, so they can drag files onto their server. Apple can implement "secure FTP" instead, or they can implement something else. Who cares? Doesn't matter.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by MindFad 

No, I don't see it as a bug. I can't really think of other functions that would essentially have two commands for the same thing... Works fine and makes sense to me the way it has always functioned.

cmd-opt-w, cmd-opt-up arrow, cmd-opt-down arrow, cmd-shift-n, cmd-opt-n, cmd-shift-k, cmd-shift-del... maybe you need to explore a bit.

It is a bug. That's not the way it has always functioned.

[Clive]

Originally Posted by TETENAL 

No, the problem is that you don't understand non-geek users. When people say they want FTP to work in Finder, what they actually want is being able to easily upload files.

Right, but what they want in a browser is to give their credit cards securely. They don't really care how it happens, but they have an expectation that their data is safe. Likewise with file transfer protocols they have an expectation that their data is being transmitted in a secure manner and that their passwords can't be snooped.

That means that there is a case for secure FTP, because there's an expectation that it is secure - not that because people don't understand it we shouldn't bother with it.

How many people understand how a modern car or computer runs, should we just do away with them because of that ignorance?

[MindFad]

Originally Posted by Clive 

cmd-opt-w, cmd-opt-up arrow, cmd-opt-down arrow... maybe you need to explore a bit.

Maybe you didn't understand my explanation of how the way it currently works makes sense to me. Those are specific single-function things with commands in drop menus or are alternate commands for things like the "Home" and "End" keys. It's logical to me that "engaging" the path browsing drop menu would be separate and not have an alternate command for assuming whether or not the user actually wants to close the original window and open the selected one. "Close all windows," "go to top of page," and "go to bottom of page" are all singular and specific commands, just like "open path menu" (CMD-click). What you want seems like "open path menu, but wait, he pushed option at the same time, so if he does choose to open something in the path, then we have to close the current window." What's wrong with just "open path menu and listen for option"?

It is a bug.

I really don't think it is, and I have no problem at all depressing Option 1/8" to the left of Command after browsing the path and deciding I don't need my current window. In practice, like myself, I would most users wouldn't know right away whether or not they were going to leave the window or not—but Option is always an option!

My head hurts after that post.