[.Neo]

Originally Posted by Geobunny 

Wow! You've just brought up a major UI inconsistency here which I hadn't noticed before. If you drag something from the Dock to the trash all it does is remove the icon from the Dock. That's fine, that's how it has worked for years. If, however, you open a stack and drag an icon from there to the trash it actually removes it from the folder?! That can only end in tears for people who don't routinely check the trash before emptying.

Sorry folks, but now I really have to ask WTF Apple?

That's one of the best features of Stacks. I can manage my entire Downloads folder straight from the Dock without ever having to open de folder itself.

And Apple actually put two PDF files in the standard Documents and Downloads stacks providing a quick manual, explaining how the feature works.

They're inviting you throw out the manual and by that you'll instantly learn how everything works.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by jasonsRX7 

No, you get labeled as a douche for referring to people with legitimate complaints as "whiners."

I can accept that if that's what you think.

[Geobunny]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

And Apple actually put two PDF files in the standard Documents and Downloads stacks providing a quick manual, explaining how the feature works.

Hmm, they didn't put them in mine. I chose to do an Archive & Install keeping users and network settings. Nothing was added to my documents or downloads folders.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Hal Itosis 

 
Oh I see. So you're saying:
-> if we need to go more than 2 levels deep <-
then *Stacks* offers superior navigation. :

Again…WHERE did I say that? If I'm the moron here then why do you have to put words in my mouth…or whatever the text equivalent is?

[swiz]

I did an erase and install and they were in mine.

[0157988944]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Again…WHERE did I say that? If I'm the moron here then why do you have to put words in my mouth…or whatever the text equivalent is?

You said that hierarchical navigation was only good for 2 levels. So apparently you're in support of the alternative, stacks.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

If something doesn't cause a problem for me, it doesn't cause a problem for anyone, because everyone else works exactly the same way that I do. If I didn't use a feature, then that feature is therefore worthless and anyone who did use and appreciate it is a whiny malcontent.

Again.

My meaning is deliberately manipulated to make me look like an idiot. I don't need YOU make me look like an idiot. I can do that myself thank you!

From the very beginning the Dock was supposed to be a very simple tool to house and launch the most commonly used items with a single click. And from the very beginning the Mac community wanted it to do a lot more. It's not supposed to do more. If you want to launch or have something ready to open quickly it's there. If you need to navigate through a complicated hierarchy then Apple has provided numerous ways in the finder to do so.

You don't have to like it but that's how it has been designed. If you ask me hierarchal folders was the inconsistency and it had no place in the dock.

[.Neo]

Originally Posted by Geobunny 

Hmm, they didn't put them in mine. I chose to do an Archive & Install keeping users and network settings. Nothing was added to my documents or downloads folders.

They're inside every newly created user account.

[Toyin]

typing this from my iPhone so this will be short


One click of the simley face get's you a finder window, whether you have one open or not.

People need to learn to adapt. When I switched to 10.0 I thought I would never be as productive as OS 9. I adapted and am a lot more productive in OSX.

All these examples referring to clicks being the measure of speed are flawed. I'm telling you that I've used most of the methods that you describe and that my work flow now is ALOT more efficient and faster.

Homework person. If you know you are going to need to find something later, why not rename them or add comments to the file like....homework a that you can find it easier with spotlight.

If Apple got rid of columnview I would adapt. I would be pissed bit I would adapt.

Cheers.

Sox rule!

[Geobunny]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

They're inside every newly created user account.

Fair enough, but that doesn't help existing users who simply choose to do an upgrade/archive install and already have it in their head that "removing icons from the dock doesn't alter the original item". Anyway, let's not get OT.

[.Neo]

Originally Posted by Geobunny 

Fair enough, but that doesn't help existing users who simply choose to do an upgrade/archive install and already have it in their head that "removing icons from the dock doesn't alter the original item". Anyway, let's not get OT.

I think it's in the user manual as well...

[Geobunny]

Originally Posted by .Neo 

I think it's in the user manual as well...

Ah ok. Having downloaded the build directly from ADC, I didn't realise there was a manual which came with the physical DVD.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by adamfishercox 

You said that hierarchical navigation was only good for 2 levels. So apparently you're in support of the alternative, stacks.

I think that stacks is superior if you have a relatively small number of items and a single level.

If you have more than that HF and stacks are both crap. With more levels stacks is far worse than HF…duh…but that doesn't mean that HF is great and it doesn't mean the those dirty fascists at Apple have to do anything to allow them to return.

The last I checked stacks was an advertised feature. You either buy or don't. As someone else said, Tiger is a fine OS you are welcome to keep using it. I know people that haven't yet moved on from Panther. Hell, I know a guy who still thinks that Windows 95 is the greatest OS ever and he refuses to move on.

[Geobunny]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

The last I checked stacks was an advertised feature. You either buy or don't.

We're not bemoaning the existence of stacks, we're objecting to the wholesale, and hitherto unmentioned in public, removal of something which in many people's opinion was an excellent feature.

[Big Mac]

Yup.

[swiz]

Originally Posted by Geobunny 

We're not bemoaning the existence of stacks, we're objecting to the wholesale, and hitherto unmentioned in public, removal of something which in many people's opinion was an excellent feature.

Well said.

[jbg232]

Another forum has claimed that A-Dock is a solution in Leopard. As I don't have Leopard yet (need my ctrl-click functionality addressed before I can upgrade) can someone please verify this? You can get A-Dock here:
A-Dock X - A tijej house production for your Mac OS X

[CharlesS]

As long as we're talking about Dock replacements, one can't forget about DragThing.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Geobunny 

We're not bemoaning the existence of stacks, we're objecting to the wholesale, and hitherto unmentioned in public, removal of something which in many people's opinion was an excellent feature.

Well in case you didn't realize, I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to someone who was referring to a difference in the usability of stacks compared to HF.

[ajprice]

I've never put a folder in the dock, and never wanted to. The dock is an quick access launcher, and somewhere to minimise windows and get them off your screen, along with expose. I put the major apps in the dock, the ones that I use 90%+ of the time when I'm on my mac. The rest of the stuff I use so rarely its not worth docking, so I get those with finder windows, which have a sidebar to all these great places like an Applications folder, Home folder and Documents folder. Can't see the point of even wanting to have a hierarchical menu of documents or apps folders in the dock. The dock is for quick access, if you want something deeper, search it or get it in the folder where you know it is.

[tigas]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Again.

My meaning is deliberately manipulated to make me look like an idiot. I don't need YOU make me look like an idiot. I can do that myself thank you!

From the very beginning the Dock was supposed to be a very simple tool to house and launch the most commonly used items with a single click. And from the very beginning the Mac community wanted it to do a lot more. It's not supposed to do more. If you want to launch or have something ready to open quickly it's there. If you need to navigate through a complicated hierarchy then Apple has provided numerous ways in the finder to do so.

You don't have to like it but that's how it has been designed. If you ask me hierarchal folders was the inconsistency and it had no place in the dock.

The community wanted the Dock to do more because:
a) It's a HUGE target in prime real estate that serves almost no function, and is inconsistent to boot (merging app shortcuts with running apps? whose braindead idea was that?)
b) Apple removed a metric tonne of features from other parts of the interface and the simplest way to get them back was to bolt them back into the dock.

[dfbennett]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

All previous versions? You sure about that? I don't remember hierarchal folders in the early incarnations of OS X.

It totally has been there since 10.0 and I'd been using it since 10.0 as a apple menu replacement.

[mjankor]

I have trouble writing this as I thought I was pretty clear in earlier posts. I guess I'll explain my work setup to try and enlighten some of you why heirarchic menus are useful.

In my work we generate a large number of files, all with similar names. One folder in a project may contain 50 files with various versions and plan numbers. The whole project could contain 15 or so folders all filled with similarly named documents. Renaming them or tagging them to use later is a fscking retarded idea toyin. We'd spend way too much time doing metadata and not enough time doing work.

Our structure relies on folder heirarchy a lot as we have to be compatible with windows clients on our network too. That's another reason why tagging and renaming is not good practise here.

Basically we have a huge slab of folders on a server that has to be accessed regularly. Heirarchal menus are the fastest way to do that. I set a challenge describing this on page 3 and so far no one has provided a more effective workflow.

OS X isn't great because it's pretty, it isn't great because it is simple. It's great because it's versatile, adaptable and user friendly. I'd like to see OS X maintain it's capability and flexibility rather than running off to play "I'm the fairest of them all" with Vista.

[tigas]

Link to Arstechnica at MacWorld 2001 - Preview of 10.0

[- - e r i k - -]

As much as I want to sympathise with people having this feature remove, it must be pointed out (again) that hierarchical menus are a horribly inefficient way of launching applications and browsing a file system.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by mjankor 

OS X isn't great because it's pretty, it isn't great because it is simple. It's great because it's versatile, adaptable and user friendly. I'd like to see OS X maintain it's capability and flexibility rather than running off to play "I'm the fairest of them all" with Vista.

Although I don't agree with the rest of your post, this was well put.

[Toyin]

I never recommended that you use metadata. That was for the homework commenter. If you're downloading or copying files that you need to find later, it is worth it to take the time to add metadata or rename the files so you can find them easier.

I still think column view is a better option for you ESPECIALLY if you have a ton of similar files in similar folders. To me it seems much easier to back track and get more info with column view then a heirarchical menu.

Hey do what you will. Personally I've seen plenty of people on OSX and Windows fishing through tons of menus. It's slow and inefficient. This discussion has changed my thoughts on these menus. I don't think Apple should have dropped it.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

hierarchical menus are a horribly inefficient way of launching applications and browsing a file system.

Those of us who made extensive use of it, quite enjoyably I might add, don't think so. Although you may find them inefficient, we do not.

I could do almost everything I needed to do with the dock menus. I didn't have to open and close Finder window after Finder window. I didn't have to search for file after file in Spotlight. I didn't have to drag every subfolder I wanted to open to the dock.

[MartiNZ]

Exactly.

[Hal Itosis]

Originally Posted by smacintush 

Again…WHERE did I say that? If I'm the moron here then why do you
have to put words in my mouth…or whatever the text equivalent is?

 
Well... if that's not what you were IMPLYING there, then your post wasn't very pertinent.

We can debate opinions until we're blue in the face. The FACT is: Stacks has killed
an option that was useful... in the *opinion* of *many* users. Apple could have
given us a choice... an option... but they didn't. That's the unfortunate part.

Maybe only coordinated users can navigate 3 or 4 levels of hierarchical menus.
I don't see why they deserve to be denied something that's existed for years.

And the Stack "icon" displayed in the Dock is another 'UI' tragedy. I and others
put very specific icons on folders so we can zip over to the Dock in milliseconds.
Now we're forced to "read and study" these collages to figure out which is which.

Nothing you or anyone else has said here rationalizes the removal of CHOICE in this matter.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by jasonsRX7 

Those of us who made extensive use of it, quite enjoyably I might add, don't think so. Although you may find them inefficient, we do not.

I could do almost everything I needed to do with the dock menus. I didn't have to open and close Finder window after Finder window. I didn't have to search for file after file in Spotlight. I didn't have to drag every subfolder I wanted to open to the dock.

Sidebar + column views are much more efficient. This is not a matter of opinion, but objective and verifiable facts.

Just because you are used to doing something a certain way, even quite apt at doing it that way, by means of training, does not mean that it's good usability or that superior methods does not exist.

I'm sorry your pet feature got taken away, we all hate it when that happens.

[mjankor]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Sidebar + column views are much more efficient. This is not a matter of opinion, but objective and verifiable facts.

Just because you are used to doing something a certain way, even quite apt at doing it that way, by means of training, does not mean that it's good usability or that superior methods does not exist.

I'm sorry your pet feature got taken away, we all hate it when that happens.

Bollocks

I'd like to see you post something to back that up.
I'll think about posting something to prove otherwise.

I agree that for getting to an Application then sidebar maybe faster (and the dock faster still) but there are a lot of circumstances where HM's are still fastest.

(Especially when you want to keep a folder in a persistent view.)

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Sidebar + column views are much more efficient. This is not a matter of opinion, but objective and verifiable facts.

Okay, let's see you verify it then.

[- - e r i k - -]

Bollocks? What a quaint reply. It's easy to test:

Have a file certain depth with lots of subfolders. Say five levels down with around 25 items in each level. Put the top folder in the dock, and the same folder in the Finder sidebar with column views enabled. Then time the takes to find that particular file with either method, throwing in Spotlight for good measure.

To make the experiment controlled, two persons who are apt at either navigation should perform the tasks they are most apt at. As a control I would suggest a new user not used to either. Repeat three times and then average the times.

You might think usability is all about preferences, but what it boils down to is really habit and learnability vs true usability.

[jasonsRX7]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Sidebar + column views are much more efficient.

Have you see what the hierarchal folders that we're talking about look like? They're essentially a column view of that folder.

When you right clicked a folder in the dock, it gave you a list, a column view, of that folder. If you moused over a subfolder, you got another column. The hierarchal dock folders essentially gave you one click access to a column view of a folder.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by jasonsRX7 

Have you see what the hierarchal folders that we're talking about look like? They're essentially a column view of that folder.

When you right clicked a folder in the dock, it gave you a list, a column view, of that folder. If you moused over a subfolder, you got another column. The hierarchal dock folders essentially gave you one click access to a column view of a folder.

Of course I have - in fact I've used hierarchical menus for navigation at several points since System 7. I have just since moved on to more efficient ways of moving around.

And no, fickle menus are not the same as column views.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

As much as I want to sympathise with people having this feature remove, it must be pointed out (again) that hierarchical menus are a horribly inefficient way of launching applications and browsing a file system.

For you perhaps. Not for everyone. Learn to speak for yourself.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

For you perhaps. Not for everyone. Learn to speak for yourself.

No I was speaking objectively from the standpoint of a usability co-ordinator and tester. Learn to read.

[mjankor]

We can test this quite easily Erik

5 Folders deep, 25 Folders in each, titled Untitled Folder 1, Untitled Folder 2.
Grab a ruler and measure how far you move your mouse from first selection to finish
Count mouse clicks
Count key strokes
Count scroll wheel use
Report back here with your results when you're done.

We'll go Start Folder -> Folder 2 -> Folder 23 -> Folder 16 -> Finishing at Folder 23

Edit: Final folder view has to be something other than column view. (I typically use list but as we now have coverflow we may as well use that.)

I'll do my testing now for both columns and HM. I have to use Xmenu rather than Tiger as I don't have any Tiger machines left so I'm at a bit of a disadvantage as Xmenu isn't quite as good.

I'll also post a screen shot so we both test the same thing.

[mjankor]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

No I was speaking objectively from the standpoint of a usability co-ordinator and tester. Learn to read.

One who has, no doubt, performed the easy tests he mentioned a few posts up, and/or has some link proving the validity of his claims?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

No I was speaking objectively from the standpoint of a usability co-ordinator and tester. Learn to read.

Usability co-ordinator. Is that the title on your business card? Hahahaha. Ahahahaha. ROFL.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by mjankor 

We can test this quite easily Erik

5 Folders deep, 25 Folders in each, titled Untitled Folder 1, Untitled Folder 2.
Grab a ruler and measure how far you move your mouse from first selection to finish
Count mouse clicks
Count key strokes
Count scroll wheel use
Report back here with your results when you're done.

We'll go Start Folder -> Folder 2 -> Folder 23 -> Folder 16 -> Finishing at Folder 23

Edit: Final folder view has to be something other than column view. (I typically use list but as we now have coverflow we may as well use that.)

I'll do my testing now for both columns and HM. I have to use Xmenu rather than Tiger as I don't have any Tiger machines left so I'm at a bit of a disadvantage as Xmenu isn't quite as good.

I'll also post a screen shot so we both test the same thing.

Mouse clicks? Cursor distance? Simplify your test, all you really need is time.

Not sure I understand the "Final folder view has to be something other than column view" parameter either. You are just adding variables to make the test more complex than needed.

[mjankor]

OK, results for HM are
Clicks = 2 (1 if you click and hold)
Mouse moved 35cm (I think it's less in Tiger's HMs as I think Tiger's dock HMs aren't pinned from the top but the middle. Xmenus menus are all pinned at the top.)

Results for Columns
Clicks = 5
Mouse moved 28.5 (Will vary depending on size of columns & window. I used columns wide enough to show 27chars and deep enough not to require scrolling)
Keystrokes = 1 chord (Command 4 for coverflow)

There you go, some objective figures. Oh yeah, Heirarchic Menus gets kudos for being friendly with Fitt's Law. The initial target is a big one on the edge of the screen.

As for why the final window has to be something other than column view. Two reasons, first, a lot of the time people sort stuff by date, and second, because icon view or coverflow is best if you're looking for an image.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Usability co-ordinator. Is that the title on your business card? Hahahaha. Ahahahaha. ROFL.

You are truly an asinine character do you know that? My business card has at one point said "Usability expert", but I figured that would be too arrogant of me to post.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by mjankor 

OK, results for HM are
Clicks = 2 (1 if you click and hold)
Mouse moved 35cm (I think it's less in Tiger's HMs as I think Tiger's dock HMs aren't pinned from the top but the middle. Xmenus menus are all pinned at the top.)

Results for Columns
Clicks = 5
Mouse moved 28.5 (Will vary depending on size of columns & window. I used columns wide enough to show 27chars and deep enough not to require scrolling)
Keystrokes = 1 chord (Command 4 for coverflow)

There you go, some objective figures.

Kudos to you for doing the test! Although I have no reason to assume you are lying, such a test would only be valid with an impartial observer and a control person. And where's your timing data?

Another thing to note is that click-and-hold reduces accuracy, adds strain and ipso facto is poor usability.

Originally Posted by mjankor 

Oh yeah, Heirarchic Menus gets kudos for being friendly with Fitt's Law. The initial target is a big one on the edge of the screen.

True. However Fitts' Law works against you when working with menus who disappears once the cursor overshoots the target. Multiply that by every subfolder added and mistakes are soon made nullifying the benefits of a larger start target.

Originally Posted by mjankor 

As for why the final window has to be something other than column view. Two reasons, first, a lot of the time people sort stuff by date, and second, because icon view or coverflow is best if you're looking for an image.

Irrelevant to the test and adds unneeded complexity. I can only presume you added this to add bias to the test by adding an extra step to your non-preferred outcome.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You are truly an asinine character do you know that? My business card has at one point said "Usability expert", but I figured that would be too arrogant of me to post.

Are you embarrassed to give that card out?

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Are you embarrassed to give that card out?

Not in the context to whom such cards are given out to no. Have any more personal questions for me or do you want to get back on topic?

[mjankor]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

Kudos to you for doing the test! Although I have no reason to assume you are lying, such a test would only be valid with an impartial observer and a control person. And where's your timing data?

Another thing to note is that click-and-hold reduces accuracy, adds strain and ipso facto is poor usability.

True. However Fitts' Law works against you when working with menus who disappears once the cursor overshoots the target. Multiply that by every subfolder added and mistakes are soon made nullifying the benefits of a larger start target.

Irrelevant to the test and adds unneeded complexity. I can only presume you added this to add bias to the test by adding an extra step to your non-preferred outcome.

Distances and clicks is a valid test, especially as it can be duplicated by anyone prepared to do the test.
I didn't give timing data because that would require several people including an objective observer.

OS X hierarchic menus don't disappear if you overshoot. (Does this mean you haven't used them?) Fitt's law is only of interest here in the initial targeting of the start folder, after that, targets are similar size in both menus and columns.

I explained why the last folder had to be a different view. Did you ignore this intentionally or do you believe that alternative views are pointless too?


Edit: BTW, Nice straw man on the click and hold.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by mjankor 

OS X hierarchic menus don't disappear if you overshoot. (Does this mean you haven't used them?) Fitt's law is only of interest here in the initial targeting of the start folder, after that, targets are similar size in both menus and columns.

Apologies. They do disappear if you overshoot and click though, which can happen with such a small target.

Originally Posted by mjankor 

I explained why the last folder had to be a different view. Did you ignore this intentionally or do you believe that alternative views are pointless too?

I said it was irrelevant to what we are testing here. Is the target folder in list view from the start? If so that is bias towards your favoured outcome. If it's not it's irrelevant as it would take the same time to perform.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by mjankor 

Edit: BTW, Nice straw man on the click and hold.

Again with the editing. I can hardly keep track. Heh.

Not a straw man at all, but a valid point since you seemed to think click-rate is a more valid metric than the time it takes to perform a user task.