Slashdot Mirror
Tog Takes on Mac OS X 10.3
Rick Zeman writes "Bruce 'Tog' Tognazzini, founder of Apple's Human Interface Group years ago, has finally pointed his electrons to Mac OS X 10.3. He's been dormant for while, and hasn't said anything since the early days of Mac OS X. His new articles include 'Panther: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly' and 'The Top Nine Reasons why the Dock Sucks,' all coming from A Guy Who Knows."
Never mind about wasted screen space.
Why oh why they have to stick brushed metal look everywhere? It was sort of tolerable in QuickTime Player and iTunes, since those aren't too "serious" applications, but... Finder???? I didn't know my files and directories were supposed to be eXXtrEME steel-molded things!
Wish the next iteration would look like Nautilus with some tweaks - that is, retractable or possibly even detachable sidebar, possibly with the locations, and the ability to use dynamic window resizing (or zooming) depending on how many items the folder has. And no brushed metal kewliness.
The problem with that is the dock icons can represent at least five different things:
Running applications, non-running applications, folders, files, and open windows (minimized.)
So by moving things to the desktop... what are you asking it to do? Move the application? create an alias? move a window to the desktop (can't really do that.) move a document to the desktop? a folder?
Also, you can drag a dock item off to somewhere other than the desktop, such as a document or application window.
A fundamental idea of the dock is that it's not the actual file/program/window. It is just a representation of it, manipulating the dock icon of an object does not actually move, delete, edit, etc. the object. making the dock affect the actual item makes it dangerously powerful.
My sig is blank, I typed this by hand.
I find the new Finder (10.3) to be better and actually take less space.
In Jaguar, I had to customize the toolbar to put buttons for my Documents, Pictures, Music, etc folders. This made the finder require more room vertically and horizontally. (I could save the horizontal space by clicking the button which shows a fly out menu of hidden tool buttons, but I don't like that)
Now, in Panther, it actually takes less space vertically and horizontally. The vertical space comes from the fact that the toolbar buttons are smaller in size. And, I don't have to have 5 different buttons taking up horizontal room for my most used folders. Those go in a convienient sidebar for access.
Granted, the folder sidebar may take up horizontal room if you don't use it much, but Apple is pushing widescreen displays, so it makes more sense to use horizontal area than vertical area. The finder does this well.
-- Fighting mediocrity one bad post at a time.
I think this is an overstatement. Most of the functionality of OS 9 (and previous) is still there. The desktop, icons, windows, and applications' interface all behave essentially the same way. You can ding it for the dock and other such changes, but the truth is that many people (myself included) actually prefer those changes.
Now add improvements like centralizing control panels into the System Preferences (you could put many OS 9 control panels *anywhere*), the services menu (which is an awesome idea still highly underutilized), and greater uniformity in applications' menus (how many different places can you find an application's preferences in OS 9?) and you get some significant gains. That is not the end of list of changes for the better.
My point, I guess, is that OS X is progress, contrary to the small group of critics that is getting smaller as OS X continues to improve. In my opinion Panther is ahead of OS 9 in usability and the worst you can really call it is a trade-off.
Boom Shanka
The Dock is not perfect, but his ranting against it comes across as just so much hyperbole. I get along with it just fine. The problem of identical icons is gone now that I can put my project folders in the Finder's side bar, and I don't minimize folders and documents much anymore thanks to Expose.
He may be a Guy Who Knows (or was at one time), but he's flat out wrong here, and there definitely a hint of an axe being ground. It also comes across as simply "I got used to this way. I never want to change. Whaaaaa!"
Some of the reasons can be combined (6, 7 and 8, for example). Some are purely subjective, like 5. I have zero problem trashing things.
The rest seem to read like "people's hands have minds of their own, and those minds are retarded, so they can never get used to the Dock. It's Fitt's Law, which is as immutable and perfect as the Laws Of Thermodynamics, dammit!".
And I love "Oh! I dragged something out of the dock and it puffed into smoke!" Wow. So call 911, you silly man, and tell them you need an IV with Zoloft or something. Sheesh.
--- Ban humanity.
The dock tells you:
What programs you have open, but that have no client windows left (without having to check the Application menu, which took up space in the already crowded program bar and had no keyboard shortcuts other than option tab)
Which programs are open, but hidden, again without having to check a menu.
Informs you when (and often why) a certain program needs your attention in a very noticable but inobtrusive way. And the bouncing can be seen even when the dock is hidden (the icon bounds up at the bottom/sides of the screen).
Programatic control of icons can offer all KINDS of useful information at a glance without needing to switch programs...everything from the date in iCal's icon to full memory and process indicators.
The dock allows you:
An easy way to start, stop and switch programs without having to browse the hard drive. Most programs have useful controls added to their dock icon as well...and you can access these functions with a single interface.
An easy way to access the trash bin without having to expose the desktop at all times (so annoying)
Access to the discs in a convenient cascading manner. This has allowed me to access common files and PROGRAMS without taking up resources at all times.
In short: The dock accomplishes all of the functions of most OS' taskbars, menus and so forth in a much simpler, much more powerful, much more intuitive and above all CUSTOMIZABLE fashion. It kicks ass.
And you're griping about the loss of the two most useless UI controls ever invented...oh my god, i just responded to a TROLL, didn't I?!?
Hey freaks: now you're ju
I'm not going to say you're incorrect, but you're not exactly correct either, as that was a completely subjective statement. That said, I'd love to see some stats on people who like the new OS more/less compared to the old one, broken down into old Mac fans and those who came on the scene after the advent of OS X.
Personally, I love OS X and find it extremely usable. Additionally, I avoided previous iterations of Mac OS like a plague, and would have rather used an abacus than a mac back then. Bascially, the lack of a good foundation (compared to the BSD-based guts it has now) and a terminal was a killer.
That said, I guarantee that Apple will sell out its core fans to get new markets (ie, people like me). As you say, what else are you going to use? Windows?
(If there's one thing I can't stand more than anything else, it's the whole "like it or leave it" attitude. NOTHING would ever get improved if all people were like that.)
I do agree with your sentiment there. People usually do that when they can think of nothing intelligent to say. It's most commonly found among nationalistic morons (ie, America: love it or leave it!). As if criticizing features of one's government (or favorite OS) somehow means one should abandon it.
My one greatest compliment to OS X is that it has come so far (mind-blowing, really) in so little time. It's ceased being a toy OS for artsy people (so was the stereotype) and has become incredibly powerful. And I'll admit, there are some UI issues. I guess I'd say to give it time
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
In the article he claims that Panther is as "crisp... as OS 9.2.2". In my experience, 9.2.x was just kludged together to make it forwards-compatible with OS X, and introduced a lot of undesirable behavior.
In fact, I found this to be true with MacOS 9, period. 8.5 seemed a lot more stable and user-friendly. What did 9 have that 8.5 didn't?
My only problem with the Dock is dragging, say, 20 or 30 picture files on to Preview so you can look through them all; if you miss the Preview icon and the button slips-- WHAM!-- 20 more icons added to the Dock. Well, that and accidentally clicking on a program that takes a while to boot.
When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
I've never understood this surprisingly popular opinion. Nobody complains that printers have too high resolution. Why do they look at high resolution in a monitor as a bad thing?
Scalable fonts and vector graphics (both of which are used pervasively in OS/X) work even better at higher resolutions than they do at low ones. In other words, when you have more pixels per inch, you don't have to keep drawing your fonts at 13 pixels tall, making them too tiny to see. Instead, draw them at the same 12 point (1/6 of an inch) tall, but with more detail.
To answer your question, a 12 inch diagonal, 1200 dpi screen would be sheer bliss for me, and far preferable to something larger but with lower resolution.
But my grandest creation, as history will tell,
Was Firefrorefiddle, the Fiend of the Fell.