From a UI perspective, no, the back button, the forward button, and links are all ways of navigating forward and backward through links.
From a UI perspective, the outer envelope of a folder is what you pick up to flip back and forth through the documemt inside.
You can't jump from UI metaphors to technical methods and expect that to hold up when discussing usability.
I'm not jumping anywhere. I am simply describing how *I* experience the UI metaphor of the tab model. There's nothing "technical" involved in having links inside the document (defined by the document) behave one way, and links outside the document (defined by the browser and how you got there) behaving another.
And, yes, I think it's a really stupid idea to use "back();" as the target of a link when you have better internal navigation information, because that makes it harder to segue from the internal navigation of the document (the thing inside the tab).
Yeah, but you haven't provided any evidence or even arguments as to why having the tabs below the controls fits better with the UI metaphor.
Sure, "THE THING INSIDE THE TAB IS THE DOCUMENT YOU ARE VIEWING".
That is the metaphor.
Anything that is not part of the document, does not belong inside the tab.
The location of the document on the web is not part of the document.
The controls for navigating the document are not part of the document.
Bookmarks referencing other documents are DEFINITELY not part of the document. Your response is that you don't use the bookmark bar. So people who do, they get bookmarks subsumed into the document. The application menus aren't part of the document, but on Windows those go inside the tab as well, but on the Mac they go outside. Which of these two completely different approaches you think makes sense... that doesn't matter, because they can't BOTH be simultaneously right, but putting the tabs in the title bar forces you to do both.
There's no way you can make the UI metaphor consistent if you stick the whole application in the document.
I've pointed all this out, before. You can't say I haven't presented them. You don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean I haven't presented them.
You mean this, which doesn't say anything about Flash being better than Silverlight either?
"Companies using software other than Microsoft's are unable to bid at many Portuguese public tenders. This is due to the use of Silverlight 2.0 technology by the company, Vortal, contracted to build the e-procurement portal. This situation has triggered a complaint to the European Commission by the Portuguese Open Source Business Association; the case is unofficially known in Portugal as 'Vortalgate.'"
This has nothing to do with Microsoft. It has to do with website designers/programmers.
Since the deployment of electronic procurement platforms is currently mandatory, this is a particularly serious situation. It entails an artificial constraint on the market induced by a private firm while implementing a service foreseen in "Código dos Contratos Públicos" (Public Procurement Law).
It sounds like they're correctly blaming the website designers/programmers, so (AGAIN) why are you babbling about Flash?
I'm not a FAN of silverlight (or flash!), but Silverlight seems to be better supported on Linux and Mac than Flash was initially. I could be wrong about that.
Why on earth do you imagine you would you need either Silverlight or Flash to submit a bid?
This isn't a frigging high end interactive-video-entertainment application, this is something that shouldn't need anything more than Mosaic 1.0 or Lynx.
Since people are willing to pay a $1500 premium to buy that Mac Pro, I guess for those people OS X is worth over $1000 more than Windows Vista Ultimate, even after allowing for your using an upgrade price instead of a full license in your analysis.
What game developer still in business is going to open-source a game that's actually using state-of-the-art technology? I'm not talking about Doom[three versions back] or the Second Life client, I mean an actual state-of-the art game with a story arc and competitive graphics and physics.
Even if they have rights to enough of the IP to do it, why should they? They'd just be creating a competitor to their NEXT game.
It usually moves you back one link, not one document.
But that link is not a link in the *document*, it's meta-information. If you follow a link from another website, that link back to the original site dos not exist anywhere in the document, it's not part of the document.
The keyboard is an interface to the UI.
So is the toolbar.
You're dodging my point.
No, I'm disagreeing with you. Please don't follow the usual "interweb argument" logic here and start accusing me of lying for having the temerity to disagree with you.
Since they don't come with a monitor, the profit margin on these things must be around 50%. Wow!
Nah, the Mac Tax has typically been documented to be about 30-40%. Unless you count the annoying funky hardware as a cost. Most of the Apple fanboys try and count the design as a benefit worth that extra cost, but I gotta tell you, I'd be happy to pay that surcharge on top of the price of OS X to get a version I could legally run on a Thinkpad or generic white box.
Apple hardware is the price you pay to get an OS that doesn't suck as bad as Windows, with applications that don't suck as bad as the ones you can get for Linux.
The URL is the place the document was retrieved from. It changes as I switch between tabs. Logically, it should be grouped as part of the document then, right?
No more than the index or other meta-information on the folder should. If you "save the whole page" to your desktop, the URL changes when you read it, but the content doesn't.
I click the back button, but its behavior is contextual depending upon which document I'm viewing.
No, it moves you "back one page". It doesn't change depending on the document, so when you're viewing Microsoft.com it doesn't switch to "previous article". It moves you "back one page" even if you got there from a completely different place than the author of the document expected.
It doesn't make all the tabs go back a link, just the current tab.
Neither does command-back, and command-w doesn't close all tabs. But the keyboard isn't "part of the document". The "document" is what you get from the website, nothing more, nothing less.
As a system administrator, I've always called the people who think they need every skerrick of every resource available to them to be dedicated magically to whatever they want, no matter whether other people have different needs, "lusers".
I guess if they have two 24" monitors you could call them "power lusers".
And I guess that begs the question, what is the physical object in this metaphor you are speaking of.
Tabs treat the web page as documents in a folder. The cover of the folder, the title on the folder, sticky notes on the front of the folder, the drawer that the folder is in, and so on... these are not part of the document in the tab in the folder. The stuff at the top of the window, that's the "outside of the folder". The stuff inside the tabs, that's the document.
Very good point: the difference between a teleoperated robot and a piece of construction equipment is whether you need to include a heated cab or a bunch of cameras.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, I've read the message I responded to twice now, and it still seems to be arguing for the RIAA's position, not against it.
It wasn't called "evolution", it was called "The Origin of the Species".
The debate is not over whether "evolution" occurs. Evolution is just iterated selection. The debate is over whether evolution leads to speciation.
It's desirable to the fish. Personally, if I was smaller and lived longer I'd consider that a pretty decent trade-off.
Is his right also to enter a brick and mortar music store and leave with a phisical copy without paying for it
Not unless he made that physical copy while he was in the store, so the store owner wasn't out one copy.
Saying "oh, it's just a digital copy, not the actual physical copy" goes both ways.
I don't think this reasoning holds up under examination.
I'm pretty sure that would count as a comp.
Not if he was leeching.
As he said, he was entitled. That download was authorized, no matter what the status of the site he downloaded it from. So it wasn't "piracy".
You know, a recession is a good time to develop stuff like that.
Probably because a random walk is a local optimum, and all the other optima are a LONG way away.
I want one that picks up dropped coins and pens and other solid debris and separates it from the dust and fluff. Bonus if it can count my change.
As far as I can recall, precisely zero of the Microsoft Research projects I've thought were cool ever got into Windows.
"software other than Microsoft." software? Even "operating systems by Microsoft" would have been better, wouldn't it?
You're making so fine a distinction I can't tell what you're attempting to distinguish, I'm afraid.
From a UI perspective, no, the back button, the forward button, and links are all ways of navigating forward and backward through links.
From a UI perspective, the outer envelope of a folder is what you pick up to flip back and forth through the documemt inside.
You can't jump from UI metaphors to technical methods and expect that to hold up when discussing usability.
I'm not jumping anywhere. I am simply describing how *I* experience the UI metaphor of the tab model. There's nothing "technical" involved in having links inside the document (defined by the document) behave one way, and links outside the document (defined by the browser and how you got there) behaving another.
And, yes, I think it's a really stupid idea to use "back();" as the target of a link when you have better internal navigation information, because that makes it harder to segue from the internal navigation of the document (the thing inside the tab).
Yeah, but you haven't provided any evidence or even arguments as to why having the tabs below the controls fits better with the UI metaphor.
Sure, "THE THING INSIDE THE TAB IS THE DOCUMENT YOU ARE VIEWING".
That is the metaphor.
Anything that is not part of the document, does not belong inside the tab.
The location of the document on the web is not part of the document.
The controls for navigating the document are not part of the document.
Bookmarks referencing other documents are DEFINITELY not part of the document. Your response is that you don't use the bookmark bar. So people who do, they get bookmarks subsumed into the document. The application menus aren't part of the document, but on Windows those go inside the tab as well, but on the Mac they go outside. Which of these two completely different approaches you think makes sense... that doesn't matter, because they can't BOTH be simultaneously right, but putting the tabs in the title bar forces you to do both.
There's no way you can make the UI metaphor consistent if you stick the whole application in the document.
I've pointed all this out, before. You can't say I haven't presented them. You don't agree with them, but that doesn't mean I haven't presented them.
You mean this, which doesn't say anything about Flash being better than Silverlight either?
This has nothing to do with Microsoft. It has to do with website designers/programmers.
It sounds like they're correctly blaming the website designers/programmers, so (AGAIN) why are you babbling about Flash?
I'm not a FAN of silverlight (or flash!), but Silverlight seems to be better supported on Linux and Mac than Flash was initially. I could be wrong about that.
Why on earth do you imagine you would you need either Silverlight or Flash to submit a bid?
This isn't a frigging high end interactive-video-entertainment application, this is something that shouldn't need anything more than Mosaic 1.0 or Lynx.
Then I guess OS X is worth more than $500 to these people.
Since people are willing to pay a $1500 premium to buy that Mac Pro, I guess for those people OS X is worth over $1000 more than Windows Vista Ultimate, even after allowing for your using an upgrade price instead of a full license in your analysis.
What game developer still in business is going to open-source a game that's actually using state-of-the-art technology? I'm not talking about Doom[three versions back] or the Second Life client, I mean an actual state-of-the art game with a story arc and competitive graphics and physics.
Even if they have rights to enough of the IP to do it, why should they? They'd just be creating a competitor to their NEXT game.
It usually moves you back one link, not one document.
But that link is not a link in the *document*, it's meta-information. If you follow a link from another website, that link back to the original site dos not exist anywhere in the document, it's not part of the document.
The keyboard is an interface to the UI.
So is the toolbar.
You're dodging my point.
No, I'm disagreeing with you. Please don't follow the usual "interweb argument" logic here and start accusing me of lying for having the temerity to disagree with you.
Since they don't come with a monitor, the profit margin on these things must be around 50%. Wow!
Nah, the Mac Tax has typically been documented to be about 30-40%. Unless you count the annoying funky hardware as a cost. Most of the Apple fanboys try and count the design as a benefit worth that extra cost, but I gotta tell you, I'd be happy to pay that surcharge on top of the price of OS X to get a version I could legally run on a Thinkpad or generic white box.
Apple hardware is the price you pay to get an OS that doesn't suck as bad as Windows, with applications that don't suck as bad as the ones you can get for Linux.
The URL is the place the document was retrieved from. It changes as I switch between tabs. Logically, it should be grouped as part of the document then, right?
No more than the index or other meta-information on the folder should. If you "save the whole page" to your desktop, the URL changes when you read it, but the content doesn't.
I click the back button, but its behavior is contextual depending upon which document I'm viewing.
No, it moves you "back one page". It doesn't change depending on the document, so when you're viewing Microsoft.com it doesn't switch to "previous article". It moves you "back one page" even if you got there from a completely different place than the author of the document expected.
It doesn't make all the tabs go back a link, just the current tab.
Neither does command-back, and command-w doesn't close all tabs. But the keyboard isn't "part of the document". The "document" is what you get from the website, nothing more, nothing less.
That's fine, so long as it's not posted by the White House, it's not violating their privacy rules.
As a system administrator, I've always called the people who think they need every skerrick of every resource available to them to be dedicated magically to whatever they want, no matter whether other people have different needs, "lusers".
I guess if they have two 24" monitors you could call them "power lusers".
And I guess that begs the question, what is the physical object in this metaphor you are speaking of.
Tabs treat the web page as documents in a folder. The cover of the folder, the title on the folder, sticky notes on the front of the folder, the drawer that the folder is in, and so on... these are not part of the document in the tab in the folder. The stuff at the top of the window, that's the "outside of the folder". The stuff inside the tabs, that's the document.
Very good point: the difference between a teleoperated robot and a piece of construction equipment is whether you need to include a heated cab or a bunch of cameras.