Fine, if you want to use double-click, then at least be consistent -- force the user to double-click the Start Menu, hyperlinks, the menubar at the top of the screen, buttons, window titlebars, everything.
Otherwise, what's the rule for determining what needs to be clicked and what needs to be double-clicked?
There is none.
It's random and you just have to memorize it. That's stupid and it confuses novices for no reason.
I know about that; i meant to mention it where i mentioned it was possible to override it in Linux, too.
But that doesn't matter. Based on the blinking-12:00 problem, 99% of users never change the default settings. If you fix your dad's Windows to not use double-click, and he goes to use someone else's computer, he'll be lost.
If you're highlighting it, you probably want to do something with it, like rename it. To do that, you'll need the right-click menu -- or, on a Mac, i believe it's the command-click or option-click or open-apple-click or something:)
So why not just right click it and skip the pointless highlighting step?
Or, if you really want to highlight it, just hover over it.
I've got a suggestion, too. Apple should merge with AOL. It makes perfect sense.
They both made their sucess by dumbing down computers to the point where anyone could use them. Their entire business models depend on making computers simple, bright, and pretty.
AOL wants a Microsoft-free Internet appliance, right? How about having the Apple hardware and UI people design it, and then AOL engineers can slap on the AOL client and Mozilla.
Think of all the money they'll save on customer support: they'll have control over every aspect of the experience, from the hardware to the OS to the client software to the server software. AOL currently spends a ton of money talking people through troubleshooting modem problems and whatnot in Windows. With their appliance, they can actually fix the crappy interface.
Here's my question: Why are we still double-clicking?
MacOS required double-clicking because it originally only supported one mouse button.
Microsoft ripped off MacOS, warts and all, so Windows makes you double-click too.
Then the Linux desktops ripped off Windows, warts and all, and we have to double-click as well. (Sure, you can override it. I do. But it's certainly not something the average user, even the average Linux user, can do)
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if your OS worked like your web browser? Left click to launch, left drag to move, right click for more options. No double clicking. Ever.
Remember when you first taught your mom to double click and how much trouble she had? Then she started double-clicking everything: buttons in Word, links in Netscape, you name it. She was confused because it was inconsistent and a stupid UI decision.
So i say Apple should lead the way again and get people off the stupid double-clicking habit.
What does NetSol have to be "grilled" over? Where they have a monopoly (running the DNS system), they perform flawlessly. And where they don't perform flawlessly (customer support), they don't have a monopoly.
And if you're upset because you want more TLDs, that's ICANN's decision, not NSI's.
Note to CmdrTaco: If I hear another mouse button joke...
What good is an external mouse going to do? He's talking about a laptop. He wants three buttons built into it, so he doesn't have to lug a mouse around with him just to be able to middle- and right-click.
What this project needs is a nearly complete feature freeze... Tabbed browsing [is an unnecessary feature that should not have been added to Mozilla at this time]... In positive news, it looks like a spell checker might actually be included in 0.9.9.
One man's gold is another man's crap. A spell checker is completely worthless to me, along with the entire Mail/News package. On the other hand, tabbed browsing is my life, my love, and my passion.
Dude, just use the tab browser. Set middle-click to open links in new tabs, have new tabs open in the background, and you can open up links and keep reading the page you're on
Great. Now let's take that paradigm onto the internet. Instead of buying CDs, i want to buy MP3s. And when i'm not listening to them, i want to let my friends listen to them. And then i want to sell them, and then buy new MP3s, this time from people like me, instead of from the record companies.
From my journal (i'd prefer you reply there, but hey, free country)
-----
Quick quiz: Which of the following is immoral:
1. You're about to buy a book. But then you realize that you can just read it at the library, so you do that instead.
2. You're about to buy a book. But then you realize that you can just photocopy it at the library and have it bound at Kinkos, so you do that instead.
3. You're about to rent a movie. But then you remember that your friend owns the DVD, so you borrow it instead.
4. You're about to rent a movie. But then you remember that your friend owns the DVD, so you make a copy of it instead.
5. You're about to buy Photoshop, just to edit one picture. But then you remember that your roommate owns Photoshop, so you just use his computer instead.
6. You're about to buy Photoshop, just to edit one picture. But then you remember that your roommate owns Photoshop, so you just install a copy on your computer instead.
Seems to me that most of us draw the line as follows: It's okay to borrow IP from someone, as long as only one copy is in use at a given time.
So i've got a huge stack of CDs collecting dust. If i shipped them off to friends, and my friends sent me their CDs, and we all listened to each others music, i don't think any reasonable person would consider this wrong.
But let's say we optimized things, so that instead of shipping CDs, we all ripped the CDs and traded MP3s instead. Why is this wrong?
Because lots of people could conceivably be listening to the same MP3 at the same time.
If there was a system like Napster, where you could listen to other peoples' music and they could listen to yours, except only one person could be listening to a particular copy at a particular time, would this be wrong? I say no.
This would give the consumers what they want -- they don't have to shell out $18 bucks for a CD full of songs they've never heard and probably don't like, and most reasonable people would say the system is fair and ethical.
How about just a resale system? I'd like to sell off all those CDs i don't listen to, even for 10 cents apiece. I could use the money to buy a new CD and listen to it for a while. If i didn't like it, i could resell it for a bit less than i paid for it, and repeat the process. I'd get to hear a lot more music that way. And i'd never again be stuck with a CD i didn't like.
-----
I think most of the MP3 revolution is a backlash against the lack of a system like this. We all have crappy CDs that we don't listen to, and we can't try new music without the strong risk that we'll be stuck with another crappy CD.
These are some good points. I've started a journal.
I'm not sure what you mean about breaking your argument -- using software without authorization sucks. My only point is that i take issue when people say it's exactly the same as stealing. I think it's a step less than stealing. But still bad.
You're assuming that there is always someone there for the barber to work on in your place
Breaks now and then are part of any job. If the barber was working every second of the day, his job would be hell. He'd probably have to hire another employee.
Still, without all of these details, the basic analogy still holds in that you are benefiting from someone else's work without compensating them for it.
You are absolutely right. Copying software without authorization is a bad thing. But it's not stealing. Words like "theft" and "piracy" cause punishments to be created which don't fit the crime, and general hysteria which causes oppressive laws to be passed.
A hairdresser has significant marginal costs for each person who gets a haircut (i.e. 20 minutes of her time). A programmer has zero marginal costs for each user.
I don't make unauthorized copies of software. But i take issue when people call those people "pirates" or "theives". It's immoral, illegal, and wrong, but it's not stealing, and it's not piracy (which i define as "rape, murder, and robbery on the high seas")
No, there's a fundamental difference here. If you get a haircut, you're filling up a slot in the hairdresser's time that they can't use for anything else. If you make an unauthorized copy of software, you're not using up a slot of the programmer's time.
I think the best analogy is a hobo freeloading a ride on the back of a train. They're getting a service without paying for it, and that's immoral, illegal, and wrong, but it's not stealing.
I don't get it. If i'm selling software, and there are 100 people in the world who would ever pay for it, it doesn't matter to me whether i have 100 paying customers and zero nonpaying users, or 100 paying customers and 10,000 nonpaying users.
Slashdot Mirror
Fine, if you want to use double-click, then at least be consistent -- force the user to double-click the Start Menu, hyperlinks, the menubar at the top of the screen, buttons, window titlebars, everything.
Otherwise, what's the rule for determining what needs to be clicked and what needs to be double-clicked?
There is none.
It's random and you just have to memorize it. That's stupid and it confuses novices for no reason.
I know about that; i meant to mention it where i mentioned it was possible to override it in Linux, too.
But that doesn't matter. Based on the blinking-12:00 problem, 99% of users never change the default settings. If you fix your dad's Windows to not use double-click, and he goes to use someone else's computer, he'll be lost.
Why? For fun?
:)
If you're highlighting it, you probably want to do something with it, like rename it. To do that, you'll need the right-click menu -- or, on a Mac, i believe it's the command-click or option-click or open-apple-click or something
So why not just right click it and skip the pointless highlighting step?
Or, if you really want to highlight it, just hover over it.
I've got a suggestion, too. Apple should merge with AOL. It makes perfect sense.
They both made their sucess by dumbing down computers to the point where anyone could use them. Their entire business models depend on making computers simple, bright, and pretty.
AOL wants a Microsoft-free Internet appliance, right? How about having the Apple hardware and UI people design it, and then AOL engineers can slap on the AOL client and Mozilla.
Think of all the money they'll save on customer support: they'll have control over every aspect of the experience, from the hardware to the OS to the client software to the server software. AOL currently spends a ton of money talking people through troubleshooting modem problems and whatnot in Windows. With their appliance, they can actually fix the crappy interface.
Here's my question: Why are we still double-clicking?
MacOS required double-clicking because it originally only supported one mouse button.
Microsoft ripped off MacOS, warts and all, so Windows makes you double-click too.
Then the Linux desktops ripped off Windows, warts and all, and we have to double-click as well. (Sure, you can override it. I do. But it's certainly not something the average user, even the average Linux user, can do)
Wouldn't it make a lot more sense if your OS worked like your web browser? Left click to launch, left drag to move, right click for more options. No double clicking. Ever.
Remember when you first taught your mom to double click and how much trouble she had? Then she started double-clicking everything: buttons in Word, links in Netscape, you name it. She was confused because it was inconsistent and a stupid UI decision.
So i say Apple should lead the way again and get people off the stupid double-clicking habit.
You seem to know a lot about this .. i have a question: Why is this tunnel taking so much longer to build than the first two did?
Sorry, i must have missed the part of History class where Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and Susan B. Anthony had the violent riots.
I would have titled this story, "To Be or not to Be?"
What does NetSol have to be "grilled" over? Where they have a monopoly (running the DNS system), they perform flawlessly. And where they don't perform flawlessly (customer support), they don't have a monopoly.
And if you're upset because you want more TLDs, that's ICANN's decision, not NSI's.
Note to CmdrTaco: If I hear another mouse button joke...
What good is an external mouse going to do? He's talking about a laptop. He wants three buttons built into it, so he doesn't have to lug a mouse around with him just to be able to middle- and right-click.
What this project needs is a nearly complete feature freeze ... Tabbed browsing [is an unnecessary feature that should not have been added to Mozilla at this time] ... In positive news, it looks like a spell checker might actually be included in 0.9.9.
One man's gold is another man's crap. A spell checker is completely worthless to me, along with the entire Mail/News package. On the other hand, tabbed browsing is my life, my love, and my passion.
Dude, just use the tab browser. Set middle-click to open links in new tabs, have new tabs open in the background, and you can open up links and keep reading the page you're on
Yeah. See my other reply in this thread.
Great. Now let's take that paradigm onto the internet. Instead of buying CDs, i want to buy MP3s. And when i'm not listening to them, i want to let my friends listen to them. And then i want to sell them, and then buy new MP3s, this time from people like me, instead of from the record companies.
From my journal (i'd prefer you reply there, but hey, free country)
-----
Quick quiz: Which of the following is immoral:
1. You're about to buy a book. But then you realize that you can just read it at the library, so you do that instead.
2. You're about to buy a book. But then you realize that you can just photocopy it at the library and have it bound at Kinkos, so you do that instead.
3. You're about to rent a movie. But then you remember that your friend owns the DVD, so you borrow it instead.
4. You're about to rent a movie. But then you remember that your friend owns the DVD, so you make a copy of it instead.
5. You're about to buy Photoshop, just to edit one picture. But then you remember that your roommate owns Photoshop, so you just use his computer instead.
6. You're about to buy Photoshop, just to edit one picture. But then you remember that your roommate owns Photoshop, so you just install a copy on your computer instead.
Seems to me that most of us draw the line as follows: It's okay to borrow IP from someone, as long as only one copy is in use at a given time.
So i've got a huge stack of CDs collecting dust. If i shipped them off to friends, and my friends sent me their CDs, and we all listened to each others music, i don't think any reasonable person would consider this wrong.
But let's say we optimized things, so that instead of shipping CDs, we all ripped the CDs and traded MP3s instead. Why is this wrong?
Because lots of people could conceivably be listening to the same MP3 at the same time.
If there was a system like Napster, where you could listen to other peoples' music and they could listen to yours, except only one person could be listening to a particular copy at a particular time, would this be wrong? I say no.
This would give the consumers what they want -- they don't have to shell out $18 bucks for a CD full of songs they've never heard and probably don't like, and most reasonable people would say the system is fair and ethical.
How about just a resale system? I'd like to sell off all those CDs i don't listen to, even for 10 cents apiece. I could use the money to buy a new CD and listen to it for a while. If i didn't like it, i could resell it for a bit less than i paid for it, and repeat the process. I'd get to hear a lot more music that way. And i'd never again be stuck with a CD i didn't like.
-----
I think most of the MP3 revolution is a backlash against the lack of a system like this. We all have crappy CDs that we don't listen to, and we can't try new music without the strong risk that we'll be stuck with another crappy CD.
These are some good points. I've started a journal.
I'm not sure what you mean about breaking your argument -- using software without authorization sucks. My only point is that i take issue when people say it's exactly the same as stealing. I think it's a step less than stealing. But still bad.
You're assuming that there is always someone there for the barber to work on in your place
Breaks now and then are part of any job. If the barber was working every second of the day, his job would be hell. He'd probably have to hire another employee.
Still, without all of these details, the basic analogy still holds in that you are benefiting from someone else's work without compensating them for it.
You are absolutely right. Copying software without authorization is a bad thing. But it's not stealing. Words like "theft" and "piracy" cause punishments to be created which don't fit the crime, and general hysteria which causes oppressive laws to be passed.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on whether the following actions are wrong. Please consider replying; your arguments are intelligent.
- There's a book you'd like to read, and you'd even pay for it. But instead you read it for free at the library
- There's a movie you'd like to rent, and you'd even pay for it. But your friend owns it, so you just borrow it from him.
A hairdresser has significant marginal costs for each person who gets a haircut (i.e. 20 minutes of her time). A programmer has zero marginal costs for each user.
I don't make unauthorized copies of software. But i take issue when people call those people "pirates" or "theives". It's immoral, illegal, and wrong, but it's not stealing, and it's not piracy (which i define as "rape, murder, and robbery on the high seas")
BTW, i write free software for a living.
No, there's a fundamental difference here. If you get a haircut, you're filling up a slot in the hairdresser's time that they can't use for anything else. If you make an unauthorized copy of software, you're not using up a slot of the programmer's time.
I think the best analogy is a hobo freeloading a ride on the back of a train. They're getting a service without paying for it, and that's immoral, illegal, and wrong, but it's not stealing.
I don't get it. If i'm selling software, and there are 100 people in the world who would ever pay for it, it doesn't matter to me whether i have 100 paying customers and zero nonpaying users, or 100 paying customers and 10,000 nonpaying users.
I'm presuming you wouldn't have paid for the software.
"Hi, i'd like some support."
"That's funny, you're not in our records."
"Oh, i have an unauthorized copy of your software. Can i still get support?"
"Nope."
"Okay, i'd like to legitimitly register."
By reading this message, you agree to send me money.