OSNews

Actually, that isn't really the right place for this kind of problem. Better would be: https://bugreport.apple.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/RadarWeb.woa I've submitted a number of issues and Apple has been prompt. Many times, it turned out I just didn't know how to do something, like keyboard navigation.

Thanks for your explanation on the behavior of Finder Pierre. However, Thom's point is still valid because I'm guessing that not many folks would know this. To have such a prominently displayed widget that provides alternative functionality to a select group of individuals for legacy functionality completely divergent from what I expect of Apple. I'm not ready to show all the usability experts the door, but they might have considered burying this in the preferences settings or something.

I suppose you think Apple is devoid of egos and people in-fighting on keeping legacy GUI behavior. I can still remember the amount of time wasted on those wars at Apple. It was annoying as hell.

The dash button in the Leopard finder does the same thing as in the tiger finder. Just with the unified iTunes look. I can't post a screenshot due to the NDA but trust my word. It's the same.

Colloquy is not a app that comes with OS X so it's not the same, it's like comparing a gnome app with a GTK one(GTK apps dont have to follow the HIG guides).

I could have used an Apple application as well, such as Mail.app. Or Automator. Or Fontbook. Or whatever. They all use the toggle-toolbar like it's supposed to.

Seems strange to me that you would just hide the toolbar on the filemanger, but with Colloquy your hiding stuff you dont need.

What are you talking about? I have the toolbar hidden on Colloquy by default (see the before/after shots).

What I'm saying is why shouldn't the filemanager have a different use for that, to me the filemanager servers a different function to all other applications anyway.

It seems logical to me that spatial mode would be switched by the forth widget on the right hand side. Having two methods one to switch spatial and one to hide the toolbar seem abit off to me just for the finder.

Why can't the finder have a different function, applications dont have a spatial mode and if they did where would the button be!

What I'm saying is why shouldn't the filemanager have a different use for that, to me the filemanager servers a different function to all other applications anyway.

It shouldn't have a different use for the same button. That defies user's expectations and hampers learning. Should the filemanager also redefine the behavior of the 'close' or the 'minimize' button?

A button with a different appearance that did not look like the well-defined 'toolbar pill' would have been adequate. That's all we're saying.

Colloquy is not a app that comes with OS X so it's not the same, it's like comparing a gnome app with a GTK one(GTK apps dont have to follow the HIG guides). The fact that it serves a different function on the finder changing it's appearance is not a issue to me.

You missed the point. It's a perfectly good example because it behaves like all other Apple apps that use the pill button. Thom could have chosen any other Apple app as an example and it would behave as Colloquy does.

Er, this functionality has been there since the metal Finder was introduced in Panther. Why wait until now to complain?

Because I only realised this just now?

And I think the statement "complete lack of respect for usability" is way off the mark. OS X may not always be visually consistent, but it very largely functionally consistent.

My apologies, the word "sometimes" got lost in the c/p process between TextEdit and Safari. Sorry, fixed now.

Or should we start discussing the consistency in Vista?

Why do people *always* talk about Vista when you discuss a shortcoming on Apple's end? Since when is Vista Apple's yardstick?

Because you said "Sometimes, Apple's (or any other software maker's) complete lack of respect for usability never ceases to amaze me.", which includes Vista, XP, Linux and other softwares in the discussion.

I don't even see this as being that bad..toggling the Menu Bar is useful at times.. and it's even present in Vista..

what's the issue?

I don't even see this as being that bad..toggling the Menu Bar is useful at times.. and it's even present in Vista..

Go read the article before making comments like this. You obviously have no idea what this is all about.

Yeah, how about this one: Home, End, Page Up, Page Dn. On OSX it's all over the place, functioning differently between cocoa and carbon apps. Under Windows, it's globally consistent and predictable. Heck, even Linux gets this one right.

Neither OS is anywhere near being a panacea of usability. You can find the same sort of inconsistency in OS X - what's the consistent way to select text with the keyboard in OS X? Or what's the keyboard shortcut in OS X to move the insertion point to the beginning/end of a line in a text field? In Windows, the "Home/End" keys will perform that function almost invariably - while in OS X, sometimes Home works, sometimes it's the up/down arrow keys, sometimes it's Cmd-left/right arrow, and sometimes it's Cmd-A/E.

Of course, it's one of those topics where we could equivocate until facial-blueness sets in. E.g., while keyboard shortcuts for text manipulation is one of the few things that I think Windows gets "right," I also acknowledge that it's probably entirely due to Microsoft simply "carrying-forward" the keyboard shortcuts from their pre-mouse DOS programs.

A small but welcome step forward.

Edited 2007-07-01 17:54

Thank god they finally got rid of the brushed metal look. It was hideous.

"Fact is OS X remains far more consistent in it's modes of operation than Windows"

In Windows, when I hit the maximize button I can rest assured that said window will indeed maximize to the entire size of my screen. In OSX, I never know quite what the window is going to do when I hit maximize...just get a little larger, or actually maximize to the entire screen?

Just one of many examples. 'Nuff said.

The "maximize button" in OSX has the function to resize the window to the "optimal" size. Hold Shift while clicking the maximize button and that window resizes to full screen.
If an application acts different, then it's a bug in that application.

The "maximize button" in OSX has the function to resize the window to the "optimal" size. Hold Shift while clicking the maximize button and that window resizes to full screen. If an application acts different, then it's a bug in that application.

Then there are bugs in Safari, Adium, Finder, Address Book, ..., .... Are you sure this is the right combination?

A message window in adium fills the entire screen when I hold down shift and click the 'green' maximize button.

Finder seem quirky in that it maximizes height only.

Shift + Maximize fills the screen with safari 3.0 beta

Address Book maximizes to the height so that the info has no scrolling.

Not sure why safari and adium don't work for you, but I can confirm the other two.

The "maximize button" in OSX has the function to resize the window to the "optimal" size.

Who determines what is "optimal?" Steve Jobs?

"I want my 'maximize button' to maximize my window, Steve, thank you very much!"

Hey, all, let's stop on complaining about the use of the toolbar buttons in each operating system.

Every programmer knows it has nothing to do with the operating system core: it is up to the programmer to manage what the button will do.

If Firefox does not fill all the desktop when I maximize the window, it's not Apple's fault.

There are consistency rules, but programmers may not always follow them. It's the same thing with all window manager environments, even Mac OS X and Windows.

Edited 2007-07-01 20:57

There is no maximize button in Mac OS, and never has been.

OS X's maximise behaviour is perfectly consistent. It maximises to show you the content of the window, and clicking again snaps back to the previous size. The fact that it doesn't work like you expect it to coming from Windows doesn't mean that it's incosistent.

That's probably because in osx it is not a maximize button.

I have no idea why the original post has gotten a score of 5. But I guess the score pretty much sums up how clueless people are when it comes to operating systems that aren't the one they learned on.

The green button doesn't "maximize". It "optimizes" the screen so that the content fits the window. If there's alot of stuff in the window it gets bigger. If there's a little bit of stuff in the window it gets smaller. It's not a difficult _concept_ to grasp.

Edited 2007-07-02 05:33

"If there's a little bit of stuff in the window it gets smaller. It's not a difficult _concept_ to grasp."

I've been using computers since I was but a wee lad. I grew up on Macs (System 7-OS 8, skipped 9, and currently have a Tiger machine laying around for testing). If it's difficult for me to grasp, then no doubt it's even harder for other folks.

Go search Google for 'mac window maximize' and you'll see that bunches of other folks are confused as well. Not to mention that almost everyone refers to that button as the 'maximize window' button, not the 'optimize window' button, or 'scale window to fit contents' button.

My point is that clicking it doesn't do consistent resizing. Sure it (sometimes) consistently resizes the window to fit its contents, but that can vary with each window depending on how much contents it has, which IMO leads to a poor user experience as you never really quite know what your window is going to do when you click that button. Good usability equals a consistent user experience across the entire range of applications being used.

What are you talking about? It consistently resizes the window to fit the contents of the window.

It is not a difficult concept to grasp. Just because you are apparently unable (or as I suspect --unwilling--) to grasp it doesn't make it difficult.

If you grew up your whole life driving on the right side of the road, what are you going to do when you visit a country that drives on the left? Get in a headon collision or learn how to drive on the left?

I grew up speaking English, does that make Spanish inconsistent because I don't understand the conventions?

Sheesh...

not to mention the ridicoulous behavior of Preview.app where when you repeatedly hit the maximize button you get ... an ever decreasing window size... this is really genial!!!

A mate of mine who's a Spatial person as well has used Leopard and he says they haven't fixed any of this. You can still go into pseudo-spatial with a click of the pill, but the Finder will do all it can to drag you back to sidebar and browser mode, just like in Tiger.

The new Finder amounts to a new sidebar and the CoverFlow and instant previewing stuff. They've not fixed any of the issues Siracusa has been complaining about since Developer Preview 2. It's still inconsistent.

I disagree. KDE apps are *extremely* consistent (and in fact, many reuse the same architectural elements).

Of course, using GTK/Gnome apps in KDE makes this a little less consistent, though the folks at freedesktop.org are trying to bridge the many gaps between the two DEs. However, if you mostly use KDE/Qt apps (as I do), then consistency is actually *higher* than with OSX.

Then I might as well say, all pure Cocoa apps are extremely consistent it gets messy when you look at the legacy crap mostly written in Carbon, like Photoshop and others.

That wouldn't be entirely true, but sure, go ahead and say it.

Consistency is overrated anyway.

"Fact is OS X remains far more consistent in it's modes of operation than Windows, GNOME or KDE."

Your opinion is not a fact.

You could just as well claim that programmers are doing bad job because they cant program flawlessly and don't use your favourite programming language.

Nonsense. This is about one of the simplest rules in UI design, whether it be on a computer on a real-world device.

When I buy a CD player, I expect that the button with the little triangle on it means "play". When I press that button, and suddenly the player turns from black into polka dot, and will only accept MiniDiscs afterwards, it is a bad CD player.

I've told you for the 50th thousand time, stop exaggerating!

The pill widget "hides/shows the toolbar". For Finder, it just really hides it. It's not off-the-charts, not-what-you-expected like you're making it out to be.

I've told you for the 50th thousand time, stop exaggerating!

The pill widget "hides/shows the toolbar". For Finder, it just really hides it. It's not off-the-charts, not-what-you-expected like you're making it out to be.

Did you even READ the article, Kroc? The button does NOT "just" hide the toolbar in Finder (as it does on every other application). The button does the following things:

1) hide the toolbar
2) hide the sidebar
3) change the window's theme
4) switches the Finder to spatial mode

And that spatial mode has the following HUGE flaws:

1) it does not mark currently-opened directories as such
2) the spatial mode is ONLY activated when starting your navigation from the SPECIFIC directory you clicked the pill button on (i.o.w., when starting your navigation somewhere else, the windows are navigational). And with spatial I mean that every directory opens in its own window. You can actually have navigational and spatial windows side-by-side.

So, Kroc, it does NOT "just" hide the toolbar.

Update: This is the end result:

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/5571/blahbu6.png

I clicked the pill button when I had "Cube" open; I then closed this window. When I now start navigating in "Cube", Finder acts spatial. However, when I start browsing at "Thom", it acts navigational. Bonckers!

Edited 2007-07-01 17:20

Ok, i'll use the same old lame excuse, IT'S BETA, maybe Apple will change it and realize that you were right after all.

I do agree with Kroc, you are totally exaggerating this to the point where you think the whole UI is broken. Maybe you should stop using beta software and writing about it like it's final, it may lower your blood pressure.

Edited 2007-07-01 17:39

I guess any MiniDisc player is a bad cd player

Yeah, I was going to mention this - it does seem to get the most use from software developers for their install disks. Very often when I am installing something and it requires a drag-and-drop of the application to my Applications folder, I will simply click the "pill" to toggle back to the view with the sidebar and then drag the application to it's new folder for installation.

There are also times when I just want a whole disk full of photos so I hide the sidebar and toolbar with the "pill" and set the window option to use the largest thumbnail size.

This all, of course, doesn't speak to the fact that this "pill" behaves inconsistently on other OS X apps, but I do find it a nice feature in Finder for specific purposes.

The new explorer is pretty horrendous. I figured out how to get rid of the column headers once, but I haven't been able to get rid of them since. It's annoyed me ever since.

I like the bread crumb trail, but Xfce's Thunar does this the best, hands down, of any file manager I've used. (I haven't used Dolphin yet)

I would love to get rid of the navigation buttons, but I can't. I miss the reconfigurability of the old interface. Hopefully they'll bring it back.

Explorer.exe in Vista is one of the worst piece of software I used in my life. Usability speaking, it's the worst thing I've used in the past few years.

So you haven't used Lotus notes yet. Now that's perfect UI design. Perfect in a sense that there's not one thing done right. Everything's perfectly done wrong.

You make it use View->List and the damn thing display column headers! HEY, THERE'S NO COLUMN IN VIEW->LIST!!! COLUMS ARE FOR VIEW->DETAILS!!! What the hell were they thinking?

With the column headers always visible you can easily sort in any view and, by clicking the little down arrow next to every header, access the filtering and stacking features in any view.

Why should they, closing a window is a completely different thing than quitting a program. I find it much worse that on Windows I can never tell whether I've got just a forked Window of one instance of Explorer or a second instance of it running.


You've never heard of fitt's law, have you? It's much harder having to aim a some tiny menus that are afloat in the middle of the screen, than shooting your mouse pointer up to the top of the screen without needing to aim (because the hitting area becomes infinitely large at the screen edge). So you're just talking bullshit now.


It's not trashing, the trash icon changes as soon as you even start dragging a drive to an eject button. You might as well use the eject button in the sidebar next to the drive/server (very quick and intuitive) or use the "eject" contextual menu item.


Because it is not a maximize button. It will resize the window to make it just large enough to show all content, or if the content is more than would fit in a fullscreen window it will resize to accomodate as much content as possible. The maximize thing is a paradigm that exists only on Windows and/or Linux.


Then again it doesn't hurt to click the button to try it out. It's non-destructive, and as you stated yourself, having used the button once you figured our what it does. It's like the brake in your car, there's no label, but having used it once, you know what it's there for. Big deal.

Why should they, closing a window is a completely different thing than quitting a program.

Not exactly. It is intuitive to the uninitiated user to assume that the program closes when one closes the program's only window.

If a new user mistakenly opens a program and then instantly closes the window, generally, the user assumes that program is closed. If one performs these moves on a Mac, the program might still be running.

However, I have seen even veteran Mac users confused over which programs are open, when there are programs running with no visible windows nor "non-menu" controls.


I find it much worse that on Windows I can never tell whether I've got just a forked Window of one instance of Explorer or a second instance of it running.

I am not sure that the "fork" model is accurate to what is actually happening. Certainly, two identical windows of the same program must be sharing libraries, but it is troubling from a usability standpoint that users would perceive one or more of such windows as being "forked." It would be interesting to find out if other Mac users share this perception of the program/window structure.


You've never heard of fitt's law, have you?

A lot of those who make reference to Fitts' Law don't really understand usability nor the psycho-motor model postulated by Paul Fitts in 1954 (when there were no computer graphical interfaces).


It's much harder having to aim a some tiny menus that are afloat in the middle of the screen, than shooting your mouse pointer up to the top of the screen without needing to aim (because the hitting area becomes infinitely large at the screen edge).

You seem to have misconceptions regarding basic GUI usability concepts. Even if the target is "infinitely large" on the edge of the screen, one still needs to aim. The width of the target on the screen edge is a direct function of the aiming precision required -- try hitting a target on the edge of the screen that is one pixel wide. Distance to th