clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) (03/20/88)
From article <2956@whutt.UUCP>, by mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON): > I like having desk accessories stick around, but then I find that they are > almost always buried underneath the active window.... Really, the answer here is probably usage habits, at least it's worked out that way for me, after a bit of thought (and forgetting about Switcher!). Most programs support the window shrink/expand box. Some even automatically do various good jobs of guessing what a shrink might be. So by resizing windows to appropriate smaller versions just after startup, everything you need can be visible, and instantly growable to full screen. This way, you can get to the trashcan, or extra disk icons, etc., too. Some apps will now remember this kind of setting for you -- Apple encourages it. A second solution is to use one of the Inits which gives you popup features including DAs. I like MFMenus much better than 'Popit!', since it's much more oriented to multifinder in that the active applications and a heirarchically extended DA selection are right there. Using the shrink/expand windows and MFMenus together gives a very easy environment. At least I think. > complaint -- I dislike programs that I HAVE to interact with. One of the > beauties of UNIX is that programs can be QUIET and not flood you with inane > chatter ("Do you really want me to do this? Huh? Really, really? And how about > this next one too? Oh, really? And this one?") What Apple needs is a good > dose of regular expressions. Well, probably not. Skilled use is really a pleasure, for the right things, and applications can provide this -- LSC does, and quite nicely. A way your complaint might be well taken would be to allow users to set a 'don't unduly warn me mode', on the Control Panel. Unfortunately, it wouldn't be backwards compatible. But on many programs nowadays, there is just this sort of thing available internally, usually in a Preferences menu item. Probably where it belongs -- as an application issue. Clive
mls@mhuxu.UUCP (Michael L. Siemon) (03/23/88)
In article <7004@drutx.ATT.COM>, clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) writes: > From article <2956@whutt.UUCP>, by mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON): > > > I like having desk accessories stick around, but then I find that they are > > almost always buried underneath the active window.... > > Really, the answer here is probably usage habits, ... > > Most programs support the window shrink/expand box. ... ???? (maybe most of yours do) Anyway, why should I change my "usage habits" just because the OS is an idiot? I LIKE working with an application window taking up most of the screen (especially in something like Trapeze); and I LIKE having a calculator up on top (in an out of the way corner -- I am not contending that all the space in my large window is in constant active use.) Trapeze is a good case because it goes out of its way to make temporary calculations difficult. It is also lousy at saving user preferences. > > [ME] What Apple needs is a good dose of regular expressions. > > Well, probably not. Skilled use is really a pleasure, for the right things, > and applications can provide this ... !!!!!!!!!!!! AARGH!! Welcome to Messy-DOS! Despite Apple's (welcome) insistence on a good human interface, and its propaganda for what it thinks is a good interface (I highly encourage ALL programmers, especially those embarking on X or NeWS applications to read the HIG book. After discarding some of Apple's dogmas, you will be left with a very good base of ideas for interactive work ...) Despite all this, I say you really don't want every application to completely reinvent everything for itself. Yes, MacApp is a STEP in the right direction, to incorporate the interface in official code that all decent applications use. The point of (e.g.) file name expansion in a UNIX shell is that NO application EVER has to do it -- they have to go out of their way NOT to get it right! Mac applications all approximate the desired guidelines (of course Apple only releases programs that exactly match the guidelines :-)); in some cases the approximation is very rough indeed. All this aside, I will repeat the complaint you seem so readily to dismiss: I dislike interaction forced on me by a stupid program when the nature of the task being accomplished is not interactive. I also repeat, I think that Multifinder was a pretty good job, but I also find myself not using it. Michael Siemon contracted to AT&T Bell Laboratories ihnp4!mhuxu!mls disclaimer: standard (is it an ANSI standard yet?)
eirik@tekcrl.TEK.COM (Eirik Fuller) (03/25/88)
In article <7004@drutx.ATT.COM> clive@drutx.ATT.COM (Clive Steward) writes: >From article <2956@whutt.UUCP>, by mls@whutt.UUCP (SIEMON): > >> I like having desk accessories stick around, but then I find that they are >> almost always buried underneath the active window.... > >Really, the answer here is probably usage habits, at least it's worked out that way >for me, after a bit of thought (and forgetting about Switcher!). > > ... [a suggestion to use zooming] ... This makes me wonder why the close box (upper left on a typical window) doesn't work the same way in applications as in Finder (iconify windows). The answer is simple but outdated: Finder and applications are two different Macintosh modes. The reason the answer is outdated? In Multifinder, you don't really want to leave the Finder mode. Finder windows can bury the trash can; application windows can bury the trash can; but finder windows are far easier to temporarily move out of the way. When you can have all your windows on the screen at the same time, there are benefits to having them behave alike when possible. None of this provides a really good excuse for not having a "bury" menu item, something other window managers tend to have. Even smalltalk almost has one (actually, I added one to Tek smalltalk; it wasn't hard; don't tell me about "under", that wasn't what I wanted). Speaking of smalltalk, all of its windows (for the properly chosen meaning of the word "all", i.e. of course I can contradict this if I want to, but applications tend not to) can be collapsed. All this makes me wonder why collapsing application windows would be a bad idea. Hmmm, someone might get sued if it wasn't there all along :-) Seriously, the reason it would be a bad idea is because it was done wrong in the first place and it's too late to fix it. I hate reasons like that.
barmar@think.COM (Barry Margolin) (03/29/88)
In article <2451@tekcrl.TEK.COM> eirik@tekcrl.TEK.COM (Eirik Fuller) writes: >This makes me wonder why the close box (upper left on a typical window) >doesn't work the same way in applications as in Finder (iconify >windows). I wouldn't call what the Finder's close operation does "iconifying" the window. This implies that the window turns into the icon. In the Finder, however, the icon is still there while the window is open. Opening an object makes it possible to edit it, closing it makes it not possible to edit it. The only difference is that in the Finder you can click on the object to reopen it, while in applications you must use a dialog. Many people have suggested a relatively simple mechanism to allow additional files to be opened in an already-running application by clicking on them in MF. I've also been thinking that a nice interface to this would be to let the user drag the document icon into an application window, as if it were a folder window; to be consistent with the folder analogy, it should also let the user drag the document onto the application icon. It's just a matter of time before Apple gets around to implementing something like this. >Speaking of smalltalk, all of its windows (for the properly chosen >meaning of the word "all", i.e. of course I can contradict this if I >want to, but applications tend not to) can be collapsed. This sounds nice. There could be a "collapse box" to go along with the zoom box. >All this makes me wonder why collapsing application windows would be >a bad idea. Hmmm, someone might get sued if it wasn't there all >along :-) > >Seriously, the reason it would be a bad idea is because it was done >wrong in the first place and it's too late to fix it. I hate reasons >like that. Why is it too late? They added the zoom box, and now most applications use it. The logic of the collapse box is identical, except that the new size is tiny instead of huge. Barry Margolin Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com uunet!think!barmar
lippin@spam.berkeley.edu (The Apathist) (03/29/88)
Recently barmar@fafnir.think.com.UUCP (Barry Margolin) said: >This sounds nice. There could be a "collapse box" to go along with >the zoom box. [...] >Why is it too late? They added the zoom box, and now most >applications use it. The logic of the collapse box is identical, >except that the new size is tiny instead of huge. I'm not really happy with the idea of a collapse box; I suspect that it would add clutter to both the title bars and to the desktop (as there might be many collapsed windows). My suggestion is that dragging the small icon of an application off of the menu bar and onto the desktop would close up all it's windows and suspend the foreground parts of the application. This could be reversed by double-clicking the small icon. Suspended applications could be told from files as the desktop currently doesn't have small icons. Variations on this theme with help from the application include quitting an application by dragging it into the trash, and saving the state of an application by dragging it into a disk or folder's icon or window. Opening such a saved state would start the application with the same documents and settings, and perhaps even scroll the windows to the same positions. I declare the look and feel of this idea free to all. --Tom Lippincott ..ucbvax!bosco!lippin "When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers."