tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney) (04/09/89)
In article <6915@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: >Why is that Apple's software (e.g., Hypercard, Finder, Font/DA Mover, >ResEdit, original MacPaint) is so cavalier about the Mac interface >standards, while any of us who dare to violate them get our little >wrists slapped? In article <28602@apple.Apple.COM> keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: >Apple has to take a responsible position and not encourage you to do anything >that might cause your programs to break in the future. First off, I appear to have been unclear. I was not discussing Apple's technical guidelines for future compatibility, but its interface guidelines for interacting with the user now. So a certain amount of this discussion consists of non sequitur. >Using the example of MacPaint wasn't really fair. That was one of the first >programs ever written for the Mac, well before all of the guidelines had been >established. As you well know, MacPaint has been revised to work well within >today's current standards. I don't see how I would know that MacPaint has been revised to use scroll bars, multiple windows, movable and resizable windows, and so on, if in fact it has: I don't own a copy. However, these were already established standard elements of the Mac interface at the time of the Mac's release. Are you referring to technical standards or interface standards? >I don't know what you are referring to when you mention ResEdit. I think that >the current version (1.2b3 or b4) works fairly well. Earlier versions didn't >follow all of the rules, and as you have probably noticed, they failed with >newer releases of the System. By not following the rules, even we get bit. Again, I think you've missed the point. Sure, ResEdit used to save screen bitmaps and other such nasty things. But the overall interface is of much greater concern. ResEdit uses nonstandard interpretations of most standard elements of the Mac: the Open command, the New command, the presentation of the file hierarchy, the ability to resize windows, and so on, and so on. At least it now has Save and Revert (earlier versions didn't even have those), but it still is a very non-conforming application. >F/DA Mover and the Finder are System Software. I think that F/DA Mover is the >only program that we say is OK to modify the System file (actually, there is >the Installer, too). As such, it gets to have a little carnal knowledge of the >System. And to require that knowledge of naive users? Again, the important issue is the interface, not the program's internal structure. How about the fact that it doesn't have a menu bar or document windows? How about the fact that it's not MultiFinder friendly, consisting solely of a modal dialog? How about the nonstandard implementations of the Open and Close commands, as well as the Copy command? How about the fact that no naive user has the slightest idea that they need to open their System file with it, since that is developer-type information? (All naive users I've spoken with about Font/DA Mover, and there are have been a good number, agree that it is a very confusing program.) I have no trouble imagining a Font/DA Mover that conforms to the interface standard, but this one's not even close. >The Finder, obviously, is integral to the working of your Macintosh. >Asking why it gets to know about MultiFinder is a bit like asking why Multi- >Finder gets to know about the Finder. However, I personally think that some >thought might have to go into this Desktop drawing thing. Right now, its little >hiney is covered by Macintosh Technote #194, which says that the Window Manager >port is reserved for the system (ie, Finder), but it sets a bad example to all >the developers out there. And fails to work properly with their programs, because of the already mentioned need to move other windows out of the way under MultiFinder. Again we have a totally gratuitous violation of the interface standard, whether Apple tries to special-case itself out of the picture or not. The reason drawing into the desktop is forbidden is because it makes the computer harder to use under MultiFinder, and Finder fails this test. There is also a nonstandard implementation of the Open command; in the Finder, Open is what other people have called Open Selection. Further, it rearranges commands in the File menu. *Everyone* adds a command or two, but rearranging them -- no way. (At least it does have the standard Show Clipboard command, which some other Apple software is missing in contravention of the standard for the Edit menu. However, it is silly to use System rather than Application font in the clipboard window....) >Finally, there's HyperCard. On that one, I take the Fifth. HyperCard hides and >draws directly into the menubar, plays around with locating the mouse, draws >directly to the screen when it can, doesn't have a grow box or scrollbars, is >limited to just one window, and probably knows how to sublaunch. As a member >of Apple's Developer Technical Support group, I am not the one to defend this. >All I can say is that they did it without help from us! If you want to use any >of these techniques, you are in the same boat as Bill Atkinson. No, I don't want to use such techniques; they would confuse my users. And I don't want Apple to use them either. Nor does Apple want me to use them. It seems Apple does want to use them itself, though. I really don't think that, if I wrote an application as maniacally unconcerned about the Mac standards as Atkinson's MacPaint and HyperCard, I would be in the same boat as Atkinson as far as Apple is concerned. I think it would be more likely that Apple would publically call my program a bad example of third-party Mac software, than that Apple would tout it all over the planet as the greatest thing since sliced silicon. But then, HyperCard is from Apple, so the standards don't apply. Right. -- Tim Maroney, Consultant, Eclectic Software, sun!hoptoad!tim "Feminism that refuses to use the word 'patriarchy' is kin to abolitionism that refuses to use the word 'slavery'." -- Tim Maroney
mjohnson@Apple.COM (Mark B. Johnson) (04/10/89)
In article <6936@hoptoad.uucp> tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney) writes: > >I really don't think that, if I wrote an application as maniacally >unconcerned about the Mac standards as Atkinson's MacPaint and >HyperCard, I would be in the same boat as Atkinson as far as Apple is >concerned. I think it would be more likely that Apple would publically >call my program a bad example of third-party Mac software, than that >Apple would tout it all over the planet as the greatest thing since >sliced silicon. But then, HyperCard is from Apple, so the standards >don't apply. Right. Wrong. As far as DTS is concerned, you would be in the same boat. You must remember that Apple is not necessarily of one mind concerning many issues, especially those concerning human interface and programming techniques. The same standards apply in DTS as well as some other groups within Apple, and they are applied across the board to third-party developers and Apple employees. It is damn difficult to keep telling developers that they should or should not do this or that when others within Apple contradict what we say with their products, etc., but we do it because it is our job and we know the problems you will face in the future if you don't follow the guidelines we try to provide. Mark B. Johnson AppleLink: mjohnson Developer Technical Support domain: mjohnson@Apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. UUCP: {amdahl,decwrl,sun,unisoft}!apple!mjohnson "You gave your life to become the person you are right now. Was it worth it?" - Richard Bach, _One_