t-jondu@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan Dubman) (08/01/89)
OK, I've had a chance to use the cube for about ten hours, and I'm still
impressed. The first things I notice are details. There are a few minor
annoyances:
1. Menus can pop-up partially offscreen. This is visually unattractive and
distracting. Is there any justification for this?
2. Browser: Great, but why not use traditional scroll bar? There's no way
to tell how much what proportion of the directory I'm seeing. Is there
any particular reason why up is to the right? (Or was it to the left?)
3. Dictionary: Pictures have numbers that don't seem to refer to anything.
Try looking up "sail" or "violin". (Great to have on hand while reading
Nabokov novels. Makes me want a Digital Brittanica!)
4. Windows have no window-to-back gadgets ala Intuition on the Amiga.
(The only machine I've seen that has this very handy feature.)
Yes, I know about the hide feature, except it seems like a lot of trouble
for so simple a task- and it doesn't do what I want. One thing I do
ALL THE TIME on the Amiga is have about five totally overlapping
windows that all take up the same region of the screen, and scroll
between them with the window-to-back gadget. Maybe a gadget is not the
best solution, but their oughta be a way.
Do I have my head in the sand? Convince me I don't need such a feature.
Jonathan Dubmanjgreely@oz.cis.ohio-state.edu (J Greely) (08/01/89)
In article <7189@microsoft.UUCP> t-jondu@microsoft.UUCP (Jonathan Dubman) writes: >1. Menus can pop-up partially offscreen. This is visually unattractive and > distracting. Is there any justification for this? Since pop-ups are optional, I'd call it a minor implementation detail. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they vanished entirely in a future release. Disappointed, but not surprised (I *hate* stuck-ups). >2. Browser: Great, but why not use traditional scroll bar? There's no way > to tell how much what proportion of the directory I'm seeing. Is there > any particular reason why up is to the right? (Or was it to the left?) Why not use traditional scrollbars? No particular reason is mentioned in the user docs, but I can speculate: a "traditional" scrollbar would visually separate directory hierarchies, tending to obscure their relationship. A quick prototype of such a system (ain't IB wonderful?) convinced me that normal scrollbars don't feel right for the browser model. I can't necessarily argue in favor of side-by-side buttons, but I wouldn't replace them with a scrollbar. >3. Dictionary: Pictures have numbers that don't seem to refer to anything. > Try looking up "sail" or "violin". Yes, the captions associated with the illustrations do not appear. I have no idea what's being done with this, if anything (Ali?). The problem seems fairly obvious. As I recall, the dictionary data is massaged from the typesetting tape, and the illustrations are scanned by hand. The captions are part of the illustration, not part of the text, and would have to be either scanned or typed in by hand. Scanning seems like a bad idea, and merging them into the main data file isn't terribly exciting either. I suppose they could be typed in as small RTF files, stored and displayed like the pictures (small scrolling field in the window?). Still quite a bit of work, if I'm at all correct in my assumptions, but I'd like to see it. >4. Windows have no window-to-back gadgets ala Intuition on the Amiga. > (The only machine I've seen that has this very handy feature.) Ah, the infamous "bury me" feature. It exists in several window systems besides the Amiga's (MGR comes to mind), although it doesn't always rate a button/gadget/thingie. I use it when it's supported, but don't much miss it on large screens. > One thing I do > ALL THE TIME on the Amiga is have about five totally overlapping > windows that all take up the same region of the screen, and scroll > between them with the window-to-back gadget. Do you have a 17-19 inch screen on your Amiga? It sounds like you use the "bury" feature to compensate for lack of screen space. The combination of screen acreage, app icons, and miniaturized windows on the NeXT should more than compensate. (now, if we only had X10-style active icons...) > Do I have my head in the sand? Convince me I don't need such a feature. Do you really want instant backgrounding, or instant *fore*grounding? Double-clicking on an app's icon brings its window to the front, allowing you to get effectively the same results as if you buried each overlapping window in turn. Disclaimer: My opinions, not OSU's. Certainly not NeXT's, although if they like my resume... -=- J Greely (jgreely@cis.ohio-state.edu; osu-cis!jgreely)
epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott) (08/01/89)
I occasionally get windows obscured so they can't be selected without moving all sorts of other stuff around (or miniaturizing). Bury is a *nice* feature. Now if NeXT only came up with a 3-button mouse option... I seem to use the Alternate key a lot. It seems silly to have to keep one hand on the keyboard because there's no middle button. I suppose I could give up the menu button (grudgingly!). -=EPS=-
dorner@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Steve Dorner) (08/01/89)
In article <355@wet.UUCP> epsilon@wet.UUCP (Eric P. Scott) writes: >Now if NeXT only came up with a 3-button mouse option... I seem >to use the Alternate key a lot. It seems silly to have to keep >one hand on the keyboard because there's no middle button. I >suppose I could give up the menu button (grudgingly!). I have mixed feelings about this. I'm not stupid (at least *I* don't think so), but I had a tough time keeping track of three mouse buttons (I had such a mouse for about a year). On the other hand, I AM a bit annoyed at how difficult it is to scroll windows by the page. This is a VERY common thing to do, and to have to use the alternate key to do it is kind of annoying. Plus, I am DEFINITELY NOT willing to give up the menu button on the mouse. I do not like having the menu block in the upper left corner of the screen; screen space is much more valuable when it's rectangular. To my mind, the menu block effectively ruins the left inch (or more) of the screen, so I ALWAYS move it out of the way (to the lower left corner, over part of the black hole and off the screen). I guess I'd be happiest if the scroll bars were redesigned to make paging simpler. If that meant making absolute positioning harder, so be it; I think it's of marginal utility anyway, since it is hard to tell where to click in the bar to get to a desired point in the underlying view. -- Steve Dorner, U of Illinois Computing Services Office Internet: s-dorner@uiuc.edu UUCP: {convex,uunet}!uiucuxc!dorner IfUMust: (217) 244-1765
edwardm@hpcuhc.HP.COM (Edward McClanahan) (08/01/89)
Eric P. Scott writes: > I occasionally get windows obscured so they can't be selected > without moving all sorts of other stuff around (or > miniaturizing). Bury is a *nice* feature. Bingo! I hope someone at NeXT realizes this *problem* is annoying. The *workaround* is to "iconify" the covering window, but I think it is clear this is not ideal. > Now if NeXT only came up with a 3-button mouse option... Those of us using X with a 2-button mouse probably know about pressing both buttons at the same time to "simulate" the pressing of the "middle" button. One guy didn't think that was enough, so he got himself a 3-button mouse and proceeded to bind commands to buttons 4, 5, 6, and 7 (various combinations of the three buttons). Now, let's see... Was it left-button and middle-button or all three??? Ed "disappointed in The NeXT Book" McClanahan