jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) (04/04/91)
In article <BAUMGART.91Apr3130748@info7.esquire.dpw.com> baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: >On a slightly different note, I was very disappointed that the >standard file dialog had changed so little in System 7. Given how >long Super Boomerang and similar standard file extenders have been on >the market (and how popular they are), I would have thought that Apple >would have spent some time improving on it. The standard file dialog >is really a relic of the days when people had small hard disks (or >none at all) and few files and folders. For all the improvements that >the System 7 Finder will bring us, those without something like Super >Boomerang will still be spending much more time than necessary >navigating through their disks. I think the Standard File dialog is a relic of the days before Multifinder and inter-application communication. Especially in light of the dramatic improvements in the System 7 Finder, it seems to me that there should be only one method for opening documents--through the Finder. The Finder's navigation facilities and desktop metaphor will always be more powerful and intuitive than having to look through the cramped and narrow viewport of some dialog box, no matter how feature-packed. The Standard File dialog and the Finder are just two (very) incompatible ways of looking at the same information, and I think the Finder's way is better. It would be much easier for the user if there was only one paradigm to learn. I believe that in a better world, applications wouldn't have "Open" commands. In an even better world than that, there wouldn't be applications at all, certainly not visible to the user, only documents and menu commands for working with them. Comments? Question for Apple Gurus Most High: what happened to the idea of the Chooser creating an object called the desktop printer, upon which documents could be dropped? Is this part of the postponed New Printer Architecture? Am I suffering from a memory fault? -- John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 "Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900
keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr4.024724.27910@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >In article <BAUMGART.91Apr3130748@info7.esquire.dpw.com> baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: >>On a slightly different note, I was very disappointed that the >>standard file dialog had changed so little in System 7. Given how >>long Super Boomerang and similar standard file extenders have been on >>the market (and how popular they are), I would have thought that Apple >>would have spent some time improving on it. This subject comes up every now and then. Apple comes out with a system, someone comes up with a utility to enhance the system, Apple comes out with a system upgrade that doesn't include the utility, and people complain. But don't forget, many people out there are earning their livings from such utilities. Boomerang is now published by Now. If we were to incorporate it into the system, Now would not be making as much money. Would Apple be acting responsibly if it were to shut out all opportunities for 3rd parties? Over on the Apple II forum, all you ever hear is "The Apple II is so great because of all the neat hacks that are available on it!" -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. INTERNET: keith@apple.com UUCP: {decwrl, hoptoad, nsc, sun, amdahl}!apple!keith "But where the senses fail us, reason must step in." - Galileo
gourdol@imag.imag.fr (Gourdol Arnaud) (04/05/91)
In article <1991Apr4.024724.27910@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: >I think the Standard File dialog is a relic of the days before Multifinder >and inter-application communication. Especially in light of the dramatic >improvements in the System 7 Finder, it seems to me that there should be only >one method for opening documents--through the Finder. The Finder's navigation >facilities and desktop metaphor will always be more powerful and intuitive than >having to look through the cramped and narrow viewport of some dialog box, >no matter how feature-packed. The Standard File dialog and the Finder are >just two (very) incompatible ways of looking at the same information, and I >think the Finder's way is better. It would be much easier for the user if >there was only one paradigm to learn. >I believe that in a better world, applications wouldn't have "Open" commands. I agree with you, the Standard File dialog shouldn't exist. However its disparition brings a couple of problems: The open commands sometimes needs aditional parameters to open its document (for example are the plain text file with a CR at the end of line or end of the paragraph). Ok, one could imagine a dialog box displayed when the user double-clic the icon. As of text file, they can be opened by many applications. Let's say that when you double click-it it launches one (TeachText or th eone with which it was created). If you want to open it with another, you can still drop it on the application's icon. But what if you don't have the application's icon handy (let's say you launcg it thru the Apple Menu). Some applications (such as PhotoShop) allow you to open a file and specify its type when you open it (for example if you have an image created on "another platform", it may be of type TEXT, BIN or whatever). How could you do this without the Open dialog. The problems are worst for the save as dialog box. What do you expect when you first save your document. Have it saved as untitled and then change the name with the Finder? In which folder should it be saved ? >In an even better world than that, there wouldn't be applications at all, >certainly not visible to the user, only documents and menu commands for >working with them. Comments? Great idea. This sure would be good, altough it poses a few interesting problems too. But, hey, that's our job :-) (I'm an UI guy). >John Cavallino | EMail: jcav@midway.uchicago.edu >University of Chicago Hospitals | USMail: 5841 S. Maryland Ave, Box 145 >Office of Facilities Management | Chicago, IL 60637 >"Opinions, my boy. Just opinions" | Telephone: 312-702-6900 Arno. -- /======================//==========================================/ / Arnaud Gourdol. // On the Netland: Gourdol@imag.fr / / // Via AppleLink: Gourdol@imag.fr@INTERNET# / /======================//==========================================/
peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) (04/05/91)
In article <51173@apple.Apple.COM>, keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) writes: > > In article <1991Apr4.024724.27910@midway.uchicago.edu> jcav@quads.uchicago.edu (john cavallino) writes: > >In article <BAUMGART.91Apr3130748@info7.esquire.dpw.com> baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) writes: > >>On a slightly different note, I was very disappointed that the > >>standard file dialog had changed so little in System 7. Given how > >>long Super Boomerang and similar standard file extenders have been on > >>the market (and how popular they are), I would have thought that Apple > >>would have spent some time improving on it. > > This subject comes up every now and then. Apple comes out with a > system, someone comes up with a utility to enhance the system, Apple > comes out with a system upgrade that doesn't include the utility, > and people complain. > > But don't forget, many people out there are earning their livings from > such utilities. Boomerang is now published by Now. If we were to > incorporate it into the system, Now would not be making as much money. > Would Apple be acting responsibly if it were to shut out all > opportunities for 3rd parties? There needs to be a balance here. Some things should be put into system software others shouldn't. And remember that Apple does things there own way - look at MultiFinder vs Switcher :-) There's no way that Apple would implement the functionality of SuperBoomerang the way it's done now. I can hear it now, "Why did Apple screw up System 7.1 with the awful new Std File dialog? I'm going to keep using SuperBoomerang!" -- michael P.S. I'm quite happy that Apple didn't make my AppSizer obsolete - though I really wouldn't mind it all that much... -- Michael Peirce -- outpost!peirce@claris.com -- Peirce Software -- Suite 301, 719 Hibiscus Place -- Macintosh Programming -- San Jose, California 95117 -- & Consulting -- (408) 244-6554, AppleLink: PEIRCE
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com (Steve Baumgarten) (04/07/91)
In article <0B010004.d4gz4b@outpost.UUCP> peirce@outpost.UUCP (Michael Peirce) writes:
There's no way that Apple would implement the functionality of
SuperBoomerang the way it's done now. I can hear it now, "Why did
Apple screw up System 7.1 with the awful new Std File dialog? I'm
going to keep using SuperBoomerang!"
I wouldn't expect that Apple would adopt Super Boomerang lock, stock
and barrel. But from a human interface point of view, it struck me as
odd that Apple would spend so much time making the Finder super-
friendly and so little time on such basics as keeping track of the
last selected file in the standard file box. A simple pop-up list of
recently visited folders would be a nice touch as well.
That would still leave a large niche for utilities like Super
Boomerang (with its nice file/folder grouping, super-fast finding,
deleting and renaming, etc.). But the majority of Mac users -- who
don't run these whiz-bang, extra-cost utilities -- would still be less
frustrated than they are by the current, rather inflexible
implementation.
P.S. I'm quite happy that Apple didn't make my AppSizer obsolete -
though I really wouldn't mind it all that much...
I suspect that VM under System 7 may do that -- though in the
meantime, it's a really neat hack... :-)
--
Steve Baumgarten | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
Davis Polk & Wardwell | remember, we were way ahead of you."
baumgart@esquire.dpw.com |
cmcl2!esquire!baumgart | - David Lettermanderek@leah.albany.edu (Cinderella Man) (04/09/91)
From keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) come these immortal words: >This subject comes up every now and then. Apple comes out with a >system, someone comes up with a utility to enhance the system, Apple >comes out with a system upgrade that doesn't include the utility, >and people complain. > >But don't forget, many people out there are earning their livings from >such utilities. Boomerang is now published by Now. If we were to >incorporate it into the system, Now would not be making as much money. >Would Apple be acting responsibly if it were to shut out all >opportunities for 3rd parties? Over on the Apple II forum, all you ever >hear is "The Apple II is so great because of all the neat hacks that >are available on it!" Sheesh, using this type of logic, Apple should never have included print spooling in their S.S. releases, as it was such a lucrative business for SuperLaserSpool. Or MacroMaker, since it's taking business away from QuicKeys and Tempo. Extending it, why make a StyleWriter when there's a DeskWriter and a Bubblejet? These examples may be silly, but so's the premise. >Keith Rollin --- Apple Computer, Inc. Derek L. -- + + "When nothing else remains, one must scream. Silence is the ultimate + + + crime against humanity." -- Nadezhda Mandelstam + + _________________________ [Affix disclaimer here] ________________________ + + + + + Each one's life a novel no one else has read -- Peart + + + +
barry@network.ucsd.edu (Barry Brown) (04/11/91)
In article <1991Apr9.150819.12621@sarah.albany.edu> derek@leah.albany.edu (Cinderella Man) writes: >From keith@Apple.COM (Keith Rollin) come these immortal words: >>But don't forget, many people out there are earning their livings from >>such utilities. Boomerang is now published by Now. If we were to >>incorporate it into the system, Now would not be making as much money. >>Would Apple be acting responsibly if it were to shut out all >>opportunities for 3rd parties? > Sheesh, using this type of logic, Apple should never have included >print spooling in their S.S. releases, as it was such a lucrative business >for SuperLaserSpool. Or MacroMaker, since it's taking business away from >QuicKeys and Tempo. I was under the impression that Apple incorporates features from third-party utilities into the System to PROMOTE originality and creativity in the developer's market. For example, System 7 has the functionality of OnCue built-in, forcing the maker of OnQue (sorry, I don't remember their name!) to come up with something better. If Apple didn't do this, the Mac market would stagnate due to lack of new material. Disclaimer: OnCue is just an example. Insert your-favorite-utility-now- built-into-System-7 where you see 'OnQue'. -- Barry E. Brown -- \ Cal-Animage Beta publicity officer bebrown@ucsd.{edu,uucp,bitnet} \ Anime Stuff FTP Server administrator Somewhere in San Diego, CA..... \ (ftp network.ucsd.edu [128.54.16.3]) "Kaeshite! Kaeshite! Kaeshitekaeshitekaeshite! -- Azusa (Ranma 1/2)