That’s it, we’re quitting • Hacker News Board

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#91

Post by telemachos » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 10:06 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #84

joe_the_user wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

- In the case of iPhoto, I remember the program automatically copying the files from a camera to some folder deep within the hard drive and then giving not a clue later as to which folder that was and certainly not allowing any exploration between folders... - Don't you find "a right click" with a one-button mouse a bit tricky? I did try it but somehow it wasn't happening... maybe that's where things went South. - Pl…

> I remember the program automatically copying the files from a camera to some folder deep within the hard drive and then giving not a clue later as to which folder that was and certainly not allowing any exploration between folders... Well the fundamental idea behind iPhoto is: why would you care where it put your files at all? * If you want to see or edit your pictures, you can do so via iPhoto (or iPhoto-compatibl…

> Well the fundamental idea behind iPhoto is: why would you care where it put your files at all?

As you say, it's not just iPhoto - it's a big part of the iVillage. Certainly some people - not just geeks - like this approach, but I find it patronizing ("Don't worry your pretty little head about where we store the files.") and authoritarian ("You may not delete the Pictures folder from your home folder or give it an alternative name.") all at the same time.

Long story short, I shouldn't have to open an application to grab one file. I should be able to use the file explorer. Apple seems to go out of its way to make that harder for me.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#92

Post by jsz0 » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 10:21 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #57

tvon wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not only can I not find files when Finder doesn't use folders (...) Huh? Do you mean things like iPhoto that bundle photos?

I really don't understand how current finder works, having used it a dozen times. Whatever it does, doesn't seem to involve separate folders. Seems Prima facie evidence of lack of usability since I have been able to reasonably easily understand Windows, Linux and the older Macintosh finder-thing. And yes, iPhotos seem to be a problem. I watched a friend spend three hours trying to find some photos they'd previous loa…

I'm really confused about what you mean. OSX's Finder hasn't changed much in years. This is actually a big complaint of the OSX user community. They want it to change more. Finder in 10.6, even 10.7, is really not much different than Finder from OSX 10.1 though quite a lot different than Finder from Classic.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#93

Post by masklinn » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 10:34 PM UTC

telemachos wrote: post #91

masklinn wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I remember the program automatically copying the files from a camera to some folder deep within the hard drive and then giving not a clue later as to which folder that was and certainly not allowing any exploration between folders... Well the fundamental idea behind iPhoto is: why would you care where it put your files at all? * If you want to see or edit your pictures, you can do so via iPhoto (or iPhoto-compatibl…

> Well the fundamental idea behind iPhoto is: why would you care where it put your files at all? As you say, it's not just iPhoto - it's a big part of the iVillage. Certainly some people - not just geeks - like this approach, but I find it patronizing ("Don't worry your pretty little head about where we store the files.") and authoritarian ("You may not delete the Pictures folder from your home folder or give it an a…

> Certainly some people - not just geeks - like this approach

I would argue that non-geeks are, in fact, far more likely to enjoy this approach than geeks.

> I find it patronizing ("Don't worry your pretty little head about where we store the files.")

Well except it's easy to know where they're stored.

> and authoritarian ("You may not delete the Pictures folder from your home folder or give it an alternative name.") all at the same time.

And this one is utterly bonkers: it's an open not-secret-at-all that iTunes and iPhoto let you move, create switch library by pressing Option as you start them.

> Long story short, I shouldn't have to open an application to grab one file. I should be able to use the file explorer.

You are. It's not like the file is stored in a secret binary database.

> Apple seems to go out of its way to make that harder for me.

Whatever.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#94

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 10:42 PM UTC

telemachos wrote: post #91

masklinn wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I remember the program automatically copying the files from a camera to some folder deep within the hard drive and then giving not a clue later as to which folder that was and certainly not allowing any exploration between folders... Well the fundamental idea behind iPhoto is: why would you care where it put your files at all? * If you want to see or edit your pictures, you can do so via iPhoto (or iPhoto-compatibl…

> Well the fundamental idea behind iPhoto is: why would you care where it put your files at all? As you say, it's not just iPhoto - it's a big part of the iVillage. Certainly some people - not just geeks - like this approach, but I find it patronizing ("Don't worry your pretty little head about where we store the files.") and authoritarian ("You may not delete the Pictures folder from your home folder or give it an a…

[deleted]

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#95

Post by telemachos » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 10:53 PM UTC

masklinn wrote: post #93

telemachos wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well the fundamental idea behind iPhoto is: why would you care where it put your files at all? As you say, it's not just iPhoto - it's a big part of the iVillage. Certainly some people - not just geeks - like this approach, but I find it patronizing ("Don't worry your pretty little head about where we store the files.") and authoritarian ("You may not delete the Pictures folder from your home folder or give it an a…

> Certainly some people - not just geeks - like this approach I would argue that non-geeks are, in fact, far more likely to enjoy this approach than geeks. > I find it patronizing ("Don't worry your pretty little head about where we store the files.") Well except it's easy to know where they're stored. > and authoritarian ("You may not delete the Pictures folder from your home folder or give it an alternative name.")…

> Well except it's easy to know where they're stored.

Sure, I can control-click the folder, select "Show Package Contents" (?!? an obvious way to say "open this folder"), open the directory named "Originals" and then drill down into the year-stamped folders until I find my albums. But clearly Apple doesn't want me doing that. Otherwise, the photo library would work like all the normal folders. I could simply double click to open it and view its contents.

This is all I meant by "Apple goes out of its way to make this harder."

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#96

Post by cookiecaper » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 10:55 PM UTC

cabacon wrote: post #53

cookiecaper wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, generally. I find Mac the most irritating platform to use -- the shortcuts are all different because Apple has a silly insistence of using Super where they should use Ctrl, and common shortcuts are supplanted by the OS, leaving apps to have to find new ones. The Dock is a slow method of switching and Sup+~ shortcut to switch to a windows is more annoying than a straight Alt+Tab. Sup+H and your window goes aw…

Huh. I find that shortcut consistency is actually a strength of the platform. Are you talking about inconsistencies between OS X's choice and the other OSes you use? Because otherwise, I don't see it. Only on the Mac do I know that I can use the same key combo (apple-,) to get to the preferences of an application, regardless of where it came from. And I'm not sure how apple-` is "more annoying" than alt-tab; apple-ta…

I do mean that it's inconsistent between OS X and other OSes. I mean that Apple+Tab is more annoying, and I would prefer it all to just switch windows instead of applications. Most apps on other platforms have a consistent shortcut to the preferences and/or menu bar (Alt).

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#97

Post by cppsnob » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 10:58 PM UTC

File under "things that don't need fixing".

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#98

Post by _djo_ » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 11:02 PM UTC

cookiecaper wrote: post #48

joe_the_user wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Recently, meaning in OS X, I've felt like the Apple UI has degenerated through the use of "easy looking" UI elements that remove every "confusing" element to the point of preventing the user from doing anything. Not only can I not find files when Finder doesn't use folders but my parents and my friends who actually have Macs can't find files either. It seems to me the Mac doesn't win by real usability but by looking…

I agree, generally. I find Mac the most irritating platform to use -- the shortcuts are all different because Apple has a silly insistence of using Super where they should use Ctrl, and common shortcuts are supplanted by the OS, leaving apps to have to find new ones. The Dock is a slow method of switching and Sup+~ shortcut to switch to a windows is more annoying than a straight Alt+Tab. Sup+H and your window goes aw…

Actually, Apple's use of the Command key for GUI shortcuts both precedes the use of Ctrl for the same task and pioneered many of the conventions, such as Ctrl/Cmd x, v, c & s, that are universal today.

Although I was a bit skeptical at first, once I got used to the concept it made a lot of sense. On a Mac, Ctrl+key combos are for contextual menus in the GUI and navigation/commands in terminals and text areas. For instance, you can navigate to the beginning and end of nearly any text element in OS X by using Ctrl-a and Ctrl-e, the standard Emacs shortcuts. And the Cmd+key combos are for GUI and application-level shortcuts, such as copy, paste, print, close, etc. There are two different contexts being handled, so it makes sense to use a different key. The combo to copy a line from a terminal window should not interfere with the combo to cancel the running process within that window, as an example, and on OS X it doesn't.

Most importantly, those shortcuts are implemented consistently across applications. No matter what app I'm working on, Cmd+, will always bring up the Preferences window, Cmd+w will close the window, Cmd+q will quit the application, Cmd+h will hide it, Cmd+p will invoke the print dialog, Cmd+s will save, Cmd+S will save as, Cmd+z will undo, etc. I never have to stop and think about it, or get jarred out of my train of thought by an application that uses some non-standard shortcut to save, or quit or similar. I use Ubuntu at the office and while many apps are making good progress on presenting a consistent interface across the OS, I still get frustrated regularly by apps that do things differently.

Finally, Cmd+Tab provides the same functionality as Alt-Tab on Windows and Linux. Cmd+` lets you switch between the windows of a particular application, which I've found to be quite useful on a many occasions.

Point being, don't knock it till you understand why others like it. While I don't agree with all of Apple's UI decisions, there are plenty of excellent usability features in OS X and I now prefer it to both Windows and Linux because those features line up nicely with the way I work.

Aside from a few crappy lowest-common denominator Java desktop apps that haven't been optimised for OS X, but thankfully those are disappearing fast.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#99

Post by scott_s » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 11:14 PM UTC

DanI-S wrote: post #22

bmelton wrote: post #2

I'm certainly impressed that the Canonical team are thinking about UI issues in this much depth. It is admittedly FAR more thought than I've ever given to the 'Quit' command, ever. And while my initial thought is that there are much more important UI/UX issues to be solved in Ubuntu before this, I think that thinking of things like this are key in fixing the global UI altogether. I'm not entirely certain of whether o…

I feel the same way as you do - I like to feel my system is clean and uncluttered. However, I still agree with their thoughts. We may like quitting applications, but realistically, memory/CPU management is something that can and should be handled by the OS. It's an overhead on the user's mind that can be dealt with perfectly well by clever automation. It should keep itself clean without needing our help. A kid growin…

I quit applications because open applications leave UI remnants laying around. If they can figure out a way to do the Right Thing with the UI, then it wouldn't bother me.

Re: That’s it, we’re quitting

#100

Post by EGreg » Sat, Mar 26, 2011, 11:16 PM UTC

This guy may be happy to know that the new Mac OS that's coming out doesn't have running lights on the dock by default. So you can't really tell if an application has quit or not. In fact, apps now resume when launched.

The trouble is, not all apps support resuming when launched. So it's like a big mishmash and you're quite sure which are running and which are not. The transition will not be pretty! I'm gonna turn my running lights back on as the first thing I do on the new Mac OS.

Look, I actually LIKED the Mac's paradigm of being application-centric, and not document-centric. The latter was Windows' way: MDI, SDI, and all that. When you closed the last window, the app closed. Or did it?

On the Mac, I had control over when I wanted the app to close. Even when I did not do development, I understood what was a program and what was a document. It ain't that hard to do. As a developer, I really love to know what app is running and be able to shut it down, without having to force-quit it.