“I got my new iBook a couple of days ago, and finally tried this “Mac OS X” thing for the first time. After doing all the software updates, this is what I found.” Well-known usability hacker Mattew Thomas (mostly of Mozilla fame) gives his two cents on Mac OS X.
MPT on Mac OS X’s Usability and User Interface
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Works for me just fine. Now if I could just browse and mount/umount Samba shares more gracefully, I’d be happy.
IMHO, Konqueror is far better than Finder except for the built in Search in Finder.
Caption says it – this guy should sit in Apple’s UI department.
Safari (1.2)
Clicking once in the address field does not do what people want 99 percent of the time, which is selecting the address so it can be replaced by typing a new one. (This can be done without interfering with those who want to select only part of the address, as demonstrated by Firefox and by Internet Explorer for Mac.)
Try clicking the icon on the left. It’s not OSX’s fault that this guy can’t figure everything out in 2 days.
example: my Panther can give color-lables to disks – no problem here. Maybe he has another Panther that I have 😉
“problems shouldn’t exist in the first place”
Clearly he doesnt understand how software is made.
People make mistakes. Also software engineers have priorities and time schedules!
Had to stop reading after #1 which is clearly wrong. Maybe he should get the basics down before he starts “schooling” Apple on UI issues…
Yep, 2 cents is about all that was worth.
He gives them free advice from where he’s sitting. By just fixing those things from that page, they wouldn’t have to pay him a dime. 🙂
How about freelancing as a usability consultant? His advice seems sound to me.
Not to mention that doing things his way and single clicking to select the full address would make the behavior of the address text field inconsistant with every other instance of a text field in the OS.
And I really do not understand his issues with the application menu. Having options like exit the application and change the applications under a File menu makes no sense what so ever; it feels more like a hangover from when everything was SDI. Further, complaining that varying file names jitters the menu a fex pixels to the right when every other windowing system lets you move the menu anywhere on the screen seems a bit out of place.
Clicking on the icon to the left icon to highlight all the text is not at all intuitive, it is something you realize by mistake. The 3 clicks needed to highligh the whole thing is inconsistant with other browswers and has always pissed me off.
These are all quite valid complaints. This is actually refreshing compared to all of the “whaa, operating system X does not behave the same as operating system Y”.
Though even if he thinks that apple’s qa team should have caught thes he should still submit them as bugs.
After three years of using Mac OS 9, my equivalent list of simple usability problems for that OS would be less than half as long.
Well, yeah, but OS9 had how many revisions to fix those small details? OSX is still fairly young.. (and still, OS9 is less intuitive than OSX imo)
Mozilla and Firefox don’t use native OS widgets – this means the usability is going down because its not like the rest of the native apps. The reason why I hate application skinning.
A lot of his complaints kind of puzzled me, ranging from either not true (1, 3, 14, 25, and more) to just nitpicking/not an issue (4, 15, and a few others). Now sure a fair amount of this is opinion and a couple things he lists are genuine bugs, but that’s a handful out of 48 things listed. For the most part it really just reads like he’d gotten a hold of OS X and just wants to nitpick at it now.
One thing that was not mentioned in the article that bothers me a lot is inconsistencies when quitting applications. As most Mac users are accustomed to, closing a window doesn’t normally close that application– the app has to be explicitly quit through the menu, (apple) q, or whatever other means.
Most applications follow this, but there are a few (and the number seems to be growing), applications that quit completely whenever a window is closed. The example that comes most quickly to my mind is the System Preferences. I know a lot of these applications have no need for a menu bar, but I think simply having a menu item for that app and allowing the user to really quit or re-open the window would add consistency and save a lot of people some unnecessary mouse movement or control sequence typing.
“Well, yeah, but OS9 had how many revisions to fix those small details? OSX is still fairly young.. (and still, OS9 is less intuitive than OSX imo)”
This argument is a tickle me elmo argument i.e. childsplay. I still have purchased all updates of OS X and it comes with a pricetag so why should it not measure up to GUI standards?
“The Dock cannot be hidden temporarily” I guess he never tried Command/Option/D that’s how I temporarily hide the Dock.
I don’t mind that too much in System Preferences, though it is a new behaviour. That said, some Mac ‘applets’ and DAs have done that since the Macintosh 128.
I REALLY hate it in full-featured apps such as RealOne or Windows Media Player. I’ve been using Macs for years and like the Mac way of doing things, I wish developers would stick to the guidelines.
J…
Clicking on the icon to the left icon to highlight all the text is not at all intuitive, it is something you realize by mistake. The 3 clicks needed to highligh the whole thing is inconsistant with other browswers and has always pissed me off.
Well yeah, but those other browsers are inconsistent with the rest of the system, where a textfield works “normal”.
And I really do not understand his issues with the application menu. Having options like exit the application and change the applications under a File menu makes no sense what so ever; it feels more like a hangover from when everything was SDI. Further, complaining that varying file names jitters the menu a fex pixels to the right when every other windowing system lets you move the menu anywhere on the screen seems a bit out of place.
I agree, the application menu is something obvious you need to have. Where do you put your preferences? Tools? Edit? File? Those just don’t make any sense. And quit (as in quit application, not close document) should be anywhere but the File menu (in a MDI application). Especially for non-english speaking users that have to use an english application, the difference between close and quit is just too small.
I also just appeals to my sense of esthetics or usability-gut-feeling to have from left to right a menu about the System, the current Application, the current Document and the current Selection. The system and the current application just belong there.
“Had to stop reading after #1 which is clearly wrong. Maybe he should get the basics down before he starts “schooling” Apple on UI issues… “
If you allow the ibook to go fully into suspended state (i.e. the little light on the front is pulsating) then he is correct. If it’s just the display that’s gone suspended then the mouse button will wake it back up.
Of course this is on a ibook G3 900, so ymmv.
geeks cannot talk about uis and say “this is more intuitive than that”. If you know how to use computers, you have completely forgotten what is intuitive and what is not. filesystems are intuitive to me, but 95% of the population has no clue what they are, nor do they care.
take a look at some usability studies that do tests on normal users and you’ll be amazed at how little about computing is completely unintuitive at a fundamental level.
mpt’s comments on ui design are always good, though.
1. Links?
What I can only assume to be links to “Home, Archive, Help me, About” are non-functional. Why have them there if they don’t do anything?
2. Comments with No Comments
The “Comments” section is listed with “No Comments.” If that is the case, why even have the section. As it stands it is just unnecessary. Write a script to only display “Comments” when comments are submitted.
3. Where is the Form?
“Leave a Comment” is closed. This goes right with problem 2. Why have it if there is nothing there. It is just plain confusing.
4. What RSS Feed?
The “RSS feed for comments on this post” link is dead. Again, why have links or references to something that doesn’t exist.
5. What Categories…what the hell are you talking about?
The “Categories” unordered menu item with the the link “Uncategorized” doesn’t offer any suggestions as to what it is that is a category or what uncategorized is. There is simply a horizontal rule to seperate the “Categories” from the “Leave a Comment” form with the non-existant form.
6. I know you have had bad luck with links, but try making one.
The link for “Jan” leads to a directory with a single document. I assume that since this is “Jan” it means “January” and that there is a need for just the one document that is present. Thus, I must ask, “why not just link directly to the document rather than the directory?”. As it stands now, it seems fairly confusing.
7. Register…nah…just kiddin’
As I have no account for this site, I didn’t test the “Login” link. Register, on the otherhand seems reasonable to try. unfortunately, it too, like many other features on this site, is broken.
8. Meta…no data here
The “Meta” section would be better labeled “Meta data.” Both the RSS links for this section are broken. The W3C validator link returned that the site was not HTML 4.01 strict even though the site code has 4.01 strict for its dtd.
9. Not going to win an award for artistic merit
Try actually…oh…I dunno…designing. The current site design, other than having functionality problems lacks a decent design. Try using tables for the info that is in the unordered list and provide decent labels for them. Use scripts to keep from providing items that don’t exist (like “Comments”).
10. H1, H2, links….can’t tell the difference
Link color and H1 are the same. Link color and H2 are very similar (almost indiscernable). H1 and H2 are almost identical. H1, H2, and unvisted links are also similar to visited links, though there is enough color difference to be recognizable by those without visual problems if they are looking for them. The current color scheme can be confusing, particularly for those with visual problems. Further, the H1 and H2 sizes are also close. This will further compound the issue of distinguishing between H1 and H2 since they are so similar in color.
It seems as though this guy should fix his own UI problems before trying to tell a large company like Apple what is wrong with their UI.
-2 cents from a guy who actually studies UI issues
Some of his complaints are valid. Others just seem like he’s sore at Apple for some unexplainable reason. For example:
The Dock cannot be hidden temporarily, but even if it could, that would only be a workaround, not a solution.
The Dock CAN be hidden temporarily, in which case by moving one’s mouse to the edge of the screen on which the Dock is hidden, it will unhide itself.
Maybe he means something else.
In the Finder, Safari, Mail, and the Help Viewer, instructions for using a search field are placed inside the field, disappearing when the field is focused.
I can’t imagine that anyone would actually need those instructions once they’ve focused on the field — it’s not as if there’s a ten-step method or something. I’ve never found those instructions necessary.
Disclosure triangles always look unavailable.
Not IMHO.
Pressing the Escape key would be a reliable method of cancelling any drag, except that it doesn’t work when dragging an icon out of the Dock.
Why would I want to press the Escape key to cancel a drag? That’s counter-intuitive, especially as regards the Dock. I’d much rather just drag the icon back (which is in fact what I do).
Dragging to the menu bar would be a reliable method of cancelling any drag, except that it doesn’t work when moving a window.
I don’t understand what he’s talking about at all.
Clicking once in the address field does not do what people want 99 percent of the time, which is selecting the address so it can be replaced by typing a new one.
Maybe I misunderstand him, but let’s assume I do: that is, if I click in the address field, the whole address is highlighted. Sorry, but I have hated this inconsistent, counterintuitive behavior ever since it first appeared in Internet Explorer and Netscape 4 so many years ago. If I want to add text to an address, or change some part of an address, I have to click twice (and not too quickly, either) or drag-click. The rest of the OS doesn’t work this way, why should Safari? I don’t usually type an entire address; that’s what links and bookmarks are for. The double-click, triple-click scheme that works for the rest of the Operating System ought also to hold here.
Just because that’s how you guys did it in Mozilla doesn’t make it good; in fact it makes Mozilla worse. In fact, I’d appreciate it if you guys would make Ctrl+click in Mozilla consistent with how it works in the rest of the system, indeed in the rest of your application. (I’m using Linux right now.) As it stands, Ctrl+click moves me from one end of the address to the other. That’s now how it works here in the textfield. This sort of behavior boggles my mind. What makes you think I don’t want to move from word to word, the way it works when I’m editing text in a textfield?
The Page Up, Page Down, Home, and End keys can be used to scroll through a Web page in Safari even when the address field is focused. The same should work in an iChat instant message window when the text field is focused, but they do not.
This is inconsistent and counterintuitive on the part of Safari, not of iChat.
Exceptions to the previous problem are the disclosure triangles used in Open and Save dialogs and in the Authenticate alert. These disclosure triangles have a different appearance from those in the rest of the OS, for no apparent reason.
The “unapparent” reason is that they disclose a different sort of information. I think that difference is a good thing, and intuitive to boot.
I agree that most of this is nitpicking and dumb, there are a few good points there in a sea of bad points (ie his own opinion, false information, and lack of understanding).. however, the BEST part of the whole story is that you can’t post any comments for this story.
How dare someone try to refute any of his points or correct him!
No OS is perfect and I have tried many. I appreciate the work of developers trying to manage millions of lines of code. Some of us don’t use just one OS (I use Fedora, OS X and XP everyday), and we can see differences where things can be improved in all of them. No one software company is perfect and that’s why there always will be bugs and patches.
I really don’t understand this OS X bashing that happens every time there’s a mac article. Are you telling me that Windows or Linux is even closer to perfection than OS X ? Come on now, perfection doesn’t exist anywhere. We all have opinions and this is what the article represents to me. Sure, there’s things that I like and don’t like about OS X, but for myself I enjoy using it more along with Fedora than Windows.
I think we should all embrace every OS and help their development along. We are the ones that will benefit from supporting the developers. One OS will never be the only one for us all and that’s a good thing. Correct? Osnews.com is a great site for all of this.
Well, yeah, but OS9 had how many revisions to fix those small details? OSX is still fairly young.. (and still, OS9 is less intuitive than OSX imo)
IMHO things are not improving, in fact it’s just the opposite. Apple now ships no less than three themes with OSX, Aqua, brushed metal, and now unfinished garage.
There used to be a time when the Mac had a consistent UI; every application looked and felt the same as every other application. That is one of the things that made Macintosh “the computer for the rest of us.”
…the BEST part of the whole story is that you can’t post any comments for this story.
How dare someone try to refute any of his points or correct him!
Maybe he doesn’t want an endless debate by hords of Mac users who feel they need to defend the best platform on the planet.
🙂
There are several valid complaints in this article (and a few that are incorrect, as noted by others).
I think the author is particularly on-target regarding Aqua v. Brushed Metal. As it stands in Panther, Apple’s use of the metal theme violates its own UI guidelines. It’s a minor thing, but it would be nice if it were one way or the other.
If you have the screen real estate, Drag Thing makes a nice substitute for the Dock (which looks nice, but lends little to productivity). There is *far* too much wasted space in Finder windows. I still want virtual windows, too.
But there are so many nice things about OS X. Expose is damn close to revolutionary. Apple should devote a key to it.
There’s room for UI improvement in darn near anything, but OS X doesn’t suck.
…the better!
Obviously he’s investigated pretty much every nook and cranny of OS X, but some of his points are just downright wrong and others are purely subjective (mixed in with valid, objective comments). His flaky rationale for not doing the decent thing and reporting the bugs is just too much – basically the guy’s a troll…
The Dock cannot be hidden temporarily” I guess he never tried Command/Option/D that’s how I temporarily hide the Dock.
I found what he said that about the Dock odd. You can temporarily hide it, ie, make it come up when you mouse at the bottom of the screen. I am guessing he means, turn the Dock off, which isn’t possible.
Chris said:
“I am guessing he means, turn the Dock off, which isn’t possible.”
But why the hell would you want to turn it off? There is a hack that you can do from the terminal to actually turn it off so it stops using memory, but who really gives a crap? It has a small footprint…if you are that concerned about memory constraints try upgrading your ram or stop using a GUI driven OS.
If you don’t like the dock being there most of the time…do as you said…hide it.
I agree with you, what he said about the dock was indeed odd. Of course, I found many of his comments odd. I think he just biased against OS X and wants to slam it without giving it a fair opportunity.
are they going to do that so that hardcore bsd or linux programmers can play with it
Most of the “flaws” he writes about are either not true (i tried a few things out while reading the review and found that the problems didn’t exist) or are insignificantly tiny. If he believes these problems to be such, he should report them as bugs instead of simply bad mouthing apple. He only has the thing 2 weeks, it took me at least a month to fully get used to using Mac OS X the way it’s meant to be used.
“are they going to do that so that hardcore bsd or linux programmers can play with it” Darwin, the core which OS X is based on is open source. It’s available for download at apple.com. Don’t hold your breath on open source versions of Aqua or the iApps though.
That’s a great list and good attention to detail. Good work!
Things missed:
1. Useless error messages: Try saving a file from HFS+ with more than 31 characters in the file name to a volume of HFS. You get a meaningless error message.
2. You cannot use non-english character sets to save files from Carbonized apps (for example, Japanese). Changing the file names from Finder will make them how you want, but opening and saving again from the Carbonized app will trash the file name again.
Some things I’d like to know:
1. Does the Finder update the Desktop when the contents change or do I still have to set focus to it to force it to update and show things that have been added by, say, a download or a document file save?
2. Does Safari still freeze on phpBB sites? Oh yeah, I’m the only one in the world who has this problem, so I guess I know the answer to that one.
“it took me at least a month to fully get used to using Mac OS X the way it’s meant to be used.”
The way it’s meant to be used? There’s a clue right there. If you have to unlearn everything you learned from Classic Mac OS (this products official predecessor), that’s a fundamental fault. The design should be somewhat self-evident, especially to experienced Mac and Windows users. Fighting against common conventions is asking for trouble. You don’t design a UI and force the user to learn how to use UIs all over again. You design a UI that users will be able to carry over their experiences to.
It’s shameful how much tech people are willing to accept and it’s annoying how much they tend to bash UI specialists for pointing out legitimate issues.
“In Windows and in Mac OS pre-X, an ellipsis following the label for a button or menu item means further information is required to carry out the command implied by the label. In Mac OS X, however, an ellipsis means nothing in particular, and so does the lack of an ellipsis. (For anything you think it might mean, at least one of these is a counterexample: Open Location… in Safari; About in any application, Address Panel in Mail, and Downloads in Safari; the main Help menu item in any application.)”
This is totally wrong. Indeed, an ellipsis means further information is needed. Open Location has an ellipsis because the address is needed. About has no ellipsis because no further information is needed. Address Panel, Downloads and Help have no ellipsis because they just open the adress panel, download or help window, and they do not need any more information to do that.
If his #2 is already completely wrong, I won’t bother to read the remainder.
“The way it’s meant to be used? There’s a clue right there. If you have to unlearn everything you learned from Classic Mac OS (this products official predecessor), that’s a fundamental fault. The design should be somewhat self-evident, especially to experienced Mac and Windows users. Fighting against common conventions is asking for trouble. You don’t design a UI and force the user to learn how to use UIs all over again. You design a UI that users will be able to carry over their experiences to.
It’s shameful how much tech people are willing to accept and it’s annoying how much they tend to bash UI specialists for pointing out legitimate issues.”
No, you simply need a month or two to get used to Mac OS X if you come from a Windows background. If you switch to Windows from Mac OS X, you will need several months, too.
“are they going to do that so that hardcore bsd or linux programmers can play with it.”
I doubt it since OS X is an incentive to sell their hardware. Being that they are primarily a hardware company and OS X is why many people buy macs, opening OS X for non-Apple hardware would kill Apple.
I agree somewhat with the inconsistencies arguements where one iApp is inconsistent with another, but not where they are inconsistent with windows, System 9 or even ported apps with ported toolkits.
I also like the fact that some apps use the brushed metal look, it makes them stand out when switching windows.
If Click through was consistent and worked all the time. I would prefer that (more intuitive to my mind).
Basically that makes his list considerably shorter. As for bugs in Safari. I’m willing to forgive those, because lately it’s a vast improvement over IE (for Mac or Windows) and I assume that they will get to them in time.
don the asbestos-suit, you’re criticising the crown jewels here ;D
j/k
funny enough, most of the people here criticise one of the openstep hci guys, geez, imagine that *rolls eyes*
I have no experience with Mac OS 9. I went from windows98 to KDE. Out of these 3 different UIs I prefer Mac OS X’s for simplicity and beauty. Because I’m so used to Mac and KDE now, WinXP looks and feels completely alien to me.
“Fighting against common conventions is asking for trouble.”
That’s pretty lame because it implies that every Desktop OS should try to emulate Windows’ look and feel which would leave no room for improvement and/or innovation.
I think that Thomas should give Mac OS X (like every reviewer should) a while so he can really know and understand the UI properly. By giving it more time he’ll also be able to discover new faults and maybe he won’t see some faults mentioned as faults but more like properties of the Mac OS X UI experience.
“That’s pretty lame because it implies that every Desktop OS should try to emulate Windows’ look and feel which would leave no room for improvement and/or innovation.”
It may be lame the way you interpreted it, but not the way I said it. I didn’t say that the standard is Windows. In fact, by implication, I suggested OS9 is the standard upon which OSX should have based. OSX is billed as an upgrade path to OS9 yet it is not even close to being the same OS. Tech people know this (as Eugenia keeps bashing me about when I complain
but the consumers and non-tech users do not know this. They can’t possibly know to expect everything to be different because Apple markets OSX as the next logical step for their existing customers.
There are a lot of UI conventions that are pretty consistantly standard accross many OSes. Such as the fact that a button will trigger an action if it receives both the mouse_down and the mouse_up event (allowing you to drag off of a pushed button without triggering it). When people write programs that use custom controls that react differently from the majority of controls elsewhere, the user experiences discomfort (surprise, confusion, whatever you want to call it, it is jarring to have behaviors be inconsistent on objects that are portrayed the same).
I like a lot of things about OSX as an upgrade to OS9, but I am very aware of how NOT an actual upgrade it is. I am very fond of a lot of things in Classic Mac OS that were abandoned by the act of using NeXT Step for the new Mac OS (architectural things and design choices). The article this forum is discussing points out a lot of finer details that, once added up, amount to a lot of meaningful and important design issues. Apple has a reputation for being the best company in the area of UI and user experience design. The fact that they have pretty much lost the right to this reputation with their increasingly poor choices with OSX makes it very hard for people like myself to just sit back and continue to give Apple credit for something it no longer partakes in (good thoughtful design that is the result of understanding how people and objects best work together).
Yes, spend a while with a tool and you will grow accustomed to its quirks and become less annoyed by them. That this is a fact of human psychology does not excuse those quirks nor the designers of the tool for allowing it to have those quirks. Especially when better designs exist and are sucessful in making new users comfortable with the tool in much less time.
Jace, if this comment system allowed rating or slashdot-style karma, I’d vote for your last post.
Ok but Even if you Liked OS 9 that much is just a matter of taste, because for others NeXT Step as it was before, had a better UI than mac OS 9 and the fact that they needed to downgrade it to OS 9 style to please the old Mac users does not make it better just because old users say so.
” I suggested OS9 is the standard upon which OSX should have based.”
I suggest that NeXT step should have the original UI and not a mix between them but again … that is just what I like!
I suggest that NeXT step should have the original UI and not a mix between them but again … that is just what I like!
I mean (OS X) ….
Apple has a reputation for being the best company in the area of UI and user experience design. The fact that they have pretty much lost the right to this reputation with their increasingly poor choices with OSX…
This is true, and there has been plenty of discussion about that here. See the last article from Tog on that score, posted some weeks ago. BUT…
The article this forum is discussing points out a lot of finer details that, once added up, amount to a lot of meaningful and important design issues.
…no, the article gets a lot of things wrong, confuses his personal opinion for what makes actual good UI, has a terribly designed webpage, and what’s worse, he is the “HI expert” on a project that has some useability issues itself. See my previous post for more info. He really does comes as picking at anything that he doesn’t immediately expect from his experience with Mac OS9 and the Mozilla project, as opposed to picking things that are actually flawed.
As to an earlier question of yours:
Does the Finder update the Desktop when the contents change or do I still have to set focus to it to force it to update and show things that have been added by, say, a download or a document file save?
I’ve found that the Desktop has already updated when I use Exposé to view the Desktop. However, Finder drawers still require me to set focus to them. That has caused me confusion sometimes, so I agree with you that this is a useability issue Apple needs to address.
I know a guy who runs his printing business off Mac OS 9. He’s been using macs since 1984. He’s not a stupid man.
Last night I spent five minutes trying to explain to him how to open two Finder windows in OS X and copy a file from one to the other.
One step forward, two miles back.
You don’t understand. He actually does know what he’s doing. THAT’s the sad part.
No, I don’t understand. There is simply no way that anyone conversant with ANY current OS GUI cannot figure out how to open two windows and copy an icon in more than a minute. Two if their woefully ignorant and only ever used Windows, tops.
It sounds to me like someone spent time (probably several DAYS from the sound of it) showing him exactly HOW to use a pre-setup OS 9 system to do what he needed. He has no other knowledge other than HOW to USE this one setup. Get him beyond what he was shown and he’s totally lost.
OSX is pretty straight forward as far as a GUI goes. I like it and had no trouble breezing through it without reading the manual.
He’s right about the parts where the applications (even just Apple’s) don’t work the same way. I realise that the Mac OS X Human Interface Guidelines were being written as they were designing it, but sometimes, it seems as if they worked from a blank page.
The bit about the number of items in Mac OS X in two days vs. Mac OS 9 in three years is funny to me. The design of Mac OS 9 took 17 years. While many portions of Mac OS X look back to that time, none of the exterior is anywhere near that old.
Have you ever used OS 9? Logical. OS X, not so much.
Take the path foo/bar/file.txt. Now please explain to me the easiest way to move file.txt to foo/ Perhaps I’m missing something myself…
Column view, an OS X addition, IMO makes it much easier to move file.txt from foo/bar into foo/ than OS 9 ever did. How would do this using OS 9? Why on earth is it more “logical”?
Some very good nitpicky points in his article, but in general I rather think he misses the forest for the trees. If all you notice using OS X are the inconsistencies, and fail to see the beauty and polishedness of the system, you’ve either got a fight to pick, or all you can see is problems…
Actually, the comment about copying file from one window to another is perfectly valid. The problem is that the Mac OS X Finder by default uses the “only one window needed for everything” design, which makes it especially awkward to move files around. Especially if the person doing this is used to OS 9’s separate windows for each folder approach. Obviously, this old style of OS 9’s windows is still available as an option in Finder’s prefs, but theres no real convenient inbetween.
The best way to do this is using columned view, so you can just drag the file from one column to the other. The problem I have with columned view is that it often “jerks” around too mutch, obscuring the leftmost columns in order to show me a “get info” of the currently selected file on the right, when at the time I want to get to the leftmost columns.
Another way to do this is through copy/paste, certainly something most Windows veterans are used to, but most people coming from OS 9 are alien to, when it comes to doing this to files. Mac OS 9’s Finder was all about drag and drop, something which is significantly less powerful in Windows and Mac OS X due to the “one window-centric” design.
A big problem is that there is no way (when you don’t have the OS 9 settings in prefs) to open a folder from a current Finder window in its own separate window, by itself. The only way of doing this is to command-click two folders and open them, which will open two new windows, since you can’t open two folders in the current window. But there is no way of just opening a folder in a new window, it will always open in its own window! Horrible oversight by Apple!
Either Matthew’s writing at two seperate weblogs right now or this is a mirrored, static version. Because his actual weblog is at http://mpt.phrasewise.com/ where as this is a completely different address. It might explain why none of the navigation works.
Granted, it also looks like some different blogging software is being used too and they’re at completely different IPs
Try this:
1. Open finder…navigate to your source file.
2. Press Command-N…this brings up a new window.
3. Navigate the new window to the desired destination.
4. Copy files as needed.
How is that hard?
>Try this:
>
>1. Open finder…navigate to your source file.
>
>2. Press Command-N…this brings up a new window.
>
>3. Navigate the new window to the desired destination.
>
>4. Copy files as needed.
>
>How is that hard?
You don’t understand. I cannot open a folder in a new window very easily, from an existing Finder window. The case I am talking about, step 3:
>3. Navigate the new window to the desired destination.
should not even be required. Obviously, if the two locations are in two distinct, far away from each other, places in the disk hierarchy, then thats fine. But many times, this step should not be required, when in fact it is!
I find this a rather minor league UI issue, and one that column view handles very well, but still…
>Obviously, this old style of OS 9’s windows is still available as an option in >Finder’s prefs, but theres no real convenient inbetween.
But there is. Clicking the pill widget (as I’m sure you know) in Finder windows transforms a metal Finder window into a OS 9-style window, sans tool- and Sidebar, in which double-clicking on a folder, or any number of folders, will open each folder in a new window.
A perfect solution? Of course not (as John Siracusa succinctly points out); window state, depending on location, fluctuates frustratingly depending on too many myriad conditions. But it’s still a pretty decent solution (one of many) for the situation you describe.
some good points of consistency were raised in the article. a few responses follow…
[2] use of ellipsis in menu items
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/…
An ellipsis character (…) after a menu item indicates to the user that additional information is required to complete a command. For information on when to use ellipsis in menu items, see “Using Ellipses”.
[4] the use of brushed metal
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/…
You can use a brushed metal window if your application:
• Provides an interface for a digital peripheral, such as a camera, or an interface for managing data shared with digital peripherals—iPhoto or iSync, for example.
• Strives to re-create a familiar physical device—Calculator or DVD Player, for example.
• Provides a source list to navigate information—for example, iTunes or the Finder.
[16] hiding the dock
workaround:
try System Preferences > Dock
“Automatically hide and show the Dock”
or alt-cmd-d to toggle dock hiding
[26] modifying an object label
workaround:
control-click or right click the object
or
click-select the object and from the finder File > Color Label:
“The Dock CAN be hidden temporarily, in which case by moving one’s mouse to the edge of the screen on which the Dock is hidden, it will unhide itself.
Maybe he means something else.
Maybe, but OPTION+APPLE+D works just fine. I tend to agree with the posters that say that this is just nit picking. 48 hours? for an OSX review thats just stupid.
After reading this article I had to stop and think what this guy is telling us. After a few moments I came to the conclusion that it’s basically nothing of great importance! He nit picks at a number of things that could be issues to some, but really nothing of big picture importance.
When I go back to use older operating systems like OS9, NT, 2000 or even XP I feel like I am putting on a bunch of old dirty clothes and cannot wait until I get back to OSX. Apple did it right and continue to shows great improvements every step they take.
W
This guy should really read the Apple Human Interface Guidelines. About 90% of what he complains about is explained in that document.
Who da hell does that? command-L and you are on your way. I dont remember last time I clicked to select the url….
Who da hell does that?
I do. Lots of people do. command-L isn’t quite as intuitive, and we usually browse using the mouse.
this article mirrors my own experience; there are too many inconsistencies and plain annoying features in OSX to make using it worthwhile. in the computer lab @ school, i sit here staring at a bank of G5 machines which nobody ever uses. if we’re lucky, three people per day will use the Macs, and only when the 40 WinXP machines are all used.
The Macs have nicer screens, but they anti-alias everything – nobody wants to look at a vaseline-coated monitor. The mice have no buttons – you have to click the entire body of the thing. There’s no context menu. Of course we could buy better mice, but since nobody uses them anyways it’s not worth the effort.
Typists don’t enjoy our Macs because the Copy/Paste requires looking at the keyboard, as the Apple key moves Control over. That’s annoying and pointless; in a laptop such things make sense, but not here.
Windows never maximize, even the Finder! The Finder prefers to maximize vertically but not horizontally, forcing me to scroll down several screens to access the things I need. In a commonly used application, this is ridiculous. Maximizing windows is not difficult to implement, yet Apple chooses to burden users with pointless, artsy genie effects instead of performing basic usability testing.
Also notice that the Dock is intrusive, shifts around all the time, and exhibits inconsistent drag/drop behaviours. It can be changed, but none of the available permutations are much better.
I could write pages on how terrible Safari is, and how funny it is to watch users struggle to log off (press the Apple in the menu please!) but it’s easier just to go back to Windows or Linux than to deal with the hassle of OSX.
It would seem that the author has become accustomed to a certain type of “environment” and has problems adapting to different conventions that just happen to be more consistent, or have been differentiated as needed (for what ever reason by Apple) in their continuing UI development. I get the feeling that what the author considers as a standard procedure for him is the result of years of conditioning caused by using other implementations that are not neccessarily intuitive to the majority of computer users (ie not geeks, not developers, not Power Users). There are several hundred UI conventions (that I will not go into detail about) on different operating systems that are far less than intuitive. These UI “hacks” are merely bandaids, not developed with the majority of users in mind but a way to add that 10,000th extra superfulous “feature” to avoid using a mouse / input device, or a means to avoid actually improving the UI. This is the most obvious failing (consistently)in all UIs that I have had the opportunity to struggle through. It is time for a paradigm shift.
this article mirrors my own experience… …but it’s easier just to go back to Windows or Linux than to deal with the hassle of OSX.
——————————————
Ope,
You are so uninformed and every point you bring up is almost pointless. If your going to tell me that XP is better ergonomically design the Mac OSX.3, than I have some swampland in Florida I would like to sell you. My profession deals in human interface, and your comments do not have a leg to stand on.
We know you love wintel and cannot see pass your learned habits. We can also see you know little about usability testing.
Go troll somewhere else.
W
Why should the address bar of a browser be any different than anywhere else in the system? One click to insert a text cursor, two clicks to select a word, three clicks to select a line. That’s how it works everywhere else. Functionality SHOULD be system wide, not app specific. Introducing new rules for specific functions (and relying on the user having knowledge of what ‘other’ programs do) are what makes stuff hard to learn in the first place.
if you do a statistical analysis, you’ll find that 99% of the time people click on the address bar in a web browser, they want to overwrite EVERYthing that is there already. Most people do not browse websites by hand; rather, they go to the main site and click on links from there.
Obviously, in this case, it makes sense for a single click to select the entire contents of the address bar.
@w:
nice troll. please present some non-ad hominem arguments.
This article does not mirror my own experience; there are many consistencies and well thought-out features in OSX to make using it a joy. Myself and most of the people I know, if given a choice between a Mac and WinXP machines, we’d only use XP if all the Macs were being used.
The Macs often have nicer screens, and the anti-alias text and subdued graphic elements are easy on the eyes – nobody wants to look at a either the dayglow XP or the clumsy classic Windows themes. The simple mice are a relief to beginners and clicking the entire body of the thing is suprisingly comfortable. There’s a context menu for advanced users who know how to access it. Of course one can always plug in a multi-button mouse from a dead or unused Windows PC, there are always lots of them around.
Typists often enjoy Macs because the keyboards are among the best in the industry. Myself, I always hate using a PC because Copy/Paste requires looking at the keyboard, since Windows uses the control key that way off to the side and not the key right beside the spacebar. MS added 2 extra ‘meta’ keys to they’re keyboard, but what are they used for?
On a PC, windows always seem to be too small or fullscreen. who can work like that? A well written mac application like the Finder maximizes to large enough to show everything without necessarily obscuring the other things I’m working on, In Windows I find window management and most everything else in Explorer a constant struggle. In a commonly used application, this is ridiculous. Zooming windows, useful heirarchical views, and effiencient use of space is not difficult to implement, yet MS chooses to keep it awkward. Another good touch on OS X is that when opening and minimizing you get a subtle visual clues that really add to usability, the kind of think that decades-old usability testing says is important. Since MS think interface designers are only for drawing icons, Windows lacks these effective touches.
Also the OS X Dock is space efficient, easy to manipulate, loaded with helpful visual clues and useful behaviours. The Windows taskbar is overloaded with a slot for every window open. I find that doing complex things on a PC is just unbearable.
I could write pages on how lame Windows is, and how people hate to use their PC, struggle to learn its quirks and clumsy nature (Start menu is a great name for the menu containing log out and turn off computer).
Enough with mocking the original message 🙂 I’d argue that a huge percentage of the people who, all things being equal, choose to use Windows only do so out of familiarity, ignorance or stupidity. I don’t know what that says about the users in “ope”s computer lab. The truth is that most smart people recognize and appreciate things that are well designed, and likewise most smart people familiar with both Windows and Mac computers choose to use a Mac whenever possible. Good design wins out in the end and that’s where Apple is going. Who knows where MS is going?
Wow that’s mature.
Ope,
I agree the single click on a web browser is better.
However you’re point about “a bank of G5 machines which nobody never uses… and only the 40 WinXP machines are all used” and reasons why is very hard for me to believe. There is more to the story that you’re not telling us or you don’t know.
I work on both operating systems (XP and OSX) and knowing what I know about these and other operating systems Macs are the best over all and it hurts wintel lovers to hear this (I enjoy many parts of XP). If I were to do a usability test with virgin computer users and was a betting man I would put all the money on OSX to out perform than XP. Just because Wintels have a huge market over the Macs does not equate to a better computer interface. More often it’s because of learned habits and people are scared into the “compatibility” syndrome.
Bottom line this article and many of the summaries are personal nit picks.
W
while the single click is useful have any of you really looked over the shoulder of a user as they click away in a web browser
they click once and everything highlights
they click again to un highlight everything
then they click after the http://www. and select to the end of the line
and type in the url they wish to go to
that is the original behavior of almost every person I taught
nothing in the url bar tells the user that they don’t need to type http:// so they try to save time and effort thereby causing more effort
the safari url bar allows all those normal users a quick and efficient way to do what they think is right and once they learn the correct behavior (not needing to type http://) they can triple click away to happiness
… but a whole lot of flaming and holy war attitudes. Am I the only one that thinks computers in general need to be started over (designwise) from absolute scratch?
Saying that… I have to compliment Apple on doing one thing that the PC world has failed to do time and again: integrate the hardware and the software. Apple has had a smart power button since when, the beginning? I just got a kick out of the left button on our Mac digital displays…
Anyway… good and bad
Why are Mac apologists so eager to assume that the critical comments about Mac-stuff is slanted towards a Windows-centric model of thinking? At least two people here have somehow either misunderstood me through careless reading or willingly chose to use my comments as an opportunity to tell “a Windows user” why his complaints are invalid. (I am a Windows, Mac OS9/X and BeOS user equally and they ALL have issues) I never once suggested that Windows was the baseline. I even explicity labeled Mac OS 9 as a baseline of relevance in this conversation, yet they posted replies that are responses to things I never said.
Folks: try to avoid emotional or knee-jerk reactions to stuff like this. There are valid comments on both sides of the fence but the issues get clouded and the people get blinded by this habit of “reading into” comments and translating them into things they aren’t. Then the conversation just turns into a bunch of holy war meaningless copy/paste evangelical nonsense. Who needs that?