Re: Type/Creator codes
Re: Type/Creator codes
- Subject: Re: Type/Creator codes
- From: "Dennis C. De Mars" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 13:35:57 -0700
on 5/13/01 6:20 AM, Uli Zappe at email@hidden wrote:
>
Am Sonntag, 13. Mai 2001 um 13:32 schrieb Fritz Anderson:
>
>
> Everyone admits, then, that the merits of
>
> extensions < codes < Nirvana
>
>
Certainly not everyone. I, for one, have always found the
>
Type/Creator issue one of the most annoying features (a bug,
>
actually) of Classic Mac OS for several reasons:
>
>
1. It is downright stupid to assume that because I used app XY to
>
edit my doc the last time, I will also want to use app XY the next
>
time. In my workflow, this is more often not the case than it is.
>
(If I want to go on editing the doc with the same app, I simply
>
leave it opened in this app till I'm ready...)
Apple now seems to be deprecating attaching the creator information to the
file, and I guess this is the reason. In cases where the document format is
proprietary, though, I think most users would find it more convenient to be
able to double click on the icon and have the application open it.
>
2. I have no immediate visual feedback on what to expect when I
>
double-click a file (or am I supposed to remember for every single
>
file which app I used it with the last time?). It may be acceptable
>
if Type and Creator were shown at the end of the file name, just
>
like an extension, but it's not acceptable without any feedback. (I
>
really don't understand why Classic Mac users often seem to find a
>
lack of information "elegant".)
This assertion is totally mysterious to me. Most files created by Mac
applications have unique icons associated with the type and creator.
Furthermore, when viewing in list view, the file type and creator app are
clearly spelled out in English (or whatever the local language is) in the
"Kind" column.
The type information is important, and is _not_ held back by the Mac OS. It
is simply not embedded in the file name, but is displayed elsewhere.
on 5/13/01 7:28 AM, Uli Zappe at email@hidden wrote:
>
Am Sonntag, 13. Mai 2001 um 15:38 schrieb Dave Horlick:
>
>
>> 2. I have no immediate visual feedback on what to expect when I
>
>> double-click a file
>
> What about *the icon*?
>
>
That doesn't help anything if which app the file will open in
>
depends on the creator, not the type.
>
>
Besides, as I wrote in another mail, you'd need an icon for each
>
possible extension (note that Unix programs define extensions, but
>
not respective icons).
No offense meant, but methinks you haven't used Mac OS much (well, you've
said you find it annoying so I guess that's not surprising).
The icon _always_ depends on both the creator and the type. There is no way
to define an icon that only depends on the type.
I gather from other messages in this thread that the fact that the old Mac
OS has no way of denoting a generic type that is _not_ associated with a
specific application is one aspect of the old OS that is considered
objectionable. This is something I occasionally have a problem with myself.
It is worth remembering that when the Mac OS was invented, a lot of the
powerful generic file formats (PDF, JPEG, RTF, etc.) didn't even exist. A
plain ASCII text file and a PICT file were the only formats that were
relatively generic. Almost everything used proprietary formats, so this
(file/creator connection) seemed like a nice way to make things easier for
the user -- and it did. Admittedly, the file-to-creator connection now
sometimes gets in the way.
- Dennis D.