Re: Type/Creator Codes
Re: Type/Creator Codes
- Subject: Re: Type/Creator Codes
- From: Michael Dagate <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 10:31:58 -0500
Hi All,
I felt compelled to add my $0.02 worth to this discussion. :) Being new
to the Mac and Cocoa, I often see things from a different perspective
than long-term Mac users.
I got my start on an Apple ][+ and 6502 Assembly (loved that!). I used a
Mac 128 and LaserWriter briefly back in 1985 and thought that they were
very innovative. Later, I got a job developing Windows applications,
mostly shrink-wrapped consumer products. I've been a Windows developer
for the last 12 years, but I recently switched to Mac OS X.
DISCLAIMER: I want to share with you my observations and perspective
here; however, I have come to realize that many (dare I say, most) Mac
users are very passionate about the Mac and find fault or offense with
my observations and/or perspective. I respect other people's opinions
and hope that no one takes offense for anything I say. I am merely
sharing my observations and perspective. Towards the end, I will comment
on the Type/Creator Code vs. File Extension issue.
I switched to the Mac for two reasons: 1) the hardware is excellent
compared to most, if not all, pc hardware, and 2) Mac OS X. I can assure
you that I never would have switched without OS X. Mac OS 9 and earlier
were simply not compelling. Windows 9.x was superior to Mac OS 9 in many
ways, namely preemptive multitasking, multithreading and developer api's
and tools. Here is a humorous example of what I'm talking about: a
friend of mine ran a web server on Mac OS 9. One day, the system
inexplicably stopped dead in its tracks. Upon investigating the
situation, we found that his cat had stepped on the mouse button and
activated a menu on one of the control strip icons. The system stopped,
waiting for someone to dismiss the menu! Doh! Also, because OS 9 crashed
so often, he had to get an external device to automatically reboot the
system whenever it stopped responding. People beat up Windows for
crashing, but I have personally observed Mac OS 9 crash a lot, also.
And, I've seen a few kernel-panics in OS X, as well.
I have developed many consumer products and usability is always one of
my top priorities. More than just developing software, I have tested
software in a usability lab with actual end-users and hidden cameras.
That was truly enlightening! You learn very subtle things that make the
user's experience dramatically better. For example, I was working on a
children's drawing program with a main tool tray on the side. As you
click a main tool, the related sub-tools appeared at the bottom. We
discovered that children didn't associate (conceptually) the main tool
with it's sub-tools. So, we added an animation sequence to show the kids
that clicking a main tool created the sub-tools. It was a subtle, but
very effective, change.
I have been working with OS X for about 5 months now. In that time, I
have made many observations. First, OS X is a *huge* step in the right
direction for Apple. It fulfills all the basic requirements for a modern
OS, including preemptive multitasking, multithreading, advanced
networking, multi-user support, good developer api's and tools and an
acceptable user interface. Some people underestimate the importance of
good developer api's and tools. I believe that they are essential to the
success of the platform. By attracting developers and power-users, Apple
increases its reach in the marketplace because average users depend on
the opinions of those developers and power-users. In the course of a
year, how many people ask you what kind of computer or software they
should buy, or what you think may be causing a problem they may be
having? We, the developers and power-users, are very influential
people! :)
Aqua is a very *attractive* user interface, but Windows is still more
user-friendly. This may be shocking to you, but I have very specific
reasons, all of which can be fixed in Aqua:
1. Generally speaking, Mac apps have too many disconnected windows.
Apple is already trying to fix this, so I'll just say, from a user
perspective, it is easy to get lost in a sea of windows.
2. Windows should be sizable from all sides. I find myself frequently
needing to move a window up and left so that I can (in a separate step)
make it bigger. This can and should be a single step operation.
3. OS X should make more use of cursors to provide visual feedback. For
example, Windows uses a plus sign during drag and drop operations to
indicate when a drop target can accept a drop object. I know you can
highlight a control with a border to indicate this, but the cursor thing
really helps. Also, Windows uses arrows to indicate when and how you can
size windows.
4. Apple should embrace the second-mouse button and scroll-wheel and
make more consistent use of contextual menus. I know these features are
already supported in OS X (with third party mice), but none of Apple's
hardware supports it. Some people say those are power-user features. I
disagree. Average users frequently don't know where to find the commands
they want to perform. Once they know they can right-click and see the
most relevant commands in a contextual menu, they become much more
productive. They don't have to worry about where a command is, it's
right there with the object they want to manipulate. Incidentally, if
you've never tried a scroll wheel, you should. It's awesome for zipping
through web pages, etc. I know that Apple is using contextual menus now,
but they need to be more consistent and more comprehensive (Cut, Copy,
Paste and Show Info should be standard on virtually all contextual
menus).
5. The Finder Column view is cute, but rather cumbersome. You really
need two Finder windows to copy or move files around. I find the Windows
Explorer (the file explorer, not IE) to be much easier and intuitive.
Seeing folders on the left and files on the right allows people to
navigate the file system and copy/move files very easily (copying and
pasting files in Explorer is awesome!). You get a very strong visual
sense of the hierarchy/organization of the system. In addition, in the
Files pane, you have lots of room for additional information (e.g.
columns containing file types, dates/times, attributes, etc.) I see
people trying to hide the file system or parts of it and I wonder why?
The file system is an integral part of computing and represents a basic
human desire to organize things. I don't mind hiding system files from
average users, but don't hamper the power-users in the process.
6. It is hard in OS X to drag and drop to windows that are obscured. You
have to rearrange your windows on the screen so that the drop source and
the drop target are both visible. I find myself moving and resizing
windows just to prepare for a drag and drop operation. In Windows, you
can drag an object to an application button in the Taskbar. While
holding it there for a second, Windows brings that app forward. Then,
you can drag the object to the drop target and release it. It is a
subtle, but very effective feature.
Despite some of these "annoyances," OS X has many wonderful features. I
like Cocoa development and I see tremendous opportunity for the Mac in
the future. In no way, do I intend to "beat-up" Apple for these
perceived shortcomings. I know that OS X is a work in progress.
Hopefully, by discussing them here, Apple may recognize and address
them. :)
Regarding the Type/Creator Code vs. File Extension issue, any human
interface expert will tell you that, when presented with many different
icons, people have trouble remembering what they mean. We should not
rely on the icon alone to communicate file type. Also, it is easy to
overwhelm users with cryptic abbreviations, like those found in file
extensions, but, generally speaking, more information is better than
less and combining text and graphics seems to be most helpful to most
users. I like seeing file extensions. I know instantly what kind of file
it is. I like being able to change the file extension if necessary. I
don't need my computer to protect me from myself (although, a warning
message is certainly acceptable). A lot of people use many different
tools to accomplish a task, so limiting or tying a file (via codes) to
one application is really counterproductive. I don't think one method
(codes vs. extensions) is inherently better than the other, but
extensions are the better *choice* simply because they are more
compatible with the rest of the computing world and that is good for
Apple.
...just my thoughts. please be gentle! ;)
Regards,
Michael Dagate
On Tuesday, May 15, 2001, at 04:56 AM, Jamie Curmi wrote:
Hi All,
Since I started the original thread, I thought I should just say
something. Hopefully Apple have got the message from the responses
here, and, I'm hoping, the feedback you've all given them through the
MacOSX web page.
First, I didn't mean to make a flame war out of this. I was asking a
serious question - thanks for all the great responses.
However, on the topic of extensions, I would like to just say a few
things.
First, whether you like using extensions or not, mixing file name and
file type is very bad from a usability perspective - regardless of the
fact that Windows does it that way, as did NeXT (I believe). You
should never be able to change a file's type by editing its name - this
is basic good usability. It is part of the reason why Windows started
hiding the extensions.
Having seen Windows users in the past change the extension of a GIF
file from .gif to .jpg and believe that they had now created a JPEG -
this should be evidence enough. Try this on OSX and you'll see the
icon actually change from a GIF to a JPEG - even though this is not a
JPEG. This is one of the biggest problem with using such a system.
Or having a text editor save a file with an extension you didn't
request (like TextEdit) - another example of poor usability. Then when
the user removes the extension so that the file name is like they
originally wanted, and finding the file is no longer launches TextEdit?
Clearly just hiding all the extensions is not a solution, as some files
do require extensions to be shown - for example source code (.c, .cc,
.h, .java). But to blindly have all extensions showing, editable, AND
essential for association in the interface is just poor all round.
Clearly most Mac users are not happy with this, and I'd think anyone
with a usability background is in total shock that this wasn't resolved
earlier (didn't Apple once have the best usability people in the
business?).
There are much better ways to do this - and OSX is capable, regardless
of the file system being used. But file extensions like they are
currently are probably the worst way to do this.
I am hopeful that Apple are working on something, and it will be
revealed very very soon. If not though, I think there may be a
revolt. I get very concerned when Windows is looking more usable than
the Mac, as should you all.
One final thing I'd like to say. I am a Unix programmer - 10 years
now. I basically came over to the Mac recently - mainly because of
OSX. However, I'm sick of people characterising Unix users as wanting
extensions on files, or Unix somehow requiring extensions to work.
Unix has NEVER required extensions on file names. They have sometimes
been used in the past because there was no way to determine the type of
a file easily by just looking at it - no icon for one thing in the
early days. They're convenient from a terminal. But I have scripts
on Solaris at work without extensions - for example sh, perl, csh
scripts etc. Executable don't end in .exe. Text files are often
without extension such as README, INSTALL etc. Adobe FrameMaker on
Solaris is quite happy to save files as "My Letter". Don't think for
one minute that just because this is Unix underneath you need to throw
out all the usability ideals of the Mac.
Jamie
_______________________________________________
cocoa-dev mailing list
email@hidden
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/cocoa-dev