Re: Handling open as a result of spotlight search
Re: Handling open as a result of spotlight search
- Subject: Re: Handling open as a result of spotlight search
- From: Ondra Cada <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 03:19:31 +0200
Karl,
Well... the issue IMHO is not worth arguing over I guess, so... do
please not take my opinion below too seriously. Just give it a
benefit of doubt: might there *perhaps* be something to it?
On 6.5.2005, at 2:43, The Karl Adam wrote:
First, let me emphasize I consider the fact that the search term is
in the Find pasteboard, being so immediately available for search,
just *great*. There is no argument at all that not having it would
be, well, dumb. On the other hand, since we *do* have it... well, if
you want to spend some time in a completely unproductive way, read
on :))
This is one of those "little things" that seperates a good Mac OS X
citizen from the piles of software that are merely acceptable or
good enough. If you feel that that the convenience that
implementing this provides is too little for the "effort" involved
in supporting it,
Nope. The thing is, I do not consider it a convenience at all.
Myself, I consider it an unnecessary and often counter-productive
show-off.
Reasons? Plain: in my experience of many years of using indexing
tools -- beginning with the Digital Librarian which used to be great
and alas was trashed by Apple when they bought NeXTStep -- much more
often I want "all documents containing 'weirdo'" than "all 'weirdo'
occurrences", if you can see the difference.
And, just again, if the latter happens to be what I really want, I
have to put my fingers at Commad-g anyway, since the probability it
would be the second or later hit is considerable. Therefore, the
"inconvenience" of having to press the Command-g for the first
occurrence is completely negligible.
On the other hand, the advantage to see immediately the document
beginning -- which often tends to give more information about the
document and a better indication whether this actually is what I want
than the actual search term occurrence -- is much more important.
Note: selecting (or emphasizing a different way) all the occurrences
of the search string is good IMHO, as I've said originally ("if you
want to perform a more sophisticated action", or something like that
I wrote). What is in my personal opinion wrong is just to perform
plain "Find Next".
then we obviously disagree as far as following the HI guidelines,
and User Interface in general.
The thing is, HIG can be wrong, and sometimes indeed is.
It can be proven left-side sliders are (for left-to-right scripts)
better than right-side ones. What about tear-off menus: why did they
vanish? What about the pop-up main menu wherever the mouse is (would
be even more important on today's 30" vast displays than it used to
be before), or a dock which keeps icons at their places allowing you
to learn to click at the very same point each time you wanna to
launch TextEdit? Do you really think that not to be able to re-size a
window by any edge is reasonable, despite what HIG may tell us? Come on.
Add the fact Apple does not conform to HIG themselves whenever they
consider it reasonable (an excellent example is the selection which
kind of windows should use brushed metal look).
I am very positive it's much better to use a reason and judgement. Of
course, if they agree with the HIG, the better. And I do fully accept
the argument "better consistent and somewhat wrong than excellent but
vastly inconsistent"; just there's the other side which says "better
to be slightly inconsistent and considerably better, than to be
consistent and wrong both".
'Nuff said, I guess :)
---
Ondra Čada
OCSoftware: email@hidden http://www.ocs.cz
private email@hidden http://www.ocs.cz/oc
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden