Patent: Multi-Sized Icon Interface for Mac OS X?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Appleinsider points to (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2637) a recent patent application published from Apple which explores the use of different sized icons within one window. The relative size differences in the interface are said to reflect the relative importance of each icon.

Right now, users can globally change icon sizes in Mac OS X in all windows, but with the newly described system icon sizes could be used to adjusted based on user preference.

"To this end," Apple wrote, "a user's arbitrary sizing of various icons in accordance with the present invention generates icon representations that can advantageously represent categorization of application or file importance, and/or the size of a file represented by an icon."

Apple's files patents for many ideas that are never actually implemented, but Apple's early multi-touch patents did first reveal technologies that made their way into the Apple iPhone.

[aricher]

I have actually always wanted this to be a feature in the OS. It would allow for easier visual browsing for me. This in combination with color labels would make me very happy.

[odedia]

Apple really became patent-fanatic. I guess they don't want 1984 to repeat itself.

[p0intblank]

This is actually one of those less important features I've wanted for a while now. I doubt it'll be implemented, but it'd be nice. :)

[glennyboiwpg]

Does anyone notice that the diagram looks like OS9?

any reason why this is?

[MongoTheGeek]

Presented for you consideration...

Imagine a *large* transparent icon where the click mask doesn't match the transparency.

Imagine placing it onto of other icons.

Imagine if it does something nefarious when opened.

[Durendal]

Does anyone notice that the diagram looks like OS9?

any reason why this is?
My thoughts exactly. This patent must have been drawn up years ago and only recently went through.

[AriX]

Whoa... What is up with Apple using the platinum interface in their patent? Aqua anyone?

[DStaal]

Presented for you consideration...

Imagine a *large* transparent icon where the click mask doesn't match the transparency.

Imagine placing it onto of other icons.

Imagine if it does something nefarious when opened.
Imagine you don't bother, and just have the icon you see do the same something nefarious.

I like the theory behind this patent, but how to implement the resizing of icons intuitively, that's the hard part.

[tk421]

Presented for you consideration...

Imagine a *large* transparent icon where the click mask doesn't match the transparency.

Imagine placing it onto of other icons.

Imagine if it does something nefarious when opened.

Couldn't this happen now (not the size, but the transparent icon sitting on top of another one)?

Anyway, what could really happen? If it was something bad, you'd still have to download it or have it copied onto your computer before you could double-click it. And if it were to do anything too "nefarious" it would require you to put in your password. Seems like a pretty weak way to do something sinister.

[lancestraz]

ZOMG! It's Leopard's top secret GUI!
It… It… It's so… B-B-Beauuuuuutiful.


Seriously though, it looks like it was drawn on a napkin.

[clonenode]

Don't look at the illustration as being flat. What if this were a 3 dimensional interface... not bigger and smaller icons, but CLOSER and more DISTANT icons!!! Look at Front Row and the Apple TV interface. Very similar!

Maybe this is the big SECRET in Leopard - moving through, in and around your icons to manage things or gain feedback!

Cool!

[dazzer21]

I'm sure there are many here that do see the point in all this, but I only EVER use the list view in order to easily find groups of file that start with the same letter/digit in one hit rather than taverse a large window to find that synchronous files are miles apart from each other...

[QCassidy352]

great idea. Makes me wonder why nobody has done this before - it seems so intuitive.

[mustang_dvs]

Does anyone notice that the diagram looks like OS9?

any reason why this is?

My thoughts exactly. This patent must have been drawn up years ago and only recently went through.

Whoa... What is up with Apple using the platinum interface in their patent? Aqua anyone?

Considering that BBedit 5.0 was introduced in late 1998, yeah, I'd say this was an older drawing. I originally thought that this was intended to be part of Rhapsody, but considering the BBedit vintage, it's after Jobs' return, once Rhapsody was officially dead.

I would guess it was an idea that seemed great at first glance, but the idea of a user having to individually size every single icon, on top of retaining a size preference for every single icon has put this in the circular file.

[Chris Bangle]

Don't look at the illustration as being flat. What if this were a 3 dimensional interface... not bigger and smaller icons, but CLOSER and more DISTANT icons!!! Look at Front Row and the Apple TV interface. Very similar!

Maybe this is the big SECRET in Leopard - moving through, in and around your icons to manage things or gain feedback!

Cool!

ooooohhhhhh Sounds interestng. does anyone remember the menu system on the PS1 demo disc. That was sort of 3Dish

[pgwalsh]

Does anyone notice that the diagram looks like OS9?

any reason why this is?

It does, but I think more like a system 8 with output of system 1.

[Mgkwho]

I like this, but I think a lot of users will make their folders junky with this!

Does this mean no other OS can have different size icons inside a window, or is the patent specific enough to one or a few techniques? I didn't read it :p.

-=|Mgkwho

[clevin]

its good, right now finder's image thumbnail is horrible.
But
Patent? is that necessary? don't be that greedy, this sort of thing does not deserve a patent.

[Ino]

Could it be that Apple will incorporate multi-touch into Macs? Imagine if all cinema/portable displays were multi-touch capable and you could either pull or pinch to make icons/files bigger/smaller...that would be cool. Put that together with the "piles" file management system...I'd love for those to be the super secret features in Leopard that haven't been announced yet...

[blimundus]

In Gnome, you can resize icons in the file manager windows, and on the Desktop. For example, I always put a very big trash can on my Desktop, so I can easily drag something to it. However, I don't think Gnome supports icons that resize automatically based on some properties such as file size. I think the reason for that is that this would be quite difficult to get right, and maybe it wouldn't be that good an idea either. Not very novel or patentable, I would say.

[Henriok]

I can't see how Apple can get this patent. Workbench in AmigaOS has been able to do this since late 80s or early 90s at least. What's new is that they also describe a mechanism to resize individual icons according to some criteria such as file/folder size. I don't think Workbench did that.

[jole]

great idea. Makes me wonder why nobody has done this before - it seems so intuitive.

This has been implemented for years in Gnome and if I remember correctly, also OS/2 implemented this in 2.0 version of the presentation manager 15 years ago.

[iMeowbot]

Does anyone notice that the diagram looks like OS9?

any reason why this is?
Because it's an old filing from 2000. The only thing new is that Apple split these claims off from an earlier application.

[zblaxberg]

Don't look at the illustration as being flat. What if this were a 3 dimensional interface... not bigger and smaller icons, but CLOSER and more DISTANT icons!!! Look at Front Row and the Apple TV interface. Very similar!

Maybe this is the big SECRET in Leopard - moving through, in and around your icons to manage things or gain feedback!

Cool!

wouldn't surprise me...maybe this is why they didn't release leopard as early as we all thought...however as someone else said it looks like they drew it years ago and maybe it just now passed

[tk421]

I can't see how Apple can get this patent. Workbench in AmigaOS has been able to do this since late 80s or early 90s at least. What's new is that they also describe a mechanism to resize individual icons according to some criteria such as file/folder size. I don't think Workbench did that.

Yeah, I do remember different icon sizes on the Amiga. Way back when I was in junior high, they had one to do graphics in the video/technology class.

[Max Payne]

Looks promising, but we need more serious surprises. :)

[CalfCanuck]

I love the image - deja-vu to April 1984 when I unpacked my 128 KB Mac and fired it up for the first time!

[MisterMe]

Don't look at the illustration as being flat. What if this were a 3 dimensional interface... not bigger and smaller icons, but CLOSER and more DISTANT icons!!! Look at Front Row and the Apple TV interface. Very similar!

...Look again. The collection of icons in the sketch do not give a cue to the third dimension. It features MacOS 8 application, document and folder icons of different sizes. However, the folders are of different sizes and orientations. Although it may be possible to use this this technique to simulate cues to the third dimension, it will take a lot more refinement than is displayed in the patent application. There was no attempt to do so here.

[FoxyKaye]

Maybe Leopard will sport a new "Classic" GUI mode - that olde tyme OS9 look with all of today's innovation behind it. :D

I can see why this feature never made it to the top of the heap, but I suppose for folks who work more visually than I, it would be a good thing.

Though I'd rather see Leopard released sooner rather then later if they're adding on "secret" features such as this.

[lardlad]

Labels serves this purpose and I think different sized icons will get really messy.

[shamino]

great idea. Makes me wonder why nobody has done this before - it seems so intuitive.
I seem to remember seeing this in some screen shots of AmigaDOS.

Scroll down in this article (http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/5) to the Amiga Workbench screen shot. Notice that not all the icons are the same size.

But this isn't quite the same thing. The patent under discussion seems to be desribing different scale-factors for each icon. In the case of the Amiga, icons were always displayed at a 1:1 scale. The different sizes were the result of the files/applications providing different size icons to the Workbench.
This has been implemented for years in Gnome and if I remember correctly, also OS/2 implemented this in 2.0 version of the presentation manager 15 years ago.
I'm pretty sure this was not in OS/2. I was an OS/2 user for almost 10 years and I never saw this. All of OS/2's icons were displayed at a single size, determined by the video driver (typically 32x32 for low resolutions or 40x40 for high resolutions. OS/2 1.3 used 64x64 for high resolutions.)

[Howmanoid]

This could be really useful for finding say, a current project folder within Documents or making the drive icons on the desktop larger than the rest of the stuff that ends up there. I can see how this feature would make it easier for people to easily identify certain items out of the mass of stuff we all have to manage on a daily basis.

Would be really cool if they could extend this idea to things like Mail.app. I'd love to have client emails show up in large fonts in the inbox list for example.

[Peace]

Not wanting to give anything away Apple chose to use a "generic" square Finder window.The Patent is for the icons not the full window.I'd do the same if I wanted a new Finder to remain under wraps :)

[Sky Blue]

Sounds useful, hopefully it turns up in 10.5.

Not wanting to give anything away Apple chose to use a "generic" square Finder window.The Patent is for the icons not the full window.I'd do the same if I wanted a new Finder to remain under wraps

They've always done it that way, haven't they?

[iMeowbot]

Ok, much silliness is coming into the thread. You can head over to http://pat2pdf.org and use 20070079255 as the number to see the actual document instead of the ridiculous AppleInsider summary.

[scrambledwonder]

Sounds good. I would love to be able to designate different sizes for different icon types. For example: All photos at maximum size (with previews), but file folders at, say 64x64 pixels. Sounds great to me!

I have a problem with the way Tiger deals with view options for windows. Every time you open up "view options" it defaults to "change for all windows." If you're not careful, you mess up every window. Then you have to go back and change every window that had different view options. Bogus.

[surferfromuk]

I seem to remember seeing this in some screen shots of AmigaDOS.

Scroll down in this article (http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/gui.ars/5) to the Amiga Workbench screen shot. Notice that not all the icons are the same size.



mmh..nice little article. Not sure I like the different icons thing - it could get a little messy if they're not careful.

Funny how the guy has OSX and XP tied historically on his 'timeline' graph - I do hope Windows people don't see OSX to be 'of the XP generation' ??

I guess they also think Leopard is playing catch up!!

[Jimbolgs]

What if this could be implemented much in the same way as the application bar at the bottom of the screen?

So as you mouse over an icon it increases in size.

That could be handy, specially for visually impaired people.

[APPLENEWBIE]

Wouldn't this be an example of resolution independence?

[Hemingray]

Whoever drew the window swapped the vertical scroll arrows. :p

[peharri]

I seem to remember seeing this in some screen shots of AmigaDOS.


I think the headline's a little misleading, my immediate thought was "AmigaOS" too. Changing it to "Individual icons dynamically sized" would probably be more descriptive.

Interestingly, it is an extension of an unrelated Amiga concept. The Amiga allowed files to not have icons at all. From AmigaOS 2 onwards, files with icons were displayed by default, and files without them were only shown if you selected "Window->View->All Files" from the menu. Generally, user created folders and documents had icons, whereas less important files didn't.

How is this related? Well, in practice, despite its origins as a disk saving hack, it made it easier to identify important files. Generally, the applications you'd want to run had icons. The word processor documents you wanted to open had icons. Things you needed had icons, the others didn't clutter your desktop unless you needed to see them.

And in that respect, I think that's the intention here. Your own files, representing stuff you work on every day, will have large icons. The metric butt-load of downloaded PDFs, application installers, etc, you download from the Internet will have much smaller ones. Stuff batch downloaded from your digital camera will appear, but it will be assumed you actually just want to see them in iPhoto, not your file system.

It's a much more spacial approach than the Amiga's (which isn't surprising because it's actually had some thought put into it in terms of "How is this useful", as opposed to the Amiga's "Damn it, the developers aren't giving icons to every file" rationale, that ended up being accidentally a really good thing.) But... therein lies the problem. If it's spacial, will it stand much chance of appearing in a modern Finder?

[MonkeyClaw]

This would be absolutely fantastic. I can see myself using this a lot especially with like papers that are due soon so I make their icons bigger for importance sake. Beautiful idea!

[chumsdock]

I want it a customizable view like "Light Table" in Aperture,

a slider to change the icon size will be ok, it also works for multiple files to change size.

It would be interesting. I don't think it will mess, you can switch to column or standard icon view anytime, after all.

[alexkent]

this is not a new feature for 10.5

this is actually a feature which used to be in old versions OSX but was removed.
it was never public, but there was a hack which enabled a submenu in the Finder which allowed you to set a size for each individual icon.
it was in 10.0 - 10.1 i think. then removed.

apple played with the idea and dropped it.

here is more info:
http://blog.kung-foo.tv/archives/000466.php

also i suspect the patent filing does not conflict with other OS's having multiple icon sizes. the patent is specific to having some systematic linking of item size with file importance.

[Mgkwho]

Look again. The collection of icons in the sketch do not give a cue to the third dimension. It features MacOS 8 application, document and folder icons of different sizes. However, the folders are of different sizes and orientations. Although it may be possible to use this this technique to simulate cues to the third dimension, it will take a lot more refinement than is displayed in the patent application. There was no attempt to do so here.

You idiot...he's speculating. Give them all a break.

This is not a new feature for 10.5

This is actually a feature which used to be in old versions OSX but was removed.
it was never public, but there was a hack which enabled a submenu in the Finder which allowed you to set a size for each individual icon.

Apple played with the idea and dropped it.

Again, it's just speculation. The title of this thread does not say 10.5 either. People are commenting on it being implemented in the future, yes, but because it was once in and taken out does NOT mean it can't be returned.

That's like saying features Microsoft promises and takes out, while there are traces found in the OS, will never return. There would go their whole SP1!!

Hey everyone! This website is called MacRumors, so you all should welcome speculating, whether you think it's a load of crock or not.

-=|Mgkwho

[/dev/toaster]

Does this really need a patent ? I have seen things like this before, its not anything really new. I don't think this justifies a patent. Then again, I am generally against software patents :D

[live4ever]

A visual representation of folder or file size would be cool where folders with more stuff in them would be fatter and documents with more pages would have an icon with more papers in it. Liquifile is a neat representation of a visual file browser.

[Avatar74]

Based on other patent filings as of late and the differences between patent diagrams and final execution (e.g. iPhone), including Piles which was a project that actually started in 1992, and some conversations I've had with a former Apple product engineer, I think it's possible that:

1. The diagrams aren't to be taken as a literal interpretation of the exact form in which the features may manifest. The diagrams are representative of a concept.

2. As potential integrations into Leopard in combination with Piles, Cover Flow and various other depth-oriented UI design factors, it's my opinion that Apple is migrating toward a platform that will be suitable for multitouch user interaction. The first devices to see a more full-blown functionality of this kind following iPhone are widely regarded by analysts to be in the Mobile Mac business unit that recently emerged at Apple.

3. The features described in the patent are disjointed.. Often Apple files patents on concepts without really expressing the larger product in which those concepts may take shape. This might even include omitting the various applications and OS panels in which this potentially contextual icon sizing may ultimately manifest... But that's how Apple is... they work on a concept and then design products around it.

[stealthman1]

also i suspect the patent filing does not conflict with other OS's having multiple icon sizes. the patent is specific to having some systematic linking of item size with file importance.
That's what I would guess too. Just like the finder knows 'top hits' icon functionality could use that intelligence as well, The OS could also look at your work history and resize icons based on how their content relates to what you're doing.

[MaxPower]

Its been mentioned before, but OSX used to h ave a hidden menu that allowed you to set the size of each icon on the desktop. There was even a haxie that enabled it without messing with resourcer:

http://www.pixture.com/software/macosx.php

IconSizeEnabler

[lalcan]

I'm pretty sure this was not in OS/2. I was an OS/2 user for almost 10 years and I never saw this. All of OS/2's icons were displayed at a single size, determined by the video driver (typically 32x32 for low resolutions or 40x40 for high resolutions. OS/2 1.3 used 64x64 for high resolutions.)

Being an OS/2 user from the 2.1 version up to eComStation i don't recall anything close to different icon sizes, aside from the normal/big ones... It did have animated icons as far as i remember... And a AmigaOS friend used to brag about the different icon sizes all the time, nowadays he's a diehard windows fan... how times change...

[guifa]

Presented for you consideration...

Imagine a *large* transparent icon where the click mask doesn't match the transparency.

Imagine placing it onto of other icons.

Imagine if it does something nefarious when opened.

At present any icon represented over 32x32 (perhaps the 48x48 is like 32x32 as well) has its click mask calculated based on the alpha channel of the image. Thus a transparent icon would be just that: transparent. You couldn't click on it unless you clicked on the text label underneath it.

[spotlight07]

Look again. The collection of icons in the sketch do not give a cue to the third dimension. It features MacOS 8 application, document and folder icons of different sizes. However, the folders are of different sizes and orientations. Although it may be possible to use this this technique to simulate cues to the third dimension, it will take a lot more refinement than is displayed in the patent application. There was no attempt to do so here.

True, but if I was Apple trying to hide a secret feature I'd obscure the patent filing as much as possible, even make it look like my old OS, but still protect my legal right to the idea/invention. Not saying that's what's been done, but that's what I'd do. I can see how this effect might be applied to Spotlight in Finder windows, just like the flashlight effect is used in System Prefs.

[TheSpaz]

I was thinking that what if you held down shift-option and your cursor would change into a pinching hand and you could drag and make the icon grow in size from the center and out. That would be soooo smooth. Imaging freaking your friends out with that one. I remember that Jaguar had a secret feature on the desktop where you could have multi sized icons.

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/19699

Does not work in Panther or Tiger but, if Apple does it, then it would work in Leopard!

[Mr. Amiga500]

I think the headline's a little misleading, my immediate thought was "AmigaOS" too. Changing it to "Individual icons dynamically sized" would probably be more descriptive.

Interestingly, it is an extension of an unrelated Amiga concept. The Amiga allowed files to not have icons at all. From AmigaOS 2 onwards, files with icons were displayed by default, and files without them were only shown if you selected "Window->View->All Files" from the menu. Generally, user created folders and documents had icons, whereas less important files didn't.

How is this related? Well, in practice, despite its origins as a disk saving hack, it made it easier to identify important files. Generally, the applications you'd want to run had icons. The word processor documents you wanted to open had icons. Things you needed had icons, the others didn't clutter your desktop unless you needed to see them.

And in that respect, I think that's the intention here. Your own files, representing stuff you work on every day, will have large icons. The metric butt-load of downloaded PDFs, application installers, etc, you download from the Internet will have much smaller ones. Stuff batch downloaded from your digital camera will appear, but it will be assumed you actually just want to see them in iPhoto, not your file system.

It's a much more spacial approach than the Amiga's (which isn't surprising because it's actually had some thought put into it in terms of "How is this useful", as opposed to the Amiga's "Damn it, the developers aren't giving icons to every file" rationale, that ended up being accidentally a really good thing.) But... therein lies the problem. If it's spacial, will it stand much chance of appearing in a modern Finder?

To elaborate, later versions of AmigaOS allowed each filetype to be defined with a default icon so even if an icon is not specifically made for a file, it can use the default one. Like all Amiga icons, the default can be made any size. So, for example all text file icons can be 400x400 and all folders 10x10 if you want. It doesn't even have to be consistent - 10 text files could each have different sized icons if you make individual icons. The great thing about AmigaOS is that every single icon for every single file, folder or application can be customized - in whatever size you want.

The icons are just not dynamically sizeable and I think that's what this patent is about.

[SteveG4Cube]

Not to sidestep the topic, but could this possibly lead to a dock-like feature where items within an open finder window magnify as you pass the mouse over them?

[guzhogi]

Interesting feature. Is it just me, or do the windows in the patent look like Mac OS 8/9 style windows?

One feature I'd like to see is a smart copy. That is, if you copy an item to a folder which has an item of the same name, it'll choose one of thse options:
-if they're the same file, justone is newer,use the new one (but be able to use the old version just in case)
-if it's the exact same file, ignore it
-if they're different files, just w/ the same name, add a "1" or something to the end of one of the items

I often get the "An item already exists with that name, do you want to replace?" message and it's really annoying.

[AutumnSkyline]

I think it would be cool to resize them, to just select it, then hit control+scroll, on the icon or whatever you have it set to.:cool:

[princealfie]

I gotta bigger icon than you do!

I can see people doing icon comparisons with their MBP's.

[Billy Boo Bob]

I could see it being useful if you could change what gets large icons and what gets small ones based on what mode (or maybe what mood) you're in... If you're in Graphic Design Mode, then make icons for images larger. If you're in Office mode, then have text and Word documents larger, etc... Maybe it'll be "while you're in a window, if you want to temp use it, press a certain key (combo)".

Perhaps setting up modes could be similar to setting up Spotlight custom searches?

Regardless, if it comes to exist and you don't like it, I'm sure you can turn it off. It cracks me up how some people act as if Apple would be forcing this upon you with no option but to use it.

[johnee]

boring....

[mcorange]

Thinking about it, the concept would work well in co-op with the piles interface. On second though, the whole idea of different sized icons is nothing new and wouldn't need a special mention to be incorporated into Piles....or would it?

And yes, I do fantasize about multitouch :apple:'s...

[peharri]

To elaborate, later versions of AmigaOS allowed each filetype to be defined with a default icon so even if an icon is not specifically made for a file, it can use the default one. Like all Amiga icons, the default can be made any size. So, for example all text file icons can be 400x400 and all folders 10x10 if you want. It doesn't even have to be consistent - 10 text files could each have different sized icons if you make individual icons. The great thing about AmigaOS is that every single icon for every single file, folder or application can be customized - in whatever size you want.

The icons are just not dynamically sizeable and I think that's what this patent is about.

That's not really what I was talking about. What I was saying was that the Amiga's failure to display files with icons by default became a useful feature (when Workbench 2 onward added the ability to "View All Files") because it made it easier to see "important" files without being bothered by system, etc, files, with those files visible if you actually needed to see them.

That's the supposed application of this feature. The idea is to use different sized icons (as opposed to icons that become visible if you select an option but are otherwise hidden by default) to distinguish between important (to the user) files, and files that are just there.

The Amiga's ability to display icons that have different sizes is a coincidence, and doesn't really have anything to do with the use of the functionality described here. Rather, the use of the functionality is closer to that of the "No .info, no default visibility" feature of Workbench.

[Maestro64]

I would not read too much into the GUI they use to represent the patent. Lawyers tend to use a standard templates in patent applications so not to reveal too much information about the exact nature of how the patent maybe implemented.

[Roc]

great idea. Makes me wonder why nobody has done this before - it seems so intuitive.

This has been done before here: http://www.pixture.com/software/macosx.php

I really liked that feature actually and wished they brought it back. If I am not mistaken it is/was actually a part of the OS in the earlier releases.

[inkswamp]

I like the theory behind this patent, but how to implement the resizing of icons intuitively, that's the hard part.

System control panel or Finder preferences would have options for setting icon sizes globally or on a per-Window basis (just like icon size settings are now.) It might also include more dynamic options like "more recently edited are bigger" or "applications are bigger" or whatever. Additionally, you can right-click on an individual icon which shows a contextual menu with a slider embedded that allows you to override the system-wide settings for a given single icon or group of selected icons.

[mozmac]

What's with the System 7 design of the patent? Was this an idea they came up with years ago but are just now deciding to use?

[inkswamp]

What's with the System 7 design of the patent? Was this an idea they came up with years ago but are just now deciding to use?

Surprise! Leopard is going retro. ;)

[Rocketman]

I just find it interesting the most prominent thing in the Apple patent filing is a logo for BBedit. Apple must like BBedit :)

Rocketman

[ErikGrim]

Can people READ here? Stop thinking this is
a) Something new
b) Something that will come in Leopard

This was an EXPERIMENTAL feature that was already implemented in early versions of OS X as far back as 10.0 and then subsequently dropped completely. It will probably never return as it made things more complicated, not less.

[guzhogi]

Can people READ here? Stop thinking this is
a) Something new
b) Something that will come in Leopard

This was an EXPERIMENTAL feature that was already implemented in early versions of OS X as far back as 10.0 and then subsequently dropped completely. It will probably never return as it made things more complicated, not less.

Where can we see that in 10.0? Plus why such a recent patent date and not in 2001 when Mac OS X was first released?

[WildCowboy]

Where can we see that in 10.0? Plus why such a recent patent date and not in 2001 when Mac OS X was first released?

Read the thread and your questions will be answered.

The patent application is originally from 2000. This is simply a divisional patent application derived from that one.

[Morky]

Eazel created a file manager for Gnome back during the internet bubble that has this feature, plus icons with text previews. It is now part of Gnome. Interestingly, Eazel was founded by Andy Hertzfeld, a core team member for the original 1984 Mac:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eazel

[inkhead]

This feature is already in Mac OS X 10.3.

A developer made an application that allowed you to customize the layout, it was really, really nice. However it was buggy.

Then in Mac OS X 10.4 the technology was taken out. Maybe they will bring it back in Leopard.

[slughead]

It's official: Apple's decided OS X wasn't working out so we're going back to System 6:
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/04/05/pantent-icon_300.gif

[Torajima]

How can Apple patent this? It's been available on Linux for YEARS.

[BlackDan]

So this could be like the icon-version of tag clouds?

Could be where they're headed with a new generation of finder: all search-based... no more folders in the traditional way, all smartfolders based on queries/tags

[scttwtkns]

I was thinking it looked like OS 6

[Mr. Amiga500]

That's not really what I was talking about. What I was saying was that the Amiga's failure to display files with icons by default became a useful feature (when Workbench 2 onward added the ability to "View All Files") because it made it easier to see "important" files without being bothered by system, etc, files, with those files visible if you actually needed to see them.

That's the supposed application of this feature. The idea is to use different sized icons (as opposed to icons that become visible if you select an option but are otherwise hidden by default) to distinguish between important (to the user) files, and files that are just there.

The Amiga's ability to display icons that have different sizes is a coincidence, and doesn't really have anything to do with the use of the functionality described here. Rather, the use of the functionality is closer to that of the "No .info, no default visibility" feature of Workbench.

Yes, I know what you were saying and I agree with it (that's why I quoted it). But the Amiga's ability to apply icons of different sizes does have something to do with the functionality described here. I regularly make big icons for main applications & important files and small icons for the less important, but related support application files and documents - in the same folder. (other files I don't need to click on have no icon)

[johnee]

I gotta bigger icon than you do!

I can see people doing icon comparisons with their MBP's.


and based on your avatar, is it plastic? :p :D (had to throw that out there)

[Bosunsfate]

Based on other patent filings as of late and the differences between patent diagrams and final execution (e.g. iPhone), including Piles which was a project that actually started in 1992, and some conversations I've had with a former Apple product engineer, I think it's possible that:

1. The diagrams aren't to be taken as a literal interpretation of the exact form in which the features may manifest. The diagrams are representative of a concept.

2. As potential integrations into Leopard in combination with Piles, Cover Flow and various other depth-oriented UI design factors, it's my opinion that Apple is migrating toward a platform that will be suitable for multitouch user interaction. The first devices to see a more full-blown functionality of this kind following iPhone are widely regarded by analysts to be in the Mobile Mac business unit that recently emerged at Apple.

3. The features described in the patent are disjointed.. Often Apple files patents on concepts without really expressing the larger product in which those concepts may take shape. This might even include omitting the various applications and OS panels in which this potentially contextual icon sizing may ultimately manifest... But that's how Apple is... they work on a concept and then design products around it.

I think you've made some very valid points.

IMO, I think this has more to do with a transformation of how you would interact with a full multi-touch device.

Minorty Report is only a few years away.;)

[CJD2112]

Does anyone notice that the diagram looks like OS9?

any reason why this is?

That was my first thought. Maybe an older patent Apple recently sent through for final approval, or maybe this is old information someone dug up and is misleading.

Personally, I don't see much of a big "oooo and awww" factor in varying icon sizes. Eh.

[Cult Follower]

This is interesting, but I want to know more about the new UI

[nxent]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Appleinsider points to (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2637) a recent patent application published from Apple which explores the use of different sized icons within one window. The relative size differences in the interface are said to reflect the relative importance of each icon.

Right now, users can globally change icon sizes in Mac OS X in all windows, but with the newly described system icon sizes could be used to adjusted based on user preference.



Apple's files patents for many ideas that are never actually implemented, but Apple's early multi-touch patents did first reveal technologies that made their way into the Apple iPhone.


uhh... seeing as how that window interface is from OS9 and before (yeh,,, OS9, as only recognizeable by the true mac fans... those who were around since the beginning :) ), this system can hardly be described as 'new'. i wouldn't be surprised if this was an innovation considered for the Newton.

[CJD2112]

Based on other patent filings as of late and the differences between patent diagrams and final execution (e.g. iPhone), including Piles which was a project that actually started in 1992, and some conversations I've had with a former Apple product engineer, I think it's possible that:

1. The diagrams aren't to be taken as a literal interpretation of the exact form in which the features may manifest. The diagrams are representative of a concept.

2. As potential integrations into Leopard in combination with Piles, Cover Flow and various other depth-oriented UI design factors, it's my opinion that Apple is migrating toward a platform that will be suitable for multitouch user interaction. The first devices to see a more full-blown functionality of this kind following iPhone are widely regarded by analysts to be in the Mobile Mac business unit that recently emerged at Apple.

3. The features described in the patent are disjointed.. Often Apple files patents on concepts without really expressing the larger product in which those concepts may take shape. This might even include omitting the various applications and OS panels in which this potentially contextual icon sizing may ultimately manifest... But that's how Apple is... they work on a concept and then design products around it.

Hmmm, so are you stating that varying icon size would be more indicative of a multi-touch user interface in that individual icons can be resized much like photographs and such may be through the multi-touch iPhone?

[CJD2112]

It's official: Apple's decided OS X wasn't working out so we're going back to System 6:
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/04/05/pantent-icon_300.gif

lol God, I don't miss the GUI of the older systems. The scrolling and sizing bars make my eyes hurt, it's too much going on now compared to the more streamlined Aqua and brushed metal/candy bar GUI (although an update wouldn't hurt, hint hint).

[EagerDragon]

My thoughts exactly. This patent must have been drawn up years ago and only recently went through.

Also possible they did not want to reveal too much of the new GUI and how these icons relate to the rest of the environment.

What about the device idependance capability? Does this not tie with that?

[MacFly123]

Ok this may sound dumb, but i LOVE how you can color code things in OS X. So is this really that complicated??? Just on a right click under Color Label, put Icon Size...

Color Label:
:) :mad: :D ;) :p :(
Icon Size:
Small Reg Large

That would be VERY simple and I would love it. Then you could resize according to your own preference. I wouldn't want it automatic or by file size, I think importance is much more relevant IMO.

[Highland]

How can Apple patent this? It's been available on Linux for YEARS.
And Amiga OS (since 1985 or something).

http://files.myopera.com/dpaint4/blog/OS_amiga_workbench.png
The image doesn't demonstrate it perfectly, but icons can be any size.

I guess this is more for something that's more dynamic...

[k2k koos]

wouldn't surprise me...maybe this is why they didn't release leopard as early as we all thought...however as someone else said it looks like they drew it years ago and maybe it just now passed

I guess, the real thing, with the help of CORE ANIMATION, may have a very natural feel to it :-)

Leopard , oh Leopard, where are you?

[iMeowbot]

Wouldn't this be an example of resolution independence?
Not really, it's based on the existing icon scaling. Sort of the same idea, but…not. :o
the patent is specific to having some systematic linking of item size with file importance.
Right.
So this could be like the icon-version of tag clouds?
Yes, you are barking up the right tree.
How can Apple patent this? It's been available on Linux for YEARS.
Count those years and look more closely at the implementations.
Can people READ here?
On MacRumors? You're kidding, right?

[Abstract]

Patent? is that necessary? don't be that greedy, this sort of thing does not deserve a patent.

I was thinking the same thing. Different sized icons do not deserve a patent. I guess that's why the previous makers of the apps that did this in OSX did not have a patent on this idea, as it's not even a real idea.

[freiheit]

This has been implemented for years in Gnome and if I remember correctly, also OS/2 implemented this in 2.0 version of the presentation manager 15 years ago.

Not on OS/2 but definitely on Amiga. I can't imagine why I would ever want multi-sized icons, but if I had the ability I might find a reason (kind of like how I never thought I'd use up a 320gig hard drive when all I had was a 9gig).

[nomore]

Amiga...

...check this screenshot: http://www.tfh-berlin.de/~s718468/img/iconset2.jpg (recognise the icons) lol

[shigzeo]

Don't look at the illustration as being flat. What if this were a 3 dimensional interface... not bigger and smaller icons, but CLOSER and more DISTANT icons!!! Look at Front Row and the Apple TV interface. Very similar!

Maybe this is the big SECRET in Leopard - moving through, in and around your icons to manage things or gain feedback!

Cool!

well, id rather that apple stick to a nice and simple design, not try to throw together interface jus to have an interface that is advanced. it has inconsistencies, but there is a reason that it is the most copied of interfaces on internet.

it is elegant, simple and does what it needs to. diff size of icons is good, but getting carried away by having game developers develop an gui is about as bad as it gets...

[akadmon]

And this is supposed to warrant a patent? :eek: :confused: :rolleyes:

Actually, I don't care -- I've always used the list view. It's the fastes, most effiecent way to work with folders/files.

Move on folks.

[motulist]

Patent? is that necessary? don't be that greedy, this sort of thing does not deserve a patent.

Don't hate the player, hate the game.

Our patent system in America is out of whack. Imagine if Apple didn't patent this, then used the feature in its OS, then someone else comes along claiming they thought of the idea first and receives a patent on it due to prior work they did on the Amiga OS, then they sue the pants off Apple. You can't blame Apple for trying to patent every little software idea they think about implementing, you have to blame the patent system that gives patents out willy nilly.

[sdf]

I don't think this will happen; Apple went another route, hiding unimportant implementation files in bundles.

[cgc]

Wow, someone pulling out the Amiga screenshots. I still have an Amiga 3k in the closet. Maybe that Apple Patent is using a Rhapsodized GUI :) I see no benefit to move to a variable icon size interface.

[iJawn108]

Please Apple team up with Sun and give us leopard with something like looking-glass and piles and this. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXv8VlpoK_g

[wankey]

That's just pointless.

Wow, my icon is 50x bigger than my other icon, it must be more important. That's gonna be a organizing nightmare and that's never how a real desktop is presented (do you put your important documents in a bigger folder?)

There should just be a different type of folder icon that's more "important" looking than others.

[wankey]

Please Apple team up with Sun and give us leopard with something like looking-glass and piles and this. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXv8VlpoK_g

Looking glass is 100% eye candy a 1% usefulness.

Same with the whole wobble effect and the 3D cube effect in Beryl.

Looks nice but not really useful.

Though I must say the attaching notes to backs of websites can be useful. But I just use pencil and paper when I do research lol.

[peharri]

That's just pointless.

Wow, my icon is 50x bigger than my other icon, it must be more important. That's gonna be a organizing nightmare and that's never how a real desktop is presented (do you put your important documents in a bigger folder?)

There should just be a different type of folder icon that's more "important" looking than others.

It's not pointless. In every folder there are some files that are more significant than others, and users do not, generally, like spending hours making new folders and moving files to them, especially if you're trying to collect related files in one place.

If you're creating a document, for instance, the chances are you want things like the images and notes to be in the same place as the document itself, and probably the output (as HTML, PDF, etc) there too. It's intuitive. All of these are related, why should you spend ages building sub-folders and patiently moving stuff to and from them?

At the same time though, you don't want to open the folder and immediately have to look through a hundred similar looking icons to find the actual Document.

In a spacial environment, with this feature enabled, you can easily organize the folder so there are no scrollbars and everything is right there. The support files would be clustered together and fairly small. The output files, the ones taking the final published form of the document, HTML, PDF, etc, would be larger and clustered together. Alternative versions of the main document would also be larger and clustered together, arranged in a row. And finally, the document itself, the thing you're most likely to want to edit, that would have the largest icon, right there in the middle of the window representing the folder.

Myself, I think a more interesting technology would be one that makes all of this automatic. Anything dragged into the window would have one, very small, size, and clustered with other dragged-in files. The Word Processor would use settings associated with the folder to set the icon of the main document to be "Main document" size and located somewhere in the middle. It would also cluster the outputted publishable files and set their size, as it would back-ups and alternate-versions.

It's an interesting technology that could be very, very, useful, if the UI to it is sensibly written.

[shamino]

Please Apple team up with Sun and give us leopard with something like looking-glass and piles and this. :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXv8VlpoK_g
We have some pieces of this, but definitely not system-wide. For instance iTunes CoverFlow mode looks very much like Sun's CD-selector. The flipping-windows-over is the standard way for Dashboard widgets to reveal their configuration controls.

Right now, Apple can't go that far, because they are still supporting older Macs (like G3s and many G4s) that don't have very powerful video chipsets. So any 3D features must either be optional or be designed to the lowest common denominator.

With Leopard, this might start to change. If the rumors are correct, and it drops support for G3 systems, then that means Apple can assume a higher amount of horsepower (both in the CPU and in the GPU).

To do something like Looking Glass, however, I suspect the system would require a GPU with hardware 3D, so nothing below a GeForce 3MX would be sufficient - meaning incompatibility with 3/4 of the G4 systems sold. I don't think Apple will do this (at least not as the One True Way of running the system) until OS X becomes Intel-only - meaning it won't happen in 10.5.

But I've been proven wrong before....

BTW, It's amusing that Sun's 3D desktop is called Looking Glass. Looking Glass was also the name of a very early desktop/launcher/control panel application for UNIX/X11 systems. (LG was produced by the now-defunct Visix Software. It was bundled with many UNIX platforms in its day, including DEC Ultrix and Novell/Caldera's Linux distribution.)

[bretm]

That's just pointless.

Wow, my icon is 50x bigger than my other icon, it must be more important. That's gonna be a organizing nightmare and that's never how a real desktop is presented (do you put your important documents in a bigger folder?)

There should just be a different type of folder icon that's more "important" looking than others.

Some of the key elements in graphic design (the art of visual communication) is size, spatial relationships and color. Saying size is useless is like saying color labels are useless.

In my biz, we often have a folder containing a document. The document relies on supporting files for it's content. Those files are not meant to be opened on their own neccessarily. Making one file much larger (the main doc) obviously draws your eye to it first. Second you may read it's tag "open me first" or something like that which validates your eye's choice. You open it.

Colors could be used in this instance, but you'd have to figure out the color codes. Sub folders could be used, but they beg the question "maybe something important is in there?"

All methods have their place. The more options the greater the chance for clear graphic communication.

[bretm]

That's just pointless.

Wow, my icon is 50x bigger than my other icon, it must be more important. That's gonna be a organizing nightmare and that's never how a real desktop is presented (do you put your important documents in a bigger folder?)

There should just be a different type of folder icon that's more "important" looking than others.

I would more likely write REAL BIG on it something like "IMPORTANT STUFF - DONT THROW AWAY"

Notice, I would not write really small - "important stuff, don't throw away" because logically, I know someone would be more likely to see the LARGE sign or moniker, not the tiny one. Duh.

In a true spatial environment like your desk, size is acutally related to quantity and may still draw the eye, but can also be ingored because of other variables. Proximity, color, lighting, smell, you name it.

You walk up to a building. Do you choose the big double doors with the logo above them straight ahead, or do you try the small unmarked door to the side?

[Rocketman]

Did I find a typo in the patent application itself?

Patent Application 4-5-07 US 2007/0079255 A1

Sheet 5 of 5

Box: Open incon sizing application 15 (~510)

Rocketman

tagged

[twoodcc]

this seems cool.....we'll see if it's in Leopard

[angelsevov]

Its been mentioned before, but OSX used to h ave a hidden menu that allowed you to set the size of each icon on the desktop. There was even a haxie that enabled it without messing with resourcer:

http://www.pixture.com/software/macosx.php

IconSizeEnabler

ohh yes i remmber i used this feature when jaguar installed. it was greate

[NoAverageJoe]

The description of the icons reminded me of the tag clouds you see at flicr, del.icio.us, etc., where the more an item is tagged, the larger it appears in the cloud. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tag_cloud)

This could be very cool if we would start tagging our files (I think you can already using the spotlight comments). That, in combination with how frequently we access a file could determine the relative sizes of the icons.

This would be a super cool feature in iPhoto as well. Where the thumbnails for photos you view frequently would bubble to the top and be larger, and the thumbnails for photos you don't view often would be smaller and on the bottom.

Really looking forward to 10.5!

Joe

[jessica.]

its good, right now finder's image thumbnail is horrible.
But
Patent? is that necessary? don't be that greedy, this sort of thing does not deserve a patent.

I could not agree with you more. The idea behind this doesn't really appease me, but it seems there is a nice mixture of people who would find this otherwise a great feature. I find that in the event I think something is important I give it a color. Nothing else really. I also rarely use the icon layout, rather I use the list layout. If this feature affects the list layout icons as well I would think the different sized icons would otherwise annoy me after the thrill of having yet another new OS X feature at the tip of my fingers.

[rowensiv]

that would be cool, but it looks like an os 9 interface, instead of the new "3 dot" interface in os x

[clevin]

so is apple trying to patent this?
http://img392.imageshack.us/img392/2941/screenshotuc2.png

[bibimbap]

great idea. Makes me wonder why nobody has done this before - it seems so intuitive.

Looks like Jobs is pulling a "Konfabulator" again.

Check out the Bump-top interface, they've been doing this for a while:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ODskdEPnQ

m.

http://comingupforair.net

[shamino]

Looks like Jobs is pulling a "Konfabulator" again.

Check out the Bump-top interface, they've been doing this for a while:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ODskdEPnQ
It's a fascinating UI concept, but you can hardly call variable-scaling icons a rip-off of it. That is only one minuscule piece of Bump-top. One that is almost insignificant in comparison to the rest.

By your logic, a round patio block is a rip-off of an automobile, because cars have round things in them.

[dominicansrul93]

I think this is useless. Maybe instead it could represent how frequently it is used.

[TheSpaz]

Looks like Jobs is pulling a "Konfabulator" again.

Check out the Bump-top interface, they've been doing this for a while:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0ODskdEPnQ

m.

http://comingupforair.net

Umm... how does a 3D file manager have anything to do with adjusting the size of icons individually? Another thing is... I use a computer so I don't have to deal with documents just scattered all over my desk, why on earth would I want that on my computer as well? It just seems like such a stupid idea... sure, it's cool looking but, I'd much rather have organization than some sort of 3D file chaos like Bump-Top. I really hope Apple isn't taking the Bump-Top route because that would completely defeat the purpose of having a computer to organize your files. Also, who would want files laying on top of files? I like to open a folder and see all of my files in it without having to drag my mouse around and try to find a file that's hidden in a stack. It all just seems like stupidity really. I'm the type of person that likes to use my mouse as very little as possible by using keyboard commands so that it's less work for my hands.

[BlackDan]

Umm... how does a 3D file manager have anything to do with adjusting the size of icons individually? Another thing is... I use a computer so I don't have to deal with documents just scattered all over my desk, why on earth would I want that on my computer as well? It just seems like such a stupid idea... sure, it's cool looking but, I'd much rather have organization than some sort of 3D file chaos like Bump-Top. I really hope Apple isn't taking the Bump-Top route because that would completely defeat the purpose of having a computer to organize your files. Also, who would want files laying on top of files? I like to open a folder and see all of my files in it without having to drag my mouse around and try to find a file that's hidden in a stack. It all just seems like stupidity really. I'm the type of person that likes to use my mouse as very little as possible by using keyboard commands so that it's less work for my hands.

I agree. though it's starting to get off topic here: it's obvious (to me) that the next-generation of file managers will be solely based on search and tagging of files. Just like Gmail... whatever the new GUI will be it will be built around these ideas as well.

[shamino]

I agree. though it's starting to get off topic here: it's obvious (to me) that the next-generation of file managers will be solely based on search and tagging of files. Just like Gmail... whatever the new GUI will be it will be built around these ideas as well.
... Which will ultimately justify the late Jef Raskin's vision that he was trying to promote, with little success, for over 20 years.

[jellomizer]

Apple really became patent-fanatic. I guess they don't want 1984 to repeat itself.

And/Or they don't want to get into legal battles with Microsoft and other companies that patent every little thing. This really shouldn't be something that should be patented. But if Apple is going to use it they better patent it before someone else does. So they don't get a competitor fighting with them.

[twoodcc]

i think apple can pull it off and make it work