Aqua To See Leopard Refresh?

[matticus008]

In other words, something is consistent when it acts as is expected.

The Windows keyboard shortcuts are not consistent, even by your definition. The only part that's consistent is the indicator for the shortcut (and it should be noted that this is exactly the same on a Mac: keyboard shortcuts are always identified to the right of the menu option, and the same symbols are used throughout).

I also don't see how this requires memorization. You keep saying that you need to "memorize" the shortcuts, but you clearly don't: you just need to look at the underline to see which letter corresponds to which menu item. That seems to me like exactly what GUIs are designed to do.

The only reason to use keyboard shortcuts is to use them from memory. If you have to look them up each time, you're better off using the mouse. The GUI was designed to take away the reliance on memorizing commands and keystrokes. The fact that they're visually identified is simply a convenient side effect.

Memorization would suggest there would be no visual indication of what to do

No, memorization can't happen if you don't have a visual cue at all. That would be intuition. Memorization is the mechanism which makes using keyboard shortcuts functional. Again, if you're interacting with menus visually and looking at the various entries, there's no functional purpose (personal preference is not 'functional') to using the keyboard shortcuts--the mouse is by definition equally useful in this case, except for people with coordination issues.

 

[BillyShears]

The Windows keyboard shortcuts are not consistent, even by your definition. The only part that's consistent is the indicator for the shortcut (and it should be noted that this is exactly the same on a Mac: keyboard shortcuts are always identified to the right of the menu option, and the same symbols are used throughout).

OK, I see what you mean here, but it's not "exactly the same" on a Mac. There's no indicator on a Mac. How do I open the "Bookmarks" menu with just the keyboard? On Windows I could look up, see the underlined "B" and figure it out. On a Mac I'd have to press some key to access the menu (I forget which), then press the "right arrow" until I get to the menu item.

Also I think you are downplaying the value of a consistent indicator. The whole GUI seems to be an "indicator" to me.

The GUI was designed to take away the reliance on memorizing commands and keystrokes. The fact that they're visually identified is simply a convenient side effect.

Yes, the GUI was designed to take away reliance on memorization, but I don't see how that proves your point. It seems to prove mine, since, according to you, "memorization can't happen if you don't have a visual cue at all."

Again, if you're interacting with menus visually and looking at the various entries, there's no functional purpose (personal preference is not 'functional') to using the keyboard shortcuts--the mouse is by definition equally useful in this case, except for people with coordination issues.

This is wrong. It's faster to look at the menu, and hit Alt+b then to take my hand off the keyboard and use the mouse. Furthermore, there's plenty of good reasons not to use a mouse. Some people prefer it to reduce strain on their wrist. On a laptop, lots of people don't like trackpads. People with problems with motor skills sometimes don't use the mouse.

How is personal preference not "functional", anyway? If it works better for some people, then it's a better solution for them.

And it's not like you couldn't memorize the shortcut key. For example I've memorized that Alt+B in Firefox opens the bookmarks menu. What's the OS X alternative here?

 

[MacVault]

I sure hope we get a new UI now with Leopard because I surely don't want to wait another 2 years before the next upgrade to OS X before we get a better UI.

Does anyone know how I can self-induce hybernation until January 9th?

Come, Macworld! Come!

 

[matticus008]

OK, I see what you mean here, but it's not "exactly the same" on a Mac. There's no indicator on a Mac.

Pull down any menu. See all the shortcuts listed there, right on the display?

How do I open the "Bookmarks" menu with just the keyboard? On Windows I could look up, see the underlined "B" and figure it out.

Only if you know to use the Alt key and know that the underline means a keyboard shortcut. What's the difference between that and knowing that control-f2 gets you to the menus on a Mac, other than it's a two-key shortcut instead of one?

Also I think you are downplaying the value of a consistent indicator. The whole GUI seems to be an "indicator" to me.

...An indicator of what? There is immense value in consistency, but the upper hand here is clearly with OS X--there is a set of consistent, universal keyboard shortcuts, and if applications need additional ones, they extend the set, but unlike Windows, do not replace the core set and upset consistency. The fact that Windows visually marks the keyboard shortcuts (usually) is simply a result of that lack of shortcut consistency. You don't need underlines on a Mac, because you use the arrow keys.

Is menu navigation on Windows faster than a Mac? Yes, but aside from word processors and communications programs, almost all modern software is interface-driven. I don't spend any time resting my hands on the keyboard in Firefox unless I'm typing.

Yes, the GUI was designed to take away reliance on memorization, but I don't see how that proves your point. It seems to prove mine, since, according to you, "memorization can't happen if you don't have a visual cue at all."

You're leaving out the contrast with intuition. It doesn't matter where the visual cue is (in a manual, in a --help option, or on the screen), so long as it exists as a convention somewhere. If you sat through an OS X tutorial, you'd have all the visual cues you need.

Some people prefer it to reduce strain on their wrist. On a laptop, lots of people don't like trackpads.

Personal preferences are not functional purposes, they're preferential by definition, and I already mentioned coordination issues.

I don't have a great stake in this, and I'm not going to debate this at length; I only posted because you had some clear misconceptions about what consistency means.

 

[MarkCollette]

What's the difference between that and knowing that control-f2 gets you to the menus on a Mac, other than it's a two-key shortcut instead of one?

Sweet! I didn't know that. Thanks.

 

[brianus]

Pull down any menu. See all the shortcuts listed there, right on the display?

Um, Windows has those too. And they're mostly consistent across apps, as on OS X. Or hadn't you noticed? The Alt+underlined letter tyhing is an *additional* facility intended for menu navigation; it complements the Mac-style keyboard shortcuts that have always been present in Windows. And it is a needed complement, both because many users are engaging in keyboard-centric work, and because it's difficult for anyone to memorize all but a handful of shortcuts.

Only if you know to use the Alt key and know that the underline means a keyboard shortcut. What's the difference between that and knowing that control-f2 gets you to the menus on a Mac, other than it's a two-key shortcut instead of one?

The use of the arrow keys here imposes an additional penalty, the number of key taps depending on how far away the menu is from the apple menu, and then how far the menu item in question is from the top. In Windows, the number of keys required is equal to the number of menus involved, plus one. It is faster at navigation, and in that sense, superior. The letters underlined are not themselves consistent, nor are they supposed to be, and neither do they have to be (again, Windows HAS Mac-style shortcuts for that purpose); the purpose of Alt+underline is fast menu navigation.

...An indicator of what? There is immense value in consistency, but the upper hand here is clearly with OS X--there is a set of consistent, universal keyboard shortcuts, and if applications need additional ones, they extend the set, but unlike Windows, do not replace the core set and upset consistency.

Again you are misinformed: OS X has no advantage here, since Windows has the same concept with its Ctrl- and Windows Key- shortcuts.

Is menu navigation on Windows faster than a Mac? Yes, but aside from word processors and communications programs, almost all modern software is interface-driven. I don't spend any time resting my hands on the keyboard in Firefox unless I'm typing.

That's you, and your programs. Many of us are in a different situation where the keyboard is king, and having to go back to the mouse all the time to get to a menu item whose shortcut we can't possibly remember is arduous. I'm not talking about the obvious, well known shortcuts here of course. But there are innumerable instances, in both OS X and Windows, of identical "non-core" menu item functions using different shortcuts in different programs (ex: "Go to Line" in a programmer's text editor); also, many menu items simply have no shortcut. So it's very helpful when typing furiously to have effective and fast menu navigation from the keyboard. Windows just happens to do it a little better.

I only posted because you had some clear misconceptions about what consistency means.

Sorry, your preferred paradigm doesn't have some sort of a monopoly on this concept. If every Windows program uses the underline paradigm, that is consistency of behavior. If every program also uses Ctrl-C to mean "Copy", that is another form of consistency.

 

[bousozoku]

Um, Windows has those too. And they're mostly consistent across apps, as on OS X. Or hadn't you noticed? The Alt+underlined letter tyhing is an *additional* facility intended for menu navigation; it complements the Mac-style keyboard shortcuts that have always been present in Windows. And it is a needed complement, both because many users are engaging in keyboard-centric work, and because it's difficult for anyone to memorize all but a handful of shortcuts.
...

Mostly being the key word here. Some applications are staying with the age old keyboard shortcuts that were the foundation for IBM's CUA (Common User Access) in 1989. Is Control-Delete cut or copy? Maybe it's Shift-Delete. F10 probably still gets you to the menu the way Control-F2 does on Mac OS X--I haven't tried it for a while.

Alt-F4 and Control-F4 used to have separate, well-defined functionality to close an application and close windows, respectively but now they're used inconsistently.

Apple does have consistency but when they updated the Human Interface Guidelines for Mac OS X, they failed to update the keyboard shortcuts and since then, software vendors have gone their own way in some cases but it's still more logical than Windows.

 

[stcanard]

The use of the arrow keys here imposes an additional penalty, the number of key taps depending on how far away the menu is from the apple menu, and then how far the menu item in question is from the top.

But the point of the menu navigation is for people who can't remember the direct shortcut. So going to a simpler approach makes more sense -- anyone can figure out how to use the arrow keys. If somebody doesn't consistently remember control-K is "Block popups" you can be relatively certain they aren't going to be typing Alt-S-B

Again you are misinformed: OS X has no advantage here, since Windows has the same concept with its Ctrl- and Windows Key- shortcuts.

I think you're missing the point -- the point is that in OSX there is a very well defined standard of shortcut keys, that is missing in Windows. Windows has a few, ctrl-c/ctrl-v come to mind, and beyond that it gets very sketchy (ever tried to search / replace -- every application has it in a different menu, let alone different shortcut).

Sure there are a few programs in OSX, mostly by companies that are known to really not care about the interface standard (<ahem> Microsoft and Adobe, yes, I'm looking at you) but OSX has a far more consistent set of shortcut keys than Windows does. Any application I touch I know Command-q is going to quit it -- you tell me what quits an application in Windows. Alt-f-x is about the most consistent I can come up with.

 

[matticus008]

That's you, and your programs. Many of us are in a different situation where the keyboard is king, and having to go back to the mouse all the time to get to a menu item whose shortcut we can't possibly remember is arduous.

Actually, it's not me. I make use of the keyboard extensively. But I also make use of the terminal extensively, and I'm comfortable learning the keyboard shortcuts I need to know. But most people aren't like that, and more to the point, OS X is a mouse-driven interface. It allows for keyboard navigation wholly and consistently, minimizing any amount of learning on the user's end.

There's no direct jump to the "History" menu, because not every application has one. Every application has menus, though, and you get to them the exact same way. There's nothing stopping anyone from adding direct-jump shortcuts to applications (other than the fact that they're pointless, since individual actions have direct shortcuts and navigating nested menus is faster with the mouse because the mouse and the eye tracks in harmony). If you're switching between the mouse and the keyboard, it takes a fraction of a second longer, but the interruption itself (to use an application option) is what is most disruptive to the workflow. The movement is also helpful in avoiding repetitive stress injuries. There are good reasons why keyboard navigation should be discouraged (keyboards themselves are designed to limit typing speeds, so it's not unprecedented). OS X's interface is quite well thought-out, and not just because Apple did it.

I'm not going to repeat what other posters have (validly) replied to the rest of your post.

 

[stcanard]

OS X's interface is quite well thought-out, and not just because Apple did it.

I actually noticed something quite interesting recently--

My home system has been OSX for about 3 years. I do a lot of work from home, so I use that quite extensively in a "work" manner.

For the last year my primary system at work has been a Linux laptop (Ubuntu, switching between Gnome and KDE).

Prior to that for 3 years my primary work system was Windows XP.

Using all 3 of these OS's extensively, for the same tasks, I have discovered that OSX is actually the least mouse dependent! I was actually quite surprised when I realized that I spend more time on the mouse in Windows than I did on OSX, and found there were a large number of things that were keyboard accessible on OSX:

Application launching (either through spotlight or Quicksilver)
New windows / documents
Closing windows and applications
_task switching_ (emphasized because it is so much easier on OSX)
Searching (spotlight again)

Plus, a lot of the basic functions because the shortcut keys are so standardized.

Windows fails, because for so many of these core functions there is no easy shortcut, sure I can copy and paste, but if I want to launch OpenOffice in OSX its <command><space>open<command><enter> -- to do the same thing in Windows, it would be <windows-key> then a lot of arrows, and maybe some letters to jump to menus. Easier to just go to the mouse.

Linux fails because there is a complete, utter, and total lack of a standard in the shortcuts. Its funny, because you expect Linux to be a keyboard jockey's heaven, but it isn't since you have to memorize so much.

Somewhat related, there is a measurable increase in productivity when I'm on OSX -- my friends notice because they get more daytime email from me (and have taken to guessing when I'm working from home, when I'm working from work, with almost complete accuracy). But at the same time I'm putting in the same amount, to more, work.

It all comes down to the ease of task switching, and nothing handles that like OSX, especially from the keyboard. Exposé, command-tab, and dashboard are an amazing combo.

 

[MV103]

The UI will look like Aperture

Just launch Aperture & you have a glimpse of what the UI is going to look like. Nope, I've not seen it, but trust me on this, thats what it will look like =)

 

[matticus008]

Using all 3 of these OS's extensively, for the same tasks, I have discovered that OSX is actually the least mouse dependent! I was actually quite surprised when I realized that I spend more time on the mouse in Windows than I did on OSX, and found there were a large number of things that were keyboard accessible on OSX:

One thing I'd like to see adopted from KDE is the ability to use the number pad to move the pointer across the screen. For people who can't use the mouse, it's much appreciated to be able to position the mouse pointer directly rather than having to rely on Tab or knowing shortcuts. For most of us, it's a fun novelty for a few minutes which is ultimately impractical because it's nowhere near as fast as the mouse or keyboard directly...but for the less manueverable of us, it could speed up computer use considerably.

 

[Panu]

VNC as a Remote Desktop Client

1. It's there. Go to System Preferences > Sharing and turn on Apple Remote Desktop. That's just Apple's implementation of VNC. Download any VNC client and you're set.

It sounded fantastic, so I tried it but it doesn't work. I presume that the Mac automatically opens the right port on its own firewall, but it won't work within my LAN. I presume I have to open a port on my router and redirect it to the Mac so that I can access it from the internet, but I don't know which port it uses.

Or is there something else I'm missing?

 

[FACT]

Spy Shots!

HEY EVERYONE I JUST FOUND SOME *spy* SCREENSHOTS OF THE NEW, BLACK MAC OS LEOPARD!

 

[Diatribe]

HEY EVERYONE I JUST FOUND SOME *spy* SCREENSHOTS OF THE NEW, BLACK MAC OS LEOPARD!

Hope you don't get in trouble for posting this.

 

[evercross]

from their site:

“Apple continues to gloss over the interface, refining it even more and there is an overly presence of black gloss.”

An overly presence?? Thats not even english.

I could maybe see a black theme for the menubar and menus, with all the aluminium stuff left as-is. Like another theme, like the rest of the black/white thing apple has going on. I dont think it'll be a radical redesign though.

like this....

It's off topic but can I know the name of the Icon set used for this screenshot ? It looks awesome

 

[After G]

It sounded fantastic, so I tried it but it doesn't work. I presume that the Mac automatically opens the right port on its own firewall, but it won't work within my LAN. I presume I have to open a port on my router and redirect it to the Mac so that I can access it from the internet, but I don't know which port it uses.

Or is there something else I'm missing?

You have to click the Access Privileges button and enable VNC access. And it's port 5900.

 

[freedevil]

It's off topic but can I know the name of the Icon set used for this screenshot ? It looks awesome

What theme is that and that bg is pimp too.

 

[webraider]

Most of Apple's pro apps use a darker UI, which I find more pleasing and less strenuous on the eye.

I've tried UNO and ShapeShifter to apply a darker theme to the general OS, and largely have been pleased with my hacks to change the Aqua interface a little darker so it isn't as lickable. Aqua is so 2000. pfft

Illuminous (name and concept) sounds like a worthy successor to Aqua from what I've read, so far. It's time for a UI change anyway, so I'm giving this rumour a 7/10.

Um.. A Color Change is NOT a UI change. A User Interface is HOW the User interacts with the computer. OS X's UI has never been as intuitive as OS 9 and earlier. I would love to see Apple return to a simpler (but effective) UI. IT is possible to design that.

 

[webraider]

Yes! WAY YES! The Program Files menu is way better than having to open a finder window to open an application/program, and the dock is just intrusive and breaks the whole "smoothness" of the Desktop.

I wish Apple would take on the enterprise market but I think the OS X UI is one thing that needs to first be fixed in order to work for the enterprise mkt. The current OS X UI does not lend itself well to an enterprise/integrated/feature rich world where UI conventions need to be more consistent, intuitive, etc. This is where Windows XP/Vista excels. Take browsing for networks for example in OS X, or setting up file sharing, printers, etc. The OS X UI for these things is HORRIBLE-designed, inconsistent, etc.

The REASON windows has a start menu list to open applications is because it was the ONLY feasible way Microsoft could do it. It's hard for a typical Windows user to find the "Actual" application to launch. They thus rely on short-cuts or a menu to do it.

Apple didn't need one because they've always set-up their hard drive to be EASY to navigate. The icon for the program is in the Apps folder. It is ONE icon (it actually is a bundle of many files called a package). The file is in English (aka.. no Word.exe). It's simply "Microsoft Word". If you don't like the name you can change it to whatever you like. To me.. the Mac is WAY more intuitive than windows in this respect. Thus if you want to delete the program, you drag it to the trash. With the exception of preferences and what not, this is for the most part true. You can also move your apps to other folders if you want. If you want a start menu.. just drag your apps folder to the dock to make it a stack, change the view option to "List"! You now have a start folder.

 

[trekkie604]

Holy crap, old thread Batman!