jchen said:...Some folks just can't take it when a woman in the tech industry has a perspective and can articulate it with complete, well formed sentences to thousands of readers. Women are often dissed and dismissed by the male dominated techno-nerds of Macdom...
It is inappropriate for you to assume that I was "dissing" the article because I'm a sexist. How did my original comment have anything to with women writers? Yes, Mac360 is run by Tera and this article happened to be written by her, but there have been other columns from Mac360 NOT written by her that I have also not cared for. It is my *opinion* that the article was "useless" because it's main premise (that Search is not important) is not well argued. Let's take another look at the article . .jchen said:Most folks won't use search of any kind. They just click all over the place trying to find files, email, documents. Apple is trying to make an application for search integral to the OS. That's a good goal. What the article is stating, as I see it, is human nature will prevail no matter how elegant the technology. As to rikers_mailbox, human nature prevails, bud. Some folks just can't take it when a woman in the tech industry has a perspective and can articulate it with complete, well formed sentences to thousands of readers. Women are often dissed and dismissed by the male dominated techno-nerds of Macdom. While everyone would like to be entitled to an opinion, some opinions are worth reading, most are not. Simply stating that something is "useless" without providing any reasons, alternative perspectives, or justification is, well, useless.
This statement is irrelevant. The point of Spotlight is that average users will no longer need to focus on organizing files. Spotlight is an enabling technology, meaning that it helps to find files and to keep them organized through the use of Smart Folders.Mac360.com said:(Spotlight) wont help us organize our files any better than we do now.
Wrong. Most internet users *begin* with a search with, for example, Google and then "keep clicking." What's missing is an effective search engine to begin a file search on a local harddrive. Searching a harddrive is analogous to searching the internet, which explains why Google beat both Apple and Microsoft to the punch with their (Beta) Google Desktop Search. They had the technology developed and only needed to apply it differently. Look at Google's $40 Billion Enterprise Value and tell me that search engines are not important.Mac360.com said:Most Internet users find things on the Internet the same way. Keep clicking.
Ziiiing. Good burn.jchen said:Are you a native English speaker?
Finally, something we can agree on. Spotlight does, at the very least, reduce the 'clicking around.'jchen said:. . . the "human" factor involved in search. Users "find" things by clicking around. That's not likely to change too soon.
You should set up a poll on BabeTaxi. Let the readers decide. (ah, there goes my sexist side again)jchen said:. . . mine are real, but not spectacular.
tpatricks said:...it's an "opinion" piece, guys. MY opinion. Tera Patricks, Honolulu, HI. So there. I've received six email messages on this board topic already. I'm as real now as I've ever been.
The whole point is that "Search" is shaping up as another Apple feature battle with Microsoft. A good search tool is certainly needed because most hard drives are so big they let us keep everything and with that much space finding important files becomes more tedious and frustrating. The human nature element should be obvious. We don't change behavior too quickly, despite the advancement of the technology. How many Windows users still "double click" on browser links? Plenty. Will Spotlight change how we organize files? Probably not. Will it help our poor file organization habits? Perhaps for those willing to stop clicking all over the place and learn how to search properly.
BTW - I visit MacBytes a few times each day because the list of links is selective, most commentary sticks to topic despite writers without the ability to formulate a thought much longer than "useless," and the interchange is often worthwhile, thought provoking. Dashiel, you obviously don't know squat about writing style. Being akin to Paul Thurott is an insult, frankly. Shame on you for stooping that low. Chances are very good I've used Macs longer than you. And, finally, as Teri Hatcher said to Jerry Seinfeld, "By the way. They're real, and they're spectacular."
Well... then why did you click on the link? It clearly says Mac360 on it. That's why I clicked on it, I kinda like some of those articles. They aren't all great, but I like the style, even when Tera herself doesn't write them. Good for you Tera for coming here to put the whiners in their places. Same thing with the searching thing. If you don't use it... great, you don't have to. But it's still there when you need it. I for one search all the time, despite having pretty well organized folders. I thought it was ok before, but Spotlight looks like exactly what I've been missing. Like Expose is for Panther. Sorry Tera, but I disagree with you there. The article wasn't bad though, because it made some good points for those who don't search.rikers_mailbox said:Why must *all* the Mac360.com columns be posted to MacBytes? This one is the same as the last. . . useless.
Sorry to be so blunt, but I'm not a big fan of these articles.
A display of credentials isn't required to recognize that lots and lots of people experience the frustrations described in that article. Real people in the real world complain about it. The tools included today may theoretically be capable of all sorts of amazing things, but none of that matters if good results elude people in real life.dashiel said:what exactly are tera's credentials? does she have a degree in information architecture? interaction design? human factors? psychology? where's the research to show that people are unlucky with google search?
It's not the same writing style exactly, but you do have similar tastes. I saw a hint of that humor in your Jack's last article, thought maybe that was the side job he had mentioned on AtAT. Compliments to both though, always try to catch up when I have the spare time. Didn't mean to come off rude to the complainers, but... well... (I don't really have a way to finish that sentence).tpatricks said:I appreciate the support. Generally, this is a good forum. Gets a bit testy at times. Our "Jack" is not the same as AtAT and uses his middle initial to avoid confusion (people still ask); he's the converted Windows writer.
AtAT is easily the most humorous and insightful of Mac 'zines. I never miss an episode.
really? says who? my success rate is i would say 80%. sure i know what i'm doing, and would say that friends and relatives not as good are probably 60%. not great, but imagine internet searches without google, what would the success rate be of randomly typing in domain names, 10%? the argument that google/longhorn/spotlight aren't 100% perfect and so should be used is spurious.Think for a moment. How many of us use Google or Yahoo (or whatever search engines handy at the time) to search for something? We all do. Whats our success rate? Poor, usually
totally bogus argument and factually wrong. apple has for two decades been fundamentally changing the way people interact with the computer since day one. the GUI, the mouse, file/folder metaphor, drag and drop, cut and paste, wysiwyg, and on and on.The only problem is, Apple wont change user behavior sufficient for any kind of sophisticated search utility to make much difference to the average user
the point of advanced search technologies are that you no longer need to organize your work in a granular manner. a point proved in the next paragraph. traditionally recognition vs. recall has been a strong argument in the file/folder/icon metaphor, however as the number of files on the computers move in to the tens of thousands, recognition becomes difficult if not impossible. a litany of identical icons with only a file name to differentiate them. and so we must rely on recall and as it is the tools to aid us in recall based interaction are sub-par.Tigers Spotlight-- the integrated metadata search engine-- wont matter. It wont matter for two reasons. It wont help us organize our files any better than we do now. And it wont change HOW we go about searching. Click, click, click, click.
and itunes manages the files for you and then with an advanced search engine (itunes itself) allows you to find and play very quickly a song you want to listen to via what you remember about the file (title, date, artist, album, etc... same with iphoto.So far, after years of using Mac OS X, about the best Ive been able to do is keep all the music in the Music folder, all the photos in the Pictures folder, and all the movies in the (guess) Movies folder.
and because they are difficult they should not be attempted. because it will take years to change behavior it should be ignored? that is again just silly. as for changing human nature and it taking years. of course it takes years! the GUI was introduced in 1969 by doug englebart, but it took 25 years before a vast majority of people embraced GUIs. that itunes/ipod has only taken 3 years is an astounding testament to its success.There are some things about human nature (Mac or Windows) that are difficult to change. Look how much effort Apple has put into music with iTunes, iPod, iTMS. Market share is huge. Mindshare is more than huge. Money is nominal and only now are people (in numbers) beginning to make changes about how they handle, store, and play music.
So it will be with search, despite the new technology coming in Tiger and Longhorn. It will take us years to get to a point where we can search efficiently and will incorporate the steps necessary to search efficientl