5 ms·

Another thing that drives me crazy on Mac text editors: selecting something and hitting Cmd-F won't use the selected text for the search. (at least on Xcode, Su

Another thing that drives me crazy on Mac text editors: selecting something and hitting Cmd-F won't use the selected text for the search. (at least on Xcode, Sublime Text, and Google Chrome). So I have to constantly do the sequence: swear out loud - press escape - Cmd-C - Cmd-F again - Cmd-V. That's just dumb.

johncoltrane 15y ago
Most Mac OS X apps (including the ones in your list) allow you to press Cmd-E - Cmd-F to search for the currently highlighted word. Even better: once you have pressed Cmd-E you can hit Cmd-G to cycle through the results. With all due respect, what is just dumb is not reading the manual of the powertools you use every day and blaming them for your lazyness.
- gregschlom 15y ago
  Thanks for the tip. >With all due respect, what is just dumb is not reading the manual of the powertools you use every day and blaming them for your lazyness. I thought the point of Mac was that you didn't have to read the manual ;) But yes, in this case, mea culpa.
  - johncoltrane 15y ago
    You are welcome. You don't have to read the manual to perform the most common tasks. But if you want to perform more advanced/specific tasks, reading the manual is necessary.
- jamesrcole 15y ago
  But I think they had a valid point. Cmd-F searching for the highlighted text involves one key-press. What you describe requires two key-presses. The former is quicker and easier, and I think that makes it preferable. Pretty much everything to do with computers, from Operating System features, to program and UI features, are ultimately about making it quicker and easier to perform tasks. Wanting more convenience is not laziness. The goal of computer systems should be to provide more convenience.
  - johncoltrane 15y ago
    I agree that one of the goals of software is to make performing common tasks quicker and easier. However, binding two different actions to one trigger is pushing the logic too far. It could happen that I have some text selected and I want to search for something within that text, or that I've selected something by mistake and I want to search something else… In that kind of situation having the search field populated by the content of the selection by default would obviously lead to a less than ideal experience. I believe the people behind these choices actually ran extensive usability tests and decided to compromise on what they found to be the most common use case: poping a search window and inputing the search term. I agree this system is maybe a little dumb but I think that is what makes it robust and dependable. Which is in my opinion the single more important attribute of any system. I don't think the parent wanting more convenience is lazy. But I think that not reading the manual and complaining about the absence of an obviously present feature is proof of lazyness. That's very different and so very common. And I wasn't mocking him, just improvising a pun based on his last line.
    - jamesrcole 15y ago
      The complaint was not about 'an obviously present feature'. They were talking about Cmd-F searching for highlighted text. That's not there. The feature you're talking about is not the same as that. - What benefits do you think are provided by software that don't ultimately come down to making things quicker and easier to do?
      - johncoltrane 15y ago
        Oh crap, HN just ate my 10 minutes of typing. My point was: the parent wants a different behaviour for Cmd-F but it turns out the different behaviour he asks for is already provided by another shortcut. Yours is: it sucks and these different behaviours should be triggered by the same shortcut for the sake of "quicker and easier". I think that such a move would actually go the opposite of "quicker and easier". The most basic case for which the "Find" feature provided by Mac OS X is this: you need to locate a word in some text. This can happen if you want to jump quickly to a specific paragraph or if you want to read the definition of a word or the address of a person or if you want to bypass the LOC… Cmd-F is the way to go: it pops up a window with a textfield and a "Find" button. Exactly what you need to achieve your goal. The case addressed by the Cmd-E Cmd-F combo has different predicate: you already have the word highlighted and you want to jump to another instance of the same word in the document. This may happen in fewer situations than the above case. In such a situation, comparatively rare, I believe, Mac OS X provides another shortcut. Different actions -> different triggers. - I expect of course any software to go as far as possible on the road to "quicker and easier" but such a goal shouldn't impede clarity, simplicity and robustness. Making all of these requirements work together is what makes good software.
husted 15y ago
This is not so bad in my book. There's one thing that drives me crazy though; PgUp and PgDown. Why doesn't that also move the cursor? Why only move the viewpoint? I use both Windows and OSX and this is the one thing that bothers me most. Muscle memory dies hard. /rant
- Someone 15y ago
  Yes, it truly is annoying that, in Windows, one cannot use a few page up presses to quickly look up say a function name, then hit, say, cursor right to automatically scroll back at the point one was at :-) The rationale for choosing this behavior in the Macintosh human interface guidelines was one of consistency: the keys simulate clicking the page up area, and clicking there does not move the cursor. The keys _had_ to emulate mouse behavior because not all users had page up/down keys. The original Mac keyboard did not even have cursor keys. I also think Apple that way avoided the difficult choice of what to do with the cursor. Should it stay at the same screen position, move to the top of the window, or something else? What if scrolling hits the top/bottom of the document? What if one hits page up while already scrolled upwards as far as possible? Should the cursor move within the document? Finally, there is consistency with other programs. Drawing programs, photoshop, file explorers, etc, typically do not move the selection on page up/down. I think they made the best choice for that time. It may no longer be the best choice in today's world where six year olds have six years of experience working with GUIs, but the eighties were quite different.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

johncoltrane 15y ago

Most Mac OS X apps (including the ones in your list) allow you to press Cmd-E - Cmd-F to search for the currently highlighted word. Even better: once you have pressed Cmd-E you can hit Cmd-G to cycle through the results. With all due respect, what is just dumb is not reading the manual of the powertools you use every day and blaming them for your lazyness.

gregschlom 15y ago
Thanks for the tip. >With all due respect, what is just dumb is not reading the manual of the powertools you use every day and blaming them for your lazyness. I thought the point of Mac was that you didn't have to read the manual ;) But yes, in this case, mea culpa.
- johncoltrane 15y ago
  You are welcome. You don't have to read the manual to perform the most common tasks. But if you want to perform more advanced/specific tasks, reading the manual is necessary.
jamesrcole 15y ago
But I think they had a valid point. Cmd-F searching for the highlighted text involves one key-press. What you describe requires two key-presses. The former is quicker and easier, and I think that makes it preferable. Pretty much everything to do with computers, from Operating System features, to program and UI features, are ultimately about making it quicker and easier to perform tasks. Wanting more convenience is not laziness. The goal of computer systems should be to provide more convenience.
- johncoltrane 15y ago
  I agree that one of the goals of software is to make performing common tasks quicker and easier. However, binding two different actions to one trigger is pushing the logic too far. It could happen that I have some text selected and I want to search for something within that text, or that I've selected something by mistake and I want to search something else… In that kind of situation having the search field populated by the content of the selection by default would obviously lead to a less than ideal experience. I believe the people behind these choices actually ran extensive usability tests and decided to compromise on what they found to be the most common use case: poping a search window and inputing the search term. I agree this system is maybe a little dumb but I think that is what makes it robust and dependable. Which is in my opinion the single more important attribute of any system. I don't think the parent wanting more convenience is lazy. But I think that not reading the manual and complaining about the absence of an obviously present feature is proof of lazyness. That's very different and so very common. And I wasn't mocking him, just improvising a pun based on his last line.
  - jamesrcole 15y ago
    The complaint was not about 'an obviously present feature'. They were talking about Cmd-F searching for highlighted text. That's not there. The feature you're talking about is not the same as that. - What benefits do you think are provided by software that don't ultimately come down to making things quicker and easier to do?
    - johncoltrane 15y ago
      Oh crap, HN just ate my 10 minutes of typing. My point was: the parent wants a different behaviour for Cmd-F but it turns out the different behaviour he asks for is already provided by another shortcut. Yours is: it sucks and these different behaviours should be triggered by the same shortcut for the sake of "quicker and easier". I think that such a move would actually go the opposite of "quicker and easier". The most basic case for which the "Find" feature provided by Mac OS X is this: you need to locate a word in some text. This can happen if you want to jump quickly to a specific paragraph or if you want to read the definition of a word or the address of a person or if you want to bypass the LOC… Cmd-F is the way to go: it pops up a window with a textfield and a "Find" button. Exactly what you need to achieve your goal. The case addressed by the Cmd-E Cmd-F combo has different predicate: you already have the word highlighted and you want to jump to another instance of the same word in the document. This may happen in fewer situations than the above case. In such a situation, comparatively rare, I believe, Mac OS X provides another shortcut. Different actions -> different triggers. - I expect of course any software to go as far as possible on the road to "quicker and easier" but such a goal shouldn't impede clarity, simplicity and robustness. Making all of these requirements work together is what makes good software.

husted 15y ago

This is not so bad in my book. There's one thing that drives me crazy though; PgUp and PgDown. Why doesn't that also move the cursor? Why only move the viewpoint? I use both Windows and OSX and this is the one thing that bothers me most. Muscle memory dies hard. /rant

Someone 15y ago
Yes, it truly is annoying that, in Windows, one cannot use a few page up presses to quickly look up say a function name, then hit, say, cursor right to automatically scroll back at the point one was at :-) The rationale for choosing this behavior in the Macintosh human interface guidelines was one of consistency: the keys simulate clicking the page up area, and clicking there does not move the cursor. The keys _had_ to emulate mouse behavior because not all users had page up/down keys. The original Mac keyboard did not even have cursor keys. I also think Apple that way avoided the difficult choice of what to do with the cursor. Should it stay at the same screen position, move to the top of the window, or something else? What if scrolling hits the top/bottom of the document? What if one hits page up while already scrolled upwards as far as possible? Should the cursor move within the document? Finally, there is consistency with other programs. Drawing programs, photoshop, file explorers, etc, typically do not move the selection on page up/down. I think they made the best choice for that time. It may no longer be the best choice in today's world where six year olds have six years of experience working with GUIs, but the eighties were quite different.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]