3 ms·

>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 fe

>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. Parent commenter here. Some points: 1. Just because it's buried in a submenu doesn't make it obviously present. 2. When a user notices that something doesn't behave as it's expected, he/she won't think: "oh, let's look in the manual, maybe there's some way to do this". He'll just think the software is broken. 3. Another very true example of this is cut and paste of files. For years you could not cut and paste a file on Mac like in any other OS. Lion adds this, but instead of the simple and obvious Cmd-X, Cmd-V, you have to do Cmd-C, Cmd-Option-V. When a user tries Cmd-X to move a file and discover it doesn't work, you can say he's lazy for not looking up in the manual. Or you can agree that some things are just badly designed, period. And I believe Cmd-F to search for selected text falls in that category too, despite of you arguing it's more robust. And no, they don't always run "extensive usability tests". It's not because it's Apple that they get _everything_ right. They're humans, too. I answered curtly to you calling me lazy, but I think now you're a bit biased here.

johncoltrane 15y ago
1. Yes, it makes it obviously present. Menus are the primary way (besides the manual) to explore a Mac app. 2. How did you create such an expectation? Searching the selected text on Cmd-F is not and has never been the default behaviour on Mac. Cmd-F not working as expected would be "the textfield is already populated by some random text and I have to delete it to input the text I want to search for". You simply hit a well defined and stable and robust shortcut expecting it to do something different than what it has been designed for. Of course you are wrong. When I moved to Mac OS X (leopard, I took my time) from Mac OS 9 I fell in love with Cmd-H but it didn't work in Photoshop where it was bound to something related but different. My mind was conflicted between my long time hardwired photoshop shortcuts and the new ones I used intensively. Who sucked more? Adobe for not following the OS's guidelines and default or Apple for hijacking shortcuts used for years by their most loyal customers? 3. Totally agree, it's extremely stupid. I do agree that some things are badly designed (coverflow, your cut & paste example, window/app switching…). I don't agree that Cmd-F is badly designed. I'm not at all an Apple-lover (no iPod/iPad/iPhone - my dumbphone is great, thanks - Ubuntu at home since 1 year after 14 or 15 years of Mac OS and Mac OS X). Not everything they do is right, obviously. But they have to make compromises for their software to work well. Cmd-F is an example of such a compromise where they make the feature good enough for most but too dumb for some while providing an easy alternative. The Cut & pate fiasco is another example where they completely fuck up their belated attempt at adding a feature wanted by all the Windows switchers they managed to bring in. Also I'm extremely sorry for calling you lazy. I was writing my reply and didn't notice the implications.

johncoltrane 15y ago

1. Yes, it makes it obviously present. Menus are the primary way (besides the manual) to explore a Mac app. 2. How did you create such an expectation? Searching the selected text on Cmd-F is not and has never been the default behaviour on Mac. Cmd-F not working as expected would be "the textfield is already populated by some random text and I have to delete it to input the text I want to search for". You simply hit a well defined and stable and robust shortcut expecting it to do something different than what it has been designed for. Of course you are wrong. When I moved to Mac OS X (leopard, I took my time) from Mac OS 9 I fell in love with Cmd-H but it didn't work in Photoshop where it was bound to something related but different. My mind was conflicted between my long time hardwired photoshop shortcuts and the new ones I used intensively. Who sucked more? Adobe for not following the OS's guidelines and default or Apple for hijacking shortcuts used for years by their most loyal customers? 3. Totally agree, it's extremely stupid. I do agree that some things are badly designed (coverflow, your cut & paste example, window/app switching…). I don't agree that Cmd-F is badly designed. I'm not at all an Apple-lover (no iPod/iPad/iPhone - my dumbphone is great, thanks - Ubuntu at home since 1 year after 14 or 15 years of Mac OS and Mac OS X). Not everything they do is right, obviously. But they have to make compromises for their software to work well. Cmd-F is an example of such a compromise where they make the feature good enough for most but too dumb for some while providing an easy alternative. The Cut & pate fiasco is another example where they completely fuck up their belated attempt at adding a feature wanted by all the Windows switchers they managed to bring in. Also I'm extremely sorry for calling you lazy. I was writing my reply and didn't notice the implications.