3 ms·

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 f

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.

jamesrcole 15y ago
I never said it sucks. You (and others) prefer Cmd-E Cmd-F? Fine, I'm happy with that. For your needs, that is quicker and easier. But for other people's needs, Cmd-F using selected text may be quicker and easier. I hope we can all agree on that. My point was that: if someone wants to be able to achieve a goal G by some a particular means X (because the nature of X is helpful for them), it's not a valid point to say "but you can already achieve G by means Y" (where Y is not as helpful for them and their needs). Imagine if the Cmd-E Cmd-F feature didn't exist and you said it'd be good if it did, and I responded that the behavior you want is already provided by another shortcut: by typing Cmd-F and then typing in the highlighted term. EDIT: actually, I think a better analogy would be if you had said it'd be good if there was the Cmd-E Cmd-F feature and I responded that there's already shortcuts for the behavior you want: typing Cmd-C Cmd-F Cmd-V -- I think clarity, simplicity and robustness are means of making it quicker and easier to achieve tasks.
- johncoltrane 15y ago
  > But for other people's needs, Cmd-F using selected text may be quicker and easier. I agree. I don't think your analogy applies here: the parent doesn't ask if feature X exists, he complains about the fact that feature Y doesn't work like an hypothetical feature X and concludes that Mac text editors don't have feature X. My answer is that feature X is in fact available but that you don't access it like you access feature Y. Different features accessed by different means. Here, the features are not "Cmd-F" or "Cmd-E - Cmd-F", these are only interfaces or triggers or proxys or whatever you want to call it. The features are "searching for some arbitrary text" or "searching for the highlighted text". They are both different, present in the system without any hacks, accessible via shortcuts. If you want to use one you use it's shortcut, if you want to use the other you use its shortcut. Easy.
  - jamesrcole 15y ago
    You're confusing the end with the means.
    - johncoltrane 15y ago
      I don't think so. If the end is to search for arbitrary text there is a mean: Cmd-F. If the end is to search for another instance of the selected text there is a mean: Cmd-E - Cmd-F. There are actually more means for each end: the edit menu, right click, buttons in the toolbar… I'm not confused about them. Confusion happens when you think, wrongly, that one mean (Cmd-F) allows to reach another end than the one it's designed for. Confusion happens when you don't know the full capabilities of your tool and you use the most readily available mean, Cmd-F, to reach every conceptually related ends. Such a strategy is neither efficient nor sustainable at all. Confusion happens when you keep doing the same mistake over and over without searching for a better way and complain about the dumbness of your tool and by extension of its authors. But I think we are going to stick to our guns.

jamesrcole 15y ago

I never said it sucks. You (and others) prefer Cmd-E Cmd-F? Fine, I'm happy with that. For your needs, that is quicker and easier. But for other people's needs, Cmd-F using selected text may be quicker and easier. I hope we can all agree on that. My point was that: if someone wants to be able to achieve a goal G by some a particular means X (because the nature of X is helpful for them), it's not a valid point to say "but you can already achieve G by means Y" (where Y is not as helpful for them and their needs). Imagine if the Cmd-E Cmd-F feature didn't exist and you said it'd be good if it did, and I responded that the behavior you want is already provided by another shortcut: by typing Cmd-F and then typing in the highlighted term. EDIT: actually, I think a better analogy would be if you had said it'd be good if there was the Cmd-E Cmd-F feature and I responded that there's already shortcuts for the behavior you want: typing Cmd-C Cmd-F Cmd-V -- I think clarity, simplicity and robustness are means of making it quicker and easier to achieve tasks.

johncoltrane 15y ago
> But for other people's needs, Cmd-F using selected text may be quicker and easier. I agree. I don't think your analogy applies here: the parent doesn't ask if feature X exists, he complains about the fact that feature Y doesn't work like an hypothetical feature X and concludes that Mac text editors don't have feature X. My answer is that feature X is in fact available but that you don't access it like you access feature Y. Different features accessed by different means. Here, the features are not "Cmd-F" or "Cmd-E - Cmd-F", these are only interfaces or triggers or proxys or whatever you want to call it. The features are "searching for some arbitrary text" or "searching for the highlighted text". They are both different, present in the system without any hacks, accessible via shortcuts. If you want to use one you use it's shortcut, if you want to use the other you use its shortcut. Easy.
- jamesrcole 15y ago
  You're confusing the end with the means.
  - johncoltrane 15y ago
    I don't think so. If the end is to search for arbitrary text there is a mean: Cmd-F. If the end is to search for another instance of the selected text there is a mean: Cmd-E - Cmd-F. There are actually more means for each end: the edit menu, right click, buttons in the toolbar… I'm not confused about them. Confusion happens when you think, wrongly, that one mean (Cmd-F) allows to reach another end than the one it's designed for. Confusion happens when you don't know the full capabilities of your tool and you use the most readily available mean, Cmd-F, to reach every conceptually related ends. Such a strategy is neither efficient nor sustainable at all. Confusion happens when you keep doing the same mistake over and over without searching for a better way and complain about the dumbness of your tool and by extension of its authors. But I think we are going to stick to our guns.