6 ms·

We're splitting some major hairs here, but my point is that placing and misnaming this option, an extremely common task you'd want to accomplish in this pane, i

We're splitting some major hairs here, but my point is that placing and misnaming this option, an extremely common task you'd want to accomplish in this pane, in a second-layer dialog, when a majority of the options are in the first layer, is unequivocally user-unfriendly. I would mock up a better solution, but Apple already has (see above). You're looking at this from a developer's perspective; to the average user, SMB may as well be secret code. And it has everything to do with excessive automation, mostly because it's hard for a novice to 'un-automate'.

GHFigs 18y ago
There is no splitting hairs when you use phrases like "unequivocally user-unfriendly". This is not a minor detail. You are wrong. Comparing to the previous interface is a non-starter, as you don't account for the differences. Previously, none of the file sharing protocols had an interface for choosing which folders to share and with what permissions. Now that there is such an interface, the three options for sharing files are grouped behind that common function. This makes the first layer consistent about what is being shared and the second (Options...) about how, an extremely common and familiar style of interface. If it is "unequivocally user-unfriendly" here, why is it tolerable in a hundred other places in almost every GUI? Dismissing my view as that of a developer (which I am not) does not give you the authority to speak for the supposed "average user". It does not take a particularly sophisticated user to find the right pane (as my previous post showed), and once found, even the solitary use of jargon is at most a speed-bump. Even the help button on that very same pane leads to a clear answer. Using unambiguous and factually accurate terminology in the interface is not arcane or secret just because the meaning is not immediately obvious to all potential users. Consider terms like "Ethernet", "WiFi", or "DVD". Should we banish these terms from interfaces, too? I have no idea what you mean by "un-automate". The entire process here is user-driven. The operating system is not doing anything without explicit user action. Are you against the idea of using sensible defaults?
- dandelany 18y ago
  I'm going to write off most of this as a difference of opinion, because we're not getting anywhere. I have big problems with two things - First, designers always have to make tradeoffs based on what terminology their users are familiar with. A HUGE majority of users know the terms DVD and WiFi. I'm a CS major and didn't know what SMB was until recently. There's a blatantly obvious difference, especially when the term 'Windows Sharing' could be used. Secondly, I'm not against the idea of using sensible defaults, but I don't believe the decision to not share with Windows computers is a sensible default.
  - GHFigs 17y ago
    I don't know that we do differ in opinion now. You appear to have given up your earlier claims, and your main assertion here is one that I already agreed with: "I agree that having a hint indicating that Windows needs SMB would be helpful to people who have no idea what they're doing".
    - dandelany 17y ago
      I haven't given up on them, I just see that part as a legitimate disagreement. And the only reason I made that assertion is because you appeared (to me at least) to have given up your earlier claims, when you said "Using unambiguous and factually accurate terminology in the interface is not arcane or secret just because the meaning is not immediately obvious to all potential users." Can we call this done now? :)
      - GHFigs 17y ago
        I no longer have any idea what you're talking about.

GHFigs 18y ago

There is no splitting hairs when you use phrases like "unequivocally user-unfriendly". This is not a minor detail. You are wrong. Comparing to the previous interface is a non-starter, as you don't account for the differences. Previously, none of the file sharing protocols had an interface for choosing which folders to share and with what permissions. Now that there is such an interface, the three options for sharing files are grouped behind that common function. This makes the first layer consistent about what is being shared and the second (Options...) about how, an extremely common and familiar style of interface. If it is "unequivocally user-unfriendly" here, why is it tolerable in a hundred other places in almost every GUI? Dismissing my view as that of a developer (which I am not) does not give you the authority to speak for the supposed "average user". It does not take a particularly sophisticated user to find the right pane (as my previous post showed), and once found, even the solitary use of jargon is at most a speed-bump. Even the help button on that very same pane leads to a clear answer. Using unambiguous and factually accurate terminology in the interface is not arcane or secret just because the meaning is not immediately obvious to all potential users. Consider terms like "Ethernet", "WiFi", or "DVD". Should we banish these terms from interfaces, too? I have no idea what you mean by "un-automate". The entire process here is user-driven. The operating system is not doing anything without explicit user action. Are you against the idea of using sensible defaults?

dandelany 18y ago
I'm going to write off most of this as a difference of opinion, because we're not getting anywhere. I have big problems with two things - First, designers always have to make tradeoffs based on what terminology their users are familiar with. A HUGE majority of users know the terms DVD and WiFi. I'm a CS major and didn't know what SMB was until recently. There's a blatantly obvious difference, especially when the term 'Windows Sharing' could be used. Secondly, I'm not against the idea of using sensible defaults, but I don't believe the decision to not share with Windows computers is a sensible default.
- GHFigs 17y ago
  I don't know that we do differ in opinion now. You appear to have given up your earlier claims, and your main assertion here is one that I already agreed with: "I agree that having a hint indicating that Windows needs SMB would be helpful to people who have no idea what they're doing".
  - dandelany 17y ago
    I haven't given up on them, I just see that part as a legitimate disagreement. And the only reason I made that assertion is because you appeared (to me at least) to have given up your earlier claims, when you said "Using unambiguous and factually accurate terminology in the interface is not arcane or secret just because the meaning is not immediately obvious to all potential users." Can we call this done now? :)
    - GHFigs 17y ago
      I no longer have any idea what you're talking about.