Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
Hello Nick, I guess if you really hate having it not kill the app then the program could just not /have/ a x button. You've got to be kidding me, that would be just as bad. Why would I want to have a program get rid of the standard exit mechanism? If you basicly never want to exit it? (see below) Whever I come across an app like that, the first thing I do is open the task manager and kill it, and then immediately uninstall it. I'll grant there are only very few cases where I want it, but in those cases I wouldn't have the program at all unless I wanted it running *all the time*. If I found myself killing/restarting the program more than rarely, I'd git rid of it and find one I don't have to do that with. For those apps, I basically never want to actually close them (even less often than I reboot) and on the few occasions when I do, I'm willing to do file-exit-Yes I really do sequence. As an example of a program that works this way that I'll bet you don't mind: The volume control in the system tray. I'm not even sure if there /is/ a way to close it all the way. To put it objectively: say the program take 10 sec to reload and 90% of the time (I'd bet that's low) that I click the x button, it was a mistake (bad mouse control, reflex go way action, whatever). From that it can take 90 seconds to close the program before tuning off the x button is a net loss (as long as it's easy to figure out how to really kill it). We may have to agree to disagree; I use a few programs where having the x button kill them would be a bad thing IMHO. You disagreeing really doesn't matter to me.
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:32:13 -0400, Georg Wrede georg.wr...@iki.fi wrote: I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging, what it is he's dragging? It might be useful if you accidentally start dragging the wrong thing, and then realize because you are dragging the wrong picture/text/etc. But my point was really: you complained that you couldn't see the target because the picture is covering it. My experience is that I can clearly see the target because the picture is translucent (I can see the target underneath the picture). My complaint was about doing stuff just because you can. The dragging was just the first gross example that crossed my mind. (I'm on a slow graphics card. Besides, it hasn't bothered me enough to start investigating. Heck, for all I know, I could configure it away.)
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
Jarrett Billingsley wrote: On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Georg Wrede georg.wr...@iki.fi wrote: (OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page, and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox?? Sure it looks good, and the computer owner can brag to the guy in the next cubicle, etc. But there should be some obvious or useful *purpose* for dragging entire pictures where a mouse pointer would be clearer, cleaner, easier for the user, and use less computer cycles. I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging, what it is he's dragging? Middle-click. Yeah. But I still don't see the glamouros advantages in dragging whole pictures. And I often drag stuff to existing tabs. A good example is when browsing http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090424.html where I usually end up with a dozen tabs in no time.
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:32:13 -0400, Georg Wrede georg.wr...@iki.fi wrote: Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:09:20 -0400, Georg Wrede georg.wr...@iki.fi So now I have to learn to remember to grab bigger pictures near some edge. And I really can't see *any* valid benefit for having to drag the picture. I'd rather have it the old way, where the mouse pointer simply changes shape, so you know you're dragging. Damn, damn...) On my system, dragging the image drags a translucent copy of the image, so I can still see where my mouse pointer is aimed. Maybe you don't have enough colors enabled on your screen? Sure it looks good, and the computer owner can brag to the guy in the next cubicle, etc. But there should be some obvious or useful *purpose* for dragging entire pictures where a mouse pointer would be clearer, cleaner, easier for the user, and use less computer cycles. I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging, what it is he's dragging? One thing that does annoy me is if you are doing this over a slow RDP link, the eye candy isn't worth it. I was never a huge fan of application themes. I don't mind a theme for the whole system (as long as it's simple), but I don't want iTunes to look different just because it can. I think it has been discussed before that most video editors have the slickest GUI, with real-looking knobs and led's, but the video editing part of it is buggy as hell. You're the first one to comment on the actual issue!!! :-) Those video editors, iTunes and such look like they're programmed by 12-year olds. Somewhere there should be an adult saying what not to do! I bet the guy who did this never expected that whole-picture dragging actually uses more electricity in your computer. When every Firefox user (and the others who have to implement this too, so as not to look inferior!) in the whole world drags whole pictures, the combined increase in world electric usage rises well above his day-job salary. Greenpeace ought to shoot him.
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
Nick Sabalausky wrote: Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:op.usux6bskeav...@steves.networkengines.com... I was never a huge fan of application themes. I don't mind a theme for the whole system (as long as it's simple), but I don't want iTunes to look different just because it can. That's one of my biggest pet peeves about modern software. I can't really do the subject justice without delving into a giant pile of expletives. It took me some serious browsing before I found a non-obtrusive skin for gmplayer. And I hated to have to do that. It should have been the default. But worse still is when they decide to go and piss all over not just standard looks, but also standard behaviors. Like how the Win build of iTunes will still ignore/eat any click that brings it to the foreground. If I wanted that behavior I'd be running a Mac. That's a good thing with many *nix GUIs. You can have several overlapping windows, and even do stuff in the non-top ones. But they really should respect the target GUIs way of doing things, when porting. The absolute worst of all though is when an app (*cough* skype *cough*) decides that close and the 'close' button should mean don't close anything at all, but minimize to tray instead. That should be a firing squad offense ;) Joking aside though, any of these are guaranteed ways to make me lose any and all respect for a piece of software and its developers, especially if they're arrogant enough to provide no way to turn such things off. Yeah, the biggest motivation (next to being graphical per se) for GUIs was uniform app behavior. That way you only would need to learn the common basics, and then, ostensibly, you could use any new app right off the bat. (In the bad old days, you really had to learn to use every app, one at a time.)
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff50558cb926917215...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello Christopher, Nick Sabalausky wrote: The absolute worst of all though is when an app (*cough* skype *cough*) decides that close and the 'close' button should mean don't close anything at all, but minimize to tray instead. That should be a firing squad offense ;) I'd be killing my IM client constantly if not for that feature. I pretty much expect it of any application that's meant to be running for a long time and only rarely needing user interaction (such as a bittorrent client). yah, for some programs you rarely want to close the program but often want to close the UI. That's called Minimize.
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
Reply to Nick, BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff50d58cb92d952e5b...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello Nick, BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff50558cb926917215...@news.digitalmars.com... yah, for some programs you rarely want to close the program but often want to close the UI. That's called Minimize. It can be, OTOH I might want the UI process killed without killing the main program. Another point is the other side of the assertion, you rarely want to close the program as in 90% of the time even when I hit the x button, I don't actually want to close the program. The whole point of the 'x' button is the close the program. Always has been. If I didn't want to close the program, I wouldn't push it. Are you saying you never make mistakes? There are program out there that 90% of the time when I hit the x button it was a mistake and in that cases I think it to be a good design to work around it. I guess if you really hate having it not kill the app then the program could just not /have/ a x button. If you want to hide/kill the UI without closing the program, that's minimize. True, minimizing to the taskbar doesn't kill the UI process/thread (assuming it even is a separate process/thread), but in the rare cases where the distinction of UI process running/killed actually matters, the program can still do that through a minimize to tray. And while neither minimize nor close truly mean minimize to tray, clearly minimize is FAR closer in both wording and behavior. Any way you look at it, having a close button that doesn't close the app is like having a cancel button that prints, or a save button that plays music. Your missing my point. I don't want to re-task the button but make it not do something that most of the time is not what I want.
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
On Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:00:19 -0400, Nick Sabalausky a...@a.a wrote: BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff50d58cb92d952e5b...@news.digitalmars.com... Hello Nick, BCS n...@anon.com wrote in message news:a6268ff50558cb926917215...@news.digitalmars.com... yah, for some programs you rarely want to close the program but often want to close the UI. That's called Minimize. It can be, OTOH I might want the UI process killed without killing the main program. Another point is the other side of the assertion, you rarely want to close the program as in 90% of the time even when I hit the x button, I don't actually want to close the program. The whole point of the 'x' button is the close the program. Always has been. If I didn't want to close the program, I wouldn't push it. If you want to hide/kill the UI without closing the program, that's minimize. True, minimizing to the taskbar doesn't kill the UI process/thread (assuming it even is a separate process/thread), but in the rare cases where the distinction of UI process running/killed actually matters, the program can still do that through a minimize to tray. And while neither minimize nor close truly mean minimize to tray, clearly minimize is FAR closer in both wording and behavior. Any way you look at it, having a close button that doesn't close the app is like having a cancel button that prints, or a save button that plays music. Yahoo messenger's X button behavior: click on it - Although the main window has been closed, Yahoo! Messenger will continue to run in the system tray... With a checkbox that says Show this message in the future. That's perfect for me. YM also has an option to automatically remove the taskbar button when minimized (so minimized does the behavior you want it to do). -Steve
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
BCS wrote: I guess if you really hate having it not kill the app then the program could just not /have/ a x button. Your window manager does not support such windows.
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:09:20 -0400, Georg Wrede georg.wr...@iki.fi wrote: (OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page, and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox?? So now I have to learn to remember to grab bigger pictures near some edge. And I really can't see *any* valid benefit for having to drag the picture. I'd rather have it the old way, where the mouse pointer simply changes shape, so you know you're dragging. Damn, damn...) On my system, dragging the image drags a translucent copy of the image, so I can still see where my mouse pointer is aimed. Maybe you don't have enough colors enabled on your screen? -Steve
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM, Georg Wrede georg.wr...@iki.fi wrote: (OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page, and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox?? Sure it looks good, and the computer owner can brag to the guy in the next cubicle, etc. But there should be some obvious or useful *purpose* for dragging entire pictures where a mouse pointer would be clearer, cleaner, easier for the user, and use less computer cycles. I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging, what it is he's dragging? Middle-click.
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:32:13 -0400, Georg Wrede georg.wr...@iki.fi wrote: Steven Schveighoffer wrote: On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 12:09:20 -0400, Georg Wrede georg.wr...@iki.fi wrote: (OT: an excellent example of this It's Done Because We Noticed We Could stuff is in Firefox. When a picture is a link to another page, and you want to drag that to the tab area, the entire picture is dragged with the mouse. Now, how the hell am I supposed to hit the small tab area when the large picture covers half of my Firefox?? So now I have to learn to remember to grab bigger pictures near some edge. And I really can't see *any* valid benefit for having to drag the picture. I'd rather have it the old way, where the mouse pointer simply changes shape, so you know you're dragging. Damn, damn...) On my system, dragging the image drags a translucent copy of the image, so I can still see where my mouse pointer is aimed. Maybe you don't have enough colors enabled on your screen? Sure it looks good, and the computer owner can brag to the guy in the next cubicle, etc. But there should be some obvious or useful *purpose* for dragging entire pictures where a mouse pointer would be clearer, cleaner, easier for the user, and use less computer cycles. I mean, who's such a nutcase that he forgets halfway in the dragging, what it is he's dragging? One thing that does annoy me is if you are doing this over a slow RDP link, the eye candy isn't worth it. I was never a huge fan of application themes. I don't mind a theme for the whole system (as long as it's simple), but I don't want iTunes to look different just because it can. I think it has been discussed before that most video editors have the slickest GUI, with real-looking knobs and led's, but the video editing part of it is buggy as hell. -Steve
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:op.usux6bskeav...@steves.networkengines.com... I was never a huge fan of application themes. I don't mind a theme for the whole system (as long as it's simple), but I don't want iTunes to look different just because it can. That's one of my biggest pet peeves about modern software. I can't really do the subject justice without delving into a giant pile of expletives. But worse still is when they decide to go and piss all over not just standard looks, but also standard behaviors. Like how the Win build of iTunes will still ignore/eat any click that brings it to the foreground. If I wanted that behavior I'd be running a Mac. The absolute worst of all though is when an app (*cough* skype *cough*) decides that close and the 'close' button should mean don't close anything at all, but minimize to tray instead. That should be a firing squad offense ;) Joking aside though, any of these are guaranteed ways to make me lose any and all respect for a piece of software and its developers, especially if they're arrogant enough to provide no way to turn such things off.
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:40:36 -0400, Christopher Wright wrote: Nick Sabalausky wrote: Steven Schveighoffer schvei...@yahoo.com wrote in message news:op.usux6bskeav...@steves.networkengines.com... I was never a huge fan of application themes. I don't mind a theme for the whole system (as long as it's simple), but I don't want iTunes to look different just because it can. That's one of my biggest pet peeves about modern software. I can't really do the subject justice without delving into a giant pile of expletives. But worse still is when they decide to go and piss all over not just standard looks, but also standard behaviors. Like how the Win build of iTunes will still ignore/eat any click that brings it to the foreground. If I wanted that behavior I'd be running a Mac. The absolute worst of all though is when an app (*cough* skype *cough*) decides that close and the 'close' button should mean don't close anything at all, but minimize to tray instead. That should be a firing squad offense ;) I'd be killing my IM client constantly if not for that feature. I pretty much expect it of any application that's meant to be running for a long time and only rarely needing user interaction (such as a bittorrent client). I think he was referring to not having an exit. That is File-Exit is also minimize to tray which is not the case in most such apps.
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
Hello Christopher, Nick Sabalausky wrote: The absolute worst of all though is when an app (*cough* skype *cough*) decides that close and the 'close' button should mean don't close anything at all, but minimize to tray instead. That should be a firing squad offense ;) I'd be killing my IM client constantly if not for that feature. I pretty much expect it of any application that's meant to be running for a long time and only rarely needing user interaction (such as a bittorrent client). yah, for some programs you rarely want to close the program but often want to close the UI.
Re: dmd 2.029 release [OT]
BCS wrote: Hello Christopher, Nick Sabalausky wrote: The absolute worst of all though is when an app (*cough* skype *cough*) decides that close and the 'close' button should mean don't close anything at all, but minimize to tray instead. That should be a firing squad offense ;) I'd be killing my IM client constantly if not for that feature. I pretty much expect it of any application that's meant to be running for a long time and only rarely needing user interaction (such as a bittorrent client). yah, for some programs you rarely want to close the program but often want to close the UI. This is one place where I think Mac OS X gets it right. It's a massive pain to close the last document open in OpenOffice.org before opening a new one, only to realise that now you have to sit through the loading screen again. -- Daniel
