It's funny I had a similar idea but with dashcams, for the automotive industry. You could pay people to install additional cameras to there cars and pay them by the miles driven. I'm sure car manufacturers would love this training data.
"Dark pattern" is specific to digital user interfaces, the bartender use case might be just called emotional marketing or, more plainly, flattery.
Keep in mind, digital or not, not all forms of negatively viewed tactics hold the same weight. E.g. a nagging confirmation for cancellation is typically viewed less negatively than confirm shaming, even though both are often listed as types of dark patterns. The type of coercion in the bartender example is likely towards the less negative side of manipulative tactics in most people's minds.
Just half-serious here when musing: not in any practical sense, but philosophically perhaps. The bartender is in the Hospitality business, and assuming that the essence of that business is genuine hospitality, there is no dark pattern if the compliment and wink are genuine. But if they are just a marketing gimmick that the bartender pulls at every table like a used cars salesman, then it is a deception pattern.
If you're sitting at the bar, you're likely waiting to be served anyway. It might get the bartender a bigger tip, which is a transaction I'm okay with.
It's a great reminder of how well MacOS 9 UI and UX were designed, and how space efficient the whole OS was on screen.
Even the window handle bars were subtly shadowed, the window shadows evolved when they were collapsed. Like Windows 95 at the time, Mac OS 9 was a beautiful work of interaction design.
The whole system.. from the sizing of the borders and titlebars to the font and the menu density to the icon sizing, spacing, and design in general...
All feels more coherent than anything today. It feels like it was sketched out by a small group of people and executed incredibly well. Meanwhile things today look more disjointed like the product of a lot of design-by-committee.
Susan Kare's 'Chicago' in this rendering hits hard in the nostalgia factor to me a well.
I'll be that guy... the system font for menus, etc in OS 8 and 9 is "Geneva" [EDIT: It's "Charcoal", of course. Thanks for the heads up!]. It was "Chicago" up to and including System 7.x.
iPod used Chicago for the same reason Chicago was used on the original Mac—it was designed to make UI elements clearly readable on low resolution monochrome screens.
I agree it was a high point for UI/UX logic. The filesystem was part of the OS experience and it generally made sense with little magic going on.
I have wondered in the years since whether the newer abstractions and UI patterns we find in MacOS and Windows are actually necessary. These days both OSes are trying to be tablet friendly, trying to discourage user-installed/curated software, and trying to promote bundled cloud services, so it's not even clear to me whether the MacOS 9 abstractions are really the correct ones anymore, as evidenced by the many problems with cloud backed file explorer interfaces, synchronization, etc.
The fat borders for the windows and the control strip at the bottom left of the screen took up a lot of space on real monitors of the era. Try running at a more modest 800x600 or 640x480 and it will seem less efficient. Modern Mac OS X is actually quite efficient, with zero-pixel window borders on three sides, and narrower scroll bars.
Worse, a bunch of applications had code that would set up window locations with the assumption that the window borders were 1 pixel wide, like they were prior to Mac OS 8. This often meant that controls which were supposed to be visible would be partially covered by another window’s border.
I remember the Mac OS 8 era as a bit of “excess” that got cleaned up somewhat with the arrival of Mac OS X.
On the other hand, Mac OS 8 came with a fresh batch of standardized widgets (Appearance Manager) which made all the apps look better. These widgets came with guidelines for how they should be sized and placed, something which is missing from a lot of modern UI toolkits.
That would be 10.7 Lion, in 2011. But I believe OP was talking about the older window borders, which afforded the ability to drag the window from any part of the perimeter.
Yes, but also keep in mind that the pointing devices in use were very primitive compared to what we have today and that many users were not as proficient. All contemporary operating systems had thick borders and some had very prominent resizing handles.
The thick borders took up valuable screen space and weren’t necessary. They weren’t present prior to Mac OS 8, and they weren’t present after Mac OS 9. You might consider the era of thick borders as a 5-year blip on the timeline from 1997 to 2002.
If anything, modern pointing devices are often less precise. We now commonly use trackpads, touch, and pens. In the 1990s, it was usually the mouse, so you find a lot of 1990s UI elements that are very small. The only reason our modern scrollbars on macOS are so small is because it’s assumed that you can scroll without them, either with a scroll wheel or with a touch gesture.
I’m not sure if the list of contemporary operating systems is particularly illuminative. You might look at Windows ’95, CDE (Solaris), or BeOS and find chunky borders. Or you might look at TWM or Window Maker (OpenStep) and see thin borders. The only conclusion I draw is that everyone agreed that you should have borders.
I’ve been using old versions of Mac OS, like Mac OS 8, with both new hardware (modern trackpads) and original hardware (ball mice). The ball mice are much more precise than modern trackpads, when you’re clicking on something. If they stick, it’s frustrating and you have to wiggle the mouse around to get it to land on your click target, but once the cursor is over your click target, you can click on it. When you try to click on something with a trackpad, what happens is you end up moving the pointer during the click.
This strikes me as very much a 21st century sort of comment, which looks at the "what" and totally fails to consider the "why" and the historical context.
> The thick borders took up valuable screen space and weren’t necessary.
Define "necessary". I think you are not considering why they were present in the historical context.
> They weren’t present prior to Mac OS 8
Yes, but there are reasons for that which I will go into.
> and they weren’t present after Mac OS 9.
There was no "after"; MacOS 9 (no space) was the last version. It was replaced.
> You might consider the era of thick borders as a 5-year blip on the timeline from 1997 to 2002.
Which fails to consider what happened in that timeframe.
Up to System 7.x you could only resize a MacOS (note, again, no space; that was important) window from the bottom right corner, where there was quite a big widget for this sole purpose... but in a brilliant bit of UI design, it was at the intersection of the vertical and horizontal scrollbars. Continuing either of them into the space past the end of the other would imply priority and that was a bad thing; the classic MacOS UI thought about this.
Now consider what happened in 1996. Apple was in big trouble, bought NeXT, and Steve Job came back. The primary reason was to replace MacOS with Mac OS. (Note: that's why the space is important. MacOS = classic; Mac OS = OS X.)
Jobs cancelled Copland, the planned MacOS 8, and directed the internal Apple team to start salvaging what could be taken from Copland into what was really MacOS 7.7 or something, renaming it to MacOS 8 in order to make it look big and important.
It wasn't; it was UI tweaks and stuff. E.g. the multithreaded Finder from Copland, and the Appearance control panel that allows skinning of the OS, which MacOS couldn't do before.
(All this while the new NeXT team are porting OpenStep to PowerPC and building a VM to run Classic in, stuff that has no customer impact or benefit yet.
Important point #1: this is adding a lot of customisability to the MacOS UI that wasn't there before. This is not some minor trivial point of graphical design.
Important point #2: this is Jobs aping a Microsoft tactic.
Windows 98 is the same timeframe. Win98 is the same basic OS as 95, but with UI tweaks. Why? Because NT 4 is late, and not ready for consumers, but also, because at the time, MS is fighting the US DoJ over monopoly claims, because MS is bundling IE with Windows.
To fight this MS rewrites bits of the Windows Explorer in IE. Gaining, oh hey look, what a coincidence, a multithreaded Explorer, because window contents are rendered in HTML... which means it gets a selling point to upsell W95 customers to W98.
Apple borrows the adaptable UI stuff from Copland and backports it to MacOS 7.
Result: now you can resize a window from any side, like Windows. Jobs comes back and Apple starts "borrowing" ideas from Windows UI and MS GUIs, something pre-Jobs Apple wouldn't do, and only fair as Microsoft "borrowed" so much from Apple.
So how do you show that a window can be resized from any side, not just from the bottom right corner? Answer: you put big fat draggable window borders on it, just like Windows has.
Because Apple was recycling tech from its own, very expensive, failed new-OS development project, so that it could:
[1] offer UI tweaks that [a] enabled it to upsell customers an OS facelift and [b] showed that it had learned both UI and business methods from MS.
[2] as a byproduct kill the Mac clones as that only covered System 7
[3] find a use for the hundreds of millions of dollars it spent on Copland
[4] show people it could adapt and survive and sell new stuff while the NeXT team worked on Rhapsody, which would in time become Mac OS X.
In other words, there are very good strong reasons by those windows got big fat borders, important reasons that helped to save the company.
Second lump of history you failed to consider.
Why didn't Mac OS X (note, with a space), have those?
Two reasons.
[1] Because NeXTstep didn't have fat window borders, and Mac OS X is NeXTstep. NeXTstep only let you resize from bottom left or bottom right, and to do that, it had a big fat bottom window border with market bits at the left and right end to show you where to grab.
And why didn't NeXTstep use the bottom right corner? Because NeXTstep doesn't put scroll bars on the right. It puts them on the left.
Why? Because in the late 1980s when Jobs started NeXT, Apple had recently sued Digital Research over GEM, because GEM looked too like MacOS (no space), and it won, and PC GEM was crippled as a result.
So the little startup company founded by the departed leader of the hostile litigious one does things as differently as it can so it can't get sued by the CEO's former employers. Or by Microsoft.
So, no menu bar, menus stack up on the left.
So, scroll bars are somewhere else.
So, windows aren't resizable by the edges and don't have fat window edges.
Aside:
Fun fact: Motif had those fat window edges and resizing from all corners and all edges too, because the design of Motif was licensed from Microsoft by the OSF. This is also why Motif menu bars are inside the window, like on MS Windows. Because back then MS was trying to be Not Like Apple, and Apple wasn't like anyone by default, but both sued anyone who copied their designs.
And that's also why almost all Linux desktops today are recycling the same tired old ideas. Because since the dawn of GUIs on xNix, it's been under the influence of Apple and Microsoft designs.
Sun did interesting stuff in OpenWindows and OpenLook but it wasn't really "open" despite the name and it's gone now. Damned shame.
SGI did some, in other areas, in IRIX. Also not really open. Also gone now. Also a shame, although there is the Maxx desktop, but nobody cares because everyone else did an end-run around it and the industry moved on. By 1993 it was a little throwaway gag in _Jurassic Park_ -- "hey, this is Unix, I know this!"
End of aside.
Mac OS X dropped that clunky bottom bar, because when the litigious company that sues copiers owns you you don't need to worry. So, scrollbars move back to the right. Menu bars go on the top screen edge, like MacOS and GEM and AmigaOS, and where Fitt's Law of ergonomics says they are easy to hit.
And then Mac OS X one point zero, sold as Mac OS X 10.0, uses 3d shading to show the edges of windows, because by the 21st century you could assume the display was in 24-bit colour and could do stuff like that.
And truecolour icons and things, and shading everywhere, because when you control the hardware you can assume stuff like this and show it as the only way of showing window edges.
Fun fact: we early adopters of Mac OS X used little utilities to turn off the window shadows because it sapped performance on the low-powered old Macs we were using to run this stuff.
But oh hey look, the window corner widget has come back because we need to tempt Mac users onto the new OS, too.
Because Jobs _thought_ of stuff like this. How can I use any of the failed OS project my company rendered obsolete? How can I salvage some of all that wasted R&D budget? How can I sell interim releases? How can I make MacOS (no space) a little bit more familiar to Windows users? MS is making money selling small UI innovations to Windows customers, so how can I do that too?
There are good solid reasons for all this stuff, reasons totally driven by business models and IP ownership and tech of the time.
It wasn't accidental. It wasn't a blip. It was all for very good reasons, all of which you just skipped over with your rash assumption that it was a glitch of late-1990s design cosmetics.
A mouse from 1985 did not feel that much different from one today. Sure, they all had cables, you had to clean them regularely and use a proper mouse pad. But then they were very much as precise as they are today. The last real innovation was the scroll wheel.
You say that but I’ve recently been programming an app in system 7, which isn’t totally dissimilar to 9 in UX, and I keep thinking “wow how did I ever use this.” Windows constantly occluding each other, no easy way to switch between them outside of the mouse, finder windows filled with grids that I have to scroll through, no easy way to just see the desktop, etc. Current macOS is miles ahead in usability.
It’s interesting: my recollection of that period was I rarely stored anything on the desktop. The file system was so much smaller and easier to handle that I stored things in folders and didn’t have trouble finding them again. Not until OS X did I pick up the desktop-as-staging-area habit because navigation was so painful.
Finder aided this by being spacial. If you moved a window, then closed it, it stayed there the next time you opened it. If you moved a folder or file icon around it similarly stayed where you put it when you next opened up the window.
But then how do you easily navigate / launch apps? Dig thru your folder trees each time in Finder? Most apps I’m finding have folder structures with a bunch of aux files. It’s not so seemless as a dock or even a start menu.
> But then how do you easily navigate / launch apps? Dig thru your folder trees each time in Finder?
Back in the day, Finder used to remember whether folders were open on the desktop or "put away". It was a direct, one-to-one mapping between your spatial awareness of objects in the real world and the representation of objects in the computer. Meaning that things were left exactly where you put them on-screen, just like in the real world and, hence, it was easy to find your applications because they will be right where you left them.
But you don't need to launch applications, you just double-click on documents. Mac OS remembered which program was associated with each document -- not each document type or extension, each document. Each file had distinct type and creator codes associated with it, so that a JPEG created in Photoshop will be opened in Photoshop, and a JPEG downloaded off the web might be opened in a browser, when double-clicked.
Mac OS, pre-X, was quite simply the best UI ever designed. It took advantage of pioneering research into human-computer interaction and the underlying psychology of how humans relate to objects in a way that nobody today -- not even Apple -- is doing. It is what all UIs should aspire to be like, even today.
I think the whole spatial desktop metaphor is overhyped. Rather than go point by point on this, I encourage you to use OS 9 for a week or two to actually do work in. Relive using it versus just from memory. Then I’m curious to see if you still feel that way. My guess is you’ll realize it’s actually not all that.
More often than not I was opening documents, not apps. But with spatial windows in Finder I used to just arrange my Applications folder the way I wanted (sometimes using Aliases) and have it open on the left of my screen, then have my Documents on the right. I kept a row of Desktop icons visible with an In and Out box.
There wasn’t a default folder structure in the early days. Your hard drive had a “System” folder with merely a few hundred files in it (in a hierarchy) that you can ignore day-to-day. Otherwise the whole drive was your playground.
O, it can be. It's not /the/ way, but it is a way. Often, aliases (shortcuts/links) to favourite apps ended up there, or on the desktop, or in one of various available launcher utilities.
But now we're just adding 3rd party software to change the fundamental UX. The GP was talking about how much better it was back then, but if you need 3rd party tools to make it work, then it really wasn't.
OS 8 also allowed you to drag any folder to the bottom of the screen to create a pop up tab, and switch any folder view to the At Ease view, so you could do the same thing without any third party software. But DragThing is just awesome.
I love that color too. Fun trivia that I discovered doing pixel art way back then: That color is blue.
It appears purplish, but it's actually a desaturated blue with hue right at 240°. Something about the lack of saturation and brightness gives it a purplish cast.
It’s funny how mixing pure blue (#0000ff) with pure white (#ffffff) makes it look a little purple, and how you also have the exact same problem when you invert the colors - mixing pure yellow (#ffff00) with pure black (#000000) makes it look sort of green (the complementary color to purple). In both cases you have to adjust the green channel a little “faster” and the red a little “slower” to get something that looks more neutral, ie shift the light blue towards cyan and the dark yellow towards red.
That seems similar to the "perwinkle blue" that was used as the default background in Apple IIGS ProDOS16 / GS/OS. In that case it was done with pairing white pixels with blue pixels.
None of the alternate themes actually made it into a final release of Mac OS; just Platinum.
There was a fairly healthy third-party theming community, though, and the Apple-developed themes (Memphis, High-Tech, and a sketch-styled theme called Drawing Board) would still work if you got your hands on them.
Drawing Board was probably the most usable of Apple's alternative Appearance themes (which never shipped, but were leaked pretty quickly). The little lines extending off the corners of windows had some glitchy behavior in some apps, IIRC, but it was at least visually acceptable, and I used it for a while.
The other two themes were basically unusable, though, and it's very clear why they were never officially released.
I came here to say the opposite: The folder icons ... a mess. Dynamic spacing depending how long the folder name is, free style sorting, "arranging", ... that is a lot of things but not a folder system ;) .. maybe a "desktop" folder ... but not a structural archiving system.
I was a macOS 9 user before I switched to Windows ... and I have to say: I had a fonder memory of it than what I see in this emulation. All operating systems came a long way since. But hey, it is 20 years, is not it.
You could theme some window manager, but it's not the same. It'd be a tough project! The Mac UI was holistic. Early on, it didn't even make much of a distinction between application and operating system. Just getting the menu bar right (shared between OS and application) when every program has its own idea on how to present a menu would be a major challenge. Applications really do need to be designed for the classic Mac environment. Back in the day software was almost never ported directly, but had to be substantially redesigned for the Mac.
Yeah, apps were responsible for drawing the menu bar and handling its mouse events (delegated to toolbox libraries). They also used to ask the OS to put in the menu items for the apple menu, and were responsible for delegating those mouse clicks to the OS as well. Background tasks required the foreground app to release the processor (or interrupts like vertical blank). Everything depended on proper cooperation.
Linux has a standard protocol (dbusmenu) for exporting menu structures supported by most common app UI libraries, and environments like KDE's Plasma use this to offer a global menu bar option, too.
Unfortunately there's a number of Linux apps that don't publish any menus, including most GTK3/4 and Electron apps. I don't think Firefox does either. I remember trying the global menu option in KDE and being sorely disappointed in how few apps populated it.
To get consistent usage out of a dbus-based global menu (KDE's or that one XFCE panel plugin) one would need to fork quite a number of packages, and for proprietary Electron apps you'd probably just be stuck.
GTK apps can support the global menu. There's a GTK plugin that adds support, and many distros install it by default. I think it was originally written by Canonical (their custom Unity desktop also used a global menu bar).
Not sure about the state of things with Electron. I'm sure you're generally right and there are some gaps, and of course, on Mac OS you do only very rarely encounter an app with an empty menu bar (I have though).
It's not maintained, but a few years ago I was feeling nostalgic and playing with "mlvwm", the mac-like virtual window manager, a project from the late 90s.
At least a small amount of C knowledge is sometimes helpful for getting those old projects working. Sometimes a new compiler or new libc will expose old bugs.
My experience with old window managers is they need tweaks to work reasonably on modern high dpi displays.
Iirc mlvwm builds with imake, which is positively ancient. It's the build tool that X.org got rid of after taking over from XFree86.
Ah, so you're the one I have to thank for that! I've used it on Solus and a few others after my dual 867 "Mirrored Drive Doors" machine went down. Thanks!
Believe it or not, full screen apps are a Windows thing. Apple has added full screen app support only recently, and any Windows convert who has switched to macOS and has problems adapting to its UI has one thing in common: they haven’t let go of the idea that all apps need to use the whole screen at all times.
>Believe it or not, full screen apps are a Windows thing.
Nope. It’s just that maximizing—single action to expand a window the whole screen minus the OS docks/taskbars—is present in every widely used OS except for Mac OS.
>they haven’t let go of the idea that all apps need to use the whole screen at all times
Not sure where you’re getting “at all times” from. Windows and Linux desktops all easily support having windows take up less than the whole screen. In fact, it’s easier than in Mac OS because of window snapping to sides and corners. It’s only that Mac OS makes it very clumsy to get the effect that maximizing has on every other OS.
Most 21st desktop UIs are, to a greater or a lesser degree, Windows ripoffs. Most of Win95 or later, but sometimes you can trace a specific version -- e.g. KDE apes Windows 98 in program design as well as function.
(Rendering filer window contents as HTML before displaying them using the browser engine: this was designed by Microsoft to evade prosecution by the US DOJ for anticompetitive bundling of IE with Windows. It tried to claim that IE was integral by, for example, rejigging Explorer to render using IE. The Win 95 and 95B versions do not do it; nor did NT 4 at launch.)
If you believe that all GUIs do this, that suggests that the only desktop GUIs you've seen are ones that are copies of the Windows design.
To the best of my ability to recall that long ago, before Windows 3 and OS/2, most GUIs didn't have a maximise function.
Examples: AmigaOS; DR GEM; classic MacOS; Sun OpenLook; Acorn RISC OS.
Prior to full-screen mode on macOS, you would option-click the window resize button to resize it to the full size of the screen. This still works. It just doesn’t snap.
Option-click maximizes to full screen minus menu bar and desktop volume icons.
Apps like games and screen savers don't seem top have trouble covering up the entire desktop and menu bar.
I prefer it to the current macOS Finder where zooming covers up the menu bar and desktop volume icons, and where there doesn't seem to be an easy way to zoom to content.
It's every other platform thing. Even Amiga did just fine with that fucking arcane (apparently, to Apple) concept that your OS needs to fuck off and let me work/play
Classic Mac OS supported full screen applications since the beginning. I'm not sure if Apple allowed it or whatever in their very strict interface guidelines, but from a programming perspective you just have to turn off the menu bar and take the entire screen as the GrafPort.
I think the recommended route is to make a window that fills the screen, rather than taking the entire screen as a GrafPort. If you want the code to be portable, you can make your fullscreen window, draw to an offscreen GWorld, and CopyBits to the window. There’s a whole song and dance that you do in order to make sure that this is fast.
Later on, there was DrawSprocket. It solved the problem of figuring out how to do “portable” and “fast” at the same time, and let you use features like page flipping, if the hardware supported it (saving you the call to CopyBits).
You can think of HyperCard as a fullscreen app, and that’s not wrong. Look at it another way, and it’s displaying a 512x342 pixel window. On B&W compact Macs, that’s the size of the display. If you ran Hypercard on a later 640x480 color Mac, you could see the border of the window and move it around.
Later versions of HyperCard let you choose the size of the window. Various extensions would let you use a borderless window for the stack, and put a big black window behind it covering the rest of the screen.
HyperCard did some particularly weird things to draw to the screen quickly on older machines. If you try dragging a HyperCard stack window around, you'll notice that its horizontal position is quantized to 8-pixel increments, probably to accelerate drawing on low-bit-depth displays. :)
Yes, that’s something you’ll need to do if you want to stay on the fast path :-)
The Motorola 68000 does not have a barrel shifter. You want to shift by 4 bits? That’s four cycles, buddy! Avoiding shifts keeps you on the fast path for CopyBits().
Apple has added full screen app support only recently
I read somewhere that the reason Apple finally added full-screen support to macOS (back then OS X), wasn't because of the Windows switchers. It was to get a bit more real estate out of the MacBook Air's small screen size.
I think it was also to try to get some i(Pad)OS users back to the Mac—one of the major advertised things about OS X Lion (which introduced full screen) was all the iOS stuff they were bringing "back to the Mac".
Mac UX is far worse compared to Windows, in my opinion. I feel very claustrophobic using it. How do you live without a simple maximize button? "Maximimze to contents" is ambiguous, and in practice, does not work at all for most apps. I find myself having to "manually" maximize windows. And now, I don't want a third party app.
To add to this, even after I "maximimze" windows, I have an ugly menu bar at the top, in addition to the windows own titlebar. Allow apps to have a menu in their own window, but don't force an ugly global menu. For the clock/systray, integrate it like windows in the bottom app bar.
I could keep listing frustrations. Many of these are objective.
Note: I'm not talking about app installation, or malware, or "polish". Mac is superior, will agree.
> How do you live without a simple maximize button?
Classic Mac OS apps did not put the entire application UI in a single full screen window. Instead, it was typical for an application to contain multiple windows that could all be visible at once.
> To add to this, the "top" menu bar is lame.
This is related. In Windows, the entire UI of the app is contained in a single window, which you would typically maximize to fill the screen. In classic Mac OS, apps have multiple windows open at the same time, but the menu bar pertains to the application and not to the window.
I understand all of that. And that is precisely my point. Isolate everything concerning an app to its own window, and allow that to be maximized. If an app has multiple windows, contain them within the main app window. Don't pollute the "global" window space with app-specific windows.
> If an app has multiple windows, contain them within the main app window.
This advice is actually rarely followed by apps regardless of whether they are on Windows or Mac. Consider Microsoft Word; if you open two Word documents, does Microsoft Word open two windows or does it open one main app window and then contain both documents in a single window? Are you aware of this Microsoft concept called MDI?
It sounds like you were used to iOS where each app has but one window and you'd prefer that to be the case on desktop operating systems like Mac or Windows. There's nothing with preferring that, but it's against decades of desktop computing tradition.
That makes it really hard to use two (or more) applications side-by-side effectively. I am grateful for individual windows I can move exactly to where I need them without worrying about the application as a whole. I think it boils down to how people think — application-centered thinking makes it easy to have multiple windows from different applications playing nicely with each other, workspace-centered thinking hates what appears to be the messiness of applications having windows here and there.
If they’re anything like this, almost none of your frustrations are going to be objective - they are going to be things that grate on you because of the design and interaction models you are used to.
There’s nothing wrong with that! You’re allowed to prefer particular approaches. It’s like when I use Windows or Ubuntu, and get frustrated at how particular interactions work. It’s not because the Mac is objectively better, but because I’m used to it.
(Except for the keyboard shortcuts. Distinct control/option/command keys is objectively better and I will die on this hill.)
The way I remember it, command was used for commands, option was mostly for typing accented characters, and ctrl was only used within terminal windows (which means most Mac users would have never touched it).
"In recent years, the company has added "contextual menus" to the Macintosh operating system. But to activate them, users must hold down the control key while pressing down the mouse button, which more or less defeats the purpose."
Because it removes the clutter of your desktop + other windows. I think many would agree. Sure, there are times you need to see windows side-by-side, and there is affordance for that. But mostly, a person is doing one task at a time.
As my displays have gotten larger, I've found I want my windows to take up less and less of them. I may occasionally full-screen something, but it always feels incredibly difficult to deal with. As primarily a Windows user, I've more than once wished I had a "fit to content" button like Mac's.
Just another instance of different users having different patterns.
I feel like the expected pattern to deal with clutter in MacOS is by hiding rather than just covering. This is often forgotten about but you can alt+click on an app to hide all other apps but the one you clicked. This is even in possible in Mac OS 9. In modern macOS you can invert the behaviour by turning on single-app mode through the terminal. It's then alt+click to show multiple apps and just click to hide all but the app.
I only started using MacOS a few months ago. For the first ~2 weeks, I hated it. I actually remember thinking that it felt like a poorly implemented clone of MacOS ironically. But the truth is, whilst you can jump between Windows and most Linux distros (even Fedora) without much trouble, MacOS is an entirely different beast.
For example, I learnt that, completely different than Windows, on MacOS you're not really supposed to minimise windows, at least not as you would on Windows. Instead, you open the command centre or whatever its called and switch between them. Workspaces also arent an optional extra, they're pretty crucial to using the OS if you have multiple windows open. Its for these reasons I can see why people praise the trackpad so much, its actually preferable to use over a mouse because its so deeply embedded in the flow of the OS.
I'm not saying MacOS is objectively better in its workflow, for that I'm still not sure what I'll end up using as my main computer, just that its different and should be treated as such.
Apple isn't so great. For example why aren't Copy and Paste separate or specifically marked keys and do we have to use Cmd+C and Cmd+V? Same for Undo/Redo, etc. This is stuff any UX student can figure out.
Separate keys have challenges: in addition to the extra cost, you need to find physical space and train people to look for and use them. The original designers wanted to make it efficient for people who were already typing and as you might have noticed those keys are all close together and convenient for one-handed use:
> Why the Z X C V keys? — They were close on the keyboard. We did X because it was a cross out (CUT). We did V because it pointed down like this [he makes a ‘V’ shape with his hands], and you were inserting; it was like an upside-down caret (PASTE). And Z was the closest one, because we figured you’d UNDO a lot. And C for COPY — that was easy.
As a French founder, am I authorized to do a business trip in the US (meet local customers, pitch product features, invite prospects at a restaurant) with a simple ESTA?
Yes but you need to be careful because the line between business development/marketing and work - at least as perceived by CBP officers - can get blurred. I am assuming that the only company here is your company in France, and not in the U.S.
If they are really concerned or suspicious, they will sometimes ask to see your phone or computer. But their analysis is what in fact the individual will be doing in the U.S. - that is, will he or she be doing productive work - and who is the primary beneficiary of the individual's activities.
> It does not have an ability to independently think and imagine/dream
We neither if we're not supplied with energy. By the way, haven't we tried to replicate an inner dialogue by prompting the AI to recursively converse with itself? This could resemble imagination, don't you think?
> It suffers from catastrophic forgetting under certain internal circumstances (in addition to changing what dataset we trained it on)
I believe that the persistence of previous answers is what currently distinguishes us the most from the "AI". As soon as we're able to make the realtime discussions part of an ever evolving dataset constituting the AI itself, the gap will get thinner and thinner. But even then, are people suffering from Alzheimer sentient? I believe they are. Isn't it comparable with what happens when an AI catastrophically forgets?
I really dig the product and demo. Nevertheless, I feel there are crucial points missing in your landing page:
- Where is the code hosted?
- Where is it executed?
- Are my tasks versioned in a GIT repo?
- How do you manage secrets?
I've got the chance to be one of the interviewed. I really like the way this is going. Their idea for extensions building and distribution is really clever and I appreciate how they've been tackling the developer experience.
