Apple's "New" GUI

[sundayx Veteran]

Yes iTunes is hell when adding a folder in a large directory, scanning through the folder again and again...

[devish]

I think your reading comprehension is a little off today. He said he used Tiger in the store.

Read what I wrote and what YOU wrote again before replying... I think you're the one whose reading comprehension is a little off today ;)

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

itunes is the biggest joke ever, you have no idea how Infuriating it is to try to add music onto it, couldnt you SIMPLY just add single mp3's on, NO you have to put them into a special folder and all sorts of gay things happen, why couldnt you simply drag and drop.

I don't know if something is wrong with your copy, but i've always been able to drag and drop to add files, i just tested it then and it still works for me.

Mainly with compilations / mixed CDs, of which I own a lot of. It tends to drop files in artist folders rather than a folder for the album. It would also be nice if/when downloading album artwork, the app would drop the image file/s directly in the artist\album folder. I don't hate iTunes, I just think the way it organizes the actual files could be a bit more neat/tidy. I may switch back at some point, but for now I'm happy with what I'm currently using. I've always thought that Apple makes great products. I just thought I'd post what I would like to see improved in some of their apps.

When i import a compilation or mix, it whacks the files in a Compilations folder.

e.g. Compilations/Album/Song.m4a

Of course, this only happens if the album is marked as a compilation, if it isn't it would probably whack it in the artist's folder.

[saxondale.]

Not sure if anyone posted, but here's that wallpaper http://www.flickr.com/photos/dominoes/544155098/

[geoken]

Fitts' Law applies no matter how large the monitor is.

A lot of people misunterstand Fitt's law. Fitt's law doesn't say an infinate size target is always better than a fixed size target. Fitt's law merely states that an infinite sized target has an advantage over a fixed size target. Fitt's law also implies that this advantage can be overcome if the distance of the infinate target is too great since the ability to hit a target is a function of multiple factors, and not only the size of the target. For example, a 100x100 pixel target which laways appears within 10px of your pointer will be faster to hit than a 30xinfinity pixel target which can thousands of pixels away from your target.

This also doesn't take in to effect the hypothetical situation where you have to move your mouse all the way to the window anyway in order to give it focus. So basically it becomes;

'move your mouse half way across the screen, click the window, move your mouse half way across the screen in the opposite direction and click a menu with infinite height'

vs

'move your mouse half way across the screen and hit a fixed, relatively small target'

At some point, hitting even a small target becomes faster then hitting multiple, spaced out, large or infinate targets in succession.

[micro]

Well then it must just be a problem on my itunes because in order to add new mp3's i have to create a whole new folder and add it as a play list, if i continue to drop new mp3's in the same play list and add it, itunes will duplicate what i already have added + the new ones.

NOT cool.

And i have extreme problems with syncing with the shuffle and the ipod nano, it will randomly not sync.

EDIT: ontop of that if you didnt edit the settings right, if you delete some mp3's off of the hard drive and plug in your shuffle or nano, it will say oh they dont exist on this computer, I will delete them off of the nano / shuffle as well- THATS bull..

[sundayx Veteran]

For those who are having iTunes performance problems, get your antivirus to exclude scan on all music folders. Apparently everytime iTunes accesses a track it rewrites the library, and the antivirus scans both the music file, the next music file (buffer) and the library, killing performance.

[Stetson]

A lot of people misunterstand Fitt's law. Fitt's law doesn't say an infinate size target is always better than a fixed size target. Fitt's law merely states that an infinite sized target has an advantage over a fixed size target. Fitt's law also implies that this advantage can be overcome if the distance of the infinate target is too great since the ability to hit a target is a function of multiple factors, and not only the size of the target. For example, a 100x100 pixel target which laways appears within 10px of your pointer will be faster to hit than a 30xinfinity pixel target which can thousands of pixels away from your target.

This also doesn't take in to effect the hypothetical situation where you have to move your mouse all the way to the window anyway in order to give it focus. So basically it becomes;

'move your mouse half way across the screen, click the window, move your mouse half way across the screen in the opposite direction and click a menu with infinite height'

vs

'move your mouse half way across the screen and hit a fixed, relatively small target'

At some point, hitting even a small target becomes faster then hitting multiple, spaced out, large or infinate targets in succession.

Thank you. Fitt's law need to be taken in context. People use toolbar buttons (on the windows themselves, not at a screen edge) much more often than they use application menus. The 'start' menu in Windows is a perfect example of something that should follow Fitt's law because it is used very often. Application menus are for advanced options and don't have such a high usage rate or importance that they should occupy such screen realestate in my opinion. Apple programs in Windows have application menus on the window, and I never have any problem hitting them. They're there when you need them. Having them close at hand seems to outweigh the blindly-repeated 'infinite target' argument as is explained above.

I don't at all doubt that an infinite target can be easier to reach in some situations, which seems to be the only argument presented by some. I doubt that an infinite target is so much easier to reach is this situation that it putweighs the screen realistate used and the disadvantages of a detached menu. If application menus deserve this privilege, then shouldn't toolbar buttons? Or what about scroll bars? Yeah, yeah, there should be one scrollbar on the right side of the screen that's used for the current application. Same thing with tabs in a web browser. Shouldn't they be easy to find? Lets put them on the left side of the screen because having them mixed in with the web page, the tool bar, and the bookmarks bar makes them so unuseable. Guess what you have? A single-application GUI, how revolutionary. :huh:

[reactionary007]

Panther was 10.3, I think you mean Leopard, which is 10.5.

Yeah - I meant Leopard. Too many kitty maus to keep straight. Oh well. I think Leopard looks great. I think Vista looks great too. Good job to the both of them. Keep up the competition cause the consumers are the winners!

[Southern Patriot]

Read what I wrote and what YOU wrote again before replying... I think you're the one whose reading comprehension is a little off today ;)

Listen and try to comprehend this time: he wrote that he played with TIGER in the store and said he understood why Apple was making the changes that they are making in PANTHER, because TIGER was starting to look dated. I wrote that perhaps he meant LEOPARD because PANTHER was OS X 10.3. I never said that he had played with Leopard in the store, but you made your comment based on that assumption. Now, please go back and read what he and I wrote before making yourself look dumber than you already have.

Edited June 14, 2007 by roadwarrior

[DoubleThink]

I think the New GUI is nice, and unlike Vista its very consistent - which is great! But .. I don't much like that reflective "mat" under the dock.

[osirisX]

A lot of people misunterstand Fitt's law. Fitt's law doesn't say an infinate size target is always better than a fixed size target. Fitt's law merely states that an infinite sized target has an advantage over a fixed size target. Fitt's law also implies that this advantage can be overcome if the distance of the infinate target is too great since the ability to hit a target is a function of multiple factors, and not only the size of the target. For example, a 100x100 pixel target which laways appears within 10px of your pointer will be faster to hit than a 30xinfinity pixel target which can thousands of pixels away from your target.

This also doesn't take in to effect the hypothetical situation where you have to move your mouse all the way to the window anyway in order to give it focus. So basically it becomes;

'move your mouse half way across the screen, click the window, move your mouse half way across the screen in the opposite direction and click a menu with infinite height'

vs

'move your mouse half way across the screen and hit a fixed, relatively small target'

At some point, hitting even a small target becomes faster then hitting multiple, spaced out, large or infinate targets in succession.

Well said. That's exactly what I was trying to say.

[argonite]

At some point, hitting even a small target becomes faster then hitting multiple, spaced out, large or infinate targets in succession.

You also have to keep in mind habit. Being a Windows user, as soon as I got to a mac it took me half a second every time I wanted to do something for my brain to snap and say "wake up, you're on a mac, they're up AT THE TOP" This is not a design flaw in the Mac, this is just me. I'm sure, with some Mac users saying they don't like the detached feel of the menubars in Windows, that the reverse is true. It's common sense to say that, at some point, Fitt's law is inhibited by other factors (like habit, speed and sensitivity of mouse, etc...).

[SamNeeds]

Yeah, its nice...Not 'groundbreaking' as such but nice nevertheless.

For me, I don't care if it looks like they 'blatently' copied elements from other peoples work - and even if they did I wouldn't care - because all I want is a nice to look at, easy to use, logically correctly GUI. This looks as if they've got it spot on.

[perochan]

looks nice. i might get one when it is out in October.

[.Neo]

The folder icons look pretty nice, as if they were made from real paper. (Y)

[devish]

Listen and try to comprehend this time: he wrote that he played with TIGER in the store and said he understood why Apple was making the changes that they are making in PANTHER, because TIGER was starting to look dated. I wrote that perhaps he meant LEOPARD because PANTHER was OS X 10.3. I never said that he had played with Leopard in the store, but you made your comment based on that assumption. Now, please go back and read what he and I wrote before making yourself look dumber than you already have.

Taken English 101? Go back to university and learn how to "express" yourself better before calling people names.

FYI... I didn't even care to finish reading what you wrote (cus I give a _ _ _ _?). So, welcome to waste another 5 min making a post if you love to :blush:

[cosine]

The folder icons look pretty nice, as if they were made from real paper. (Y)

Designs are nice, colors are terrible. They're going to look like crap next to all the grey.

[.Neo]

They look perfectly fine in the Finder.

[Southern Patriot]

Taken English 101? Go back to university and learn how to "express" yourself better before calling people names.

FYI... I didn't even care to finish reading what you wrote (cus I give a _ _ _ _?). So, welcome to waste another 5 min making a post if you love to :blush:

If you didn't notice, the person I was responding to even replied to state that I was right, so it's obvious that you are wrong. Why won't you just grow up and admit that?

[The_Decryptor Veteran]

The folder icons look pretty nice, as if they were made from real paper. (Y)

...

Recycled paper, you can even see the bits of newspaper than add random dark sports.

Now that's what i call attention to detail (Greener Apple campaign?)

[cosine]

They look perfectly fine in the Finder.

I'd like to see them in a light grey, personally.

[devish]

If you didn't notice, the person I was responding to even replied to state that I was right, so it's obvious that you are wrong. Why won't you just grow up and admit that?

Oh I did... I just don't [want to] pay attention to you ;)

And shut up when talking to me :D

[.Neo]

Recycled paper, you can even see the bits of newspaper than add random dark sports.

Now that's what i call attention to detail (Greener Apple campaign?)

Yeah I noticed that as well. What's really nice too is that all post-G3 Mac models have their own icon, that includes the different screen sizes (iMac G4 15", 17" and 20" for example).

I'd like to see them in a light grey, personally.

Nah, that would look so dull and boring, IMO anyway. And it wouldn't compliment the Sidebar icons too well as those are quite vivid.

[.Neo]

Something the Windows-fanboys can feel upset over:

Mac OS X Leopard Generic PC icon

:laugh:

Edited June 15, 2007 by .Neo