Chrome just had to go and break things.
-
@badcaseofspace said:
Now, I haven't heard you making the point of why this change is long overdue,
That's because it'd be redundant, other posters have already made that point in this thread.
@badcaseofspace said:
At least I'm not speaking for everybody else.
Everybody wants me to do that.
-
@SQLDave said:
@pkmnfrk said:
What's wrong with hiding http://? Is there something particularly userfriendly about it?
Me: "Okay, just go to ehch tee tee pee colon slash slash google dot com"
Dad: "It's saying something about an error."
Me: "Did you put forward slashes?"
Dad: "Which ones are those?"
Me: "The ones tilting to the right."
Dad: "Oh, no. Do I need to?"
Etc, etc.
Also, www was the typical name of the particular server listening on port 80. Alas, it caught on.
I always wondered how to phonetically spell "H". Thanks!
It's actually traditionally "aitch", though some Britons go with "haitch" because they say the letter that way.
-
@Someone You Know said:
@SQLDave said:
@pkmnfrk said:
What's wrong with hiding http://? Is there something particularly userfriendly about it?
Me: "Okay, just go to ehch tee tee pee colon slash slash google dot com"
Dad: "It's saying something about an error."
Me: "Did you put forward slashes?"
Dad: "Which ones are those?"
Me: "The ones tilting to the right."
Dad: "Oh, no. Do I need to?"
Etc, etc.
Also, www was the typical name of the particular server listening on port 80. Alas, it caught on.
I always wondered how to phonetically spell "H". Thanks!
It's actually traditionally "aitch", though some Britons go with "haitch" because they say the letter that way.
I actually spent upwards of 3 minutes staring at my screen trying to figure out what it was supposed to be!
As for the topic, although I expressed pro-Chrome sentiments earlier, it should be noted that I really couldn't give a rats ass what Chrome does, as I do not use it (and it is likely that I never will)
-
@pkmnfrk said:
@Someone You Know said:
@SQLDave said:
@pkmnfrk said:
What's wrong with hiding http://? Is there something particularly userfriendly about it?
Me: "Okay, just go to ehch tee tee pee colon slash slash google dot com"
Dad: "It's saying something about an error."
Me: "Did you put forward slashes?"
Dad: "Which ones are those?"
Me: "The ones tilting to the right."
Dad: "Oh, no. Do I need to?"
Etc, etc.
Also, www was the typical name of the particular server listening on port 80. Alas, it caught on.
I always wondered how to phonetically spell "H". Thanks!
It's actually traditionally "aitch", though some Britons go with "haitch" because they say the letter that way.
I actually spent upwards of 3 minutes staring at my screen trying to figure out what it was supposed to be!
As for the topic, although I expressed pro-Chrome sentiments earlier, it should be noted that I really couldn't give a rats ass what Chrome does, as I do not use it (and it is likely that I never will)
I just spent a weekend in Canada, so I naturally saw "eh" as being pronounced "ay". Otherwise I might have never figured it out.
-
@Someone You Know said:
It's actually traditionally "aitch", though some Britons go with "haitch" because they say the letter that way.
Dropping your 'aitches is a sign of being lower class, right, guv? (insert fake cockney acccent here)
-
@SQLDave said:
I always wondered how to phonetically spell "H". Thanks!
The correct spelling is in fact "aitch."
-
@barfoo said:
@SQLDave said:
NATO says Hotel. I trust them more.I always wondered how to phonetically spell "H". Thanks!
The correct spelling is in fact "aitch."
-
Long overdue this.
I hope other browsers will follow suit. Getting a cleaner url bar would be a great improvement for browsers. There is really no reason why it should be shown. Any browser should be able to interpret the uri and show the important properties of that in a nice way. Instead of the current stone age way of showing it verbatim in an input box.
I even wouldn't mind if they simply show something like [web] [example.org] [forums > addpost] Showing the first two as simple clickable boxes and that last like a pretty breadcrumb.
-
@stratos said:
I even wouldn't mind if they simply show something like [web] [example.org] [forums > addpost] Showing the first two as simple clickable boxes and that last like a pretty breadcrumb.
You've never copied and pasted a URL to someone before?
I fail to see why developers are so obsessed with hiding information from users. Why is it so bad to show file extensions or protocol names? They're part of the filename or URL. They have meaning. People who are incapable of seeing implementation details without completely locking up and not knowing what to do should not be touching computers. All those cables between your peripherals and your "hard drive"? Hardware implementation details, clearly we should remove them because normal users suck at figuring out where they go.
Sigh. If you design for idiots, your users will be idiots.
-
@scgtrp said:
@stratos said:
I even wouldn't mind if they simply show something like [web] [example.org] [forums > addpost] Showing the first two as simple clickable boxes and that last like a pretty breadcrumb.
You've never copied and pasted a URL to someone before?
I fail to see why developers are so obsessed with hiding information from users.
What information is he really hiding? Certainly the port...but we already do that (as has been discussed above). The chrome implementation still puts the http into the clipboard. Why couldn't you do it in some way other than what we already have?
He mentions a bread crumb. This is very similar to the navigation in file dialogs in KDE. You can toggle between the text box approach and the breadcrumb approach.
@scgtrp said:People who are incapable of seeing implementation details without completely locking up and not knowing what to do should not be touching computers.
That's just stupid. And applied to this instance, a strawman.
-
@blakeyrat said:
That's because it'd be redundant, other posters have already made that point in this thread.
No they haven't.
-
@scgtrp said:
Sigh. If you design for idiots, your users will be idiots.
If you treat your users like idiots, you'll have idiots for users. But if you design to make your software accessible to everybody, then everybody wins.
-
@badcaseofspace said:
I haven't heard you making the point of why this change is long overdue, other than pointing out that everybody who thinks otherwise is a retarded baboon.
At least I'm not speaking for everybody else.
One of the reasons is that non-technical users spend a great deal of effort and energy communicating, writing down, typing in "http://" because they think they need it when they don't.
Another reason is that google tries pretty hard to display only the necessary amount of information to the user. Have you ever noticed how the google homepage is almost blank? Compare that with Yahoo. I lot of people I know switched to google because there was not all that noise. "http://" is noise, just like ":80" would be noise if you showed that after the hostname.
-
@Rootbeer said:
@toth said:
You'll know if the schema you're using is http or something else by checking if there's no schema (http) or some other schema (something else).
You're advocating that the most common case be handled in an exceptional way: "always show protocol, unless it's http." That's a bad idea from the standpoint of interface consistency, and thus from the standpoint of interface as a whole.
If browsers were targeted at technical users, I'd agree. But http:// means less than nothing to most (i.e. non-technical) users--it's pure gobbledygook. I honestly see no point in showing the schema, apart from abstract ideals of "UI consistency" (which I tend to instinctively lean towards, but I don't think it always results in a better interface, and this is one of those times).
I think the comparison to hiding file extensions is erroneous. File extensions represent something relevant to the specific file--a .gif extension means a GIF image, a .exe extension means a Windows application executable (yeah, yeah, I know extensions don't LITERALLY represent their contents, since any file can have any extension). File extensions tell you something about the file. Schemas don't, really. Not in everyday use, anyway.
-
@scgtrp said:
@stratos said:
I even wouldn't mind if they simply show something like [web] [example.org] [forums > addpost] Showing the first two as simple clickable boxes and that last like a pretty breadcrumb.
You've never copied and pasted a URL to someone before?
The copy and paste behavior HAS NOT CHANGED. For the UBER-KRAJILLIONTH TIME.
Hiding 7 characters in the URL is not the same thing as going on a rampage across the universe to remove it from space and time. Copy and paste behavior hasn't changed.
-
@badcaseofspace said:
@blakeyrat said:
That's because it'd be redundant, other posters have already made that point in this thread.
No they haven't.
@realmerlyn said:
Tim Berners-Lee never intended humans to see either http:// or www. That was merely the conventions to be used behind the scenes. Crazy how it eventually ended up in public view.
@pkmnfrk said:
What's wrong with hiding http://? Is there something particularly userfriendly about it?
Me: "Okay, just go to ehch tee tee pee colon slash slash google dot com"
Dad: "It's saying something about an error."
Me: "Did you put forward slashes?"
Dad: "Which ones are those?"
Me: "The ones tilting to the right."
Dad: "Oh, no. Do I need to?"
Etc, etc.
@dhromed said:
Who cares?
It's not information. It's noise.
The more people make up random shit "OMG copy and paste will stop working! Typing in IP:port will stop working! IT'S THE APOCALYPSE!" the more I'm thinking Google made a right decision here. The only arguments against this so far are based on assumptions that simply are not true--
Assuming typing "http://10.1.1.2:9999" into the URL bar will stop working-- untrue!
Assuming that copying a URL or URL fragment from the URL bar will exclude the "http://"-- untrue!
Assuming that Chrome won't be able to tell the difference between an FTP site and a web site-- almost certainly untrue! (Unless you've tested it and can prove otherwise.)
This whole thread is ridiculous! It's nothing but knee-jerking! It's nothing but people who simply hate, hate, HATE, any change whatsoever making up shit to excuse their irrational hatred of change! It makes me want to scream. None of you have even given it a chance. Why don't we give Google a few months, so we can fairly evaluate this change without the knee-jerking, then come back and discuss it? Or! You people who hate it could simply (gasp, shock) switch to another browser and STFU. It's not like there's a lack of browser choices in the market right now.
Look: without change there's no improvement. God, this thread makes me ashamed to be a software developer.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@scgtrp said:
@stratos said:
I even wouldn't mind if they simply show something like [web] [example.org] [forums > addpost] Showing the first two as simple clickable boxes and that last like a pretty breadcrumb.
You've never copied and pasted a URL to someone before?
The copy and paste behavior HAS NOT CHANGED. For the UBER-KRAJILLIONTH TIME.
Hiding 7 characters in the URL is not the same thing as going on a rampage across the universe to remove it from space and time. Copy and paste behavior hasn't changed.
Brilliant. I'm going to start using the term "uber-krajillionth".
-
ahahahahaha, blakeyrat, you're awesomes
-
@Lingerance said:
NATO says Hotel. I trust them more.
That's a way of referring to the letter (just as "H as in Henry" would be), but not its name. "Aitch" is the name of the letter h.
-
@Xyro said:
ahahahahaha, blakeyrat, you're awesomes
Wow, that was only half the rant too. Now when someone asks me why software usability sucks shit, I have an easy answer: point them to that Google Chrome bug report and say, "most of the people posting in there are software developers."
-
@blakeyrat said:
Assuming typing "http://10.1.1.2:9999" into the URL bar will stop working-- untrue!
Agreed. I'm not sure where this came from, it doesn't make any sense and there are few things more annoying than people making your side of a debate look stupid by arguing it with invalid arguments.
Assuming that copying a URL or URL fragment from the URL bar will exclude the "http://"-- untrue!
Then it's even worse. Yay, let's make a text box that shows one thing but puts something different in the clipboard when copied, in the name of usability!
Assuming that Chrome won't be able to tell the difference between an FTP site and a web site-- almost certainly untrue! (Unless you've tested it and can prove otherwise.)
See #1.
This whole thread is ridiculous! It's nothing but knee-jerking! It's nothing but people who simply hate, hate, HATE, any change whatsoever making up shit to excuse their irrational hatred of change! It makes me want to scream. None of you have even given it a chance.
From your wording here I'm going to assume you're referring to the general group of people who bash changes rather than this specific change, in which case you're just plain wrong. Chrome's combined search+URL box, the Vista/7 start menu, Office's ribbon, I actually tried them and I hated them, and can give you reasons beyond "it sucks" why I hate each one.
Or are you just calling anyone who disagrees with you for any reason irrational? Because there's a word for that, "irrational".
Why don't we give Google a few months, so we can fairly evaluate this change without the knee-jerking, then come back and discuss it? Or! You people who hate it could simply (gasp, shock) switch to another browser and STFU. It's not like there's a lack of browser choices in the market right now.
Fair enough, but what's this forum for if not bashing poor choices made by designers/programmers?
-
@scgtrp said:
Assuming that copying a URL or URL fragment from the URL bar will exclude the "http://"-- untrue!
Then it's even worse. Yay, let's make a text box that shows one thing but puts something different in the clipboard when copied, in the name of usability!This seems like a reasonable argument, at least theoretically. And for the most timid of users, who might not even try, I suppose it might be a difficult hurdle. But I suspect most users who thought about it would probably think (before copying) that they'd have to manually add the http. That was my initial thought, until I actually pasted. Then I realized that it gave me the entire text of a workable URL, and didn't think about it any more, because, it was...easy to use.
The reality is that it simply removes some visual clutter. There's a little icon of a globe, which is presumably meant to conjure up the World Wide Web concept. Although, the graphic stays there during ftp sessions, too.
I think it's arguable that they haven't gone far enough. It would probably be useful to use the breadcrumb type display, where the domain and the subsequent directories and file, etc were displayed separately. If nothing else, it would probably be another visual clue for those phishers who do stuff like google.com.badguy.biz, etc.
-
@scgtrp said:
Assuming that copying a URL or URL fragment from the URL bar will exclude the "http://"-- untrue!
Then it's even worse. Yay, let's make a text box that shows one thing but puts something different in the clipboard when copied, in the name of usability!
That's (potentially) a valid argument, and an area for study. Why don't you set up a usability study, comparing the older build of Chome with this newer build, and tell me whether people are confused when copying-and-pasting.
But until someone studies it, there's no debate: the fact is *we do not know* the effects of that. Maybe it's not an issue at all. Maybe it's completely crippling for people. We do not know.
Like I said above, I'm assuming Google, having usability people, has already done that study before implementing this change. Maybe they haven't, I dunno. But either way, I'm accepting they have in good faith because Google aren't (generally) terrible at UI design. (If it was the Lotus Notes team, then yah, I'd want independent verification.)
@scgtrp said:
Chrome's combined search+URL box, the Vista/7 start menu, Office's ribbon, I actually tried them and I hated them, and can give you reasons beyond "it sucks" why I hate each one.
Well, since the Vista/7 Start Menu and Office 2007's Ribbon are measurably better than the predessors in every respect, that really just tells me you care a lot more about your ancient habits than you do about creating usable software.
We can argue about Google not doing usability studies, but Microsoft sure as shit does-- in face, while designing the Ribbon, they blogged every fucking step of its development: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/ which is how I know it's measurably superior by every relevant metric. (Even irrelevant metrics, like "pixel usage in default configuration".)
I'm sure you can give me lots of reasons. But are they actual reasons based on usability studies, or reasons you made-up as justifications to hate something new and different than you've seen before?
Hell, if you normally hate well-studied, provably superior changes, and you hate this change-- yet another reason to think Google's doing the right thing.
@scgtrp said:
Or are you just calling anyone who disagrees with you for any reason irrational? Because there's a word for that, "irrational".
Everybody is irrational. Your brain lies to you:
It tells you you like things because you've seen them a hundred times-- that's the basis for top-40 radio, and it works.
It also tells you the past was universally better than the present, that's called nostalgia, and it's the reason there's a Tron movie coming out this summer.
It also tells you that if someone calls something a medicine, you think it improves you even if it does absolutely nothing, that's called the placebo effect and it's the basis of the homeopathy movement (and something like 7% of the UK's NHS budget because their Queen's an idiot.)
If you think you can fairly judge something given 10 minutes of exposure to it, then yes I'm calling you irrational. Because you're being irrational. If you think your brain isn't lying to you all the time about nearly everything, then yes I'm calling you irrational because you're being irrational.
This is why usability is about *data*, *psychological studies*, not knee-jerk reactions. (It's also not about just making things pretty and animated, but that's an Apple rant I don't want to get into right now.) The fact that so many developers simply do not understand this, well, that's the part that makes me want to scream. Or cry. Or something. That's the part that makes people say Java GUIs are "just fine", that's the part that makes Linux have an easily-typoed CLI command that erases the whole filesystem, that's the part that's come up with all the abominations in these screenshots: http://schend.net/images/index.php?path=screenshots/
More to the specific point, if you think this change is a terrible idea because it "might" confuse some people when copying-and-pasting (but nobody knows for sure since nobody's studied it-- except Google who may have already studied it and just not publicly revealed the results)... yeah, that's going in my "irrational" bucket too, sorry. If you have stronger arguments against it, ones not predicated on "I don't personally like it" or "some unstudied aspect of it may or may not be bad", then please let me know.
@scgtrp said:
Fair enough, but what's this forum for if not bashing poor choices made by designers/programmers?
I'm all for it, but let's wait for a poor choice to be made before we start up the bashing machine. Unless it's Lotus Notes, then bash away.
-
@scgtrp said:
Yay, let's make a text box that shows one thing but puts something different in the clipboard when copied, in the name of usability!
Instead of arguing how it conflicts in the absolute sense with some golden Usability Principle, investigate whether it is a problem.
It's not a problem.
@scgtrp said:
Chrome's combined search+URL box, the Vista/7 start menu, Office's ribbon, I actually tried them and I hated them, and can give you reasons beyond "it sucks" why I hate each one.
Can you give cliffnotes for each of those? Mayhaps your gripes can be mitigated and a brand new experience of computing will unfold before you.
Here's mine:
Chrome's combined search+URL box
I never use Chrome so I can't truly comment on its specific location bar behaviour, but Firefox's location bar is excellent. You type some shit, and you'll get results from your bookmarks and your history, and these results contain the string "shit"anywhere in the ulr or the location. That is awesome. I always get the sites I want within two characters. For sites I always visit, I only need to type 1 character: "t" gives me the forum root of TDWTF. I hear it will google-search if you type in random things it can't find in bookmarks, history and is not a domain name, but it's pretty bad because bad domain names take too long to time out. I just type "g" so it'll autosuggest google, and search form there.Vista/7 Start menu
You tap the Winkey and type some shit and you'll probably get what you want as the first or second result. It's not search in the sense that you can't find things, it's instant-access for common and semi-common things, and it will also search for things you can't find. As a bonus, if you will.When I type WinKey"pla"Return I'm already opening my workplace's project planning file before the results pane has even finished rendering items. Things I find fucked:
# the Start Menu is network connections control because I have to jump through a few dialogs to get to the actual window that contains the actual connections.
# the programs menu is actually pretty bad, but... you never use it, because you search.I resisted it as well at first, but then I thought, fuck it, and tried to use it in its intended way. It learns what results you use most often and puts them first.
Office's ribbon
Sucks. Feature placement is arbitrary and someone who doesn't use the applications a lot, like myself, will always be hunting down some feature across the tabs and then be surprised they put it there. It's really not that great. It's not intrinsically worse than menus, because placement there is just as arbitrary, it's just a different layout. It's not obviously intrinsically better either, in my experience. Random menus have been replaced with random buttons, in a way.
-
@boomzilla said:
It would probably be useful to use the breadcrumb type display, where the domain and the subsequent directories and file, etc were displayed separately. If nothing else, it would probably be another visual clue for those phishers who do stuff like google.com.badguy.biz, etc.
In Windows 7, the address bar in Windows Explorer works a bit like this. It shows a breadcrumb-like representation of the full path of the folder you're in. Clicking any of the folder names moves you to that folder; clicking anywhere else in the bar causes it to turn into a normal text box with the full path in it, just like the classic address bar, so you can still copy, paste, edit individual characters, etc.
The difficulty in applying this to URLs is that domain names have the most specific part at the left and the least specific at the right, while the path part of the URL has the reverse. If domain names were more like, say, Usenet newsgroup names, it'd be easier.
-
I have two things to add to blakey's post:
1. The placebo effect is not all bad, if you're aware of it. You can cure most headaches by popping Cheerios - you just have to believe. And the more you do it, the easier it is.
2. <b>There's always choice.</b> I've hated every UI decision Google has ever made, except maybe the original gmail. So I just use other stuff - and pretty much every piece of software I use is completely unusable for 99% of the population. And yet, these things are still available. And they're free, too. So why get mad about stuff I never use?
Just don't start removing keyboard keys ;).
-
@Joeyg said:
Just don't start removing keyboard keys ;).
HIGH FIVE!
-
@tster said:
Have you ever noticed how the google homepage is almost blank?
I found NoScript trying to find a solution for that.
-
@dhromed said:
Chrome's combined search+URL box
I never use Chrome so I can't truly comment on its specific location bar behaviour, but Firefox's location bar is excellent. You type some shit, and you'll get results from your bookmarks and your history, and these results contain the string "shit"anywhere in the ulr or the location. That is awesome. I always get the sites I want within two characters. For sites I always visit, I only need to type 1 character: "t" gives me the forum root of TDWTF. I hear it will google-search if you type in random things it can't find in bookmarks, history and is not a domain name, but it's pretty bad because bad domain names take too long to time out. I just type "g" so it'll autosuggest google, and search form there.1. It's just too unpredictable for me. I'd rather spend an extra half second typing a few extra characters and definitely getting what I want (or even setting keywords on my bookmarks, if I really don't want to type out "thedailywtf.com") than typing part of it and getting what I want most of the time. And I do, in fact, set keywords for some sites - my issue is with automatic searching. If I mistype a URL I should get a chance to correct it without having to retype the whole thing.
2. The URL and search boxes serve two completely different purposes. One is for when you know where something is and want to go there, the other is for when you don't know where it is and want to find it. In my experience Chrome has kinda sucked at deciding what is and isn't a domain name (though to its credit, I just tested and it looks like I have a button now to tell it I want http://rotini/ rather than http://google.com/search?q=rotini#).
This is really the only thing that's keeping me from using Chrome - the inability to disable automatic searching and only search with keywords.
@dhromed said:
Vista/7 Start menu
You tap the Winkey and type some shit and you'll probably get what you want as the first or second result. It's not search in the sense that you can't find things, it's instant-access for common and semi-common things, and it will also search for things you can't find. As a bonus, if you will.When I type WinKey"pla"Return I'm already opening my workplace's project planning file before the results pane has even finished rendering items. Things I find fucked:
# the Start Menu is network connections control because I have to jump through a few dialogs to get to the actual window that contains the actual connections.
# the programs menu is actually pretty bad, but... you never use it, because you search.I resisted it as well at first, but then I thought, fuck it, and tried to use it in its intended way. It learns what results you use most often and puts them first.
Alright, I should have known better than to bring this up here, again, but since I have...
It works FOR YOU. Usability studies give you, at best, statistics representing the majority of users. Personally, I prefer to use menus, and work more efficiently when I'm using menus. I organize my menu and I know where everything is. Am I in the minority? Probably. But even if I can't keep the classic menu, I have still not found anyone who could tell me why it would be so hard to have an XP-style "all programs" pop-out menu right next to the search box. Compressing the whole menu into that tiny space almost seems like deliberately crippling it to get people to use the search feature more, which is just plain mean.
@dhromed said:
Office's ribbon
Sucks. Feature placement is arbitrary and someone who doesn't use the applications a lot, like myself, will always be hunting down some feature across the tabs and then be surprised they put it there. It's really not that great. It's not intrinsically worse than menus, because placement there is just as arbitrary, it's just a different layout. It's not obviously intrinsically better either, in my experience. Random menus have been replaced with random buttons, in a way.Pretty much this, with the addition that it takes more vertical screen space in a program which usually shows vertically oriented documents on increasingly small* screens.
* Not only small overall, but I'm seeing widescreen monitors more and more often.
-
@scgtrp said:
Personally, I prefer to use menus, and work more efficiently when I'm using menus. I organize my menu and I know where everything is. Am I in the minority? Probably.
I do exactly this at home with XP. Since the Programs menu is a complete fucking mess after mere months of using the computer, I've created extra root-level submenus for applications that I use more often, for games and for special work tools when I'm working from home.
Thank god for cursor wraparound, so I can hit the Winkey, Down, Left and be in my Apps menu.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm a bit of a keyboardista. I'm guessing you are not, or less so.
@scgtrp said:
Compressing the whole menu into that tiny space almost seems like deliberately crippling it
+1. The boxed menu is fucked.
@scgtrp said:
Pretty much this, with the addition that it takes more vertical screen space in a program which usually shows vertically oriented documents on increasingly small* screens.
Have you noticed the arbitrary changes to layout and dropping of functionalities that occur when you make a window narrower? It always manages to hide the button you use most often. ^_^
@scgtrp said:
It works FOR YOU.
Hey, it's just a friendly exchange on usage patterns. I'm not trying to foist stuff on you; it's just that in half* the cases the issues users have are due to lack of knowledge. A small tip can sometimes go a long way, and therefore I try to provide these tips.
*) figure pulled from my ass with a wet thumb
-
@dhromed said:
Since the Programs menu is a complete fucking mess after mere months of using the computer, I've created extra root-level submenus for applications that I use more often, for games and for special work tools when I'm working from home.
Thank god for cursor wraparound, so I can hit the Winkey, Down, Left and be in my Apps menu.
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm a bit of a keyboardista. I'm guessing you are not, or less so.
Have you tried Launchy?
-
@scgtrp said:
@dhromed said:
Chrome's combined search+URL box
I never use Chrome so I can't truly comment on its specific location bar behaviour, but Firefox's location bar is excellent. You type some shit, and you'll get results from your bookmarks and your history, and these results contain the string "shit"anywhere in the ulr or the location. That is awesome. I always get the sites I want within two characters. For sites I always visit, I only need to type 1 character: "t" gives me the forum root of TDWTF. I hear it will google-search if you type in random things it can't find in bookmarks, history and is not a domain name, but it's pretty bad because bad domain names take too long to time out. I just type "g" so it'll autosuggest google, and search form there.1. It's just too unpredictable for me. I'd rather spend an extra half second typing a few extra characters and definitely getting what I want (or even setting keywords on my bookmarks, if I really don't want to type out "thedailywtf.com") than typing part of it and getting what I want most of the time. And I do, in fact, set keywords for some sites - my issue is with automatic searching. If I mistype a URL I should get a chance to correct it without having to retype the whole thing.
2. The URL and search boxes serve two completely different purposes. One is for when you know where something is and want to go there, the other is for when you don't know where it is and want to find it. In my experience Chrome has kinda sucked at deciding what is and isn't a domain name (though to its credit, I just tested and it looks like I have a button now to tell it I want http://rotini/ rather than http://google.com/search?q=rotini#).
I could really go for a combined address/search box where the key you hit to submit it determines what it does. Say, hitting enter means "treat what I just typed as a URL and throw a GET request at it" and hitting ctrl+enter or something means "treat what I just typed as a search term to be entered into Google". That way, you get the benefits of having only one box there to deal with, but it's always your choice as to how it's interpreted.
-
-
@scgtrp said:
2. The URL and search boxes serve two completely different purposes. One is for when you know where something is and want to go there, the other is for when you don't know where it is and want to find it. In my experience Chrome has kinda sucked at deciding what is and isn't a domain name (though to its credit, I just tested and it looks like I have a button now to tell it I want http://rotini/ rather than http://google.com/search?q=rotini#).
Google's advertising scam is based around people searching for sites they already know the address to. If they stopped doing this (or, alternatively, stopped charging sites for their own fucking domain name as a keyword), the value of Google search placements would go down something like 60-70% overnight. If there was any justice in the world, this practice would be fucking illegal... but since it's Google, everybody just smiles and says, "HEY I LOVE BEING RIPPED OFF BY SUCH A YOUNG AND HIP COMPANY!!! OH AND THEY RIP US OFF WITH OPEN SORES SOFTWARE OMG THIS IS SO GREAT!!!"
... anyway, sorry off on a tangent there. Google's never going to do anything that discourages searches, especially searches from people who already know what domain they want, is the point.
@scgtrp said:
It works FOR YOU. Usability studies give you, at best, statistics representing the majority of users. Personally, I prefer to use menus, and work more efficiently when I'm using menus. I organize my menu and I know where everything is. Am I in the minority? Probably. But even if I can't keep the classic menu, I have still not found anyone who could tell me why it would be so hard to have an XP-style "all programs" pop-out menu right next to the search box. Compressing the whole menu into that tiny space almost seems like deliberately crippling it to get people to use the search feature more, which is just plain mean.
You have a habit. You don't want to break your habit. You would rather completely ignore the faster and better way provided than modify your habit in any way. This is exactly the kind of behavior I'm complaining about. Maybe you'd like it if you fucking tried it, eh?
Nothing will ever progress in computers as long as programmers are grumpy creatures of habit who hate any kind of change. That leads only to stagnation, to people suffering under the same awful UIs they've been suffering under for decades, because programmers like you simply do not give a shit. This is not a good thing.
(BTW, there is an All Programs pop-up directly above the search box, so in addition to your griping you seem to have never actually used it.)
@scgtrp said:
Pretty much this, with the addition that it takes more vertical screen space
WRONG. How can you even debate against people using faith-based usability?
The Ribbon in its default configuration uses fewer vertical pixels than the Office 2003 toolbars+menu in their default configuration. When minimized, it uses the same number of pixels as Office 2003 with no toolbars. These are measurable FACTS, and you're sitting here telling me that it uses more pixels?? Did it ever occur to you to verify you were right before spouting that crap? Did it EVER occur to you to measure? At all? Before you try to pass it off as a fact, assuming that we're all so stupid we'd just take you at face value?
Fuck. The ultimate expression of "reaching to justify my irrational hatred" is to make shit up, I guess.
FUCK! This discussion is pissing me off.
-
-
@b-redeker said:
@blakeyrat said:
FUCK! This discussion is pissing me off.
Yay! it's Blakeyrant time (TM) again :)
You know, I'm starting to suspect these posts are sarcastic. :)
-
@blakeyrat said:
@b-redeker said:
@blakeyrat said:
FUCK! This discussion is pissing me off.
Yay! it's Blakeyrant time (TM) again :)
You know, I'm starting to suspect these posts are sarcastic. :)
Nooooooo.... I wouldn't do that to you.
-
Blakey is the new Morbs.
He won't accept my dick, though.
@blakeyrat said:
(BTW, there is an All Programs pop-up directly above the search box, so in addition to your griping you seem to have never actually used it.)
We established the suck of that in posts above. Seriously, that tiny scrolling box of programs is so goddamn useless it might as well not exist.
-
Bah, I know I posted a response to this already. I'll just assume Community Server happened.
@dhromed said:
In case you hadn't noticed, I'm a bit of a keyboardista. I'm guessing you are not, or less so.
Depends on what I'm doing - when coding I'll take Kate and a few terminal tabs over a fancy IDE with a bunch of buttons any day, but I prefer my menus to work like menus. I'm not sure why, they just work better for me.
@dhromed said:
@scgtrp said:
It works FOR YOU.
Hey, it's just a friendly exchange on usage patterns. I'm not trying to foist stuff on you; it's just that in half* the cases the issues users have are due to lack of knowledge. A small tip can sometimes go a long way, and therefore I try to provide these tips.
Those were emphasis caps, not "I'm going to set you on fire for suggesting I should use the search box" caps. ;-)
@blakeyrat said:
The Ribbon in its default configuration uses fewer vertical pixels than the Office 2003 toolbars+menu in their default configuration.
...wait, what?
@blakeyrat said:
Well, since the Vista/7 Start Menu and Office 2007's Ribbon are *measurably* better than the predessors in every respect, that really just tells me you care a lot more about your ancient habits than you do about creating usable software.
*sigh*
This is not something that can be measured.
People are DIFFERENT. They work differently, they think differently. This is what "usability studies" seem to miss a lot. I think and work differently than the majority of users. Do I expect every program I use to default to the way I'd like it to be? No, that would be stupid and unreasonable. But I do expect them not to remove features and force me into their supposedly superior way of working when I actually *do* work better with the old way.
I know a few people who like to put the taskbar off one side of the screen, because that works better for them. I can't say I see the advantage, and I prefer having mine on the bottom (because I use the buttons at both corners fairly often), but I think it's nice that Windows lets them do that. To take that option away from them because would be to make the UI less usable for a small but existent group of users. This is not a good thing.
The only way to truly achieve usability for everyone is configurability. It is impossible to come up with a single configuration for a program that is optimal for everyone. Removing options and deliberately crippling things to encourage use of new features is not the way to do this.
-
@scgtrp said:
...wait, what? [screenshot]
Friendly tip: the Office 200X shot you posted is scaled to about 70%, so its actual height is more like 1/0.7 * 92 = 131px
Lucky for you, that rough estimate doesn't discount your point, but the "measurement" is in the category "what were you thinking trying to run this screenshot by us."
-
@scgtrp said:
But I do expect them not to remove features and force me into their supposedly superior way of working when I actually *do* work better with the old way.
This.
A great example, IMO, is the removal in Windows 7 of the "Up" button. Over the years, my muscle memory has been trained to the point I could find the Up button with my eyes closed (after seeing where the cursor is, but before beginning to move it). Pre Win7, if I was in folder A/B/C/D/E/F and wanted to go to A/B/C/X/Y, I could get to A/B/C really really quickly (cursor to Up button, 3 clicks). NOW, however, I can't do that. Oh, sure, I can move the cursor to the "C" of the A->B->C->D->E->F "string" in the "address bar" (or whatever it's called now). But because the real names of the folders vary in length, whatever folder is 3 levels up is not always going to be in the same place, relative to the Explorer window... whereas the Up button is (hence the ability of muscle memory to find it lightning fast).
And puh-lease don't tell me I can use the back button. Often, I'll get the full path sent to me and I'll copy it to the clipboard, then past it in Run or an "address bar". Back, in that case, does NOT go up one level.
OK, the new interface is gee-whiz, hot-stuff, super-cool, better... fine. But why take AWAY an incredibly useful (to me, anyway) feature? It smacks -- as do so many changes in IT -- of "change for the sake of change".
-
@dhromed said:
@scgtrp said:
...wait, what? [screenshot]
Friendly tip: the Office 200X shot you posted is scaled to about 70%, so its actual height is more like 1/0.7 * 92 = 131px
Lucky for you, that rough estimate doesn't discount your point, but the "measurement" is in the category "what were you thinking trying to run this screenshot by us."
Yah. It's easier to make a point when you lie. Show me a comparison using Office 2007 (not 2010), and an image that hasn't been obviously scaled, then maybe I'll believe you. Also include the vertical space used up by the bottom of the window; that counts too.
The funny thing is, you're actually right-- I've never measured it myself. I've always trusted Jensen Harris because he isn't generally a lying douche. It's entirely possible I'm mistrusting, and completely wrong.
-
@scgtrp said:
The only way to truly achieve usability for everyone is configurability. It is impossible to come up with a single configuration for a program that is optimal for everyone. Removing options and deliberately crippling things to encourage use of new features is not the way to do this.
I appreciate your point, but configurability = bugginess. Adding a simple yes/no option increases the potential for bugs up to 200%. Adding enough to make Linux users happy, well... bugs galore.
I'd post more but I'm about 3 beers in and probably already not making any sense.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Show me a comparison using Office 2007 (not 2010), and an image that hasn't been obviously scaled, then maybe I'll believe you.
I don't have Office 2003 installed anymore, but I do have OpenOffice, whose toolbars should be the same height:
-
@SQLDave said:
A great example, IMO, is the removal in Windows 7 of the "Up" button. Over the years, my muscle memory has been trained to the point I could find the Up button with my eyes closed (after seeing where the cursor is, but before beginning to move it). Pre Win7, if I was in folder A/B/C/D/E/F and wanted to go to A/B/C/X/Y, I could get to A/B/C really really quickly (cursor to Up button, 3 clicks). NOW, however, I can't do that. Oh, sure, I can move the cursor to the "C" of the A->B->C->D->E->F "string" in the "address bar" (or whatever it's called now). But because the real names of the folders vary in length, whatever folder is 3 levels up is not always going to be in the same place, relative to the Explorer window... whereas the Up button is (hence the ability of muscle memory to find it lightning fast).
That makes two of us, except that I also got used to going 2 folders up by clicking the side button on my mouse (which is programmed to send a double-click). And to add an insult to the injury, they also re-purposed the Backspace key from folder up to go back (except when there's nowhere to go back - which usually leads me to press Backspace twice, and I end up where I started).
And, since I'm griping about the Vista UI changes, they also had to break tab order in Open/Save dialog boxes - no more x:\some\path\to\somewhere -> Enter -> Shift+Tab -> type a few characters to get near the file I'm looking for.
-
+1 on the lack of a good Folder Up key, and +1 for fairly unpredictable Tab ordering in Explorer and Save dialogs.
-
@ender said:
@blakeyrat said:
Show me a comparison using Office 2007 (not 2010), and an image that hasn't been obviously scaled, then maybe I'll believe you.
I don't have Office 2003 installed anymore, but I do have OpenOffice, whose toolbars should be the same height:You're right, what a good point. I don't have a copy of Office 2003 handy either, but you've made me realize that all I need to do is take a somewhat similar app and just use that instead!
(I'll leave out the parts where I:
1) Set my computer to the most hideous color combination imaginable
2) Not bother using the default Office 2007 settings, and instead use a version with the ruler visible
3) Count the OS' window decorations, even though OpenOffice clearly ignores those and draws its own)So I thought to myself, what applications do I have that sort of kind of slightly maybe resemble Word 2003 perhaps that I could use for a comparison? And it struck me! Zune! It's so similar to Word because both of the programs can... uh. And also they both have... hm.
Incredible, I know. Office 2007 uses fully 23 more pixels than an another application with an almost identical featureset!
And look at this shocking comparison:
Well, I'm obviously having to eat my words here! Goodnight, folks!!
-
@blakeyrat said:
You're right, what a good point. I don't have a copy of Office 2003 handy either, but you've made me realize that all I need to do is take a somewhat similar app and just use that instead!
OK, I admit my mistake - I should have never used an application which uses interface that's nearly identical to Office 2003 (both use standard Windows decorations, a tear-off menu bar and tear-off toolbars). So just for you I dug out my Office 2003 CD and installed it. Hey, you were right! Word 2003 with default settings doesn't look anything like Writer - it's toolbars are arranged in a single line instead of two, so it's even smaller (and the toolbars themselves are a few pixels shorter, too!).
As for the ruler in Word 2007, I trust you can easily imagine it not being there (though I honestly don't remember enabling it - the only change I know I did was to change the hideous blue colour scheme to slightly less hideous black). Then again, since you apparently don't see too much difference between Word 2007 and a kitchensink, I may be giving you too much credit.
-
@ender said:
So just for you I dug out my Office 2003 CD and installed it.
That is the funniest thing I've read all day.
I have absolutely no idea how you look at your screen for longer than 15 seconds without your eyeballs melting out. Yipes.
That aside:
1) Whether "you remember turning it on" or not, Office 2007's default configuration is rulers off.
2) I know for a fact that Office 2003 has two rows of toolbars, at least.
3) I'm more interested at this point of making fun of people's ridiculously useless comparisons than I am actually demonstrating my points. You're ruining this with actual screenshots!@ender said:
Then again, since you apparently don't see too much difference between Word 2007 and a kitchensink, I may be giving you too much credit.
Gee Davey! You think that might have been a joke!?
-
@blakeyrat said:
I have absolutely no idea how you look at your screen for longer than 15 seconds without your eyeballs melting out.
By using the colour scheme you see in my screenshots. I've been using it for 6 years now (with only minor adjustments), and my eyes practically stopped hurting since I switched to it. But don't worry - the only two reactions I get when people see my colour scheme are "Oww, my eyes are melting!" and "How can I do this, too?" - with slightly more people having the first reaction.
@blakeyrat said:1) Whether "you remember turning it on" or not, Office 2007's default configuration is rulers off.
Maybe I clicked the button above the scrollbar - the rulers are very easy to toggle in 2007 (but I do most of my word processing in Writer these days, and only use Word if I get a problematic document - which hasn't happened in a while).
@blakeyrat said:2) I know for a fact that Office 2003 has two rows of toolbars, at least.
Not here - I installed it, ran Word, entered something when it asked me for my name, dismissed the activation dialog, and got what you see in the screenshot. (I pressed Win+→ to align the window next to Word 2007 before taking the screenshot)
