[FurriousG]

The worst thing about Mountain Lion’s scroll bars isn’t their invisibility which makes determining if the document has more content or where in the document the cursor is located; it isn’t that the Mountain Lion scroll bars are less functions than the dual-arrowhead scroll bars (my favorite style), it’s that when scrolling in a document than can scroll both horizontally and vertically (for example, a Finder window), if the user scrolls to the bottom vertically the horizontal scroll bar, when visible, obscures the last item in the window and makes it impossible to select that item until the scroll bars vanish.

The scroll bars actively inhibit selection of an item in the window.

[JWarren]

I rarely contribute to forums, but while these complaints are not deal breakers, they are important in that each of us has preferences in how we interface with the mac, and the tools we choose to use are important not only for efficiency but also for how satisfying our work session is, or isn't. Whether it's visible scroll bars, or the little yellow pop-up file locator (I do miss that,) the admirable quality of Apple has always been intuitive and user-friendly interface, so if scrolling direction can be a switchable preference, why not the rest of it? Increasing the number of personal control choices would be a continuation of one of Apple's most valuable traits.

[bastion]

stephenpope, on 18 February 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

With XCode 4, Apple made it an all-in-one-window app (like in the MS-Windows MDI interface). The problem is that for power users with multiple screens, it was great to have one screen with the code editing window and another with the tear-off compiler messages and run-time console windows (see http://fastlabinc.co...Dump-XCode2.jpg - my old screen layout when debugging code)

Apple, Why?

While I have many beefs with recent iterations of Xcode, this is not among them because it's basically configurable. Tabs can be torn off, so any view you can open in a dedicated tab can be opened in a separate window.

Also, the new Xcode presentation is nothing at all like MDI. It's quite a bit like Eclipse, and I suspect - unfortunately - that that was the intention.

This post has been edited by bastion: 22 February 2013 - 06:00 AM

[bastion]

djr12, on 18 February 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

That said, are you arguing that every UI or functionality decision they have ever made is the correct one?

I've never implied any such thing. it wouldn't make sense. They have made several decisions that I think are incorrect - which, for the record, has nothing to do with whether or not I prefer the behavior. Some of them have been corrected in fairly short order. Others have persisted for a decade or more. But generally - a word I used very intentionally in the post to which responded - they've gotten it right and have not taken power away from users. Certainly nowhere near as often as they've been accused of doing so.

Quote

Now, as to the single-button mouse, I'm curious about your rationale. Perhaps you could have argued 15 or 20 years ago that two buttons confused people or whatnot. In the intervening years, I've had to walk literally dozens of people through turning on the secondary click feature on their Apple systems. I have yet to have anyone ask me to turn it off. In a world where people who are new to the Mac are most likely coming in as Windows users, the idea that not having a second mouse button is somehow more intuitive is certainly not plausible. And I certainly wouldn't think anybody finds it more convenient to have to hold down the Control key for contextual menu functionality, instead of just clicking a single button on the mouse.

So, I'm curious: at this point in time, what is your argument for single-button functionality?

The same as it was 15 or 20 (or, indeed, 29) years ago, and it's not about people being "confused or whatnot." It's about maximizing the efficiency and effectiveness of the experienced user. Context menus don't do that within the gestalt of the Mac OS UI. On the Mac, context menus - and thus the mechanism for invoking them - increase the comfort of the experienced user *at the expense* of efficiency and effectiveness. So I would argue that in this case Apple has so far gotten it right; support the mechanism for those who *want* it but don't present it by default. Allowing people to use context menus is good, but encouraging them do so really isn't. I could even argue that that's especially true in the case of those switching from other platforms where context menus *are* a win; they should be encouraged to try the better mechanisms available on their new platform instead of just configuring it to match their old one imperfectly.

[JamesC1]

I recently purchased a new MacBook Pro which came with ML already installed. Fortunately, I still had an older MacBook Pro running Snow Leopard which I have returned to, as the interface on ML is virtually unusable.

I am not an old man who resists change, I am 41 years old and have used Macs since my teens and despite pressure form various sources have stayed with Macs both for private use and professionally (I am a university lecturer).

It is not a matter of “getting used” to ML but rather wishing that Apple would remember that people with disabilities have traditionally used Macs in preference to Windows. I am partially sighted and Snow Leopard allows me to use my laptop without feeling that I am in alien territory. Not so with ML, the grey ghost interface is virtually invisible to me as I need colour for contrast and larger system icons to identify function.

To claim that the new Macs are to be regarded as “an environment optimized for touch, not point & click” ignores the claim of Apple to be as accessible as possible to a wide range of users. I don’t use the touch pad as I need to position my laptop some distance from my eyes, so I use the “old fashioned” point & click. My lapTop is a computer NOT a touch screen iPad.

Instead of claiming that ML is the best yet OS because “it works for me” I wish people would give some thought to the fact that computers should be available for use by most people, not just you. I am not demanding that any update to MacOs should be designed around disabled needs as there is considerable variation of need. Apple’s current ‘universal access’ only offers users with visual problems the facility to enlarge and change background/foreground. All I ask is that the OS has a more detailed CHOICE for users, not just what Apple ‘designers’ think is ‘cool’.

[jimmie18]

I agree with the comments decrying the trend to reduce contrast and color. I am an old guy who does not appreciate the move toward general invisibility. Click About iTunes, look at scrollbars, click the calendar button in Calendar and explain how not being able to see clearly is a good thing. We now have light grey on white. What next -- white on white? That will look exceedingly clean. The monochrome look may be ok, but at least provide the option for darkening things (scrollbars) and making things stop moving until we have had a chance to read them (about iTunes).