Quantcast
Subscribe to magazine
You are not logged in, click here to log in.
Up to Discussions in Story Discussion
65 Replies Last post: Nov 14, 2007 11:43 PM by ajunginator   Go to original post 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next
Click to view Dan Frakes's profile Macworld Editorial
Dan Frakes
3,348 posts since
Apr 14, 2003
45. Nov 9, 2007 3:38 AM in response to: glide
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
Quote:<hr />
These criticisms are only significant because you expect the faux stacks to behave like folders. Someone who is more open to other behaviors that make sense when handling stacks on a desktop might be perfectly happy with these "features." For such a person, the take-home message here would be, "Place or arrange items in folder(s) when your stack becomes messy or too large to be functional," because this is where the apparent break down and/or display failure would lead.

<hr />


This sounds like an apology for a poorly-thought-out feature. (Not saying you meant it that way; only that it sounds that way.) Your computer screen isn't a desktop; it's a way of interacting with digital data. And while real-world metaphors are useful for helping people understand how to interact with their data, the computer interface isn't -- and shouldn't be -- confined by the physical restrictions of its real-world counterpart.

For example, a real-world folder has a limit of how many items you can put into it before it's no longer an organizational aid. A folder on your Mac has a limit, as well, but that limit is much higher, thanks to the features a digital folder provides for organizing and locating files within it.

Similarly, just because you can't put many papers in a stack on your desk before the stack becomes a jumbled mess, that doesn't mean Stacks, the OS X feature, should artificially restrict how many items can be displayed just to strictly enforce some sort of digital/analog analogy. A computer screen and a file manager, together, have many advantages over actual sheets of paper and manilla folders, and they should exploit those advantages, not cripple them.



Quote:<hr />
I believe that the main problem now is a lack of clarity regarding whether what we have in the dock should be behaving like a folder from the Finder or, rather, a new entity known as a stack.

<hr />


I think you're mistaken in thinking that I, and others, criticize the current implementation of Stacks because we're expecting a stack to work like a folder. The truth is that there's nothing about a stack's display in OS X -- even the original idea of a group of files -- that works like a folder or a real-world stack of papers. The only thing that's truly analogous is the idea that you can group files together. The way Stacks provides access to your files -- which is what I'm criticizing in the article -- has little to do with the way you'd browse a stack of papers on your desk. (Nor is there anything about a folder displaying its contents as a hierarchical menu that's analogous with a real folder in your file cabinet )

Dan Frakes | Senior Editor, Macworld
Reply
Click to view TenaciousN8's profile New Member
TenaciousN8
42 posts since
Jun 25, 2007
46. Nov 9, 2007 5:12 AM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
I don't see what all the fussing is about- stacks is a 1.0 enticing new feature. Just give it a couple of months and they'll add more functionality. I personally really like opening a view of my applications folder with a single click on the dock.
Reply
Click to view bobvin's profile New Member
bobvin
2 posts since
May 16, 2003
47. Nov 9, 2007 9:55 AM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
Hmm, it appears Apple must have hired a number of Microsoft UI designers for the "Stacks" feature. Overall, it appears to be a gratuitous use of technology. Snazzy looking but functionaly deficient, in my opinion, as are a great many of OS X's features. There was elegance and simplicity in the original Mac OS that died in OS X, and consistency is certainly one aspect of UI design that Apple seems to have abandoned.
Reply
Click to view glide's profile New Member
glide
6 posts since
Nov 8, 2007
48. Nov 9, 2007 10:26 AM in response to: Dan Frakes
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
Quote:<hr />
The truth is that there's nothing about a stack's display in OS X -- even the original idea of a group of files -- that works like a folder or a real-world stack of papers. The only thing that's truly analogous is the idea that you can group files together.

<hr />


You seem to have forgotten that real-world stacks are mainly identified by the appearance of the topmost item. Representation with a changing icon is in fact analagous....

Quote:<hr />
For example, a real-world folder has a limit of how many items you can put into it before it's no longer an organizational aid. A folder on your Mac has a limit, as well, but that limit is much higher, thanks to the features a digital folder provides for organizing and locating files within it.

<hr />


The same thing applies to stacks, whether on your real-world desk or within the computer user interface. Now, the interesting question is, "Who decides the upper limit?" I think that allowing for users varying abilities to tolerate smaller and smaller text and icon sizes is a reasonable way of making it the user's responsibility.

Quote:<hr />
Similarly, just because you can't put many papers in a stack on your desk before the stack becomes a jumbled mess, that doesn't mean Stacks, the OS X feature, should artificially restrict how many items can be displayed just to strictly enforce some sort of digital/analog analogy.

<hr />


In real life stacks serve a different purpose than folders in a file cabinet. There's an inherent disorder, which only helps the user within certain limits. When the stack is too large, that disorder is crippling. If the purpose of stacks is to provide a quick and easy way to tidy up a collection of similar files on the computer desktop until one has the opportunity to sort and organize more optimally in folders, meanwhile allowing some speed advantages from a loose arrangement of the relatively few items in the stack, then it's not a matter of enforcing "some sort of digital/analogy." It's a matter of providing this specific functionality within the limits of the users tolerance for disorder and diminishing feedback.

Quote:<hr />
The way Stacks provides access to your files -- which is what I'm criticizing in the article -- has little to do with the way you'd browse a stack of papers on your desk. (Nor is there anything about a folder displaying its contents as a hierarchical menu that's analogous with a real folder in your file cabinet )

<hr />


And yet we are able to find the hierarchical menu within the context of a docked folder quite acceptable. I trust that when the Stacks feature becomes more clearly implemented than it is now, we may be able to accept that it was never submitted to provide the same features as a folder. I think stacks are intended as a sort of halfway house between items scattered on the desktop and items organized in folders. (Halfway house, indeed. Maybe the idea is simply "criminal."
Reply
Click to view bastion's profile Enthusiast
bastion
1,206 posts since
Oct 14, 2004
49. Nov 9, 2007 10:35 AM in response to: HandyMac
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
Since the introduction of OS X, Apple has had a "consistent record" of trying to force radically different ways of doing things on Mac users, and backing off only when forced to do so. ... Only a huge outcry persuaded Apple to (obviously reluctantly) restore a sort-of Apple menu (non-configurable, unlike the classic Apple menu since System 7) and allow icon and list views in the Finder.

Actually, it goes back earlier than that, and I don't think they were reluctant at all to bring back the things you've noted. It really started with the introduction of the iMac and I've been saying for years that it was an intentional - and incidentally very smart - business strategy. You announce something that's clearly insufficient and then use the user outrage to prioritize what really needs to be done to get out a product that's compelling.

It's a very effective way to get real information from your real customers; much more so than going out and asking them, unfortunately.
Reply
Click to view scotts13's profile New Member
scotts13
156 posts since
Aug 30, 2004
50. Nov 9, 2007 10:39 AM in response to: Rhywun
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
Quote:<hr />

Businesses do lots of things to attract customers, but putting out crap is generally not very successful in the long run.

<hr />


But in the short run (and how many businesses plan past this quarter?) putting out flashy crap will sell you two million copies right out of the gate.
Reply
Click to view Martian's profile Enthusiast
Martian
1,321 posts since
Sep 27, 2001
51. Nov 9, 2007 10:44 AM in response to: bobvin
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
Quote:<hr />
Hmm, it appears Apple must have hired a number of Microsoft UI designers for the "Stacks" feature

<hr />

XP introduced a pane (pain) in each window which replaced the hierarchical tree with Bills random guesses on what you want to do.

BUT at least, Microsoft allows you to turn off this default and just display the hierarchical trees. If Apple wont provide the choice to shut down Stacks, a 3rd party extension soon will
Reply
Click to view maxplanar's profile New Member
maxplanar
1 posts since
Jul 18, 2005
52. Nov 9, 2007 11:00 AM in response to: MW Forums
Stacks - a failure
Sorry, but I hate Stacks, thoroughly. They offer nothing new in an area of the interface that didn't need any rethinking, they obfuscate meaning as they are a new and different way to display files than the FInder, and they get in the way of functionality. I like Leopard, but it seems like there were so many other things they could have addressed before even THINKING of 'a new way of displaying documents from the Dock'.
Reply
Click to view trip1ex's profile Member
trip1ex
182 posts since
Sep 12, 2006
53. Nov 9, 2007 12:09 PM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
I have my own list of fixes for STacks.


First off, I'd like the option to display the most recent files only (not folders) and to 1-click through folders within the stack gui.

Next, Apple needs to fix the transition between a magnified Dock and the STacks gui. It's a bit jarring.

And last, but not least, they need an option to let you use Quick Look with Stacks.
Reply
Click to view nodoz's profile New Member
nodoz
1 posts since
Nov 9, 2007
54. Nov 9, 2007 3:51 PM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
I usually applaud changes but Apple has fully lost me over Stacks, which, well, sucks.

I spent an hour at the over-crowded Apple store here in Portland yesterday confirming my worst fears with the "feature". Others have already noted its many problems and try as I might I could not find a work-around that replicates the incredibible efficiency I get from from hierarchal folders in the dock. With one half-click I can navigate through nested folders to, any file I need - all in under two seconds. Everything under Stacks means multiple clicks and various cludges. The final straw was when I put an alias for the Apps folder in the Leopard doc and got a screen much like the one Dan has in his commentary. Because of the idiotic file name shortening, there was an array of identical dull blue folders with the names "Adobe...CS3" Gosh is that one PS? Is that one DreamWeaver? etc. And putting every app in the Dock is nonsense as well. I keep trying not to flame this mess so my well-considered review of stacks is: crap.

If people like it, that's great for them. I'm fine with leaving it as is for - as some poster above noted - "messy teenagers" but I will also need to see an adult and serious return to quick and simple hierarchal folder access before I touch my copy of Leopard sitting over in the corner of my desk.
Reply
Click to view Dan Frakes's profile Macworld Editorial
Dan Frakes
3,348 posts since
Apr 14, 2003
55. Nov 9, 2007 4:47 PM in response to: glide
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
Quote:<hr />
Quote:<hr />
The truth is that there's nothing about a stack's display in OS X -- even the original idea of a group of files -- that works like a folder or a real-world stack of papers. The only thing that's truly analogous is the idea that you can group files together.

<hr />


You seem to have forgotten that real-world stacks are mainly identified by the appearance of the topmost item. Representation with a changing icon is in fact analagous....

<hr />


But that's my point: the fact that a stack is in some way a "group" of files -- identified by one particular file/icon -- is the only way in which Stacks' interface is analogous to a real-world stack of papers. Its actual display of the individual files is completely different. So we shouldn't try to stretch that analogy to explain away Stack's UI flaws. (Ironically, if you were to treat Stacks as if it were a direct analogy, the feature is even more of a failure, as so little about it functions like a real-world stack of papers.)

Like folders in the Finder, Stacks is a computer-interface element roughly inspired by a real-world concept. However, just like folders, Stacks isn't limited by real-world restrictions, so it can provide the user with additional functionality. On a computer, I can click a button to sort a folder's contents by name, date, last modified, size, etc. Should Apple remove this feature just because I can't do that with a real-world folder? If your answer is "no," then why should Stacks' displays be artificially limited?

Dan Frakes | Senior Editor, Macworld
Reply
Click to view elroth's profile New Member
elroth
42 posts since
Jan 17, 2006
56. Nov 9, 2007 8:45 PM in response to: glide
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
glide, you seem to be saying that piling papers on top of each other is how you are best organized, and how you work best.

Well, many of us are highly organized in a different way - we have hundreds, even thousands of folders organized hierarchically, sometimes eight levels deep. And we know how to find what we're looking for by drilling down quickly (by click-and-hold or right click on the Documents folder in the dock, for example). It's important enough that I'm waiting to buy a new computer until Leopard lets me do that.

Also, I don't pile papers in stacks on the desk, i put them in files in the filing cabinet (except for ones that need to be dealt with soon - for those, stacks could be useful).
Reply
Click to view glide's profile New Member
glide
6 posts since
Nov 8, 2007
57. Nov 9, 2007 9:35 PM in response to: Dan Frakes
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
Quote:<hr />
But that's my point: the fact that a stack is in some way a "group" of files -- identified by one particular file/icon -- is the only way in which Stacks' interface is analogous to a real-world stack of papers.

<hr />


Well, maybe I misunderstood. Your original statement was as follows: "The only thing that's truly analogous is the idea that you can group files together." A feature that groups files together does not necessarily include the concept that the icons representing such groupings might vary based on the appearance of the actual items grouped. So one would think that the variable dock icon is a separate feature/issue, providing another point of analogy.


Quote:<hr />
Like folders in the Finder, Stacks is a computer-interface element roughly inspired by a real-world concept. However, just like folders, Stacks isn't limited by real-world restrictions, so it can provide the user with additional functionality. On a computer, I can click a button to sort a folder's contents by name, date, last modified, size, etc. Should Apple remove this feature just because I can't do that with a real-world folder? If your answer is "no," then why should Stacks' displays be artificially limited?


<hr />


I follow your rationale, but my answer is, "No." Here's the reason: It is perfectly acceptable for Apple to limit the functionality of Stacks in a way that focuses it to serve whatever purpose it was intended to serve. As an example, consider the Trash. Functionality of the Trash could have included internal pockets (automatically activated) for different categories of items so that a user desiring to go back and root through their trash might do so more efficiently. Although not commonly seen in practice, this sort of segmentation is something that can be achieved easily with real-world trash bins, but in order to keep the purpose and performance of the Trash both simple and focused, Apple has chosen not to include it. From my point of view, that is perfectly acceptable. Similarly, it is certainly appropriate to place artificial limitations on Stacks if one is doing so in order to simplify and clearly establish its purpose. The fact that a feature such as Stacks is easily capable of providing additional functionality is never sufficient reason to present that functionality.
Reply
Click to view glide's profile New Member
glide
6 posts since
Nov 8, 2007
58. Nov 9, 2007 10:53 PM in response to: elroth
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
Quote:<hr />
glide, you seem to be saying that piling papers on top of each other is how you are best organized, and how you work best.

<hr />


No, actually I'm not saying that at all! In fact, I only occasionally have a stack on my real-life desk. Everything is carefully orgnized in my file cabinets. I make it a point to get things into folders in the file cabinets as quickly as possible. On my computer, though, I have approximately 20 icons sitting on the right side of my desktop; things that I haven't gotten around to filing via the Finder. (If I were running Leopard, I would probably put these items in a Stack.) In the Dock, I have a special Applications folder which gives me hierarchical access to a bunch of applications that I may need occasionally. I find that I don't use it very often even though I've set it up. I tend to go right to the Finder.

Quote:<hr />
...we have hundreds, even thousands of folders organized hierarchically, sometimes eight levels deep. And we know how to find what we're looking for by drilling down quickly (by click-and-hold or right click on the Documents folder in the dock, for example).

<hr />


In my opinion, you should still be able to do so. I can see this ability coexisting with stacks. I think it would be great if Apple somehow restored that functionality but as a feature associated with typical folders in the Finder, not Stacks. (Just my preference.)
Reply
Click to view JaxbNimbel's profile New Member
JaxbNimbel
66 posts since
Sep 9, 2007
59. Nov 11, 2007 3:23 PM in response to: MW Forums
Re: Opinion: How Stacks stacks up
Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard has removed a feature ( hierarchical dock menus ) from the dock that goes way back to Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar!

Power users who've organized all of their data based on this premise are not just going to change and relocate all of their data because of an Apple GUI trick or whim! Get real!

Fix stacks Apple! At the very least add the old functionality back in some way!


And dont forget to file your complaint about Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard with Apple here...

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html


http://Edited to remove all-cap formatting.
Reply
Go to original post 1 2 3 4 5 Previous Next

Actions

More Like This

Macworld powered by Jive Software's Clearspace ® -1.10.1 (Version: {3}) - Submit product feedback
© Jive Software