View Full Version : What design elements would you like to see in Tiger
I have been reading up on which apps in Tiger will get Aqua and which will get brushed aluminum, and it is weird to me that Apple can't find a better way.
I think they should have two themes. The iMac and iBooks should have an all aqua theme for the interface of 10.4
And the powermacs, powerbooks, and Xserves should all have the brushed aluminum.
That way the outside and inside of your mac would match. It would make for an extremely consistent deisgn, and macs are known for their consistency.
What do you guys think?
SonOfSylvanus
2004-10-05, 03:13
That's a pretty interesting idea that I've never thought of. But maybe it would be better if Apple just incorporated themes into MacOSX so that you can just choose whether to go Aqua or Brushed Aluminium yourself.
I don't like the idea of the system you own deciding what GUI you have - (Especially as I own an iMac & prefer the brushed metal look).
...but you've left out one thing: Apple have introduced a third design style into Tiger. You've already seen a hint of it in the Spotlight search results, but now they've carried it over to Mail 2.0 too: Smooth Platinum (http://images.appleinsider.com/images/tiger8a26mail.gif)
So far the "smooth platinum" look seems okay, but I prefer it when it's mixed with that kind of "blue plastic" highlight bar: Blue Plastic (http://images.appleinsider.com/images/tigerdp1spotlightresults.jpg)
Having said all that - 3 design styles is beginning to get a bit much! I'd prefer to keep Brushed Metal, and Aqua - but make the nearly-invisible-pinstripes a bit more prominent again - I miss them (and the more-transparent-than-they-are-now menus!
They should also add a dark grey theme like the pro apps. Really in generally they should allow color tinting for every theme. Not like Quartz couldn't handle it.
psmith2.0
2004-10-05, 10:58
Personally, I've never been a big fan of the brushed aluminum thing. Looks too "look what I can do in Photoshop" or something...it's always bugged me. Looks like something a computer/game geek would dig, like it's trying too hard.
"Ooh, bad ass metal...yeah!"
:rolleyes:
I liked Aqua, but not the stripes and a few other minor aspects.
So, as you can guess (having said what I said above), I dig this new smooth platinum look in Mail 2.0. I don't mind that one damn bit, and think it looks more neutral and less "trying" than Aqua AND Aluminum. You just can't go wrong with a smooth, subtle gradient in non-obtrusive gray. Doesn't come across as trendy or eye candy or "trying too hard to be tough". In fact, it doesn't really come off as anything, which is probably the point considering its function. I like it.
But that's just my opinion (even though I'm right). ;) :p
I agree about the "trying too hard" look of brushed aluminum. I've always been partial to simplicity and clean interfaces.
If you ever get a chance to go back and look at older computer interfaces like Mac OS 8.5, NextStep and BeOs, they really are still quite nice. Just add some very subtle colour touches and it's a fresh look. But none of this gawdy over the top gradations we get today.
Mark my words, everything old will be new again. In 5-10 years, once everyone is tired of bling-bling look at me interfaces, we'll go back to neutral flat coloured palettes. :)
I really like those two pictures Gizzer posted! If you install the WWDC tiger, can you update to newer builds via software update, or do you have to download the new builds from the developers website. I'm just curious, because normally for every build you see it out on bittorrent, but I haven't with Tiger. Of course I haven't been looking, and it was normally most prevalent on like carracho or something...which I don't use anymore.
Install Tiger, expecting an everyday OS, and you'll be disappointed.
As in "have fun reformatting your hard drive" disappointed.
It's strictly a developer preview, and not an everyday OS. You *will* lose data.
I have seen the new theme they are using in Mail, and while I like it, I think one more theme is too much.
I think some sort of option to change which theme your are running would be a great idea. I think my biggest problem is that I like all the themes so far ;).
Maybe they could keep the brushed aluminum for all "pro" apps, and the aqua for iApps, and the new theme for everything else.
I think it would work, but it still sounds too complicated.
OMG! Aaargh! :eek: :eek: :no: :no:
It's been playing on my mind all day - I thought I'd seen "Smooth Platinum" somewhere before: Apple's Inspiration? Say it aint so.... (http://homepage.mac.com/paul.gisborne/URL_Refs/PhotoAlbum15.html)
Just swap the cool blue for grey..... Et Voila! OSX XP!! :eek: :(
...PS - Does anyone know how to reference the URL's direct from a .Mac slideshow page? It's really annoying not being able to embed the image in the post...
BuonRotto
2004-10-05, 15:49
IMO, they don't look similar at all. Office XP's gradients are a lot more pronounced. They make everything look lumpy-bumpy, everything is overarticulated, each element has its own gradient. (That was a problem with the original Aqua -- everything had its own contour.) Apple's apparent revision to Aqua is more subtle and ties elements together (toolbar, titlebar, borders, etc.). You don't see gradient elements on top of gradient elements, and they show no desire to fill in blank areas with gook. Aside from the general idea of a gradient, I tink they have pretty little in common.
IMO, they don't look similar at all. Office XP's gradients are a lot more pronounced. They make everything look lumpy-bumpy, everything is overarticulated, each element has its own gradient. (That was a problem with the original Aqua -- everything had its own contour.) Apple's apparent revision to Aqua is more subtle and ties elements together (toolbar, titlebar, borders, etc.). You don't see gradient elements on top of gradient elements, and they show no desire to fill in blank areas with gook. Aside from the general idea of a gradient, I tink they have pretty little in common.
I see what you are saying but... these were the only screenshots I could find to highlight my point. Somewhere (and I can't think where) there is an MS XP app that really DOES look like this - with only 1 gradient. I just can't think which one it is...
BenRoethig
2004-10-05, 17:37
I say give the user a choice between aqua, brushed metal, and platinum.
psmith2.0
2004-10-05, 17:46
I could live with that. Is something like that easy to do, relatively speaking? And when you applied it, it was system-wide, right? So everything had a cohesive look (which isn't the case currently)?
Just a setting in your general preferences or something, where you choose one of the three and BAM! Done. But I don't know what all that entails.
I could live with that. Is something like that easy to do, relatively speaking? And when you applied it, it was system-wide, right? So everything had a cohesive look (which isn't the case currently)?
Just a setting in your general preferences or something, where you choose one of the three and BAM! Done. But I don't know what all that entails.From Apple's perspective, this is already possible. Not only is it possible, but it has been implemented in Mac OS X since the Public Beta.
What am I talking about? The Aqua/Graphite toggle, of course! Obviously, the ability to toggle "themes" on the fly is already there; Apple simply chooses not to use it.
For the ultimately desperate, there are truly evil third party tools that have ugly tendrils that reach down into protected memory spaces that should never ever ever be touched and mingle with the what they hope to be the memory location of the UI to change the appearance on the fly, but I could never condone the use of such a program.
psmith2.0
2004-10-05, 21:15
Yeah, I've come across and read about them, but, compared to OS 9 (which I had a pretty good handle on, after eight-plus years of use), OS X just boggles my mind. In fact, I don't even go exploring in my System OR Library folders.
They scare me. :D
It works, I deal with Applications and my user folder and that's good enough!
Seems SO much more complex and filled with small files within folders within folders within folders...goes on forever, and I have no idea what things do. I was adventurous and would do the whole Kaleidescope thing in OS 9, shuffle Extensions as needed, download, install and use any little piss-ant shareware interface-altering app.
But not with OS X. I treat it with the awe and reverence it deserves, so it won't eat my head while I'm sleeping. :p
BuonRotto
2004-10-06, 07:54
I guess it would really blow your mind if you knew how many hidden folders with even more intricate files were invisible to you in OS X! ;)
At this point, isn't the Graphite color scheme an anachronism?
SledgeHammer
2004-10-06, 12:54
...PS - Does anyone know how to reference the URL's direct from a .Mac slideshow page? It's really annoying not being able to embed the image in the post...Are you asking how to reference a picture that is on an iDisk? That URL looks like this: homepage.mac.com/username/.Pictures/picturename.jpg (http://homepage.mac.com/username/.Pictures/picturename.jpg) That URL assumes the picture is in your pictures folder (which it should be if it's part of a .Mac gallert/slideshow). Note the "." before "Pictures"
psmith2.0
2004-10-06, 12:57
I guess it would really blow your mind if you knew how many hidden folders with even more intricate files were invisible to you in OS X! ;)
I don't even wanna know. It'll cause me to lose sleep. :p
It's not difficult, really. :)
Think of the various Library folders as your old System Folder, but now they're partitioned into ThingsThouShaltNotTouchForIfTheeDoThineMachineMayN otBoot: /System/Library
ThingsForAllUsers: /Library
ThingsForJustYou: ~/Library
Makes figuring out what is needed to be backed up easy, for instance.
Now *inside* any one of those Library folders, it's pretty easy and well laid out. Fonts, Extensions, Frameworks... should be for the most part really quite familiar.
BuonRotto
2004-10-06, 14:29
You think Joe Bloe has any idea what a framework is, nvermind how important it is to his Mac experience? ;)
Are you asking how to reference a picture that is on an iDisk? That URL looks like this: homepage.mac.com/username/.Pictures/picturename.jpg (http://homepage.mac.com/username/.Pictures/picturename.jpg) That URL assumes the picture is in your pictures folder (which it should be if it's part of a .Mac gallert/slideshow). Note the "." before "Pictures"
Thanks for the info - Unfortunately (I didn't make myself clear) I wanted to be able to embed the image in a post rather than link to it.
A picture (http://homepage.mac.com/paul.gisborne/.Pictures/IMACG5.jpg)
Any other ideas, or is this not possible with .Mac?
You think Joe Bloe has any idea what a framework is, nvermind how important it is to his Mac experience? ;)
You think anybody really had any idea what an 'extension' was in OS9? Hell no. It was just a name for 'things you plop in that there folder named Extensions'.
Same diff.
The OS X layout just makes scads more sense. IIRC, I had something insane like 300 files in my Extensions folder under 9, at one point. Most were not extensions, but other crud that developers tossed in there, and god only knew what did what where and when. 9 offered the various folders for applications to try and put things in, but it wasn't *enforced* because too many legacy apps still wanted things to be in Extensions, or simply hardcoded paths. Lazy.
Under OS X it's pretty easy to see when something is out of place - it simply won't work, it doesn't look like the other items where it is, and little hints like .framework file extensions help. :)
I really like those two pictures Gizzer posted! If you install the WWDC tiger, can you update to newer builds via software update, or do you have to download the new builds from the developers website. I'm just curious, because normally for every build you see it out on bittorrent, but I haven't with Tiger. Of course I haven't been looking, and it was normally most prevalent on like carracho or something...which I don't use anymore.
As far as I know, you have to download new builds from ADC.
BarracksSi
2004-10-06, 19:23
At this point, isn't the Graphite color scheme an anachronism?
Heh...
Well, actually, if I'm trying to get really picky about color when I'm mucking around with images, the Graphite scheme is really nice. With OS9's monitor calibration utility, people recommended clearing the desktop and setting the desktop image to a plain 50% gray so that your eyes wouldn't be fooled by anything outside the ColorSync window. The Graphite scheme, of course, gets rid of the traffic light colors & blue scroll bars, leaving only the document's color.
Despite what some people think about OSX, it's a pretty colorless interface (even more so with the Graphite setting), and doesn't intrude upon your work. I don't mind the metal myself, especially because it has more "stuff" to click & drag when I want to move things around.
XP is still ugly as crap.
Well, actually, if I'm trying to get really picky about color when I'm mucking around with images, the Graphite scheme is really nice. With OS9's monitor calibration utility, people recommended clearing the desktop and setting the desktop image to a plain 50% gray so that your eyes wouldn't be fooled by anything outside the ColorSync window. The Graphite scheme, of course, gets rid of the traffic light colors & blue scroll bars, leaving only the document's color.Wow. I can't believe that anyone still would try to assert that switching to graphite mode actually helps to better perceive the colors in a document.
Graphite should make things worse because the widgets are not grayscale but actually a faint shade of blue! When I am working with grays and light colors, I find it maddening to use graphite because it's even worse to have one color that's just slightly different all over the interface instead of colors that are completely different. It's like working in a studio where the lighting is just slightly yellowish. You don't realize that all your colors are just a smidgeon off until you get out into a more normal setting.
But I digress...
BarracksSi
2004-10-06, 21:43
It's like working in a studio where the lighting is just slightly yellowish.
That's why I calibrated my display to be less bluish and more yellowish -- so that a blank white space looks like a blank piece of paper sitting nearby.
No, you missed my point. That was just an analogy about the lighting...
Your display can be perfectly calibrated so that its white is truly white by any standard. The Graphite theme, however, makes the UI elements slightly bluish. It's only a little bit, though, but enough to sometimes make true grays actually look a wee bit tinted, slightly reddish.
http://brad.project-think.com/images-3/graphite-vs-grayscale.jpg
It's a bit of an optical illusion that's far worse than the effects of the bright stoplight colors and bold blues of the default Aqua theme. At least with Aqua, the colored elements are distinct and high enough contrast to not influence your perception of color and trick your eye like this.
IVIIVI4ck3y27
2004-10-07, 06:55
What would I like to see in Tiger?
Themes
For one I like the ability to choose themes, and I feel Apple with having 3 separate themes should allow you to choose a theme that suits your desires. That theme setting should allow for global and non-global settings, so that if you wanted all 3 themes up & running (similar to default with brushed aluminum here/there, aqua for the OS, and maybe Platinum Smooth for most of the finder's windows), you could and could even go as far as to specify. If you prefer a more consistent desktop... then more power to you. That should be the coup de grace of the OS, we empower you to have choice. If you can choose your desktop picture, and choose your dock position, and choose if your screen saver or background images for open finder windows, why not a choice on which of the Apple themes you wish to use either on a global or singular scale. Create a user interface guideline for the creation of said themes within the API's so they're not custom nor hard-coded. Cocoa in a way sort of does this to the best of my understanding via Interfacebuilder, so why not globalize it so that you can choose? Seems like a no-brainer to me.
I also like the idea of the darker theme of the pro-level apps. making it to OS X as a system theme. Variety is the spice of life.
As far as Aqua or Platinum Smooth, I feel both should be offered in the same way that the old Platinum was in OS 9. Instead of Blue or Blue-Grey for Aqua or Graphite, how about allowing the usage of preset colors similar to Platinum in classic Mac OS? Even moreso, allow user definable control of coloring for widgets via Quartz Extreme &/or the color picker. I don't so much mind the blue bars if I can choose what color they can be. This could even produce a true graphite (greyscale) theme rather than the wannabe syndrome highlighted above by Brad.
Cut/Copy/Paste Within Finder
I commend Apple for supporting the Windows copy/paste to duplicate files to specific directories within the system. Yet unlike Windows which also offers cut, the Mac expects you to do the spring-loaded thing. While initially I thought the whiz-bang Tom-foolery of spring-loaded was neat-o, I've grown to realize that it's a lot more contorting than simply selecting a file you want to move (not copy), press command-x (control-x on PC), and then navigating through your drive to where you want to move the file and pressing command-v. There's none of the drag, wait, and then being aggravated to the point of insanity because the last state of the window being opened was across the screen. Which brings up the wrist dexterity levels as you try to mouse to the open window as fast as you can in a cat and mouse Laurel and Hardy-style skit. As much as I prefer the Mac way on most things, this is one area that's more whizbang "shock and awe" than practical on the Mac. One of the few user interface ideas that Microsoft (may not be the first, but I know that they have it, not sure on all of the others) has truly nailed to where I'm not sure it could be done any better.
Hierarchical Apple-menu Navigation
I also miss the ability to have a BeHierarchic-style set of menus in the Apple menu to navigate the drives (also similar to GoMac without adding a screen-hogging additional bar that chews up real estate and makes your Mac into a wannabe PC). If OS X were to add all active drives into a subsection of the Apple menu, one could navigate to whatever folder they wished. Granted the OS X Finder is a click away, but there's nothing that says I really want/need to have a window open that I'll have to close after I've launched the program I wish to. Being able to just navigate directly to a program icon via the Apple menu, click on it, and have the program rather than the encompassing folder open and sitting in the background while the program is loaded is a more intuitive step. It'd also help switchers as 1) there's a similarity to what the Start menu in Windows does, and 2) it's more intuitive than the myriad of shortcuts/aliases that the Windows poor execution/excuse for this done wrong brings to the plate.
Hell if Apple doesn't want to make it so you can navigate through the bowels of hell via an endless sea of hierarchical menus, then how about an Application menu within the Apple menu? For every file stored in the Applications folder, OS X could find all that are defined by the extension .app, even in nested folders, and hierarchically break things down so that you have a running list of apps to use as a form of pre-installed and integrated launcher. It can even subcategorize itself based on the new Spotlight search technology criteria, or even group programs that aren't in the applications folder but are .app's based on criteria the end-user chooses via meta data. If an app. is defined as a .class that let's say, via meta data, is a "utility", OS X will generate a utilities sub-menu within the Applications menu that includes it with other like-minded utilities. If it's QuickTime and it's located in the QuickTime folder, but has a .class of audio/video/media it'll appear in a subcategory audio/video/media which could include Garageband, Logic (if you own it), iTunes, etc. Make this meta data category (and maybe others) user-editable/definable via "Get Info" similar to how it's editable within iTunes so you can categorize how you want applications to appear within this menu and it'd be quite awesome.
User controlled spacing of desktop icons.
Nothing is more frustrating to me in OS X than trying to place something on the desktop and having it automagically snap back to it's original positioning because OS X doesn't deem there to be enough space to drop the icon to. I can understand the attempts at preventing overlapping icons that OS 9 suffered, but at least provide a user configurable spacing between icons for a tighter or broader arrangment. OS X seems to think that you need an icon width or more between icons or else it's too crowded. There's a slider for icon size, how about a slider for icon spacing?
That's just a few ideas off of the top of my head that'd make the user experience more enriching and empowering. I'm sure others have similar or even better ideas for what they'd like to see in Tiger, or can even take the ideas I have a step further. :) Hope and look forward to hearing them. :D I'll try to come up with more as I think of them to add.
BuonRotto
2004-10-07, 09:05
Well, I agree about the icon spacing at least. :D The OS still leaves icons too rarified.
Kick: only kidding. :)
Brad's right about Graphite. It's actually Aqua blue (hue:211) but with less saturation (approx 13% instead of aqua blue's 87%). My thing about it being an anachronism is that when OS X was introduced and they included graphite, it matched the color of the G4 PowerMacs back then. Now, they're aluminum -- which is actually a slightly warm gray. Anyway, my thought was that the graphite appearance could be replaced with either a true neutral gray or with a dark theme, though that could really make some toolbar icons and such obnoxious with a dark background. Still, I undertstand why Apple wants to control theming as a brand issue.
I also sympathize with those who want to do their own, safe, theming, but remember how it worked back in the days of Kaliedoscope? You'd go through a different theme every hour, settle on something close to the default OS appearance for about a week, then realize that the default appearance still looked better and went back to what you started with. :) So in the end, I think about 98% of users would end up with Aqua even if Apple included theming in the OS.
SledgeHammer
2004-10-07, 14:51
Thanks for the info - Unfortunately (I didn't make myself clear) I wanted to be able to embed the image in a post rather than link to it.
A picture (http://homepage.mac.com/paul.gisborne/.Pictures/IMACG5.jpg)
Any other ideas, or is this not possible with .Mac?Sorry, I assumed you would know how to do that. Actually, I tried to tell you exactly how to embed, but it thought I was trying to actually embed an image and wouldn't just put the text I had typed, so I got rid of it. Anyway, to put an image in your post use {img}http:://urlofpicturegoeshere.com{/img} except replace the curly brackets {} with square brackets [] (Like I said, if I use the square brackets to show you, it thinks I'm really referencing a picture).
IVIIVI4ck3y27
2004-10-07, 16:42
Well, I agree about the icon spacing at least. :D The OS still leaves icons too rarified.
Kick: only kidding. :)
Brad's right about Graphite. It's actually Aqua blue (hue:211) but with less saturation (approx 13% instead of aqua blue's 87%). My thing about it being an anachronism is that when OS X was introduced and they included graphite, it matched the color of the G4 PowerMacs back then. Now, they're aluminum -- which is actually a slightly warm gray. Anyway, my thought was that the graphite appearance could be replaced with either a true neutral gray or with a dark theme, though that could really make some toolbar icons and such obnoxious with a dark background. Still, I undertstand why Apple wants to control theming as a brand issue.
I also sympathize with those who want to do their own, safe, theming, but remember how it worked back in the days of Kaliedoscope? You'd go through a different theme every hour, settle on something close to the default OS appearance for about a week, then realize that the default appearance still looked better and went back to what you started with. :) So in the end, I think about 98% of users would end up with Aqua even if Apple included theming in the OS.
Actually I know of many people that used and lived by the Kaleidoscope themes that were out there. The only argument with it was stability, as a well done theme while not necessarily the usable norm, it wasn't the exception to the rule. Besides, if Apple supplied multiple themes they'd all be well done because they'd be provided by people with a focus in UI design. If one was better than another would remain a mystery, but remember that Aqua also wasn't well received by all on initial launch and that Apple has continually evolved Aqua to try to make it more usable and better designed.
So I disagree with you. :) I think many would opt for one of the 3 themes Apple has been developing, or maybe another unnamed or unshown theme if Apple elected to offer more than 3.
User controlled spacing of desktop icons.
Nothing is more frustrating to me in OS X than trying to place something on the desktop and having it automagically snap back to it's original positioning because OS X doesn't deem there to be enough space to drop the icon to.
you know you can hold down cmd while dragging to disable grid-snapping?
IVIIVI4ck3y27
2004-10-11, 09:21
Thanks for the tip Nassau, had never heard of that. LoL I guess it's the whole fact that I'm so used to OS 9 that I've not picked up on all of the key commands for X yet. LoL I still think controlling the spacing is an important addition, but that's a nifty tip to know. Thanks again.
Also, you don't have to use grid spacing at all. Just bring up the View Options window and un-check it. In fact, it's off by default in Mac OS X.
BuonRotto
2004-10-11, 10:14
In his defense, grid spacing is still annoyingly large in the Finder. It's actually worse when you choose to have a folder sort by some criteria. Looks OK if the icons are 128x128, but anything less and the spacing is, well, expansive. :)
BuonRotto
2004-10-11, 13:49
So I disagree with you. :) I think many would opt for one of the 3 themes Apple has been developing, or maybe another unnamed or unshown theme if Apple elected to offer more than 3.
I don't mean to say that themes have no place, just that there's a law of diminishing returns with user-defined skinning abilities. Besides, I can understand Apple's desires to keep the appearance of the OS consistent, not only to match hardware, but also to keep that "branding" thing going. I mean, I've seen any number of commercials where they show a web page, for example, and the widgets are clearly Aqua. I've even seen ads with invented motion graphics that mimic Aqua closely. If Apple had truly arbitrary theming, the connection wouldn't be nearly as strong, and the influence of these themes diluted if they didn't "protect" their look.
I would love to see the "graphite" appearance replaced by something along the lines of the pro app appearance, or at least with a color scheme that's more up to date. (Graphite is sooo 2001!) On the other hand, the idea of theming types of apps or apps in some contextual scheme is particularly interesting, and arbitrary theming would mess that up. Mess it up even more, that is, since the implementation isn't well documented and the application of these sub-themes like metal are played fast and loose. I would think Apple would have to pick one approach or the other: either make one consistent appearance that can be changed significantly universally, or have several appearances that have a clear and purposeful role in the user's workflow. In either case, I doubt we'll ever see any sanctioned form of user-defined skins or even a big range of prefab ones.
Barracuda
2004-10-11, 23:53
I would LOVE to see a theme built around those slick glossy white tabs featured on the iMac G5 pages at apple.com. The slight reflection of the typeface in the tabs is so cool and very refined looking! Imagine if the icons on tool bars in apps like Mail, or even the dock, had a similar reflective quality. That would totally ROCK and redefine Aqua!
... I mean, I've seen any number of commercials where they show a web page, for example, and the widgets are clearly Aqua. I've even seen ads with invented motion graphics that mimic Aqua closely.
...
I meanwhile have noticed any number of news items, ads and commercials that feature 'typical' web pages or e-mail, and the look is definitely Apple - except it is the old OS, not Aqua. Are all the journalists and ad copy people still stuck in OS 9?
BuonRotto
2004-10-12, 14:21
Short answer: yes, they are. Still lots of 'em out there.
drewprops
2004-10-13, 23:37
I want the beachball to match the rest of the OS. Make it metallic or glass or something that looks more refined.
I want a better way to copy files.
The column-view has become my favorite way of file navigation. Make it even better, surprise me... I'm sleepy and have been working on my Mac all day making & moving files around.
Figure out a way to fool old Windows servers into thinking that my Mac is a Windoze machine so it doesn't concatenate filenames over 33 characters. (smacks hand, that isn't a design element you git)
I've said this before....build a calendar into the date/time menu in the menubar. Let me "see" today in reference to the month. Provide a way for me to crank up iCal from that mini-calendar.
Make it -really- easy to open the sound control panel from the volume drop-down in the menubar. REALLY easy I said.
Make it -really- easy to open the sound control panel from the volume drop-down in the menubar. REALLY easy I said.Hold option and press any one of the three volume keys on your keyboard. Voila!
Hold option and press any one of the three volume keys on your keyboard. Voila!
Wow, great tip! Thanks, Brad.
Holding down command to temporarily disable the snap to grid feature has been around since OS 8 at least. You've always been able to switch between grid or no grid. In fact, no grid is the default setup. How could you possibly think that you CAN'T switch it?
Anyway, doesn't matter. OS X needs better icons. The current ones are so 2001. Something slick and simple like the World Of Aqua set would be perfect. I also think a good feature would be some kind of more universal "go here when you want to do something" button or menu. The Windows equivalent would be the Start menu. In OS 9, you had the Apple menu for launching whichever applications you use the most, but most of the time you just double clicked the hard drive. In OS X, there are about a zillion different ways to do it - you can put the Apps folder in the dock, you can click the Finder icon in the dock and use the sidebar to open the applications folder, you can just double click the hard drive like before, and so on. It's great to have choices but these seem less than perfect, incomplete somehow. The quickest one is where you put the applications folder in the dock, but that doesn't occur to many people. Also, OS X handles it like any other folder and doesn't give it any kind of special treatment, so when you right-click it for the first time, your hard drive will grind for a bit to load up all the data and cache it. If there was some dedicated applications launcher (not the dock, one that lets you launch ALL your applications), it could be much quicker.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.