Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:11 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Surely there are valid reasons, such as comparisons between web sites when you're buying something online (or just shopping online) or when selecting a batch of items on, say, Amazon, or doing research and collecting a group of references. Sure there are valid reasons. I'm not denying that. But I don't generally work that way. Also, it sounds like I don't use the Web nearly as much as you do. I don't shop online, for instance. Is minimizing impossible? Or resizing the various windows to utilize your screen real estate according to the way you want it used? It's not a matter of real estate. It's a matter of having things left open. I just don't like the feeling. Sure, I can minimize, but then there's all these little tiny icons for the minimized stuff. I'd rather just have them closed. I'm not saying it's more efficient. I'm just saying i like it better that way. In fact, in many cases I know it's less efficient. If it were just a matter of saving a valuable seconds then it would make sense to have all the apps you use regularly open all the time (which I suppose some people probably do...). I don't bounce around. The choice is between this: [snip] We just have different habits. Your entire discussion implies following a dozen or more web links in one sitting, and that notion alone feels distasteful to me, no matter how one navigates them. If you like to minimize the number of open windows, then tabs *help* with that goal, so I don't see why you would reject them out of hand, even if you're not a web-browsing lunatic like myself. "Reject" is such a strong word. I've never played an oboe, and I very likely never will. That doesn't mean I'm rejecting oboes out of hand, nor telling others not to play them. It's just something that I don't do. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On 24 Aug 2004 at 21:40, Mark D Lew wrote: > On Aug 24, 2004, at 10:46 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: > > If you like re-using a single window for every document, and the lag > > time it takes to re-render when you go back, and if you don't mind > > the proliferation of multiple windows when you want to have lots of > > web pages open at once, then I guess it wouldn't be much of an > > advantage. > > I rarely have several windows open at once. . . . Tabbed browsing makes that even more possible. It means that what you now need two windows for you'd only need one. > . . . We went through this with > the Exposé discussion as well. I just don't like having more than a > couple of windows open anywhere. It feels like clutter to me. I'd > rather close them and open them again later when I need them. I tend > to close any applications I'm not currently using, too, even though I > know it isn't really necessary. It just bothers me having them all > open. Sort of like having all the drawers and cupboards open in the > kitchen. Surely there are valid reasons, such as comparisons between web sites when you're buying something online (or just shopping online) or when selecting a batch of items on, say, Amazon, or doing research and collecting a group of references. > Pretty much the only time I open a second browser window is if one of > them is playing the webcast of the baseball game and I'm reading in > the other, and even then I always drag the mlb.com window way off in > the corner where I can only see its buttons. (In fact, it's down > there right now, but I don't have any other browser window open.) I'd > close it altogether, except that then the sound stops. Is minimizing impossible? Or resizing the various windows to utilize your screen real estate according to the way you want it used? > > But since I've *always* read the web in a fashion that made multiple > > windows annoying, tabbed browsing was a huge annoyance. Some of my > > typical browsing scenarios: [examples snipped] > > Hmm. Sounds confusing to me. My thinking is very linear. I want to > read just one thing at a time, not bounce around between things. > (Funny, because I *don't* mind reading several books at once. Not > sure what the difference is, but that's just how I am) I don't bounce around. The choice is between this: 1. open Salon.com. Click link. Read article to end (2 or 3 links deep). Then back, back, back to Salon.com. Open a different article. Lather, rinse, repeate. OR 2. open Salon.com. Open new tab (or window) for article you want to read. Read article, 2 or 3 links deep. Close window. You're now back where you started, at Salon.com, so you can now select the next article. OR 3. open Salon.com. Open new tab for each article that catches my interest. Close main Salon.com tab. Read an article. Close the tab in which you read it's multiple pages. Do something else. Return to browser window with selection of articles of interest from Salon.com and read (or not), the articles you've pre-selected. #3 is the way I do it, but it fits my way of thinking because the selection process (browsing the front page of a website) is a process separate from actually reading the content, which I many do at any time. Focusing on the organization of the Salon.com front page in order to identify what interests me is something I want to do all at once, rather than coming back to it repeatedly and starting up with the process of perceiving where I am on the page, what I've already decided not to read and selecting from the remainder. To me, it's like reading a table of contents of a book and checking off the chapters that are of interest to you, as opposed to jumping directly to the first chapter you encouner of interest, reading it, then jumping back to the TOC and continuing from there. Tabbed browsing makes it much easier for me to navigate these kinds of pages where there are lots of things I'm interested in, but which are not organized in a way that makes it easy for me to keep my place. I'm not saying othters necessarily read the web this way. Chances are good I'm in a minority in terms of the amount of reading of web pages that I do on a regular basis (I read a lot of the web each day). But I wouldn't read as much if it weren't so easy. And group bookmarking is an added bonus (if it turns out I can't finish reading all my selections before I have to log off, I can just bookmark the group of open tabs and come back to it at any time I want). If you like to minimize the number of open windows, then tabs *help* with that goal, so I don't see why you would reject them out of hand, even if you're not a web-browsing lunatic like myself. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailma
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On Aug 25, 2004, at 6:08 AM, Christopher Smith wrote: Ha ha! That's strange, because I LIKE having all my drawers and cupboards open (to the distress of my wife) but I don't like tabbed browsing! Maybe I should give it another look, since it seems to suit my personality type so well... Ha ha. But according to Darcy, I've got the personality types reversed. And he knows this stuff better than I do. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
At 08:56 AM 8/25/04 -0700, Brad Beyenhof wrote: >On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:39:55 -0400, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > >> now I've got a utility to minimize everything that's typically running into >> the system tray (mail, browser, audio editor, Finale, etc.). > >Out of curiosity, what utility is that? TrayIt! I've been using it for a few years. Funny how used to something I get; when I'm on a machine without it, I can't stand the taskbar. >> And I'm spoiled by Opera because it's been a one-instance browser for a >> long time. > >Are you using 7.54 yet? Yup. Of course, I have all their dopey panels hidden and the menus are all text or smallest icons (I use the "she" skin that's pretty unobtrusive). >(even though I've actually paid to register Opera) I bought it way back in version 4. It's been my browser of choice since then, even though I had to upgrade IE to be able to register some products and use some installation features. It seems the registration cryptography is in IE, not Windows. >The problem with gmail not working in Opera is actually a browser >fault, not a website fault. It's a customized piece of code for the mouseclicks that Opera doesn't support yet. They will do that shortly, I hear. >OS X has a "Zoom" button in the top-left corner of each window, but >not every program utilizes it to maximize the current window to >full-screen. Many just maximize to show window content as fully as >possible; for example, Word will only maximize to the width of the >page and/or writing area. Got it. I always wondered about that. >Based on your working style as you've described it, Dennis, allow me >to recommend another Windows utility that you might find useful. It's >called HotChime Thanks much ... I'll have a look. Always appreciate the recommendation for something that gets me off the mouse! Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 09:39:55 -0400, Dennis Bathory-Kitsz wrote: > now I've got a utility to minimize everything that's typically running into > the system tray (mail, browser, audio editor, Finale, etc.). Out of curiosity, what utility is that? > I've never really found much of a use for multiple visible windows with > screen real estate so tight. Amen! > And I'm spoiled by Opera because it's been a one-instance browser for a > long time. Are you using 7.54 yet? Pretty nifty, eh? Of course, I'm using Firefox these days (even though I've actually paid to register Opera) because a) it is very customizable with Extensions and b) it supports gmail. The problem with gmail not working in Opera is actually a browser fault, not a website fault. > Idle question that I've wondered about: Do Macs maximize yet? Yes. Well, kinda. OS X has a "Zoom" button in the top-left corner of each window, but not every program utilizes it to maximize the current window to full-screen. Many just maximize to show window content as fully as possible; for example, Word will only maximize to the width of the page and/or writing area. > and all the various > system toolbars & menu things couldn't be hidden (I may not have been in > the presence of power users, and I've never used a Mac myself). In OS X, the only thing you always need to see is the menu bar, which has the Apple menu, the "File," etc. menus for the current app, and the clock (and any of several other "menu bar" elements you can put in there as well, if desired). Basically the Mac analog to the Windows taskbar. The only time I've ever been able to hide it is when using a Safari plug-in called Saft that enables full-screen browsing in the manner you described for Opera. However, my default browser is Firefox in OS X as well... > But for now, there's not enough room for my eyes! I have set all of my OS X applications that allow it (Web browsers, FTP clients, Finale, and the like) to always show up fully maximized. I do this in Windows, as well (which is pretty much everything in that environment). Based on your working style as you've described it, Dennis, allow me to recommend another Windows utility that you might find useful. It's called HotChime ( http://www.chime.tv/products/hotchime.shtml ), which allows you to hit a predefined key (I use the Pause/Break key) to bring up a small floating window that accepts any number of customizable HotWords that you can use to launch Web sites, programs, Windows shortcuts, Google searches, etc. It helps you to dissociate from you mouse even further, and it also allows you to auto-maximize every program opened by a HotWord. -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
At 09:08 AM 8/25/04 -0400, Christopher Smith wrote: > >On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:40 AM, Mark D Lew wrote: >> >> I rarely have several windows open at once. We went through this with >> the Exposé discussion as well. I just don't like having more than a >> couple of windows open anywhere. It feels like clutter to me. I'd >> rather close them and open them again later when I need them. I tend >> to close any applications I'm not currently using, too, even though I >> know it isn't really necessary. It just bothers me having them all >> open. Sort of like having all the drawers and cupboards open in the >> kitchen. >> > >Ha ha! That's strange, because I LIKE having all my drawers and >cupboards open (to the distress of my wife) but I don't like tabbed >browsing! Maybe I should give it another look, since it seems to suit >my personality type so well... 8-) Working styles are amazingly different. If I have to have something, I like tabs and taskbars better than other features because I maximize all windows. I even used to use the auto-hide function with the taskbar, but now I've got a utility to minimize everything that's typically running into the system tray (mail, browser, audio editor, Finale, etc.). That way only the unusual items and active programs are on the taskbar and the bulk of my screen is occupied by a single task. (I tend to use ALT+TAB and CTL+TAB rather than taskbar or tabs to switch between programs and documents, not my trackball or tablet.) Once in a while I'll put windows side-by-side when I have a drag-and-drop thing going, or I'm comparing two documents. But that's fairly rare. I've never really found much of a use for multiple visible windows with screen real estate so tight. And I'm spoiled by Opera because it's been a one-instance browser for a long time. No cluttering up the screen or taskbar with multiple instances, and I can drag the toolbars wherever I want them to keep them out of my eyeballs. Plus I use Opera's F11 full-screen browsing as often as possible ... nothing on the screen but the page, not even browser icons or address bar. It's like the full-screen edit mode in photo editors. Idle question that I've wondered about: Do Macs maximize yet? They didn't used to -- there was always stuff around the edges, and all the various system toolbars & menu things couldn't be hidden (I may not have been in the presence of power users, and I've never used a Mac myself). I have no patience for some Windows programming teams' ideas of "design" when I'm working. I loathe programs that won't maximize to full screen, don't handle large fonts (which I use to have easy reading while getting a very full screen at the same time), and use non-standard menu bars and widgets. Of course, I'm so easily distracted that I have to have nothing but my task in front of me. All the beeping and flashing are turned off, all the window open/close expansion-contraction illusions, etc. I suppose when screens are actually desk-size and I can drag documents around with my fingers and out of sight, then I'll actually enjoy windowing. But for now, there's not enough room for my eyes! Dennis ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On Aug 25, 2004, at 12:40 AM, Mark D Lew wrote: I rarely have several windows open at once. We went through this with the Exposé discussion as well. I just don't like having more than a couple of windows open anywhere. It feels like clutter to me. I'd rather close them and open them again later when I need them. I tend to close any applications I'm not currently using, too, even though I know it isn't really necessary. It just bothers me having them all open. Sort of like having all the drawers and cupboards open in the kitchen. Ha ha! That's strange, because I LIKE having all my drawers and cupboards open (to the distress of my wife) but I don't like tabbed browsing! Maybe I should give it another look, since it seems to suit my personality type so well... 8-) Christopher ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On Aug 24, 2004, at 10:46 AM, David W. Fenton wrote: I know many people who said "who cares" for months, even years, and then actually tried it and then said "Oh! Now I get it!" So I've heard. Perhaps some day I'll be one of those. But not today. If you like re-using a single window for every document, and the lag time it takes to re-render when you go back, and if you don't mind the proliferation of multiple windows when you want to have lots of web pages open at once, then I guess it wouldn't be much of an advantage. I rarely have several windows open at once. We went through this with the Exposé discussion as well. I just don't like having more than a couple of windows open anywhere. It feels like clutter to me. I'd rather close them and open them again later when I need them. I tend to close any applications I'm not currently using, too, even though I know it isn't really necessary. It just bothers me having them all open. Sort of like having all the drawers and cupboards open in the kitchen. Pretty much the only time I open a second browser window is if one of them is playing the webcast of the baseball game and I'm reading in the other, and even then I always drag the mlb.com window way off in the corner where I can only see its buttons. (In fact, it's down there right now, but I don't have any other browser window open.) I'd close it altogether, except that then the sound stops. But since I've *always* read the web in a fashion that made multiple windows annoying, tabbed browsing was a huge annoyance. Some of my typical browsing scenarios: [examples snipped] Hmm. Sounds confusing to me. My thinking is very linear. I want to read just one thing at a time, not bounce around between things. (Funny, because I *don't* mind reading several books at once. Not sure what the difference is, but that's just how I am) de gustibus and all that mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
What browser is better than IE if I am still using OS 9.2? ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On 23 Aug 2004 at 17:57, Mark D Lew wrote: > On Aug 23, 2004, at 3:35 PM, Owain Sutton wrote: > > > My successes in the latter have all been down to tabbed browsing - > > nobody can ignore that. > > I've been pretty successful at ignoring it. Ever since I got onto OS > X and Safari last fall, Darcy has been trying to tell me how tabbed > browsing is going to change my life. I can't even remember what the > reason was, but I do remember that whenever it is described to me my > reaction is always, "who cares". I know many people who said "who cares" for months, even years, and then actually tried it and then said "Oh! Now I get it!" > I'm not trying to argue against it, mind you. If everyone else in the > world thinks it's wonderful, that's great. I'm just rebutting your > claim that nobody can ignore it. If you like re-using a single window for every document, and the lag time it takes to re-render when you go back, and if you don't mind the proliferation of multiple windows when you want to have lots of web pages open at once, then I guess it wouldn't be much of an advantage. But since I've *always* read the web in a fashion that made multiple windows annoying, tabbed browsing was a huge annoyance. Some of my typical browsing scenarios: 1. reading Salon.com: I open the main page, then read down through it and open in a separate tab each article that I want to read. 2. Amazon.com research: run a search, say "Schumann chamber music," and open each individual item from the results in its own tab. Then use the BOOKMARK GROUP OF TABS feature to save the results. 3. Google a topic, such as "Handel Alcina," and then open each article of interest in its own tab. Then bookmark the group of tabs (including the Google search results) for later reference. These things are just not doable in IE, and it would kill me to have to give them up. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 20:16:35 -0700, Richard Yates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > And then I discovered tabbed Windows > and was hooked at once. I had always wished for this feature (without > knowing exactly what it would be) as I kept trying to use "Open in new > window" in IE and never finding it very satisfactory. I know exactly what you mean. My first experience with tabbed browsing was with Opera, and I just can't use a browser without tabs anymore. > Lo unto you, Mozilla is the Lord of browsers and Owain is his prophet! Not to rain on your tabbed-bowsing parade, but I find Firefox to be even better than Mozilla. It's basically the same thing, but it's *just* a browser without the whole "Mozilla Suite" behind it. It's a bit quicker at rendering pages, and it just feels smoother to me. It also loads way faster in OS X. -- Brad Beyenhof [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://augmentedfourth.blogspot.com ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
Richard Yates wrote: (By the way, the closing browser mystery turned out to have an odd solution. I had set the middle button of my wheel mouse to 'close application'. Apparently when some sites downloaded this command got cross-wired (even though the button was not pressed) and closed the browser. Switching the button command immediately fixed the problem.) Richard Yates There's an extension which adds an 'x' to each tab to close them: http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/tabx ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
> What I actually meant was that all of the conversions I have achieved > (blimey, I need the Book of Mozilla in my hand or something :p ) have > all reached their culmination *not* when I explain that they'll be much > safer from adware and the like, but when I show them that the program > could so something that had never occured to them before, ie tabs. Entirely by coincidence, I was having a peculiar problem with Internet Explorer today - going to some sites immediately closed the browser - and tech support suggested trying another one. I downloaded Mozilla and was quickly converted. I was impressed that it automatically (without my even asking) imported my Favorites from IE. And then I discovered tabbed Windows and was hooked at once. I had always wished for this feature (without knowing exactly what it would be) as I kept trying to use "Open in new window" in IE and never finding it very satisfactory. Lo unto you, Mozilla is the Lord of browsers and Owain is his prophet! (By the way, the closing browser mystery turned out to have an odd solution. I had set the middle button of my wheel mouse to 'close application'. Apparently when some sites downloaded this command got cross-wired (even though the button was not pressed) and closed the browser. Switching the button command immediately fixed the problem.) Richard Yates ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
Mark D Lew wrote: On Aug 23, 2004, at 3:35 PM, Owain Sutton wrote: My successes in the latter have all been down to tabbed browsing - nobody can ignore that. ... I'm not trying to argue against it, mind you. If everyone else in the world thinks it's wonderful, that's great. I'm just rebutting your claim that nobody can ignore it. mdl What I actually meant was that all of the conversions I have achieved (blimey, I need the Book of Mozilla in my hand or something :p ) have all reached their culmination *not* when I explain that they'll be much safer from adware and the like, but when I show them that the program could so something that had never occured to them before, ie tabs. Granted, there's a minority who will never have a use for tabbed browsing. But I doubt that minority is correctly represented by IE's 95% market share. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On Aug 23, 2004, at 3:35 PM, Owain Sutton wrote: My successes in the latter have all been down to tabbed browsing - nobody can ignore that. I've been pretty successful at ignoring it. Ever since I got onto OS X and Safari last fall, Darcy has been trying to tell me how tabbed browsing is going to change my life. I can't even remember what the reason was, but I do remember that whenever it is described to me my reaction is always, "who cares". I'm not trying to argue against it, mind you. If everyone else in the world thinks it's wonderful, that's great. I'm just rebutting your claim that nobody can ignore it. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
David W. Fenton wrote: But I don't understand why they are happy with the crap they have to put up with and are not actively asking why they have to put up with it (which would then lead to them finding out about the alternatives). There is an infrequently asked question about alphabetical order (to tie another thread in here): why does "a" precede "b", both of which precede "c", &c. The only answer possible to this question is some version of "because that's the way it is". Generally, it is my experience that people who are unaware of the existence of alternatives, have a similar approach to other matters. One who is unaware that there are superior alternatives to IE, tends to answer such questions as "why is this software so hard to use" using much the same manner: because that's the way it is. In my experience, such people (who, by the way, are fastidious about leaving the tag on mattresses) also tend to be unwilling, for whatever reason, to "rock the boat", perhaps taking an attitude, "if IE is this hard to use, then I'm sure Mozilla is even harder". There are lots of people whose enterprises depend upon the inflexibility of such people. ns ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
David W. Fenton wrote: On 23 Aug 2004 at 22:39, Owain Sutton wrote: David W. Fenton wrote: I know they haven't heard of them. But I don't understand why they are happy with the crap they have to put up with and are not actively asking why they have to put up with it (which would then lead to them finding out about the alternatives). Until I saw how bad it could be, I thought using IE entailed just the minor annoyance of a bad UI and non-standard HTML rendering. Now I see that using it requires that you put up with an enormous amount of crap and a very high annoyance level, a level high enough that if I had to put up with it, I'd stop using the Internet entirely -- it's absolutely that bad. Until I finally got them on ADSL a few weeks ago, my mum claimed that she couldn't see any reason to change. She wouldn't say that now. The problem is that you actually have to demonstrate to them that (a) nothing is different, and (b) a lot is better. My successes in the latter have all been down to tabbed browsing - nobody can ignore that. But it'll take a lot of man-hours to sit in front of 95% of internet users and demonstrate this. And there's only one firm that has the money to fund it (FWIW, is there *any* non-defunct browser other than IE that doesn't have tabs?) ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On 23 Aug 2004 at 22:39, Owain Sutton wrote: > David W. Fenton wrote: > > > On 22 Aug 2004 at 16:30, Owain Sutton wrote: > > > >>. . . why do most people still use Internet > >>Explorer? Because they don't know what they're missing. > > > > I was in California for 3 weeks and for the first two weeks I was > > staying with an older couple who use AOL. Their copy of Internet > > Explorer was just completely infested with spyware and popup junk -- > > I had never seen anything so awful. I downloaded Lavasoft's AdAware > > and it found over 400 separate suspect items. > > > > I simply don't understand why anyone puts up with this kind of crap > > from IE -- it's the worst-engineered piece of software I have ever > > encountered. > > > > FireFox or Mozilla or Opera or Camino or Safari are all so much > > better in so many ways than IE, and not prone to the popup > > annoyances and the spyware infections. And they are all faster and > > more reliable browsers with better usability features. > > Most people have never heard of Mozilla or Opera. Seriously. It > seems strange to us geeks, but in the outside world, people think that > the internet is something that just "is", and they don't know what a > browser does. I know they haven't heard of them. But I don't understand why they are happy with the crap they have to put up with and are not actively asking why they have to put up with it (which would then lead to them finding out about the alternatives). Until I saw how bad it could be, I thought using IE entailed just the minor annoyance of a bad UI and non-standard HTML rendering. Now I see that using it requires that you put up with an enormous amount of crap and a very high annoyance level, a level high enough that if I had to put up with it, I'd stop using the Internet entirely -- it's absolutely that bad. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
Mark D Lew wrote: Then again, if "tutorial" means an actual printed manual, then you've got my attention! If it's a PDF monstrosity, or worse a little applet that launches my browser and runs something on their website, then phphpltt. Amen. A brief glance (for the first time) at the 2003 manual...the first section is devoted to how to navigate a PDF. Since when did books need "Next, turn the page" instructions? Exactly how expensive is it to include printed manuals in standalone sales? (Given that they're the presumably the most profitalbe sales anyway?) I notice that there's actually a new reprint of the Score manual available for purchase, for users who've physically worn theirs out. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On Aug 23, 2004, at 2:32 PM, David W. Fenton wrote: Every new user of Finale should go through *all* the tutorials -- if they did, then they wouldn't have questions like that. What was it you were saying about winning contracts over competitors? I understand what you mean about wishing that users wouldn't be so ignorant, but seriously, how far would you get if you specified that anyone using your software has to read all the tutorials? Then again, if "tutorial" means an actual printed manual, then you've got my attention! If it's a PDF monstrosity, or worse a little applet that launches my browser and runs something on their website, then phphpltt. mdl ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
David W. Fenton wrote: On 22 Aug 2004 at 16:30, Owain Sutton wrote: . . . why do most people still use Internet Explorer? Because they don't know what they're missing. I was in California for 3 weeks and for the first two weeks I was staying with an older couple who use AOL. Their copy of Internet Explorer was just completely infested with spyware and popup junk -- I had never seen anything so awful. I downloaded Lavasoft's AdAware and it found over 400 separate suspect items. I simply don't understand why anyone puts up with this kind of crap from IE -- it's the worst-engineered piece of software I have ever encountered. FireFox or Mozilla or Opera or Camino or Safari are all so much better in so many ways than IE, and not prone to the popup annoyances and the spyware infections. And they are all faster and more reliable browsers with better usability features. Most people have never heard of Mozilla or Opera. Seriously. It seems strange to us geeks, but in the outside world, people think that the internet is something that just "is", and they don't know what a browser does. ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On 22 Aug 2004 at 16:30, Owain Sutton wrote: > . . . why do most people still use Internet > Explorer? Because they don't know what they're missing. I was in California for 3 weeks and for the first two weeks I was staying with an older couple who use AOL. Their copy of Internet Explorer was just completely infested with spyware and popup junk -- I had never seen anything so awful. I downloaded Lavasoft's AdAware and it found over 400 separate suspect items. I simply don't understand why anyone puts up with this kind of crap from IE -- it's the worst-engineered piece of software I have ever encountered. FireFox or Mozilla or Opera or Camino or Safari are all so much better in so many ways than IE, and not prone to the popup annoyances and the spyware infections. And they are all faster and more reliable browsers with better usability features. IE users should sue Microsoft for releasing such an awful product. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
On 22 Aug 2004 at 16:30, Owain Sutton wrote: > I know one person who nearly gave > up on Finale almost immediately in frustration, until I explained the > difference between two identical icons (the Simple Entry and Eight > Note buttons). Every new user of Finale should go through *all* the tutorials -- if they did, then they wouldn't have questions like that. And experienced users should go back and do them again after they upgrade to a new version. -- David W. Fentonhttp://www.bway.net/~dfenton David Fenton Associateshttp://www.bway.net/~dfassoc ___ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
Re: [Finale] Reply to Dwain (too long!) (It's Owain, btw! :D )
John Howell wrote: At 12:56 PM +0100 8/22/04, Owain Sutton wrote: David Hage wrote: In my humble opinion it must be that 90% of Sibelius users never used a music notation program before Unfortunately, simplicity sells. Well of COURSE simplicity sells. Simplicity is also the hallmark of a mature technology. Simplicity means that anyone can pick it up and use it without worrying about how it works. (Not my original idea, by the way. The subject of an excellent editorial by Stan Schmidt in Analog a while back.) For a crude example, land-line telephony is a mature technology. Anyone can use it. You don't need expensive training. It works when your power goes out. Cell-phone technology is far from being mature, in part because the infrastructure does not yet exist. Cells can lose signal and leave the user frustrated and helpless. Yet mobile phones are nonetheless selling, because they're filling a need. The recent fluff appearing in Finale isn't filling a need - it's desperately trying to create needs where none exist. The power users on this mailing list--and I have enormous respect for them and their knowledge and skills--scoff at the idea of using Finale, or any program, right out of the box, but I submit that the expectation of using something right out of the box is a legitimate expectation and, again, the mark of a mature technology. I expect to plug in a new refrigerator or range and start using it. I don't expect to have to reprogram it because the default settings selected by the engineers who designed it aren't what they should be. *Obviously music notation technology is not yet mature.* Excellent point. No music notation software has an intuitive interface. I can't conceive of what an intuitive interface would involve. It's a huge challenge for any company. Once again, Finale seems to be tackling this by the 'fluff' route, rather than really working out what non-computer-comfortable people really find awkward about the present interface. (For example, note- versus measure-attached expressions - everyone here knows their different function and usage, but it's thoroughly confusing for newcomers). I know one person who nearly gave up on Finale almost immediately in frustration, until I explained the difference between two identical icons (the Simple Entry and Eight Note buttons). And many people don't identify the limitations of the software, but rather they work within it (several times I've heard "I wanted to do XYZ but Sibelius wouldn't let me" from university-level composers). Isn't it just a little disingenuous to talk about not identifying the limitations of the software, when the annual rants about Finale's bugs and failure to fix them and what the new program won't do and what needs to be made up for by third-party programmers and so on is in full hue and cry? I find it interesting that Composer's Mosaic does many things quickly and easily that Finale users are still struggling with, even though Mosaic's list of things it can NOT do is plenty long. The fact is that Finale can NOT do everything, and maybe that's true of any software. So the fact that Sibelius or other programs can not do everything either may be true, but is almost irrelevant. At this point in history you have to pick your deficiencies and live with them. But the fact is that for a huge base of those who use music notation programs, the basics are all you need, and anything beyond the basics is awfully nice to have AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T COMPLICATE THE PROGRAM AND MAKE IT HARDER TO USE! Lots of church musicians and others get a lot of functionality out of Noteworthy Composer, limitations or not, and the price is right. The rants are only from the small minority who discuss such things here, not from the silent (and oblivious) majority. My comment on limitations applies to all notation software. Indeed to all software full-stop - eg why do most people still use Internet Explorer? Because they don't know what they're missing. Finale needs to have *extra* attractiveness than Sibelius for first-time users, when at the minute it's well behind. Despite it's greater capabilities (I've picked up engraving jobs which were turned down by Sibelius users as 'not possible'). And that's a great short statement of the present problem. MM appears to be doing exactly that with the fluff for casual users, as a number of people have pointed out. Which suggests that the power users on this list are NOT their marketing base--or that their marketing department has decided this is true, whether it is or not. Power users are only a small part of their direct income, which seems to be all the marketing dept consider. They don't consider that such people tend to be more influential than most - eg composition professors who have the final decision over what software to select for a site licence purchase. ___ Final
