Labels vs Tags

October 29, 2013
by Riccardo Mori
Briefly

One of the new features OS X Mavericks introduced in the Finder are Tags. Judging from the reactions since this feature was revealed back at the WWDC, many people seem to like Tags a lot. While I have no doubts that tags may be a useful way for some people to organise their files, I am rather underwhelmed by their visual implementation, and find that the previous Finder Labels had a visual immediacy that rendered them more intuitively practical, for lack of a better expression. I’ll try to explain my point with a few simple examples.

Here’s a Finder window in Mac OS X 10.4.11 with some preference files in column view that I highlighted with different colour labels:

Finder labels

They stand out, right? Well, that’s the point. With folders containing dozens of files, by colour-coding some of them with labels you can differentiate those files from other regular (or less important) files; but it’s also a way to find specific items more quickly when navigating folders and subfolders full of files and documents. Inside a few crowded folders I frequently browse, I assigned a yellow label to certain files to have them work as visual markers. In other folders containing documents I’m translating or working on, I used labels to mark each document’s current status: grey for review, yellow for in-progress, and green for completed.

Mavericks turns the old Finder labels’ way of highlighting the entire file name into a simple coloured dot. Maybe some will find it a more elegant and visually pleasing change. I find it a bit of a usability step back. 

Here’s a Finder window in Mac OS X Mavericks:

Finder tags 1

In icon view especially, the little dots are more difficult to locate at first glance than labels, and the folders they should mark as important or different from the others, well, sort of lose that importance. In other words — at first sight, everything in this folder seems to have more or less the same importance. Nothing really stands out.

Compare tags in a Finder window (column view) with the old labels you saw in the first image:

Finder tags2

I don’t find them as visually powerful and effective as the labels they replace. Imagine if you were to highlight a passage from a textbook by making small dots with a highlighter near the beginning of a paragraph instead of highlighting all the sentences you need to find at a glance and memorise when browsing. 

Oh, and here’s what happens when you slightly resize the same window:

Finder tags3

It would have been nice to have a Finder preference to toggle the way Tags highlight files: new-style dots or old-style label highlights. I’m sure Finder Tags have a greater degree of flexibility in how they work when compared to the old Finder Labels, but I’m really disappointed by their loss of visual impact. In this regard, Labels are much more effective.

Mavericks’ Multiple Displays feature and MarsEdit’s wandering windows

October 27, 2013
by Riccardo Mori
Software

Display arrangement

This is how I normally use my MacBook Pro in a desktop setup: I hook it up to a 23″ LG Flatron monitor, and use the MacBook Pro’s display as a secondary screen (I keep the laptop on a stand on my right). Obviously, most of my work happens in the primary monitor area (1), while I usually keep the smaller MacBook Pro’s display (2) for things I need to keep in my peripheral vision, so to speak. 

I didn’t find Mountain Lion’s display management particularly problematic, though I admit it was annoying not being able to have two full-screen applications running side-by-side. So the changes Mavericks introduced in this regard are definitely welcome.

However, I’ve run into a small, but rather annoying issue with MarsEdit, which I’ll try to describe the best I can.

In MarsEdit, my window configuration when I write an article is as follows:

Appwindows d1

This is happening in my primary display (the external LG monitor). The blog entry editing window occupies most of the screen real estate, and I keep the Preview window aligned on the right. When I add pictures to an article, usually the Media manager window remains hidden in the background behind the other windows. No app window is usually visible on the MacBook Pro’s display: I keep them all gathered in the primary monitor.

Here’s what happens in Mavericks: when I move to a full-screen application (usually Safari or Chrome, because I may have to check a few things while I write an article) and then go back to MarsEdit, the primary monitor where MarsEdit windows reside loses focus (the menu bar gets dimmed), the MacBook Pro’s display gets the focus, and looks like this:

Appwindows d2

That is, the Blog entry editing window remains where it was (as it should) on the primary monitor, but the Media manager and the Preview windows get displaced and assigned to the MacBook Pro’s display like you see in the figure[1]. I have to manually drag the Preview window back to where it was (aligned alongside the editing window) and resize it every time, because when the Preview window is moved to the MacBook Pro’s display it gets automatically resized to fit the MacBook Pro’s screen height (900 pixels versus the 1080 of the external monitor).

This behaviour is reproducible, and windows get (dis)placed in the exact same position every time I move to a full-screen app and then return to MarsEdit.

I don’t know if this behaviour is limited to MarsEdit or if it happens with other applications which use multiple windows in their typical workspace configuration. So far I’ve noticed the issue with MarsEdit only — most applications I use have just one main window, so it’s something a bit difficult to verify. Applications like TextEdit or TextWrangler, where it’s normal to have multiple documents open, seem to keep their document windows well arranged.

Has any other MarsEdit user with OS X Mavericks and similar dual-monitor configuration noticed this issue with their setup? I’ll let MarsEdit’s developer know about it, and I’ll update this article with whatever new information I may gather.

Update: Daniel Jalkut of Red Sweater Software, developer of MarsEdit, told me via email that he’s working on a fix for this issue. He passed me a beta release of MarsEdit for testing and the issue appears to have gone. Expect the fix to come with the next MarsEdit minor update.

 

  • 1. It’s not a badly cropped picture: part of the Preview window is actually off-screen. ↩

 

Now you can read my book on Macs, too

October 27, 2013
by Riccardo Mori
Et Cetera

Since I created Minigrooves, my first volume of short stories, on iBooks Author, when it launched at the end of July it could only be read on iPads. While I’m busy working on a Kindle version, I wanted to let you know that now that OS X Mavericks is available for a wide range of Macs and comes with the new iBooks app, you can enjoy my book on your Mac as well. 

This is the single-page view when you open the ebook in iBooks:

Minigrooves on iBooks for Mac

This is the Table of Contents popover:

Minigrooves ibooksmac2

which makes navigating the ebook even more practical than on the iPad. (And by the way, look at all that Bonus stuff at the end!)

 

The full-screen view, instead, shows two facing pages. You can flip them using swipe gestures on the Magic Mouse or Trackpad, or you can point and click on the left/right margin to turn the page:

Minigrooves ibooksmac3

Reading books on the computer, really?

Yes, why not? Of course my view on the matter is biased. But I’m the first to admit I couldn’t stand reading a whole novel on my Mac. However, with short stories I believe it’s a whole other matter. Most of the stories in Minigrooves are short enough as to require just a few minutes for you to read them. That’s not much different from reading an average-length article on the Web. Here’s where the whole concept behind the Minigrooves project comes into play — the idea that you can pick up and read any of these stories when you have a bit of free time and want to take a break by reading something different, a bit of fiction, instead of that boring essay you have to read for study or work. Just saying.

Minigrooves: a refresher

As I wrote previously:

The project started back in March 2012, the originating idea being very simple: to offer short stories that can be enjoyed in a relatively short amount of time, like during a break from work, while commuting, while sitting in a waiting room, and so on. The idea came to me while admiring the work of some illustrators I discovered by complete chance while browsing the Web. I noticed how powerful was the immediacy of ‘getting’ their style, their taste and inspiration simply by examining a few samples of their work. It happens with musicians as well. I thought I could try to do something similar with what I do best — writing. Hence, the short story format, the watercolour-with-words, the ‘minigroove’.

[…]

At first the idea was to simply publish a couple of stories per week and see where the project would go. […] When I realised the project was really taking off, I thought about some way of organising it, and again the eureka moment came quickly. I would deliver the stories like the episodes of a TV series, i.e. ‘airing’ the stories in cycles (‘seasons’), then gathering all the stories of a cycle and publishing them as an ebook. Each ebook would have some ‘extras’ (just like when you purchase a DVD/Blu Ray edition of a movie or TV series) — bonus stories, author’s commentary and notes, alternate takes, etc. This way, even those people who followed the stories during their ‘airing’ period would find something of value by purchasing the ebook. 

Links:

  • Minigrooves main website.
  • Essential details about the ebook.
  • More detailed information about the project.
  • Minigrooves iTunes Preview page where you can purchase the ebook.

    •  

    A final thought

    I often get a certain kind of feedback via email that leaves me a bit baffled. Readers of this website/weblog urging me to write about this or that topic, or to write more often and update the site more frequently, and so on and so forth. I’ve always tried to provide interesting articles and good quality contents here. I run this site without ads (the ‘ad space’ at the center of the footer is for sites, projects or initiatives I endorse — I don’t get a cent out of it), there is no paywall, no memberships or subscriptions, nothing of the sort. If running this website were my full-time activity, if I were living off of it, if those demands came from members, subscribers, paying supporters, I’d certainly take them in more serious consideration. 

    The only thing I dared suggest as a way of supporting me — as you can see in the Donate section on the home page — is that you send me a donation if you like what I write or if you’ve found something useful during your visit. Since July 2011 (when I launched this site under a personal domain after maintaining a free WordPress blog since 2006), I’ve received about 45 euros’ worth of donations. Maybe there are more people among you, dear readers, who would like to support me but feel that a donation via PayPal is a bit awkward. One never knows what’s the ‘right’ amount for a donation. Maybe I’m doing it wrong and I should propose ‘memberships’ like other bloggers do, which to me is just a more formal-sounding way of asking for donations. 

    Meanwhile, buying my ebook is a great way to support what I do. If you have an iPad, if you’re a Mac user with a Mac capable of running the latest OS X Mavericks, if you like fiction and short stories, if you like my writing and the things I publish here, please consider purchasing a copy of Minigrooves, please help me spread the word about it. I really don’t think it’s too much asking. 

    Thank you.

    Let’s try to keep the culture of paying for software healthy

    October 25, 2013
    by Riccardo Mori
    Briefly

    Lately I’ve encountered an increasing number of people belonging to the “Paid apps are dead” school of thought. I don’t know whether the model of paid apps, especially with regard to the mobile environment, is dead or not. I have always supported it, because paying for software has always felt natural and obvious to me. I remember in the Mac vs PC days how differently software was perceived among Windows users and Mac users. If you’ll allow me a certain degree of generalisation (I know there are exceptions in both camps), Mac users usually gave more value to third-party software for their Macs and were more willing to pay for it[1], while a lot of Windows users shared the culture of, er, ‘obtaining’ software for their PCs.

    Today — in general, but especially with mobile platforms — the so-called ‘race to the bottom’ has undeniably hurt the market. What’s worse is that it’s negatively affecting the perception people have for the software that is supposed to enrich their experience with smartphones and tablets and extend the capabilities of such devices. More and more frequently, apps are considered like nothing more than widgets with little value. People spend a handsome amount on premium hardware, but somehow a $5 app is regarded as ‘expensive’. Developers who dare charge an additional $2, $3, $4 for a paid upgrade are vocally criticised for being ‘greedy’, when people really have no idea about the work, the investment and the expenses behind software development. They (begrudgingly) paid $5 in 2011 and expect free updates in 2013 and beyond. This utter disrespect for other people’s work is simply appalling (as a freelance translator and a struggling writer, I understand this all too well) and goes beyond the inherent miserliness.

    To keep the culture of paying for software healthy, I believe that those who write software reviews as part of their jobs should refrain from being judgemental about price, whether directly or implicitly. Unless they’re reviewing a particularly bad piece of software whose price point is disproportionately high compared to the quality and features provided, price should be treated simply as a piece of information. Be informative, be detailed, be as objective as possible in your review (or clearly indicate that certain remarks and considerations are indeed subjective and related to your personal tastes) — this is what counts. If you’re especially excited about the app you’re reviewing, by all means be infectious in your enthusiasm. People will understand if a piece of software is a bargain for what it offers, or if it’s little more than a hack that should probably be avoided regardless of what it costs. You give them information, let them be opinionated.

    I’m writing this because sometimes I fear that all this (empty) talk of “Paid apps are dead” and “freemium models” and so on and so forth might end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. And let’s avoid headlines like Tweetbot 3 for iPhone gets a fresh new design, but at a price (it’s an otherwise nice and overall positive review, why put that “but at a price” in the headline? It sounds off and unfair… It almost sounds like a warning to prospective customers, as if to say “You may like the app’s new design, but boy is it going to cost you.”)

    There are enough cheapskates as it is, let’s don’t fuel their sense of entitlement even more.

     

     

    • 1. If you’re too young to have paid for software back in the 1990s, let me tell you: it was on average way more expensive than what you find today in the various App Stores. ↩

     

    Revolutionising prices and names

    October 24, 2013
    by Riccardo Mori
    Tech Life

    The Apple event on October 22 was very enjoyable. After Steve Jobs’s passing and the executive restructuring under Tim Cook, keynote after keynote I’ve seen a noticeable improvement in stage presence and confidence on the part of all the executives involved. Phil Schiller has always been the slickest of the bunch, and in the post-Jobs era he’s become even more playful and bolder during his presentations, cracking jokes with fearlessness and nonchalance. Federighi has come a long way since his nervous demo of Lion’s main features in the Back to the Mac event, three years ago. And even Cook’s delivery sounds a bit more confident, losing some of his “I have this speech memorised and I’m trying really hard to remember each word of it” way of addressing the audience. The October 22 keynote was a nice display of genuine confidence on Apple’s part.

    The event, as the invite’s tag line suggested, had a lot to cover, and everything Apple introduced is great news. In this article I only want to get a couple of minor peeves out of my system. Bear with me if these observations may sound a little pedantic.

    How to complicate a simple naming scheme

    Let’s get back to the iPod for a moment. Since its introduction in 2001, the iPod has developed into a whole family of products, with different form factors and model lines. Yet the naming scheme has always been rather consistent: the main iPod model was always called “iPod”. Each iteration was officially identified with the ‘generation’ attribute (e.g. third-generation iPod, fourth-generation iPod, or even “iPod 3G”, “iPod 4G” etc.), and any ‘modifier’ appended to the iPod name was to clearly indicate another line of product, a different form factor: iPod mini, iPod nano, iPod shuffle[1]. The ‘generation’ attribute was then passed to each line of product, and even a diverse family such as the iPod nano, with dramatic changes in shape from one generation to another, has retained the name “iPod nano” for seven generations. 

    Now let’s take Macs. From 2008 to 2011 there were three different models in the laptop line: the MacBook, the MacBook Pro and the MacBook Air. Three different designations that were necessary and made sense because those were three laptop models with very distinguishing features. The Pro was more powerful, with more ports and better materials than a regular polycarbonate MacBook. The MacBook Air was smaller, thinner, lighter than a MacBook Pro and a regular MacBook, and so on.

    By now, you can imagine where I’m going with this: the iPad naming disaster.

    I get the enthusiasm for creating that feat of engineering that is the new iPad Air, but calling the fifth-generation iPad with yet another name is starting to sound ridiculous. So far, each iteration of iPads has basically had a unique designation:

  • The first iPad was just “iPad”.
  • The second iPad was called “iPad 2”.
  • The third iPad was called “The new iPad” and then the “iPad with Retina display”.
  • The fourth iPad was called “iPad with Retina display” since its introduction.
  • The fifth iPad is the “iPad Air”.

    •  

    The addition of “Air” to the name iPad is more enthusiastic and impulsive than anything else. It is a clear reference to the MacBook Air, yet there is no other iPad with that screen size to differentiate it from. They still sell the iPad 2, you’ll rightly object. But to differentiate the new, fifth-generation iPad from the iPad 2 was enough to still call it “iPad with Retina display”. Evidently, at Apple they thought that the lightness and thinness of the new iPad deserved to be a more important distinguishing element than the Retina display, so now we have two regular size iPads — the iPad 2 and the iPad Air — and one who didn’t know better could actually wonder Where’s the regular iPad? or Where’s the iPad Pro? For a brief moment, when Schiller introduced the iPad Air, I was convinced they would expand the iPad family to include a third model, or that they would keep the fourth-generation Retina iPad as the ‘regular’ iPad, then the iPad Air and finally the iPad mini. 

    I know, it’s semantics and I’m being pedantic here (I warned you) — I’m really curious to know how the future sixth-generation iPad will be called: “the new iPad Air”? “The iPad Air 2”? Wouldn’t things have been simpler by sticking to a classic “n-generation iPad” designation?

    Price puzzles

    “Today we’re going to revolutionise pricing,” announced Federighi in his wrap-up on OS X Mavericks, and I confess he made my day when he said that Mavericks was going to be free. Not because I didn’t want to spend the $20 I guessed Mavericks would cost, but because it’s a bold move in general, especially in combination with the choice of offering the new ‘Productivity and Creativity apps’ (the iLife and iWork suites, for OS X and iOS) for free to new customers[2].

    But when wrapping up the new iPad family and announcing the various prices, I couldn’t help thinking What’s wrong with this picture?

    #alttext#

    Schiller said that Apple is keeping the old iPad 2 around to have an entry-level regular-size iPad for those looking to access the experience of a 9.7″ iPad through an affordable, non-Retina model. But that $399 price point feels wrong to me compared to the $499 of the new iPad Air in the exact same way the $549 price point of the iPhone 5C feels wrong compared to the $649 of the iPhone 5S.

    If you examine that array of prices, every other iPad looks like a better deal than the $399 iPad 2. 

    1. For the same price you get an iPad mini Retina with the latest technologies inside. The screen size is smaller, but the Retina display gives much more density and clarity to whatever it’s displayed. And the mini is smaller and lighter.

    2. If you’re willing to spend $399 for an old iPad, you can certainly see that adding $100 to your investment and going for the iPad Air is the more sensible and ‘forward thinking’ option.

    3. If you’re really on a budget, I believe the $299 non-Retina iPad mini is still a better choice than the $399 iPad 2. It has better cameras and video recording capabilities, it has the newer Bluetooth 4.0 technology (the iPad 2 still has Bluetooth 2.1), it has the new Lightning adapter, and it features Siri (the iPad 2 does not). 

    I think that a better price point for the iPad 2 would have been $329. $399 is simply too close to the $499 of the new iPad Air.

     

     

    • 1. One possible exception may be the iPod photo, which was available along with the regular iPod from late 2004 to spring 2005, and had the same form factor; the main difference was it being the first iPod with a colour screen. ↩
    • 2. For more detailed information, you can see for example this article from Macstories. ↩