Do you like the tab group splitting behavior?
I don't like it. I expect that when I create a new tab group, the
currently open tab is the only tab over there, and it's no longer in the
original group. Instead, my open tabs are duplicated. I don't think I
ever want this. What do you guys think? Is it just me?
请先登录再写评论。
I didn't want to argue either, I just cannot believe that people take the stance of "don't make it configurable" when the vast majority of things in Idea are configurable. I didn't say that it had to work a certain way. I did offer up a possible implementation, which you did not like. That's fine, it was just a suggestion.
Ralph Saunders wrote:
Maybe when I said I didn't want to argue with you, I was wrong. I don't
know if this is arguing. I feel that I have two more points I want you
to understand.
1. I just got my first Mac. I think IntelliJ IDEA has more configuration
options than OSX does in all of its System Preferences box. This
includes audio, the screen saver, network configuration, power
management - everything you can configure about OSX. Doesn't it seem
silly that an entire OS - a 2.6GB install image - whose almost every
facet is controlled by usability engineers who are trained to make
computers easy to use - has the same amount or fewer options as an
editor for a single programming language?
2. Personally, I am annoyed when I see an application with lots of
preferences. I feel that it means the developer doesn't know how the
application should work, and is offloading onto me the work of figuring
out how to use it efficiently.
I am also usually annoyed at such software for a more practical reason -
it usually ends up being hard to figure out how to change something
because of all the options screen clutter.
From my experience, I think at least 95% of users change from 1-5
options in some program like Firefox or a computer game. For these
users, if an application has too many options in its options screen,
it's probably too hard to even find the few settings they want to
change, and they give up and stick with the defaults no matter how much
they are annoyed.
3. I think if you change a configuration setting, it may be beneficial
to you, but it is harmful to the world at large, which, in the end,
includes you.
For example, I know that I can't change the mouse pointer acceleration
rate in my mouse settings (on Windows or on OSX), even though I could in
Windows ME. I didn't like it at first, but I got used to it and now I'm
just as fast with my mouse as I ever was.
And now there's a HUGE added benefit that I can use any computer running
Windows XP or OS X, and I don't have trouble with the mouse. It also
means that anyone can use my computer, and they won't be thrown off by
some stupid acceleration rate that I might have set because I save
0.00001 seconds per day when moving my mouse. I think this is much more
valuable than being able to configure some silly setting.
4. I have a small point. You said that adding one new option won't hurt.
First of all, it might hurt directly - there are a few reports in the
tracker about options dialogs being too large for 1024x768 screens. A
single 10-pixel-high checkbox makes it that much harder for JetBrains to
refactor the dialog to fit on those screens.
Secondly, you think adding that one option won't hurt. People have
probably said that about a lot of IDEA's silly options, like whether to
use camelhumps when selecting with the mouse, or how to import when
pasting. It has added up over the years, and it will only continue to
add up and get worse.
You have been missing the point from the start. It is about having a coice in how the IDE works, no how that choice is implemented. You are fixated on the implementation I suggested. I don't care how it is implemented, that is for JetBrains to do and is something that they do very well. Onec again, It's not about the UI, it's about having the IDE work for you instead of against you!
To add to the fray (can't let a good flame war die), IDEA has long passed the threshold of 'too much configuration', in my opinion. If I was to take time to rething and repackage IDEA, the first task would be remove many of the spurious configuration options, set them to a fixed value and tell users to get used to it.
No, really, I mean it. It sounds harsh at first, but I've given up on a couple of exotic options just to avoid reconfiguring them when I'm working on a new machine. Right now the only thing I've changed from the default configuration setting is the code style. And I'm slowly being pressed to give up even on that...
What we were doing before was arguing, in the true Monty Python sense
of the word ("yes it is...No it isn't...Yes it is, etc.). This, however, is now a
discussion because I can respond to your specific issues instead of trying to
guess what they were by reading someone else's paper.
Actually, there are many, many more ways to configure OS X than just through
the System Preferences panel, you just don't know about them.
One example is NetInfo Manager (Applications->Utilities)
Another way is through the Makefile that is used to build the kernel (I am speaking of
the way BSD and SysV Unix systems build their kernels, and OS X is based on FreeBSD)
where you can add and remove features (i.e set OS compile time options),
like support for IPV6. Then there are the configuration files
associated with system utilities, like DNS and Sendmail to name just two.
I could go on and on, but I think you can see my point.
Taking this into account, I would disagree that Idea has more configuration options
than OSX, but I do agree with the point that I think you are trying to make, which is
that Idea has lots and lots of options. I do not agree that it has too many options and
I will explain why I say that a little later on in this post.
The only time I am annoyed by lots of options is when those options have
defaults that render the application unusable until it is configured. This is one area
where I think Idea out shines the rest because most of the options that can be set
have sensible defaults so I don't have to set them before I can use the product.
Assuming that the application in question dealt with options in a rational manner,
it says to me that the developer knew how the application should work and also
knew how others might/would want to use it. An example of what I call dealing
with options in a rational manner would be the Idea preferences panel which is
subdivided into logical areas, like Global Code Style, and then further subdivided
in to logical sub areas, like General and Alignment and Braces. An example of not
dealing with them rationally would be to have only one configuration page with all
the options listed on it.
The thing that annoys me is when an application dictates to me how to do a particular
task when there are several ways to accomplish the task. No one else is qualified to say
what way works best for me except me. The same is true for you (i.e. only you are qualified
to say how you want to work, not me). Making the behavior configurable is the only way
to please both parties, and the default should be set to what the majority of users want so
that only those people who don't like the default have to spend any time configuring
the application.
That is the result of bad programmin/designg, not the number of options. See the
previous paragraph where I definde what I mean by handling configuration options
rationally.
Again, I assert that this is the result of bad programming/design.
You statement implies that the user will be less annoyed by "bad" programatic
behavior if they don't have the option of changing it. That may apply to you, but it
does not apply to me or any of my coworkers. I do agree with your assertion that
if it is too hard to find a particular option that they will give up, but I attribute
that to bad programming/design. It is true that the number of options does have
an effect, but it is not the real problem. I point to Idea as an example of an application
that has lots and lots of configurable options that has made it relatively easy to find a
given option. The other option (no pun intended) is inflexible software, which IMO is
much, much worse.
Configuration settings are per user. When I tell Idea that I want my open curly braces
at the end of the current line instead of on a separate new line, I only affect my settings.
It doesn't change the settings for any other user, anywhere, so I'm not sure I understand
what you mean here.
I assume you are not talking about tracking speed, which is configurable under OS X,
and is per user, not system wide.
BTW, Acceleration is a configurable item if you have a Logitech mouse with the OS X
driver installed, and that configuration is per user, not system wide.
A window's size can be set to any value by a program. Those bugs are related to
a bad size being set relative to the current resolution. It has nothing to do with
the number of options. You will probably argue that the window needs to be
that big (bigger that 1024x768) because if it were smaller then all of the data that
the screen deals with would not be shown. That is not true, and if you don't believe me, try it yourself. Go to the Idea preferences screen for the GUI builder, select the pallet tab
and then grab the bottom right corner and resize the window so that only half of the
widget classes are visible. Note that as soon as the window becomes too small to to see all the widgets, a scroll bar appears so you can still see them. That screen has another mechanism that will help, it's the tree view that is implemented inside the window. There are many ways to deal with screen size issues which can get kind of hairy when you take into account all the possible screen sizes (physical sizes like 15", 20", etc.) and resolutions (1024x768, etc.) that don't involve removing data from the screen (at least not permanently removing it).
You keep saying that lots of options causes problems. If this is a "summary" of what
you wrote above, I think you can see why I disagree with you.
Can you name a configuration option that caused you a problem? The only reason to
look for an option is if the current behavior is something you would like to change.
If that is true, how does having options related to that behavior bad. If there were
no options that I could change I would be stuck with behavior that I did not like.
If on the other had, I do like the behavior I don't have to touch the configuration.
I fail to see how either of these scenarios is "making things worse".
I'm glad you don't work for JetBrains. Your suggestion doesn't sound harsh, it sounds absurd.
I know. I'm glad I don't work for JetBrains, so I can flame the forums like that :P
8^)
I don't think I can talk to you about this anymore. I cannot understand
where you are coming from. I feel like you've never used computers
before, and you've never talked to anyone who has. It's cool, we
disagree, everyone disagrees, but I feel that I can't talk to you about
it anymore because we're so far apart on this issue.
Ralph Saunders wrote:
>>Ralph Saunders wrote:
>>
>>>I didn't want to argue either, I just cannot believe that people take
>>>the stance of "don't make it configurable" when the vast majority of
>>>things in Idea are configurable. I didn't say that it had to work a
>>>certain way. I did offer up a possible implementation, which you did
>>>not like. That's fine, it was just a suggestion.
>>
>>Maybe when I said I didn't want to argue with you, I was wrong. I don't
>>know if this is arguing. I feel that I have two more points I want you
>>to understand.
>>1. I just got my first Mac. I think IntelliJ IDEA has more configuration
>>options than OSX does in all of its System Preferences box. This
>>includes audio, the screen saver, network configuration, power
>>management - everything you can configure about OSX. Doesn't it seem
>>silly that an entire OS - a 2.6GB install image - whose almost every
>>facet is controlled by usability engineers who are trained to make
>>computers easy to use - has the same amount or fewer options as an
>>editor for a single programming language?
>>2. Personally, I am annoyed when I see an application with lots of
>>preferences. I feel that it means the developer doesn't know how the
>>application should work, and is offloading onto me the work of figuring
>>out how to use it efficiently.
>>I am also usually annoyed at such software for a more practical reason -
>>it usually ends up being hard to figure out how to change something
>>because of all the options screen clutter.
>> From my experience, I think at least 95% of users change from 1-5
>>options in some program like Firefox or a computer game. For these
>>users, if an application has too many options in its options screen,
>>it's probably too hard to even find the few settings they want to
>>change, and they give up and stick with the defaults no matter how much
>>they are annoyed.
>>3. I think if you change a configuration setting, it may be beneficial
>>to you, but it is harmful to the world at large, which, in the end,
>>includes you.
>>For example, I know that I can't change the mouse pointer acceleration
>>rate in my mouse settings (on Windows or on OSX), even though I could in
>>Windows ME. I didn't like it at first, but I got used to it and now I'm
>>just as fast with my mouse as I ever was.
>>
>>And now there's a HUGE added benefit that I can use any computer running
>>Windows XP or OS X, and I don't have trouble with the mouse. It also
>>means that anyone can use my computer, and they won't be thrown off by
>>some stupid acceleration rate that I might have set because I save
>>0.00001 seconds per day when moving my mouse. I think this is much more
>>valuable than being able to configure some silly setting.
>>4. I have a small point. You said that adding one new option won't hurt.
>>First of all, it might hurt directly - there are a few reports in the
>>tracker about options dialogs being too large for 1024x768 screens. A
>>single 10-pixel-high checkbox makes it that much harder for JetBrains to
>>refactor the dialog to fit on those screens.
>>Secondly, you think adding that one option won't hurt. People have
>>probably said that about a lot of IDEA's silly options, like whether to
>>use camelhumps when selecting with the mouse, or how to import when
>>pasting. It has added up over the years, and it will only continue to
>>add up and get worse.
You strike me as a newbie who has read a lot of books and has never worked in the real world. I've been designing, developing, implementing and supporting enterprise level software for over 25 years now. I have written UNIX system calls, found and fixed bugs in SunOS's TCP stacks, written two kernel based firewalls, designed/developed/fielded/supported the dialup user management software (which included real time, automated DNS updates), and frontend billing software for SprintLink (SprintLink eventually became EarthLink).
Your right about one thing though, we should agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Ralph Saunders wrote:
It's funny, I get the same impression of you. I've been developing for 8
years or so. You may be developing for 25 years, but have you actually
talked to people who use computers? They hate large preferences windows,
in my experience. I have a lot of friends who are unfamiliar with, but
interested in, computers, so I get a somewhat unique perspective on
software. Many times my friends will say they want for a certain feature
in Firefox or GMail or something, and I'll say "you can change that in
the preferences," and they will say "whatever" and never look, even if I
offer to show them how to change it, because preferences for many
applications are scary.
Anyway, I respect that you want configurability, but I think you are in
a small minority.
I agree with you on that, out applications only have a few settings, but the
users often do not take a look at them.
Tom
All the code I have developed for customers has been highly configurable. Those customers have told me over and over how much they appreciate that because when situation arose that rquired different behavior I had alread considered that and worked it in to the design so that the customer could make a 5 minute configuration change, instead of having to go back and modify code which requires retesting the software and refielding it. That costs a lot of money and takes much longer than 5 minutes and that is what businesses want, lower costs and quickly implemented solutions.
The reason I know that these customers do in fact like highly configurable software is because they have, on more than one occasion, contacted me out of the blue to do more work for them specifically because of the experience they had with my software years after I had left.
I think that the general sentiment is that software that is highly configurable is difficult to use. That is not true and again, I point to Idea as a very good example of that. It works out of the box, no changes required, and if I later find I want different behavior I go looking for the configuration setting. If I don't want to change any behavior of the IDE, I never have to look at the options. Folks here are asserting that that is bad. I don't understand that logic, because the configuration options only come into play if you want to chang behavior. It will have an effect on JetBrains, because software with lots of options is much more difficult to design, develop and maintain, but the folks at JetBrains are very very good at that.
I probably shouldn't add to this but... I will.
I tend to agree with Ralph on this one. At least for technical users like the typical IDEA
user. For the non-technical user, give them an AOL experience, but for power users like
most experienced java developers, give them options. They usually have strong opinions and
preferences and if you don't allow them to configure their environment the way that they
like, they are not happy.
Look at the popularity of the Tweak UI utility from Microsoft. I download it on every new
windows box I work on. I want to customize my user experience. The typical non-technical
windows user has never even heard of Tweak UI.
IDEA does both. Out of the box, you get a descent experience without messing with the
configuration. Great for the newbie. If you have developed your own coding style and work
flow, then you can configure idea with the many options that are made available. The only
issue that I have is that the configuration screens could be enhanced for usability a
little. Ralph had some good ideas on this earlier in this thread.
Thanks. You hit the nail on the head (IMO) and expressed it better that I did,
What about if Idea had something similar? The software itself stays
highly configurable, but most options aren't exposed by default.
Download a plugin and hey presto! Tweak away ...
It's a bit like what Firefox does, where there are a very small number
of options easily accessible, but type about:config in the location bar
and you can change any one of 10^9 options.
Just a thought,
R
Robert Gibson wrote:
After I posted my last message, I had the same thought. It would probably satisfy everyone.
Tim
What you are describing sounds like like the "Advanced" button approach where the initial screen has the configuration items that would be "obvious to the most casual of users" (i.e. new users) and a button labeled Advanced (or somethinglike that) that would show a window with all the available options for those who wanted more control.. That would be an interesting addition to the current Idea configuration screens, but I would really hate to be the one who has to decide which options are "obvious" and which are "advanced". 8^) Although, now that I thik about it, the tabbed panes in the configuration screens do provide a similar functionality.
Of course the other side to the argument is that each option you have is another potential bug. :) One more path through the system, one more thing that needs to be tested.
... got ... to ... keep ... thread ... alive ...