Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

Does Lion solves the window switching order?

I'd almost buy the new OS JUST to get the bothering behavior in my 10.6.8 OS fixed.


Can anybody tell us what's the SUPPOSED behavior?

NO MATTER how you look at it, and what research you did, OUR BRAIN expects consistency and the windows staying WHERE WE LEFT THEM. I'm not talking "physically'. If we wanted to manage physical objects we would rather use paper sheets and would spread them on the floor! I'm talking about data organization. Our brain and every computer puts information in cells/boxes/neurons, and IT SHOULD BE THERE when we look for it.

Switching the order of windows to ease the mess to people SCARED of computers (probably what your research was based on) won't help to US, the ones who actually give computers a fair use.


I think there are 2 kind of people:

1) The ones that are AFRAID of opening new windows, as if they would run out of memory, or who get overwhelmed by the mess

( No wonder why they get overwhelmed! )

2) and we, the ones who actually do something with them. (the open windows).


It's as if you had made the z order of windows a "history" of interaction, so as soon as we "touch" one, a NEW layer/state is made and the others get even further behind. Sometimes I switch browser windows ( I think Chrome depends on your OS for that ) about 20 times and some of the 10 open window are never reached!


Is that fixed?

MacBook Pro, Mac OS X (10.6.8)

Posted on Jan 19, 2012 3:23 AM

Reply
49 replies

Jan 19, 2012 5:50 AM in response to applxperience

How do windows not stay where you left them? They are virtually equivalent to a pile of papers. If you shuffle through a pile of papers and bring one from the middle to the top, do you not expect the others to now be under it? If you open a book to page 20, do you expect to still be able to turn 2 pages to get to page 5, or do you accept that you are at a different place in the book and must now navigate differently than when the book was open to page 1?


I fail to understand your point. How would you prefer to have windows behave? Keeping in mind that the same paradigm is in place across all windowed systems.

Jan 19, 2012 6:58 AM in response to thomas_r.

Let's start saying that if you leave 10 windows open it's because you are working with them, now or later. And you will work with them serially, slower or faster. Even if it takes you two hours or you don't know which one jump to next, you'll eventually go back to it and still want to keep track of which you worked with or not. It's still a serial work.


I also though the order should be as you say, and it's still not good for your brain.


I understand that's the way you'd do it with a few of papers on the table, but you CAN'T manage more than 3 papers that way.


Would you put the sheet of paper you just read RIGHT below the next one when your pile is 10 up?

Keep doing that, and you'll need HUNDREDS of page-switches before to get the 10th one, if you ever.


Chrome (it runs under Mac OS, so it's not probably something they can't mess with, is it?) makes like a "history" of the pages you "touched" and cycling between the windows takes you through the same pages MANY times before you get the "old" ones ("old", not "lower", because it's a history)


I worked in a Press, and when you put together pages in a booklet with more than the pages you can pile up in front of you, YOU CAN'T pick up a sheet of each and put them on the same pile on the table without walking up a lot or breaking your back. So you pick up one booklet in your hands and walk through all the piles grabbing one sheet from each and keeping them in your hands for a few rounds.

Anyway, the piles remaind in the same place where you left them.

Now, physical world is supposed to be made better in a computer 🙂, not same.


The right way should be that the OS cycles through the windows REGARDLESS of you having touched it or not. It won't hurt the ones who are afraid of opening windows and only work with 3. They'll still find their page with one more click. At least add an "option" click to cover this behavior for us.


It works like a "window clicked" history, and it should work like a "time machine" behavior.


Doubts?

Jan 20, 2012 5:55 AM in response to softwater

softwater: Yes, I use expose, and the corners. but I can't READ the text in those thumbnails, and second It's not quick, since I have to track the window I'm looking for by eye, while I could just "jump to the next one in line" (not in pile)


Wasn't I clear the MANY times I said I am talking about "brain" and "automation" and "organizing" but NOT about "physical papers" nor "visually tracking"?


I hope this analogy finally makes my point and you stop saying "how it is" and understand "how it should be".


Typing in a keyboard is faster because YOU DON'T HAVE TO WATCH and FIND the keys. It wouldn't either exhaust or give you a headache for the intensive task it is to constantly find and track and aim the keys.


Typing in on an iPad is like shuffle the papers as you all are describing I should get used to.


Got it?


Typing without a head-ache / Typing with a head-ache.


Still didn't get it?


Switching to the "predicted next window" / "Switching to some window you'll figure out when you see it"


Did you get it yet?


Copy a piece of text from each window, from 5 windows (I'm being generous), pasting them somewhere else.

Let me know if you find a better workflow without "finding" the windows with exposé (I could if the windows would cycle in sequence)


If you all were my UI designers, I'd fire you all. 🙂


edit: Make all the 5 windows from a browser and random websites you don't know their design. switching between different apps makes easier to recognize the layout, like browsing known websites. When you browse blogs or forums all of them are just a central column of text with banners at the side. Impossible to recognize them in thumbnails faster than just "jumping to the next one" as the keyboard shortcut was designed for.

Jan 20, 2012 6:17 AM in response to applxperience

Nope, still not clear. If the original stack is this:


[A]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5 (visible, top of the stack)


After clicking on Window 3, Mac OS will give you


[B]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 4

Window 5

Window 3 (visible, top of the stack)


If you now click on Window 1, it'll give you


[C]

Window 2 (bottom of the stack)

Window 4

Window 5

Window 3

Window 1 (visible, top of the stack)


I fail to see what other arrangement is possible. If you click on a window you bring it to the top, so the original order cannot be maintained. The only thing that can be done is to leave windows not clicked on where they were. It seems as if you want Window 3 to go back to where it was in B, so C is like this


[C*]

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Window 1


That's impossible. The OS can't know what the "preferred stack order" is.

Jan 20, 2012 7:33 AM in response to softwater

It's also important to note that every other windowed system I'm aware of behaves in the same way. So I'm unclear on exactly how this is going to cause confusion. This complaint seems equivalent to complaining that Toyota putting the accelerator on the right side in their cars will confuse drivers, and that it should be put on the left side.

Jan 20, 2012 8:38 AM in response to softwater

It's not the change of z-index when you click them.

OF COURSE the one you click MUST go to the front.


Just take a deep breath, forget the stack chart you posted because there's no window panel that shows you the arrangement like that, even less naming them with "what your sight liked about each page", and concentrate to answer the question I made above about the 10 sheets pile. (it begins with "would you put…", bolded)

Jan 20, 2012 9:30 AM in response to thomas_r.

Thomas.


That's the worst comparisson I heard of, ever.


Compare it better with the way scrolling had to change once you started using your finger. Remember? "Pushing the page up" only started to make sense with the touch devices. Before that, it made more sense to "drag" the scroller down.


This is the same. There is the "physical" world, and the virtual one.


I can't believe I have to illustrate this because after my question above (starting with "Would you put…"


THE PURPOSE: You need to work (interact) with window 5, then 4, 3, 2, 1. Easy, right?


The example below is NOT Chrome.


[A]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5 (visible, top of the stack)


After reviewing/copying from Window 5, you Command-` (cycle thtough doc windows) and getWindow 4.


[B]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 5

Window 4 (visible, top of the stack)


After reviewing/copying from Window 4, you need to get Window 3:

Command-` you are in 5 AGAIN!.your brain is already confused after this, since it needed to "scan" and process the unexpected window. Making different choices (cycle again)

Command-` you are in Window 3



[C]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 4 (this one switched with w5 when you cycled first time)

Window 5 (this one switched with w4 when you cycled first time)

Window 3 (visible, top of the stack)


After reviewing/copying from Window 3, you need to get Window 2:

Command-` you are in 5 AGAIN

Command-` you are in 4 AGAIN

Command-` you are in 3 AGAIN

Command-` you are in Window 2


[D]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 3

Window 4 (this one switched with w5 when you cycled)

Window 5 (this one switched with w5 when you cycled)

Window 2 (visible, top of the stack)


After reviewing/copying from Window 2, you need to get Window 1:

Command-` you are in 5 AGAIN

Command-` you are in 4 AGAIN

Command-` you are in 3 AGAIN

Command-` you are in 2 AGAIN

Command-` you are in Window 1


Got it? If you keep going, you need 1 MORE CLICK for each window you need to work with!


I know, it's confusing, but you have to understand that in order to prevent to fall in an endless loop, the FIRST cycle (command-`) doesn't work the same that the rest. It changes whether you interacted with the window or not.

Otherwise, you'd be cycling through the last 2 windows forever!


The first command-` puts the foremost in position 2 (counting from you) and the rest command-` DON'T put the window in which you DIDN'T stop there (in 2nd place from you) but leave it where it where you just picked it up from.

In other words, every command-` other than the first one, just SWAPS THE CURRENT WINDOW with one of the cycled windows.


It's like you moving across mailboxes with a letter in your hand and dropping it in someone else's mailbox every time that you pick up that one's envelope to read the stamp, and after the 3rd "pickup-dropoff" you FORGOT where envelope 1 is!


Now, Did you count the many clicks and "sights" you invested in something you should be able to do blind-folded? YOU CAN TYPE BLINFOLDED, because you know where you left the keys hehe.


Aso , I don't know how Window 2 got to the bottom of the stack in your sequence :s, if you never touched it!


In a few minutes I will post Chrome behavior. Even worse.

Jan 20, 2012 9:39 AM in response to applxperience

Clicking on a window using a mouse will alway bring it to the top and will, by definition, change the z order. There is no function nor is it desirable to push the current foreground window back to where it came from. In your scenario, the z order would be the order in which the windows were created and would forever stay the same. Imagine you have one large and 2 small windows on your desktop with the large window on top of both the small ones. If you had your way, one would never be able to place the 2 small windows side by side and keep both visible on top of the large window.

Jan 20, 2012 9:47 AM in response to applxperience

I think I understand your perspective a little better now. You are not talking about window order, you are talking about the order of window switching using command-`. You seem to believe that these two orders should not be the same. The issue here is that you seem to want a bit of mind-reading behavior. How is the system supposed to know when it should remember the order? Any why do you believe that this change in behavior would be intuitive? If I hit commannd-`, I expect it to switch to whatever the next window is. I don't care about what the next window used to be, at some point before I reordered them.


In any case, debating this here is pointless... our opinions are not relevant to what Apple does. Submit your suggestion to Apple and let's be done with it.


http://feedback.apple.com

Jan 20, 2012 9:58 AM in response to softwater

Chrome behavior needs MORE CLICKS but it's easier to illustrate for me because I'm very analytic, and I won't show it as "stacks" but as "history" which is what it is:


[A]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5 (visible after 1 command-` — top of the stack)


[B]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Window 4 (visible after 2 command-` — top of the stack)


[C]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Window 4

Window 3 (visible after 3 command-` — top of the stack)


[D]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Window 4

Window 3

Window 2 (visible after 4 command-` — top of the stack)


[E]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Window 4

Window 3

Window 2

Window 1 (visible after 5 command-` — top of the stack)


It seems the same excesive amount that the other example, but it gets funnier if you cycle through a few windows many times, and then look for one of the lower ones:


[F]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Window 4

Window 3

Window 2

Window 1

Window 2 (swaped with Window 1)


[G]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Window 4

Window 3

Window 2

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3 (swaped with Window 2)


[H]

Window 1 (bottom of the stack)

Window 2

Window 3

Window 4

Window 5

Window 4

Window 3

Window 2

Window 1

Window 2

Window 3

Window 1 (swaped with Window 3)


As you can see, it's a history of visited pages, and if you cycle between 2,3,1,3,2 for while, when you want to get previous pages, you have to pass MANY times by the 2,3 and 1. It's a fact. I just tested in chrome, and sometimes I forget that some window is open, because my brain thinks "at this point I've cycled through more windows than the ones I have open, so it can't be here".

Jan 20, 2012 10:07 AM in response to bluepaua

bluepaua:

If you disconnect "z-index" from "cycling order" you'll get the way I want it.

You can't think out of the box because in your mind z-index IS the cycling order.

The problem is it's not you putting the last-interacted window below the one you picked up.


If you had the control over that invisible hand, you'd put the paper you just worked with wither at the bottom, so you don't come across with it until you finish the pile (only for your to understand it, this example as z-index with cycling order).


But the invisible hand drops the paper you touched with TWO different behaviors. Sometimes it drops it just below the top one, and sometimes it swaps-it with the one you picked up.


Did your brain knew that? That way your braind will NEVER know what to expect (exept when you have only 2 windows to cycle. Reason why I started this post separating ourselves from window-phobics)


The example of the mailboxes is very graphic. I wish I could graphic it quickly, actually messing with mailboxes, without being arrested, hehe.

Jan 20, 2012 10:11 AM in response to thomas_r.

Thomas:

You're getting closer, and yes, after a few people understands me, I will be able to explain it "our" way, not just "my" way, and will have more chances of being understood.


No mind-reading, and EASY to "remember" the order before I touched them.


Think of "Time Machine". No mind-reading. You'll always go to next or previous state. If you click one way back, regardless of the visual animation which could stay the same, you'll get what you want.

Does Lion solves the window switching order?

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple ID.