Talk:Dock (OS X)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Apple Inc. (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Dock Indicator[edit]

It says in Lion this is removed but I have the dock attached to the left side and hidden on 10.7.4. When I hover my mouse to make the dock appear, I see a white dot to the left of the icon, indicating the application is running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vahnx (talkcontribs) 17:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Icon[edit]

It seems like the program's icon is always being removed. Why is that? - PGSONIC (talk) 15:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. This article seems seriously messed up. My idea for it would be to be like a standard application article with an infobox with an icon and screenshot and all the information about how it works and its previous versions, and then maybe a small section about its history and openstep or whatever. Right now it's just really messy.... Anyway, then for the Dock (computing) that article should be much more lengthy and include more information like the Avant Window Navigator and Sun's project reflection and rocketdock and openstep and Mac OS X.... I tried getting it started on this road a while ago but it got out of my hands and IMO fell apart, I think largely due to the work of User:AlistairMcMillan. I guess we just have different ideas of how the article should be and I didn't want to get into an edit war or spending hours and hours in discussions to try to work towards a consensus (i.e. to get him to change his mind). Althepal (talk) 05:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ellipsis[edit]

The intro says that an ellipsis is show when a program is not active and not show when the program is active. But that should mean that the dock at the bottom of my screen is lying. Or is it just me misreading the line? 62.195.137.94 (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

On further reading it is mentioned at the top of the page that this is the behavior of NeXTSTEP and OPENSTEP. A bit misleading I'd say since this article is about the Dock in Mac OS X. 62.195.137.94 (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Say What?[edit]

Would someone care to interpret this sentence from the article (in the "Criticisms" section)??

In a review of Mac OS X v10.0 the following year, he noted that tasks than a user interface element should for optimum ease-of-use, handling both minimized icons and program/file/folder shortcuts.

I wanted to rephrase it for clarity (and grammatical correctness), but even after reading the referenced article, I still have no clue what the author is trying to say. 71.252.3.179 (talk) 12:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Criticism[edit]

I can't help but feel that the criticism on this page is outdated? The Windows 7 taskbar has the same size and mouse-over-label issues as is criticized here, which gives me the idea that the criticisms are not objective, but rather a reaction to when the interface underwent a change. Althepal (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Mads.soegaard's external link[edit]

Comments copied and pasted from my own Talk page.

I appreciate that you're protective of articles that you have contributed to. However, the entry on Apple Dock is not complete without a mentioning of the Bifocal Display, which is the visualization technique behind it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mads.soegaard (talkcontribs) 15:46, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again,
I know the COI document very well - that's why I've posted my affiliation on my User page to make any COI apparent. However, it would be good if you could take a moment and focus on the question at hand instead.
The encyclopedia entry that I've submitted (and edited) is peer-reviewed and is necessary to understand what the Dock is, and where it comes from. I don't believe it's necessary to discuss this on the Dock talk page as you can ask anyone with research experience in information visualization.
I'll make the change again. If you disagree, please ask some of your co-editors with information visualization research experience. Or anyone with a background in GUI development, or Human-Computer Interaction. Thanks.
Mads Mads.soegaard (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(1) Please stop adding external links to your own website. Accounts that are used solely to add external links to articles, without any actual edits that add content to articles, simply come across as self-promotion and almost inevitably get blocked from editing. Suggest your external links on article talk pages, and if you make a convincing argument, other editors will add them.

(2) Even if the magnification effect in the dock could be tied directly to the work of Spence and Appleby (which I find a stretch at best), that is only one feature of the dock, so claiming that this is the "origin of the dock" is simplistic and demonstrates a lack of understanding of the actual origin of the dock (i.e. it developed from the Nextstep dock which if I recall correctly did not have a magnification feature). AlistairMcMillan (talk) 02:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Alistair,
As I have mentioned earlier, it would be good if you could focus on the question at hand and leave your feelings out. COI or not, the visualization technique is called the Bifocal Display (invented 1981 long before Apple, NextStep, etc) and the core feature is not Magnification, as you write. I do not mean to sound disrespectful but I don't find it constructive that you spend your time on the wikipedia calling other people "simplistic and demonstrating lack of understanding". Information Visualization is outside your area of expertise and while I appreciate that you work hard to maintain wikipedia articles, it would be good if you could stay objective and focus on the question at hand. Your role is not that of a "wikipedia police officer" but should focus on building the articles you are involved in. So, please take a few minutes to read the link that I submitted and then you'll know.
In conclusion, there is no "convincing argument" to be made on this talk page. It's all clearly documented in the link I submitted. I'll let you think about it for a few days and then I'll put the link back up.
Mads.soegaard (talk) 18:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mads,

Could you also please read my comments more carefully.

I didn't call you "simplistic and demonstrating lack of understanding". I called your suggestion that the dock is based solely on the "bifocal display" idea, simplistic and lacking.

I also didn't say that the "bifocal display" idea is just magnification. I said that the magnification feature of the dock is the part that demonstrates the "bifocal display" idea. And the reason I pointed that out is because (i) it is an optional feature of the dock and (ii) it wasn't a feature of the Nextstep dock from which the Mac OS X dock evolved. So your suggestion that this article should link to your website because it explains "the origin of the dock" is false.

External link sections are where people are supposed to go for more information about the content of the article. The "bifocal display" concept isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, it isn't even mentioned anywhere in Wikipedia at all. Neither are Spence and Apperley as far as I can tell. If this is a notable idea, perhaps you should be trying to add an article about the subject, instead of just trying to link to your own website.

Please understand that Wikipedia has a huge problem with people trying to insert links to their own websites to attract traffic. Given that all your edits seem to consist solely of attempts to insert links to your own website, with no attempt to actually add any content to Wikipedia... it doesn't create a very good impression.

If you add your link again, it will be removed. If you do it again without even attempting to discuss it, your account will be blocked from editing. Thank you. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)