Like what, exactly? I'm not trying to be a dick, I just really can't think of anything. All the stuff my Mac does automatically seems to be standard OS stuff that I really don't need to deal with personally each and every time. Like connecting to a wireless network without giving me a giant, sticky notification that it's done so.
It could be really simple, but it's definitely not obvious: With Windows, you go through the installer. With Linux, you (often) go through the command line. Mac: drag somewhere, run. Where'd it go? Where do other users find it?
The completeness of the installer packages also varies. They don't tell you drag to the same place.
Comfort with all these quirks, regardless of OS, are highly habit-dependent. Once you really know what's going on, that OS is your "answer." To me, the issue in the article is merely about conversion and new customers.
I know you didn't mean it like this, but this is actually an interesting question. On Windows, the files probably went into the Program Files directory, but if you try to go there in Windows explorer, you get a "these are system files, keep out" warning. Which is quite correct, you wouldn't expect an end user to open an application from Program Files, there will probably be a bunch of unrelated exes to distract you.
So where is it? I guess the answer is "in the start menu". People probably believe that abstraction, to the point that MS had to put a "this is just a shortcut, you need to use add remove programs to actually delete the application" message.
Package managers, much the same story. Where are the binaries? In a versioned repository somewhere, on mac ports somewhere under /opt/local. How do you run them? Type their name in the command line, often you ignore where the files actually are.
And finally, back to OS X itself. How do you install an application? Drag it into the applications directory.
Where is it? It's in Applications. How do you run it? Go to Applications and double click on it.
The only case I've pointed to where the answers to "how do I install it", "where is it" and "how do I run it" end up in the same place, the Applications directory, is where you point out a usability issue. User interface design is hard!
My guess is it comes down to expectations. "Go to the Applications folderand click on the application I want to run? It can't possibly be that simple!" and then spend 15 minutes looking for a pull down menu to launch the application.
Yup, expectations is right. When I started out, I was dragging apps to the dock and the desktop -- and they worked! I did this even to huge packages (100+ MB) and they just worked with no process. It was mysterious, almost disconcerting. And if I did things this way, other users didn't know where to find them.
Then you have other packages which launch the installer. As longwinded as they are, they give me a sense of control and make me feel more comfortable even if the same process is happening.
You can tell that I'm a latecomer to the OS X scene; frankly still don't know where the apps are going, but because it is hidden from me already, I don't want to bother. I always launch with spotlight and I have only opened the Applications folder once.
MacPorts was also highly confusing: you get a second Python. OpenCV installs to the system, PIL installs to ports. Now I'm sure there's a way to do so-and-so, but coming from w32/linux, it's just download, install.
Off the top of my head, automatically setting file-sharing to share your public folder over their AFP protocol, but hiding the ability to share files with Windows computers in an arcane dialog box. To do Windows sharing, you have to click Options under Sharing, and understand that "SMB sharing" is actually secret code for Windows sharing.
And, even though any old Mac can connect to yours, it's impossible (AFAIK) to enable anonymous sharing over SMB, which causes problems with stuff like XBMC.
I would say that SMB is pretty arcane. Further, this is likely what most people want to do when they share files if they aren't in a mac-only environment. Why isn't SMB enabled by default? Why doesn't the option mention that this is what's needed to interface with windows computers?
this is likely what most people want to do when they share files if they aren't in a mac-only environment.
Obviously true, but not a strong argument against placing the option where it is. It is not difficult to find by navigation, and searching for "windows file sharing" in System Preferences or Spotlight takes the user directly to the sheet containing that option.
Why isn't SMB enabled by default?
According to the dialog box and the associated help menu, SMB requires your password to be stored in a less secure way.
Why doesn't the option mention that this is what's needed to interface with windows computers?
It is when it's small, in the corner, and surrounded by a whole bunch of other options. There's no reason why the option to share your files with ~90% of the computing world should be buried three clicks deep and esoterically named.
It is, in fact, the same size as any other button, and the only text-labeled button in that pane. I struggle to comprehend how it is arcane for a file sharing option to be found by clicking a button labeled "Options..." in a pane labeled "File Sharing".
That's assume that you even have to navigate to it. It's much easier to type in "windows file sharing" in the System Preferences search box and hit enter. It takes you right to it. Can we agree that typing words in a search box is not arcane?
I agree that having a hint indicating that Windows needs SMB would be helpful to people who have no idea what they're doing, but it certainly isn't a "secret code" when SMB is the actual name of protocol. In any event, the original question was about excessive automation. Defaulting to the native file sharing protocol can hardly be considered excessive.
We're splitting some major hairs here, but my point is that placing and misnaming this option, an extremely common task you'd want to accomplish in this pane, in a second-layer dialog, when a majority of the options are in the first layer, is unequivocally user-unfriendly. I would mock up a better solution, but Apple already has (see above). You're looking at this from a developer's perspective; to the average user, SMB may as well be secret code. And it has everything to do with excessive automation, mostly because it's hard for a novice to 'un-automate'.
There is no splitting hairs when you use phrases like "unequivocally user-unfriendly". This is not a minor detail. You are wrong.
Comparing to the previous interface is a non-starter, as you don't account for the differences. Previously, none of the file sharing protocols had an interface for choosing which folders to share and with what permissions. Now that there is such an interface, the three options for sharing files are grouped behind that common function. This makes the first layer consistent about what is being shared and the second (Options...) about how, an extremely common and familiar style of interface. If it is "unequivocally user-unfriendly" here, why is it tolerable in a hundred other places in almost every GUI?
Dismissing my view as that of a developer (which I am not) does not give you the authority to speak for the supposed "average user". It does not take a particularly sophisticated user to find the right pane (as my previous post showed), and once found, even the solitary use of jargon is at most a speed-bump. Even the help button on that very same pane leads to a clear answer. Using unambiguous and factually accurate terminology in the interface is not arcane or secret just because the meaning is not immediately obvious to all potential users. Consider terms like "Ethernet", "WiFi", or "DVD". Should we banish these terms from interfaces, too?
I have no idea what you mean by "un-automate". The entire process here is user-driven. The operating system is not doing anything without explicit user action. Are you against the idea of using sensible defaults?
I'm going to write off most of this as a difference of opinion, because we're not getting anywhere. I have big problems with two things - First, designers always have to make tradeoffs based on what terminology their users are familiar with. A HUGE majority of users know the terms DVD and WiFi. I'm a CS major and didn't know what SMB was until recently. There's a blatantly obvious difference, especially when the term 'Windows Sharing' could be used. Secondly, I'm not against the idea of using sensible defaults, but I don't believe the decision to not share with Windows computers is a sensible default.
I don't know that we do differ in opinion now. You appear to have given up your earlier claims, and your main assertion here is one that I already agreed with: "I agree that having a hint indicating that Windows needs SMB would be helpful to people who have no idea what they're doing".
I haven't given up on them, I just see that part as a legitimate disagreement. And the only reason I made that assertion is because you appeared (to me at least) to have given up your earlier claims, when you said "Using unambiguous and factually accurate terminology in the interface is not arcane or secret just because the meaning is not immediately obvious to all potential users." Can we call this done now? :)
