Why this is in my mind at the moment is that Tinderbox is being modernized and I am helping with the betas. All of the functionality is there. The changes are in internals and user interface. Though I have no problem with speed or robustness with the existing version, this recoding should allow for a better future in manyways.
But in evaluating this beta, I find myself conflicted. There are three of his worlds and three of mine that this thing exists in, and just which ontology should I use in critiquing a control? It is a real problem. In modernizing, a host of Mac UI conventions are being adopted; that’s what it means to leverage the frameworks.
But Tinderbox was/is to some large measure where I go to escape this. One example is that I have often a score Tinderbox windows open, the dimensional placement being significant to me. I drag links all over the place. The dance matters. Many cues have been developed over the years to help with this: colors, fonts, changing badges.
The new Mac way is one screen, one window. A couple panes: text on the right. it works for me in Mail for now, but... shucks.
I’m selfish and hungry for power. I’m worthy of tools that let me do what my heart drives me to. So the best way to navigate this is thorny. I suppose the best approach is dual.
Feedback that presumes I am an ordinary user and can suggest an approach that, say, has fewer clicks or more obvious functionality is the default. But I also need to put on a red shirt and champion a future I need, personally need. Perhaps that will be more private, and speak to the research corner of Mark’s world.