The Need for "Single Window Mode" 3233

Actually, the overlapping windows are best for small screens. On the old 9-inchers, you needed to keep each window simple, or its content area would be too small to use.

Of course, high resolutions are best used for high-quality display, not making everything teeny tiny. That can't be good UI.

"Allowing" a single window mode is detrimental?

It may do, if you have a lot of it. That was a key difference between the Xerox Star and the Mac (or Lisa); the Star had a big screen. And they used tiled windows, for just this reason.

Very practical of you, but even this should be automated.

snip

Another desktop, right? But I wonder which one; seems like you could be chasing your windows around this way, if you have a lot of desktops.

snip

Nope. You can drag-and-hover over the taskbar and switch apps that way.

All UI is a compromise, of course, but I don't think the taskbar-button-to-window connection is beyond too many users.

Actually, most apps *on Windows* can use that space; even Explorer tries manfully to do so with all its bars and web-views and thumbnails and filmstrips and such.

And increasingly, this is true of Mac OS X also.

You may be used to the OS 9 style, where windows contain little but content. This was needed on very small screens, but everyone is moving away from it now.

It *enhances* muscle memory, because all UI elements *in the window* are in a fixed location, once it is maximized.

The taskbar's muscle memory problems are small beans next to that.

My loss! :D

Well, the usability cost is imposed by the users themselves, who so often insist on tidying up the windows.

If you don't do that, it's such a drain.

snip

Well, Apple's 'zoom' function requires app support; otherwise it cannot tell what size is the right size.

'Maximize' has the advantage that it does not require this; but fundementally they tool similar-seeming tools fulfil very different functions.

And no UI element is entirely immune from application sabotage. :D