Making 1 click to access is faster than typing the app name in finder. Dock is usually full and used for different type of apps. Makes also constantly visible output possible with standard ui patterns.
Making 1 click to access is faster than typing the app name in finder. Dock is usually full and used for different type of apps. Makes also constantly visible output possible with standard ui patterns.
And ‘every’ Mac developer thinks people will want to run their tool all the time.
For this kind of read-only tool, I doubt that’s the case. A regular application probably serves most users better.
Also, if you want users to have the option of permanently displaying this kind of info, a desktop widget (https://developer.apple.com/documentation/widgetkit) may be a better option than a menu bar item.
I like this idea.
Exactly, this should just be a regular app with an optional menu bar option for those who want to switch it on.
> Dock is usually full
My menu bar is also full and, unlike the Dock, I can’t resize it to fit more.
You can put it in a secondary onclick taskbar with Ice (similarly to Windows)
Just a heads up Ice is abandoned and broken on upcoming versions of MacOS. I still need to look into an alternative
https://www.macrumors.com/2024/06/06/alternatives-bartender-...
OK, thanks. We understand what a menu bar is.
How is this conducive to the typical usage pattern of an app like this?
For some reason the app supports a separate standalone window mode as well [0]. It's not clear why the developer took the trouble to support two different modes when the menubar mode doesn't seem to add anything (like a live-updating icon for throughput).
Well, I can think of one reason why it wasn't that much more trouble. François Chollet had a nice tweet [1] on why removing human cognitive friction is resulting in needless software complexity.
[0] https://github.com/darrylmorley/whatcable/blob/main/Sources/...
[1] https://x.com/fchollet/status/2045929951539707957
> removing human cognitive friction is resulting in needless software complexity
This is kind of a hilarious statement just on the surface. Isn't removing burden from humans the whole purpose of software? How can you call the complexity "needless"?!
(the actual tweet seems to go into a bit more detail around being incentivized to find good abstractions)
I think you're conflating the burden of creation with the burden of relevance, suitability, usability and usefulness of the created artifact. The more the person in charge is disengaged, the sloppier the output is likely to be.
Are you saying you wish this was a desktop app and you would just open it occasionally when curious?
If so, it feels like a needlessly indirect and combative way to go about it.
Why is it "combative"? Seems like a needlessly hyperbolic description of launching a desktop app.