OS X’s Mail: How to manually restore plug-in compatibility

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Mail
November 16th, 2013 • 5:56 pm

Most of the time, when Apple comes up with system updates that modify the Mail application, the changes cause Mail to reject installed third-party plug-ins (known as “bungles”) by moving them from the “~/Library/Mail/Bundles/” folder to the “~/Library/Mail/Bundles (Disabled)/” folder at launch time. This happens even if there is no known compatibility issue between the new version of Mail and the plug-in.

Macworld had a column about this a few years back, and about what you can do to manually restore the compatibility — at your own risk, of course. (Sometimes, plug-ins can become incompatible and so it’s safer to wait until the developer updates the plug-ing himself or herself.)

In Mavericks (OS X 10.9), the situation has changed a bit. Mail updates still cause bundles to be rejected, but now it is no longer necessary to update the plug-in’s info.plist file with the UUIDs for both the Mail application and the Message framework.

So there is only one process left to do. After you’ve quit Mail:

1. Enter the following line in Terminal:

defaults read /Applications/Mail.app/Contents/Info PluginCompatibilityUUID

2. Keep the UUID that this command returns in a safe place.

3. Go to the “~/Library/Mail/Bundles (Disabled)/” folder and locate the info.plist file in the “Contents” folder of the bundle for the plug-in. Open this info.plist file in a text editor. (I use BBEdit.)

4. In the section called “SupportedPluginCompatibilityUUIDs”, add a line that reads:


where “XXX” is the UUID that you’ve retrieved with the Terminal command above.

5. Save the info.plist file.

6. Move the entire bundle folder back to the “~/Library/Mail/Bundles/” folder.

Now you can relaunch Mail and it will no longer reject the “incompatible” plug-in bundle.

Before Mavericks, you had to repeat the same process for the “Message” framework in “/System/Library/Frameworks/”. But as far as I can tell, this is no longer necessary in Mavericks.

Again, I stress that, if you use this tip to restore plug-in functionality for a rejected Mail plug-in, you will be doing so at your own risk. Eventually, plug-in developers will release updated versions of their plug-ins that will “officially” restore the compatibility. But it can take a while and you don’t necessarily want to have to wait, especially if you are reasonably confident that the plug-in remains compatible with Mail.

[UPDATE: Reader Brad L. notes that there is a utility called MailPluginFix that can be used to automate the process. It’s listed as Mavericks-compatible.]

Mail 7: Saving multiple attachments now requires multiple clicks

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Mail
October 28th, 2013 • 9:11 am

Apple’s engineers have a strong tendency of being unable to leave good enough alone.

In the previous version of Mail, if you received an email message containing multiple attachments, there was a way to save all these attachments with a single click. You could just use a single click on the “Save” button in the message header, and this single click would automatically save all the attachments in the “Downloads” folder defined in Mail’s preferences (under “General”).

Now, in Mail 7, if you use a single click on the “Save” button, the result looks like this:


The only option here is to select the “Save All” command and then to select your destination folder manually. There is no longer any option to save the attachments directly to the “Downloads” folder defined in Mail’s preferences from this menu.

As far as I can tell, the only place where the “Downloads” folder defined in Mail’s preferences still has any relevance in Mail 7’s interface is in the contextual menu you get when you right-click or control-click on the icon of an individual attachment in the body of the email:


But of course this only works for one attachment at a time.

I have to save multiple attachments multiple times every day. Now every time this will require several extra clicks with the mouse.

I guess that they call this progress down in Cupertino.

[UPDATE: Reader Kevin Bush points out that you can use command-A to select the entire body of the message and then save all the attachments to the “Downloads” folder at once. It is indeed better, but it still requires more than one step.]

More on Pages 5

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Pages
October 26th, 2013 • 10:23 am

Since my previous post on Pages 5 was mentioned on Daring Fireball, I have received quite a bit of feedback, both directly and indirectly. I’d like to address some of the issues about my post and this situation that were raised in that feedback, in order to clarify, as they say, “where I am coming from” and better explain why the situation is so discouraging.

First, several people couldn’t help but compare the situation with Pages 5 to what happened with iMovie ’08 or, more recently, Final Cut Pro X. In both cases, Apple took a fairly well established product with a familiar feature set and subjected it to an extensive overhaul, to the point that existing users were shocked, angry, distressed, and so on.

Not being a video editor myself, I am not familiar with either product line, so all I know about these two other situations is the commentary that I saw on the Mac web at the time and afterwards, especially regarding the fact that, after the initial shock, some users were able to get used to the overhauled software and adapt their workflow fairly easily, whereas others experienced much more difficulty and were left very frustrated for a long period.

Apparently, over time, especially in the case of Final Cut Pro X, Apple took pains to bring back the features that had been eliminated, by incorporating them back into the new software architecture. Of course, iMovie and Final Cut Pro are quite different in terms of their target audiences and their price points, so it’s not surprising to hear that Apple’s response to user feedback was much better and more prompt in the case of the latter. (Apple couldn’t exactly “afford” to alienate professional movie makers and videographers for years — although admittedly even at the best of times the revenue generated by sales of Final Cut Pro and related pro-level Mac hardware purchases is clearly dwarfed by the revenue generated by iOS-related hardware, so from a strictly financial point of view, Apple probably could afford to do alienate pro users.)

It is also true that no one was forced to switch the new, overhauled versions right away, and that the previous versions continued to be supported — just like Pages ’09 continues to work just fine in OS X Mavericks. So there is no need to panic here, and I believe that my reaction (as well as the reaction of many other Pages users) is primarily a mixture of heavy dismay and disappointment (especially with the fact that, after waiting for a new version for four years, this is what we got) and strong concern about the future. Eventually, Apple will stop supporting Pages ’09. How confident can we be that, by then, we’ll have a new version of Pages with a more or less restored feature set? Do we really want to continue to generate lots of content in a file format that is now already obsolete and will not be supported forever? (Like other software makers, Apple’s own history in that regard is pretty abysmal. Try opening old AppleWorks files on a modern Mac…)

It is quite clear that, for people like me, the present situation probably means several more years of using Pages ’09 with not a single enhancement or bug fix. The best we can hope for from Apple is minor application updates to maintain compatibility with the OS or for security purposes. And even that is not guaranteed. It is very discouraging.

One other point that was made by some is that Pages is not a pro-level piece of software. So why do “prosumers” or professional users rely on it for their work? Anyone who’s been reading my Betalogue site for a while knows very well why that is. There is no real alternative (although I promise that I will try and explore other products like Nisus Writer more seriously). Microsoft Word is a piece of crap, and there is no hope of it ever improving and becoming a proper piece of OS X software. It’s slow, it’s flawed, it’s buggy, it’s unreliable, and Microsoft does not care about the needs of prosumers much more than Apple does. They only care about the needs of special interest groups with lots of purchasing power, which include IT departments and other technology “experts” who know very little about issues regarding usability, user-friendliness, and so on.

I know very well that it is not quite normal that I have ended up relying on Pages so much in my work. But that’s the way it is, because that’s the way the desktop publishing industry is. The so-called “industry standard” (Word) is junk, and there is no real competition that leads to better products for end users. Pages ’09 was a bit of a miracle, in that it was a well-designed (albeit far from perfect) piece of OS X software with quite a bit of power “under the hood”, if you were willing to spend a bit of time to scratch the surface — hence the attractiveness of the software for more advanced users like myself. My Betalogue site contains numerous examples of things that can be done with Pages ’09 (sometimes with the help of AppleScript and Keyboard Maestro) and that make it a quite legitimate alternative to Microsoft Word. (Even with all my customizations and enhancements, I still have to use Word on a regular basis, of course. But I would say that for about 80% of my work I am able to get away with using Pages ’09 instead, and just export my documents in Word format at the end. My Word-using clients do not really know the difference.)

The reason we are in the situation we are in today is that the desktop publishing industry is not a healthy one at all, and has not been one for decades. Microsoft Word was already driving me mad 20 years ago. Since 2006, I have actually been able to improve my productivity and be much more happy in my daily working life thanks to the availability of Pages (and, to a lesser extent, of Numbers as an alternative to Excel). This is extensively documented on this blog, for anyone who would bother to actually research the issue. The reality is that there has never really been two classes of desktop publishing software, one for “consumers” and another one for “professionals”, so you cannot really blame people like me for trying to build a working environment around a product like Pages, whether it can really be considered “iSoftware” or not. It’s a bit like blaming professionals for using an iMac for their work instead of a Mac Pro.

If Apple does actually opt to restore AppleScript support in Pages 5 or an ulterior version, and bring back some of the functionality that has been lost (and also add new features that are still missing in both Pages ’09 and Pages 5, such as the ability to use different page orientations in the same document, or hierarchical style sheets), then, even if it takes a couple of years, I will be reasonably happy, and I will probably be able to learn how to live with the new Pages then. But what guarantee do we have that this will happen? The history with iMovie and Final Cut Pro is no proof that there is a real commitment on Apple’s part. We don’t know how much of Apple’s response for these two other products was due to the unexpected outcry from end users or was simply always somehow “part of the plan”. Apple won’t communicate at all about these things.

iWork is now free, so it’s rather hard to ask for your money back, or to threaten to boycott the product. All we can do is submit bug reports and other forms of feedback through available channels. But that’s yet more work (= lost productivity) for us with no guarantee of a positive result. It would take me hours to clearly and neatly document all the missing features in Pages 5 and explain why it is important to restore them. With my posts on Betalogue (and my advocacy offline), I feel that I have already done my part in promoting Pages as a viable solution. This has brought me very little reward except for the positive feedback from readers. I just cannot spend my whole working life waiting for the right tool to finally become available. The very fact that Apple felt the need to completely overhaul the Pages interface yet again clearly demonstrates that no one really knows how to design a really good hammer for us wordsmiths and document editors.

Writing in and of itself is a pretty basic computing task, which can be done with a wide variety of tools. (I am writing this in BBEdit right now, and I am perfectly happy.) But as soon as you start talking about creating “smart” documents with quality typography and with structure, tables, illustrations, and so on, the situation is objectively a complete mess and has been ever since I started using a computer as my main working tool. No one should be surprised or shocked that the Pages 5 revamp is generating such a strong response. It’s like asking a taxi driver to relearn how to drive every four or five years. I am, quite frankly, getting a bit tired of all this.

Pages 5: An unmitigated disaster

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Pages
October 24th, 2013 • 8:45 am

Dear oh dear. They really have done it, haven’t they? They have taken what had evolved into a rather decent word processor / page layout application and have eliminated so many useful features that it effectively is now a piece of useless junk, and I honestly have no idea for whom this latest version of Pages is intended.

It certainly is not intended for people who, like me, appreciated the combination of simplicity and power that was the hallmark of previous versions of Pages. I realize that it must be hard to maintain the right balance between simplicity and power when you try to add more features, more customizability, and so on. But Apple’s engineers appear to have chosen to keep the emphasis on “simplicity” at the expense of “power”. They have not just neglected to add features to bring the feature set of the application closer to that of a word processor like Microsoft Word. They have actually removed many features for no apparent reason other than to bring the application in line with its iOS counterpart, which is, inevitably, much less powerful.

To take just one example, it appears to be no longer possible to assign shortcuts to paragraph and character styles in Pages 5. The ability to assign shortcuts to styles was woefully limited in previous versions of Pages, but at least there was one. Now, there is nothing. If you want to use styles, it’s clicks, clicks, and more clicks with the mouse. Each and every time.

To make matters worse, they appear to have completely broken AppleScript support in Pages 5, which means that my solution for customizing Pages with a combination of AppleScript scripts and Keyboard Maestro has also become useless. (Not that AppleScript support in Pages ’09 was perfect, far from it. But at least it was working to some extent. And bugs and limitations could be worked around.)

I guess that, in an era of mobile, touch-based computing, it’s becoming increasingly difficult for Apple engineers to understand that document writers spend most of their days with their hands on an actual keyboard, and providing easy access to functionality via the keyboard is particularly important for them.

But this is just one example. There are many, many more:

(And much more here.)

We Mac power users have been complaining about the “dumbing down” trend in computing that the mobile era has ushered in. Now it’s definitely come to hurt us in a big way. It’s as if the entire iWork team of engineers has been replaced by iOS specialists with little or no interest in the needs of “prosumers” and the like.

It is just profoundly sad and depressing. In spite of all its flaws, I have been using Pages as my main word processor for many years now. Meanwhile, Microsoft Word has just become more and more horrible to look at and to use. I guess that, for now, I will continue to use Pages ’09 with all the customizations that I have painstakingly created with AppleScript and Keyboard Maestro. But sooner or later, I will have no choice but to switch to something else. Imagine being a plumber or an electrician and discovering that your main toolmakers are no longer able to make tools that enable you to actually get your work done in an efficient and effective fashion. Who do you turn to? How do you maintain your own productivity? I really have no idea.

At least I didn’t to pay for Pages 5. For whatever reason, after I installed Mavericks, the App Store made it available to me for free, as an “update”. Ditto for Numbers and Keynote, which I have yet to look at.

But it’s so bad that I actually might have to erase it from my hard drive altogether, in order to avoid any confusion with multiple Pages file formats and the like. (Installing Pages 5 does not remove Pages ’09. At least it did not on my machine.)

Safari in Mavericks: PDF downloading when native display is off is broken

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
October 23rd, 2013 • 5:56 pm

I have been posting small notes about my experience with OS X 10.9 (Mavericks) on my Twitter feed, but this one warrants a longer post — if only to properly express my indignation.

For months now, I have been testing the newest version of Safari 6 as part of my AppleSeed membership. And right away, I noticed one particular issue that affects people who, like me, do not like the so-called “native” display of PDF files inside the browser window and would rather get all their PDF files automatically downloaded to their “Downloads” folder instead. (See this older post for more on this.)

The newest version of Safari does not eliminate the ability to disable native PDF display via a command in Terminal. However, it breaks it in a way that makes it useless.

Here’s what now happens in Safari after you disable native PDF display and click on a PDF to download it:


It displays the PDF as raw data inside the browser window!

And of course, Safari being what it is, if the PDF in question happens to be fairly large, the app has a strong tendency to become totally unresponsive at the same time, with the typical “Web pages are not responding” alert, which obliges you to reload all your currently open pages in all your Safari tabs and windows. (How this is better than the Safari app simply crashing, I do not know. Apparently, it’s an improvement.)

What really infuriates me about this particular bug is that I noticed it as soon as I installed the very first seed of the new Safari, several months ago. And I immediately filed a bug report. I tried to be patient, but when I saw that the bug was not fixed in subsequent seeds, I tried submitting more reports.

Not only did they never acknowledge my initial report, but they also never flagged my subsequent reports as “duplicate”. It was like talking to a wall. At that stage, I became reasonably confident that they would fail to fix the bug in the final release, and sure enough, they did not fix it and now everyone can enjoy it as much as I have been doing for the past few months.

Of course, you can avoid the buggy behaviour by option-clicking on links to PDF files in order to force Safari to download the files instead of displaying them (wait until they break that feature in the next version of Safari!), but:

  1. It is a pain in the neck to have to remember to hold the option key down when clicking on a link to a PDF file, especially when it is not obvious that it is a link to a PDF file and not to another web page.
  2. This option-clicking workaround works even when native PDF display is enabled, so the ability to disable native PDF display is now effectively useless. It might as well not exist at all.

Apple cares very little about the needs of so-called “power users” these days, so I am not entirely surprised that they failed to acknowledge my bug reports and fix the bug in time for the final release, and I am not too optimistic that they will fix it any time soon — although the fact that the same feature was already broken once in the past and eventually fixed by Apple back then (see this older post) gives me a bit of hope (although it took many months). But it would help if everyone affected could bombard Apple with bug reports now that the new Safari is out.

Word 2011: Issue with text selection in right-aligned table cells

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Microsoft
October 23rd, 2013 • 10:21 am

In Word 2011, if you have a table with cells where the text alignment setting is “Align Text Left”, and if your cell in empty, when the cell is selected, the selection highlighting and the mouse pointer look like this:


If you then click once anywhere in the cell, Word 2011 deselects the empty cell and put the I-beam cursor instead:


On the other hand, if the text alignment setting for the cell is “Align Text Right”, and if your cell in empty, when the cell is selected, the selection highlighting and the mouse pointer look like this:


If you then try to click once anywhere in the cell, Word 2011 refuses to deselect the empty cell and put the I-beam cursor instead. In order to achieve the same effect, your only option is to switch to the keyboard and press a cursor key. Then finally Word 2011 deselects the empty cell and put the I-beam cursor instead:


This problem only occurs when the cell is empty. If it already contains some right-aligned text, you can click on the text to deselect it and get the I-beam cursor instead.

There are some many little “details” like this one that are not right in Word 2011. And no one seems to care. It’s sad.

So I just had brain surgery…

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Society, Technology
September 15th, 2013 • 2:09 pm

I don’t usually share personal stuff here, but it went well, and it’s done, so I feel fortunate to be able to talk about it and share some of my (slightly amputated) thoughts on the whole process, especially when it comes to the “user-friendliness” of the thing, and boy, they sure could use some help in that department.

The context in a nutshell: Through a routine IRM of my head a few years ago, a suspicious area was spotted in my brain, above the right eye. I didn’t have any obvious symptoms of anything, so the decision was made to simply monitor the thing with regular IRMs and revisit the decision if necessary.

Three years later, there appeared to be enough of a change to justify intervention and so… under the knife I went. The tumour was removed on Thursday and I am here at home typing at my computer, so obviously things went quite well as far as the surgery itself is concerned (although of course I am a bit, let’s say, stunned and will still need to pace myself for quite a while).

The neurosurgeron is reasonably confident that he got “the whole thing” out (as far as that is possible), as was confirmed by the IRM that I had the day after the surgery, but we have to wait for the results of the biopsy to see what kind of tumour we are actually dealing with (there are many kinds, apparently). However, chances are that it is of the “low grade, slow-growing” kind, which will require on-going monitoring for the rest of my life, and hopefully not much else.

As for the process, a sure sign that my brain was functioning normally after the operation was that I immediately started thinking about all the things that could probably be easily improved in the recovery process, especially when it comes to technology (of course).

One of the most annoying aspects of being stuck in a “step-down” ward with other recent victims of surgery is that you are all hooked up to all kinds of monitoring devices that emit all kinds of signals. Easily the most annoying one was the arterial hook-up monitoring the heart rate. The thing is obviously configured by default to beep every time there is a sudden change in your heart rate. But apparently this happens so often that nurses have learned to ignore the beeps, unless of course they become persistent. (They can change the settings, but I suspect it’s too much of an annoyance to do it systematically and so… You know the rest.)

The stupidest aspect, as far as I am concerned, is that, at least in my case, the simple fact of falling asleep apparently causes enough of a change in my heart rate to trigger the alarm. As you can imagine, falling asleep is not the easiest thing to do in a busy ward at the best of time. When you’ve been put to sleep for six hours and have a bit of a headache, it’s even harder. But really, it does not help at all that, right at the time when you finally fall asleep, the idiotic heart rate monitor emits a beep that is, of course, close enough to wake you from your not-quite-asleep-yet state.

Next on the list are the IV pumps. These things sound exactly like inkjet printers going about their business or, worst-still, dot-matrix printers from the 1980s. Given that they have to be running permanently, you’d think they would put more effort into coming up with quieter designs. Yes, it is a repetitive sound and you eventually get used to it, but surely it’s one more thing that it should not be necessary to inflict on patients trying to regain their strength and get some much needed sleep.

Then of course you add the usual rudeness and general impoliteness of other people, including other patients and their visitors. For the first night after the surgery, my four-bed ward was, from my perspective, a Bosch painting come to life. Between the alcoholic/addict woman that had been hit by a car, with a broken hip and pelvis and something to her head, who kept pulling her tubes out and swearing in some incomprehensible language (there were enough “shits” and “fucks” in there for me to be able to tell that she was swearing), the aneurysm patient who had been driving all the nurses crazy for ten days straight by refusing to comply with their orders and attempting to get up and go away, himself releasing an endless stream of “oh my fucking god”s and other choice words, not to mention innumerable burps and farts and what not, and then the poor old soul who showed up at 5 am with a broken neck that, with his history of lung cancer, prevented him from breathing properly, instead making sounds that clearly indicated that he was drowning in his own phlegm and requiring the nurses to suction stuff out on a regular basis, all with nice, appealing noises for the rest of the room as you can imagine, it was quite a scene. Of course, I am not ignoring the fact that the people moaning and swearing were in real pain and clearly the morphine drips were enough to shut them up for a while, but it was never a very long while and I just did my best to enjoy my own morphine silently and keep my farts low-key.

The surgeon got word of the general ambience of the place and was kind enough to have me moved to a different ward for the next night, which was less apocalyptic, but the IV pumps were still active in their sonic ImageWriter-like majesty. (Fortunately, no one was hooked up to a heart rate monitor any longer at that stage.)

And then I was allowed to go home, which is of course a much better place to recover, under the care of my wife and with my familiar luxuries. I am not supposed to stay at the computer for too long, so I think I’ll keep it at that. I just sort of wanted to explain why things had been rather quiet for me on the blog/Twitter front lately.

Adobe InDesign CC: Selection colour and responsiveness affected by transparency of linked PSD file

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
August 14th, 2013 • 9:05 am

Yesterday, I wrote a post about a new problem introduced in InDesign CC that involves the presence of a link to a PSD file on the page.

Thanks to the feedback of Betalogue reader and fellow InDesign user Lars P., I am now able to confirm that the problem is more specifically linked to the use of transparency. As Lars says:

As soon as there are transparent objects (placed images, drop shadows, …) on a page, InDesign renders the whole page using the transparency blend space. That is normally set to CMYK, so all colours get converted to your CMYK working space ICC profile for display. Most vibrant colours (like your green for highlighting) will look washed out then.

Sure enough, changing the transparency blend space to “Document RGB” as opposed to “Document CMYK” does change the selection highlighting colour back to its normal shade. It does not, however, address the responsiveness issue that is also associated with this particular problem. (And you also need to remember to change it back to CMYK before sending the publication to the printer, if that’s part of your process.)

As I indicated yesterday, removing the link to the Photoshop file from the page eliminates the problem altogether. But that’s not necessarily an option. I have found that, if you do not need transparency and can flatten the Photoshop document, this also causes InDesign CC to stop rendering the whole page using the transparency blend space. The selection highlighting colour changes back to its normal shade, and the responsiveness issue is solved.

In other words, both the change in the selection highlighting colour and the responsiveness issue appear to be due to the use of the transparency blend space by InDesign CC to render the page. According to Lars, that behaviour with transparency blend space and changing colours has been present in InDesign since version 2. But I certainly have never noticed it before InDesign CC on my machine with the kind of publications that I work on, so I suspect that Adobe did change something in InDesign CC that now causes the problem to surface in situations where it did not before.

I wouldn’t really care about the colour changes if the problem did not also affect the responsiveness of the application to mouse movements. But the responsiveness issue is very noticeable as far as I am concerned, and I will have to do everything that I can to avoid it. If it involves eliminating the transparency in the linked PSD file, that’s what I’ll do.

In this particular case, the transparency was not needed, as the background colour of the document was white, which was also the background colour of the PSD document involved once it was flattened. But I can easily imagine that I will soon encounter situations where I have no option but keep links to transparent PSD documents. And so that might force me to have to deal with the responsiveness issue.

Based on what Lars is saying, and the subjectivity of something such as responsiveness (it really depends on how fast you work with your mouse), I have little hope that Adobe’s engineers will notice the problem and do something about it. So it’s yet another flaw that one is going to be forced to live with… Sigh.

Thanks to Lars for his feedback!

Adobe InDesign CC: Presence of PSD graphic affects selection colour and responsiveness

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
August 13th, 2013 • 3:38 pm

It’s an inevitability: Every new version of a major software title introduces new bugs. I’ve just encountered one in InDesign CC, and it didn’t take an inordinate amount of sleuthing to identify its source.

The problem surfaced when I started working on a publication designed by a client, which I am expected to translate, with the required adjustments to the layout for the French text. I have been doing this for this particular client for a couple of years now on various publications in the same series, so the files in question were nothing new.

What was new in InDesign CC, however, was that sometimes the application switched from my regular selection highlighting colour (a dark green) to a different shade.

Here’s what my normal selection colour looks like:


And here’s what it looked like in some situations:


The problem was not purely cosmetic, however. The selection colour was different, but there was also a noticeable degradation in selection highlighting performance. In other words, when I dragged the mouse around to extend or shorten the current selection, there would be a small delay between my movements and the corresponding changes on the screen.

I am someone who works very fast, and this delay was very noticeable to me, making me consistently miss my targets because the screen display was no longer in sync with my mouse movements. It was very irritating.

I started exploring InDesign CC’s settings, to see if there was something about the display performance options that had changed. But I couldn’t find anything obvious. I also quickly noticed that the problem seemed to come and go as I was working on my publication, for no visible reason.

I also noticed that, if I scrolled so that the section of the document with the selection highlighting was off-screen, and then scrolled back to make it visible again, until I released the mouse button the selection colour was as expected:


As you can see, when you are scrolling in an InDesign window, the scrolling might be “live”, but the application only draws the content revealed by the scrolling partially, by using a lower-quality version of the text and graphics, without anti-aliasing. The anti-aliasing is only added when you release the mouse button to indicate that the scrolling is done. Here’s a screen shot that better illustrates the trick:


(In this screen shot, I am bringing back the right half of the text back into view by scrolling to the right.)

This is presumably done in order to offer better scrolling performance, also it seems like a rather antiquated mechanism to me. (And text and graphics without anti-aliasing sure look ugly — although Adobe’s own anti-aliasing is not the best looking one in the neighbourhood either!)

So this led me to suspect that the problem might have something to do with anti-aliasing. But turning anti-aliasing off altogether didn’t fix the problem — somewhat to my relief, since having to work with anti-aliasing would definitely have hurt my eyes.

I was back to square one. Then, while I continued working on my publication, I noticed that the problem only seemed to affect certain pages in the publication. So it was not randomly intermittent. It was intermittent because there was something on some pages that caused the problem to occur.

I ended up narrowing it down by creating a copy of the publication and deleting a bunch of stuff. Within a few minutes, I was able to establish that the problem was most definitely caused by the presence of a link to a Photoshop document (a “.psd” file) on the page. As soon as I deleted the link, the selection highlighting colour reverted back to the expected shade, and the normal selection highlighting responsiveness was back. As soon as the link to the Photoshop file was restored, the problem reappeared.

I was able to reproduce this in a blank document with a link to another Photoshop file, so it does not seem to be linked to a particular Photoshop file or to other aspects of the publication.

So here we are… A new bug to add to the list. For what it’s worth, I have reported it via this page.

Fix for kernel panics on Mac Pro with multiple GeForce cards: ATI Radeon HD 5770

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
August 1st, 2013 • 9:08 am

In the summer of 2012, Apple started seeding early builds of the OS X 10.8.2 update. As a member of the AppleSeed program, I was able to test these early builds. I quickly noticed (as one would) that they introduced a serious new bug that caused frequent kernel panics on my Mac Pro, up to several times a day. I of course immediately filed a bug report on these kernel panics.

In September 2012, the final version of the OS X 10.8.2 update came out, and the kernel panics were still there. Around the same time, Apple sent me a response to my bug report indicating that the problem was a “known issue” and closing my bug report as a “duplicate”. Meanwhile, a thread discussing the issue appeared on the Apple forums, and it quickly became apparent that the problem could be narrowed down to people running Mac Pro computers with multiple GeForce video cards driving multiple monitors, and involved a few kernel extension files that were updated in OS X 10.8.2.

In October 2012, Apple released an update called OS X 10.8.2 Supplemental Update, which updated one of the kernel extensions involved. Sadly, it quickly became apparent that the supplemental update did not fix the kernel panics.

In late 2012, Apple started seeding early builds of the OS X 10.8.3 update. It included updated versions of all three kernel extensions involved in the kernel panics. The update did appear to have an impact on the frequency of the kernel panics, at least on my machine. But it failed to eliminate them completely.

In March 2013, the final version of OS X 10.8.3 came out. Again, while it included updated versions of all three kernel extensions involved in the kernel panics, it failed to completely eliminate the kernel panics.

Meanwhile, Mac Pro users managed to identify various ways of dealing with the kernel panics. I myself provided a hack that offered temporary relief, at least for some people. But it was not a fix.

I purchased an expensive Mini DisplayPort to Dual-Link DVI Adapter, which enabled me to connect both of my Apple Cinema 30-inch displays to the same GeForce video card and stop using the second card. This eliminated the kernel panics altogether, but it also had a noticeable impact on video performance and general system responsiveness, undoubtedly due to the fact that my system now only had half as much VRAM and video card processing power available.

Some people in the Apple Discussions thread also mentioned that replacing one of the GeForce video cards with an ATI Radeon HD 5770 appeared to provide a permanent fix for the problem.

Personally, I went back to using my two GeForce cards when Apple started seeding OS X 10.8.3, which enabled me to continue to monitor the situation, but of course also meant that I continued to experience the kernel panics, albeit less frequently. This remained true with the final OS X 10.8.3 update, and with early builds of the OS X 10.8.4 update.

In June 2013, Apple released the final version of OS X 10.8.4, and it still did not fix the kernel panics. As I indicated at the time, it looked like Apple was working on the problem, especially since “graphics drivers” was listed as a focus area during the testing of early builds of the update. But the fact remained that the kernel panics were still there in the final version of OS X 10.8.4.

In spite of my willingness to voluntarily endure some level of computing hardship in the name of helping Apple improve its products, I finally decided that I had had enough, and purchased the ATI Radeon HD 5770 upgrade kit myself.

I installed it in early July, and I can now confirm, one month later, that it is indeed a permanent workaround for the problem. (I am reluctant to call it a “fix” myself, because the problem might be still there on the software side of things. But the upgraded hardware prevents OS X from encountering the software problem in the first place, so it’s as good as a fix.) I have not had a single kernel panic since installing the video card.

I can also confirm that installing the Radeon card is fairly straightforward and, for those (like me) sensitive to noise issues, I can also confirm that, even though the card is bulkier and more powerful and requires its own power supply, it has no substantial impact on the overall sound level produced by the Mac Pro. (Sound is a very subjective thing, and there are multiple factors involved. In the summer, for example, when it gets really hot, there is definitely more fan noise coming from my Mac Pro. But I don’t believe the situation is any different from what it was with the two GeForce cards.) Also, while the Radeon 5770 upgrade is listed for “Mac Pro (Mid 2010)”, it works just fine in my 2009 Mac Pro.

Of course, the card has double the VRAM of the GeForce and more processing power, so there is also a little bit of a boost performance-wise. But it’s the kind of small boost you very quickly get used to, and I don’t think I would say that it provides a significant improvement over driving the two Apple Cinema displays with two GeForce cards. It certainly does not appear to be worth purchasing if you are not having kernel panics to begin with.

The bottom line here is that Apple has failed Mac Pro users. While I cannot verify that the bug is still there in 10.8.5 (Apple has been releasing early builds for a while now), I wouldn’t be surprised if it turned out that it still is. How Apple can justify “knowing” about such a serious issue and not doing anything about it for several months or, indeed, nearly a year now, I just do not know.

As I said before, the cynical in me cannot help but wonder whether Apple is not just taking advantage of the fact that Mac Pro users (especially those with multiple monitors) tend to have more disposable income and don’t mind spending several hundred dollars to work around a problem created by the company in the first place. I know that, personally, being able to do my computing in an environment free of kernel panics is definitely worth the nearly $500 that I have now spent on this problem (not to mention the countless hours spent testing, bug reporting, and simply rebooting and restoring my work environment after crashes).

But it’s definitely not right, and Mac Pro users have every reason to be pissed off with Apple right now. (I am past that stage, but that’s mostly because I have taken steps to work around the problem and I have other important issues to worry about in my life these days.) Apple has let us down big time, and while there are still reasons to be excited about the new Mac Pro announced earlier this year, it will take more than a little effort on Apple’s part to repair its relationship with those affected by this very serious and (as yet?) unaddressed issue.

Delicious Library 3: A major disappointment

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
July 18th, 2013 • 2:58 pm

I used to have a custom-made FileMaker Pro solution for cataloguing my books, my music, and my movies. But when Delicious Library came about, with its built-in access to Amazon’s data, I quickly made the decision to switch to this particular tool. The user interface had a few quirks, but on the whole the experience of using it for cataloguing and browsing my ever-expanding collection was a pleasant one.

There was even a golden era when Delicious Monster was actually able to provide an iOS application that would seamlessly sync with the desktop application and enable you to carry your entire collection around in a convenient portable form. Unfortunately, Amazon then imposed new restrictions that made it impossible for Delicious Monster to continue to offer the iOS application — as if it was “competing” with Amazon’s own on-line offerings as opposed to actually encouraging people to buy more stuff from Amazon. (The iOS application, while no longer available from the App Store, still works on my aging iPad and iPod touch devices, but it’s probably only a matter of time before I have to give up on it altogether.)

All this brings us to the major upgrade that is Delicious Library 3. I have no time to review all its new features, but I have to report that, for my own purposes and in my own daily use, the new version is a major disappointment.

One of the first things you will notice is that the application no longer has a “Preferences” dialog box. That tells you something about the flexibility and customizability that they have sacrificed, probably in the name of “simplifying” the user experience. There are still various viewing options, but these options are too limited and make the experience of using Delicious Library downright annoying.

For instance, the “View as List” option, which is the only one that enables you to view your collection in a workable format, now uses two lines for each item, which of course significantly reduces the number of items that can be seen at any given time. Worse still, you apparently can no longer sort this list by title or by creator alone. The only column option available is an option called “Title and Creator”:

Delicious Library-TitleandCreator

By default, this column uses a sorting rule that follows a rather non-obvious logic, separating those items that do have a creator from those who don’t have one. When you know how inconsistent Amazon’s info is, especially for movies, this means that, for example, various seasons of a single TV show on DVD (say, Breaking Bad) will end up being listed separately, because some seasons have something in their “Creator” field whereas other seasons do not. (And of course all these items that have nothing in their “Creator” field take up as much vertical space as those who do have something, so there’s lots of wasted screen real estate here.)

It seems to me that, since Delicious Library is so intimately linked to Amazon’s data sets, using a data structure that assumes that all the data sets are in perfect condition, with all fields properly filled out, is rather ridiculous.

In addition, my initial impression was that the “Creator” field always took priority over the “Title” field, which meant that it was effectively impossible to have a list of all your titles in pure alphabetical order. DL would always sort by creator first, and then by title. It was simply unacceptable.

I only recently discovered, quite by accident, that you can actually somehow force Delicious Library to sort by title first and then by creator, by clicking on the “Title” word itself in the column header — although I am still not sure exactly what combination of clicks is required. (Now that I have achieved this, I am afraid to undo it.) Somehow, after clicking multiple times, I managed to have a column header that only has a triangle (indicative of sort order) next to “Title” and not to “Creator”:


Now finally my lists are only sorted by title, whether or not the items have something in their “Creator” field. Don’t ask me exactly how I did it, though. It’s still very mysterious to me. It certainly does not meet the most basic tests of “discoverability”.

The sort order is still not perfect, however. Even though DL obviously has an algorithm for ignoring the definite article “The” in titles (as well as its equivalent in other languages, such as French), I still have a number of DVDs whose title starts with “The” that are listed under “T”, even though the next word does not start with a “T”. I have no idea why.

When DL 3 was first released, there was — believe it or not — absolutely no way to keep item details visible at all times. DL 3 did away with the “Details” pane altogether, and the details were only visible in one of those horrible “pop-up” windows, like in iCal/Calendar. Thankfully, there was enough of an outcry to force the developer to bring back something similar to the “Details” pane from DL 2, in the form of a separate “Details” window.

Unfortunately, in my experience, the implementation of this window is buggy. I quite often find myself in another OS X application with the “Details” window from DL 3 still visible in the foreground above the windows of my other application. I can fix the problem by switching to DL 3 and then back to my application, but really… This is a bit much.

The whole application has also become significantly more sluggish than DL 2 used to be. Even on my relatively fast 2009 Mac Pro with 12 GB of RAM and an SSD for the system volume, everything is slow and choppy, including such basic things as scrolling up and down the list. (Let’s not even mention what happens in “View as Shelf”.) My collection is not tiny, but it’s not enormous either. I find such performance levels barely tolerable.

The search feature is not any better. While it has been fine-tuned somewhat since the original DL 3 release, you are still afraid of making a typo while typing your search request, because this will cause DL 3 to initiate a useless “search-as-you-type” search, which locks up the UI for several seconds, before you’ve finished typing your search request. Ugh.

The process of adding new items to the library is also affected by this sluggish performance. While this process has been simplified and you can now just scan your item’s barcode without bringing up a dialog first, if you are unfortunate enough to attempt to scan the barcode while the application’s UI is locked up, the application emits a useless system beep instead of buffering your data entry and processing it when it becomes responsive again. This happens to me every time I add a new item, because, once DL 3 has recognized the barcode and downloaded the data from Amazon, it takes a couple of seconds to move the newly-added item to the appropriate position in the sorted list of titles. If I happen to scan the next barcode during that resorting, all I get is a beep. Each time I add a new item, I have to wait until DL 3 has moved it to the appropriate place before scanning the next barcode. It’s quite frustrating. I frankly would rather have a modal dialog box than this, because effectively it’s the whole UI that is now modal in an invisible way and forces you, without any visual feedback, to wait until it’s finished “processing” the new item.

This whole situation makes me sad. Delicious Library has not become entirely unusable, but it’s definitely taken a huge step back in usability. I waited for a few months, hoping that these issues would be addressed in subsequent DL 3 updates, but there have been many updates now, and most of the issues I describe here are still there.

If this were a proper review, I would of course offer a more balanced report, by describing the new features, some of which are quite nice (such as the “Recently Added” list on the side). But for me, none of the new features comes anywhere near outweighing the flaws and limitations introduced in the new version. The sluggishness and the lack of viewing and sorting options are fundamental flaws that will have to be properly addressed before I find any pleasure in using this application again.

Pages ’09: ‘The file format is invalid’

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Microsoft, Pages
July 4th, 2013 • 4:15 pm

Ever got this error when you tried to open a Word document in Pages ’09?

The file format is invalid

I just did, and I now know why.

See, Microsoft Word users in general and Windows users in particular are so confused about file extensions, and Microsoft’s user interface for dealing with file extensions is so confusing, that sometimes they do things that Microsoft and Apple did not anticipate, like… saving a DOCX file with the “.doc” file extension.

That’s exactly what happened in this case. When I got the error with this particular “.doc” file and noticed that it was opening in Word 2011 just fine, I figured I’d try to change the file extension to “.docx” and see what would happen.

Sure enough, as soon as I changed the file extension, the renamed file opened just fine in Pages ’09.

In this day and age, you’d think that:

  1. Microsoft Word would be smart enough to detect the error and give a warning to the user to the effect that the file he’s opening is a DOCX file masquerading as a DOC file, and offer to fix the problem;
  2. Apple’s Pages ’09 would be smart enough to recognize the correct file format in spite of the wrong file extension and offer to open the file just the same, again with some kind of warning about the file extension.

But no… Both companies obviously have bigger fish to fry, and so we get no warning whatsoever in Microsoft Word, and a useless error message with no suggestion in Pages ’09.

As for smartness in computer software, I guess it’ll take another century or two.

OS X: Sandboxing = more crashes

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
June 19th, 2013 • 9:09 am

This is something that pisses me right off.

Apparently, according to Apple, sandboxing is good for us. After all, it “provides a last line of defense against the theft, corruption, or deletion of user data if an attacker successfully exploits security holes in your app or the frameworks it is linked against”. Yay.

As far as I can remember, with no particular effort on my part to protect myself against thieves, hackers, and so on, I have never been the victim of a single act of theft, corruption, or deletion of my user data on my OS X by an attacker. (What has happened to me on-line is another matter.)

Since the introduction of this “sandboxing” thing, on the other hand, I have most definitely been the victim of this kind of thing:


I am no expert, but I have little doubt that the above is a report on a crash that was caused by a bug in Apple’s “sandboxing” system (full crash log here). And it’s not the first one I have experienced. What did I do to deserve it? Nothing. I was simply composing an e-mail and tried to attach a file to it using the standard Open File dialog box.

So let me get this straight: In the name of improving my security, which has never been under threat as far as I can tell, Apple has introduced a new “feature” whose net effect is, quite simply, that I experience more crashes than I used to, through no fault of my own.


Now, let’s go back to the statement quoted above: sandboxing ““provides a last line of defense against the theft, corruption, or deletion of user data if an attacker successfully exploits security holes in your app or the frameworks it is linked against”.

Is it just me, or is this “last line of defense” not another way of telling developers: “Don’t worry if you introduce security holes in your app. We’ve got the user covered.” In other words, won’t this approach have the undesirable effect of making developers sloppier in their work?

And if the sandboxing system causes crashes so easily, how reliable can it really be anyway?

We had the nanny state. Now we have the nanny OS.

Word 2011: Why does word selection still select the trailing space?

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Microsoft
June 13th, 2013 • 10:11 am

In Microsoft Word, there is a myriad of inconsistencies, behaviours that don’t make sense and are simply the way they are because they have always been that way and nobody at Microsoft bothers to use his or her brains to think about whether these things still make sense today.

Take, for example, what happens when you double-click on a word in Word 2011. Double-clicking on a word is what is called “word selection”. No matter where you double-click on the word, it selects the entire word. It’s much faster and much less error-prone than having to position your cursor at the beginning of the word, to click-and-hold and then to drag your cursor to the end of the word. (And you can also select multiple words this way, by double-clicking on a word and holding the mouse button down while you continue to drag over several consecutive words. This is called “word-by-word selection”, as opposed to the default “character-by-character selection”.)

In every other OS X application, when you double-click on a word in the middle of a sentence, the application only selects that word. In Word 2011 (and every version before it), on the other hand, the application also selects the trailing space that comes after the word (if there is one, i.e. if the word is not immediately followed by a punctuation sign).

Why does Word 2011 do this? As far as I can tell, it’s because Word first came into being a long time ago, at a time when so-called “smart editing” features didn’t exist. These days, in most applications, when you double-click on a word to select it and then press Delete to delete it, the application is smart enough to also delete the extra trailing space that comes after it, so that you are not left with a situation where the two remaining words around the word that you’ve just deleted are separated by two spaces instead of one. Ditto if you cut the word with command-X.

This “smart” behaviour was introduced many years ago. Word itself introduced this feature many years ago. (If you don’t like it, you can turn it off in Word’s “Preferences” dialog box, under “Edit”, in the “Use smart cut and paste” customization options: the option is called “Adjust sentence and word spacing automatically” and it’s on by default.)

The thing is, the introduction of this very feature made the selection of the trailing space after the word irrelevant. As far as I can tell, the only reason why the original designers of Microsoft Word decided to include the trailing space with the word in word selection was in order to make it easier for writers to edit their text without having to constantly delete extra spaces. But once Word adopted the “smart” handling of word spacing, this automatic selection of the trailing space became irrelevant.

Try it: if, instead of double-clicking on a word to select it (and its trailing space) in a Word document, you select the word in question “manually” by positioning your cursor at the beginning of the word, clicking-and-holding and then dragging your cursor to the end of the word, without including the trailing space, and then you press Delete to delete the selected word, Word still deletes the extra space as well, because of the “Adjust sentence and word spacing automatically” option.

So why does word selection in Word still select the trailing space as well even today? As far as I can tell, it’s because no one at Microsoft has ever thought of using his or her brains to make the decision that, now that Word has smart handling of word spacing, the selection of the trailing space is no longer necessary.

Not only is it no longer necessary, but it is inconsistent with all other applications, and it has all kinds of undesirable side-effects. If you use word selection to select a word or a phrase in a Word document and then copy it to paste it in another application, the extra trailing space at the end will be copied and pasted along with it. Unless the destination application is an application that also has smart handling of word spacing (like another word processor), this extra space will remain.

It is the case, for example, if you use word selection to copy something in a Word document and then paste it in your web browser. You’ll always get that extra space along with it, and in many cases you’ll be forced to delete it manually in the destination application because it’s highly undesirable there.

Even within Word, the extra trailing space is highly undesirable when it comes to character-level formatting, because when you use word selection to select a word or a phrase and then apply some character-level formatting to the selection, more often than not this character-level formatting gets also applied to the trailing space, and so if, later on, you put your cursor after the trailing space to type something else, often times the new text you type will also have that character-level formatting, even though there is no visual indication that the space before it has that character-level formatting (a space in bold or italics looks just like a regular space). The worst situation is what happens with underlined text. I cannot count the times I see documents that contain underlined words where the underlining also extends to the space after the word, which is horrible from a typographic point of view. (Word has certain exceptions to this, but they don’t work all that reliably and only in limited circumstances. See this post for example.)

Does anyone at Microsoft care about all this? Apparently not. Today, in 2013, many many years after smart spacing was introduced in Word itself, word selection in Word still includes the trailing space. It is yet another indication that there is no actual thinking about real-world usage that takes place at Microsoft in the minds of the software engineers working on Microsoft Word.

About the new Mac Pro

Posted by Pierre Igot in: Macintosh
June 11th, 2013 • 8:40 am

I am ambivalent about the upcoming new Mac Pro unveiled by Apple yesterday at the WWDC. Of course, I am relieved that Apple has finally given us something tangible to look forward to.

I am also glad that the new model is a radical rethink and that heavy emphasis has apparently been put on keeping the machine as quiet as possible (although of course how quiet it really will be remains to be seen, or rather heard).

I am happy that it will have lots of raw power. While my current machine (a 2009 Mac Pro) is no slouch, I am always looking for ways to increase my productivity. I am not one of those apparently numerous (if you believe the pundits) Mac users who feel that their current machine is fast enough. If you have ever tried to type text in a textbox in a Microsoft Word 2011 document or to resize a document window in Adobe InDesign, you know that there is still plenty of room for improvement. Since Microsoft’s and Adobe’s engineers obviously feel that their own software is “good enough”, we have no choice but to rely on the raw power of the underlying hardware to improve real-life performance in those applications.

I also appreciate the focus on raw graphics power. While I am not a videographer, I have lots of screen real estate (two 30-inch displays) and I wouldn’t mind having even more. A large Retina display is still probably several years away, but I might be tempted by a larger screen at some point, even if Apple itself does not seem interested in producing such screens anymore.

(I suppose that, when the time comes to buy one of these new Mac Pros, I’ll also have to spend some extra money on adapters for my current DVI displays.)

On the other hand, I too, like some other current Mac Pro owners, am worried about the lack of internal expandability. My current Mac Pro has four internal hard drive bays and two internal optical drive bays. And they are all full. I suppose I can live with external optical drives (although that will be yet another expense). But no internal bays for hard drives? Given that the new Mac Pro will come with an SSD, unless Apple has managed to perform an astounding miracle and make a 4 TB SSD that is actually affordable, there will obviously be a need for more storage, and that will mean that we’ll all be forced to purchase external Thunderbolt drives, again at additional cost.

I don’t have any problems with Apple adopting the new Thunderbolt 2 interface as long as it’s fully backward-compatible. But even Thunderbolt 1 offerings are still very limited today. It’s possible that, once the new Mac Pro has been on the market for a while, there will be a wider range of offerings at more affordable prices, but until then… In addition, if one of the key features of the new Mac Pro will be how quiet it is, how will this work in the real world if one is forced to have several external hard drives made by third party vendors who don’t necessarily put that much emphasis on noise reduction? (LaCie, I am looking at you.) It’s all well and good to have a quiet, superfast Mac Pro, but how quiet will the whole setup be once you’ve added a couple of external hard drives?

The current information provided by Apple is very short on details, technical specifications, etc. I guess we’ll have to be more patient. But it also looks like I might have to wait a while even after the new Mac Pro starts shipping, simply because the new computer is unlikely to be cheap and, with the additional expenses associated with the transitions (video adapters, external drives), it could turn out to be a very expensive proposition indeed.