 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Mac Forum / Applications / Mac Applications / May 2005how to assigne the default browser to Mail.app ?
Hi there, is there someone that can explain me how to assign the standard browser used in Mail.app ? I have a MAC OS X 10.2, am using Mail.app 1.2.5. I upgraded from Netscape 7.1 to Netscape 7.2 and now I can not open any link from within an email because Mail.app still instist in seeking for 7.1. No way to set it in the "Preferences" or whatever ! Did someone have the same problem and : what is the solution ? thank you, Cristina > is there someone that can explain me how to assign the standard browser > used in Mail.app ? You can set the standard browser in Safari's preferences. And yes, this is not intuitive. Jochem  Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > > is there someone that can explain me how to assign the standard browser > > used in Mail.app ? > > You can set the standard browser in Safari's preferences. Unless I'm mistaken, in 10.2.x you could still do that in System Preferences->Internet, or thereabouts. SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > > is there someone that can explain me how to assign the standard browser > > used in Mail.app ? > > You can set the standard browser in Safari's preferences. And yes, this > is not intuitive. Wrong perspective. What you should say is: "Your preferred browser should allow you to set it as default. And, no, not all browsers are well-written, so you might have to use another browser (e.g., Safari) to set the default instead." >> You can set the standard browser in Safari's preferences. And yes, this >> is not intuitive. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > well-written, so you might have to use another browser (e.g., Safari) to > set the default instead." Yes, this is more correct. Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > >> You can set the standard browser in Safari's preferences. And yes, this > >> is not intuitive. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Yes, this is more correct. At least it's positive, construtive thinking if I ever saw it! Good. I'm not saying that the other way is _wrong_, though. Just not positive. Signature/Z Remove NOT..INVALID to email >> >> You can set the standard browser in Safari's preferences. And yes, this >> >> is not intuitive. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I'm not saying that the other way is _wrong_, though. Just not > positive. Well, from a usability point of view one would expect to find such a setting somewhere in System Preferences. And from a software developer's point of view the requirement to implement this in the app seems to be not very attractive, too. So "Your preferred browser should allow you to set it as default" is positive thinking about a negative feature ;-) Not to be too pedantic, but imagine every app would have to implement setting itself (or some other app) as default app for some file type. And to add some constructive hint, too: RCDefaultApp is a preference pane for System Preferences that allows to set the default apps for web, wail, ftp, news as well as for all file types in one central place. http://www.rubicode.com/Software/RCDefaultApp/ Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > >> >> You can set the standard browser in Safari's preferences. And yes, this > >> >> is not intuitive. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > not very attractive, too. So "Your preferred browser should allow you to > set it as default" is positive thinking about a negative feature ;-) Yup. That's abbout it. > Not to be too pedantic, but imagine every app would have to implement > setting itself (or some other app) as default app for some file type. I agree. > And to add some constructive hint, too: RCDefaultApp is a preference > pane for System Preferences that allows to set the default apps for web, > wail, ftp, news as well as for all file types in one central place. > > http://www.rubicode.com/Software/RCDefaultApp/ Supported! I agree - this is the way it _should_ have benn done. Signature/Z Remove NOT..INVALID to email > Wrong perspective. What you should say is: "Your preferred browser > should allow you to set it as default. And, no, not all browsers are > well-written, so you might have to use another browser (e.g., Safari) to > set the default instead." What kind of intuition tells you that a *system* preference (LaunchServices, to be precise) should be set in an Application? This is a *very* frequently asked question here. Obviously Apple's expectation that it would be intuitive was wrong. I recommend that folks install RCDefaultApp which lets one handle all of the LaunchServices file/protocol/etc preferences in one clean and central location in Preferences. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting > What kind of intuition tells you that a *system* preference > (LaunchServices, to be precise) should be set in an Application? I don't understand your question. There is no intuition, only expectation. What you call a system preference could just as easily be considered an application preference. Sure, some underlying mechanism is used for interapplication communication, but that in no way implies there is a single correct way to set up an association. > This is a *very* frequently asked question here. Obviously > Apple's expectation that it would be intuitive was wrong. That's pretty funny. You blame Apple, but it seems to me that the real problem lies with application developers not following the guidelines. Do you really think the question would be asked so much if apps properly included a "set as default" preference? I really don't care one way or the other. It's not something I change often enough to be a big hassle. > I recommend that folks install RCDefaultApp which lets one > handle all of the LaunchServices file/protocol/etc preferences > in one clean and central location in Preferences. A good suggestion. > > What kind of intuition tells you that a *system* preference > > (LaunchServices, to be precise) should be set in an Application? > > I don't understand your question. There is no intuition, only > expectation. What you call a system preference could just as easily be > considered an application preference. Except that it isn't. When you ask the system to open something in "the default app", you ask the *system*. You don't ask the app. That's the entire point of it. [...] > That's pretty funny. You blame Apple, but it seems to me that the real > problem lies with application developers not following the guidelines. Exactly which (insane) Apple guideline says each individual developer must now include their own interface to LaunchServices? [...] > > I recommend that folks install RCDefaultApp which lets one > > handle all of the LaunchServices file/protocol/etc preferences > > in one clean and central location in Preferences. Not all. It excludes MIME type post-processing, which used to be part of the UI provided in Mac OS pre-X. Now you need both RCDefaultApp and MisFox to cover the entire InternetConfig/LaunchServices repertoire. SignatureSander Tekelenburg, <http://www.euronet.nl/~tekelenb/> Mac user: "Macs only have 40 viruses, tops!" PC user: "SEE! Not even the virus writers support Macs!" > Except that it isn't. When you ask the system to open something in "the > default app", you ask the *system*. You don't ask the app. That's the > entire point of it. No; you clearly don't understand how a user thinks. For the most part, they don't think of using the OS whereas they *do* think about using apps. When they want something to open, they usually have an app in mind. You can see as much in their questions. Go back to the original question that started this thread: "is there someone that can explain me how to assign the standard browser used in Mail.app ?" They're asking about Mail and Netscape, not the OS. They even state flat-out they looked for it in the application preferences! All evidence points to Apple understanding usability more than you. > Exactly which (insane) Apple guideline says each individual developer > must now include their own interface to LaunchServices? The one where they didn't include a standard interface themselves. Maybe you missed it because, well, there is nothing to find. Are you saying the apps Apple provides aren't a big enough clue where they (rightly) think users will be looking for the setting? > No; you clearly don't understand how a user thinks. For the most part, > they don't think of using the OS whereas they *do* think about using [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > how to assign the standard browser used in Mail.app ?" They're asking > about Mail and Netscape, not the OS. Following this path of reasoning all applications would have to offer a way to set with what app all document types they can handle should be opened. There lays madness down that path. Things specific to more than one application should be configurable in *one* place and that's the System Preferences. And since the setting with which browser an URL should be opened is not specific to that app, this setting belongs *not* into the browser. And also not in Mail, because every sane user would assume then that this setting is only valid for URL's opened from within Mail. > They even state flat-out they looked for it in the application > preferences! Yeah, in Mail's preferences, not in Safari's. Looking in Mail's preferences for the app a URL clicked on in Mail is opened with is logical. Looking in the System Preferences is also logical. Looking for that in the brower's preferences which you don't want to open URL's with is paradox. > All evidence points to Apple understanding usability more than you. What someone at Apple understands and what someone at Apple actually implements is not always the same. Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > Following this path of reasoning all applications would have to offer a > way to set with what app all document types they can handle should be > opened. I wouldn't say "would", but I would say "should". > There lays madness down that path. Why? > Things specific to more than > one application should be configurable in *one* place and that's the > System Preferences. What's your damage if they are given another place, especially a place they seem *much* more inclined to look, to set the association? Do you also see it as somehow wrong that the Finder allows changing file associations? > And since the setting with which browser an URL > should be opened is not specific to that app, this setting belongs *not* > into the browser. And also not in Mail, because every sane user would > assume then that this setting is only valid for URL's opened from within > Mail. So you believe the OP to be insane? I believe them to be *typical*, and if you're going to make the argument from a usability perspective, you have to acknowledge that the technical purity of your "one setting, one place" is not how most people work. > > They even state flat-out they looked for it in the application > > preferences! > > Yeah, in Mail's preferences, not in Safari's. Actually, it wasn't clear which app they were looking in, but it obviously wasn't Safari because their preferred browser was Netscape. Had Netscape provided a "make me default" setting like Safari does, the question would probably never have been asked. > Looking in Mail's > preferences for the app a URL clicked on in Mail is opened with is > logical. Looking in the System Preferences is also logical. Looking for > that in the brower's preferences which you don't want to open URL's with > is paradox. Right, which is why Netscape is un-Mac-like. Again, it seems pretty clear where the fault/confusion lies. It's with a crap port, not with Apple. > > All evidence points to Apple understanding usability more than you. > > What someone at Apple understands and what someone at Apple actually > implements is not always the same. In this case, it is. It should be noted that ‹ whatever the "right place" to set a default browser might be ‹ Apple used to provide an InternetCP as a central place to make such settings in OS 8-9. It was based on 3d party InternetConfig for System 7 whose utility (internet settings made once for all purposes, in a central spot) Apple obviously appreciated then. This of course is Now, not Then, but besides Apple's thinking, I can't see what's changed. When I finally found the spot to select Firefox as my browser, my first thought was, "How very MicroSoft; force me to keep their bundled browser because it's the only way to select any other." And if I want to use a 3d party mail app.? I need to keep Mail around. > > Following this path of reasoning all applications would have to offer a > > way to set with what app all document types they can handle should be [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > In this case, it is. > This of course is Now, not Then, but besides Apple's thinking, I can't > see what's changed. What changed is that Then had maybe 3 main URI schemes (http, ftp, mailto) and Now has 40+ covering all manner of specific application. > When I finally found the spot to select Firefox as > my browser, my first thought was, "How very MicroSoft; force me to keep > their bundled browser because it's the only way to select any other." I'm not sure what you're talking about. I go into Firefox and I can't even find a way to set it as the default browser, leaving *me* thinking "What a shitty, un-Mac-like port." > And if I want to use a 3d party mail app.? I need to keep Mail around. No, you simply need to use an email app that isn't a shitty port. Really, how hard is it to implement a "make me default" preference? > > When I finally found the spot to select Firefox as > > my browser, my first thought was, "How very MicroSoft; force me to keep [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > even find a way to set it as the default browser, leaving *me* thinking > "What a shitty, un-Mac-like port." And I go thinking "what a shitty thing to force each application to do and what a waste of coding and time - if you have three different browsers, *each* needs to duplicate the "set myself as the default browser" code? > > And if I want to use a 3d party mail app.? I need to keep Mail around. > > No, you simply need to use an email app that isn't a shitty port. > Really, how hard is it to implement a "make me default" preference? It's entirely unnecessary. Get Rubicode's RCDefaultApp pref pane - the central control for Apple's LaunchServices (the system by which applications are associated with protocols, file types, etc), install it, and control all that stuff from Preferences the way Apple should be doing it - rather similar to how Apple *used* to do it before but, for no reason I can figure out, stopped. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting > And I go thinking "what a shitty thing to force each application > to do and what a waste of coding and time - if you have three > different browsers, *each* needs to duplicate the "set myself > as the default browser" code? Are you even aware you're a Mac user? Are you possibly not aware I am a Mac developer? Don't try to make sh.t easy on us; it is our job to make sh.t easy for you. When I hear that users look at an apps preference for setting default associations, it immediately clicks with me why Apple went they way they did. If I have to write a little extra code to give you the Mac experience in my own apps, I do it *gladly* and leave the bitching and moaning to bastards who do half-assed Windows ports. > > No, you simply need to use an email app that isn't a shitty port. > > Really, how hard is it to implement a "make me default" preference? > > It's entirely unnecessary. This entire thread demonstrates otherwise. > Get Rubicode's RCDefaultApp pref pane - the central control > for Apple's LaunchServices (the system by which applications > are associated with protocols, file types, etc), install it, > and control all that stuff from Preferences the way Apple > should be doing it - rather similar to how Apple *used* to > do it before but, for no reason I can figure out, stopped. I did install it. That's how I know there are 40+ bloody URI schemes to be handled. Do you *really* think it makes more sense to the *average* users to present them with that kind of information overload when they just want to set their default browser? As a geek I see the advantage, but I know I'm not a typical user, and you would do well to realize you're probably not either. > sh.t easy for you. When I hear that users look at an apps preference > for setting default associations, it immediately clicks with me why > Apple went they way they did. If I have to write a little extra code to But they are always looking in the *wrong* application's preferences. Look at the subject of this very thread: Subject: Re: how to assigne the default browser to Mail.app ? Average users seem to think that the issue is how to tell *Mail* what browser to use when they click on a link in an e-mail message. So they look in Mail's preferences and, naturally, there isn't a pref setting in Mail.app for preferred browser. Nor should there be. As you indicated, it'd require that Mail have the ability to set all 40+ URI preferences. Which is absurd. > > > No, you simply need to use an email app that isn't a shitty port. > > > Really, how hard is it to implement a "make me default" preference? > > > > It's entirely unnecessary. > > This entire thread demonstrates otherwise. Actually, this thread demonstrates *precisely* the problem with putting the controls *only* in the end-apps which handle the URIs. A Mail.app user wants to set what application will get launched when he clicks on a link in a mail message. So he looks first in Mail's prefs. It's not there. Then he looks in System prefs. It's not there. Then he asks *here* on the newsgroup to be told that it's handled in the browser - the *target* of the launch, not the originator of the launch as he'd expected. > I did install it. That's how I know there are 40+ bloody URI schemes to > be handled. Do you *really* think it makes more sense to the *average* > users to present them with that kind of information overload when they > just want to set their default browser? As a geek I see the advantage, It doesn't have to be that bad. RCDefaultApp isn't difficult to use. Nor was Apple's own Internet pref panel which preceeded it. SignaturePlain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed. No HTML in E-Mail! -- http://www.expita.com/nomime.html Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow? http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting >> Following this path of reasoning all applications would have to offer a >> way to set with what app all document types they can handle should be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why? Because *all* applications would have to duplicate functionality. Especially with apps able to open more than one file type this would just be insane. >> Things specific to more than >> one application should be configurable in *one* place and that's the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > also see it as somehow wrong that the Finder allows changing file > associations? Since without installing third-party apps *only* the Finder allows changing file associations, this is moot. > Actually, it wasn't clear which app they were looking in, but it > obviously wasn't Safari because their preferred browser was Netscape. > Had Netscape provided a "make me default" setting like Safari does, the > question would probably never have been asked. And every text editor must have a "make me default" setting for text files? Every application able to display pictures must have a "make me default" setting for all formats it can open? Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > Because *all* applications would have to duplicate functionality. > Especially with apps able to open more than one file type this would > just be insane. Why is it insane for me to ask that *each* application offer the ability to maintain it's own *very* restricted set of association, but it is somehow sane for you to ask that a *single* application maintain *all* associations? By your logic of eliminating what you call "duplicate functionality", there should only be one place to edit text instead of all these confusing windows and text areas. The users have spoken, and they want/look for application association preferences in (gasp!) *applications*, and if your quest for techo-purity desires a single place to set it, then you damn well better offer duplicate functionality. > Since without installing third-party apps *only* the Finder allows > changing file associations, this is moot. Again, your logic seems faulty. Since it seems no other browser properly implements a Mac-like setting for URLs, you should likewise be arguing "Since without installing third-part apps *only* Safari allows changing http associations, this is moot." > And every text editor must have a "make me default" setting for text > files? Every application able to display pictures must have a "make me > default" setting for all formats it can open? Again, you're the one tossing out the "must". I still say "should". > Why is it insane for me to ask that *each* application offer the ability > to maintain it's own *very* restricted set of association, but it is > somehow sane for you to ask that a *single* application maintain *all* > associations? Because the former is crazy and the latter just plain reasonable? There are apps able to open dozens of document types and several installed apps may have intersecting sets of document types they support. There are things more simple than such associations that 8 out of 10 developers don't get implemented in a clean way if there is no central facility to employ. > By your logic of eliminating what you call "duplicate functionality", > there should only be one place to edit text instead of all these > confusing windows and text areas. Nice idea. > The users have spoken, and they want/look for application association > preferences in (gasp!) *applications*, and if your quest for > techo-purity desires a single place to set it, then you damn well > better offer duplicate functionality. "The users have spoken"? The users are laughing at Apple's decision to put the setting for the default browser into Safari. They would curse if all applications would do such nonsense. > Again, your logic seems faulty. Since it seems no other browser > properly implements a Mac-like setting for URLs, you should likewise be > arguing "Since without installing third-part apps *only* Safari allows > changing http associations, this is moot." You can't compare the Finder with a browser. The Finder is a central application in Mac OS X, much like System Preferences. >> And every text editor must have a "make me default" setting for text >> files? Every application able to display pictures must have a "make me >> default" setting for all formats it can open? > > Again, you're the one tossing out the "must". I still say "should". Well, for consistency either all apps should do that or none. This implies "must", because if they just "should", some will do so and some not and the user has just a few things more to hunt for a setting. Jochem Signature"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery > > This is a *very* frequently asked question here. Obviously > > Apple's expectation that it would be intuitive was wrong. > > That's pretty funny. You blame Apple, but it seems to me that the real > problem lies with application developers not following the guidelines. Don't look at it from a technical point of view (or an 'Apple defense' point of view), look at it from a USER point of view. If I double click on a file on my desktop, an application starts and opens that file. Which application? The system decides that, as it should. I can't set this option from within the default application. If a click on a link in a document, an application starts up and follows that link. Which application? The system decides that, as it should. So why should it suddenly be an application preference if I want to change it? That makes no sense at all to a USER. SignatureJohan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.nl/ > > > This is a *very* frequently asked question here. Obviously > > > Apple's expectation that it would be intuitive was wrong. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Don't look at it from a technical point of view (or an 'Apple defense' > point of view), look at it from a USER point of view. I have, as I noted in another response. > If I double click > on a file on my desktop, an application starts and opens that file. Now you're mixing issues. The initial question was about URL handling. > Which application? The system decides that, as it should. I can't set > this option from within the default application. And that's the problem. There is no *good* reason why an association can't be set in an application. Just because the Finder provides a mechanism for files doesn't make it the "one true way". Even if Apple *did* provide a System Preference item for setting arbitrary URI scheme associations, I would wager big money that the first place most users would go looking is in the app's preferences. > If a click on a link in a document, an application starts up and follows > that link. Which application? The system decides that, as it should. So > why should it suddenly be an application preference if I want to change > it? That makes no sense at all to a USER. You clearly don't know many users. You accuse me if giving the technical view, but it is really the technical view that says there should be a System Preference. Viewing it as a user interface issue, it is less complex for the app they're using to provide a single setting for the URIs it handles than it is to present them with 40+ settings of all URIs associations. >>is there someone that can explain me how to assign the standard browser >>used in Mail.app ? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jochem GOT IT !!! thanks a lot it was easy to do, now that I know ... cristina > Hi there, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > thank you, Cristina Read the needed parts on messages on this thread. Also, try rebuilding launch services database via free utility like Onyx. Don't forget to launch your favorite applications once by hand after doing it since the "non existant vulnerability" found by Intego turned to be right and Apple Finder code changed, now you have to launch stuff manually at least once or grant the application launch for documents (only once) Have a nice day Ilgaz Ocal |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.