Agreed, especially for something like this that might get used a handful of times (I’m assuming most people don’t have myriad cables or want to check them regularly?)
The problem of course is that on my 14” screen the area to the right of the notch is already close to full and I don’t even have that many things there…
It works for me, but I understand for others it might not. So, there's now a "Show in menu bar" toggle in Settings. Turn it off and WhatCable runs as a regular Dock app with a normal window instead.
Making 1 click to access is faster than typing the app name in finder. Dock is usually full and used for different type of apps. Makes also constantly visible output possible with standard ui patterns.
There's also Bartender, Hidden Bar etc., but they all come with some downsides.
I just don't get why Apple doesn't recognize this as a problem. Do the engineers working on macOS all have two of these 5:1 aspect ratio ultra wide monitors!?
Whenever I look at my partner's Macbook I'm having a flashbacks from Win9x/2000 times when tray area was filled up.
But Microsoft managed to deal with that issue - years ago. With XP they introduced collapsible tray area and later, it also become possible to rearrange icons.
Somehow for Apple the problem doesn't exist or they assume that their users will choose a 3rd party solution. Frankly, it's them who should provide the solution straight within the operating system. Especially when Apple computers revolve nowadays more around laptops which by definition have smaller display area.
Worse - even if you have two, Apple just duplicates the menu bar on both screens.
Especially with the abomination that is The Notch, the menu bar has been overcrowded for years. No offense to OP. I’m talking about the 5 or so items I can’t get rid of in there.
For some reason the app supports a separate standalone window mode as well [0]. It's not clear why the developer took the trouble to support two different modes when the menubar mode doesn't seem to add anything (like a live-updating icon for throughput).
Well, I can think of one reason why it wasn't that much more trouble. François Chollet had a nice tweet [1] on why removing human cognitive friction is resulting in needless software complexity.
> removing human cognitive friction is resulting in needless software complexity
This is kind of a hilarious statement just on the surface. Isn't removing burden from humans the whole purpose of software? How can you call the complexity "needless"?!
(the actual tweet seems to go into a bit more detail around being incentivized to find good abstractions)
I think you're conflating the burden of creation with the burden of relevance, suitability, usability and usefulness of the created artifact. The more the person in charge is disengaged, the sloppier the output is likely to be.
Making it trivial to generate software is making people turn their brains off. They don't think through the details and accept the "default" from an LLM which has no concern for the user experience.
Is it not rather useful in this particular case? You will see the reported capabilities whenever you plug in a cable. Or do people rather want to diagnose and label their cables just once?
The problem of course is that on my 14” screen the area to the right of the notch is already close to full and I don’t even have that many things there…