Can you identify any OS GUI in history that offered text selection without operations to perform on the selection? without operations without
I doubt any early OS designer went “Pure selection is useful on its own. Let’s ship that without the ability to do anything to it.” then at a later iteration someone went “I have a clever idea: let’s add the ability to operate (eg, cut, copy, overwrite) on that selection!”.
Even the name is suggestive: select.
Select for what?
Input for something.
It still seems like a criticism that picks over the wrong thing while disregarding a host of deeper problems (eg, noncompliance with accessibility standards) that led them there.
Reading is basic: the text size, spacing, line length, contrast should be accessible without extra steps.
Font ought to be adjustable from their user agent, so dyslexic users can set a dyslexic font.
Selection popovers shouldn’t obscure the selection.
Etc.
Yes, without operations visible. Highlighting text just highlights it on the vast majority of websites on desktop, right now. Unless you’re on edge, where it does obscure as soon as you let go of the mouse.
You need to right click, or use keyboard shortcuts to do anything with your highlighted text, unless your browser is getting in the way. Some websites do also get in the way.
And this is exactly what the OP wants (or rather my interpretation):
Selection popovers shouldn’t obscure the selection. Etc.
Other programs do this far better. The key complaint is that popups pop up in front of the text.
You need to right click, or use keyboard shortcuts to do anything with your highlighted text, unless your browser is getting in the way. Some websites do also get in the way.
You’re willfully misreading: those operations are available.
The illustrative story
I doubt any early OS designer went “Pure selection is useful on its own. Let’s ship that without the ability to do anything to it.”
should have made the question clear.
You can’t name a single OS now or in history where pure selection is possible yet no operations on the selection are available.
It always existed for the sake of enabling operations on selections and never for its own sake.
That it’s an abortable, multistep process is beside the point: aborting it every time isn’t the purpose.
You’re taking an incidental part of the design that was always a dependency for something else & treating it as a feature unto itself, which it never was.
The use case for pure selection is fairly weak.
As stated before, it’s a fair question whether the underlying issue (whatever leads people to purely select text) isn’t better addressed by accessibility (a design that doesn’t tempt them to purely text selection).
In any case, an accessible design wouldn’t obscure selections.
Seems the question was misread.
I doubt any early OS designer went “Pure selection is useful on its own. Let’s ship that without the ability to do anything to it.” then at a later iteration someone went “I have a clever idea: let’s add the ability to operate (eg, cut, copy, overwrite) on that selection!”. Even the name is suggestive: select. Select for what? Input for something.
It still seems like a criticism that picks over the wrong thing while disregarding a host of deeper problems (eg, noncompliance with accessibility standards) that led them there. Reading is basic: the text size, spacing, line length, contrast should be accessible without extra steps. Font ought to be adjustable from their user agent, so dyslexic users can set a dyslexic font. Selection popovers shouldn’t obscure the selection. Etc.
Yes, without operations visible. Highlighting text just highlights it on the vast majority of websites on desktop, right now. Unless you’re on edge, where it does obscure as soon as you let go of the mouse.
You need to right click, or use keyboard shortcuts to do anything with your highlighted text, unless your browser is getting in the way. Some websites do also get in the way.
And this is exactly what the OP wants (or rather my interpretation):
Other programs do this far better. The key complaint is that popups pop up in front of the text.
You’re willfully misreading: those operations are available.
The illustrative story
should have made the question clear.
You can’t name a single OS now or in history where pure selection is possible yet no operations on the selection are available. It always existed for the sake of enabling operations on selections and never for its own sake. That it’s an abortable, multistep process is beside the point: aborting it every time isn’t the purpose. You’re taking an incidental part of the design that was always a dependency for something else & treating it as a feature unto itself, which it never was. The use case for pure selection is fairly weak.
As stated before, it’s a fair question whether the underlying issue (whatever leads people to purely select text) isn’t better addressed by accessibility (a design that doesn’t tempt them to purely text selection). In any case, an accessible design wouldn’t obscure selections.