Slashdot Mirror


Mac OS X Desktop and GUI Design

Khelder sent us a nifty little bit about the MacOS X Desktop. It talks quite a bit about UI Design (mirror) from a Mac-Centric but also a general perspective. It's quite interesting stuff for anyone into MacOS-X, but also it has lots of practical stuff for anyone who's ever tried to create a usable theme for one of today's modern window managers.

10 of 348 comments (clear)

  1. Tog's the man by cei · · Score: 4

    It's worth noting that Tog, who wrote the article that's linked to, was one of the (if not the only) designers of the original Mac OS GUI. If anyone has a foundation for constructive criticism of a GUI, this man does. If I were Jobs, or anyone else at Apple for that matter, I'd pay attention to what Tog has to say.
    ------
    WWhhaatt ddooeess dduupplleexx mmeeaann??

    --
    This sig intentionally left justified.
  2. Re:Out of touch? by Darchmare · · Score: 4

    Actually, there are a large number of Mac users (myself included) who have some reservations with the new UI. It's hard to tell until we actually get to sit down with it, though.

    I'm cautiously optimistic, but there are a number of people who have had major issues with what Apple has shown so far. Tog, who worked at Apple for 14 years, is one of them. I personally think Apple threw the screenshots out for public consumption as a sort of trial balloon - they've done this before. Given that there are 5-6 months until release, they've got time to make the kind of minor changes people are advocating.

    Anyhow, please don't stereotype Mac users. We don't all agree with everything Apple does, and aren't nearly as blind/conformist as you think we are (witness the deafening roar of bitching Mac users erupted in when QuickTime 4 was released).

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

    --

    - Jeff
  3. Attention GNOME/KDE developers! by ywwg · · Score: 4

    Do _you_ know Fitts's law?

    GUI design has been well researched by Apple and others, and the developers of the new desktops should actually read this stuff. It seems that most of the features included in both desktop environments seem to be added because they are "cool" or they are what a particular developer thinks is best. If everyone makes sure that they are playing by these rules, we can ensure that both environments are superior in speed and ease-of-use to both windows and mac.

    1. Re:Attention GNOME/KDE developers! by John+Whitley · · Score: 5
      Better yet, how about the GNOME/KDE developers get someone on board with real, hard-core HCI design experience who can do a comprehensive analysis of usability issues within these environments? Then follow it up by writing a professional-grade book documenting User Interface programmer's guidelines, ala the similar documents from Apple, (the defunct) Go Corp., and so on.

      Realistically, those involved in designing user interfaces for Open Source projects should take it upon themselves to invest in some good UI books. Ben Shneiderman's Designing the User Interface, 3rd Ed. is a good starting point. Harold Thimbleby's User Interface Design, out of print, is a good book for the quantitative side of HCI, e.g. Fitt's Law and other known metrics relating to user interfaces, if you can find it. Wander through the HCI stacks of your local university library, raid graduate level HCI professors' web sites for other suggested papers and books to read. Shell out for a membership to the ACM SIGCHI -- surf through the CHI conference proceedings for good UI nuggets and broad-based UI design principles.

      I also find it amusing how these great Linux user environment projects got started off -- with noone seemingly having any understanding of UI design at the helm. What sort of user experience are we really building for Linux? The problem is that no one really knows. This business of "built by hackers, for hackers" doesn't wash, as few hackers I've known have any clue whatsoever about user interface design issues. This is a substantial field, with many solved problems, yet instead of Using The Source (i.e. doing the readily available background reading) many Open Source projects continue to reinvent the UI wheel -- badly.

      That said, there have been some successes, but mostly in individual isolated projects. Nothing on the scale of providing a comprehensive, flexible, yet unified user experience..

  4. A new invention... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4

    I have, I think, created the most accurate random dice throw simulator ever known to the computer world. It is held inside a tiny black box, with a serial connection and an Ethernet port.

    Questions please?

    Q: How does it work?

    A: It is sent signals from the programmer that set the method used to determine the result, and to get a new throw.

    Q: What do I have to do to use it in program X?

    A: Sending it a zero over the serial port will get a new random throw. Sending it any other number from 1 to 11 will set the method it uses.

    Q: What methods does it use?

    A: The number sets it, and it increases in randomness with the number; i.e. 1 just does a fairly simple random generator, while 10 takes a minute to mathematically simulate the dice on an atomic scale as it flies through the air!

    Q: Why does it need Ethernet then?

    A: That's for when you send it the signal 11, the most random mode. It posts a comment to Slashdot, enters a wait state for two hours, then comes back, takes the moderation score and adds 1.

  5. Tog's questionable judgment by ~k.lee · · Score: 5

    I used to respect Tognazzini a great deal. However, close reading of his writing, over an extended period of time, has led me to believe that he has questionable judgment about many issues. Just examine his article, How Programmers Stole the Web, where he claims that:

    • BASIC is the paragon of computer programming languages, because it uses a "simple" state-machine paradigm (I can only assume he means programs composed of global variables and GOTOs, like a finite-state automaton).
    • JavaScript is counterintuitive because it (a) resembles C++ instead of BASIC and (b) the code must be enclosed in comments (he thinks an XML-based inline programming language would have been the better choice, apparently ignorant of how bulky and clumsy pure XML-syntax programming languages like ColdFusion Markup Language (CFML) have turned out.)
    • Tognazzini calls it "inexplicable" that VBScript is not cross-browser and cross-platform, and seems to imply that this is due to engineers' habits of "enforced illogic" (which leads engineers to hate BASIC)---not on the Microsoft attempt to turn the Web into their proprietary fiefdom.

    These are only a sample of the glaring Deep Wrongness in the article I link to above.

    In addition, Tog is a relentless Apple partisan, despite his objections to the new Aqua interface. This clouds his perception of all Apple-related issues. For example, among other things, he says in the Aqua/OS X interface article that "Apple could argue, and few would deny it, that Apple was first and Microsoft is the one who made things difficult by failing to accurately copy the Mac interface." Ignoring, of course, the fact that Microsoft would have been perfectly happy to copy the Apple interface exactly, except that Apple is one of the most litigious companies in the IT industry (have you seen Microsoft threaten to sue KDE over their Windows98 theme?).

    IMHO, Tognazzini has suffered from a lesser form of the same brain rot that has affected Jon Katz since becoming published on the web: free to spout off without an editor, never forced to confront dissenting opinions before publication, he has become something of an autodidact. This may seem a bit harsh, but I urge the programmers in the audience to read the "How Programmers Stole the Web" article. It reveals a great deal about the didacticism of Tognazzini's thought habits, and will probably cast a very different light on his supposedly authoritative interface design ideas.

    I once respected Tog. Occasionally, he comes up with some good insights. However, don't let his impressive resume blind you to his often misled assertions.

    ~k.lee
    --
    (remove nospam for email)
  6. Aqua (sort of) Tested by NII+Link · · Score: 4
    It's quite a coincidence that this article should appear on /. today (and no, I'm not talking about how late it is). Today, I did a little experiment: I downloaded an Aqua-like theme for Kaliedoscope (a theme switcher for Mac OS) and this program called "Greg's Browser," which is a NeXT/Mac OS X - like file browser. For several hours I used the theme and the file browser as I went about my usual business, just to approximate what it would be like to use the OS X GUI.

    My first impression upon activating the theme was the expected "that looks cool," and I also noticed that it was a bit brighter looking than the current "platinum" look of OS 9. Not that it was a bad thing, it wasn't blindingly bright, just a little unfamiliar at first. That soon changed however, as I began to actually use it. The theme isn't the most accurate representation of Aqua, for example it doesn't have the slowly throbbing default buttons, but it did have the same "traffic light" buttons on the windows. Some have expressed concern that the buttons are too close together and that someone could miss and accidently close a window, but that did not happen to me once. I got used to the new setup very quickly (to contrast, I never seem to get used to it when I have to use Windows). In fact, I took a liking to the buttons and that pinstripe background. They aren't noticable while doing work, but when you want them you know exactly where to look.

    The other main thing that the theme altered was the icons. Even without Quartz and 128x128 (scalable) icons, the new icons look great! That's not one of the things anyone has really been arguing over though...

    Unfortunately, the theme cannot simulate translucency, shadows or the "sheet" dialogs - although from the pictures the sheets look really good. The tranclucency might need some playing with, but again I could not try it in person. So on to the browser...

    I found the browser useful for quickly navigating a heirarchy of folders - just move the arrow keys towards where you want to go. On the other hand, it wasn't so great for copying/moving files to other places - in most cases a new browser window must be opened. Of course the limitations of this browser might not be the same as Apple's, and the browser view is just an addition to the traditional icon, list, and button views. I'll probably end up using a combination them all, much like I do now.

    Keeping all this in mind, it's imporant to remember that Aqua is still in development. Mac OS X is scheduled to be released this summer (not next year as Tog said, that's when it will be preinstalled on all shipping Macs), so there's still time to make any criticisms you might have heard - that is probably one of the reasons for showing Aqua so far in advance.

    --
    -Rafi Remove the Spanish to email me.
  7. Re:Out of touch? by Darchmare · · Score: 4

    It's not hard, if the OS is designed with a single button in mind. You just weren't used to it.

    I agree 100% with the round mouse thing. I think Apple was aiming toward little kids (which seem to be able to use it, due to its size), but they should never have shipped it with their higher end systems. Same with the keyboard.

    For the record, I prefer 2 button mice, which work just fine on the Mac (you can simulate a second button on later revs of the OS by holding down control and clicking on the a file - contextual menus). On the other hand, I have been forced to support Windows users confused by the second button, so they may have a point.

    In the end, it doesn't cost much to buy a better mouse. Apple should make it a build to order option, and support both equally.

    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

    --

    - Jeff
  8. 3rd Generation GUI by nutty · · Score: 4


    I must say, i learned a lot from the report the Arsificial Intelligentia over at arstechnica.com put up.

    Check it here.

    Its got a great deal of info on how MacOS X and Quartz are a 3rd generation GUI, relying on vectors, and a great deal of pdf technology to speed things up. This decreases the amount of power needed to run a transformation like the genie effect by great amounts.

    Good stuff.
    /nutt

  9. Re:Boy was I wrong. by Darchmare · · Score: 4

    Actually, it's more like this:

    1. Pay Xerox in the form of Apple stock.
    2. Take a few notes on what Xerox has done. No code.
    3. Mix in a large number of ideas by Jef Raskin and others.
    4. Develop the Lisa/Mac.
    5. Bill Gates takes a look, and...
    6. The rest is history.

    Hope that clears things up a little more.


    - Jeff A. Campbell
    - VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

    --

    - Jeff