Slashdot Mirror
Designers Criticize Apple's User Interface For OS X and iOS
Hugh Pickens writes "Austin Carr notes that a number of user interface designers have become increasingly critical of Apple's approach to software user interface design. Much of their censure is directed against a trend called skeuomorphism, a term for when objects retain ornamental elements of the past that are no longer necessary to the current objects' functions, such as calendars with faux leather-stitching, bookshelves with wood veneers, fake glass and paper and brushed chrome. A former senior UI designer at Apple who worked closely with Steve Jobs said, 'It's like the designers are flexing their muscles to show you how good of a visual rendering they can do of a physical object. Who cares?' The issue is two-fold: first, that traditional visual metaphors no longer translate to modern users; and second, that excessive digital imitation of real-world objects creates confusion among users. 'I'm old enough, sure, but some of the guys in my office have never seen a Rolodex in real life,' says Designer Gadi Amit. 'Our culture has changed. We don't need translation of the digital medium in mechanical real-life terms. It's an old-fashioned paradigm.' One beneficiary could be Microsoft, where the design of Windows 8 distances itself from skeuomorphism by emphasizing a flat user interface that's minimalist to the core: no bevel, no 3-D flourishes, no glossiness and no drop shadow."
That's funny, because even though I don't much like Apple, I think that the "number of user interface designers" at Apple seem to have done fucking well at recognising what is easy to use.
Is this like the way people in the GNOME project arbitrarily assign themselves the role of "user interface designers" and fuck things up three ways to Nevada?
http://skeu.it/ has some cracking examples and a good bit of snark to boot.
CheShA: Manchester Breakcore / Drill and Bass Yes I'm a s
Silence, citizen or Apple will send its flying monkeys to sue you.,
I agree with the point that using faux object representations is cheap, wastes space, and can be lost on people for sure. But to go for Metro as an example of good design? Sorry, I'd take cheap wood and leather graphics with gradient overlays and shadow underlays any day of the week over that.
We all know that self-described UI designers are never wrong when it comes to making things intuitive and easy to use.
*cough* *gnome* *cough*
The minimalist verses skeuomorphism assertion has been made a few times already. Its quite easy to prove right or wrong.
Simply design a calender or contact app that follows your new "modern" design methodology.
If it beats the crap out of Apple's existing app because its so much better that people download it in droves to use it you have won, and you are rich(er).
So many things to criticize about Apple's UI direction (the tabletization of OS X, for example), and they criticize the thing Apple is doing right.
People like old fashioned aesthetics. Nobody had a need to use a sundial these days, but many people still decorate their yards with them. Seeing a wood bookshelf with real books stacked looks pretty and people see it as part of Apple's software polish.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
The Windows 8 UI is too minimalist. The flat squares look dull and amateurish. The Aero interface has just the right amount of little extra spice here and there.
Really? There's so much to criticize about Apple's design, like OSX's big and cluttered dock versus a tradicional taskbar, and they go straight for the superfluous fluff? Who cares about the icons? They are just fucking icons, replace them if you want to! What the hell happened to functionality in this world? It's like no one cares anymore, and "design" only means "making shit look fancy".
Seriously, as a designer myself I can only shake my head when I read stuff like this.
It may be true that "traditional visual metaphors no longer translate to modern users", but what about older users? Should we just dismiss their needs? Are interfaces really encumbered because they feature a wood-textured background?
Also, I challenge you to come up with a symbol for saving files without using a diskette or something like that. These symbols have transpired from metaphors of real objects to metaphors of actions, and people who have never even seen a diskette learn their purpose by context. Granted, this creates a certain standard by convention, and you could argue that any symbol could be used for that. But again, that would dismiss the users who grew up with that symbol. Currently, everybody is happy, why challenge this?
Imho, articles like this and blogs like skeu.it are just cleverly-disguised marketing by Microsoft. Ask any designer, and they'll tell you that well-used skeuomorphisms are not problematic, but even necessary to reach most of your target audience.
Isn't this story a dupe from a long while ago? I believe so.
Just to be sure there is not bias.
Plus do they have any examples to show to the class that backs up their claims?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Wood veneer IS wood. It's a more efficient use of the wood. FAKE veneer is printed paper. That I don't care for, mostly because it peels. Modern people aren't unused to seeing wood.
And please, brushed chrome? It's timeless - and it's metal. One hundred percent of the people I know are used to seeing chrome.
"One beneficiary could be Microsoft, where the design of Windows 8 distances itself from skeuomorphism by emphasizing a flat user interface that's minimalist to the core: no bevel, no 3-D flourishes, no glossiness and no drop shadow."
I hate minimalism, it's nothing new, it's nothing attractive, it requires no thought and it's ugly as hell.
All of the above is, of course, my taste. HEY! An idea... allow the user to choose. Oh, yeah... skins. Maybe he hasn't heard of them.
The icon that fucks me off the most is the one for the iOS Maps application. The US interstate route sign in the icon (ie route 280) makes absolutely no sense to anyone young or old outside of the United States. A globe or something similar would make more sense....
I can't stand Apple interfaces, and it has very little to do with skeuomorphism. At least skeuomorphic symbols mean vaguely something. No.. my complaint comes from icons/symbols which mean absolutely nothing, like the three coloured circles you see at the top of Windows on OSX. What the fuck are those supposed to mean?
Of course once you've gone completely flat and removed all the ornamentation, it makes one wonder where the next generation will go. Perhaps someone will suddenly realize, wow, we can make those tiles look just like a 3D image of a smartphone (and, of course, be promptly sued for rendering them with curved corners).
to thank the greedy motherfuckers who bought slashdot for this opportunity to participate in such a wonderful interactive advertising event.
Two plugs for Win8 in one day? Why, that's just generous.
Something bad is coming when people are suddenly anxious to tell the truth.
If OS X and iOS are bad then iTunes is a crime against humanity. And I think that's because the original program came from outside Apple.
... probably until they go under. They'll acquire new ideas along the way with their massive piles of cash but what happens when those visions are at odds with The Great Master who has transcended to Nirvana? That's still a long way off but these rumblings of criticism just show you can make another interface that is completely the opposite of Apple and actually do well.
I feel like Apple's UI can be compared to Disney's take over of animation stylings. Before Disney, you could find a whole variety of animation styles. But the vision of Disney was to make everything round and smooth and beautiful. Every animation cel was to look like a masterpiece portrait -- because that was the general populace's desired art at the time. And that's what Disney was trying to make, animated art. You might have found a sharp edge on a villain like Jafar in Aladdin but the main character would be round and warm. Others tried to mimic the stylings and it became a de facto standard mostly because it sold.
Similarly, Apple has done their UIs to be as beautiful as possible. And they've done it really well and it's expensive (I'd imagine both computationally and price). And both Steve Jobs and Walt Disney appeared to be this monolithic men pushing this new way (in reality it's probably a bunch of artists in a cohesive team) but they've both come and gone. And Apple clings to that vision but the vision never changes.
What happened to Disney was another production house, Nickelodeon, slowly discovered that square and rigid corners were not only acceptable but Spongebob Squarepants became an icon. Gross humor could be applied to shows like Ren & Stimpy and some people enjoyed this more than the safe beauty of Disney. Disney has no grit because Walt Disney wouldn't allow it. Disney got into disagreements with Pixar about Toy Story 2 and I think it is best if they left Pixar separate from Disney despite the acquisition. Similarly in the future Apple will be usurped by someone who is willing to experiment and deviate. Jobs is dead so Apple is committed to his vision
My work here is dung.
Even though I don't think that skeuomorphism is the way to go about it, people just want something that looks interesting. They are also willing to pay for the cosmetic changes from version to version, so it makes business sense too. Pretty much everything goes through these stylistic trends. Clothes, cars, and other home electronics come to mind.
A second even though: even though I'm not big into fashion or appearances, I also want the computer screen to look interesting. The standard OS X and Windows 8 interface is a bit boring in my mind, simply because I am staring at it for hours a day and for days on end.
Remember Microsoft Bob?
The extreme bad reception of visual studio 2012's new win8-like user interface paves the way for its failure.
Apple better start stealing/patenting the UI. Strange that they got it right first time, 20 odd years ago!
Give me the command line any day
I think there's such a thing a 'over-skeumorphing', but I do find it serves a purpose. Those shelves might not be real shelves, but it emphasises that those icons are books, not apps or games or anything else. And by using the same stitched leather across the iPhone, iPad and Mac version of the calendar app, it emphasises that the data you put in is shared between these apps. Same for the Reminders app. And the Notes app.
I also think that having a strong visual identity for an app can make it more fun to look at and use, if that's your thing.
I admire the slickness of Windows Phone, but it just feels a bit too depressing, bland and clinical for my liking. I don't feel like I'm supposed to have fun when I'm using a Windows Phone.
"We live in a global world" - Harvey Pitt, former Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman
you're doing pretty well if, the day that designers criticize your UI, it makes headline news in the geek world.
Maybe windows metro style looks less decorated than OSX, but when you try to configure the wireless you will live hell on earth. OSX comes from a ZEN style, adding small decorations and shadows that users are able to understand in a natural way. Do you remember windows overlaps on WIN3.1? Yes, this is why skeuomorphism won the war with shadows. Despite 'slashdot' and 'gizmodo' trying to fight against Apple designs. Of course abusing of skeuomorphism is not a good idea, but in general windows errors are worst and more complicated than OSX ones.
Yea. Apple needs to do something about this. I've had just about all I can take of their extraordinarily successful and liked desktop metaphors.
Apple needs to just change shit! So what if it is working fine. Old people need to FOAD. Apple needs to reinvent the desktop. Apple needs to follow Microsoft's lead in cutting edge desktop design technology.
I find this whole skeuomorphism thing to be tenuous at best. I'm 26 and have never used a rolodex nor a leather calendar book--and my phone hasn't looked like a corded handset since I was seven. But so what? I love the way all that stuff looks. There is a reason people go in for retro styles in the first place. We like that connection to the past. And to say that we are confused, simply because we're young is preposterous. We grew up on television. We've seen it all. Sure, we may laugh every time Jack McCoy picks up his tethered phone and flips through his rolodex to find another lawyer, but we aren't idiots. We know how this stuff works, and frankly I prefer the organic look of real objects to the sterile hospital environment of Google's design team. Just because the thing is digital does not mean it should look like it was designed for a Star Trek shoot.
"Skeuomorphism" irritates me as much as "cloud" and "mash-up" before it. The simple term is "metaphor", the pre-2012 standard term for this approach to UI. Are the anti-skeuomorphismists proposing that every GUI OS now give up the folder metaphor? You know, underneath they're "directories".
I'm guessing the objection is to photo-realism of the metaphor rather than the metaphor approach itself. Showing a 24-bit image is like having the joke explained to you. It also adds frustration and cognitive dissonance when the metaphor, which is an anology after all, breaks down -- when it doesn't operate exactly like what is being portrayed in 24-bits. Then, it's not just having the joke explained, it's also a bad pun.
When desktop UI metaphors are rendered in 1-bit, they take on a suggestive and less specific meaning, and the user understands them as hints and the users do not rise up in rebellion with endless trade articles about "skeuomorphisms".
Look at the "phone" icon on your smart-phone. Now ask yourself what it should be if not a handset silhouette.
Nothing makes you think you did a great $500+ tablet purchase than looking at a minimalistic interface. And is it such a bad thing for your child to ask why an icon looks the way it does. Nothing wrong with silly 'Back in the day books were actual tangible objects and bound in leather. In fact your crappy plastic car interior is emulating it!'.
The thing that I find very strange about Apple's UI peoples' obsession with ultra-tacky stitched leather borders, disgustingly twee fake paper calendars, little 'wooden' shelves for ebooks, and similar rot, is how sharply it differs from their hardware guys...
On the hardware side, Apple's aesthetic is one of a practically brutalist honesty to their materials, and a fairly relentless drive to unify surface and structural elements(ie. aluminum unibodies, rather than ABS-clad magnesium or steel skeleton designs, that sort of thing). It is really quite jarring. Their hardware guys appear to be iterating toward the monolith from 2001, and then you turn the device on and *BAM* punched in the face by '90s shareware UI...
Apples has never been more successful, surely they are doing something right. It may be the case that the next "criticism" waved at apple will be maniacally laughed off.
A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
When designing an experience for a user, you need to make it solid, fast, easy to use, and purposeful. In removing nostalgic crap, you make your OS/app/whatever more efficient.
Someone said something about 'why should we ignore the old peoples needs'. First, it's not a need, and second, no matter what the "visual" that's clock cycles on the cpu and gpu. So in effect, you ARE addressing the older generations needs, you're "making their computer faster".
Bottom line.
I really did enjoy the way the Aero interface looked, but at the same time, I've been using 8 and really don't notice that it's gone. I mean, if I look at it sure, but when I'm using my pc it doesn't matter. What matters is that it is CONSTANTLY a faster gui.
Sometimes even on the web, I wish companies and people would realize, the more crap you do, put on the page, bells and whistles, the slower you app is, or makes the computer running it. Not everyone can afford an uber pc like I have, so let's do it for the human race.
Touching objects on a screen that look visually like what the physical representations of the function being peformed used to look like before we had PDAs and smartphones is ludicrous!
/usr/bin" then "./phoneapp dial -domestic +13125551212" whenever I want to make a phone call and "./phoneapp hangup -log /var/log/calls.today" when I hang up and want to add the details to a log file. That's much easier for me to understand, and should be self-explanatory to anyone if they just read the command. :)
I'd much prefer a CLI so I can type "cd
If that's just too hard for some people, I guess we can have a GUI with red and green icons with antiquated pictures of analog handsets on them, for now. But those should eventually be deprecated in favor of some newer, more modern representation of what a phone looks like.
I'm a visual person. I like a bit of skeuomorphism. I can agree that many apps take it too far, but there are some kinds of apps where it can benefit, and where it can make things more fun to use.
A few top ways skeuomorph apps can do things wrong:
Non-skeuomorph apps have the same kinds of problems in many cases. Fat margins, "iced" or unstretchable dialog box layouts, inability to copy pretty much any visible text to the clipboard, flat coloring that lets different entities to merge.
I haven't found my ideal window manager yet. It seems like 99% of the mouthbreathing userbase likes fully sovereign/maximized applications. This breaks down on massive displays. It seems like a lot of people like magnetic window edges that "help" align things neatly and nicely at all times. I'm the opposite, I like windows to be scattered and different sizes, and if there are just a little too many, to be overlapping such that no borders line up. This is almost a skeuomorph of a desktop where different papers overlap generally but never exactly.
People seem to go on about making flatter colors and simpler framing, but I like the visual cues of shading and shadow, of increasing or decreasing contrast to draw attention. The Metro stuff looks like a wall of sample paint chips you see in Home Depot, or the funny hospital triage menu interface in Idiocracy. No, I don't want to run "Afternoon Eggshell Delight" nor do I want to have to hunt the wall for it.
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap. That includes examples of skeuomorphism. However, that's not the reason to throw it out.
[
http://ask.slashdot.org/story/12/08/29/0138234/ask-slashdot-is-the-rise-of-skeuomorphic-user-interfaces-a-problem
This is just a pet peeve of an editor and not of general interest. Skeuomorphic design isn't inherently evil for users, it's just that a lot of UI designers get annoyed when people ask for it and they can't try their less constrained designs. I sympathize with backlash against the plebian scum of the business world, but they are also their customers. This is an attempt to convince people that these designs are more objectively bad in order to have more firepower to resist them when they are requested.
I'd have to say I don't think it's such a bad thing, nor does it set a new precedent by any means. This type of things happens in languages (human) all of the time. In English, we still use words and phrases such as "he is in the lime light." How many people actually know that that refers to what they used to light stages with back in the early 20th century? Should we replace this phrase because it refers to something most of us have never physically observed? Of course not. Yet, some things in language evolve, morph and turn into something completely new. I don't mind the evolutionary/hybrid approach to language, and I don't mind it for UIs either.
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
Can someone please to explain? Inline text callouts and images? Vertical words on a long page? I'm sorry, I couldn't even understand the article because it was laid out according to practices and standards that, while perhaps useful in easing the transition to the web from the print publishing industry of the early 1990's, is just scary and confusing to me, since I have never actually seen a "page".
Why? Because MOST of the users (and potential) out there understand these things. You can make an interface bare and functional, eschewing all references to physical or mechanical analogs, and you will make the computer literate crowd swoon. Compare that 2-4% market share with the "rest" of the population, and you can see why people are buying this "poorly designed" Apple hardware. It's familiar and comfortable - and it's (mostly) well-done and visually pleasing from a graphic design standpoint. Never, ever underestimate the power of good graphic design work.
Look at high powered businessmen, CEOs, lawywer - they wears suits that cost what I make in a month to enhance their credentials without any indication of ability, and people believe them to be smart. Real geniuses (no Val Kilmer reference intended) can walk around in T-shirts and jeans because they really are awesome and don't need that kind of window dressing. Thing is, there are very, very few real geniuses out there, and if you dress up a "pretty smart" person, people will happily pay genius rates.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
For those not familiar with this paradigm shift in OS X, John Siracusa nails it in his Mac OS X 10.7 Lion Review.
I don't think either implementation makes the applications easier to use. They seem to have been done for no other reason than "we can".
Mountain Lion's implementations aren't as awful, adding back most of the 10.6 functionality to iCal and making Address Book usable without constantly clicking between screens. However, they've gone this far, it would be trivial to remove the stitching and faux leather leaving them with standard apps that follow colouring conventions.
Certainly from a HUI perspective and imho the changes aren't positive.
Now there's one hoopy frood who really knows where his towel is!
At the top:
Apple's one-menu-to-serve-them-all approach is decidedly unfriendly when you have more than one monitor, as more and more of their machines come out of the box ready to operate with (and a machine like a Mac Pro can trivially be configured to run quite a few monitors.) But even a Mac Mini or a laptop will run two. What happens is that you're off on one monitor, you need a menu operation for the app you're working with, and the menu is 1,2 or perhaps six monitors of mouse-travel away. Menus on application windows make a great deal more sense.
Typists -- by which I mean people who really type a fair bit, like writers or serious programmers -- are not served well by Apple's low profile "chiclet" keyboards. Apple gets the shivers by making their devices thin; but this means that keystroke throw is short, and what we end up with is a mushy keystroke.
In the middle:
Apple's one-app-at-a-time system UI messaging approach means that you can only send keystroke events to the active application. So, for instance, were you to attempt to write program B to automate program A, and the user happens to be using program C, any attempt to control program B from program A will require you to shift the user's focus from program C to program B, which is decidedly unfriendly. Applescript's mechanism for automation requires activation of this app, then that app, which means that the user can't be trying to use the machine when the Applescript is running. Which is kind of a serious faux pas for what is nominally marketed as a multitasking machine.
There's no inter-program messaging paradigm other than the network. No named ports, etc. This also has severe implications for automation.
At the bottom:
UDP messaging is used to send network events in a broadcast manner. Apple's implementation of UDP only allows one program on a machine to bind to a UDP port, meaning that only one program on that machine can catch a broadcast -- which in turn means that if your implementation really needed a broadcast mechanism, you can't use UDP for it.
---
That's just a sampling of UI issues with the OS. Against these rather immediate problems, I find the whole issue of make-it-look-like-[object] to be silly.
Don't know what the [object] is? It's a one-time learning trip down memory (or history) lane, and you're up and running. Operation is easy, even if, lawd forbid, you had to learn something.
On the other hand, when you need to get at a menu across a bunch of monitors, you're kind of hammered. It's time to go hunt for a third-party fix. If you need to really type, it's time to go buy a keyboard from a third party. If you need broadcast, I hope someone warned you the UDP stuff is broken so you don't waste your time trying to use it. If you're trying to implement IPC, well... [hollow laughter] I bet you'll wish you were working under Amiga OS before you even get seriously started. And no, Applescript won't get you even close because of the above-mentioned application focus issues.
Yes, their basic premise is valid - however, specifically the rolodex example, a rolodex style icon, despite it's antiquated-ness has become synonymous with "contact info" for digital natives - despite their never having used the 'real thing'. But even that is moderately inaccurate because what was a rolodex? A simple, organized, searchable collection of contact information, which is exactly what a contacts app is.
This debate sounds like artistic navel gazing
God if really want minimal go back to DOS.....
I think it is clear that Apple is a hardware company FIRST, then a software company. If Apple applied some of their hardware design principles to their UI design, we would be seeing some highly evolved and hopefully massively well received UI design. I think people want to use Apple's hardware and simply have to put up with their software, and of course assume the software must be on par with the quality of the hardware.
Considering how much evolution has been seen in Apple's hardware over the last 10 years, and how little their OS'es have evolved, I think speaks to my point completely. For instance Mountain Lion is nothing more then Lion with a few more apps built into it.
Apple's UI is not perfect, far from it. The assumption of "don't break what works" does not apply. Apple will see eventual erosion of their iDevice market as Microsoft and Google innovate in UI design while Apple persists with the same UI year after year. Eventually there will be some feature of Windows or Android that will make them more attractive then iOS or OS X. An product that remains static cannot compete indefinitely with consistently evolving product.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Judging by that article, the newly warmed over Windows 3.1 UI, is the one and only way. Just wait till MS brings back Microsoft Bob and Clippy.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Ok, I'll bite.
Word processor: image of a stack of text pages with an arrow pointing into the pages = load document; arrow pointing out of the pages = save document.
Paint program: Image of painting, same arrows.
Basically you graphically describe a motion, make the graphic recognizable as a type of motion, and you can do save, load, copy, paste, etc.
Make each type of motion arrows a particular visual style, and you've got system-wide conventions that are easy to recognize and that doesn't depend on the type of device you're saving to, only depends on the type of document you're dealing with.
I've come across no UI design that is perfect but these guys pick something that Apple actually does "correctly" and as well as trying to cite Windows 8 Metro as the better way to do it which is extraordinarily dubious stance to take???
I am not a professional UI designer but from the things I've learned about skeuomorphism is that skeuomorphisms are powerful when used correctly. For instance: Present a group of people a large cornflower blue square and ask them "What is this used for?" and you will get a lot of different answers (an output area, a blank picture, an empty container, no idea). Present the same group of people a square with a wood grain texture and ask them "What is this used for?" and many will immediately gravitate to "this looks like a flat wooden surface" and often calls up "an area I can put other things on". Even though functionally both the blue square and the wood texture square can be coded to the same thing, the texture adds a skeuomorphism that gives a big hint on the function.
Now look what was just pointed out here with Metro and the various gadgets found on Mac OSX. I think it is dubious when people are looking a colored square with text as "better" than a something that looks like a notepad with a check list on Mac. There are drawbacks to doing that way on the Mac but it sure as hell isn't "confusion"!
Who cares what designers think, they don't even know themselves what's good.. It just all depends on what's hip at the moment, and has nothing to do with good UI design as good UI design is in the eye of the beholder, what works for one, doesn't work for another, also what platform you're working on makes also a big difference, and Windows 8 is a perfect example of how to fubar UI, yes it's absolutely great for tablets, but it sux beyond believe for desktop (the 'metro' part that is, that is MY opinion after using it for a while, and NO it's not only the startscreen).
I've seen designers come up with cool stuf, but I also have seen more than enough UI design that really stink but was according to the designer completely 'by the book'..
So, nobody actually knows perfectly how a UI must be designed as it all depends on the platform/application and user.. anybody saying it's not is just a moron who thinks his/her way is the best..
Either the article or the summary is nonsense.
The fact that iPad apps especially and also to a lesser degree Mac apps have fancy gui adornments is the point having an iPad.
Why should e.g. the Widgets in the Address Book App fill the whole screen, while a name or a city is only so long? I rather have a nice and pleasent layout and the surrounding are filled with leather imitate.
And don't fortet: if you work at dawn or dawkness it is nice for the eyes if not the whole screen is glowing in white.
If you want examples how "not to do it" look at the older ICQ windows.
And frankly the most beautifull Mac OS UI was system 10.3 when everything was brushed metal, it just looked awesome on a alu laptop.
And really if you have to have a toolbar with only 5 buttons, who really cares wheather the unused area is metal or wood or leather? After all it is far easyer to recognize a scaled down window in exposure when the framing and edging is unique and not like every other window.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I hope that debates like this become more and more common. If we were rebuilding the world from scratch using the technology that we have today, it would look very different. And all the old world visual metaphors that exist in the digital world would be gone in such a world. I say toss out all the old metaphors and let the new digital era go forward. As for the old people who can't deal with that, fuck 'em. Progress marches on.
Quite the contrary, I think Apple's design do look more modern. Especially if you compare them to Metro. Metro can be more functional (especially on mobile devices) but to casual users (as in, most of the computer/gadget users) it's not as comfortable. Also, Metro do look cold. It's a colorful interface, but it has no personality. You just do whatever you need to do and be done with it, but you still don't feel that process was natural. You need to learn how to do the things you want to do and after awhile the whole process becomes boring. You don't feel anything while you're using your device. That's not what Apple is aiming at. Apple's design is the way it is because Apple wants users to engage with the device they're using. They don't want you to just do your job and get on with it. They want you to feel something while you're using it, they want you to enjoy it. Metro doesn't achieve that, and frankly, it doesn't seem like Microsoft was trying to achieve something like that either. Plus, because of all this skeuomorphism thing, this "high-tech" devices doesn't seem scary to casual gadget/computer users. I know a lot of people who don't use a particular device because they're afraid they can mess things up or they think can't use it. Devices intimidates them. Apple's devices are not like that. Even if you haven't touched a single Apple device nor seen one, once you get one in your hands, you have this feeling of similarity. You feel like you've been using the device you're holding for a long time, and whatever you want to do, you just do it naturally and the device reacts. You almost never need to learn anything. That's something unique to Apple and is one of the many reasons why they're so successful.
Every time I have to do some admin task on my stepdaughters' OS/X laptops, I am reminded forcibly yet again that Apple still thinks that mice should only have one button.
Jesus, what's next? Writers criticizing writers?
Keep in mind that Apple's early slogan (for the Mac, anyway) was "The computer for the rest of us". That "rest of us" bit referred to the folks who weren't computer geeks who loved the command prompt. In order to make the Mac welcoming, they tried to use plenty of metaphors which were already ingrained into the minds of potential users. Heck, even the very idea of a desktop is like that, where you pick stuff up, set it down somewhere else, windows overlaying like sheets of paper. The point is, Apple seemed to try (more than their competitors, at least) to create as many "Oh, this is just like what I do in the physical world, already!" moments as possible, so that, from first use, the user found the Mac to be familiar and welcoming.
Now... it sounds like the argument being made is "Yeah, yeah... but those days of the never-bought-a-computer consumers are over. Now that we've got them on-board, let's start cutting those ties to meatspace". However, to do so makes me immediately think of Photoshop. If you started with Photoshop when it was version 1.0, and if you grew up with the gradual addition of features as they appeared in the many versions, then you're fine. Frankly, I weep for anybody who has to learn today's Photoshop from no previous experience with it. About a decade ago, Adobe, itself, realized that they had this problem and they came out with Photoshop Elements (and you can make the same argument with Premiere and Premiere Elements) as an intermediate step to get users acclimated to Photoshop paradigms without just throwing them into the deep end of the pool. (For those about to argue that Photoshop Elements was, instead, an attempt to tap into a "pro-sumer" and amateur market which was priced out of Photoshop... yes, it was that, too... but it wasn't all that, or else Elements would have just been Photoshop with a bunch of the powerful features taken out. Instead, Elements had a bunch of UI changes which made it easier to use; there was now a red-eye removal button, instead of having to lasso or magic-wand and then use a spot-healing tool or whatever. It introduced the user to being able to successfully manipulate pixels, without the learning curve being way too steep.).
So, that's what I think of when I see the calls for Apple to abandon skeu... that the ship is full of passengers and it's time to shove off, take those passengers to further shores, and leave the rest of the folk on the docks. And I think that's a departure from what Apple has always tried to be.
Lastly, I gotta say... I grew up with MS-DOS... did 8086 and 6502 assembly... nuts-and-bolts stuff. I hated Apple with a passion for years as being "foofy". Nowadays, however, when I play with my iPhone or iPad, I find all of the real-world metaphors in the UI to be very heartwarming. The stitching on the leather in the Notes app... I look at that and it's a little like sipping hot cocoa.
Now.... GET THE HELL OFF MY LAWN!
On a track pad: Ctrl+Click or Two-Finger Click. On most Apple mice, or any other mouse, right click works just fine.
Sig is on vacation
One area that definitely deserves to be mentioned is all the virtual studio gear such as VST plugins, audio players and such. They often try to mimic real-life counterparts. I don't know if it's good or bad, but it at least it creates a bit mismatched overall look.
From the article: "During my reporting for Fast Company's feature on design at Microsoft, which was part of our October design issue, I spoke with a number of designers, Apple veterans, and industry insiders hostile towards Apple's approach to software design."
As long as consumers like it, why should anyone care what "designers, Apple veterans, and industry insiders" think?
From the article: "It's also why many industry leaders are excited for Windows 8. For the design of its new operating system, Microsoft took a surprisingly refreshing approach, distancing itself from skeuomorphism while emphasizing a flat user interface that's minimalist to the core. Sure, real-life visual metaphors still exist in the UI--an envelope to represent the mail app, a camera to denote the photo app--but the icons are without embellishments: no bevel, no 3-D flourishes, no glossiness and no drop shadow. It's Microsoft's stripped-down UI that many find appealing--a welcome alternative to Apple's approach to software design."
And yet in the real world, virtually everyone loves iOS, while Windows 8 is shaping up to be an epic flop. If these "insiders" are so out of touch with reality, maybe they need to be replaced. Were these, by any chance, people who got fired by Apple for not getting it? If that's the kind of people Microsoft is hiring now, I guess Windows 8 starts to become at least understandable, if not forgivable.
In this article, linked from the original article posted, we finally get the real answer as to why some UI designers don't like "skeuomorphism":
"But aside from aesthetic reaons, it is hard to see how these designs will ever evolve beyond derivative representations. Will they just change color and increase their visual fidelity?"
And there you have it: designers don't like it because it makes them redundant. It's really that simple. The idea that there might actually be an optimal UI, and that once you get there you might not need to pull the rug out from under users every year, is anathema to the "UI designer" crowd.
In the scheme of things to complain about, skeuomorphism is near the bottom. Once you get started down this path, you could start criticizing any aspect of design; beveled buttons, drop shadows, etc. However, all these things enhance clarity. In the purest sense Windows Phone goes in the opposite direction, taking a more minimalist, graphic approach. And they do it well, but if you take that path you have to commit to it.
At times I do like skeuomorphism. There's no reason whatsoever why an interface shouldn't have some visual flair. I've always been a fan of synthesizer software design specifically because they replicate physical controls creatively. It really depends on the context and the skill of the illustrator involved. The Address Book reminds me of a cowboy's chaps and the Library looks like something from shop class. But the fact that they went for a more physical look doesn't bother me.
It's not fundamentally different than web design. The best designs maintain interface consistency, but provide distinct visual cues to show you've navigated elsewhere. A unique theme doesn't inhibit that. The thing is, if Apple's design had instead been a grey monolithic sameness the hipsters would be complaining about the lack of variety.
Funny, i never liked apples design and couldn't understand at all why people seem to like it. I find it pretty ugly actually.
I'm no frind of windows most of the time, but i also think that the new design of windows is very nice. And by that i don't mean the windows 8 ui start menu, but the general look and feel. The article does address that too. I don't now why people in here immediately need to go crazy about the new start menu.
I think it's amazing that you found a Mac where the user hasn't replaced the defective mouse that it came with.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yeah, that is a common tick if you're not used to the interface. Once I got used to it, I found that it actually saves time and is more convenient.
The designer will screw up while riding his fixie to work, go over the handlebars, and smash his skull because he's wearing one of those 1910-newsboy style caps instead of a helmet. Either that, or he'll get lung cancer from the smokes.
I just hope he didn't find time to date the girl who put curtains on Yahoo and procreate. Disaster for the human race if that happens.
Why bother remembering the letter A represented an ox in some long ago middle eastern language or H was a doorway? They have knew meanings now even though their shapes faintly resemble their original meanings.
Ditto ideographic languages like Chinese and Egyptian. Many ideograms are now fully or partially "sounds like" rebuses.
News at 11.
/* No Comment */
It's a fad. It's graphic designer one-upsmanship. It serves no non-ornamental purpose. It is pure wankery.
The "it helps old people" line is a rationalization. It doesn't. The same sort of people admiring this emperor's new clothes were ridiculing Microsoft Bob fifteen years ago, only now it's cool because Apple does it.
In five years, clean lines will be the fashion, and they'll be ridiculing wood grain and stitched leather textures as if they had been all along.
So Apple skeuomorphs don't let you hyperlink on their calendar app.
Reel-toReel tapes don't allow skipping direct, so the skeuomorphs don't let you skip.
Far far too many UIs ape the "real world" item so closely they throw out the benefits of not having to build the damn thing out of real materials.
By your test, it appears that Microsoft designed a better everything (better/faster/more_stable OS, better calendar UI, more-standards-compliant browser than Safari, prettier window controls, etc).
McDonalds has the best hamburgers, too. I can prove it.
I love traditional visual metaphors. I still use calendars with faux leather-stitching and rolodexs. That is all
So they think that people are better able to relate to a ripoff of http://www.benetton.com/ and swiss highway road signs? Sorry but I don't see how Metro is easier to relate. In fact, I would argue that our aging population will find it extremely confusing. Perhaps MSFT needs to stop trying so hard to be "cool" by appealing to hipsters instead of the general populace.
Metro is garbage and unimaginative. Skeuomorphism has a long history in both Mac OS and NeXT which are the ancestors of OS X and most people find the OS X interface to be more intuitive because of that attribute in the interface.
My advice would be to never hire these so-called designers for anything important. Let them continue to create hard to navigate "avant-garde" and hard to navigate websites slavishly copying the swiss industrial design school style. Keep your uncomfortable plastic chairs to yourself.
Two perfect examples of failed products by MSFT which were designed to appeal to hipsters are the KIN and the Zune. The latter's UI is the precursor to the Metro design language and people seemed to hate it.
MSFT needs to stop trying to be "cool" and concentrate on fixing their products like Sharepoint server, Office, SQL server and Windows server. Perhaps they could even release the .NET runtime on OS X and linux to compete with Mono and possibly offer Visual Studio on other platforms as well.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I like visually simple interfaces. It's why on Windows I turn off Aero and adopt a simpler theme. On the Mac I don't have as much flexibility, but I still do things like put the dock on the side rather than the bottom (it's simpler that way, and vertical display space is at a premium on widescreen displays), turn off the animation, etc. On Linux I prefer visually simple window managers.
I pine for the days when user interfaces were hand-crafted as simple boxes and outlines by programmers rather than artists intent on emulating the real world (badly) for no functional purpose. I thought that lesson was learned a long time ago during the time of Microsoft Bob.
I'm not speaking to everyone when I explain what I want in a user interface.
Personally clutter is one thing I can't stand, that is something I personally find Apple doesn't understand. Everything about Apples interface I see as an attempt to cram something else onto a bar or in a folder or as an icon and it drives me nuts. I don't care about 3D effects, I don't care about glass effects or anything useless that doesn't contribute to me getting work done.
In an ideal world every computer would come with a terminal and a window manager and that is it. Your don't need anything else to get the job done, your need some place to throw a window and you need a way to execute programs well being able to "quiz" the user space / kernel space. You don't needs bars, you don't need control panels and you 100% don't need desktop surfaces.
After all why should I have my computer wasting rendering time and power on something that doesn't assist me or help me relax? My rendering power should go to games or power hungry applications such as PCB layout / Autocad.
I know I don't speak for everyone, I can accept that people want all the extras and the kitchen sink in an interface but that's not what I want . This is one of the reasons I use Linux, Linux users understand interface design, slim, sleek and without the crap. After all shouldn't a computer be more about running application and not the desktop?
Use 2 fingers or a two-button mouse. It's been Apple's SOP since 2006 or so on Mac laptops. Actually I found multi-finger gestures far easier to use on a Mac. For example scrolling is dragging with two-fingers. Newer Windows laptops do this but it doesn't always work for every window.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
If you read the article and click through to the Windows 8 article, it's quickly apparent that this is just a backhanded marketing piece for Windows 8. This article started showing up in my social streams, LinkedIn, and social news outlets almost immediately after it went up.
The author is cited this way:
"*********Austin Carr writes about social media********* and technology for Fast Company."
All of this screams to me that it was written to be passed along social networking for marketing purposes. It's getting traction, which is sad enough, but even sadder for me is that it found its way onto /.
So in what way is "use a different dock" going to stop the Mac OS X dock from sucking?
Agreed. The problem is most people don't understand the reason WHY Metro is a horrible UI -- hint: it has to do with context.
When you have a "flat" UI you have no *secondary* _visual_ cues to tell you what you can interact with or not. You see this effect in many iPhone apps where they will have this absolutely beautiful graphics (and backgrounds) and you have no clue what the hell is an actual UI "widget" that you can push, slide, etc.
OSX Mountain Lion is starting to fall for this trap by hiding scroll bars. When I need to scroll, such as dragging the slider up/down, I can't even tell where it unless I first do a dummy scroll. This is retarded.
With a more "traditional" approach with *some* 3D elements such as drop shadows, beveled corners, these widgets "stand out" so we have a more natural intuitive sense to make the *critical* distinction between 2 UI elements:
* what is purely static which conveys information
* what can I interactive with.
UI is *supposed* to be about making it EASIER for users by *helping* them think less and act more by streamlining their judgement process. 3D Buttons are a perfect example of this: Users internally are thinking "Ah, here is a button I can push -- OK, what does it do? Does it do what I think it does? Does it do what I need it to do?"
ALSO note that TOO many 3D elements is a hinderance. 3D Studio, Blender, etc, are HORRIBLE UI's simply because they *overload* the user with too *many* widgets. It is an design art-form to maximize minimalism and minimize functionality. Sadly, too many UIX don't have a freaking clue about the fundamentals.
Without recognizing this deep contradistinction UI designers are completely screwing users over making them play the what-can-I-interact-with-game. This is 5 steps backwards. *sigh* Somebody everyone will realize we need to change the computer to fit US, instead of trying to change humans to fit the computer.
Tell us, Apple: what does the ideal bookshelf or phone or calendar look like, so that I can most quickly recognize it? What's the physical real-world object that my brain should immediately recognize? What's the best metaphor?
Prior to the sale, you say the answer to that question was your product! When I want to read a book, my eyes should be searching the room for an iPad.
But once you get my money, you say it's something else, and I shouldn't think of an iPad when I want to read a book. I'm so confused.
If you take this argument to its conclusion then all the icons on Apple products, should be pictures of Apple products. Click on the picture of an iPad to read a book. OTOH, click on the picture of an iPhone, to initiate interactive voice communication with another person. Click on the picture of an iPod, to listen to music. Click on the picture of faces within the frame of a Macintosh screen to launch a Finder window.
That would actually be quite a hilarious prank. If anyone wants to steal this idea for their malware, you have my consent.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
So Apple skeuomorphs don't let you hyperlink on their calendar app.
What are you talking about? I have hyperlinks in most of my calendar entries, and can use them quite easily on the iPad.
The Skeuomorphism there is mostly about turning pages, not about some sort of inflexible ink-only entries.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
This completely hits home with me.
Whenever a new version of the Mac OS comes out (that I pay money for), I spend time (that costs money) finding out how to turn shit OFF and set things back to what worked before. Useless startling animations, restoring removed functionality, it just pisses me off since it seems like change for change's sake, not to improve what already works.
I DO NOT WANT little things unexpectedly flying across my screen. I do want soft reminders that fade in and fade out. Watching part of my screen animate 'til it finishes decreases my momentum and it's for NO beneficial purpose. It's animation for animation's sake, not to help me get my job done faster. The interface is nice enough as it is. DO NOT animate the expansion of a hierarchical view. Just display it.
When too many things in the interface start moving as a result of my action, the interface becomes distracting rather than helpful.
Apple's pushing of the bouncing elastic scrollbars from iOS (a touch driven device) to a mouse and keyboard driven device - and NOT giving us a public switch to turn it off - tells me that something is really broken in Apple's design and product department.
Why the HELL, in Xcode are the side panels animated in an out? Why the HELL, does the disclosure triangle in your Xcode project files folders animate and slide down the drawing of all the files within that folder?
DON'T ENTERTAIN THE DEVELOPERS. And most of all, if you insist on doing this, GIVE US PUBLIC SWITCHES TO TURN THIS CRAP OFF. It's a damn shame that Apple devotes manpower and money into putting these counterproductive animations into the GUI when people could be fixing bugs.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
So basically what they want is for designs to move to something like LCARS from Star Trek? Minimalistic, efficient, very purpose oriented.
One reason engineers are enginerds is that they demand a logical consistency to their own idiolectic understanding of the map between presentation and reality. Which means they complain about things like faux-leather look, and not about things like random zoom that can't be easily undone, ribbon clutter and other actual usability problems which are now endemic in iOS and MacOS. About 2007 was the best user interface, and the slide to touch tablet, done badly, reminds me that we are in a period like the early days of the web where people are too focused on metaphor, and not enough on user flow.
Fugue for Aaron Swartz
... Really? I rarely see someone that bought a 2 button mouse for their Mac. In fact, I can only think of 2 people I know, both of whom are programmers, versus the about 20 people I know with Macs that use the mouse it came with. Maybe our experience with Mac users is very different from each other... except the exact same case follows to PC users I know, too, in that they tend not to replace what it came with (the exception is those in the fields of IT work, programming, and the like; another exception is the graphics designers I know, who tend to have more wacom tablets and the like, and the more devoted gamers, who tend to have gaming-centric mice) ...
Ya got some pretty old laptops there, pardner. Better install SideTrack.
https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
At the top of Slashdot pages is an icon with a TV screen with rounded corners and a "rabbit ears" antenna.
The "floppy disk" icon for "Save" hasn't made sense in 20 years. Even then, it makes little sense; it ought to mean "copy to removable medium", not "save to local file".
The use of binoculars for "search" never made much sense. For some time, I thought that icon meant "zoom". "Movie camera" icons still appear in some programs, with camera outlines not seen since the 1930s. But they sometimes mean "play" rather than "record". Images of cassette tapes still appear in some audio-related programs.
Abstract icons hold up better. The circular arrow for "refresh" is fine. Symbols from international road signs are well recognized.
Facebook seems to avoid this. The most dated icon on Facebook's main page is a tear-off calendar. Photoshop is at the other extreme, with a collection of icons meaningful only to people who did photographic film darkroom work.
Too many people are trying to emulate Susan Kare's work of 30 years ago. Badly. Kare herself has moved on.
Here's the screenplay: http://commandcenter.blogspot.com/2011/09/we-open-in-well-lit-corporate.html
I'm not sure where this accidental deletion thing is coming from in all these comments. On my Windows computers, if I select a file and hit Del, I get a confirmation dialog asking whether I want to move the file to the Recycle Bin. I do not recall ever changing a setting to get this behavior. As far as I know it is the default.
RETURN without GOSUB in line 1050
Skeuomorphism is a good way to communicate what an application does at a high level (e.g. "this application is an ebook reader"), but it fails to communicate the details of how to use the application (e.g. "how to turn a page" or "how to close the book").
Take iBooks for example. How do I turn a page? Do I swipe the paper or do I use the little scroll thing on the bottom? How do I close the book? With a real book, I'd grab the back cover and physically close it, but that doesn't translate to a tablet interface. The correct way to "close" the book is to tap the "Library" button on the top-left of the page. How does that make sense??
A good user interface would make it clear which physical metaphors translate to the user interface, and which ones don't. But skeuomorphic interfaces send mixed signals about the affordance of an interface. That's why Windows 8's flat UI has (some) benefits - you can't manipulate a flat surface and it is obvious that any ornamentation is there to either 1) provide information or 2) provide a way to manipulate the UI in some way. If a UI element is not doing one of these two things, then it's an unnecessary distraction.
Also IMO it just looks tacky. It reminds me of Microsoft Bob or Creative Writer. Yuck.
These people complain about things like how save icons look like floppies but offer no good solution. They just want people to think they should have to design something completely new for every little change because, funnily enough, that means work for them.
And I also wouldn't take advice from someone whose site isn't exactly nice to look at.
Well, it would, if it didn't interpret half my right-clicks as left-clicks in a bizarre attempt to avoid admitting the merit of a second button.
Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
Seems that sometimes when the computing thing is running it's computations, my normal mouse pointer changes from an arrow to an hourglass!
As I have never shot an arrow or kept time with an hourglass, HOW DARE THEY USE THESE ARCANE ANCIENT SKEWY METAPHORS!!!
The problem is, computer users are pretty nervous about stuff like that - oddly they expect their phones and such to save their document when they switch to another app, but get worried when their PC tries to do the same for them.
The changes made to a document on a phone during one session are generally small enough that they can be undone by hand. Changes made to a document on a PC are often much greater and more sweeping, and people turn off auto-save for fear of losing the ability to revert to a last known good state. I've lost documents on a tablet computer that used an auto-save paradigm because it had no revert button.
1) Too much effort is wasted to protect me from myself.
2) Concept of "file" is completely missing. There are no files! Only pictures, movies, songs.
3) Those three extra buttons (Options, Back, Search) - should have been introduced _before_ Android.
It should look nice enough that it isn't jarringly ugly, handle transitions between tasks gracefully enough that it doesn't feel abrupt or like it's taking forever, and everything *I* want to do regularly (not what the designers think I'll want to do regularly) should be immediately accessible and in a position that I find most comfortable.
Difficulty: I don't want to have to screw around configuring everything - I want my "smart" devices to be smart enough to figure out how I work and get better over time, but also not seem to randomly rearrange things without my realizing it.
What I would love would be some kind of calibration application that I can use to do examples of very common tasks (write a letter, compose a text, create a spreadsheet, create an email + attachment, add/remove contacts from a distribution list, etc. and so on) and that will gauge how I do them in some fashion (maybe have me do them in 3-5 different ways), compare each step of that process for speed & efficiency on my part, and then create a generic profile that has every kind of basic UI function in it and that can be exported to any kind of application that would use some sort of standard skinning library so that I can have literally ANY piece of software I use work exactly the same way, so that ANY device I get in the future can automatically configure itself to a way I feel most comfortable working, without my having to bother setting it up appropriately. Kind of like how speech recognition software learns from you over time and gets trained.
Let me create a profile for any given category of object or software. Video games should be able to import a specific control scheme, productivity apps should import a specific scheme for saving/loading/re-doing/undoing, and so on.
That's probably a really difficult task, but that's what I want from my devices and software. I want things to do what I want, how I want in a way that feels best for *me*, even if some designer somewhere insists that their way might be better.
And it isn't that I'm unwilling to learn new ways to do things, it's really more that I just want to not spend the time it takes to customize a new thing that's basically the same as an old thing unless there's some REALLY good reason that the old ways won't work anymore.
Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
Forgive me for this, but I think the RDF plays a role here, too.
Up until Apple "invented" skeuomorphism, it was viewed as hokey and stupid. Witness the reactions to MS Clippy and MS Bob.
If Apple makes hokey real-world analogues in their UI, it's called skeuomorphic. If anybody else does it, it's called skew-o-morphic. When M$ did it, the reaction was: "Do they think we're stupid?" When Apple does it, it's "Oh, isn't it great, they really care about us as human beings and not just lusers."
This is basically because the press eats up anything that Apple dishes out.
Mark my words: Apple will "invent" (and patent) MS Bob, and be lauded for its genius for doing so.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
I believe the reason Apple has moved to things like the disappearing scroll bars, etc. has less to do with eye candy tricks than it does with an attempt to push users to a different form of interaction. iOS demonstrated that touch UIs with physical-like behaviors (bounce back, inertial scrolling, and so on) are effective and easy to learn. As an anecdotal example, since my 93-year old grandmother began using an iPad as her primary computer, my phone support burden has decreased to zero.
Apple seems to be trying to extend this to OS X by pushing touch pads as primary interface devices. Apple sell more laptops and iOS devices by far than they do keyboard/mouse desktops, so they can assume the majority of their user base will be using touch devices. Hence the disappearing scroll bars - if you're two-finger inertial scrolling with a touch pad you don't really need scroll bars. They push desktop users to this interface by including a touch-based mouse with iMacs and Mac Pros and pushing the Magic Trackpad whenever you put an iMac or Mac Mini or Mac Pro in your cart at the online store.
Basically, they've figured out how to make touch an effective interface across all their devices. On the computers, they can assume that your hands will be close to the keyboard and touch pad at all times, so they are tailoring the OS to those devices. Because you rarely need to click buttons anymore, anyway, Fitts' law can go hang as far as they are concerned. Keyboard shortcuts and gestures for all!
Note that I am *not* commenting on the suitability or wisdom of this approach. I am simply proposing a motivation for it.
Arr! The laws of physics be a harsh mistress!
Lame article - lame lame lame
And on Android, due to poor screens when placed on low brightness - fur can be seen around the edges.
The same icons have been around now for such a long time, and I can't complain about a single one (yet)
Move on...the designers that Apple chose however, are making a nice tidy sum - so who cares....iPhone 5 sold
out in records number, just as the next iPad mini will, the iMac X, and so on.....
Yeah, because they have a new shell that most users will disable the first chance they get.
Mac OS X used to have "Front Row" too. It doesn't mean it is the same as iOS.
Full screen applications only make sense in certain areas, and the core of the OS itself it not changing as drastically as people would have you believe. It's still Windows NT.
My biggest problem with OSX has always been the lack of Alt- sequences -- key-stroke sequences that allow you to access menu items without touching the mouse. As a power-user of at least two productivity applications (Word and Excel), I have forever avoided *unnecessary* mouse usage by memorizing my favorite sequences like Alt-e-s-t (Paste->Special->Formats). My use of these applications is, frankly, bewilderingly fast (pat, pat), in the eyes of users who use drop-down menus to access these same functions. If you have never seen someone use Excel without ever touching the mouse, you should: you will learn something about user experience and interface efficiency.
In *some* previous versions of OSX you could turn on alt-sequences. Others, not -- I bought a used MacBook Pro in 2005 and couldn't figure out how to get these to work after ~10 hours of research, so I resold it a month later. I frankly don't use Macs enough to know whether it's easy to do this now, but from casual use I know that it isn't available as a default, which is silly, whereas it is on Windows. And thus Windows encourages developers to include these sequences, which is a real boon for every app where they work.
Mice are great, but they are slow! Why would you ever want to aim three clicks when you could type four letters? Imagine if you had to type text in Word, Excel, VS or Eclipse by clicking an on-screen keyboard with your mouse... you'd probably just give up and write with pen and paper (or a manual typewriter), and hire some low-wage laborers to do all that slow, boring clicking. That's how I feel when I use Excel on a Mac.
The title is just a pour translation of some popular words of wisdom from my country. The meaning is that being too short to reach the grapes the fox say that they are sour just to feed her ego.
Now if those famous designers just observed now this "issue" is just enough to show their proffesionalism. Apple is doing this for reaaly long time. Actually beside the fact that indeed the Appple computers and OS are far better than same PC in all aspects from pure design to performance is really hard to argue. You can argue that are expensive or that you don't like their design and it's OK. But this?
Sorry. I'm in computers since the time of Z80 computers passing through early pre-pc to pc from x86 era and so on. Since begining windows was trying ( unsuccesfully) to copy or imitate their look and feel. I don't know how many still rememberthe hacks and add-ons to make the Windows at least looking a bit as Macs. Linux also had along of their history attempts to emulate this look and feel More succesful than windows anyhow.
Turning back to the subject what is wrong in this? If the icons or other elements really look nice and they are part of a whole good looking design concept and users like this where is the problem?
And if the comparison is going so far to the new Metro interface style of Windows 8 I must say that those guys probably are blind or they feel that the grapes are really sour. I use both Windows (from windows 3.0) and Macs (recently) and I must say that I feel more confortable with the last ones. Everything seems on place, awsome functionality despite the simplicity and everything in really nice and beautiful style. I like windows 7 but 8 is, at least for my taste, awful. It looks as Steve Balmer and this in my hierarchy is somwhere very low somwhere near to Apotheker.