Slashdot Mirror


Apple Doesn't Design For Yesterday

HughPickens.com writes Erik Karjaluoto writes that he recently installed OS X Yosemite and his initial reaction was "This got hit by the ugly stick." But Karjaluoto says that Apple's decision to make a wholesale shift from Lucida to Helvetica defies his expectations and wondered why Apple would make a change that impedes legibility, requires more screen space, and makes the GUI appear fuzzy? The Answer: Tomorrow.

Microsoft's approach with Windows, and backward compatibility in general, is commendable. "Users can install new versions of this OS on old machines, sometimes built on a mishmash of components, and still have it work well. This is a remarkable feat of engineering. It also comes with limitations — as it forces Microsoft to operate in the past." But Apple doesn't share this focus on interoperability or legacy. "They restrict hardware options, so they can build around a smaller number of specs. Old hardware is often left behind (turn on a first-generation iPad, and witness the sluggishness). Meanwhile, dying conventions are proactively euthanized," says Karjaluoto. "When Macs no longer shipped with floppy drives, many felt baffled. This same experience occurred when a disk (CD/DVD) reader no longer came standard." In spite of the grumblings of many, Karjaluoto doesn't recall many such changes that we didn't later look upon as the right choice.

86 of 370 comments (clear)

  1. I don't follow by dos1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So what's so "tomorrow" about change from Lucida to Helvetica, which impedes legibility, requires more screen space, and makes the GUI appear fuzzy? Is that the definition of "tomorrow" now?

    1. Re: I don't follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      5K screens

    2. Re:I don't follow by ericloewe · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it's an euphemism for "change for change's sake".

    3. Re:I don't follow by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Informative

      So what's so "tomorrow" about change from Lucida to Helvetica, which impedes legibility, requires more screen space, and makes the GUI appear fuzzy? Is that the definition of "tomorrow" now?

      More to the point how does changing from Lucida to Helvetica impede legibility, require more screen space, and make the GUI appear fuzzy? I can't say that I have noticed any of these world ending problems in decades of using the Helvetica font.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    4. Re:I don't follow by Tyr07 · · Score: 2

      Designing for tomorrow doesn't mean when tomorrow comes, your design won't be shit.

    5. Re: I don't follow by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's general knowledge in typography that Helvetica is the most legible typeface. Low-resolution devices present challenges that keep that from being true, so adaptations had to be made.

      Of course, pretty soon if you want security updates you'll have to accept Helvetica, even on your low-resolution device. But you should stop being such a loser with a three-year-old computer and give Apple some more money.

      Maybe they'll have "Mac Mode" ready for the iPhone by then.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:I don't follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is a standard "apologist" tactic. Sort of like an appeal to authority, but one that assumes the authority knows more than you do.

      In the future, impeding legibility, requiring more screen space, and making the GUI look fuzzy are just as bad as they are today. However, this author is indicating that eventually such things will become less needed, and we'll learn to live without them, and they fit the same pattern as Apple's abandoment of hardware that was really showing its age.

      Except that this is not hardware. Fonts are just as functional as they were two hundred years ago. They haven't outlived their usefulness.

      Perhaps high density pixel screens will fix the fuzziness, but it won't fix the footprint (unless Apple's font management is totally pixel based, which would be stupid, and I don't think Apple is stupid). But even then, if Apple released a poorly legible desktop on a high res display, it still would be poorly legible.

      So you come back to the main point of this article. "Apple knew better back then"; ahem.... actually everyone knew better back then, floppies were used by about 8% of all the computer users when Apple finally ditched them. "and so Apple will know better now"; ahem... if only we were sure that past performance was a reliable indicator of future performance. "And we should trust Apple because they know more than us"; ahem... ok, so we've gotten to the real argument here.

    7. Re:I don't follow by geekmux · · Score: 2

      So what's so "tomorrow" about change from Lucida to Helvetica, which impedes legibility, requires more screen space, and makes the GUI appear fuzzy? Is that the definition of "tomorrow" now?

      Yes. By this logic, we're but one illogical decision away from Comic Sans being default.

      (Yeah, I know, I just threw up in my mouth a little too.)

      On top of the fact that Steve Jobs is likely rolling in his grave. The man had a flair for aesthetics that seem to be dying in the face of "futurethink".

    8. Re: I don't follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      5K screens

      Thank god OS X never built-in support for user-selectable visual themes! Well ... except for that awesome-sauce "Dark Theme" that lets users be so tomorrow that they're into next week.

      Absolute total BS is still absolute total BS and this shite should never have made it past the firehose.

    9. Re: I don't follow by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      I could switch to whatever typeface in macos, at my own risk of course, but it seems strange this ability went away.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    10. Re: I don't follow by Oligonicella · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Pro Litteris, the Swiss copyright society for literature does not agree. Helvetica doesn't even make the top twelve. Most returns on a search of "most legible typeface" that are by professionals boil down to 'whatever you're used to and like'.

    11. Re:I don't follow by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Informative

      Helvetica is print font, not a screen font. It isn't optimized for pixel displays, and even on fairly high DPI displays does not look a nice as fonts optimized for them. Screen fonts take account of the pixel grid and get hand optimized to look good on them.

      Apple is clearly hoping that they have a high end DPI that can overcome these problems, but it doesn't appear they have. The 5k display is only around 200 DPI, and Helvetica tends to look a bit naff below about 600 DPI at small sizes. Of course it's a little more complicated because they have sub pixel rendering, but it only affects horizontal resolution and not vertical resolution. To counter this they have made the fonts a little larger, but of course that means everything takes up more space on screen.

      Everyone else uses screen fonts. Bitstream derived fonts for Linux and Android. Microsoft has Segoe and Meiryo, designed specially for them. Some phones have reached the point where Helvetica will look good, around 450-500 DPI, although the iPhone 6 Plus is only around 400 DPI.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    12. Re: I don't follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It makes sense if you've ever designed an OS X app. The UI is defined in "nib" files on a pixel-by-pixel basis. (Nib stands for "NextStep Interface Builder" - this is something that comes from NextStep.)

      So instead of saying "this label is here and a text field is to the right of it" you say "this label is at 10,10 pixels and is 100x30 pixels, this text field is at 120,10 pixels and is 400x30 pixels." If you were allowed to change the font, you'd completely screw up every UI.

      "But wait! They just changed the font!"

      Well, yeah, and guess what? Actually they added some new APIs in the recent versions of iOS and OS X to try and make UIs less defined by individual pixels and more fluid to try and fix that. But the basic answer is that OS X UIs are laid out using pixels and that makes changing the font dangerous. And that Yosemite does indeed make older apps look weird as the font metrics the UI was designed for no longer apply.

      As they've gone to a narrower font, for the most part, the issue is just more whitespace rather than labels being cut off. But there are issues, and that's why you aren't allowed to change the UI's look.

    13. Re:I don't follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have a mac with retina. To me, the font change was like 'ohh, the font looks different'. Its not worse, or better - just different. I can still program fine. And I prefer the new font now.

      Seems like adults are so much like children now, they complain about everything. We don't have real problems anymore so so have to invent them.

    14. Re: I don't follow by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, why not use Helvetica at higher resolutions and keep Lucida at lower resolutions? Then, everybody wins. Right now, even in Apple's own lineup, there's only one product with a screen that might benefit from this change, while it's a hinderance everywhere else.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    15. Re: I don't follow by ChrisMaple · · Score: 5, Informative

      Helvetica was invented in 1957, so it wasn't created by Apple either. And no sans-serif font can be "most readable".

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    16. Re: I don't follow by NJRoadfan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Microsoft tossed out Tahoma and forced Segoe UI on everyone back in 2007. I don't recall it being that big of a deal.

    17. Re: I don't follow by sphealey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      - - - - - It's general knowledge in typography that Helvetica is the most legible typeface. - - - - -

      That is very much convention wisdom, yes. There are surprisingly few scientifically designed studies on typeface legibility, but the ones I have been able to find (particularly the FAA-sponsored study in the early days of CRTs in the cockpit) have indicated that serif - NOT sans serif - fonts are easier to read, even at low resolution.

      sPh

    18. Re: I don't follow by lgw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to disagree in principle, but don't confuse "readable" (ability to read for hours without strain) and "legible" (ability to make out each letter at all).

      Serif fonts are readable: great for reducing strain from hours of reading under good conditions. That's why they're used for books (except some crazy tech books that get it wrong), newspaper text, magazine text, and so on. Serif fonts are perhaps over-used in blogs, from a desire to look more like a newspaper, I suspect, for text too small for the screen resolution to really make it work, but for eReaders and such that devote all possible space to the text, allowing for larger fonts, it's the obvious choice.

      Sans-serif fonts are good for remaining legible under highly difficult conditions. That's why they're often the choice for billboards, for headlines (designed to attract you close enough to read the text), for advertising text (to make the big text easier to read from across the room, and the small print unappealing to read) unless the advertiser's style trumps other font choice concerns. Sans-serif was the only practical choice in the early days of computing, and so some people still see them as "technology fonts" - ooh, it's high tech, it should be sans-serif. Sigh.

      Helvetica is a particularly demanding san-serif font. It's sort of the worst of both worlds for screens - it demands high DPI, but it's still less readable than a proper serif font. In a totally Apple move, choosing style over practicality, they pick the font that's famous for being the most stylish (at least among hipsters) over practical concerns (e.g., one-button mice, you're holding it wrong, bendy-phone - all style over practicality).

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    19. Re: I don't follow by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What makes you think professionals are even qualified to make the call? Presumably you're talking typographers, graphic designers, etc - artist types who couldn't construct a proper double-blind study to save their souls.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re: I don't follow by Anonymous+Brave+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's general knowledge in typography that Helvetica is the most legible typeface.

      That is very much convention wisdom, yes.

      It really isn't. Helvetica is actually a relatively awkward typeface to work with, particularly for body text. Its default tracking/kerning are tight for extended reading, its glyphs have quite inconsistent width fittings, and it has various problems with similar-looking glyphs that are easily mistaken for one another, which also makes it a less than ideal choice for user interfaces. Don't mistake popularity or endurance for quality.

      --
      If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
    21. Re: I don't follow by plover · · Score: 2

      That's always a problem with translations. Equivalent words or phrases in different languages take up different amounts of space. You almost always have to provide a different layout for a different language, unless you start out with ginormous buttons that can accommodate all languages.

      --
      John
    22. Re: I don't follow by the_B0fh · · Score: 4, Funny

      No no, this could turn out to be an HaterGate. Please do not try to bring facts into it! Let people who don't even use OS X come in and rant about the poor choices Apple consistently makes.

    23. Re: I don't follow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's not a problem in apple land though. Everyone knows that all "i"s are lower case.

    24. Re: I don't follow by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Informative

      artist types who couldn't construct a proper double-blind study to save their souls.

      Some studies have been done. However, I found none that even considered Helvetica as one of the options. So far I have seen no data to support the assertion that Helvetica is "most readable" or "most legible".

      A Comparison of Popular Online Fonts
      What Size and Type of Font Should I Use on My Website?
      Another Comparison of Popular Online Fonts

    25. Re: I don't follow by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Informative

      What makes you think professionals are even qualified to make the call? Presumably you're talking typographers, graphic designers, etc - artist types who couldn't construct a proper double-blind study to save their souls.

      While that may be true, there have been a LOT of studies on typeface readability and legibility over the past 150 years or so, of varying quality.

      After having spent some time reading these studies, I've basically come to the conclusion that we've learned basically nothing beyond three basic facts:

      (1) readers don't do well with "weird" typefaces except in ornamental or occasional use -- use something that's close to what reader are used to encountering when they will read more than a few words in the font
      (2) bigger fonts make reading easier
      (3) unless the font has really unusual features (e.g., some characters that don't look like "standard" letterforms), overall design can usually fix most problems -- i.e., doing things like tweaking size, space between lines, space between words, etc.

      The last point is really important. Most discussions of typeface legibility have to do with things like serifs, x-height, size of holes in characters like 'o' or 'p', etc. But as long as the letters actually still have standard shapes, you can usually tweak the size or spacing to make it just as legible.

      Beyond that, it's basically personal preference and what people are used to. There are studies that seem to show small effects for everything -- serif fonts are better, except when they're not. Justified text is better than ragged right, or the reverse. (Hyphens are bad, or they aren't.) Double-spacing is necessary, or it's not. Larger spaces after periods or punctuation help readability to a small extent, or they don't make a difference.

      Frankly, having read a lot in the literature of typography, I think the problem with most of these studies is that overall design matters most, and I'm not talking about the design of the study (though that's important), but rather the typographic design and use case.

      Some typefaces will perform better when spacing is tight, others seem better if more space is available. Some typefaces are good for people with various disabilities or vision problems, but readability may be different for those with "normal" vision. Some typefaces look better than others when a smaller size is used, but people express a different preference when text is larger... or when resolution is varied... or....

      Typeface is just one of many elements of proper design. And usually reactions like "Oooh, you simply CAN'T use that font on a screen!" or "No, no, no! That works well for newsprint and headlines, but no one would ever like long text blocks with that!" are just based on what people are used to, not what would actually be more legible or readable.

      For example, there are situations where people have come to expect serif or sans serif fonts. Expect people to complain if you don't use the standard choice in those situations. That's not to say one or ALWAYS better than the other -- it's just a combination of what's expected and the other design choices.

    26. Re: I don't follow by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

      The reason is that MS tweaks the hinting in its screen fonts to ensure minimal problems with alti-aliasing. Cleartype carries forward a legacy of supporting low resolution displays by optimizing the position of strokes to align with the pixel grid.

      Apple just throws whatever the designers get off on at Quartz and let it blur details into oblivion. Yeah, this will become a non-issue with high DPI displays but it is exemplary of Apples user hostility that they make adverse decisions for them and then claim it's for their own good. There's nothing even special about Helvetica other than hipster designers fawning over it.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    27. Re: I don't follow by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One quick clarification to my second point:

      (2) bigger fonts make reading easier

      Bigger fonts are more legible, but they generally make reading slower because it takes more time for our eyes to move across them. So, text that's too big can be annoying for reading, but it's easier to recognize and distinguish the characters.

      Once again, even in this case, overall design and use is more important than simply choosing the font or the size.

    28. Re:I don't follow by bkmoore · · Score: 2

      So what's so "tomorrow" about change from Lucida to Helvetica, which impedes legibility, requires more screen space, and makes the GUI appear fuzzy? Is that the definition of "tomorrow" now?

      Tomorrow, you will be one day older than today. Enough tomorrows and your eyesight will probably fade to the point where text on a computer monitor appears fuzzy. By making the font fuzzy today, Apple is providing their users with a taste of tomorrow. Next, Apple will probably shrink the keyboard to the point that accuracy suffers, as it inevitably does with old age.

    29. Re: I don't follow by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Serif fonts are readable: great for reducing strain from hours of reading under good conditions. That's why they're used for books (except some crazy tech books that get it wrong), newspaper text, magazine text, and so on.

      [snip]

      Sans-serif fonts are good for remaining legible under highly difficult conditions. That's why they're often the choice for billboards, for headlines (designed to attract you close enough to read the text), for advertising text

      Nope, nope, and nope.

      Basically, serif fonts are used where serif fonts are used because they're more familiar where serif fonts are used.

      Sans serif are used where they are used because they tend to be used in those cases. Readers are used to seeing them there.

      Numerous studies have come up with inconsistent results (for a good summary of what dozens of them on the subject say, see here).

      The takeaway message is readers find familiar design choices to be easier to deal with. Most books and long texts tend to be set with serifs, so we've come to expect that -- but well-designed studies have shown little difference (or inconsistent results). Web fonts tend to be sans serif, so we expect that. And I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say that sans serif will remain legible under difficult conditions -- if anything, studies tend to show that serif fonts have a small advantage (probably not significant) there. After all, serifs were inherited from Roman techniques for carving letters into giant stones, not in writing: I doubt Roman sculptors would have added things that seemed to decrease legibility to monuments. (The one "difficult condition" where sans serifs have a claimed advantage is in low resolution electronic situations, but recent studies have shown this advantage to be small or non-existent.)

    30. Re: I don't follow by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 2

      (By the way, I know it's "common knowledge" that sans serif fonts must be used on things like road signs, because they are so ubiquitous. But most of the studies on such fonts only tend to take into account point size or capital height as the standard for comparison. Factor in X-height, which in many serif fonts tends to be smaller and use at least a semibold or medium weight, and serif fonts can do just as well as sans on signs. Mostly, I think sans serif was adopted for things like signs because such things tended to be hand-lettered rather than typeset in the past, and it's easier to do sans than serifed fonts when doing hand-lettering. For headlines, sans probably was adopted because it stood out: when most printed text was serifed, a sans headline differentiated it.)

    31. Re: I don't follow by guruevi · · Score: 2

      Things like buttons and menus are automatically resized to fit the text (unlike Windows where about a decade or two ago you sometimes had to draw your own buttons).

      These days for pretty much any OS: If you follow the design recommendations at least, your UI will be forward compatible. If you use your own or deity forbid use an entirely different API that does require fixed dimensions (eg the way Java does) you may get some weird looking apps.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    32. Re: I don't follow by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sure, sure, 300 years of technology have it all wrong and a few "recent studies"

      Did you even look at the link? The guy looked at something like **50 studies** from the past century or so. And there have been at least a dozen more I've seen dealing with readability in a variety of fonts since that article was published in 2008.

      show one more way for hipsters to be "smarter" than everyone else.

      What do "hipsters" have to do with this?

      And by the way, frankly, I prefer serif fonts too for reading -- I think sans serif fonts looks stupid. (Actually I kinda dislike them in general and have been known to change my browser defaults to remedy this situation -- but my personal preference is different from what actual studies show about legibility/readability.)

      To mock your most absurd claim further (your last one): you can make sans-serif letterforms distinguishable, barely, with 5x3 pixels to work with.

      Yes, to mock you back: this is of course the most common usage case these days with high-res screens. :)

      Look, the question is about LEGIBILITY, not ability to render. At small enough sizes, serifs can't even be placed on fonts -- you're correct. But this has nothing to with whether people prefer to read 8-point or 10-point text in serifs versus sans. And basically there some studies I've seen recently which show people to prefer serif fonts for reading at smaller font sizes and sans only at larger sizes.

      But it's a small effect, and I don't know if it's actually significant -- point is, if you're dealing with enough pixels to actually display serifs, there doesn't seem to be a strong preference one way or the other. And if you have fewer pixels, serif fonts will essentially look like sans anyway, so again they're about equivalent.

    33. Re: I don't follow by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 3, Informative

      5K screens

      ... which are a ridiculous extravagance.

      Apple's current 5k screens are way too small. A 27" display properly goes at the opposite side of your desk, but it only takes about half that distance for pixels at this density to be, practically speaking, invisible.

      A 5k screen should be at least 32", and even that is pressing it. I'd say 36".

      I'm currently running 2 WUXGA monitors, giving me 3840 x 1200, at the far side of my desk. This is about the ideal placement, and while the pixels aren't quite invisible, they are small enough (for me) as makes no difference.

      A 5k screen at 27" is, in my opinion, a huge waste of money.

    34. Re: I don't follow by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      You haven't actually seen the screen yet have you.

      I don't have to. I can do the math.

      I don't dispute that they're beautiful displays. I was only questioning their practicality.

      What's certainly true is it will be far better than the setup you describe as having at the moment. You just don't realise it.

      No, it's not "certainly true" at all. I must have a certain amount of screen real-estate for my work, not extra pixel density, to get my work done. Beyond a certain reasonable limit, pixel density does nothing for me at all.

      In fact, a 27" monitor, at ANY pixel density, would represent at least a 60% reduction in my usable screen space.

      So don't be too quick to judge. It may be perfect for some people, but for work it's not very practical. At least if you do the kind of work I do. It would indeed be a gross waste of money.

      BUT... I agree that it depends on what you want or need. There are people who may not feel that way.

    35. Re: I don't follow by Arterion · · Score: 2

      You gotta watch those sans guys. Sometimes you can't tell the difference between l, I, and 1. It's a bit of an issue sometimes in computing, where sans is more frequent that serif. Makes sense. Yep.

      --
      "That which does not kill us makes us stranger." -Trevor Goodchild
    36. Re: I don't follow by dgatwood · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's general knowledge in typography that Helvetica is the most legible typeface.

      That's only true at very large sizes—say 5% of your total field of view or larger—and it is IMO highly debatable even at those sizes.

      At small sizes, particularly for people whose vision is less than perfect, Helvetica Neue makes Comic Sans look readable by comparison. It's not a question of the screen's resolution; no matter how precisely you render two letters that are separated by a distance that's less than your eye's circle of confusion, you still can't distinguish the strokes from one another.

      For example, on my brand new MacBook Pro with retina display, I have no trouble whatsoever reading Courier New at 11 point. It is easily readable, and every letter is visually distinct. Same goes for any number of other fonts, including the venerable Lucida Grande. On that same hardware, my eyes struggle with Helvetica Neue even at 18 point, which means if I want it to be readable, I would get substantially less content on the screen even when comparing it with a fixed-width, serif font!

      And the reason for the readability problems are a decided lack of legibility in Helvetica Neue. With Helvetica Neue 12 point, when I look at the word "pill", the "p" touches the "i" until I'm six inches from the screen. And depending on where the letter happens to fall, it may or may not be possible to tell the difference between "pom" (the juice) and "porn" (naughty stuff on the Internet) without getting ridiculously close to the screen. Sometimes the gap is visible, sometimes it isn't. In other words, the tracking is simply way, way, way too tight to qualify as legible. Remember that when designers use Helvetica, they painstakingly tweak the kerning to ensure readability at the target output size. As a general display font without that level of hand-tweaking, Helvetica and Helvetica Neue are crap.

      But Helvetica Neue's problem goes way beyond over-tight tracking. The most critical requirement for a font to qualify as "legible" is that you must be able to distinguish letters from one another. Helvetica Neue fails miserably at this, though not quite as badly as Helvetica or Arial.

      For example, look at a lowercase "L" and a lowercase "i" in almost any font, and you'll see that they are decidedly different heights. This is deliberate; it makes it possible to tell the difference between a pillow and a plllow, (which I believe is Ancient Egyption for an unreadable typeface, but I could be wrong).

      Not in Helvetica Neue. They're the exact same height. This makes it excessively hard to read text that combines those two letters, particularly at small point sizes where the gap in the lowercase "I" is often hard to see.

      And speaking of "I", is that a capital "i" or a lowercase "L"? If you're reading this in Slashdot's default font (Arial) or in Helvetica or Helvetica Neue, you probably can't be certain, because the two letters are nearly indistinguishable. So when I say I'm "Ill", do I mean that I'm sick, or that I'm three years old in Roman numerals? At 13 point, even on a Retina display, a capital "i" and a lowercase "L" can look literally identical, depending on where the letters happen to fall and how font smoothing interacts with them. And that's even with getting my corrected-to-20/20-vision eyes as close as a couple of inches from the screen.

      Legible, my ass.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  2. Nonsense by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The distortion is strong in that one. And now he must excuse his earlier brief glimses of reality.

    Btw. Helvetica is a classic font that is more narrow and easier to read than Lucida especially on print, on a screen it is best with good hinting, which Apple's fontsystem doesn't do.

    1. Re:Nonsense by Chelloveck · · Score: 4, Funny

      The distortion is strong in that one. And now he must excuse his earlier brief glimses of reality.

      This. Just the case of a fan trying to justify a questionable decision. UI has become a fashion show. Helvetica is this year's hem length. Flat, primary colors are in, and they're simply FABulous! None of the changes have anything to do with usability. It's all change for the sake of change, nothing more. It's the same reason dresses and cars change their outward appearance from year to year, regardless of any substantive changes. It's done to make you think, wow, this is new, I MUST HAVE.

      (Full disclaimer: I'm a sucker for upgrades. I always need to have the latest version of any software, regardless of whether or not it's actually better. Call it an OCD-ish mental disorder. I installed Yosemite yesterday, but unlike the author of the post I don't feel the need to justify Apple's fashion sense.)

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  3. Apple's take on Windows 8 by BenJeremy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ugh... when Microsoft throws out the old to make with the new, however stupid and ill-advised it really is, they justifiably get lambasted for it.

    When Apple does it, they are "designing for tomorrow"

    Um, ok, sure. Whatever. Ignoring good user interface design is still bad.

    1. Re:Apple's take on Windows 8 by MatthewNewberg · · Score: 2

      I think most people agree Windows 8 UI was a mess, it was a confusing mix up of desktop and tablet UI. It was more one foot in the future and one foot in the past.

    2. Re:Apple's take on Windows 8 by swamp+boy · · Score: 2

      Stone cottages and lamps? Pfft, kids. In my day we only had lean-tos built with sticks and leaves. And we liked it that way.

      Oh yeah, get off my lawn.

    3. Re:Apple's take on Windows 8 by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      If hyperbole is your argument, you have no argument.

    4. Re:Apple's take on Windows 8 by ray-auch · · Score: 2

      If hyperbole is your argument, you have no argument.

      Hyperbole ? We didn't have hyperbole, we were lucky to get kilobole let alone megabole.

      Oh yeah, get off my lawn.

    5. Re:Apple's take on Windows 8 by carnivore302 · · Score: 2

      lawn? In my days we didn't have lawns. We had a bunch of rocks that we had to carry outside our cave every day

      --
      Please login to access my lawn
    6. Re:Apple's take on Windows 8 by Teresita · · Score: 2

      Sure, the Ribbon was designed for the future too, not the past, it's super keen, just like the Edsel.

    7. Re:Apple's take on Windows 8 by NormalVisual · · Score: 2

      At least you had grass. Do you know how hard it is to get anything done when all you have to work with is a primordial subatomic particle soup?

      --
      Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
    8. Re:Apple's take on Windows 8 by mjwx · · Score: 2

      At least you had grass. Do you know how hard it is to get anything done when all you have to work with is a primordial subatomic particle soup?

      Primoridal soup?

      Luxury.

      I still have coalesce these hydrogen and helium atoms into a star...

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  4. Apple thinks ~100 dpi is the past by tepples · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Perhaps "tomorrow" means that Apple has done internal tests to show Helvetica as more legible than Lucida on its Retina brand displays. We've come a long way since 1984 when Apple made 72 dpi the standard, and the iMac ships with a Retina display now.

    1. Re:Apple thinks ~100 dpi is the past by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      One of the linked articles says:

      Lucida Grande presents open apertures, inviting the eye to move along sideways through the text. It has worked really well--for years, and for good reason. For any text, but particularly in interfaces, our eyes need typefaces that cooperate rather than resist. A super-sharp Retina Display might help, but the real issue is the human eye, and I haven’t heard of any upgrades on the way.

  5. I call BS on this article. by Bomarc · · Score: 2

    Though I'm not a bit fan of MS... They continually have shown that they have no problem leaving old architecture in the dust -- when it suits them. When 2K3 came out, they made a "code optimization" change that left all P1, P2, P-Pro multi-processors behind. Few of their drivers are compatible from one version of an OS to another (and they can be digitally signed to one version). MS has not problem leaving "old" tech in the dust.

    Because Mac chose a bad font .. don't attack MS.

    1. Re:I call BS on this article. by confused+one · · Score: 2

      I'm not disagreeing with you in principle; but, the driver signing issue isn't Microsoft's. It's the hardware vendor's fault. Microsoft's generic drivers come with the OS they're written for.

  6. They are all going down the toilet by jones_supa · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Whatever. Ubuntu Unity seems to be the only cool-looking UI left.

    1. Re:They are all going down the toilet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Troll score: 0/10.

    2. Re:They are all going down the toilet by marcello_dl · · Score: 2

      Ubuntu Unity seems to be the only cool-looking UI left.

      I can't say it's not cool looking. As long as all you have to do is look at it, you're set.

      My 2c on the topic. Apple knows what to do, the objective is not to make the best looking hi res desktop, it is to make the lower res desktop look like sh1t. Marketing 101.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
  7. I think it's lovely by DavidCBillen · · Score: 2

    I'm on an macbook air with the new Helvetica font. It looks crisp and clear and I was totally lovin' it when this popped up on my RSS feed. Any application I use that requires study of small text, such as code editor or word processor, typically supports more than the default system font.

  8. "The Right Choice"? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Karjaluoto doesn't recall many such changes that we didn't later look upon as the right choice....

    The opinion of whether or not it was the right choice is severely clouded by the fact that in the Apple environment, there is No Choice. The user Has To go along with what Apple decides is The Future.

    .
    Apple has built the walls so high around its empire, that few dare leave. Therefore, they must rationalize that whatever Apple decides for the future is The Right Choice.

    1. Re:"The Right Choice"? by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The opinion of whether or not it was the right choice is severely clouded by the fact that in the Apple environment, there is No Choice. The user Has To go along with what Apple decides is The Future.

      Precisely. Even when Apple's decisions are good, they generally end up inconveniencing a bunch of users for quite some time. I built my current desktop last year, and it's the first machine I built with no floppy drive. But I darn well still have a CD/DVD reader/writer, which is useful periodically. Do I use it everyday? No. Could I get along without it? Yeah. But once every few months I have a task where it's still a useful thing to have around.

      The main reason I refuse to buy Apple computers is because of lack of choice. I understand that by locking their users into a smaller set of choices, they make it easier to support. But I often want better options for my particular uses. So even if Apple offered a machine that is exactly what I want (probably at a price premium), I still wouldn't buy it -- because I don't want to support that kind of fascist approach to hardware, software, apps, etc. (And yeah, that's a strong word, but I truly believe it's a potentially dangerous development for free use of computers if everyone were to adopt it.)

      Apple has built the walls so high around its empire, that few dare leave. Therefore, they must rationalize that whatever Apple decides for the future is The Right Choice.

      Yes, all this justifying of "they ultimately saw what was best for the future" sounds like so many big companies' rhetoric. Google is notorious for this too in recent years, breaking their search for power users so it's only useful to people who can't spell or don't actually know the right word for what they're looking for. (Yes, Google -- I did actually ONLY want results with those particular obscure words in them.)

      That's not so much about "the future," I suppose, but the infamous Gmail redesigns are. I don't know and don't really care whether Google employees only use emails as equivalents to IM chats or whatever. I need to send emails every day that require me to do things like alter recipients, change subject lines, cc or bcc people, etc. -- and now I'm forced to do 2-4 extra clicks just to get what was there before. As someone who joined the Gmail beta via invitation very early, I almost abandoned Gmail completely last year -- until the unauthorized browser plugins came that basically allowed a reversion.

      Maybe email will become obsolete or turn into text messages in a decade or so. But that isn't true in most places now, and I don't appreciate the current giant corporation attitude of "we're going to make random changes to 'simplify' our user experience. But if it makes your life a lot harder, too bad." It's not just an Apple thing.

      All of that said, I don't really get what the big deal about a TYPEFACE change is. Resolutions are good enough now that legibility will be fine for just about any decent typeface. There's nothing "futuristic" about Helvetica or any other. Frankly, it's just some random change to UI that makes something look "new and improved" to differentiate from old, even if the actual changes "under the hood" are less pronounced.

  9. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Is this post really just an ad for apple?

  10. So on OSX you can't choose the system font? by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I don't often use OSX, but I'm a little mortified that the system font is dictated by the whims of Apple, instead of being selectable by the user. When I install Windows, one of the first things I do is to change the system fonts. In KDE I used to, but now I'm happy with the defaults. But it never occurred to me that there might be a modern OS that doesn't give you this option!

  11. Apple nolonger cares for minority users. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Legibility and usability is no longer of importance. Their focus group isn't working professional any longer, its fashion sensible teens and facebookers. When you throw away usability of an item to make it look "cooler" it's no longer good design, it fashion and fashion never lasts.

    IOs has required to have many of the usability "helpers", meant for people with disabilitys, turned ON for average users for some time now... and many of them hardly makes any difference. Sandboxing from hell makes several developers abandon the app store. There is NO real Mac Pro (WTF is up with that?).

    I used to have an iPhone, I used to have an iPad. I have replaced them for Androids... Why? Because my eye sight is too weak to use an Apple product. I still have a $3000USD Mac Book Pro but im not sure my new computer will be a mac. I'm not sure my eyes are good enough for me to be included in the Apple family.
    I was really happy when the retina displays came out because it gave me more legible fonts and and a sharper display, now the high res displays has turned OS design into a pissing contest to see who can draw the thinnest lines and use the least contrast... On my stationary machine I use Linux and Awesome (since there is no real Mac pro)... Its a tool, plain and simple, not something designed to use to impress others by looking "cool".

  12. if you think products are consumer driven. by nimbius · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple doesnt design for the past or the future, or even the present. Apple products are designed using focus groups and industrial engineering teams. once the nuts and bolts are completed, apple checks current fashion and design trends as set by the industry (Pantone for example sets your "favourite" color or scheme for the year) and conforms as necessary. Then, the largest marketing firms in the world polls their focus groups and create a multi million dollar campaign rivalling anything seen at even the american political level. The product is advertised on television, internet, billboards, and subtly through product placement in your favourite television shows until it becomes an icon or status symbol. Finally, a handheld computer that costs around $50 to make is sold to the general public for upwards of $300 as dictated by the finance team, with futher successors of the product priced more competitively as deemed necessary.

    arguably consumer driven development or manufacturing as its told in the fairytale of the free market has been dead for 50 years or more. Its eulogy was trumpeted by Jimmy carter in his malaise speech as he committed political suicide by telling americans that buying endless amounts of more goods and services was simply contributing to misery. Frankly, you buy what you're told to buy due to a combination of manipuative social psychology and indoctrinative marketing. No one really needs a lexus or the latest iphone.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
    1. Re:if you think products are consumer driven. by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      It does seem like corporations tell consumers what they want, how else do you explain the SUV.

      Uh, the SUV came about when the US GOVERNMENT demanded than cars meet some--for the time--crazy fuel consumption requirements, but trucks didn't. Americans wanted big cars, but couldn't buy them because the US GOVERNMENT had pretty much made them impossible to build, so EVIL CORPORATIONS invented the SUV by sticking a stationwagon body on a truck frame.

      But, yeah, blame the EVIL CORPORATIONS if it gives you a stiffy.

  13. Re:Storage is not same as GUI Design by TMB · · Score: 2

    The one that drives me crazy is removing the ethernet port on MacBooks. Which wouldn't be too bad if Apple's USB or Thunderbird ethernet adapters lasted more than 6 months before breaking, but I'm on my 5th in slightly over 2 years now... finally bought a third party one in the hopes that it will be less frail.

  14. Helvetica pre-dates the space program by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

    Both Apple and Microsoft have been using ripoffs of Helvetica for decades as their default font. That was what all the cool kids did back in the 1980s - if you didn't want to pay for a font, you paid some graphics artist to design one which looked a lot like it but was slightly different. Adobe bought licenses for the real fonts, and if you were in the printing industry and needed the real Helvetica you could buy Adobe Type Manager (originally for Mac, later for WIndows).

    All this announcement means is that Apple has finally decided to pay whomever has the copyright on Helvetica for the rights to use it as their default system font. The bit about "tomorrow" is just marketing spin to make it sound like some awesome new thing, when the font itself was made in 1957.

    And yes Apple abandons old tech and adopts new tech sooner than the rest of the industry meaning they're often at the forefront of tech which later becomes commonplace among PCs. You can cherry pick some of their successes (e.g. 3.5" floppy, abandoning optical drives) to make them seem brilliant. Or you could list some of their failures (e.g. firewire, lightning thus far, SCSI on the desktop, PowerPC which they abandoned for Intel) to make them seem like bumbling idiots. Apple isn't a prognosticator. They're making guesses about the future just like everyone else. For some reason people are less likely to remember their failures than with other companies.

  15. Hockey puck mouse by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Karjaluoto doesn't recall many such changes that we didn't later look upon as the right choice.

    He must have never tried to use the hockey puck USB mouse. Truly a case of form over function....

    1. Re:Hockey puck mouse by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

      People always mention that mouse... but fail to mention that the original iMac's keyboard was also utter shit. I mean $5 Chinese no-brand awful. Particularly sad when you remember how good their old Extended II was.

  16. Reality distortion field by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 2

    In spite of the grumblings of many, Karjaluoto doesn't recall many such changes that we didn't later look upon as the right choice.

    Or rather, the famous reality distortion field later convinced Apple customer's that Apple must have been right all along. Because otherwise they'd have to admit that they'd been had, and no one wants to do that.

    People who have paid a high price to enter a group tend to value that group, and people who are part of a group tend to conform to that group's judgments. It's terrible tech and terrible design, but it's great marketing.

    --
    Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
    You cannot wash away blood with blood
  17. Apple Don't Design for Yestserday, but for Fanboys by peppepz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This has to be the biggest piece of Apple adulation that I've ever seen. A practice of flattery over everything Apple do is always superabundant in most of the output of the American tech press: we're used, for instance, to the reviewers' pirouettes when they first dismiss some bad choice by Apple as irrelevant, and then they have to praise the reversal of that choice as the best thing after sliced bread in some later version of an Apple product.

    But in this case, well, Apple does something wrong (not even remotely comparable to the trainwreck that Microsoft did with Metro, I'll concede) that devalues the largest part of its already expensive product line, with the exception of the most expensive products, and without adding any value to those either, but Apple fan are happy nonetheless because... it's good to be shown how Apple does not care about who doesn't spend the most?

    What is this, an exercise of asceticism in the path of the true Apple worship?

  18. Yosemite by goarilla · · Score: 2

    What really bothers me though is the removal of old SMB support (I don't know if it was Mavericks or ML) and now
    the removal of the ipfw firewall. I had just gotten around to learning that and setting up a Launchctl plist.
    The fact that the green button now fullscreens an application is another change I don't like.

    1. Re:Yosemite by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 3, Interesting

      >Does anyone even use full-screen apps?

      Yes... on laptops. This is something I've observed watching my own customers work with software -- on desktop machines, few things are truly maximized. On laptops, nearly everything is maximized. I think it has to do with screen real estate. The more you have, the less likely you are to want to fill the whole thing with one window.

      Making the green button work to maximize is probably the right choice for the smaller devices. If they want a consistent UI across all devices, that's the right call given the prevalence of smaller devices.

      It makes the behavior match MS Windows... I doubt Apple considered this a plus, but I work back and forth across both OSes regularly, and that's one of the few kinks that has caught me.

      > At least Apple should put a toggle in system preferences so the user can revert the behavior.

      Yes, that would be nice. I agree. But that is explicitly what Apple does not do and what they generally consider to be A Bad Idea. Such toggles lead to low-use code paths in the OS, which means they don't get nearly the same amount of testing and they increase the complexity of the underlying software, increasing the risk of bugs in both settings. I've encountered that philosophy in many companies with large scale software -- better to leave out the option and give people something that you know works rather than put in the option and increase your bug risk.

      Question: Does anyone know of actual studies done to demonstrate validity of such philosophy? I've heard it described many times, but I don't think I've ever heard any research into it.

  19. Headline Tweak by ancarett · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple Changes System Font, Degrading Onscreen Readability

    There, fixed that wonky headline for you. I suspect you were posting with the new OS X Yosemite and just couldn't read what you were typing?

    --
    ancarett, historian and zombie gamer
  20. Never mind the new font, the new font looks fine by Jeremi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What really causes my eyes to bleed is the new "flat" buttons that don't really look like buttons; they look like text labels. The top of every window now looks like someone gave a junior high student a screenshot of a Mavericks window and told him to reproduce it using construction paper, scissors and glue.

    And the frosted-glass semi-transparency effects are just a pointless and unnecessary in Yosemite as they were in Windows. I get the feeling that the Apple UI team has run out of useful work to do, and now they are just changing things because they're bored. The next OS/X release will no doubt change them back, and then add in some other dubious changes that be reverted in the release after that.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  21. The very near future by OldSport · · Score: 2

    Exactly. Apple designs for the very near future, as in, when you download their new OMFG FREE operating system, you're going to need to upgrade your hardware in the very near future.

  22. Bauhaus by sphealey · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Highly accomplished designers tend to fall in love with and become obsessed by Bauhaus style in its various cyclical incarnations. The remaining 99.999% of the human race finds Bauhaus objects and systems very pretty to look and impossible to use for more than a few days, as documented by Jane Jacobs, William White, Tom Wolf, and many others. The designers believe the rest of the critics are blind and the human race is just using their wonderful Bauhaus stuff wrong.

    sPh

    1. Re:Bauhaus by sphealey · · Score: 2

      As noted, Jane Jacob's famous _Death and Life of Great American Cities_ addressed the affect of Bauhaus and other modernist schools of architecture and urban planning on everyday human beings. William Whyte's _City_ touches on many of the same issues. Wolfe's _From Bauhaus to Our House_ was written for more of a general audience and shows clear signs of the Wolfe-ian obnoxiousness to follow but is nonetheless a biting critique of those design schools.

      But there's a large amount of Bauhaus (and/or Chicago School) criticism out there; you may need to look a bit harder.

      sPh

  23. Re:Most Macs don't have Retina displays by BronsCon · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is just another sight that I was correct when I said that Apple computers are poised to become accessories for Apple's iOS devices, rather than the other way around. Apple, clearly, now caters to two groups: iOS device users (who will also be the biggest spenders on apps and media) and creatives. I don't see a problem with this, from a business standpoint it, as it makes perfect sense; I do see a problem from it from the standpoint of software developer and Apple user who loves his 17" MacBook Pro and wishes they'd once again target his demographic.

    Creatives will naturally gravitate to the best available displays, which means either the retina-class iMac or MBP, or the Mac Pro and whatever their display of choice happens to be, and Apple definitely has them covered. Helvetica looks just fine on retina displays (honestly, I think it looks just fine @ 1200p on a 17" display, too), so these users won't be likely to complain.

    They sell the most expensive hardware to the group least likely to buy a lot of apps and media from Apple, and I agree, that's the way to go. Users of iOS devices have voiced that they want the look and feel of their iPhone, iPod, and iPad everywhere they can possibly get it. Well, those use Helvetica, they also use flat neutrals, transparency, and blur. Apple catered to those users, who are likely to buy the cheaper computer and spend more on apps and media, without a second thought.

    If you're not in those two categories or, at least, don't follow either of those spending patterns, I won't say Apple doesn't care about you at all; they certainly care about anyone who wants to give them money, just just don't care enough to give a shit what you want.

    Again, I fully agree with this from a business perspective. Unfortunately, I have my own business, which comes with its own perspective, and if that's the view Apple wants to take, it's sadly incompatible with reality for a lot of professional users. It really saddens me, as they were making strides toward developing a huge presence in professional fields before Jobs passed; that has not only slowed, but reversed, since then. It doesn't seem to be hurting their sales, yet, but I imagine it will when they start making more obviously negative changes to OSX's UI. They'll still sell to iOS users and creatives, and they'll probably remain the college student's PC of choice; but, by crapifying the interface (observation of others in this thread, which I've already stated I don't necessarily agree with -- but, me vs them, they're the majority, so I'm using their opinion for my point) on lower-end-but-still-current hardware, which the mass market is more likely to be able to afford when they choose to buy Apple, they're removing much of the allure of their platform. This can't be a good thing.

    --
    APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  24. Yoesemite Helvetica Neu is tuned for small size by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    Although it can be, also note that the Helvetica Nueu that Apple uses in Yosemite is heavily edited to look OK on LCD displays - just like other screen tuned fonts.

    They also were trying to get the average size of sentences between the old and new fonts closers so programmers didn't have as much work to adjust for text changing sizes.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  25. internal testing at apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps "tomorrow" means that Apple has done internal tests to show Helvetica as more legible than Lucida on its Retina brand displays. We've come a long way since

    As a former employee of Apple's (i still go back and forth as a contracter, so posting anonymously) the days of Apple doing internal UI and usability testing are a long ways away... it simply isn't how their product development began to work under Steve.

    Under Steve, instead of paper prototypes and usability testing/science, it became much more "this is what I like and feels right, do that" and consumers agreed with him more often than not. Unless by internal testing you meant Ive liked how it looked when he squinted sideways to mandated it, then yes, I guess you could be correct.

  26. Re:Storage is not same as GUI Design by mlts · · Score: 2

    For me, it isn't the Ethernet port, but the Kensington lock slot. It would be nice to be able to tie down a laptop when not in use, so it doesn't have to be in a rental car in a seedy area of town. Bonus points for a mechanism that deters opening if the lock slot is in use, similar to what the old IBM Thinkpads had.

  27. Re:Courier FTW! by Whibla · · Score: 3, Funny

    vi is my shepherd. I shall not font.

    It soothes my tired eyes
    On screens of green; It speaks to me
    In the quiet of the night

    My code it doth record again
    And me to type doth make
    Within the paths of recursive loops
    E’en for the program’s sake

    Yea, though I work in a cubicle
    Yet will I not use emacs
    For vi is with me, and its colon
    Efficiency it does not lack

    My console it empowers me
    In the presence of my foes
    PHBs and HR drones
    The source of all my woes

    With Mountain Dew and salty snack
    I can code, and sigh
    How happy can one programmer be
    As long as he uses vi :wq

  28. Apple designs for yesterday by SoftwareArtist · · Score: 2

    Example: a few releases ago they made scrollbars thinner (making them harder to click), and also made them disappear by default. All this to "free up the space" that was being "wasted" by scrollbars. Now in Yosemite they're getting rid of window title bars in many apps, making it harder to move windows around. This is for the same reason: to free up space being used by title bars.

    My computer has a 24" screen. The space taken up by scrollbars and window titles is completely insignificant. The inconvenience caused by not having them is very significant. This is a design decision that might have been justifiable 15 years ago when a 17" monitor was considered large, but today is completely absurd.

    --
    "I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
  29. Future *purchases* by msobkow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Apple does not design "for the future". They design for future purchases.

    They drop support for older hardware to force you to upgrade, not because there is a technical problem mandating it.

    I'm running Debian on a 12 year old box. It's had a CPU upgrade (to a whopping 3.8 GHz single core) and some extra RAM installed (4G total.) It's perfectly usable, and fully patched.

    Had I bought a Mac, I'd have an unsupported paperweight years ago.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
  30. Oh yeah. :) by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most clickable things on the web don't have boxes to make them look like physical buttons.

    Those are hyperlinks. That's the generally accepted, even traditional, look for a hyperlink. You do know what a hyperlink is, do you not? When I click a hyperlink, I expect to arrive on a web page forthwith. That's what they mean. But that's not what these mean. These mean... random stuff. Normal words... are words. Underlined and/or blue-colored words are hyperlinks. Buttons, despite Ive's insane, drooling jihad against skeuomorphism, should look like you are expected to reach over and press them. This leverages the user's familiarity with the real world (something I admit I don't think I can assume you have) and creates a natural understanding of an implied action just by existing. An action, I might add, that is not hyperlinking. Because we use, you know, highlighted words for that. How would you react to a stereo that had no buttons, just words on its face? Is that intuitive? Of bloody course it isn't. You press a button, it depresses, it looks different, it clicks, you know to expect the action to occur. If it's a toggled state, the button stays in. Natural. Normal. Expected. But a word? Where's the premise for touching a word? Where indeed? Hyperlinks, you say? YES! BLOODY HYPERLINKS!

    Ives is probably the worlds foremost product designer

    Ah. Ah ha. Ha. Ha Ha Ha. Oh, that is priceless. Just priceless. Ive's work is at best, a mixed bag, and he surely isn't the world's foremost designer. I can think of any number of designers that make him look like the pretentious hack he is. Starting with any number of supercar designers, wandering off into audio equipment and musical instrument design, heck, there are even refrigerators that are designed better than Ive's work product. Also, Scott Forstall's ideas were far better in terms of design than Ives. He just wasn't minimalist -- but minimalist is not a synonym for "good", and in fact, very seldom is that the case.

    Also, look at the new Mac Pro. What a dysfunctional failure-storm. Can't install drives in it, doesn't fit in with other equipment well, requires desk warts to be even reasonably functional... expansion is a plug-addled nightmare... even the plugs themselves can be pulled right out, no security (physical or data) whatsoever. Oh yeah, Ives. I wouldn't let that guy "design" my kitchen. He'd probably take out all the plugs, knobs and buttons, color everything silver, and not allow silverware dividers in the drawers or pots on the stove. But you'd get a microwave with only one setting, and son, you'd be expected to like it. And you... well, you probably would. Lacking any kind of taste as you do. ;)

    You're one of these people that will always be a reactionary against change.

    Yes, absolutely, that's why I praise Mavericks so highly after years of buggy OS's left unfixed. That's why I thought "awesome" when the fully expandable Mac Pro came out, and why I bought right in. That's why I changed from Windows to the Mac. That's why I generally have the latest in home theater gear. That's why I have a Tesla on order. That's why I cohabit instead of marry. That's why I'm atheist and not theist. That's why I just took in a severely injured kitten. That's why I get such a kick out of messing with a Raspberry Pi, cobbling up little RPi projects we can use around the house. That's why my favorite literary genre is hard science fiction. That's why I have moved to SDRs, away from conventional radios. In fact, that's why I write SDR software.

    Yeah, I'm just terrified of change, you bet. You crack me up. Any other "insights" you might care to share while you're making things up out of the clear blue? I think Fox News is holding a place for you, better get right over there.

    Let me at

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Oh yeah. :) by kaladorn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My most recent Blu-Ray player has gone to the annoying habit of making its buttons hard to distinguish. You either have to run your finger along it to find the braille or else you have to jab around until you finally find one (thus lighting them up) and hope the one you hit was the one you wanted.

      What in the heck ever happened to having clearly identifiable buttons in favour of these mostly concealed soft-button things?

      Warning: I am about to use some bad language. Stop now if that offends you. ....

      Ah yes, I know what it was. Pardon my french: ****ing INTERFACE DESIGNERS.

      I actually had a Skype proponent (who seemed to be speaking for the design team) argued for aesthetics over function when I pointed out that on my laptop, the contact list font (not changeable on the version I have and accessibility settings don't change font size) was on the order of 2 mm. When one of the other users pointed out he headed an Academic department that was finding recent releases unusable on many modern monitors with 40+ aged staff, he got the same scornful 'it's all about design and aesthetics'.

      Well here's a notion for the UI designers: F*** AESTHETICS WITH A CHAINSAW.

      Aesthetics are okay if usability is high and complete. If not, and they are the reason why not, they are not just failure but brain-addled failure.

      If your user base is saying 'hey, we'd like your software to have readable font sizes for modern monitors' and those who seem to be fanbois or speaking for the product say 'our aesthetic is more important', then they will find their customers say 'have fun in the bankruptcy court, Fail Co.'

      I stopped paying Skype monthly fees because of this crap. It used to be something I recommended and bought add on apps for. Now its on my 'hope to find a replacement' list.

      I heard later someone indicating some of Skype may have come from a prior code base (an AIM product?) and that the original code which may have included UI code was an arcane mess and that the new engineers probably had no idea (or no budget) to fix the screwed up and unusable UI. I could understand that. It was the defense of the poor usability as intentional design that burnt my britches. I'd fire anyone that thought that on my development team.

      Ultimately, MS has made a habit of retraining users every time they switch OS by shuffling around where you can find common administrative operations (at least common for power users). This has been a PITA for IT people and others since Win 3.1. Yes, once in a while part of the re-org made some logical sense of regrouping functions or or hierarchically arranging them. Mostly, none that I could observe.

      Don't bother to retrain me unless there's a darn good reason. It's about one of the most off-putting part of software updates (including those on Android). The Ribbon Bar on latter day MS windows is an example. More efficient for the 10% hardcore users yes, a retraining time wasting PITA for the other 90%, HELL YES.

      Try to get it right the first time. Try hard. If you make a mistake, make changes careful, limited, an gradual for UI items. Explain the logic of the new UI functional bits. And don't make any unnecessary changes or force senseless and time wasting retraining on your users.

      Then again, I suppose UI designers are artists not engineers and always want to explore new things or see a way it can be done better. George Lucas had that when he made the newer versions of Eps 1-3 without the models, with awkward scenes formerly cut, and with Greedo shooting first. He thought we wanted to see the movies HE wanted to make. We actually wanted to see the movies WE HAD SEEN when we were younger which he ****ed up. (Not as bad as what came after with Ep 1 and product placement insanity....)

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
  31. Re:Most Macs don't have Retina displays by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    If you'd used Helvetica you'd have spotted it in time.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."