Slashdot Mirror


How Apple Is Giving Design a Bad Name (theverge.com)

ColdWetDog writes: Co.Design has an article by two early Apple designers on how the company has lost its way, and quite frankly, lost its marbles when it comes to user interface design. In the search for a minimalist, clean design, it has forgotten time honored UI principles and made it harder for people to use Apple products. As someone who has followed computer UI evolution since the command line and who has used various Apple products for a number of years, the designers' concerns really hit home for me.

Of course, Apple isn't the only company out there who makes UI mistakes. And it is notable that the article has totally annoying, unstoppable GIFs that do nothing to improve understanding. User Interfaces are hard, but it would be nice to have everybody take a few steps back from the precipice.

31 of 462 comments (clear)

  1. Apple Music by germansausage · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Apple Music player app on IOS used to be at least usable. Now I have to google to figure out how to turn shuffle on and off. Everything is obscure and hidden where it used to be at least semi obvious. Controls are tiny when they used to be big enough for even my sausage fingers on a small screen,

    1. Re:Apple Music by _Sharp'r_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please, please, please stop making everything an "intuitive" icon with no easy way to get text to tell you what a button is supposed to do.

      Not everyone is constantly using the same program and wants to just start guessing what menu icons do in the hopes of figuring out over time how to work the damn app!

      That's my biggest issue with these minimalist pretty designs, half the time you can't figure out what the stupid menu options actually do, let alone find the one you figure should be in there but who knows what it looks like. Don't get me started on mysterious gestures being required for an app.

      This lack of basic usability is one of the two major reasons Apple mobile products are banned for technical support in my family now. The other is the walled garden, but I digress.... /rant

      --
      The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
    2. Re:Apple Music by raxtich · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This. I hate the new music player with a passion. What used to take one or two clearly intuitive clicks is now so incredibly confusing that it borders on unusable. Now everything is behind generic "hotdog", "hamburger", and barely noticeable arrow icons and it's impossible to remember what's supposed to happen when you click any of them. I spend so much time cursing at it because I often choose the wrong icon and then have to figure out how to get back to where I was and what I was trying to do in the first place. It took me 20 minutes of fiddling around to figure out how to bring up the album for the currently playing song. I guess they want you to ask Siri to do everything for you, but that's just exchanging one frustrating interface for another.

    3. Re:Apple Music by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Funny

      I find it funny that people are complaining about inscrutiable icons on a site where the very name of the site sounds like the command prompt.

      That's because you can always type "command --help" and figure out what a command does. Or "man command." It's clear, discoverable, and consistent. Whereas this beautiful icon set has no particular explanation..........

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    4. Re:Apple Music by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 4, Funny

      ....because speech-to-text is a solved problem now, and always works.

      If you really insist on doing so, you can feel free to be the alpha testers for this non-working feature, and graciously supply multiple samples of your voice, to be analyzed with millions of others, so that this problem can be possibly solved in the future.

      In the mean time, some of us need to use our computers for work.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    5. Re:Apple Music by Sun · · Score: 4, Funny

      One may as well transmit it in ancient Hebrew

      Does that mean I finally get a Hebrew speech to text that sort of works? Cool!

      The fact it's ancient Hebrew kinda sucks, but I think I'll take that over the crummy solutions we currently have.

      Shachar

    6. Re:Apple Music by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Siri doesn't always work. It's not like the computer in Star Trek. But it works very well in limited contexts, and within these contexts is a powerful way of using your phone.

      Not to mention, there are times (more often than not) when you don't want to be shouting at your phone in public....

      I don't like doing that while at work....or in a restaurant maybe or bar...etc.

      This brings me to another pet peeve I have...when calling into tech support or anything these days...the auto phone robots want you to speak what you want instead of s simple press a number to make a selection. I HATE having to talk like an idiot to a robot in public....

      The voice thing is fun from time to time, but I don't like doing it out while in public, and I get annoyed when others are doing it in a restaurant or other crowded venue.....

      Gimme a button to push that is clearly marked!!

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Apple Music by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 4, Insightful

      WAR IS PEACE.
      IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
      SLAVERY IS FREEDOM

      I would call it Orwellian that Apple would make your computer better by limiting what it can do. I would call it Orwellian that Apple would market its self to young, hip, free-thinking individualists, then put a Berlin Wall in between you and the software you want to run.

      Sure, you can turn it off.... But most users won't even know it is there. They'll be completely clueless as to the reason why a completely legitimate piece of commercial software can't install or run, failing with a perplexing error about it being "unrecognized". I know this is what happens, because this is the point in the story where my company gets a phone call.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  2. I've watched as the iTunes UI deteriorated.. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    A lot of the functionality of the iTunes UI has fallen to the wayside. The UI has been dumbed down ("simplified") to the point that what used to be simple tasks are now multi-step functions.

    .
    Apple's reputation in design has been touted far and wide, so I though the design flaws in iTunes were my perception and/or due to my odd usage of iTunes.

    It is good to see others who have also noticed that Apple may have lost its way regarding user-centric design.

    1. Re:I've watched as the iTunes UI deteriorated.. by OzPeter · · Score: 5, Informative

      A lot of the functionality of the iTunes UI has fallen to the wayside.

      I dread every iTunes update as I know I will have to change things back around to the way I like them from the way that Apple thinks I should like them.

      And in a sort of related issue, the recent revelation that Siri won't answer music related questions unless you have a current subscription to Apple's music service is both worrisome and telling about the direction that Apple is taking.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:I've watched as the iTunes UI deteriorated.. by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is good to see others who have also noticed that Apple may have lost its way regarding user-centric design.

      TFA misses the point. Apple hasn't "lost its way" -- most of the design changes are clearly on purpose. It follows the classic cult paradigm of keeping esoteric knowledge for the "in-crowd."

      I admire Apple, and I use many of its products, so don't dismiss me as a "hater." Hear me out. First, Apple made inroads into certain cultural groups and convinced them that "Mac" was superior to clunky Windows. Then those cultural trendsetters came to be "believers" in all things Apple. A few really good products (e.g., the early iPod designs) helped cement this.

      Next step: make your interfaces LESS discoverable, and more dependent on "in-crowd knowledge." This reinforces the cult mindset, creating even more of a feeling that Mac/Apple product users are "in the know" -- knowledge about how to use things is passed between people directly by demonstration, rather than discoverable on your own or with a manual. (No manuals shipped with products anymore either, so unless you specifically go online and try to download one, you're forced to network with other Mac/iPod/iPhone/iPad/etc. users to figure out how to do anything.)

      This is the creation of a sort of what cultural historians and sociologists sometimes call an "Imaginary Community" of like-minded folks. You divide up the world into "Mac users" and everyone else.

      But non-discoverable interfaces also have the side effect of creating patentable UI structures (like icon sets, or special gesture interfaces), which other non-Apple companies will have to license, if they hope to be compatible with Mac users' expectations. That's the logic likely behind all of the big companies pushing obscure graphical icons ("What the heck does that weird trapezoid with a swirly do?") -- the MS Office Ribbon, Gmail getting rid of text on buttons, and Apple are all trying to win at the same game: they want users to get "locked in" and used to their particular interface, which is only understandable with practice, deliberately NOT discoverable. Discoverable interfaces allow people to switch companies/software/products -- the big tech companies want you to be so stuck with their product that you won't even know how to use another's product.

      That's the reason behind TFA's main complaint -- UI design is no longer about ease of use. It is only about that when a company wants to become established. After that, these companies want to force customers to stay, which means creating custom "parts" which are not interchangeable with anyone else's. In the old days, those parts were literal physical things; now they are stuff like icon sets and specific learned (and hopefully patentable!) non-discoverable gestures and UI tricks.

      IBM lost the war back in the 80s when it tried to be an open standard for everyone, which just led other companies to pull ahead after all of IBM's hard work in setting the standard. All tech companies learned that lesson.

      So, TFA completely misses the point. As TFA notes, Apple products strive to be beautiful -- that's part of the "wow" factor that makes you want to join the cult. Then you join and learn all the esoteric gestures (used to be secret handshakes, now it's how you swipe with three fingers and click or whatever), which you pass along to your fellow cult members. You also learn to decode the secret symbols of the cult by clicking on weird ambiguous pictures rather than self-explanatory words.

      Apple knows exactly what it's doing. Too bad the author of TFA hasn't figured it out.

  3. Take a step backwards in time ... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Back in the old days before graphical user interfaces, test UIs were generally usable because the design elements were much more limited. No graphics, no fancy fonts, no dark green on almost dark green links (like the ones that appear in the story titles of slashdot).

    Tools like MC (midnight commander on linux) have an ease of use and simplicity that is hard to beat. Same with Borland's non-gui IDEs for BASIC, C/C++, Pascal, and dBASE.

    HTML, which was supposed to separate content from presentation, no longer does, thanks to "advances" that have strayed too far from first principles. We have seen the enemy, and it's not just those who write the code, but also the marketers who demand more bling over functionality, and the customers who respond to bling because BLING.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  4. PROGRESS BARS!!!! by MikeDataLink · · Score: 5, Interesting

    My biggest gripe with Apple and Microsoft right now is the lack of progress bars throughout the OS. For example, when Windows 10 boots the first time it goes through all this "Let's get started..." "Just setting up a few things..." etc. But you literally have no idea how long it is going to be before you use the computer, and on a tablet device it can be quite some time. I feel like this is a huge UI miss. One step forward, two steps back.

    --
    Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    1. Re:PROGRESS BARS!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Disk activity leds. I want them back.

  5. Dear Editors by Hardhead_7 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Why can I never figure out where a link is going? Read back over that. There are two hyperlinks in the summary. One is "an article by two early Apple designers" the other is "lost its marbles when it comes to user interface design."

    So which one of those goes to the article that the summary is about? It's the second! That's so counter-intuitive! Seriously! Why do I have to click through your links to figure out what you're linking to?

    1. Re:Dear Editors by thegarbz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Why do I have to click through your links to figure out what you're linking to?

      Design lessons from Apple?

  6. Pissing me off at the moment by OzPeter · · Score: 4, Interesting

    With the latest version of Safari, Apple removed from the right mouse click* contextual menu the ability to create a new tab. So instead of "right click, select the top item on the menu, left click" the only way now to create a tab is to either use the file menu or keyboard options. The contextual menu option of creating tabs has been like that for years and years and was not broken and I knew of no complaints about it. Removing it would have been a deliberate action that as far as I can see serves no purpose as the right click contextual menu still exists. And to add insult to injury the item that is now on the top of that list is "close tab", so every time my muscle memory kicks in I end up closing a tab I was viewing rather than opening a new tab.

    * Yes, you can use non-apple mice with apple computers, and yes the right mouse button does work. And in general I dislike using Apple's mice and only use 3rd party mice (And Microsoft makes good mice and keyboards that I like and use as does Kensington)

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    1. Re:Pissing me off at the moment by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, the good web browsers have all died already.

      IE has been pants-on-head retarded since IE9.
      Chrome's fame went to it's head, and now it's all strung out on bad design philosophy and arrogance. Only a matter of time until it dies.
      Mozilla used to be lawful evil, but has injected its self with Chrome DNA so many times that it morphed into a flaming fox and became chaotic evil.
      Opera is an undead paladin... It used to be so holy and pure, but now it has turned. Once the holy magic of Netscape filled its body, as it did Mozilla's. The evil power of webkit flows strongly through this one, as it does through all 'modern' browsers.
      Safari is the last dark weapon Sauron forged before his death.

      Three tabs for the Millenians under the sky
      Seven for the neck-beards in their basements of stone
      Nine for Windows users, doomed to die
      One for Dark Lord Jobs on his throne
      In the land of Cupertino, where shadows lie.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
  7. I'll post what I posted on another site by pherthyl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    tl;dr Criticizing design is easy. Any grad student that's taken a human interface class could write this article (and many do) illustrating how a certain design violates the criteria they just learned. But despite their background I would only start to take these guys seriously when they propose a touch interface designed for phones which has all the properties they espouse and retains all the utility of a modern smartphone. Sure it would be great if every single feature was immediately visually discoverable. But how do you do that when you have so little screen space? Do you sacrifice content for UI? Let's see their great alternative.

    To respond to their points in detail:

    Apple has, in striving for beauty, created fonts that are so small or thin, coupled with low contrast, that they are difficult or impossible for many people with normal vision to read

    You know how they say lead with your strongest point? Right off the bat the first thing they claim is that Apple's fonts are impossible for many people with normal vision to read. Nevermind many, show me a single person with normal vision that CANNOT read Apple fonts and I will save their life, because clearly they have a brain tumour and need treatment immediately.
    Why would anyone take this article seriously when it leads with provably false claims? Anyway let's move on..

    These principles, based on experimental science as well as common sense, opened up the power of computing to several generations

    Of course much of the science was based on a mouse and keyboard interaction on a computer, not touch on mobile.

    However, when Apple moved to gestural-based interfaces with the first iPhone, followed by its tablets, it deliberately and consciously threw out many of the key Apple principles.

    This is why those interfaces work. Let's take a scrolling view for example. The traditional approach is to put a scrollbar in, and that's what most everyone was doing before the iPhone came along. The scrollbar is discoverable and it provides visual feedback. Sounds good right? Well it turns out using a scrollbar on a mobile device is a miserable experience. Swipe to scroll turned out to be the vastly superior method, and as soon as you learn to swipe (my 1 year old figured it out watching me) it is trivially easy to operate without any additional visual clutter.

    Same with other gestures in the iPhone.
    Deleting a row in a table. You can put a button on every row to make that discoverable at the cost of high risk of accidental deletion and visual noise, or you can make rows swipe left to expose the delete function. The swipe once learned in 5 seconds is vastly superior for the rest of your lifetime using it.
    Accessing the notification centre by swiping down from the top. You could put a button on every single screen, or you could save the space and use a swipe. Clearly the swipe is far preferable to using up screen space on a 4-5" screen.

    A woman told one of us that she had to use Apple’s assistive tool to make Apple’s undersize fonts large and contrasty enough to be readable.

    So a person with a visual impairment used accessibility options to correct for it? This is a problem how? Later they confuse font weight with font size. Both are adjustable in iOS, of course if you really need very large fonts you will run into some sizing issues in some apps.

    What kind of design philosophy requires millions of its users to have to pretend they are disabled in order to be able to use the product?

    A vision impairment is a disability. A minor and common one, but still one. By the way, the common way to correct this disability is with glasses. I have poor vision, but never had an issue with reading Apple fonts because I've corrected my vision by wearing glasses. The author's implication that someone with a disability should be asha

    1. Re:I'll post what I posted on another site by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is why those interfaces work. Let's take a scrolling view for example. The traditional approach is to put a scrollbar in, and that's what most everyone was doing before the iPhone came along. The scrollbar is discoverable and it provides visual feedback. Sounds good right? Well it turns out using a scrollbar on a mobile device is a miserable experience

      What sucks is that they're taking the mobile solution, and applying it to PCs (and websites viewed on PCs). Minimalist UIs on my huge 1650x1050 monitor look downright ridiculous. Just how much space does one need for content? My screen has plenty. Give me bug buttons with text! And scrollbars? No, I don't want it hidden. Show it all the time and make it big and chunky enough for me to click on easily!

      Basically, acknowledge that mobile and PC user interfaces can and SHOULD be rather different. This principle will never change.

  8. Not Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not sure who originated it, perhaps it was Apple, but the entire minimalist "flat" design paradigm is a UI shipwreck. Yet, everyone is jumping onto the badwagon, regardless of how awful it is. Apple, Android, Windows 10, even Gnome and to a lesser extent KDE are leaning in that direction.

    It's pure shit. There's no definition or contrast. Where once you had hierarchical menus you now have hidden widgets, triple dots and hamburgers. Hamburgers? WTF? You have to swipe with two, three, four fingers? There's no control object, not even a visual clue of any kind? It's very much like the command line, but you have to touch/click it.

    When Microsoft came out with the ribbon, I thought, this is bad. But, when the flat minimalist shit started, it was SO much worse. I look forward to the return of the discoverable and logical UI.

    1. Re:Not Sure by JoeyRox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It originated from Jonathan Ive, Apple's lead hardware designer who now have purview over the software's aesthetics as well. Ive hated the skeuomorphism elements of iOS and IMO went completely overboard with the horrible flat UX that is now iOS. For example changing buttons to a text label without even a border? WTF? One of the most basic elements of UX since the dawn of GUIs.

    2. Re:Not Sure by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple's adventures in skeuomorphism were pretty awful(the 'stitched leather' iCal UI? 'Game Center' and its straight-from-vegas textures? the period where every goddamn UI element was made to look like brushed aluminum, despite the fact that neither CRTs nor LCDs can actually emulate the look of reflective metal very well? iBooks hideous woodgrain shelves?); but whoever ended up carrying out the purge seems to have forgotten that there is a difference between slavish visual copies of real objects and the visual cues necessary to make a conceptual model of a real object usable.

      A 'button', say, doesn't need to look like any particular physical button; but if it doesn't have some sort of border the 'a specific location that can be pressed to provide some sort of input' concept becomes a lot more confusing, because now you have to guess what the location is. You don't need to(and probably shouldn't) do some horrible bitmap clone of the buttons on your favorite 70s stereo; but you can only cut away so much before you lose the metaphor and end up with something that is neither an intuitive evocation of a real world item nor a new mode of interaction; but just sort of sucks.

  9. You're doing it wrong by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    Drag all icons off the launcher bar. Drag command prompt to launcher bar. Open up as many command windows as will fit on your screen. Boom. Done. Well, you could also optionally set your bash profile to start emacs in the command window, depending on your UI preferences.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  10. Good article by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I read the article, expecting a typical no-thought blog rant, but this post is actually quite good (although it's rambling and too long). They discuss the principles of Dieter Rams, and show how Apple is horribly failing to follow them. They track the changes in Apple's interface guidelines over time. So there is actually some useful information in this post (unusual). Here are their main two complaints, things that Apple is missing:

    1) Discoverability: The iPhone has plenty of gestures that don't have visual cues....it's often unknown whether clicking on text will perform an action, the latest iOS has "25 secret features." They shouldn't be secret, they should be discoverable to the users.
    2) Consistency: Sometimes the back button is there, sometimes it's not. Sometimes gestures do things, sometimes they don't. The "mighty mouse" gestures work differently than the trackpad gestures, etc (more examples in article).

    This chart really captures the changes at Apple, showing the changes in their UI guidelines over time. They've lost an entire section called "managing complexity in your software." Maybe Apple thinks software is no longer complex?

    Form follows function, that is, you have to make your product work first, and then make it beautiful. If you have a beautiful product that doesn't work, then you have a "gold-plated brick."

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  11. Apple UI Mistakes? by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like the whole industry, not just Apple, has succumbed to the same ethos in UI design. Gone are borders and shading. Can't have more than one obvious hamburger menu icon. It is all white on white other than lots of rectangles filled with imagery, probably updating the imagery frequently. Past that controls are hidden swipes, slides, presses and all guesses.

  12. Old vs. New Apple in one anecdote... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When Apple started making PowerBooks, the logo on the top cover was oriented so that it's upside down when the laptop is open. Why did they do something dumb like that? Because user testing showed that people naturally tended to orient the logo so it looked right-side-up to them before trying to open the laptop. In other words, it worked better for the user to orient it that way.

    Unfortunately, that meant that someone looking at a PowerBook user saw the logo upside-down. How awkward! How unflattering! How inelegant! This simply won't do! So, the change was decreed: logos must be oriented to look nice to the audience, and users just need to train themselves to deal with it.

    Old vs. new. Optimized for use vs. optimized for appearance and impression.

  13. Re: Like systemd by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 4, Informative

    Look again, please. systemd breaks stable network configurations by unnecessarily replacing dhcp, it breaks daemon-startup debugging, it breaks decades of log analysis tools designed to work with text based rather than proprietezed binary logging format, it's repeatedly broken kernel startups, it's broken the stable model of attached storage being mounted under /media, and the attempts to replace all of "/etc" with a "stateless Linux" model is breaking tools that never volunteered to have anything to do with systemd. It's also breaking cross-platform compatibility of daemon initialization configurations.

    A "light Linux user" may not see these issues becuase you wouldn't necessarily be debugging failed daemons, writing cross-platform tools, or trying to integrate stable business software with this latest fad for configurations.

  14. It's not just apple. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's all these moron programmers out there. Really a UI interface to get to a function is you SHAKE the phone. What the fuck is that?

    I really want to blame the horrible professors at the universities, but I know it's these stupid under 30 programmers that are doing shit that they think makes sense and ignoring real UI design rules. but ohhh it looks pretty!

    Dear mobile app programmers, pray I don't win a lotto because I will be making a sack of doorknobs and looking for each and every one of you that code with the stupidest UI ideas. It will be at night when you least expect it.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  15. Bad Apple by Ranger · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bad.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  16. Re:Relevance? by multimediavt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Mobile changed a lot about how UI should work.

    As a UI designer I can unequivocally say, No, no it did not. Mobile devices created a few caveats but did not change a lot about how UI should work. I am sick of these new UI/UX people that seem to think that all the lessons learned about good UI over the previous 30 years is somehow obsolete, meanwhile they keep making UI/UX mistakes that were made 20 years ago! The research and lessons learned from the 1980s and 1990s still apply to UI design today on mobile devices as they do on desktops and laptops. One major caveat being the input device and the corresponding minimum "click" area difference between a mouse pointer and a finger. There are others, but most are subtle variations on established best practices with only a few exceptions for things like gyroscope or accelerometer interactions.

    We did flat interfaces well, and long before we tried faux 3D interfaces. So that argument also falls flat. We didn't replace long established iconography for things like shuffle and repeat settings with textual representations. Why? Because text takes longer for the brain to process! Good UI depends on established graphical standards and commonly used iconography to be successful, building on successes of the past. Now, everyone seems to think they can reinvent the wheel and are failing miserably.

    I am all for innovation and new things, but not at the expense of efficiency and usability when applied to UI/UX design. Ive and these other UI/UX idiots need to be slapped and sent back to design school for UI/UX or just stick to hardware!