Heading over the cliff while whistling
I was going through Rory's blog the other day, where he has 'Apple's UI department going insane?' up for reading. He has some good points to make on where and how brushed metal is used, some great points on the Finder, and wraps up his points on the upcoming 10.4 with:
Come on Apple, at this rate Windows users might actually be pointing and laughing at us for how bad our UI looks by the time Longhorn ships sometime this decade.
The thing to keep in mind about Rory is that he's the maker of the excellent NewsMac software for OS X, and not long ago quit his day job to write code his heart out for the platform full time. He's not just a user with a couple of quibbles, he's a developer with an investment in Mac OS X.
I've written blurbs about this here and there throughout my posts, but the bottom line is that there's a huge elephant in the room when it comes to Mac OS X: The UI is going to hell in a hand basket and everyone is just averting their eyes.
If you're a Mac user, part of you already knows this deep down, but you're glossing over it because it's just too nasty of an idea to really want to acknowledge. I know this because I've run the idea by some of the most hardcore Mac people I know, people who think that the hockey puck mouse actually rocks and was an unappreciated breakthrough that the world just wasn't ready for yet, and their answer is "Yea, it's pretty messed up. But it's still better than Windows".
My neighbor's 3 year old gets around faster than Steven Hawking, but I sure as hell wouldn't put money on him at a track meet. I'm not kidding around. You're setting a very low bar, which means you know there's a problem, and it's why the topic makes you feel uncomfortable.
We can point to specific instances of something sucking in terms of UI on Mac OS X, and while that has validity, it doesn't change the basic feeling of wrongness many are starting to feel in general. We're not talking about some widgets being ugly, or specific apps having problems. Interface paradigms are being filled to an extreme, then overflowing, and then taking on whatever will let it keep working. And the problems go much, much deeper than that.
I'm not going to go hoity-toity on you, and start throwing out terms like muscle memory or Fitts's Law or overfilling paradigms. People have done that with regards to Mac OS X, and will do that, but as we all know those people are anal, just too picky, have some agenda, or are picking out little things without looking at how great things are in general. Or at least that's how they're shouted down.
See, here's the rub -- it's gone well past the anal pixel-pushing designers now. Just about every Mac developer I've talked to believes the Mac OS X interface is in serious trouble. One I had a conversation with last week, who works for a public company that makes image processing software for OS X said politely:
I wouldn't say it sucks, but I do have grave reservations.
They're kind of freaked out, and to be honest much of that comes from being powerless to really do anything about it. No, it doesn't mean they want to use Windows, but it does mean they're becoming increasingly unhappy with what they're looking at and seeing. They're extremely worried by what they're seeing that we aren't able to see yet, which isn't far away. It's just... off.
Now, these are developers. They can tell when something is ugly, but that's generally opinion, not science. However they do use their computer constantly, and are expected to create a good UI, so when it comes to basic tenants that Apple has told them to follow, and why, many have given themselves a surprisingly good education because they want to have a successful business. They may not always know why things are feeling off, but they know something is wrong.
The really fascinating thing about the situation is that while I talk to many of them, and know their feelings on the subject, no one is really saying a whole lot about it. Again, I wish I was kidding.
Right now, if you asked all the large heads in the Mac world if they had 'reservations' about the state of the UI in Mac OS X, and where it's going, they'd all nod while looking around to make sure no one was looking.
In some cases it's because they're just limited by what they can say for legal reasons, and in other cases they make their living off the Mac, they aren't large, and why piss off their rabid-yet-loyal customers. And, if you're a shareware author developing for the Mac platform, every bit helps your business. Pissing off someone at Apple marketing isn't going to do you any favors.
At the end of the day though, part of them knows that them saying anything won't really change anything. After all, well-known people have pointed out their reservations in the past... however these were primarily hard-core UI people. And a lone voice, no matter how large, has little chance of really having an effect.
No, for anything to really change at this point it would take noise. A lot of noise, from many directions, and many people. Yet no one is really making any.
Comments (51)
Posted by: Carl at February 2, 2005 03:45 AM
I agree that there are some kinda funky, kludgy things sneaking at the margins. Click through needs to be standardized. Brush metal is spreading to new apps for no reason. Etc. But, to really move the conversation forward, I think we need to talk about this a little more concretely, what sucks and why.
Ok, the Finder sucks. Why? How do we fix it?
OTOH, iTunes is fairly tight. Well, except for the whole "controlling iPod Photo" thing. That should totally be moved into iSync. Hmm…
Other ideas?
Posted by: Alex at February 2, 2005 04:17 AM
There is a lot of truth in your's and Rory's sentiments on the state of UI in Mac OS X. John Gruber has covered this a lot as well. But as you say, the problem is that nobody is listening and things aren't going to change any time soon ... HIG seems to change all to often though.
Posted by: matt at February 2, 2005 04:22 AM
note to herve - rtfa read the..yeah, that one
ive chatted with the drunk one on occasion and ive read the posts, im newer to the world (i switched before it was cool) but i kinda sense that some of the natives are restless, namely the elders; and when that happens bad shit is gonna happen.
the os has come a long way, but its running shorts are starting to look kinda goofy.
ive noticed that keyboard shortcuts arent system wide. it is kinda annoying that apps made by the same company have different keyboard shortcuts. (particularly preferences). the whole metal for programs that interface with a real world digital device thing i get, but there seem to be some hints.
if i may would someone make a list of gripes, or point me to where one is. particular gripes, im kinda curious.
Posted by: Claire Fl at February 2, 2005 04:52 AM
Apple has been coasting on their reputation for good UI for *years*. 50% image and 50% reality now.
I saw the new Mail application for Tiger on Apple's site and do not want to look at that beast all day! How do no designers in Apple say "this is ugly! we can't go with this!" I do like how spotlight looks, but it is all so mixed up. Time to start over with no pinstripes and a few ways of working.
I am not ditching my 15" iMac (couldn't if i wanted to, student loans!) but Tiger look is doing nothing for me.
Posted by: Carl at February 2, 2005 05:18 AM
Tiger does a lot for me, actually. I think Spotlight could change the way people use computers.
And I have no beef with Dashboard widgets violating the HIG. They're in a different realm, marked out by the Exposé-esque greying, so that everyone knows what's up. As long as the widgets are only used for very small tasks, it doesn't matter that they're sorta confused. OTOH, the widget dock sneaking up UNDER the regular dock-- WHAT UP WITH THAT?
Hmm, adding to my concrete list of gripes:
The Dock. The metaphor is confused. Is it an app launcher, status bar, what? Why is the trash can in it? Why are documents are whatnot free to mix in with minimized windows on the left side? Whatever happened to "Docklings"? Etc.
And also, closing the last window in an app should never (or almost never) close the app. It's like some sick windows disease to do that.
Posted by: Oliver at February 2, 2005 05:41 AM
I gotta repeat Claire's comments. I have looked forward to every OS X release and I am looking forward to Tiger for various reasons as well (spotlight, automator, QT 7). I am not, however, looking forward to yet more UI steps in the wrong direction. Mail does look awful, and as Gruber has pointed out, what's with the look of the edit window in iPhoto05? Sure it looks kinda nice, but it's not consistent with anything else in the OS.
But I'm not completely pessimistic. About 1 or 2 years ago it seemed that every single app with a brushed appearance had different close/minimize/zoom widgets (window widgets, as opposed to dashboard or konfab widgets... confused? i am). Some were closer together than others, some were slightly more inset. At least this seems to have been remedied, so there is hope Apple will deal with some of the other issue, in their own time..
Posted by: Skatch at February 2, 2005 05:51 AM
Normally I'd try and trim this to keep it concise, but this is DrunkenBlog, afterall.
This isn't about the general topic, which I agree with, but the specific point Carl made about closing an application's window causing the application itself to close. I've seen others gripe at this, but it's something I like. From the point of view of consistency, it's not good. Admittedly that's a big point, but apart from that I find it being used selectively and in situations where it's useful.
For example, in early incarnations of OS X it always annoyed me that if I closed the System Preferences window, the System Preferences app stayed open. Why the heck would I want that? The app only has one window, so if I close it that means I want it to quit. I was glad when they changed it. Same thing with Calculator.app. If I close the calculator window, I want the app to quit. Calculator is not an application you can do anything with unless the window is open, so I can't see a point in keeping it running if the window is closed.
This behaviour of quitting an app when closing a window isn't a freak OS X behaviour - it was around all the time in classic, so why is it people are complaining now? Were there complaints back then that I missed? (Not a rhetorical question, I'm curious.)
Anyway, on the main subject of the post, I agree in general. However, I see OS X moving in two directions simultaneously. I see much more focus on the overall unity of the system than with OS 9. I'm talking about things like the iLife package, which is very well integrated. The interface design of the individual apps is also superb. I'm aware there are many bugs in iPhoto and iMovie, but the overall concepts they present are easy to grasp as well as being powerful. e.g. the way iTunes works makes for one of the simplest, and at the same time most powerful, music programs out there. Also, who remembers all the control panels from the classic era. There were 3 or 4 ones related to internet connectivity. I had a fairly good grasp of the system but even I'd get confused. Was I meant to look in the TCP/IP control panel, or the Internet control panel, or maybe Remote Access or Location Manager? What a mess. Hence, overall I think OS X has headed in the right direction.
At the same time the details of the interface need a lot of work. The inconsistent click-through situation drives me crazy sometimes, the difference in behaviour between aqua and metal windows (I don't care about the looks, it's how it acts that is important), the separate APIs Apple has for it's own menubar widgets and third-party developers' widgets which are not consistent in end-user behaviour, etc. etc. I don't want to take up more space in this already long post but essentially I strongly agree with most things that people like DB, John Gruber, John Siracusa, and others have to say.
Posted by: ssp at February 2, 2005 05:52 AM
1. You're being overly optimistic in claiming that developers are people who can tell when things are ugly.
2. I've been concerned about the OSX UI for a long time. (Not that it makes a difference other than making my life worse.)
3. However wrong Apple's decisions are from a UI point of view they may make business sense. In cases where I'm ashamed to show stuff to Windows users as they could ridicule the 'superior' Mac interface, usually nothing happens as the 'general public' just doesn't care.
4. I could go on lamenting for ages now (because of 2.)
5. Apple needs a few years of slow business for a change so they have the time to refine and unify all the UI stuff. (?)
Posted by: Oliver at February 2, 2005 06:02 AM
Just finished reading the ThinkMac blog entry and Rory Prior makes a good point:
I was look at Keynote 2 and Pages last night and it's strange, these applications are beautiful Aqua citizens, a shining example of how to do a big OS X app right - it just seems to be the OS (and maybe iLife) teams that are loonies.
It's true, i have iWork05 and although it's not perfect (I do find Pages to be more of a layout program than a full blown word processor, and the HTML export just sucks) they are both nicely designed apps. They look and feel great.
When i switched over from Windows in 2001 one of the things that struck me was the much nicer feel of OS X - even in those rough, early days. I also quickly noticed how some apps had it, and some didn't. OmniWeb 4.x always felt smooth, sleek and clean and despite some major technical shortcomings it was a joy to use. Camino OTOH never gave me the same feeling.
Today, Camino, FF, Safari and yes even OmniWeb 5.x don't provide the same feeling that OW 4 did/does. Safari comes closest i guess.
It's difficult to define what was so great about OmniWeb 4.x and put it into an easy to use recipe - if i could I'd be rich! ;-) But, for me at least, it shows how putting a bit of extra thought into UI can really enhance the user experience.
Posted by: malcolm m. at February 2, 2005 06:14 AM
Mr. Drunken Batman, part of the problem is that you yourself need to collect those "blurbs you have throughout your posts" so they are in a concise place telling what is wrong.
I remember this specifically because you had fantastic observations in your MacWorld 2005 post where you talked about all of this. I remember it was a big block of text, but when I went back to look I scrolled through pages and still didn't get to it.
All I remember was you ranting about iPhoto and its panels and how you learn the paradigm not the app, but damned if I can find it in your post! You had stuff to say about dashboard too, but who can find it all in twenty five pages of text? Please consider taking all of those insights and putting them in one place for people to rally around.
Posted by: Carl at February 2, 2005 06:37 AM
1. Changing the System Preferences behavior really annoyed me. I use it at least once a day, and I don't see any reason to close it (or most apps for that matter) between uses. OS X is a big kids' OS. Leaving apps open in the background shouldn't and generally doesn't slow things down, so why close them? I have about 16 apps open now, and most of them are not open for any particular reason.
Anyhow, now I'm forced to choose between enduring the start up lag of Sys Prefs later or having a cluttered screen. I guess I could hide it, but why? ITunes can run windowless, and everything else should be able to run windowless, too.
2. Following the general thread of these comments, I think we should make a wiki of some sort to list out and detail complaints about UI devolution. I could host it if there's interest and no one else wanted to do it, but I think it would be better if DB sponsored it, since he actually has the audience of multi-slashdotting recipient.
Posted by: Johnson at February 2, 2005 07:03 AM
What I get from the original post (and spending half an hour reading the Mac World 2005 post which I had skipped) and the comments is the question "What makes Windows Windows™? And what makes OSX OSX™?"
As a cross platform user who spends equal time in both, I can immediately tell the difference between the two but not because the UI makes me more productive in OS X, it is just prettier. Expose does make me more productive but that is a feature.
Posted by: Andy Bontrager at February 2, 2005 07:33 AM
I'm not going to go hoity-toity on you, and start throwing out terms like muscle memory or fitt's law or overfilling paradigms. People have done that with regards to Mac OS X, and will do that, but as we all know those people are anal, just too picky, have some agenda, or are picking out little things without looking at how great things are in general.
How amusing. I do hope readers took that as sarcasm. I know 'DBM' as an acquaintance since he gave a talk at our company and one of the PPT slides included fitts law and muscle memory and minimizing personalities versus maximizing personalities.
After basic color theory boot camp I could not look at the blue and orange of XP the same again. Yuck!
It came in handy when I half switched. I picked up an iBook when they went to the G4 to test one of my java apps, but use iTunes on windows for my iPod. I never used OS9 so I can't compare.
iTunes works exactly the same on Windows as it does on 10.3 except the menu items are at the top of the screen in the menu bar instead of being attached to the app.
This should mean they can benefit from fitts law and muscle memory on OS X because you can flick your mouse to the top as it is a big target and the menu items will be in the same place (for printing or saving). Makes a big difference on a trackpad!
On Windows these are attached to your iTunes window and are in different places on the screen whenever you want them because your window can be in different places.
Seems bad for Windows and less efficient but I find that because the name of the app in the menu bar of OS X pushes everything to the right it does not help muscle memory at all!
You still have to hunt down the menu item on the screen. If it is named iTunes the FILE menu will be much farther to the left than if it is named Adobe Photoshop or Airport Admin Utility. So OS X is just a little more efficient there just means you have to hunt less.
BUT!!!
Many Windows users have their applications maximized and filling the whole screen and alt+tab to switch or switch between them on the task bar.
So your Windows app always has its file and edit menus in the exact same place at the top of the screen which makes it equal or more efficient like this.
I do think the user experience in OS X is nicer for some things. I prefer using my iPod on the iBook. I prefer browsing images on Windows, thinkmac is on the right trail there. The context sensitive file explorer is so much nicer.
I am curious why one commenter said Spotlight will change how people use computers? I've used Google Desktop and it rocks and yes makes things nicer but it already exists. I use Gmail and it already does the same smart folder stuff through my browser. Outlook has saved searches which I started using last year to not miss messages in my inbox. Users will love this but it already exists off the Mac.
Don't flame! Spotlight looks neat and easier to support for other apps but the features are already there on XP or in your browser. So users have already changed how they use computers just not on Mac yet.
Makes me remember how on the applerumors forum everyone said skype was going to change everything when we had been using it on XP for a long time!
Posted by: jerk off at February 2, 2005 07:57 AM
No, for anything to really change at this point it would take noise. A lot of noise, from many directions, and many people. Yet no one is really making any.
Would u shut the fuck up already and go use Windows or Linux? No one cares. If it bothers you that much, Apple will survive without you. Go use AMD so we don't have to listen to your performance MHz obsessed shit. Use linux and see what bad UI is. Go use winblows with its spyware. I'm tired of this crap from you. Ignorant ramblings to get page hits at Apples expense. It's like your on the payroll. That why you don't say who you are? Apple is not the platform for you. It is obvious u would be happier elsewhere and just bash all things Apple. I'd buy u a shitty emachines if you'd leave. Good riddance.
Posted by: Oliver at February 2, 2005 08:06 AM
And do endeavor to appear sane.
I think 'jerk off' missed that part. :-p
Posted by: Carl at February 2, 2005 08:08 AM
What I mean by "change the way people use computers" is "change the way people who don't already use QuickSilver use computers." Like QuickSilver, Spotlight can be set to activate when the users does some key combination, say Command - Space.
Ok, yeah, big deal?
If (and it's a big if) Spotlight is as fast as QuickSilver, then suddenly the fastest way to launch any app on your system is to press command-space, start typing the name of the app and then press command-o when it's at the top of the list. Of course, you can already do this with QuickSilver and a number of other apps, but the point is that Apple is bringing it to the masses.
Well, the masses of Mac users.
So, like a good 2% ~ 5% of all users.
I know it doesn't seem like a big deal, but QuickSilver has really changed the way I think about launching apps and whatnot. Back before QuickSilver, I entertained the notion of buying a VT-100 or something to have a terminal next to my laptop. That way, I'd always be able to use the terminal, just by moving my hands to a different keyboard. After all, all the cool movie hackers have at least two keyboards and like seven screens. Basically, what I wanted to do in the terminal is what I'm using QuickSilver for now, launching infrequently used apps quickly. Spotlight will hopefully take this to the next level, by also letting me create Smart Folders for stuff like "Documents I've worked on this month", "this week", "today", etc. Suddenly, the Finder will become more iTunes like, and you'll stop caring where on the disk your files are stored, as long as it's easy to browse through the albums (Smart Folders in the analogy I'm working on) and you have your playlists (regular folders, I guess). We'll become a little less tied to the whole folder-hierarchy metaphor, which ultimately can be a good thing, I think, because what's important was never where your files are in the hierarchy but how you get to them and use them.
Posted by: bonaldi at February 2, 2005 08:58 AM
That new mail.app is terrrrible, and they surely can't be proposing it seriously.
Then again, I said that about the horizontal menu for selecting labels and that's still with us. Grrr!
Posted by: Rory at February 2, 2005 09:46 AM
It would be nice to see a lot more noise being made about this, people in the on-line Mac world seem to be able to bitch every minute of the day about the absence of the PowerBook G5, so why not about the erosion of the UI in OS X? The UI is the heart and soul of the Mac platform, once that's gone all you have is an expensive shell after all.
I think when we talk about these issues it's a good idea to highlight what Apple has done right and praise them for it, and then contrast it to what they've done wrong - shame them into fixing the things they've not done right. If we just launch an all out assault it will have the effect of damaging the public perception of the platform and Apple will continue to turn a deaf ear. There is a heck of a lot of ego at Cupertino, the trick I think will be understanding the psychology that governs it and using it to our advantage.
Posted by: Carl at February 2, 2005 10:07 AM
On the one hand, I'd like to see "Improve the UI!" become the new "Me wantee PowerBook G5!" on the forums.
On the other hand, Slashdot just had a long debate about the wisdom of the one button mouse. True, it looked like the one button mouse won the debate, but it was a sort of intense battle.
Is the larger Mac using public ready to rally around "Give Me Standardized Click Through Behavior or Give Me Death!"? Maybe, maybe not. But we can try.
Posted by: Luke at February 2, 2005 10:07 AM
DB, I think you need to do a post on what spotlight is really all about. I was at WWDC and took particular interest in Spotlight and it's API (The MetaData API). Too many people are seeing Spotlight as being "smart folders" and/or a Quicksilver/LaunchBar equivalent. None of the stuff I have read has really touched on the potential of Spotlight for changing how we interact with a filesystem or anything along those lines.
Thats something I would like to see discussion about anyway.
Posted by: superfunkomatic at February 2, 2005 11:22 AM
maybe it's just growing pains. some of these interface changes seem to pop out of nowhere - really didn't see the brushed metal coming out, especially when the aqua interface was such a radical departure already.
plus the development and growth of software supporting macs has burgeoned since 10.x, tough to keep up with such rapid change.
they've said in the media that OS releases will be farther apart after 10.4. maybe that'll give them time to hone the interface and focus on standards for the future.
i'll take a bit of interface oddity and innovation over the piece of crap that windows xp has become - the only evolution there seems to be patches for security, no real functionality growth since early in the NT days.
Posted by: Ron Yochum at February 2, 2005 11:32 AM
The User Interface of the Mac is disjointed program to program. There are lots of minor annoyances, such as Safari unable to sort bookmarks without having to manually drag them about. Email is buggy and I really want to use it, but then Entourage is worse, so I'm stuck. The bottom line is that you should write apple with your comments in addition to posting them here. Just don't bitch about the problem, offer a concise, logical solution. I can tell you that several of my suggestions have been or will be implemented.
Posted by: Tenebrous at February 2, 2005 11:46 AM
Yeah I agree. Let's get a list together. Let's start a petition. Let's do something and make it concise, clear. Y'all can email me if you want. I'm a tech writer by trade, so I might be able to help in the writing aspect. :)
Posted by: mindflayer at February 2, 2005 11:59 AM
it is amusing - sadly so - how some of the Mac zealots can take no criticism of the platform. I love my Mac(s), but I do see much room for improvement. The inconsistent behavior drives me nuts. The Dock is usable, but not optimum. Focus behavior is often screwed up, and that's very annoying.
Posted by: viswakarma at February 2, 2005 01:00 PM
All I have heard so far is people complaining about how the Mac OS X GUI is deteriorating to the point of becoming as inconsistent as the Windows GUI, the ugly platinum look, or how good some aspect of Windows is. There are many types of applications that run on the Mac, and each will require its own mode of operation. Also, the user population is varied with differing personal preferences. Most people don't use keyboard short cuts when they startout, since most are not touch typists. Designing a GUI that satisfies everybody's taste and point-of-view is almost impossible. Your reference to the "elephant in the room" is very significant. We are all like the proverbial "blindmen" describing what the elephant looks like, from our own "touch-and-feel".
May I therefore suggest the formation of an Apple Mac OS X User Interface Group, with HI Experts, Users and Application Developers to develop a new set of Interface Guidelines for Mac OS X in a holostic fashion.
Posted by: Rory at February 2, 2005 02:25 PM
"There are many types of applications that run on the Mac, and each will require its own mode of operation"
Yes, but the majority will share at least some similar concepts and interfaces. Just because one might be for editing music and another for editing a picture, doesn't mean one should have blue buttons and the other should have grey buttons, or that one should have a toolbar at the top of the window and the other at the bottom.
Most people don't use keyboard short cuts when they startout
Regardless of whether they are used by all users or not is no argument against the shortcuts being consistent between applications or there is a reduced incentive to actually learn them in the first place. Advanced functionality doesn't have to make an application any more complex for novice users, keyboard shortcuts are a great example because not knowing them won't stop you getting from A to B, but knowing them will let you get from A to B faster.
May I therefore suggest the formation of an Apple Mac OS X User Interface Group, with HI Experts, Users and Application Developers to develop a new set of Interface Guidelines for Mac OS X in a holostic fashion.
We desperately need something like this, both to help developers and hopefully to pressure Apple in to doing the right thing. I'd be happy to contribute my ideas to such a thing and I'm sure a lot of other developers would too.
Posted by: zeb at February 2, 2005 03:47 PM
The bottom line is that you should write apple with your comments in addition to posting them here. Just don't bitch about the problem, offer a concise, logical solution.
Aren't Apple supposed to be UI gods? Aren't you paying them to do it right in the first place?
Posted by: Ben Donley at February 2, 2005 03:59 PM
I think the whining is wrongheaded. I can understand if developers don't like their tools. I don't know the first thing about putting together an Aqua GUI app, as I've never tried, so maybe there are heinous, glaring issues with the HIG and the widgets. Dunno.
But the general complaint that the UI is going to hell in a handbasket just does not make sense to me. I don't even hate the new Finder. I never feel surprised by the UI, now that the Dock icons are impossible to miss. I feel like the whiners are the folks that install alternative docks, de-metalifize their applications, and install every crappy shareware app they can get their hands on. Yeah, of course your UI looks kludgy.
Also, although I've been using Macintosh computers since 1984, (I was 4.) I think that the GUI for Windows XP is excellent. It uses Fitts' law perfectly, everything has plenty of contrast, and it's relatively consistent. It's like they've put the GUI in a windtunnel with enough users' grubby little hands on it for so long that all the surprising elements have been worn away. When a UI whiner states without evidence that XP's GUI sucks, they lose a lot of credibility with me.
My only problem with either GUI is when performance degrades. I run Mac OS on a 700 mHz iBook with no QuartzGL. It's like typing with duct tape glue on your fingers. When an application crashes in such a way that all the other applications are horked for what feels like an hour (DVD Player, motherfucker), that's when I hate Mac OS.
Similarly, when XP's non-buffered windows start writing all over each other, explorer grinds to a halt, and ctrl-alt-delete takes 90 seconds to respond, that's when I hate Windows.
But the GUIs are great lately. On both sides of the fence. Anyway. </rant>
Posted by: drunkenbatman at February 2, 2005 05:21 PM
I updated the text slightly, due to how a this part was being misconstrued:
I'm not going to go hoity-toity on you, and start throwing out terms like muscle memory or Fitts's Law or overfilling paradigms. People have done that with regards to Mac OS X, and will do that, but as we all know those people are anal, just too picky, have some agenda, or are picking out little things without looking at how great things are in general.
For the record, I'm not saying that those things don't have value, just that it's how the comments by usability guys have been treated. Hopefully it's clearer now.
Posted by: Jon H at February 2, 2005 06:24 PM
Maybe a little UI variety isn't a *bad* thing at this point - in terms of marketing the OS.
From a usability and consistency standpoint, yes, it's good if everything is the same.
But when you're trying to get people's attention, it probably helps if there's some significant variation in the appearance of programs. If a non-Mac user walks into an Apple store, and they see some program running that has a distinctive look, it may pique their curiosity, and it would certainly register in their mind as a distinct program. (Important when your platform has a reputation of having no software.)
If such a person walks into an Apple store, and all the apps look the same, they're more likely to mistake an app for one they've already seen. No interest is created. No awareness of new Mac software, no clue that there's more software out there than expected.
It's like if a car dealer had a bunch of different cars, which all looked largely the same, despite being different years and models. Trying to interest a buyer in the new year's high-end luxury sedan or the new hybrid might be difficult, if they look exactly like the budget sedan he tried a few years ago.
I suppose it could be summarized as a way to avoid the "been there, done that" problem in sales and marketing.
Posted by: Justin at February 2, 2005 07:13 PM
See, here's the rub -- it's gone well past the anal pixel-pushing designers now. Just about every Mac developer I've talked to believes the Mac OS X interface is in serious trouble.COME ON. You can't just make a statement like that without backing it up.
Posted by: Doug at February 2, 2005 11:14 PM
Ben,
I have to take exception with you saying XP has an "excellent" gui.
1. Back to 2.x. The "close button" was on the top left side of the window. Great. Except it wasn't a button. Microsoft made it a menu. So, with Win 95, LET'S MAKE A NEW CLOSE BUTTON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WINDOW!! AHHHHHHHHHHHH!
2. The new XP theme has a big, fat title bar. UGLY!
3. The window, as you mentioned, write all over each other. UGH. I didn't realize how much this BOTHERED me until I got my iBook (back in 2001).
4. Control panels. Loads and loads of tabs, advanced tabs, advanced buttons, too small windows (designed for low res monitors of a different age). Confuses the hell out of me when I go back and use it now.
5. "Start" to shut down!
6. Novice users are confused by the filesystem hierarchy. True. So, let's develop an auto menu. Great. Now they have the Start>Programs hierarchy. Watch how you move the mouse or the WHOLE MENU may close on you. Start over. (It looks like this was reparied in XP. Not sure.)
7. On XP Professional, go to "Find Files" (or whatever the wording is). Instead of being able to type in a file, I have to play 20 QUESTIONS WITH THE SEARCH DOGGIE!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
I could go on and on and . . .
And we complain about a metal texture. Hmf.
Doug
Posted by: Carl at February 3, 2005 12:04 AM
My favorite XP beef is the widgets next to the clock (I forget what they're called). Basically, Win 95 introduced this ability, and over the years, more and more companies started using the clock area as a good place to put free advertising for ATI, Real Player, whatever. So, by the time XP came out, the average user had about twenty icons next to the clock, and the only ones they ever used were the printer one (which disappears if you don't act fast) and the sound one. MS thinks about this really hard, and decides to decisively solve the problem:
It randomly hides them without prompting from the user. Even if you manually click the un-hide button, it still rehides them if you don't get to clicking within a few seconds.
Um, what?
Compare this to the OS X menubar. Let's say I hate the Bluetooth icon. Hold command. Drag the icon off. It's now gone forever. Or, I can turn it off in the Bluetooth Preference pane, either way.
Let's say I want them in the order sound, airport, battery, clock. Hold command, drag them into order. It's that easy.
I mean, would it really kill MS to allow people to manual take control of their own computers?
Posted by: at February 3, 2005 01:41 AM
this post is kind of trollish... drunken troll
Posted by: Skatch at February 3, 2005 03:32 AM
Funny you should pick the menubar as the OS X equivalent. I think you're right that it's the closest thing to Windows' taskbar widgets. If OS X ever got 90% marketshare I'm sure we'd see the same kind of useless clutter there. The problem is that the API Apple forces third parties to use doesn't allow any of the niceties you describe - cmd+dragging to reorder or remove items from the menubar. We'd end up in the same kind of mess as Windows users are in now because each menubar item would have some non-obvious process to go through for removal. There are things in the system architecture that need fixing.
Posted by: Skatch at February 3, 2005 03:39 AM
On a different note, I think a lot of people don't realise how much the Mac benefits from a relatively small marketshare. It leads to a close developer community that follows interface recommendations and conventions. For example, what's to stop an application using an installer that sprays stuff all over the dock and puts aliases on the desktop? Nothing technically. It's not regarded well in the Mac community so anyone wanting to please the Mac's picky users (I mean that in a good way) doesn't. But you can bet if Macs grew into a significant marketshare again there would be many companies who wouldn't care and would do whatever it takes to get their product plastered all over the system.
Posted by: Carl at February 3, 2005 06:54 AM
Skatch-- I'm aware that only Apple can put widgets in the menu bar right now. But are you aware that third party developers used to be able to until (IIRC) 10.3?
I don't know 100% for certain, but I'm pretty sure the reason they changed how the menu bar widgets work is exactly to prevent the kind of thing that happened in Windows. Developers had the menu bar taken away from them once, so they'll generally avoid it from here on out.
You make a good point about the small size of the community being helpful though. Still, size isn't everything-- Linux is a bit of a mess. I haven't used Linux in a while, so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they still trying to sort out the clipboard? It seems like a universal standard for the clipboard shouldn't be that hard to agree on. And yet…
Posted by: Dave at February 3, 2005 11:27 AM
After a 16 year break, I switched back to Mac about a year ago. Overall, the UI is adequate, and if XP is an average 5 of 10 rating, I'd give Panther about a 7. Definitely better than XP, but many things could be improved upon. Now, a few thoughts:
(1) Tiger is still a pre-release. I've been playing with the seeds since early November. Not sure about how Apple does it, but typically I'd expect that things go thorugh five phases.... (a) get individual features/functionality working, (b) get all features.functionality working together, (c) get everything working stably, (d) improve performance, (e) polish the UI.
The key point I'm trying to make is that the UI polishing is likeliest to happen towards the end of development. (Note, I'm not saying _new_ UI features/functionality, rather, polishing - like grouping toolbar icons and using an Oulook-style source list.) My take from what I've seen is the latest seeds (latter half of January) have the desktop version clearly in 'b/c/d' phases with the bulk of work now beginning on 'd'. The server seed is nowhere near phase 'c' yet. JMHO.
Is it possible that you're jumping the gun a bit to consider the screen shots you linked to for Mail as alreay gold yet?
(2) I definitely agree - there are some glaring inconsistancies in the UI. Why does iPhoto always close when you close the window but iTunes doesn't? Yeah, I know, it doesn't makes sense to run iPhoto windowless... still such reasoning, however logical, is extremely obscure to the averger user (you know, half of the term UI).
(3) My biggest peeve? Why is it the when I minimize an apps only window I can see a different app but the keyboard is still focused on the minmized app? Even after a year, I still find myself sometimes minimzing Safari because I wanted to quickly glance at something in, say, my inbox in Mail... decide to not read the new email yet, hit Command-Q... only to have 6 tabs of webpages disappear. Not sure whether this is a UI feature, quirk, behavior, or stupidity. I just know it's counter-intuitive to a switcher who still has to use XP in my day job.
(4) Finally, Spotlight. Andy asked about it. Luke hinted at it. Carl almost had it, but ultimately IMO missed on it.
Andy, I honestly don't think Spotlight will change the way people work with computers, at least not that much. A little maybe. But it WILL change how developers create apps. Like Luke said, it's all about the MetaData API. Google doesn't have this - they only have searching on a growing list of file types. XP doesn't either - it only has a performance killing indexing service.
Consider this: you have a database of metadata of everything... files, names, content, dates used, everything and anything you can think of. An individual app can not only write to it, it can query it. Imagine the possibilities when you include how this database engine - Core Data - is part of the OS.
Let's take a stock tracking app. First off, all the app needs to contain are the Core Data classes and code to work with them. MetaData API calls can do scans of any notes, emails, document content (including PDFs), anything stored locally. If you're online, you can not only make calls for quotes/news, you can save these for future reference. Now with the .MAC API you can push/pull data and/or backup things if the user has an account.
I'm not sure if I'm making sense here. Maybe it would be clearer if I talked about iTunes and how it uses metadata. My point is this - if you think Google or XP already has Spotlight because it has simple search functionalities... if you think Spotlight alone is going to change the way you use your computer... I think you're missing the point.
Posted by: Rory at February 3, 2005 01:54 PM
Is it possible that you're jumping the gun a bit to consider the screen shots you linked to for Mail as alreay gold yet?
It's possible, however at this late stage of the game I'd expect the UI to be more or less finalised. While redesigning a GUI might seem like a trivial task, it often isn't and even just redesigning a set of icons can prove quite time consuming.
Posted by: Jonathan I. at February 3, 2005 04:08 PM
There seems to be lots of gripes of how Tiger's Mail looks. Sure, the buttons are both non-standard and uglyish, but you seem to forget at least two things. Firstly, it is still very much work in progress and the look is about to change. It has changed since WWDC and could change agai. Secondly the bloody application does _work_ much better than it previously did. It's faster, stabler. It supports Spotlight and much more.
Then another thing, everyone I've talked to and even here among you, my very critical friends, the opinion is that Pages looks great. I do not know if it is just me and my old eyes, but I find the text rendering, that was one of the major features of the application, to be crappy. Yeah, crappy. The text on page is not rendered with sub-pixel antialiasing as it should but with grayscale antialiasing, which sucks atleast on my little powerbook display. "world class typography" my ass.
So, please tell me if it does the same thing or if it is something wrong with my installation (or eyes).
Posted by: M at February 3, 2005 09:05 PM
Skimmed passed the comments. Looks heated. Bet this doesn't help.
Yes, I am a longtime Mac User and oft-time Apple Fan. Yes, OS X is much better overall than Windows or Linux. No, that doesn't mean it isn't garbage, it just means it isn't the rancid seepage at the bottom with a layer of fungus growing on it.
Yes, Aqua always was crap. Yes, that's due to really bad design (or possibly no design at all). Yes, both those facts were plainly evident on first sight of the OS X screenshots. Yes, a few almost microscopicly small improvements eventually dribbled out, with long pauses between them, that made it significantly better (ie not quite as astoundingly awful) than it started as. Yes, adequate would be a gross exaggeration of its high point. And yes lately the quality (or for that matter simple baseline consistency of appearance and behavior) has been dropping fast.
To summarize over the last 5 years of OS X development:
The Aqua appearance always was ugly, childish, and watery. Now it's not even a coherent theme.
The Aqua UI always was the sort of uncoordinated junk heap of disparate parts that people used to use Macs to avoid. Not much has changed, other than the rapid reacquistion of a degree of clutter* that took more than a decade to overgrow the Mac GUI. Too bad none the Mac GUI's power came back with it. *Including the addition of umpteen special purpose docks instead of you know doing something useful with the main one.
The GUI's responsiveness has vastly improved, they've got it all the way up to sluggish.
Feature set. Antique. But good news sometime in the next six monthes we'll be able to buy a new version that might finally have a few things like syncing and searching that would've made nice staring points in 2000.
Well, that's one user's perspective.
And remember, I like Macs. It's Apple I've grown to despise as I use OS X and watch its development.
Posted by: Charles Wurther at February 3, 2005 11:31 PM
Oh God 'drunkenbatman', what a fucking TROLLISH post. Artful job! You go on about how there are all these problems but don't mention ONE of them!?!?!
Fucking troll.
Posted by: Jeremy at February 4, 2005 04:46 AM
The UI is going to hell. One of the things that makes Windows and Office a PAIN to use is the fact that MS seems to try and make them intutitive for about a week, and then just throws controls wherever is easiest. I hate dealing with Windows.
The fix is never where the problem is. Case and Point: removing an application from the system tray forever, is not something you can do from the system tray.
Office is suite of programs that looks like 18 rooms from differnt hotels from throughout the galaxy tossed into one building. No consistancy.
iWork and iLife are starting to suffer this too. I rue the day when some dip-shit puts "Save" in the edit menu of iPhoto. All of iLife, and mail should be as consistant as possible because they are sold as a series of like products from one pubisher who talks shit about they great easy to use UI night and day. Well the UI is easy to use, until each app makes you learn a new UI for that app! That's bullshit!
This shit would have never gone over back in the days when apple took pride in UI over all else.
Pint strip vs brush metal is also a justified bitch in my opinion. Pick one and keep it, system wide. Dashboard Wigets are OK because they are supposed to look qwirky and do almost dick.
Apple claims its bread and butter is UI and ease of use, they need to back this up.
Its only OK to have 2 ways to do the same task if it always works both ways. If Command+P is changed to bring up preferences in mail....will the hardcore will just lay down for it and talk about how much spyware osX doesn't have?
one UI standard needs to govern EVERY product Apple ships. No system will be perfect, some things will always be able to be made more simple, but the batman is right that they are simply just letting the MAIN FOCUS of apple software be slowly eroded for no apparent reason.
THE UI NEEDS AN ENEMA. Windows suck doesn't makes apples suck somehoe suck less, it just makes windows suck more.
fix it
OSX updates remind me of netscape bloat and die.
Posted by: Carl at February 4, 2005 06:14 AM
Jeremy, I'd like to point out that when OS X first came out, there was no standard key command to open preferences. It was only around when Safari came out (mid-10.2) that Apple decided to standardize on CMD-comma. Since then, it's spread pretty far, and most apps use it. It's still not at 100%, but I think pretty much all the apps from Apple use it— Unless you can think of a counterexample?…
Posted by: jacobolus at February 7, 2005 02:28 AM
If someone were to create a wiki of Apple UI gripes, as was suggested above, with some sort of organization, or even if someone would collect all of such gripes (like take people's emails), it would be wonderful. There are a number of amazing people who use and develop on Macs, and if a number of them came up with sane suggestions to Apple, it might be possible to get an audience. As it is, there are too many disparate bloggers (or perhaps too few) each pointing out inconsistencies.
Sure, Apple should do something about all of these problems, but blogging about it isn't the ultimate answer. Those who are angry about Apple UI should take action.
Posted by: Jon H at February 7, 2005 02:45 PM
"Sure, Apple should do something about all of these problems, but blogging about it isn't the ultimate answer. Those who are angry about Apple UI should take action."
The way to do that is by submitting bugs, not by setting up an impotent bitch-wiki.
Posted by: Greg at February 9, 2005 10:16 PM
This may be a little off point but...
I got so fed up with the UI inconsistancy that I ended up investing in Unsanity's ShapeShifter (http://unsanity.com/haxies/shapeshifter) to get rid of the brushed metal.
It's not a complete solution but I've found it to work very well.
Posted by: Michael at February 15, 2005 07:50 AM
To Carl and other QuickSilver fans regarding Mac OS X HIG.
After reading the comments I downloaded QuickSilver and gave it a shot.
The second window after legal information shows a setup dialog containing a tab view, which is upside down. *This* is a broken design. It tries to mimic a wizard-like setup screen where you have to guess what to do next in which order.
The preference dialog has much to small fonts and has at the top and bottom bevels, which add a lot of noise to the crowded dialogs.
After invoking the main "search panel"/"launch dialog" - the translucent purple one which hovers in the middle of the screen after using the hot key - you'll be presented a also strange UI. After finding a launchable item a window slides out at the bottom which looks arkward attached to the purple one.
Don't get me wrong, in my opinion Blacktree showed a lot of passion for QuickSilver to shape and refine it. But regarding to UI consistency and accessibility Apple's non-conform approach seems much more viable to me albeit I don't like it.
Posted by: sunjoy at February 17, 2005 06:36 PM
Some comments from a user of XP, Linux, & OSX. XP at work (Win2k look). Linux Gnome & Fluxbox at work and as my desktop at home. OSX at school.
Eye of the Beholder: I think much of the XP bashing here is because users have an emotional attachment to OSX. Nothing wrong with that. Just that rational analysis about UI only goes so far.
I change the way I work depending on the UI. On XP I do a lot of filesystem browsing, whereas on linux I use a lot more CLI, tab-completion, and keyboard shortcuts.
Having the close/minimize buttons on the left in OSX infuriates me. Having the maximize button only maximize vertically mystifies me.
Single mouse infuriates me. Scroll-mice are good. Mouse-only context menus are good. But thats just me.
I like drag-and-drop everything, and in this respect XP and OSX shine.
One feature from X-Window window managers that I'd like to see on other UI's is multiple workspaces/desktops. Some video cards on XP allow this, but not as well and consistently as I like.
I also like auto-raise -- much less effort when I don't have to click to switch windows.
Ultimately I agree with the previous comment that it's performance slowdown that really bothers me. In XP these days, right-clicking takes a few seconds to respond, as does clicking on "All Programs" on the start button. Grrrr.
Posted by: Nicolas Trumen at August 30, 2005 04:46 PM
Nice job. I'm planning to come back here in the future. http://www.pcmcourseware.com , http://www.drneils.com.au








Just skimmed this one, but I think I have the idea. I was just as frustrated as anyone when I couldn't delete an SMTP server in Apple Mail until Panther, but your statement still seems like hyperbole. Every product will have flaws and rough edges. When comparing OS 10 to Linux or Windows OS X wins hands down. So what is the problem?