What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
105 Comments
- Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18If I remember correctly iTunes used to be brushed metal too, if you know where I'm going. To me anyway, at this stage, it's fairly obvious that those bubbly blue buttons and bubbly blue scrollbars will go like iTunes 7 for Leaoprd. Sleeker look for Leoaprd I suspect.
- gr8one, on 10/12/2007, -5/+20I disagree with this article completely. The metaphore about the remotes is pointless. I think it would be great to have 6 remotes that all acted the same way, volume buttons in the same place. That way if I learn to use one I can use any of the other ones easily. The point is that they should be LABELED clearly so I can tell which one is for what. Saying that the remotes looking completely different to make it easier to tell them apart is just plain silly.
As for Apple's applications, the reason they look different is because they are each at a different point in their life cycles. The brushed metal look is on it's way out, but the Finder and a few other apps have not been transitioned over yet. That doesn't mean they're doing it on purpose, it just means that there are different teams working on each product and for each product there are certain things that take top priority and changing the interface look is not at the top yet for some of them. - king1337, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19I agree with this articles main point: by having various applications feel different to a user, it is easier for the user to orient himself within that application.
Can't the same be said for the Internet. A website is designed to best organize the information the site is working with.
Some principle, slightly different medium. - OutlawSamurai, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15The thing is, I usually encounter *behavioral* and *positional* differences as well with Vista custom UIs... not just skin. The differing Apple UIs present the same behaviors and positions of controls consistent with the guidelines.
- OutlawSamurai, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Looks aren't everything. Behaviors and usability are (and the iPod does minimize on maximum number of clicks required to get to functionality, with priorities). Also, I don't need my iPod wasting battery on drawing useless things to the screen.
- renegadeafk, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17I don't mind if they look different, but in my opinion brushed metal looks horrible
- CptnObvious, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I'm calling ***** on this. Making each app look different does not help you work with the app better or more efficiently. If I apply a skin I want it to apply everywhere which is why I don't like the inconsistencies between GTK and Qt apps.
The interface layout is what people recognize an application for and the remote analogy is way off. My whole workstation is all black and white/silver and I never have trouble identifying my mouse from my keyboard and my speakers from my monitor. Same thing with my KDE apps, I can clearly tell you which is Kopete and which is Amarok etc. - Dominatus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9It is fixed in Vista, in that it's not labeled "Start" anymore, it's just a Windows logo, no different than the Apple logo to restart.
- zewm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"10. Accessing Applications. The Dock offers a great way to show running applications and the programs you launch most often. But what about those applications you use only once in a while?"
After Tiger was released, I just use the spotlight menu and type the name of the program. This allows me to keep my dock clean while still giving me access to any app or document on the fly. In my opinion it is the single greatest feature of Tiger. - ipearx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Yeah good point, it can be applied to websites too. There's a big difference between visual consistency and consistency with the way it works and how it behaves.
Also it applies not only to application or site design, but also individual elements inside them. One example is the new 37signals redesign:
http://www.37signals.com/svn/posts/154-a-little-37signals-redesign
They had 5 apps featured on the front page, but changed it so the minor, free apps are a lot smaller (thus visually distinctive). This makes it obvious what the main products are.
- nmccreight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I can only say that the people who wrote the original article (15 problems with OSX) are idiots. Read points number 6, entitled "Laptop Screen dimming." I quote, "So far as we can tell, that automatic-screen dimming behavior is not user configurable." They must be blind, because there's a selection bar for how long you want your screen to be on (and unactive) before it dims it. Wow. Yay for research.
- Goldspink, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7I don't mind the interface of different apps being significantly different (like the Pro apps' interface). What bugs me is when they are just SLIGHTLY different, a la iTunes and Mail. It seems like the developers had the same look in mind but the apps just turned out slightly differently, and it's a bit jarring. When they're completely different it can't be anything other than purposeful.
- RichGC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The comparison of several remotes is flawed, because it assumes that the remotes have no identification ( The title bar of a Window ). If each remote has the same standard buttons, play, stop, rewind, etc, in the exact same place, and it clearly written at the top what each remote is for, I think it would be easier than have remotes with buttons in different locations.
But there is a good point there, ease of use should not be sacrificed in order to stick to some set of old rules which are not flexible enough for a new application. - theiggy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6apple's own human interface guidelines dictate different looks for different apps. i have to agree, i think people are barking up the wrong tree with this one. right or wrong, their philosophy is clear- use different styles for different kinds of apps and utilities, depending on such things as the user's 'mental model'. this quote is taken straight from their documentation:
"Windows have two distinct looks in Mac OS X. There is the standard default look of windows, as shown in most of the examples so far. There is also a brushed metal look available.
Don’t use the brushed metal look indiscriminately. In particular, don’t use the brushed metal appearance merely to make your application stand out. Instead, follow the design guidelines in "The Design Process" and "Human Interface Design" to distinguish your application by reflecting the user’s mental model.
The brushed metal appearance works well for some types of applications, but most applications appear too heavy when using this look. For example, it works well for the iSync application window, because iSync helps you manage your digital hub. On the other hand, the brushed metal look does not work well for the TextEdit document window, because TextEdit is document-based."
so its likely that this view on human interface is here to stay within apple. expect that 10 years from now, with system 12.3, apple will still be using different themes within the same OS. question is, will people still complain? or will they start to get it? - MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I know there is a sentence there.....somewhere
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Pro apps are not comparable because pro applications rarely use operating system standard stuff. Photoshop (Like on windows you have that pseudo MDI window to counteract the lack of a global menu bar),Maya, Flash for example all have completely custom stuff going on.
Really there are only 3 themes in osx, aqua, brushed (including iTunes which is clearly next generation brushed so thats what all brushed apps will be like soon) and unified.
Things like the iPhoto floating pallets are not new themes, they are simple a different way of displaying controls so they go in the same box as the osx toolbar, drawers, the menu, etc. - timusca, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I've never thought of this... but he makes an extremely valid point. I'm sitting here imagining if all OS X apps looked similar, and even though I've a power user, I think it would annoy me to no end!
That being said, have at it flag. Let's hear your amazingly unbias piece of crap comment that people digg down before even reading it. - tizz66, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I don't mind the iTunes look (whatever that is called), but I don't like brushed metal. The first thing I install on Mac is Uno to get everything looking somewhat the same.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Ducky, you really believe that Universal is sharing any of the money they get from Zune sales to their artists? Please tell me you submitted it as a joke or in outrage that anyone could spin it this way.
Wait, I forgot that you're an Applehater troll. You'd believe brown was a great fashion statement if Microsoft told you so...oh that's right! They did. - coldfusion1970, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3And dont forget Quicksilver.
- FearlessFreep, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3What's the deal? I didn't even realize the UI was 'inconsistant' until someone told me it was a problem. The apps I use the most are Safari, Mail, iTunes and GarageBand and maybe some of the controls are a bit different but they work within the context of the usage of the app. Controls that should work across apps work consistant or like I would expect.
What drives me nuts about MSOffice is that the effect of "Alt-F4" is different for different apps. Open two documents in Word and two spreadsheets in Excel and click "Alt-F4" in either of them. In Word, it closes that document but not the whole app. In Excel, it closee the whole app, and that different in behavior catches me all the time. The different and inconsistant meaning of Alt-F4 and Ctrl-F4 across apps is irritating
I never knew the OS/X interface was inconsistant in a way that was a big problem until some supposed expert told me...hmm..... - ssam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3is not more important that things behave the same rather than look identical.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3While I doubt having slightly different looks to each program is going to make that much of difference to anyone's productivity, I also would prefer a more consistent look among the various apps as served by OS X. It doesn't stop me or slow me down, but it can be distracting during launch. After that, I don't notice.
- KyleMistry, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned UNO for a unified Mac interface. It makes everything look a lot better and a lot more consistent, in my opinion.
http://gui.interacto.net/ - tdowling, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I believe that the first iPod came out in the 90s, correct me if I'm wrong"
The first iPod actually came out in late 2001. Apple doesn't like to change their interfaces too much. When OS X came out just before the iPod, it was the first real interface change for the Mac since its initial release 1984. - HunterTV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Well, if you look at a screen shot of the OSX public beta
http://www.remus.dti.ne.jp/~a-satomi/bunsyorou/MacOSX_pb/osx_scrnshot.jpg
and compare it to now, you can see that Apple has been moving towards an interface with windows that are more distinctive according to which app they belong to, not to mention less visual clutter, "eye candy," and a smoother, flatter look (i.e. the scrollbars and buttons are "flatter" on today's OSX).
The public beta was exciting because it was new at the time, but if you look at it now it's just an ugly mess. I'm not a huge fan of brushed metal, but it does give some contrast to the UI. Personally I use Uno, and give all the brushed metal apps the dark UNO unified look (ex. iTunes), and the Aqua apps the lighter (ex. Mail) unified look. It gets rid of the brushed metal but keeps the contrast. - mcorto, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I agree with you.
- FreakyT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@tizz66
I tried UNO, but I found it simply made the appearance of the system incredibly dull. Now, I realize many people want that look, but I, for one, like having applications with slight distinguishing characteristics.
Also, I never really saw the differences in application appearance on the mac as a problem. While they may look slightly different, they all function more or less the same way, which is, I think, what really matters. - Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"But if Apple makes their own applications have a different feel.... that is a good thing.
I don't get it."
It's not a good thing, that's why Leoaprd will clean up a few things, Apple will abandon Brushed Metal completely. Look out for a more unified, more subtle, solid looking, sleek look to the OS, as in less toy-like. As I already said over on AI, the play, pause, rewind & fast forward buttons in iTunes no longer represent as users actions by changing color (the shade of color darkens yes) but they actually appear to move instead, which is a more functional, and a more intuitive way for them to behave. I think we'll see a new GUI in Leoaprd, well see this type of functionality in more places across the OS. We'll see a more consistency, less distracting, simpler looking UI... but at the same time it will look better looking.
On a related matter, Windows got jealous that Apple getting all the credit for thier UI and OS style, so they joined the party, but after using Vista for experiment purposes for a bit I've come to the conclusion that Microsoft has gone over the top. In a rush to join the party they have put gloss, shiny bubbles and flashy bits and bobs all over the place, and as a result I find Vista less intuitive than XP. The idea was good in theory, but was pulled off badly in practice IMO. The reason I'm mentioning this is the fact that Apple seems to be dropping the shiny, flashyness in thier OS for Leopard just as Microsoft is adding it (irony and jokes come to mind). That's what I believe is one of the so called "Top Secret" features coming in Leopard. Just as soon as Microsoft ads "Aero" to Windows, Apple goes ahead a drops "Aqua" in favor of "iluminous", and in the process catches Microsoft completely off guard.
News Headlines; Microsoft goes glossy, Apple goes Utilitarian!
(but still trumps Microsoft on the style front, how do they do it?) - Lutz, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11That 15 things article was pretty much rubbish anyway, it basically pointed out problems OS X has great solutions for but the guy who wrote it didn't seem to get that.
It's great with different themes, OS X wold be very messy if everything was aqua. - ipearx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You can change the time it takes for your screen to dim in the energy saver preferences - set it to never put the display to sleep, and it will never dim. The dim time is automatically half the time of the screen sleep time.
I set it to 'never put the display to sleep' sometimes when I'm watching youtube videos, so that it doesn't dim it half way through.
This can be set when it's plugged in or not. - ipearx, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2LOL best comment yet
- eadnams, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3good point! Dugg.
- czechsmex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Something tells me the author would put soup in his toaster if it was the same color as his microwave.
- mpancha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I'm confused.... Windows never tried to force a certain gui guideline on its programmers, they allowed their developers to do whatever they wanted..... which is what Apple said was bad b/c it gives the user a feeling of confusion b/c nothing is unified.
But if Apple makes their own applications have a different feel.... that is a good thing.
I don't get it. - ipearx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6macuser.com also think the interface should be unified:
http://www.macuser.com/software/a_look_at_computerworlds_15_th.php - superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No, they are talking about the feature that measures ambient light and tries to set the screen brightness to a good level - it's also what is used to automatically set the backlight on the keys as well.
- crazybrit, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2This guy has a good point, but is there enough of a difference between iTunes's look and actual brushed metal to make a difference? I would expect that new users that might get confused by this stuff wouldn't notice the difference, and your brain isn't really going to register the difference when you have multiple windows open.
- MrC539, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Actually, that's proper British English.
- autodata, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Very few people will ever have Motion, Aperture and Garage Band open at the same time. A user will more likely simultaneously use Final Cut, Motion and/or Soundtrack which are applications with essentially the same theme. Same thing with the iWork apps, which both share the standard aqua theme. The author's argument disregards the fact that apple applications that are used together typically share the same theme, so the argument that the themes are to differentiate applications during use makes absolutely no sense.
- MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is true Axe, contrary to the opinion of trolls, I'm free to choose whatever product works best for me.
example: The iPod. I would love to have more choices than the iPod as it is an ok player, but certainly not best in class. Unfortunately, no other player comes with something like iTunes to make content management easy. I could certainly use drag and drop, but that is not convenient which is what players like this are supposed to provide. Also, almost every Plays4Sure site does not allow Mac users to use their store. So even if I wanted to use another player, none of the other makers has the balls to provide a total solution for Macs like Apple. - dh8r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I disagree. I don't see the logic behind why having a certain application look totally different makes it easier for a user to "orient" him/herself to it. Sure, innovative GUIs are necessary for some programs to do their job, but that doesn't warrant the overhaul of the user interface, just the components that are totally necessary.
In addition, I think the analogy to the remote controls was not helpful. Sure, different-looking remote controls can help the user distinguish between them, but a computer user should NOT need different-looking applications to know what each one does. The user usually launches an app fully conscious of the app's function. - dangnelson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I was doing a lot of research into a the mac interface a couple months back, and while the inconsistencies in look can make a difference, the inconsistencies in other areas make no sense what-so-ever. Many of Apple's applications use extremely similar buttons that do somewhat similar things along with somewhat similar hot keys for actions. It wouldn't take much extra effort to create standards. Here's a piece from a document I wrote up at the time with a friend:
Below are some strong examples of where these “norms” need to be established:
First are buttons in various applications, and their behaviors. If an application is
open and a user is “in” it, all of its buttons are “lit.” However, if the user switches
applications, but leaves original application in the background, the buttons are “dimmed.” If this feature is tested between iTunes, iPhoto, and Pages you will find that iTunes dims all buttons, iPhoto dims buttons with color graphics, but not the smaller grey buttons on the bottom, and Pages does not dim any buttons. This can leave the user confused as to what application they are “in.” Second, are the keyboard shortcuts used to enter full screen mode in certain applications. Currently, the full screen shortcut for Quicktime is Command-F, Final Cut Pro is Command-F12, Preview is Command-Shift-F, and iPhoto has none. A final example is the mini-calendar, which appears in both iCal and iPhoto. The mini-calendar received a significant upgrade in iPhoto 6; including more viewing options and higher interactivity. The problem is not in iPhoto, but in iCal, which has the older version of the mini-calendar and will most likely not receive an update until Leopard. This does not mean entire applications should be updated any time another application with a shared feature is updated. It simply means that any shared features should be updated, in order to maintain the unified interface. - cypherz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've been using Uno for about a year ( think) and have thoroughly enjoyed the look of it. I hadn't realized just how inconsistent the UI was until I installed it. The latest version makes iTunes fully match the rest of the UI. Very nice.
BTW, Uno is one of highest rated (used) apps on http://osx.iusethis.com
(good source for OS X apps and utilities) - ohpreis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It is not so much how applications look (color, etc) but how applications work that make them unified. Look at browsers for example. The "back" button and "url" field are roughly located in the same location on most browsers. That what makes them usable for (almost) anyone, albeit the differences in color, layout etc.
Well, that's only my 2cents. - FelixDing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes, I agree with you and gr8one, the viewpoint of the article is just RIDICULOUS! And the metaphore he used doesn't suit for his viewpoint.
- phlyngpngn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Good lord the grammar cops have really relaxed too much for this story to go public.
Quick lesson:
Apple is a proper singular noun representing a group of people. _It_ represents a company. Apple _is_ doing something. Apple _knows_ what it is doing. When speaking about the people that run apple you might say they _are_ thinking different.
This article hurts my face to read. If I could read it, then I might be able to agree or disagree with a topic within the story. - akatsuki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I agree fully, but there are definitely lots of small things that are inconsistent, like whether a window is active in the background or not, or the fact that the "+" button on iTunes reduces it into a little control, but does not do so for anything else (although it would be nice if iCal shrunk down into a widget calendar, and so forth)...
Also the maximize/minimize behaviour has always been a bit of a mystery, so even if there is a logic behind it, it really isn't obvious nor user-friendly.
I have no problem with the lack of customization. You can always use Shapeshifter or something similar, but choices should always be kept to a bare minimum. - hyperden, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You are correct about the need for consistency in Interface design. But there are times when the rules need to be broken to stop users getting confused between applications. Also some people would use an app in a different way to others. With the Apples OS, there is still a high level or consistency with the file menu itself ect.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 106 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 