Don't ruin my hopes and dreams of Yosemite! I'm looking forward to this update - just don't want to update until the final release is pushed out to the public.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yosemite looks terrible!
- Thread starter OldGuyTom
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I feel like the people complaining are the same ones that hated iOS7 but love it now. Give it time. They had that (somewhat stale) look of OS X for SO long that of course it's going to take time to get used to. Having been on the beta since release, I look at old versions of OS X and just cringe now.
Like really. Stop complaining just to complain.
Like really. Stop complaining just to complain.
Because art is subjective. UI/UX is design based on research, reason, and expertise. Hundreds of people are employed by to make sure the second most popular OS in the world is clear, accessible, stylish, and usable.
In the 80's, software looked like A because of software limitations. Rarely did they even attempt a circle because it's hard to convey the circle shape at a screen resolution of 320x240.
When hardware was no longer limiting (pre-retina days) to what UI could convey, it looked like B. We took full advantage of the 16 million colors and insane resolutions now at our disposal, and we should have. This was not a mistake in the UI/UX history. By emulating the 3D world, users of computers were able to learn that the rectangle with the rounded edges, slight shadow/gradient/gloss signifies its a button, aka, clickable. Actionable.
Today, C, we've arrived to the point where we can now scale back the flashy effects. Designers have decided that a majority of computer users no longer benefit from the usefulness of applying gloss to a button. They can now look at the top of a window and know that those 3 buttons operate the visibility and size of the window.
It takes insight, skill, and experience to be able to look at the window control buttons and scale them back to the most essential elements of communication: their location and color. This is the concept of minimalism, a major trend in UI that many have come to know as "flat."
I can assure you that Apple's designers didn't draw 3 circles, color them, and then call it a day. Those buttons, as well as everything new you're seeing now in Yosemite, went through weeks of design iterations, research, and testing before finalizing and they're still not even done.
But there is ugly UI. If you think Yosemite is ugly, call it ugly. That's your opinion. Don't try to back up your opinion with baseless facts. Saying "anyone" could design something like Yosemite goes beyond opinion. It demeans to designers who devote their life to this work.
Insult the design/art, not the designers/artists.
Last edited:
FTFY.
Citation please.
This is what gets me about flat design- that there's somehow "weeks and weeks" of time spent researching and perfecting a dropshadow, a gradient, and a solid colour. If that's true, it's time to hire new designers.
-SC
So what? Certain times call for certain designs. Look at all the futuristic designs from the 80s and compared them to late 90s.
actually... pseudo-3d and isometric all over the place, as much as displays allowed it.
I mean, its fine that some of you don't like it. Every time a world takes a turn in design, some people will love it and some will hate it. I never ever liked the skeumorphic design in the past decade.
UI design is hell. You need to make a design that people will look at half of their day for the next few years and they won't hate it... It needs to be just right.
Everyone who mods their desktop and keeps modding it knows that... making something look great is easy, making something look nonintrusive is another thing
It's my job. There is a process to design.
I'm saying the design process takes weeks and weeks. I've designed an entire app myself; it took half a year. Yosemite is an OS, containing hundreds of apps, screens, and views. They need all the designers they can get. I would not be surprised if it's UI shift was conceived prior to the release Mavericks.
You're arguing that because an element looks simple, it took no time at all. That another designer involved in the process didn't argue that perhaps it's color or shape could cause it to suffer from usability issues. That multiple iterations of said element didn't have to be tried and tested to ensure that it was the optimal form. That's not how that works.
The thing about "flat" design is that it's not a new kind of design. It's simply a buzz word for the minimization of existing UI elements. It's goal was not not speed up the design process by making elements simpler, hoping that the general public would not notice. The existing UI design process still stands as it always has, and it still takes time. By no means does a simpler-looking button allow someone to say it took any less time to be designed. A client that needs a design done does not get to say "the design I want has to be 'flat' so it should take you less time that it would a 'non-flat' design."
So, and this doesnt just apply to computers. When your brain wastes unnecessary time working out what something actually is thats you getting just the info you need and being able to focus is it? What a load of rubbish.
Even in iOS7 they hasd to go back and introduce more contrast, add rings around the buttons etc, why?
Because the removal of all the gradient or rather the minimalist approach didnt work. People were no longer able to focus on just what they wanted because they were confused.
Theres a balance to be struck and iOS7 and Yosemite have missed that balance.
----------
Are you saying that something with significantly less elements to its make up takes the same or more time than something complex?
Apple's Accessibility preference for reduced transparency does not properly reduce transparency.
If done properly, a comprehensive and consistent reduction should make the operating system at least as accessible as Mavericks. The reduction in Yosemite fails to do this.
Affected users may question, why is something with such a significant effect on appearance not classed as an appearance in the General pane of System Preferences?
More broadly: why is there no longer an Appearance pane in System Preferences? From Road to Mac OS X Leopard: System Preferences, consider this:
Is there no longer enough room in the General pane for appearance preferences such as transparency?
Placement of reduced transparency under Accessibility is, to me, an admission that the default transparency in Yosemite does have a detrimental effect on usability for a significant proportion of users.
Not only custom elements. Standard elements may appear improper. And if Apple can't make this sort of thing perfect long before release (this is the fourth developer preview) I should be worried about the ways in which third party developers will get things wrong.
Typical Macrumors "I hate it because it's not the same" thread
Eye-rolling oversimplification is also sometimes typical.
If a person's criticism of software is truly limited to "it's different", then ask yourself why such a limited comment has been given. (Has the person lost patience after being frustrated by a period of reduced usability of software? What can you do to help the person describe the trouble with a particular difference? Read between the lines and so on.)
A beauty within that screenshot of Mac OS 8: in every window that should have a title, the title is clearly visible.
Orientation.
Each to his or her own.
After using the first three, it was easy to hate the parts of 14A298i that remain wrong. Essentially: the more I tried to use the OS, the more it infuriated me. I tried Yosemite again yesterday, after less than ten minutes I was too frustrated to continue.
There's much to like about timshundo's post.
To summarise some of my most serious concerns about Yosemite parts of the OS set precedents that will undoubtedly cause, for some users:
- reduced clarity
- reduced accessibility
- reduced usability
Very few people may share my doubts, but there they are.
It's my job too and flat does take less time than it used to, that's both good and bad. Good, you can get more done. Bad, there's much less skill involved compared to before. That's was well illustrated by who designed the IOS icons (and how bad the majority look).
Suffice it to say I really dislike flat mainly icon wise but also in some other areas. It makes designers lazy. Compare the carefully crafted, detailed icons against most of the new stuff.
For things like app icons I can see how it would take less time to design something "flat" from an illustration standpoint. Technically, I can see how, say, Yosemite's Safari icon may have taken less time than Maverick's 3D-rendered icon. That is not the time I'm referring to though. That's the visual design piece in the large design process puzzle. When an app is sitting in the dock, you know it launches an application. it could be a complex, 3D rendered icon or a literal empty black rectangle; doesn't matter. It's action is known.
What I'm saying is that a designer didn't look at the window controls and say "ok lets take off the gloss and the gradient and the stroke and there now it's 'flat', let's move on." It certainly is possible, but there's a 99% chance it went through the same design process everything else has in OS X's existence.
Do you seriously believe that your triad against UX choices Yosemite will change something here? The Beta is out, submit as much feedback in your articulate way as possible. Only this way you can get heard. You don't have to go on convincing other members of this forum. It won't change anything. Through proper channels apple may listen, though.
"My Hermes got that hellhole running so efficiently that all the physical labor is now done by a single Australian man."
Efficiency of design is not simple. Look at the original iMac design - or more specifically the "5 Flavors" iteration. Looks like a bubble with a screen on the front. It has a very specific shape, as does the foot stand, the handle, the ventilation holes. Apple consulted with candy manufacturers regarding the color and translucency. It's not just about the number of parts. It's the qualities of those parts, what's not included, what is included, why it's included, what they do and how they behave. Watch any intro video for any significant new hardware design from Apple and you'll hear a lot about what didn't go in, and why. They didn't put 10 fans in. They put in one. And it's half the size. And it's silent. That's not easy, and it's not a quick thing to accomplish.
I find it odd that people - on a Mac forum, no less - seem to inherently understand that Apple pores over every element of their hardware (a big chunk of the MPB is one single piece of aluminium) in order to make seemingly simple designs like a bubble, a cylinder and a cube, yet believe that they can throw together the equivalent in software in no time, with little effort.
Last edited:
As explained in my post above, drawing a simple, black square make take less time than 3d rendering a cube. So yes, in a literal sense, an element with fewer stylings may take less time to design than something more complex, but that's beside the point. What I'm arguing is that because a UI object may look simple, that does not mean it received any less thought or skill put into it.
This is the issue with the "flat" movement. It was perceived as a superficial weapon against skeuomorphism and Scott Forestall. Flat began to mean "just take off the gradients and gloss, done." It meant that to a lot of designers as well. But for something like an OS, you can't afford to be so haphazard.
So yes, it's easy to go into photoshop, draw a few circles and say you've created flat UI. But that isn't how Yosemite wasn't conceived.
----------
I've watched the "flat" movement very carefully. It's only a little more than a year old.
It's a drastic change but its a change that needs to happen, just like iOS 7. You can cite individual inconsistencies and instances where they got things wrong but it will fix over time.
From all of the things that I've seen be influenced by this movement (apps, web, OS's, etc) everything has come out for the better. There's a lot to hate about the movement, but ultimately it will be a step in UI history we wont regret.
This is just polishing the turd. Desktop environments are at least a decade behind times so no matter how many live tiles, metro, Ubuntu, translucency you do concept of windows and File, Edit, etc bars is outdated and done. It's inefficient. It made sense in 90s, it doesn't anymore
Since this is a Yosemite thread I have to point out that if you went to design school and presented your teacher a frosted/translucent image background with gray and white contour iconography and text you would most likely end up with C in the best case scenario. Rules are meant to be broken sure but in this case it doesn't work! Its eyecandy over substance just like with the iOS7. Novelty effect will wear off quickly and become annoying real fast.
Since this is a Yosemite thread I have to point out that if you went to design school and presented your teacher a frosted/translucent image background with gray and white contour iconography and text you would most likely end up with C in the best case scenario. Rules are meant to be broken sure but in this case it doesn't work! Its eyecandy over substance just like with the iOS7. Novelty effect will wear off quickly and become annoying real fast.
Fear, uncertainty, and doubt overload. That was a Sarah Palin-load of diatribe; I don't know where to start.
1) What's after desktop environments? I'm a graphic designer. I use these for work. I'm pretty efficient at what I do. What am I missing out on?
2) I'm going to ignore your "design school" bit because you have no idea what you're talking about. Translucency is eye candy, it's not claiming to be anything more.
3) OS X, as a desktop environment, has been greatly efficient and optimized since Snow Leopard. It's had bumps but it's retained that efficiency up until now. I don't know what you're advocating for. Is there a next-gen desktop environment I'm missing out on?
Oculus Rift OS?
Tablets? HA!
It's the same with many aspects of life, the silent majority versus the downtrodden few!
Hmmm, it's a beta, it's not meant to be perfect...
This is one of the changes I am not overly in love with, the dock needs to shrink around the icons, too imposing, too linear, give them some curve.
The dark is ok, not perfect yet. If you turn off bluetooth, you can hardly see the icon in the menu bar.
Still some work to be done. For those that can't help complain, here is your outlet
Yosemite Public Beta Feedback
Folder Icons
Whoa! Seriously those folder icons are overbearing and toy like. I feel it devalues the whole experience with it's extreme turquoise. I feel like Apple should have just flattened out the previous folder icon and removed the shadow effect.
To me, the folder icons are the eye saw of the whole system.
Whoa! Seriously those folder icons are overbearing and toy like. I feel it devalues the whole experience with it's extreme turquoise. I feel like Apple should have just flattened out the previous folder icon and removed the shadow effect. To me, the folder icons are the eye saw of the whole system.
I agree. The Dark Mode should be UI-wide, not just the menu bar and the dock. I'll be very disappointed if they don't finish it. Another thing.... Change the color of the system folders. What the hell is this love fetish for Cyan? That's Microsoft's favorite color. Don't pollute OS X with it!
Last edited:
There are many subjective opinions here, and it's difficult to separate subjective opinions from the bias that is what we're used to, what looks familiar and what doesn't.
So take a look at Dieter Rams' 10 Principles of Good Design, which many people agree with. It's of course still subjective, but I think it has a lot of value when trying to judge design. Look at each of the 10 points and see which ones Yosemite ticks or doesn't tick:
Good design:
I would say Yosemite's design is unobtrusive, honest, and is as little design as possible. The rest is quite subjective but more or less I'd say it ticks many of them.
So take a look at Dieter Rams' 10 Principles of Good Design, which many people agree with. It's of course still subjective, but I think it has a lot of value when trying to judge design. Look at each of the 10 points and see which ones Yosemite ticks or doesn't tick:
Good design:
- Is innovative - The possibilities for progression are not, by any means, exhausted. Technological development is always offering new opportunities for original designs. But imaginative design always develops in tandem with improving technology, and can never be an end in itself.
- Makes a product useful - A product is bought to be used. It has to satisfy not only functional, but also psychological and aesthetic criteria. Good design emphasizes the usefulness of a product whilst disregarding anything that could detract from it.
- Is aesthetic - The aesthetic quality of a product is integral to its usefulness because products are used every day and have an effect on people and their well-being. Only well-executed objects can be beautiful.
- Makes a product understandable - It clarifies the product’s structure. Better still, it can make the product clearly express its function by making use of the user's intuition. At best, it is self-explanatory.
- Is unobtrusive - Products fulfilling a purpose are like tools. They are neither decorative objects nor works of art. Their design should therefore be both neutral and restrained, to leave room for the user's self-expression.
- Is honest - It does not make a product appear more innovative, powerful or valuable than it really is. It does not attempt to manipulate the consumer with promises that cannot be kept.
- Is long-lasting - It avoids being fashionable and therefore never appears antiquated. Unlike fashionable design, it lasts many years – even in today's throwaway society.
- Is thorough down to the last detail - Nothing must be arbitrary or left to chance. Care and accuracy in the design process show respect towards the consumer.
- Is environmentally friendly - Design makes an important contribution to the preservation of the environment. It conserves resources and minimizes physical and visual pollution throughout the lifecycle of the product.
- Is as little design as possible - Less, but better – because it concentrates on the essential aspects, and the products are not burdened with non-essentials. Back to purity, back to simplicity.
I would say Yosemite's design is unobtrusive, honest, and is as little design as possible. The rest is quite subjective but more or less I'd say it ticks many of them.
I agree completely. This is not a real dark mode. This is a half baked attempt that doesn't do any goodit is not what we requested.
Everything needs to go dark; systemwide. Including, windows, dialogue boxes, spotlight search, finder etc.
Come on Apple you got me (and a lot of others) all excited about this feature.
Please deliver.
A lot of hate for the garish folder colour, and I agree. I wish Apple could somehow create a Stacks version of the folder icon.
Windows 7 displays folder icons with previews of the documents contained, and this is actually quite useful, especially when you have 100s of folders for different clients/projects. If only Apple could create something similar.
Windows 7 displays folder icons with previews of the documents contained, and this is actually quite useful, especially when you have 100s of folders for different clients/projects. If only Apple could create something similar.
Your Point One disputes your Point Two. Art is subject. Correct. But "art" is an expression of the thoughts of the artist. Every artist is known for creating certain styles of art. The artist is his or her art and vice versa. So if one doesn't find a "connection" with an artist's style then it's also fair play to be critical of the artist -- not base insults and cheap shots, mind you, those are never legit., but constructive criticism.
The problem with UI is that as a form of Industrial Art it's central purpose is to "connect" with as many users as possible, and that is a difficult task because you just can't please everyone. Personally I like 10.10 and find it modern and refreshing. But I also like Cubism and De Stijl.
Last edited:
I agree but...
I agree. I want a full black implementation of the GUI.
But I would say it's rather early in the stages to make sure it will stay as it is.
In DP1 there was no black UI. Then in DP2 or 3 - can't remember which - it was available - but buggy and not polished.
In DP4 and B1 - seems better and I think there is a long way to go.
I hope the same - that things will get darker (in the GUI!!!) which will be the GM.
I agree. I want a full black implementation of the GUI.
But I would say it's rather early in the stages to make sure it will stay as it is.
In DP1 there was no black UI. Then in DP2 or 3 - can't remember which - it was available - but buggy and not polished.
In DP4 and B1 - seems better and I think there is a long way to go.
I hope the same - that things will get darker (in the GUI!!!) which will be the GM.
I can understand that Yosemite evokes mixed emotions with many people. I disagree with some choices they made in 10.10, however, I also believe that its pretty clear that the new UI design is much more consistent than, say, Lion or Mavericks.
As to all the flat/non-flat discussion, the modern UI design paradigm appears to focus more on animation rather than shape alone as the feedback for the user. Google's Material Design is a good illustration of this. And 10.10 does a good job here.
As to all the flat/non-flat discussion, the modern UI design paradigm appears to focus more on animation rather than shape alone as the feedback for the user. Google's Material Design is a good illustration of this. And 10.10 does a good job here.
- Status