Yosemite looks terrible!

[randomgeeza]

Am I the only guy who always thought iOS 7 looked fresh and cool?

Probably...

Am I the only one that thought and still thinks it looks sh*te!?

 

[MarsViolet]

Every document and app window and panel has, at a minimum:

• A title bar. …

– and so, in Mavericks, all such windows and panels have that similarity.

As that primary guideline for windows is trashed by Yosemite, we're left with just one bare minimum:

• A close button, so that users have a consistent way to dismiss the window.

And that close button is in a different position from window to window.

 

[MarsViolet]

Having a title bar that says 'Calendar' on the calendar app is just a waste of space and conformity for the sake of pointless conformity.

Title bars, with or without an actual title, have always been a useful and consistent place from which to drag a window to a new position. I wouldn’t call that pointless conformity.

Yosemite’s mess of window styles has, unfortunately, eliminated this predictable and consistent target from which to drag. It’s the kind of disregard for good UI design I would expect from Microsoft, not Apple.

My how times have changed.

 

[Serban]

Probably...

Am I the only one that thought and still thinks it looks sh*te!?

Try to go back to iOS6 and rethink

 

[leman]

And that close button is in a different position from window to window.

Would you prefer it to be misaligned with the rest of the window UI? The buttons are exactly where they should be — top left of the window.

Title bars, with or without an actual title, have always been a useful and consistent place from which to drag a window to a new position.

Yosemite’s mess of window styles has, unfortunately, eliminated this predictable and consistent target from which to drag.

Errm, no, the window dragging works exactly as it always have and as one would expect it. The title bar is still there. It can be just set invisible by the app developer.

 

[MarsViolet]

The buttons are exactly where they should be — top left of the window.

Really?

 

[leman]

Really?

Image

Its invariantly the top left element of the window. There is no other element which is more top and left

What kind of difficulty do you have with my sentence? Is it about top or about left?

 

[MarsViolet]

Its invariantly the top left element of the window. There is no other element which is more top and left

I see. So provided that the close, minimize, and zoom buttons are somewhere in the general proximity of the upper left corner of the window, even if their exact position varies by ten or twenty pixels from window to window, you’re good.

Mac users used to have higher standards than that.

 

[leman]

I see. So provided that the close, minimize, and zoom buttons are somewhere in the general proximity of the upper left corner of the window, even if their exact position varies by ten or twenty pixels from window to window, you’re good.

Mac users used to have higher standards than that.

Its called 'coherent design'. The buttons are aligned with the rest of the interface so that they don't look like someone just spat them there. If you would always cramp them into he corner, the result would be misaligned ugliness. iTunes 12 is a prime example of that.

BTW, how about commenting on the other part of my post, about window dragging? Something like 'oh leman, you are so right, I'm sorry for being wrong' would be reasonable

 

[MarsViolet]

The window dragging works exactly as it always have and as one would expect it. The title bar is still there. It can be just set invisible by the app developer.

It used to be that you could drag any window by clicking the middle region of its title bar, but several apps in Yosemite have muddled this target. In Safari, for example, the URL/search field is there. Are you arguing that less consistency is superior to more?

 

[MarsViolet]

Its called 'coherent design'. The buttons are aligned with the rest of the interface so that they don't look like someone just spat them there. If you would always cramp them into he corner, the result would be misaligned ugliness. iTunes 12 is a prime example of that.

So what you’re saying is that it’s coherent design for the the close, minimize, and zoom buttons to change position from window to window?

Wouldn’t it be more coherent if all common window elements were consistently positioned? This wouldn’t mandate that they be cramped into the corner.

 

[randomgeeza]

Try to go back to iOS6 and rethink

If I could, I would in a heartbeat and oddly enough Apple UK are still using iOS6 on their Apple Store devices... That says something about iOS7.

----------

I see. So provided that the close, minimize, and zoom buttons are somewhere in the general proximity of the upper left corner of the window, even if their exact position varies by ten or twenty pixels from window to window, you’re good.

Mac users used to have higher standards than that.

Or do they... judging by the amount of Yosemite love... It would appear Mac users are allowing standards to drop.

Personally I can't stand it... I've said it before and I'll say it again. The devil is in the detail. And the detail is FUBAR atm.

And whilst we are on about misalignment... Has no one noticed that Safari's address bar is so not centre... if you adjust and customize the buttons... GRRRR! Makes me wince with embarrassment for Apple!

 

[baller1308]

At first I didn't like it but it has started to grow on me. I'm primarily using Yosemite on my laptop and Mavericks on my desktop. To each their own I guess.

 

[leman]

It used to be that you could drag any window by clicking the middle region of its title bar, but several apps in Yosemite have muddled this target. In Safari, for example, the URL/search field is there. Are you arguing that less consistency is superior to more?

I am arguing that there is no less consistency. You can still drag any window by grabbing its upper portion. Of course, if there is an UI element there, you should not grab there, but that is kind of obvious (and the same was always true for apps that put custom UI buttons etc. in the title bar). At any rate, there is no disadvantage to the user. You seem to have a weird understanding of consistency. Consistency does not mean that everything has a pixel-wise fixed position. It means that you get the same result after performing the same action. Here, the action is going to the left-top corner of the window or click+drag the top portion of the window. The result is locating the window buttons respective moving the window.

So what you’re saying is that it’s coherent design for the the close, minimize, and zoom buttons to change position from window to window?

Wouldn’t it be more coherent if all common window elements were consistently positioned? This wouldn’t mandate that they be cramped into the corner.

Yosemite offers the developer two options: a classic title bar (which can be optionally invisible, as shown by Contacts or Calculator) and a title bar which integrates into the tool bar (Safari, Calendar etc.). The second option allows the developer to use the header of the window more space-efficiently. Because the window buttons are part of the tool bar now, they are aligned with the rest of the tool bar controls. This is done for the sake of the visual consistency.

More specifically, you have two (potentially competing) constraints. The window buttons have to be the top-left-most control for quick access, and they need to be visually consistent with the surroundings. The current way Yosemite treats them satisfies both constraints. I think this is a very reasonable solution. If the buttons were not aligned with the rest, they would either be hugging the corner more (like iTunes does — which is weird an inconsistent), or you would need an additional space above the toolbar to host them, which contradicts the point of removing the title bar in the first place and wastes time. Note: I am not saying that this is the only possible solution, I am sure that others can be found that still result in visual consistency. I don't really see the way though to have the buttons at exactly the same place and still achieve visual consistency without wasting space.

Again, its not about pixels, its about visual arrangement and alignment.

And whilst we are on about misalignment... Has no one noticed that Safari's address bar is so not centre... if you adjust and customize the buttons... GRRRR! Makes me wince with embarrassment for Apple!

Oh, stop being such a drama queen. You are embarrassing yourself. The search bar is aligned so it is equal distances from the other controls on the toolbar — its exactly the same as it has been on Mavericks and probably every iteration of OS X before. They should probably add an option to maximise the size of the search bar just as on earlier Safari versions, I am sure some users would prefer that.

 

[FrtzPeter]

Why is it that some of the people arguing on behalf of Yosemite come across as a bunch of salesmen trying to sell people something they don't want.

If people don't like it, they don't like it.

 

[grahamperrin]

… Mission Control is both beautiful and functional. However, to remind people about such things is to lose sight of what was, to me, genuinely and frequently troublesome:

• the state of windows in their natural state, when I simply observed the screen.

…

Also worth repeating:

… no combination of (navigation tools such as Mission Control) can be a substitute for titles that are already present – present without additional key strokes, additional clicks, additional mouse movements or additional gestures. …

… tools (Mission Control etc.) are the most efficient way to do this. Its not like those tools are substitutes for title bars. They are simply making title bars redundant for many applications. …

Not everyone shares that opinion.

… we are going around in circles here.

Yes.

To reiterate my point: … all the issues you are pointing out can be easily bypassed by adopting existing navigation tools

No. This is going around in circles without an appreciation of what I emphasised above.

… this boils down to personal preferences and taste. …

Yes. For a quarter of a century, ninety-nine percent of Apple's changes have tasted good to me. Very, very good.

… If people don't like it, they don't like it.

True.

Apple must have foreseen that abandonment of the title bar guideline – one of the two essentials for a window (or panel) – would be highly contentious. Adherence to that guideline has been close to ubiquitous for decades. Amongst the qualities that have made using Macs an outstandingly good experience, over the years: constancy and refinement.

What Yosemite presents, in the absence of that essential guideline, is not globally recognised as a refinement. What Yosemite presents is not sufficiently good at saving space or improving the customer's perception of content. It will surely succeed but Yosemite is not the operating system for me.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Its not about who serves whom. Its about best practices and convenient computing.

But that's my point, convenient for whom? The user or the developer. Sorry, but the consumer is always king, especially when he's paying for software.

Having too many windows open is always a mess (see my above post).

Maybe, but clearly some people like a lot of windows. It only takes a half dozen to start confusing the issue. But to me, getting rid of the title bar is even worse than getting rid of the "extra bar" in Firefox (the bottom bar). They see it as streamlining the interface. The problem is that is where a lot of extra add-ons place their display and by wiping it out by default, they wiped out things like Forecast Fox right along with it. Thankfully, I could put it back with yet another add-on. But who decided to just wipe out the existing interface and copy-cat Chrome? If I wanted Chrome, I would be using Chrome. I don't like Chrome. You can't customize squat on it. It sucks royally in that regard. I like things the way I like it (Tabs Mix Plus to customize behavior/appearance, download status bar to get rid of clunky download windows and I use the Noia 3.04 Theme (I used to use Noia 4 until the author abandoned it). I agree the default theme sucks, but that's what theming is for. I use Noia on Windows and Linux too. The browser is then consistent across all major platforms, which benefits ME, not Apple or some developer.

I agree with you that its very important to have customisation options, but sometimes too many of these options lead to substandard software.

I don't think an optional set of window decorations would lead to substandard software. If anything, Apple should be building a theme kit as they go along and replace everything. Why not make everyone happy?

And that is btw why I stopped using Firefox long time ago — it was ugly and did not match the visual theme of the OS. The Safari 8.0 is an amazing

Ah, so you admit something was UGLY and therefore you didn't want to use it. Now apply that thought to Yosemite and you can see where some of us are coming from.

Let me disclose you a horrible secret — you are not identifying the window based on its title, you are doing it based on its overall appearance.

That's probably true of software I'm familiar with, but when I get something new I'm not going to recognize it and sadly I won't know WTF I'm using if it doesn't identify itself somehow (e.g. I've gotten several new audio editing and processing software packages lately and I might not know what is what for a few days. At least the Windows7 task bar identifies what it is you're bringing up at a glance. Maybe a hover-over ID label would work? I don't care for pop-up labels, but it's strange to have no labels at all.

Its just how the brain works. Sure, if your desktop is a cluttered mess with dozens of partially overlapping windows, then you need to start scanning trough the title bars. But at that point you should be using Mission
Control/Dock/CMD+Tab. This is why your example of twenty windows of si

Why should I use that? Maybe I don't like having to use the keyboard to navigate. Some of us prefer using mice, after all. I utilize hot-spots for Mission Control. CMD+Tab is downright retarded (like I want to scroll through every open program one at a time). Maybe if they'd add easy organizational tools to LaunchPad, it could be a much faster way to organize and start programs in their own category without having to move everything around in the Application Menu. I spent some time organizing mine and then it "glitched" and moved everything out of those category sub-menus into the open making a bleeping MESS of everything. So much for LaunchPad have ANY use at all.... In other words, not everything Apple comes up with is pure gold.

application. And right now I have exactly 21 windows open, with 26 tabs in Safari. Why doesn't lack of title bars bother me?

It's hard to say what makes you tick. It bothers me.

 

[Padmini]

I'm reserving judgement overall on Yosemite until the GM....but so far, performance wise, it is a joke compared to Mavericks.

Like I said....I will chalk up the UI sluggishness and lack of polish to the beta....but come the GM, I really hope it is at least on par with Mavericks.

Going back and forth between Mavericks and Yosemite on my two very comparable Macs makes me long for Mavericks fluidity, especially in Safari.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Don't bash communism. Nearly every open source project is communist, everyone working for a common goal with the compensation for labor being the joy of completing work that you love.

This isn't a political discussion or a political forum and my post was simply meant to make a comparison to aid in understanding how the Firefox team has changed over the past few years, but suffice to say there's a huge difference between "socialism" and "communism" in the end. One affords personal freedoms and merit based rewards and one demands you do what you are told for the betterment of the entire community (which is typically decided by a "party" or "person" that takes the place of "god" literally and thus has 100% freedom while you have none). Apple is like this. Steve was formally "god" while now Johnny Ive plays demi-god unless Tim Cook gets upset enough to stand up and play Zeus to his Apollo. Likwise, the formerly "democratically minded" Firefox team that spent their time creating add-on systems for both functionality and theming so that you could create your own personal "Nirvana" has instead started devolving into a "party" deciding what's best for you instead. They retain their freedom (hypocritically in the real Communist systems) while you can only choose to go along with it or rebel (in this case use another browser). There are no other real choices (except perhaps to join the party by becoming a major developing contributor but even then they could reject your work).

Perhaps you prefer being told how to compute and how to browse and have someone else pick out your virtual clothes for you, but some of us do not care for it and would like more freedom of choice than such a system provides. Call that "bashing" if you will, but I simply call it a choice to not like others controlling my choices.

Padmin said

I'm reserving judgement overall on Yosemite until the GM....but so far, performance wise, it is a joke compared to Mavericks.

That's too bad because I find Mavericks a LOT slower (in Finder operations in particular) than Mountain Lion. I'll click on a directory in Finder and there will often be this odd delay or a couple of seconds before it does anything (and no I don't mean the external drive spinning up or something like that). I'm starting to find it very annoying. If Yosemite is slower still...geeze. I'm already running a quad-i7. How much power do you need just to make the damn GUI work in a "snappy" manner???

 

[nikicampos]

I'm reserving judgement overall on Yosemite until the GM....but so far, performance wise, it is a joke compared to Mavericks.

Like I said....I will chalk up the UI sluggishness and lack of polish to the beta....but come the GM, I really hope it is at least on par with Mavericks.

Going back and forth between Mavericks and Yosemite on my two very comparable Macs makes me long for Mavericks fluidity, especially in Safari.

The look is not going to change, that's final except for some mini changes.

Performance wise, I don't know how you installed Yosemite, but even in a beta state, for me it performs better than Mavericks, same battery life, love how Safari performs, so this can only get better.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

The look is not going to change, that's final except for some mini changes.

I just noticed someone posted screenshots from something called "Flavours" and I looked that up and it looks like it could potentially solve the GUI looks problems since it provides theming. The site only mentioned Mavericks ready, but I'm guessing this could sell quite a few copies come Yosemite final. The only bad thing is it's not exactly cheap for eye candy, but I think for some if it's between switching platforms due to Yoesmite's UNBELIEVABLE UGLINESS and spending about $20, the latter is probably preferable.

"Aqua Jaguar" is where it's at Daddy-O.

Too bad there aren't any OS 9 themes for OS X. I always like those window buttons. I do see a System 7 theme, though, so I'm guessing it would be possible to create one.

 

[nikicampos]

I just noticed someone posted screenshots from something called "Flavours" and I looked that up and it looks like it could potentially solve the GUI looks problems since it provides theming. The site only mentioned Mavericks ready, but I'm guessing this could sell quite a few copies come Yosemite final. The only bad thing is it's not exactly cheap for eye candy, but I think for some if it's between switching platforms due to Yoesmite's UNBELIEVABLE UGLINESS and spending about $20, the latter is probably preferable.

"Aqua Jaguar" is where it's at Daddy-O.

Too bad there aren't any OS 9 themes for OS X. I always like those window buttons. I do see a System 7 theme, though, so I'm guessing it would be possible to create one.

Mmmm thanks for that..

But I wasn't complaining about Yosemite, the more I'm on it, there's no way I can go back to Mavericks, performance and look wise, I love everything about Yosemite, even iTunes without the sidebar is pretty good.

 

[Xcallibur]

I'm just not feeling it yet, gone back to Mavericks for now. Used Yosemite quite a lot last night, 1.5 hours into a film on QuickTime, video frames were being skipped and my battery dropped from 40% to 4%, this does not happen on Mavericks. Lots of issues to fix yet. Not too fond of the boring dock either.

 

[leman]

Why is it that some of the people arguing on behalf of Yosemite come across as a bunch of salesmen trying to sell people something they don't want.

If people don't like it, they don't like it.

I am not trying to sell anything to anyone. I just find the discussion intellectually stimulating. Also, its quite hilarious what some people are complaining about. I can really understand where Magnus and grahamperrin are coming from and I enjoy reading their posts, but complains like 'Yosemite sucks because search Window in Safari is not centered!', thats golden.

But that's my point, convenient for whom? The user or the developer. Sorry, but the consumer is always king, especially when he's paying for software.

Certainly not for the developer, its actually quite some extra work for us

Ah, so you admit something was UGLY and therefore you didn't want to use it. Now apply that thought to Yosemite and you can see where some of us are coming from.

Oh, I would never argue about taste, as I have specifically mentioned already. I am arguing about, well, arguments (e.g. such that title bars are necessary for fast navigation etc.). I can fully respect that some people don't like the visual style. Its a shame, cause Yosemite is gorgeous (kidding, kidding).

At least the Windows7 task bar identifies what it is you're bringing up at a glance. Maybe a hover-over ID label would work? I don't care for pop-up labels, but it's strange to have no labels at all.

Yosemite has hover-over labels for Dock and CMD+Tab interface + labels for Mission Control. Or what do you mean.

Speaking of CMD+Tab

Why should I use that? Maybe I don't like having to use the keyboard to navigate. Some of us prefer using mice, after all. I utilize hot-spots for Mission Control. CMD+Tab is downright retarded (like I want to scroll through every open program one at a time).

Well, these tools is what allows you to navigate a cluttered desktop quickly and efficiently. I don't think its fair to complain about something if you don't even want to use the very good tools which Apple has been providing to solve exactly those issues. And CMD+Tab is not just about cycling windows. Its main point is to click the app you are looking for. Its basically a pop-up dock in the middle of your screen which makes selection of the correct app very quick either with mouse or with arrow keys.

So much for LaunchPad have ANY use at all.... In other words, not everything Apple comes up with is pure gold.

I agree here, I never use LaunchPad. IMO, its quite pointless. Spotlight is much more convenient for launching applications.

 

[jolux]

This isn't a political discussion or a political forum and my post was simply meant to make a comparison to aid in understanding how the Firefox team has changed over the past few years, but suffice to say there's a huge difference between "socialism" and "communism" in the end. One affords personal freedoms and merit based rewards and one demands you do what you are told for the betterment of the entire community (which is typically decided by a "party" or "person" that takes the place of "god" literally and thus has 100% freedom while you have none). Apple is like this. Steve was formally "god" while now Johnny Ive plays demi-god unless Tim Cook gets upset enough to stand up and play Zeus to his Apollo. Likwise, the formerly "democratically minded" Firefox team that spent their time creating add-on systems for both functionality and theming so that you could create your own personal "Nirvana" has instead started devolving into a "party" deciding what's best for you instead. They retain their freedom (hypocritically in the real Communist systems) while you can only choose to go along with it or rebel (in this case use another browser). There are no other real choices (except perhaps to join the party by becoming a major developing contributor but even then they could reject your work).

You should read The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital.

I think afterwards that you will discover Marx did not find power structures of any kind to be acceptable. Ideal communism is completely anarchist with no leader of any kind, with the common worker being the ideal citizen and basic unit of the complete community.

Nobody starts an open source project for any purpose other than the betterment of an entire community. That's the whole point of open source, and is a very core point of its ethos.