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
R.I.P. the principles of Apple OS X Human Interface Guidelines (HIG)
Apple is lobotomising a highly evolved human interface to a complex system.
Apple is lobotomising a highly evolved human interface to a complex system.
Wait...what?
Some confusion may have arisen from the additional bug in my Developer Preview 5 images where an application-modal dialogue appeared without one of its bars for one user. (A pitfall of sharing and discussing without an Apple infrastructure; my bad.)
That confusion may be exacerbated by the flatness and so on in Yosemite.
TextEdit in Developer Preview 6 does still have document-modal sheets. An example is attached.
Attachments
Oh this is too much (in a good way). From another thread: Check out OS X using Flavours THEMING with the OS9 themes (http://store.interacto.net/flavours/toprated?tag=79). RETRO in a GOOD way. If this will work in Yosemite, perhaps the OS can be saved, after all (not thanks to Apple). Obviously, there's the previously mentioned Jaguar and other prior OS X themes as well.
If Apple had any brains left there, they would license or buy the rights to XtraFinder and Flavours to put into OS X officially.
...
This is funny watching Steve talk about how Microsoft has NO TASTE. LOL. Oh poor Steve would be rolling in his grave if he saw what "no taste" now means for Apple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FytWjEd2gcg
If Apple had any brains left there, they would license or buy the rights to XtraFinder and Flavours to put into OS X officially.
...
This is funny watching Steve talk about how Microsoft has NO TASTE. LOL. Oh poor Steve would be rolling in his grave if he saw what "no taste" now means for Apple.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FytWjEd2gcg
The vast majority of us now hate the look and feel of Mavericks get over it.
From timeless (Aqua) to
Apple can't say how long
lolz
ur statz-based estim8, plz, of when u will h8 the look'n'f33l of yosam. mo than, o less than, 3 yrz?
m8 git ova ur h8red ov me right'in like diss cmon it shld take u no mo, no less than the time it can take you to change from loving to hating a human interface that has timeless principles. In the words of Apple:
OS X Human Interface Guidelines
The Philosophy of UI Design: Fundamental Principles
Good product design incorporates a number of timeless principles for human-computer interaction. The principles described in this chapter are critical to the design of elegant, efficient, intuitive, and Aqua-compliant user interfaces. In fact, they drive the design of the OS X user interface.
http://tinyurl.com/riposxhig
lolz
ur statz-based estim8, plz, of when u will h8 the look'n'f33l of yosam. mo than, o less than, 3 yrz?
m8 git ova ur h8red ov me right'in like diss cmon it shld take u no mo, no less than the time it can take you to change from loving to hating a human interface that has timeless principles. In the words of Apple:
OS X Human Interface Guidelines
The Philosophy of UI Design: Fundamental Principles
Good product design incorporates a number of timeless principles for human-computer interaction. The principles described in this chapter are critical to the design of elegant, efficient, intuitive, and Aqua-compliant user interfaces. In fact, they drive the design of the OS X user interface.
http://tinyurl.com/riposxhig
Huch? Apple hardware is much better now than it used to be a few years ago. They have completely reshaped the laptop. There is absolutely no comparison with how more functional and powerful the current cMBP compared with a MacBook Pro from, say, 5 years ago.
Apple was never best in graphics, their OpenGL performance was always abysmal. That is why they have created Metal. I expect it to hit OS X next year or so.
iOS is used by Apple for experimentation. They push new frameworks, technologies and design on iOS first, I guess because its easier to make breaking changes. And Macs are in no way a graphical imitation of iOS, the both are adopting a unified UI design paradigm. Which is a GOOD thing.
People have been doomsaying about 'Apple abandoning OS X' since Snow Leopard came out, if not earlier. I am still to see ANY indication for that. System is being improved and refined, new features are being added. And now we have a major UI redesign, which tool a lot of resources. If they wouldn't care about OS X they would have kept the old look (which was by no means bad, don't get me wrong. The new one is just better
) Now on part 2, Steve talks about how they wanted an OS that worked both for 5-year olds and PROFESSIONALS and that was the GOAL of the OS X AQUA interface. It worked. Now apparently, they decided to make Macs just for 5-year olds. Instead of OS X "Yosemite", maybe they could have called it OS X "Power Rangers".
Oh sure, if its not brushed metal, then it must be for kids
"Windows have wonderful shadows" on them.
Which are still there
What is it about blinking that makes it rule?
No, things don't blink anymore. Now they use translucency effects and animations for user feedback. Modal sheets work just as they have always worked. You must be looking at some other OS
----------
I am sure that Steve played a major role in the current design, at least its principles. The current design is the evolution of a theme they have been experimenting with for quite some time now.
----------
Talking about interface for kinds. I will definitely check it out if I one ay will be interested in OS X Duplo edition
I don't see how 10.10 violates the design principles. I think it follows them quite to the point. You seem to be misinterpreting 'principles' for 'implementations'. Its the principles (familiarity, simplicity, availability, discoverability) that matter, not whether the window has a title bar or not (which is an implementation detail). In another words, its 'timeless principles', not 'stale design'
Safari, Mail, Contacts, etc. all still have them intact. So not sure what you're talking about.
Attachments
The patterns of movement of your eyes differ from the patterns of mine. Neither pattern is necessarily better than the other, they are simply different.
That type of difference between human behaviours was understood and accepted earlier, but I can't recall which topic demonstrated the acceptance.
For starters
The first characteristic that should support the user's mental model.
Familiarity. The users mental model is based primarily on experience.
The primary model for my split-second identification of windows is the title of the window, in its proper place: at the head, in the centre, as a word, in my preferred locale (english). This model of identification of something is not dissimilar from models of identification of things in other forms of media such as print and television.
This not unusual model is massively reinforced by more than thirty years of experience with operating systems produced by Apple, Microsoft and others.
So at least one of the exciting features of Yosemite is, to my eyes, naturally a violation by Apple of it's own philosophy of user interface design; a self-violation of a fundamental principle.
It's exciting, but in a negative way. That fundamental aspect of Apple's interface to Yosemite does not excite pleasure.
----
That was for starters.
----------
Please see above, the first line of post 703.
I'm not basing my opinion on random screenshots. I'm basing it on actually using the beta.
Sorry, but that is not what familiarity is. Mandatory title bars are merely a design invariant (which obviously has something to do with familiarity). Familiarity is about maximising expectation (or minimizing information entropy). Familiarity means that a user can open a new app and immediately have a very good idea how things work and where to find options/commands they are looking for.
What you are criticising is primarily the usability aspect, not really the familiarity aspect. Besides, the mandatory title goes agains the principle of simplicity.
Let me briefly demonstrate one aspect of Yosemite which IMO is a great illustration of the design guidelines: translucency.
Translucency has one particular function, which is providing the depth illusion to an app. This can be most commonly used to overlay content or underlay the content in order to make it 'float' (this is what Mail does). This gives user visual feedback about the UI hierarchy and aids the figure-ground distinction. In fact, translucent panes which 'float' over the content of the app or the desktop signal 'I am closer to you, I do stuff'
Apple uses this effect to manipulate the saliency of the UI and visually group control items. This is 100% consistent use though the entire system (menus, notification pane, pop-ups, app toolbars). As such, the semantics of translucency in OS X closely follows the principle of familiarity (proximity to the user, association with control), simplicity and discoverability.
In fact, the translucency in Yosemite plays the same role as the embossing and metal brush texture our friend Magnus likes so much. Only, translucency is less aggressive, lighter, more subtle and arguably more flexible.
Note that I am only talking about adherence to design principles here. Obviously there are lots of different designs which follow the principle, and Yosemite is only one among them. I can easily accept that not everyone finds this design aesthetically pleasing. I do strongly believe though that it follows the design principles to the letter (in fact, I think its better at it than Mavericks).
Sorry, but when I perceive a possible attempt by a stranger to redefine my own perception of what's familiar to me, to me personally, I switch off from most other words in that post. Considering an earlier post from you, that was probably not your intention here, but again there's a lack of appreciation of how I benefit from visibility of titles so let's get a little closer to Apple's words instead of going round in circles with our own.
To an argument from an earlier post:
Given Apple's words, I believe that the presence of titles is more than an implementation detail.
From Apple's introduction:
About the Guidelines for Creating Great Mac Apps
At a Glance
Great Apps Begin with an Understanding of the Fundamentals
People Expect a Great User Experience
Attention to Detail Pays Off in a Superlative UI
There are myriad details you need to handle as you design the UI of your app, including choosing the right menu items, naming new windows correctly, and using the appropriate controls in a toolbar. Dont be tempted to ignore the guidelines that govern the use of these UI elements, because users tend to notice even subtle differences in appearance and behavior.
Relevant Chapters: UI Element Guidelines: Windows,
- - - -
About Window Appearance and Behavior
Window Components
Every document and app window and panel has, at a minimum:
- A title bar. Even if a window does not have an actual title (a tools panel, for example), it needs a title bar
----
So. Let's be guided by the words of Apple. Dont be tempted to ignore the guidelines that govern the use of these UI elements, because users tend to notice even subtle differences in appearance and behavior.
OK, that's enough of Apple's words for now. Let's have some fun with the company. Apple, the Great and Powerful.
"If you were really Great and Powerful, you'd keep your promises!"
"You presume to criticise the Great Apple? You ungrateful creatures! You're lucky that we're only forcing this upon you 'til some other UI trend breezes through, instead of the next three decades from now!
"Er the Great Apple has spoken.
"Pay no attention to those designers doing their own things behind the curtain! The Great, er Apple has spoken!"
"Who are you?"
----
Apple, who are you?
Is a tornado responsible for the mess?
----
For sale, or free: two perfectly fitting and durable slippers. Ruby red.
Will consider swapping for something trendy, maybe a patchwork poncho. (Or were ponchos trendy for not long? Oh well, it's not like we're thinking about something that must last. Just give us something edgy with a bit of wow-factor colour.) See-through down below, 'cause these long bristly Californian legs look good in anything. Not fussed about the fit we'll squeeze into whatever looks special on someone with an entirely different body shape. Ta.
Love, Apple.
We design Macs, the best personal computers in the world, and for some things we make somewhat of a mockery of our own design guidelines but that's OK because so many people love us. It's all about popularity, darlings, not the best. Close that curtain. Cod for everyone. If you don't like the taste, you can have yesterday's lunch or eat elsewhere.
Will consider swapping for something trendy, maybe a patchwork poncho. (Or were ponchos trendy for not long? Oh well, it's not like we're thinking about something that must last. Just give us something edgy with a bit of wow-factor colour.) See-through down below, 'cause these long bristly Californian legs look good in anything. Not fussed about the fit we'll squeeze into whatever looks special on someone with an entirely different body shape. Ta.
Love, Apple.
We design Macs, the best personal computers in the world, and for some things we make somewhat of a mockery of our own design guidelines but that's OK because so many people love us. It's all about popularity, darlings, not the best. Close that curtain. Cod for everyone. If you don't like the taste, you can have yesterday's lunch or eat elsewhere.
Again, the devil is in detail
I am by no meant trying to redefine what is familiar to you. I am simply trying to provide a more clear definition of what 'familiarity' means as a design principle, which is basically 'put stuff where user would expect it'. In another words, don't put the close button on the right (because the user expects it on the left), don't put the title bar on the bottom (because the user expects it on the top) etc. Your criticism of optional windows titles IMO should be classified as criticism of usability (regarding ease of window identification) and less as one of familiarity, because window title is an optional feature of the UI (and has always been) see below
And so it does. Every single application in Yosemite has a title bar. This is a design invariant and it is unlikely to change in OS X ever. The title bar is the area on the top of the window where the window control buttons reside. So what has changed in 10.10?
- the title bar can be optinally merged with the toolbar (e.g. Safari)
- the title bar can be invisible to give the application a cleaner look (e.g. Reminders)
- the window titles have been removed from single-window apps which are not document based (and btw., Apple never states in the design guidelines that window title is mandatory it has always been optional)
Safari is an interesting case here because its a bit weird. First of all, Safari does have a title. And that title exactly follows the UI guidelines. Its just somehow quirky on the reinterpretation of what a website title means. Let's look at it in detail.
First of all, how can I say that Safari has a title? Well, the search bar is the title. It is positioned in the middle of the title bar. It reflects the name of the document (which is the domain/URL of the currently visible tab). So formally, its a title. And it is also a search bar which is absolutely inline with the design guidelines, because it follows discoverability, simplicity and availability principles. Not to mention that having user-intractable titles is a common design for OS X and has been so for years.
The issue that you seem to be having in Safari is that the title is not what you expect. You would expect the title of the website (what the HTML tells the browser) while for Safari the title is the URL. I can understand that this impairs usability. Maybe they should show the actual HTML title when the user is not focusing the URL.
But other than that, Safari's design is absolutely consistent with, say, Mavericks or Tiger or whatever. The elements are still the same and they are at exactly the same place. They might look a little bit different and have different proportions (which is a visual change, not a change in UI philosophy). They also gained some new functionality (again, title bar which doubles as search bar reinforces discoverability, simplicity and availability ).
To sum it up, I don't really see any reason to claim that Yosemite's design violates the fundamental UI principles which have been adopted by Apple. One could argue that it slightly relaxes the familiarity principle (allowing more liberal layout as long as it does not violate fundamental invariants). However, this results in improved discoverability, simplicity and availability. One can also say that Yosemite takes a more higher-level approach to familiarity, by focusing on functional familiarity (e.g., the thing in the middle up has something to do with identifying the open document) instead of more rigid fixed-element based familiarity.
So yes, different - sure. You don't like it? I respect that. You think it is less usable? I, well, opinions differ
But I don't see how you can claim that the design violates the fundamental principles. And I really believe that this is not just a matter of opinion. Design is a formal system while principles are formal constraints. While there obviously is some freedom in interpreting what these constraints mean, I don't think that this freedom is THAT great. Otherwise that wouldn't me very good constraints.
That's expected.
To me that's unexpected, unnecessary, inappropriate and jarring.
I'm perfectly capable of interpreting a title, or reinterpreting if I find that necessary for myself. I have no overwhelming urge to force my personal reinterpretations of all things upon everyone who communicates with me about those things.
Yes, I expect the title of the titled content.
I expect Apple to not hide the title. In particular, I do not want any hive mind-like interference in my approach to absorbing content (including titles) of web-based documents and other information. Forced interference with my browsing and other activities may be well-intended but it is completely unwelcome.
Concisely:
- I have used Macs, and have provided technical support for Macs and other Apple hardware, since 1992
- I began using Yosemite, it was immediately displeasing
- I continued using Yosemite, eventually those displeasing things repelled me.
Three factual milestones. To me those milestones are significant.
We could argue about whether those factual milestones are significant, or fundamental to me, or whatever our choices of words, one thing is outstanding:
- some of Apple's changes from (a) to (b) caused me to react with a negativity that is without precedent.
Last edited:
Yes, you're right. I simply don't recall seeing it with software I actually use and the few things I tried first didn't use it. The video implied it would be a "standard" file requester, but I just don't see it with most programs enough to have ever really noticed it at all (i.e. I don't use Safari...never cared for it compared to Firefox or even Mail anymore because it's constantly buggered and won't "Get Mail" when I click the button. It seems to have its own schedule.
Good, just move to windows, have a nice day.
Btw, I love Yosemite.
Also, I think you have to use another word instead of milestones, I don't think it means what you think it means.
And one more, "factual" is for facts, not for your opinion.
So, your three "factual milestones" are nothing but a simple opinion and no, they're not significant.
Oh boy, my favorite type of fanatical "I've got no argument so I'll just tell them to leave" reply.
Really? I wouldn't have guessed by the above.
I tried a Yosemite theme in Flavours. It wasn't the worst thing I've ever seen in my life (the traffic light button change is the most jarring for me since it's so awful looking compared to the Aqua buttons), but it was definitely a step down from Mavericks. Really, as much as I liked the original AQUA in earlier OS X versions, the "blue lined" look is kind of odd looking now trying the Jaguar theme with Flavours. I did like the gel cap buttons on things, though. Mavericks actually looks quite good, overall. I don't know why they'd want to change it, other than perhaps the opacity of the dock which everyone seemed to hate being too light.
Last edited:
Oh boy, my favorite type of fanatical "I've got no argument so I'll just tell them to leave" reply.
Really? I wouldn't have guessed by the above.
I tried a Yosemite theme in Flavours. It wasn't the worst thing I've ever seen in my life (the traffic light button change is the most jarring for me since it's so awful looking compared to the Aqua buttons), but it was definitely a step down from Mavericks. Really, as much as I liked the original AQUA in earlier OS X versions, the "blue lined" look is kind of odd looking now trying the Jaguar theme with Flavours. I did like the gel cap buttons on things, though. Mavericks actually looks quite good, overall. I don't know why they'd want to change it, other than perhaps the opacity of the dock which everyone seemed to hate being too light.
Oh you again, I wasn't even replying to you, just leave this forum, I got a warning the other day for arguing with you, if you don't like something, just go away and find something else that you like, but since you like to complain about everything, I guess that you don't even like Windows or Android, when you don't like Yosemite, iOS8, Windows and Android, well, the problem is you.
Just make your own OS and move on.
And please make us all a favor and don't reply to me.
Telling them to go away and make their own OS only works if they've complained insistently about every single version Apple has made. Simply disagreeing with the changes being made to an OS that we've previously loved doesn't make out opinions any less valid than yours.
I'm a fan of a lot of things, but there isn't a single thing I'm a fan of that I deem so perfect I can't criticise it. When done properly and constructively, criticism can actually be more more helpful than simply blindly agreeing with everything Apple does because you believe they can do no wrong. I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but Apple isn't infallible.
I'm a fan of a lot of things, but there isn't a single thing I'm a fan of that I deem so perfect I can't criticise it. When done properly and constructively, criticism can actually be more more helpful than simply blindly agreeing with everything Apple does because you believe they can do no wrong. I'm probably going to be flamed for this, but Apple isn't infallible.
All the taste arguments aside, "hard to read" complaints are so pervasive with the latest developments from Apple, namely IOS 7 and now 10.10, its pretty surprising. Never before have I heard "hard on the eye" complaints from Apple users or critics.
They must be dancing on Steve Jobs grave over there these days.
- Status