*sigh* didn't you read the post above you? There is no Aqua! Yosemite adopts a flat design instead which is fine, but it's not Aqua. Even if Apple attempts to name it such.
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
So its only Aqua for you if it has the gel-cap buttons? Talk about shallow
At any rate, this discussion about names is getting silly. If you don't want to call it Aqua, thats your business, you can call it Meatballs for all I care. What I do care about though is the historical connection and UI evolution. The Yosemite UI has clearly evolved from the 'classical' Aqua look. It has all the iconic elements of the Aqua interface, it has the color scheme of the Aqua interface and it is also obviously based around the water theme. Yes, it got rid of the gel cap look (which btw. was a clear tendency with OS X since its original release) and it focuses instead on a wet glass/water film look. Yes, its UI elements are flatter and more subtly rendered. But calling this a 'completely new' UI means that you reject any connection whatsoever to Aqua, which is beyond ridiculous. Yosemite UI is clearly an evolution of the Aqua interface as seen in SL just as SL is an evolution of the Aqua interface as seen in OS X 10.1
So its only Aqua for you if it has the gel-cap buttons? Talk about shallow
At any rate, this discussion about names is getting silly. If you don't want to call it Aqua, thats your business, you can call it Meatballs for all I care. What I do care about though is the historical connection and UI evolution. The Yosemite UI has clearly evolved from the 'classical' Aqua look. It has all the iconic elements of the Aqua interface, it has the color scheme of the Aqua interface and it is also obviously based around the water theme. Yes, it got rid of the gel cap look (which btw. was a clear tendency with OS X since its original release) and it focuses instead on a wet glass/water film look. Yes, its UI elements are flatter and more subtly rendered. But calling this a 'completely new' UI means that you reject any connection whatsoever to Aqua, which is beyond ridiculous. Yosemite UI is clearly an evolution of the Aqua interface as seen in SL just as SL is an evolution of the Aqua interface as seen in OS X 10.1
What evolution...? 10.1 to 10.6 has the same "gel-like" Aqua is what Steve would described the design goal as when you see it, you wanna LICK it... Does the "Aqua" UI in Yosemite gives you the desire to lick it...?
And what water theme on Yosemite UI...? I would prefer them to paint it red and give it a BLOODY theme instead. Speaking of which, Yosemite UI is NOT an evolution. It's an abomination, a mutation... There's no way you gonna call it Aqua. More like Pancake - it's FLAT...
You want it more bloody..? It's like human (Aqua) vs zombie (Pancake), only that zombie is pretty much bloody dead, and the only way to satisfy your ego (or poor taste for design) is to run over it FLAT to kill it... juicy ain't it...? Now that's something for you to LICK it...
Talk about shallow...
Tiger:
Snow Leopard and Lion:
The progression to simpler, less pronounced shading appears to be obvious over the versions. Lion also removes the rounded corners, although the shading is quite similar to SL. Continue the trend and you will get the Yosemite look.
I have never experienced the desire to lick my computer display, that would be fairly disgusting. I do clearly see the 'wet' theme in Yosemite's UI.
As to the rest of your post, it seems to be rather emotional train of though gibberish, I can't constructively comment on that. If you want me to respond, please come up with some reasoning and not a steam of subjective epithets. I get that you don't like the 'flat' (I hate that term btw) design which seems to the the fashion at the moment. I hardly see how your personal aesthetic preferences are valid criteria to judge OS design. If you want to criticise some work, criticise it in regards to what it is and its intention, not what you like. Otherwise there is not much purpose in having a discussion.
That's the thing though, I believe you are mistaken in what Yosemite is and trying to achieve. SL to Mavericks could easily be called an evolution of Aqua. However, you seem to be the only person who sees the "water" in Yosemite. It is not an evolution of Aqua. The look was clearly and obviously taken from iOS 7/8. Still, you are correct that it shouldn't matter what we call it really. You wanna call it the new Aqua go ahead. It just secretly grinds my gears cause I adored Aqua and all that's left of it is some of the colour scheme.
Oh, there is no question that Yosemite adopts the visual style of iOS7/8. However, I don't see how it contradicts my point of view. I don't believe that Apple tries to make OS X look or be more like iOS. I know that this is a popular complaint on these forums, but so far I have not seen any evidence for this. Rather, I believe that Apple wants to have a common theme to both platforms, including the visual theme, without sacrificing the aspects of functionality which differ between desktop and mobile (as an example how to sacrifice desktop functionality, see Windows 8). In fact, I think that when we look at the history of OS X and iOS for the last few years, there is some pretty good evidence that they have been wildly experimenting with different designs. I mean look at all OS X post SL, , awkwardly moving back and forth between minimalism and skeuomorphism. Besides, Apple has a history of using iOS as a platform to test new designs and technologies, which are then ported to OS X if deemed successful. The iOS 7 was a test platform to try out some minimalist design ideas (which again, as far as I am concerned, are a minimalist evolution of Aqua design ideas). I am sure that they have experimented with similar look on OS X as well, internally, who knows, maybe even before iOS 7. But rolling a dramatic redesign on a desktop platform is always more difficult than on mobile; and experience with iOS 7 allowed them to fix some aspects in the design they were not happy with. This resulted in a new 'unified corporate design', which is present in both Yosemite and iOS 8.
I think what I am trying to say here is that I don't see the whole thing as OS X mimicking iOS or via versa. The whole history was a struggle to give the two platforms a sense of 'corporate identity'. The new design is not 'iOS', and its not 'OS X'. Its actually 'Apple'. Its in Apple UI, its in Apple software, its on Apple websites and also in Apple hardware.
Didn't I mentioned "gel-like" Aqua from 10.1 to 10.6...? Why are you showing that 10.7 Lion UI...? Just to prove that this is evolution...? If SL to Lion is evolution to you, then 10.9 to 10.10 is abomination... simple as that... What evolution...?
By the way, I did not coin the word "Lick", it was Steve when he introduced Mac OS X with the Aqua interface. If you have not watch that keynote, I suggest you do before you bark around here claiming an evolutionised Aqua.
And what discussion are you talking about...? It is clearly stated from the topic which aptly titled "Yosemite looks terrible!"...
The intentions are pretty clear when Steve introduced Aqua, to make it simple to use and simple for the eyes to discern, and the Aqua UI improved overtime til SL. Anything from 10.7 to 10.9 is evolutionary as per what you claimed, that's fine with me. Yosemite however is a pile of crap lump together to strain the old eyes. Can you enlighten us what intentions are of the Yosemite UI...? I do know of one - politically, Jony's trying hard to get rid of anything that was Forstall's design.
Are you saying the works of Scott Forstall and Bertrand Serlet had just been relegated to Jony Ive and he messed it up - and you call that evolutionary...?
It is you who kept on defending Yosemite UI being called an evolutionised Aqua when it is clear that I and the rest of the people here think otherwise.
Yosemite is water-themed...? Man, you better get your eyes checked...
Last edited:
Didn't I mentioned "gel-like" Aqua from 10.1 to 10.6...? Why are you showing that 10.7 Lion UI...? Just to prove that this is evolution...? If SL to Lion is evolution to you, then 10.9 to 10.10 is abomination... simple as that... What evolution...?
By the way, I did not coin the word "Lick", it was Steve when he introduced Mac OS X with the Aqua interface. If you have not watch that keynote, I suggest you do before you bark around here claiming an evolutionised Aqua.
And what discussion are you talking about...? It is clearly stated from the topic which aptly titled "Yosemite looks terrible!"...
The intentions are pretty clear when Steve introduced Aqua, to make it simple to use and simple for the eyes to discern, and the Aqua UI improved overtime til SL. Anything from 10.7 to 10.9 is evolutionary as per what you claimed, that's fine with me. Yosemite however is a pile of crap lump together to strain the old eyes. Can you enlighten us what intentions are of the Yosemite UI...? I do know of one - politically, Jony's trying hard to get rid of anything that was Forstall's design.
Are you saying the works of Scott Forstall and Bertrand Serlet had just been relegated to Jony Ive and he messed it up - and you call that evolutionary...?
It is you who kept on defending Yosemite UI being called an evolutionised Aqua when it is clear that I and the rest of the people here think otherwise.
Yosemite is water-themed...? Man, you better get your eyes checked...
Only thing I can think of is familiarity for iOS users, the group that makes up the bigger slice of the pie. They do want more Mac sales, after all. Apple is trying their best to make Macs appeal to iOS users, in the hopes that all iOS users eventually own a Mac.
Appeals - yes... iOS users - maybe...
iOS users who also happened to be Windows users - YES...!
Just look at Yosemite's translucency... similar in theme with Windows 7...
Because the highlights on Snow Leopard have been significantly toned down compared with Tiger, and Lion still has the same kind of highlights (although they have changed the shape of the buttons). I chose those pictures because, in my opinion, they demonstrate the trend quite well.
Of course I watched it. That is why I am claiming that Yosemite is Aqua. There are certain ideas behind Aqua and Yosemite implements all of them. I hope you relize that there is more then one way to implement an UI that would follow the basic principles behind Aqua.
Some users have managed (quite successfully) to present their objectives to Yosemite in a fairly objective way.
And Yosemite is so far the most successful implementation of those intention in the history of OS X, as far as I am concerned. It minimizes the visual distractions and introduces a clear sense of order within the UI without being too much 'in your face'. Apple has always been about functional minimalism. An UI like Yosemite's matches Apple's ideology and history very well.
I am quite sure that you are right on this one. But this applies to virtually every situation where you have competing designs. Not to mention that Forstall's designs were Apple's worst so far
So far it has been 3 vs. 2. Not to mention that number of polls on these forums show that people who like Yosemite outnumber though who dislike it at least 4:1
He meant the whole Yosemite being a revolutionised Aqua idea that you appear to be alone in. Not people liking vs disliking the UI. I'm in the middle myself. I certainly don't hate Yosemite but I do miss the Aqua of Snow Leopard which I believe was ahead of its time enough to still stand up today.Because the highlights on Snow Leopard have been significantly toned down compared with Tiger, and Lion still has the same kind of highlights (although they have changed the shape of the buttons). I chose those pictures because, in my opinion, they demonstrate the trend quite well.
Of course I watched it. That is why I am claiming that Yosemite is Aqua. There are certain ideas behind Aqua and Yosemite implements all of them. I hope you relize that there is more then one way to implement an UI that would follow the basic principles behind Aqua.
Some users have managed (quite successfully) to present their objectives to Yosemite in a fairly objective way.
And Yosemite is so far the most successful implementation of those intention in the history of OS X, as far as I am concerned. It minimizes the visual distractions and introduces a clear sense of order within the UI without being too much 'in your face'. Apple has always been about functional minimalism. An UI like Yosemite's matches Apple's ideology and history very well.
I am quite sure that you are right on this one. But this applies to virtually every situation where you have competing designs. Not to mention that Forstall's designs were Apple's worst so far
So far it has been 3 vs. 2. Not to mention that number of polls on these forums show that people who like Yosemite outnumber though who dislike it at least 4:1
He's certainly not alone in the "idea". He's stating his case quite well. I'm not sure why it's even a discussion. Yosemite's GUI is an evolution of Aqua. It continues trends that have been going on for a decade while maintaining most of the same UI elements.
Ok, I see. Well, my job is to see and study subtle connections between things, so I am ok with being in the minority who can perceive the evolutionary link between the designs
Or I might be completely wrong on this one. In the end, I think that the truth is somewhere in the middle. You are obviously right about Apple abandoning some iconic features of Aqua look (let's call it the surface elements). But I am also fairly sure that the current design was developed as a minimal interpretation of Aqua UI (hence evolutionary link), and that the current design is also fully in line with the aims behind the original Aqua. Which is kind of the most important point to me. Basically, my position is that a change in art style does is not enough to have a completely new design. Windows 8 was a new design, because it added a number of principally new UI concepts, in addition to changing the color scheme, the way one interacts with the OS (basically everything). In comparison, Yosemite only changes the art style, but does not really adds anything new or different that has not been there in this or other way. It even keeps the traditional OS X color scheme. In other words, its the same things, but expressed slightly differently. We don't need to agree on this though. Just thinking about possibilities and arguments is a reward on its own.
Last edited:
I was just stating what the other guy meant. I'm sure you're not alone in your opinions (as has just been proven), I just don't share them. The Aqua elements are gone. Aqua wasn't a colourscheme, it was the fluidity of the design. Plus Ive didn't design Aqua and so can lay no claim to it. Aqua has been slowly getting phased out (even Apple said it themselves) since Snow Leopard and now is gone completely. There are key design elements that still make it uniquely OSX but no Aqua.Ok, I see. Well, my job is to see and study subtle connections between things, so I am ok with being in the minority who can perceive the evolutionary link between the designs
We don't need to agree on this though. Just thinking about possibilities and arguments is a reward on its own.
Also, we're debating not arguing.
Having an intellectual discussion about design, UI, history and perception of things is being fanatic now? My my, that is a refreshing attitude
I am writing here because I find many aspects of this discussion intellectually stimulating. It makes me understand better how I see things and reveals connections and thoughts not clear to me before. If you want, its an exercise in polemics. Obviously I couldn't give a *** about convincing some people on the internet
Estimates across the board seem to indicate about a 30% dissatisfaction level with Yosemite. Obviously a cursory observation, but then again this thread now has a view count of 107K making it the fourth most viewed topic right after the Yosemite bug thread.
One thing I've noticed is that when I see Yosemite in it's default environment, with a hand picked background and settings it looks quite good. It's when it starts getting reconfigured and used that it turns downright stupid looking.
Translucency already failed once during Leopard. Remember the translucent menu bar...the one that people started immediately replacing with 3rd party solid menu bars when Leopard came out? The one that Apple eventually had to convert back to a solid bar?
Common sense would tell most people the idea wasn't liked. So what does Apple do? They make the entire interface translucent. How stupid can one possibly be?
The true backlash, and my prediction, which is only an opinion like all of this, is that this will cost Apple heavily in sales. I think their sales for computers will drop by 50% within the next few years. Here's why:
1. As more people use Yosemite, alter the background, etc. etc. they will find it more and more annoying to use. Aside from the often ridiculous, cheap looking effects that translucency can have, some people will have visibility problems with it. I think this will cause a significant portion of current users to stop upgrading hardware. Some, as they've said in this thread, will leave Apple all together.
2. People new to Apple will look at the external hardware designs, look at the price of the units, and then look at the UI, and just walk away. The UI is a misfit with the hardware. It's as if you're visiting an extraordinarily expensive restaurant, and the waiter approaches you with your meal on a silver tray with a silver lid. He opens the lid to reveal a hot dog. The design doesn't fit the hardware.
This was a radical change for Apple to implement, and it wasn't well thought out. Where was the clamoring to change the GUI? It wasn't there. Where was barrage of users, getting on web sites and screaming about how much they hate the Aqua look and feel? It didn't exist. Do they really think they're going to gain enough new users with Yosemite to make up for those that walk away? I seriously doubt it.
This was an incredibly stupid move on Apple's part. Time will tell if I'm right or wrong.
One thing I've noticed is that when I see Yosemite in it's default environment, with a hand picked background and settings it looks quite good. It's when it starts getting reconfigured and used that it turns downright stupid looking.
Translucency already failed once during Leopard. Remember the translucent menu bar...the one that people started immediately replacing with 3rd party solid menu bars when Leopard came out? The one that Apple eventually had to convert back to a solid bar?
Common sense would tell most people the idea wasn't liked. So what does Apple do? They make the entire interface translucent. How stupid can one possibly be?
The true backlash, and my prediction, which is only an opinion like all of this, is that this will cost Apple heavily in sales. I think their sales for computers will drop by 50% within the next few years. Here's why:
1. As more people use Yosemite, alter the background, etc. etc. they will find it more and more annoying to use. Aside from the often ridiculous, cheap looking effects that translucency can have, some people will have visibility problems with it. I think this will cause a significant portion of current users to stop upgrading hardware. Some, as they've said in this thread, will leave Apple all together.
2. People new to Apple will look at the external hardware designs, look at the price of the units, and then look at the UI, and just walk away. The UI is a misfit with the hardware. It's as if you're visiting an extraordinarily expensive restaurant, and the waiter approaches you with your meal on a silver tray with a silver lid. He opens the lid to reveal a hot dog. The design doesn't fit the hardware.
This was a radical change for Apple to implement, and it wasn't well thought out. Where was the clamoring to change the GUI? It wasn't there. Where was barrage of users, getting on web sites and screaming about how much they hate the Aqua look and feel? It didn't exist. Do they really think they're going to gain enough new users with Yosemite to make up for those that walk away? I seriously doubt it.
This was an incredibly stupid move on Apple's part. Time will tell if I'm right or wrong.
I think this part sums up your post quite nicely. How does common sense tell you that most people didn't like an idea because a few people replaced it? Seems to me that's not common sense at all.
And FWIW, the translucent menu bar is still the default in Mavericks, so not quite the failure you're making it out to be.
For everyone thinking the hit counter of this thread means anything to show how many people are dissatisfied with the new design - I like it and a whole lot people like and they read this thread too many times. Just like to read what its been talked about.
This part does not make any sense to me. The UI and the design of the modern Apple hardware even look similarly (same colors, same gradients, same contrasts). When I was giving a talk in a meeting some time ago, a number of my coworkers were commenting on how nice the UI looks and asking which OS I was using. My girlfriend, who was always sceptical about Macs, has now bough a MacBook Air, just because she liked Yosemite so much. I have shown Yosemite to several dozens of friends and colleagues over the summer, and I haven't got a single negative comment.
In fact, based on how people write their criticism, I have a very strong suspicion that the group which tends to dislike Yosemite the most are the self-proclaimed die-hard Apple users. Often the same people who complain how Apple tries to make OS X look and be like iOS and say that 'Apple is used to be so much better', 'Apple lost their way', 'OS X is being dumbed down', 'OS X is being locked down' and so on. The ever popular 'old good days' syndrome. Of course, by far not every negative post here is like that (there are some very insightful and constructive comments!) , but many of them go along the lines of 'I have been using Apple for 10/15/20 years, but Yosemite will make me move to Windows/Linux/RaspberryPi just because it does not look exactly like OS X used to look 10 years ago!'. Just some food for though. But then again, what do I know.
- Status