A not entirely enjoyable new experience; avoiding the word 'modern'
Does Yosemite successfully convey an acceptably modern appearance to a broad range of users? …
… Users wanted a modern look (they got it) … Sure, this list and my argumentation here is completely silly and one-sided, but so is yours.
… still, Apple's use of the word
modern puzzles me. There's more play with words below, but it's play with a serious edge.
Not all app icons have a fresh, modern appearance
Visible:
"This new approach to the icons gives the entire app family a more harmonious look while making each one instantly recognizable."
Not visible in the screenshot below (and I don't understand HTML enough to quickly explain the invisibility of what's in that source code for the Design page):
"All the app icons have a fresh, modern appearance, but each is instantly recognizable, so you enjoy an experience that’s both new and familiar."
If that is avoidance of the word
modern, then I guess that (amongst other things) for Mac most users, what's in their Docks – maybe a minority of Apple apps, if the viewer selects then uses a few from the
thousands available – is a
potentially jarring mix of normality and novelty.
In the
http://www.apple.com/osx/ area, I find
only one use of the word modern visible without showing source code:
"… modern, easy-to-read font throughout the system …"
I see enough complaints for me to believe that the optimised version of Helvetica Neue is not as optimal for Macs as Lucida Grande, the
essence of which is Lucida Sans Unicode c.1993.
Helvetica Neue: essentially less modern?
Whilst the optimisation for Yosemite may be modern, Helvetica Neue is not as modern as Lucida Grande. If the resources linked from
Typography for Macs: a brief history are reliable, then the periods associated with Helvetica Neue (a.k.a. Neue Helvetica?) seem to be 1990, 1983 and 1956-58 … all three of which may fit a definition of modern, but all are pre-1993.
Personally, I shouldn't care whether a font fits a definition of modern. I care deeply about a font's fitness for purpose. With pre-release Yosemite on my well-specified Mac I found that parts of the UI were designed around use of an unfit font; some of those problem areas seem to be
not improvable when a more legible font is preferred. For someone who uses a Mac as much as I do, that is a hideous development by Apple.
System fonts: a little context
iOS used first Helvetica then Helvetica Neue as its system font. All releases of Mac OS X prior to OS X Yosemite used Lucida Grande as the system font. The version of Helvetica Neue used as the system font in OS X 10.10 is specially optimised; Apple's
intention is to provide a consistent experience
for people who use both iOS and OS X.
Themes, skins, making good a mess
OS X never had theme support and I doubt it will ever have. A big issue with themes is that they mess up UI design …
A keyword from Apple's revised HIG: masterly. I see enough post-release complaints for me to argue that Apple's idea of the ideal one-for-all theme is
not masterly. There's an excess of mess about
Apple's theme.
https://twitter.com/search?src=typd&q=Yosemite ugly
https://twitter.com/search?q=Yosemite awful
https://twitter.com/mgalicki/status/522825168519839744
More overtly potty-mouthed:
https://twitter.com/_monibon_/status/523205942771716096
… and so on. I'm not counting but these levels of negativity – in response to a supposed Apple improvement for Macs – is surely unprecedented. The "more users now than in 2000" argument alone can not explain the high levels. Around the times of past upgrades to the OS, pre-release and in the days following release, I quietly but very closely observed public fora.
(Detailed reasons for me doing so are off-topic; essentially it was to bring an experienced response to recognisably difficult or misinterpreted problems within my then areas of expertise.)
Observations on post-release reports about Yosemite: a predictable range of familiar problems, a sadly predictable range of complaints.
Mavericks is legible … the Yosemite font fading and background makes it so much worse. … hurts my head by the end of the day.
… legibility. These examples express my complaint. In all the arguments about OS X, or OS 9 for that fact, I don't ever recall people complaining about poor typography on any Mac until Yosemite.
… Mavericks, Yosemite … No one can convince me Yosemite is easier to read. I think that lack of contrast and pixelation (if you look close) is what causes the eye strain complaints. …
If that's how things such as stacks appear by default in the release of Yosemite, it's simply ridiculous.
Yesterday: at the Mac with Mavericks for more than a few hours. Pretty much round the clock and beyond. I don't recommend spending so much time at a computer, but doing so with Mavericks is painless for me.
A comparable attempt with Yosemite would be literally painful, and I'm not alone:
… after doing work in it for a few hours I'd have to say that making sidebar panels in every application translucent was a huge mistake. … tolerable because the sidebars are small and generally used for quick tasks, but … translucency in the file browser panel was making me nauseous. … overkill. I'd just like the option to turn off translucency in applications, or at least flag specific apps whose sidebars should be opaque.
Frankly, from a UX point-of-view, I don't buy Apple's design intent for this feature that they wanted to convey depth and let content sift through. From Apple's Yosemite page, "And a translucent sidebar gives you a glimpse of what’s behind the active window." No one needs to 'glimpse' what's behind UI elements. They want to see the UI elements. It's an after-the-fact rationale and it's indefensible. … made UI harder to read, cluttered, or in my case, nausea-inducing.
I accept that some users will enjoy Apple's blending of content with non-content. Very difficult to defend: the ways in which so-called 'vibrancy' (another area of contradiction in last weeks edition of the human interface guidelines) causes more difficulty than pleasure for many people.
… A big issue with themes is that they mess up UI design and such design-conscious company as Apple is certainly averse to that. …
On one hand, partly supporting a prediction that any alternative to Apple's 10.10 theme would mess up the user interface:
OMG... Do Not download Yosemite.
It looks terrible, as soon as i saw it it reminded me of those skins i used to download when i was a kid to make my desktop and icons look cool, its seriously ugly.
Save Yourself's!!
On the other hand, immediate rejection of Apple's skinning; a wish for it to
not look like Apple's idea of good-looking:
… a fantastic OS. It just looks awful. If someone skinned it to make it look like the old I'd have that added the second after it came out.
Closing thoughts for this post
… Given all the "beautiful" type postings for Yosemite that feature BACKGROUND PICTURES and NOT the GUI, I'm not even sure your average fan of Yosemite on here knows what a GUI is or why people don't care for the changes to begin with.
There's careless, and there's
careless.
Questions such as this tickle me –
How does Yosemite look when you start using some of the apps that are in the Dock?
– but I can't criticise careless,
carefree customers
We
can criticise careless companies!
Within Apple: someone, or some group of people, has driven a ****-you theme bulldozer over and around a few basic requirements of some the company's most loyal customers. That, that is shameful. Driven without due care and attention. DUI, under the influence
who of I don't know, but a collective virtual boot in the backside is timely and appropriate. A Yosemite car crash is not what I wanted for the thirtieth anniversary of the Mac.
Postscript, 2014-10-25
I found one Apple use of the word 'modern' in relation to the appearance.
Apple - Press Info - OS X Yosemite Available Today as a Free Upgrade (2014-10-16)