Yosemite looks terrible!

[n-evo]

If that's truly your interpretation, then I must say that you are reading with rose-tinted spectacles.

I gave you a link to an article where extremely similar remarks were made about Mac OS X Panther's new Aqua back in the day. For whatever reason you choose to (largely) ignore that.

n-evo, if you suggested that I deal poorly with change, then you're a hair's breadth away from addition to the shortlist of people who I ignore in MacRumors. I use that list as rarely as possible, and I respect much of what you write, so please: let's try to keep things that way

Genuine question: You've been ranting (your own words, not mine) about things as little as the color of a search field. A search field that's still indicated as such by a flashing text cursor. Are you saying it demonstrates you're actually a very flexible person regarding these things? I honestly wonder what you think those endless posts you write about various aspects of OS X Yosemite will achieve in the end.

Personally I also noticed that new search field and thought to myself: "Hey, that's different." But that's about it.

There's a world of difference between making subtle changes from one OS release to another, and doing the same with a sledgehammer. The changes I see in Yosemite can be described as radical. It's not like the refined an icon here or there, or made mild changes to windows and frames, they radically changed everything.

The argument that implies this is the same thing as the Jaguar to Panther transition is ridiculous. This thread currently has, as of this posting, has over 193,000 views. Did the same happen with the Jaguar to Panther change? I don't think so!

Something I miss completely in your reply is the fact Aqua didn't exactly start out as the pinnacle of perfection in 2001 either. Far from it actually. It took Puma, Jaguar, Panther, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion, Mountain Lion and Mavericks to reach the point we saw in 2014. OS X Yosemite is the first iteration of a new interface and it too will be improved upon. Just like the original Aqua was improved upon and saw not one, not two but three major revisions. These things take time and have to start somewhere.
Something I find completely ridiculous is claiming OS X Yosemite is a radical change. It's the same OS with a different paint job. Functionality-wise nothing fundamental happened from OS X Mavericks, OS X Yosemite still works exactly the same. What we're talking about is a new icon set and a new theme that's still hugely inspired by the old Aqua. To me it's almost surreal how people are freaking out about this the way they do.

Obviously Mac OS X Panther didn't generate as much hits back in 2003 simply because Macs weren't as popular back then, so that point is moot really.

 

[frgough]

I gave you a link to an article where extremely similar remarks were made about Mac OS X Panther's new Aqua back in the day. For whatever reason you choose to (largely) ignore that.

Were the usability criticisms wrong?

----------

...OS X Yosemite still works exactly the same. What we're talking about is a new icon set and a new theme that's still hugely inspired by the old Aqua. To me it's almost surreal how people are freaking out about this the way they do.

People have given you very logical reasons why. Usability. Feel free to explain why their usability criticisms are wrong. You seem to be suggesting we just need to wait a few years for Apple to refine the UI. Which, of course makes me wonder at your cognitive dissonance when out of one side of your mouth you tell us that there is nothing different, and out of the other side, you tell us to just be patient and it will get better.

 

[leman]

Were the usability criticisms wrong?

I haven't seen a single one so far that would convince me. Not to mention that most criticism here has nothing to do with usability, but rather with legibility and aesthetics. I agree that some of the legibility concerns are valid, but I definitely don't see any dramatic issues here — nothing that can't be fixed with some slight tweaking of blending parameters and algorithms. As to usability — Yosemite includes a number of functional enhancements over previous OS versions (e.g. extensions). Simply put: Yosemite allows you do do all the things that you could do in any previous OS X just as easily, and on the top of that, it allows you to do some things even easier. I haven't seen a single example so far where Yosemite would make an important feature less accessible or less obvious (yeah, sure, Safari window title) — so I hope you understand that I can't approach these claims of 'reduced usability' with anything else than mild amusement.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

I always wonder how some dare and can deny or even question a subjective perception, experience of others. It leads to a dominant view, position that is forced on others. It never results in an objective debate.

 

[saturnotaku]

I haven't seen a single one so far that would convince me. Not to mention that most criticism here has nothing to do with usability, but rather with legibility and aesthetics. I agree that some of the legibility concerns are valid, but I definitely don't see any dramatic issues here — nothing that can't be fixed with some slight tweaking of blending parameters and algorithms. As to usability — Yosemite includes a number of functional enhancements over previous OS versions (e.g. extensions). Simply put: Yosemite allows you do do all the things that you could do in any previous OS X just as easily, and on the top of that, it allows you to do some things even easier. I haven't seen a single example so far where Yosemite would make an important feature less accessible or less obvious (yeah, sure, Safari window title) — so I hope you understand that I can't approach these claims of 'reduced usability' with anything else than mild amusement.

^ Pretty much agree with all of this. In fact, I actually quite like Yosemite's look and feel. Despite the OS having been designed with the Retina display in mind, I have no issues with legibility on my antiglare classic MacBook Pro.

 

[F1Mac]

I always wonder how some dare and can deny or even question a subjective perception, experience of others. It leads to a dominant view, position that is forced on others. It never results in an objective debate.

And it goes both ways... When subjective perception is presented as "fact" then we enter the fascinating "I'm right because you're wrong" type of discussion.

What I don't agree with so far in this thread is the "Apple has completely lost it" motto. Apple has made changes that obviously don't appeal to everyone, but brushed metal was more problematic than Yosemite's appearance imo. There's more to 10.10 than Helvetica and flat windows. I'm not a fan of transparency so I turned it off. But for example spotlight has been greatly improved and is much faster than before. I personally like the stylization of icons too... As for usability, it's at the very least the same as Mavericks.

Many posts in this thread claim that an OS isn't just about the looks, and yet that's the only thing they talk about.

 

[GlenK]

This thread looks worse than it is due to it's size. But it's the same posters over and over. There are almost 2,000 replies to this thread but 58% of them came from the same 39 posters. One poster has 294 posts on this thread or 15%.

The debate will continue but in context the numbers are somewhat deceptive.

 

[Omega Mac]

I agree 100%!

This is why they had such a limited product range. People don't always get that as it makes sense when you what to keep that beauty:function ratio in perfect harmony and not always easy to get it spot on every-time either even for Apple but if you understand it as the ultimate design challenge then you are playing in the right space.

You know I don't think I've read, listened to and studied as much about Apple as I have in the last few weeks and I am certain of what I suspected is exactly true having it mostly confirmed form various sources. It's taken me right back to a very nostalgic computing time in my early years.

The point about gaming I was thinking maybe Apple are getting that and running with it but only the iPhone platform, ok so move that approach across to the desktops/PC's and let them benefit.

SEGA Gamegear nailed the concept a long time ago. Even had a colour screen but yet Nintendo monochrome green LCD was more popular. Go figure. Being first does not always equal success.

My fear is that Apple are going to grow their OS across platforms as I have mentioned (Cars, fridges, surfaces). Ok but uh I don't know is it.

It seems they are leaning more from the innovation on the iOS platforms and integrating it back to the desktops... that's a flawed approach with a high rate of attrition. It's also very lazy. So it's most probably an informed cost cutting or money led decision. Thank can only spell UGLY results.

 

[leman]

This thread looks worse than it is due to it's size. But it's the same posters over and over. There are almost 2,000 replies to this thread but 58% of them came from the same 39 posters. One poster has 294 posts on this thread or 15%.

The debate will continue but in context the numbers are somewhat deceptive.

Oh, you can pull the posts automatically? Care to share how? I am dying to do some data mining on this thread

 

[Partron22]

Oh, you can pull the posts automatically? Care to share how? I am dying to do some data mining on this thread

Just click on the number link in the Replies column of the main forum page. That'll put up a nice little summary window.

 

[leman]

It seems they are leaning more from the innovation on the iOS platforms and integrating it back to the desktops... that's a flawed approach with a high rate of attrition. It's also very lazy. So it's most probably an informed cost cutting or money led decision. Thank can only spell UGLY results.

I have written about this point earlier in this thread, but its probably a good idea to repeat myself here. I believe that you are misjudging the situation. Apple is not "lazily" integrating back its mobile innovation into desktop, Apple is using the mobile as an experimentation platform for its innovations. This is particularly clear when you look at the developer APIs. Apple would bring them for iOS, then tweak/improve them and bring that improved version to OS X.

As such, this approach has a number of important advantages and no drawbacks that I can see (except feature envy). The mobile platform is volatile, has more developers and users, devices are rotated quickly and the upgrade rates are very high. This all makes it more forgiving to radical changes. In a nutshell, if you mess up an API or fundamental design with the mobile OS, you can usually fix it next year. If you mess it up on the desktop OS, you'll have a problem supporting all the apps that were released using your broken API.

 

[GlenK]

Oh, you can pull the posts automatically? Care to share how? I am dying to do some data mining on this thread

Yep, Patron22 answered your question. Just click on the number in the replies column.

 

[n-evo]

Were the usability criticisms wrong?

People have given you very logical reasons why. Usability. Feel free to explain why their usability criticisms are wrong. You seem to be suggesting we just need to wait a few years for Apple to refine the UI. Which, of course makes me wonder at your cognitive dissonance when out of one side of your mouth you tell us that there is nothing different, and out of the other side, you tell us to just be patient and it will get better.

Apparently your readings skills aren't up to par today because I never claimed nothing's changed. I'm saying functionality between OS X Mavericks and Yosemite hasn't really changed. The appearance changed, not the way things work: They're two very different things. OS X Yosemite is the first iteration featuring the new appearance. As such it stands to reason it will be improved upon with future OS X versions. Just like what happened to the original Aqua over the years.

 

[tkermit]

Yosemite's adoption rate appears to be starting to level off just over 20%:

https://www.gosquared.com/global/mac/yosemite

Maybe it's too early to tell but with Mavericks I seem to remember that sort of curve starting off almost as a line with increasing, not decreasing slope and just continuing.

Wouldn't it be something if after a period of time the Yosemite user curve started a downward trend? It would imply regression back to previous OSes.

Looks like Yosemite is just about to overtake Mavericks...

 

[frgough]

I haven't seen a single one so far that would convince me. Not to mention that most criticism here has nothing to do with usability, but rather with legibility and aesthetics. I agree that some of the legibility concerns are valid, but I definitely don't see any dramatic issues here — nothing that can't be fixed with some slight tweaking of blending parameters and algorithms. As to usability — Yosemite includes a number of functional enhancements over previous OS versions (e.g. extensions). Simply put: Yosemite allows you do do all the things that you could do in any previous OS X just as easily, and on the top of that, it allows you to do some things even easier. I haven't seen a single example so far where Yosemite would make an important feature less accessible or less obvious (yeah, sure, Safari window title) — so I hope you understand that I can't approach these claims of 'reduced usability' with anything else than mild amusement.

"Some legibility concerns are valid...Yosemite allows you to do all the things you could do in any previous version just as easily."

You may want to rephrase your argument so you aren't contradicting yourself.

----------

Apparently your readings skills aren't up to par today because I never claimed nothing's changed. I'm saying functionality between OS X Mavericks and Yosemite hasn't really changed. The appearance changed, not the way things work: They're two very different things. OS X Yosemite is the first iteration featuring the new appearance. As such it stands to reason it will be improved upon with future OS X versions. Just like what happened to the original Aqua over the years.

Usability is a part of functionality. The original point stands. Perhaps you want to rephrase your arguments more coherently.

 

[leman]

"Some legibility concerns are valid...Yosemite allows you to do all the things you could do in any previous version just as easily."

You may want to rephrase your argument so you aren't contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction. You are just plumbing together the notion of functionality, usability, legibility and twist them around as you see fit.

Legibility has to do ease of element identification, visual discernibility. Some people have voiced concern that some of Yosemite UI might be difficult to see under certain combination of transparency, font and color scheme. Some of these concerns are certainly valid.

The relation to usability is only superfluous. Usability has more to do with overall organisation, logic and accessibility of the OS functions. E.g. if Mail would completely remove the sidebar, that would be a reduction in usability (you'd need to perform extra actions to navigate the folders). Of course, if legibility is really awful, the usability (accessibility) suffers as a consequence. But this is hardly the case with Yosemite.

 

[n-evo]

Usability is a part of functionality. The original point stands. Perhaps you want to rephrase your arguments more coherently.

Nowhere did I mention usability. You're randomly dragging it into the debate in the hopes of making your arguments more solid. Everything you were able to do on OS X Mavericks you still can do on OS X Yosemite. In that regard nothing has changed. The difference in usability between the two versions is highly subjective at best.

 

[Omega Mac]

Nowhere did I mention usability. You're randomly dragging it into the debate in the hopes of making your arguments more solid. Everything you were able to do on OS X Mavericks you still can do on OS X Yosemite. In that regard nothing has changed. The difference in usability between the two versions is highly subjective at best.

If you can't perceive the default User Interface as easily then the USABILITY has been diminished by a clearly quantifiable factor versus what was more easily perceptible in other versions.

I'd give the "subjective" angle a rest. It's never a strong base for much. I find it often only used to end debate or curiosity and further inspection on forums regardless of the topic at hand.

 

[AndreSt]

The ugly UI design and the lack of usability is one thing. I even might be able to adopt myself to that.
But the general instability and the heap of bugs are not so easy to live with.

In the meantime the App Store ratings go down. Attached is the one from Switzerland.

 

[Ulenspiegel]

...But the general instability and the heap of bugs are not so easy to live with...

I agree. And I would add a personal note, I strongly dislike the flat design, including the Dock that I really hate. But tastes differ.

 

[MacRobert10]

This thread looks worse than it is due to it's size. But it's the same posters over and over. There are almost 2,000 replies to this thread but 58% of them came from the same 39 posters. One poster has 294 posts on this thread or 15%.

The debate will continue but in context the numbers are somewhat deceptive.

That would probably explain the terrible ratings it's getting in the App Store.

 

[grahamperrin]

Reassurance

I gave you a link to an article where extremely similar remarks were made about Mac OS X Panther's new Aqua back in the day. For whatever reason you choose to (largely) ignore that. …

I was, still am, the only person who up-voted that post.

Please be reassured that it's not my habit to ignore people's posts. Broadly speaking: wherever I find overall value in a post, I'll vote for it. This quiet appreciation significantly helps to reduce noise in long topics such as this.

 

[GlenK]

That would probably explain the terrible ratings it's getting in the App Store.

Probably so, only 448 have rated it there.

 

[grahamperrin]

Saccades

… Safari window title …

… the office literally next to mine happen to be a lab which studies eye saccades, so I could in principle borrow the eye trackers and do a proper study on that …

I'll appreciate an answer to the following question. If you don't know, someone in the neighbouring lab might do.

Where part of a study involves a person's saccades across the display of a computer, is that part of the study typically limited to a person who is both (a) seated and (b) looking only, or mostly, at that display?

Thanks

 

[leman]

I'll appreciate an answer to the following question. If you don't know, someone in the neighbouring lab might do.

Where part of a study involves a person's saccades across the display of a computer, is that part of the study typically limited to a person who is both (a) seated and (b) looking only, or mostly, at that display?

You want the test person to have their undivided attention on the stimulus, so sitting them down (comfortably) in front of the display is an obvious choice. Most experimental studies don't make much sense if the test person is distracted with something else.