Apple's Ive brings software, hardware teams together in push for 'flat design'

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 164
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,232moderator
    darendino wrote: »
    Never mind pissballing about with this, where is my effing Mac Pro?????

    Where did you last see it? Oh you mean the new one, they flattened that too, it's called an iMac now. The new Mac Pro won't arrive before Ivy Bridge EP (Q3 2013), July at the earliest but possibly a launch at WWDC in June. Unless Intel decides to release Haswell early (aka when they were supposed to release them in the first place), there might be no new Macs until at least June. Until then all we have to talk about are baseless rumours and whatever Samsung's up to.

    I'm not sure that people noticed the tell-tale "People familiar with" phrase as well as "according to the people close to the company" as in not employees. This doesn't really provide much new information on anything guessed by Forstall leaving.

    "Overall, they expect any changes to be pretty conservative." This basically means that if nothing changes, their rumour still counts as valid because they said changes would be minimal. What if nothing changes and it means Ive approves of all the fake leather?
  • Reply 62 of 164
    Coming in July '14 and it's called iOS/OS 1.0
  • Reply 63 of 164
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


     


    Check this out via Gruber:


     


    http://hypercritical.co/2013/03/08/the-case-for-a-true-mac-pro-successor



    Very inspirational reading - that from the perspective of a Mac Pro owner.

  • Reply 64 of 164
    rot'napplerot'napple Posts: 1,839member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


     


    In my business, the printing industry, flat means dull and lifeless. I hope that's not the direction that Ive plans to move towards.





     


    'Flat' is easier then Apple saying they are pushing for a 'Thermography Design'... image

  • Reply 65 of 164
    macrulezmacrulez Posts: 2,455member


    deleted

  • Reply 66 of 164
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    I see many people rallying against skeuomorphism with blanket statements. They are useful but they need to be used appropriately. A general rule of thumb is if you can easily pick out the skeuomorph then it's done wrong. The page turning effect and highlighter appearance in iBooks are what I call ideal examples of great skeuomorphism. I don't think I've ever heard anyone say that needs to go and I would wager that most complaining about the faux-leather and stitching never even considered those as skeuomorphs. Notes on the iPad is a mixed bag for me with the stitching and torn paper being too much but the yellow-lined paper and the irregular red pencil mark around the current note bring a decent amount of familiarity to the functionality, even though I can see it all being cleaned in the future (example here).

    This can be looked at two ways. There is the first definition of functionality, which follows your comment: "the quality of being suited to serve a purpose well; practicality." That not only dictates the function is served but that a more subtle and harder to quantify aspect is also being accounted for. We've seen this for decades with people saying that Dell PCs are just as good as Macs all the way to this Android phone being better than the iPhone simply by posting some HW specs or feature without any regard for how well it actually functions for the user.



    TS's usage uses a more strict and spartan definition: "the purpose that something is designed or expected to fulfill." I doubt anyone would say that good or bad UI design can not drastically add or take away from the functionality which, to me, means that it would then make good UI design something that culminate in better functionality but that is not, by design, functionality itself. Consider this scenario, you buy two doors that are exactly the same. In one you drill the holes and place the HW for the knob in the expected area; the area that a normal human being would have the best access to grab and the handle. In the other you place it 6" off the ground. The general functionality of the door is still exactly the same but one has a much more ideal method for the user to interface with it.


    Thanks SolipismX...but TS statement was not factual nor did it even make sense. UI is functionality......The User Interface is by definition all the functionality a device has....the software (UI) controls the hardware. So all of the interaction on a device from human hands is in the UI. How can this not control the functionality of the device? That statement TS made "How is UI design 'functionality'? is so vague it does not make sense..... 


    Link from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface


    Edit: Excerpt from Wiki:"Generally, the goal of human-machine interaction engineering is to produce a user interface which makes it easy, efficient, and enjoyable to operate a machine in the way which produces the desired result. This generally means that the operator needs to provide minimal input to achieve the desired output, and also that the machine minimizes undesired outputs to the human."


     


    Sounds like functionality....

  • Reply 67 of 164
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member


    Wow - so many experts on UI design here.


     


    It would be funny if Apple folks were in fact discussing how to achieve a flat organization, which would allow hardware and software engineers to see what the other is up to without management approval every step of the way. This would be consistent with the hardware team showing their prototypes earlier.

  • Reply 68 of 164
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


    Wow - so many experts on UI design here.


     


    It would be funny if Apple folks were in fact discussing how to achieve a flat organization, which would allow hardware and software engineers to see what the other is up to without management approval every step of the way. This would be consistent with the hardware team showing their prototypes earlier.



    that makes so much sense....

  • Reply 69 of 164
    ankleskaterankleskater Posts: 1,287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    that makes so much sense....





    More than you'd want to admit. But the real point is that you lot are debating so passionately over something you know so little about. Much ado about nothing at its exemplary best.

  • Reply 70 of 164
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member


    To make a design essential (which I think is Jony Ive's preference) you need to know what the thing is trying to do. This only really comes in to play when you're talking about specific apps. An "application" is by definition trying to do something with the device. So I think they will focus on doing app by app redesign rather than sitting down and trying to draw up a new standard set of controls or some such. The new Podcast app looks like it might be the first one they did.

  • Reply 71 of 164
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    geekdad wrote: »
    Thanks SolipismX...but TS statement was not factual nor did it even make sense. UI is functionality......The User Interface is by definition all the functionality a device has....the software (UI) controls the hardware. So all of the interaction on a device from human hands is in the UI. How can this not control the functionality of the device? That statement TS made "<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">How is UI design 'functionality'? is so vague it does not make sense..... </span>

    <span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">Link from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface</span>

    <span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">Edit: Excerpt from Wiki:"</span>
    <span style="font-family:sans-serif;line-height:19.1875px;">Generally, the goal of human-machine interaction engineering is to produce a user interface which makes it easy, efficient, and enjoyable to operate a machine in the way which produces the desired result. This generally means that the operator needs to provide minimal input to achieve the desired output, and also that the machine minimizes undesired outputs to the human."</span>


    <span style="font-family:sans-serif;line-height:19.1875px;">Sounds like functionality....</span>

    Not that he qualified his comment to say UI design, not simply UI. You could say that primary UI of the iPhone is the touchscreen. You put elements on the display to indicate that an area can interact with the system, and then label them appropriately so the user knows what they are. I think it's clear he would agree with that and I think it's clear from his comment that he's not referring to the patent or any other HW, OS, drives, or API features in regards to how those are designed. This thread's article is even about a rumoured 'flat design' of the UI, hence my previous reply. I thought his comment was very clear.
  • Reply 72 of 164
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member



    Quote:


    Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dickprinter View Post


    In my business, the printing industry, flat means dull and lifeless. I hope that's not the direction that Ive plans to move towards.



     


    Then be sure to avoid making flat and dull designs. The UI has nothing to do with your productivity and final outputs.



     


    I don't get it. Your insult doesn't work with his post. You'd have to stop reading halfway through and completely ignore the fact that he's talking about how we don't know what the hell Ive means by "flat."

  • Reply 73 of 164
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post


    To make a design essential (which I think is Jony Ive's preference) you need to know what the thing is trying to do. This only really comes in to play when you're talking about specific apps. An "application" is by definition trying to do something with the device. So I think they will focus on doing app by app redesign rather than sitting down and trying to draw up a new standard set of controls or some such. The new Podcast app looks like it might be the first one they did.



    Good observation.

  • Reply 74 of 164
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member


    I hope Ives know what he's doing. Did he ever do software before? This news will make geeks and media dance, but if the interface is too flat, there will be a loud complaint about that. The iOS is iconic already. 

  • Reply 75 of 164
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by geekdad View Post


    Thanks SolipismX...but TS statement was not factual nor did it even make sense. UI is functionality......The User Interface is by definition all the functionality a device has....the software (UI) controls the hardware. So all of the interaction on a device from human hands is in the UI. How can this not control the functionality of the device? That statement TS made "How is UI design 'functionality'? is so vague it does not make sense..... 


    Link from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface


    Edit: Excerpt from Wiki:"Generally, the goal of human-machine interaction engineering is to produce a user interface which makes it easy, efficient, and enjoyable to operate a machine in the way which produces the desired result. This generally means that the operator needs to provide minimal input to achieve the desired output, and also that the machine minimizes undesired outputs to the human."


     


    Sounds like functionality....



    This is an example of Wikipedia not being entirely reliable. The general goal of HMI is to produce a UI to operate a machine in the way which produces the desired result. Ease of use and efficiency may or may not essential objectives. But they are not attributes that define basic HMI.

  • Reply 76 of 164
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Wow - so many experts on UI design here.

    It would be funny if Apple folks were in fact discussing how to achieve a flat organization, which would allow hardware and software engineers to see what the other is up to without management approval every step of the way. This would be consistent with the hardware team showing their prototypes earlier.

    That's more or less how I read it.

    I don't get the fascination with making the UI follow Windows footsteps. I can't stand that design philosophy.
  • Reply 77 of 164
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post


    I hope Ives know what he's doing. Did he ever do software before? This news will make geeks and media dance, but if the interface is too flat, there will be a loud complaint about that. 



    Jobs didn't program either.

  • Reply 78 of 164
    pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    ascii wrote: »
    The new Podcast app looks like it might be the first one they did.

    And the Podcast app features skeumoorphism.

    It can be done right.
  • Reply 79 of 164
    stelligentstelligent Posts: 2,680member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post





    That's more or less how I read it.



    I don't get the fascination with making the UI follow Windows footsteps. I can't stand that design philosophy.


    I understand, share the concern, although it is noteworthy that Metro earned lots of kudos initially.


     


    More importantly, Apple and Ive have shown that they have their own take of minimalist design. Not easy to predict how they can distinguish themselves when there is no "material" choice to play with. Nevertheless, I look forward to finding out.

  • Reply 80 of 164
    paxmanpaxman Posts: 4,616member


    I find the visual design of both OSX and IOS increasingly tired. Tired and confused. Not just in terms of visual design, but also in terms of functionality. Case in point - how do you quit iPhoto and how do quit Safari? iPhoto has adopted the Windows' way which I have to say I have always preferred in spite of Cmd-Q now being hardwired into my hand finger muscle memory. I have less problems with OSX than IOS but I look forward to a more cohesive look throughout OSX.


     


    I am not a fan of the Win8 design. It looks pretty enough but it lacks sophistication. I am certain Ive will approach 'flattening' out OSX/IOS in a much more thoughtful and precise manner.  'Flat' is useful as a broad design category but in and of itself it does not imply 'good' or 'bad'. In my book the challenge of creating really good minimalist design is much harder than a 'realistic' approach, or one that uses skeuomorphic design elements as in OSX. There is less to hide behind and the importance of precision and subtlety is key. 


     


    I have no idea what will come but what I am sure of is that minimalist design does not implicitly mean only shades of grey, and the removal of 'fun'. And as has been pointed out many times - skeuomorphic design is not by and of itself bad. Sometimes it is fun. Stitched leather, however, IS bad. Really really bad,

Sign In or Register to comment.