To be honest, I actually don't like Apple's Pro GUIs. Not so much the look, but the feeling of them, the widgets and controls seem less fluid compared to standard Aqua. It's more of a feeling when using them, than just looking at them.
I think this is a case of the interface isn't something you can just figure out on your own in less than a half hour. Even though it's Apple software it is Pro software no matter how you look at it. Your going to have to buy a book, and read it to figure out how to make, and get the most of it.
Apple Remote Desktop 2.0 :great tool, but I did not like the Metal Brush GUI. I think ARD 2.0 should have the same GUI than the server tools... I think metal brush is not for OS GUI or ProApps GUI, maybe just for iApps.
AppleWorks 7.0: Why apple can't release a Kick-a** Office suite, including Keynote 2.0, a word processor (with an advanced mode based in Latex), a speardsheet and (the app I'm always bit&*($g) collaboration tool for sharing apps and desktop integrated in iChat, so like sharing desktops or apps during conferences calls... netmeeting is the king.. I know apple can come up with something 10X better...
Logic 7.0: I think someone in this forum posted some screenshots some time ago.
Apple just trademarked some names:iWork, iWrite, ProBand, and Pods.
"Wow, that was slick! How long have you been editing video?"
"Um, this is my first time. I've never used iMovie before."
He was floored, but then I had him sit down and try it, and he was utterly amazed, and hooked. "It works just like you'd expect it to... this is incredible."
Well, as much as i appreciate your mac enthusiasm (it is a bit biased, isn't it?), BUT, ...er... i don't believe you that part with "...never used iMovie, though, ..."
Perhaps this part is true, but it is only true because you have at least 12-15 years experience with Macs and 3-5 years with Os X, right? Prove me wrong!
Well, as much as i appreciate your mac enthusiasm (it is a bit biased, isn't it?), BUT, ...er... i don't believe you that part with "...never used iMovie, though, ..."
Tough. I had literally never launched iMovie prior to that attempt at editing.
Quote:
Perhaps this part is true, but it is only true because you have at least 12-15 years experience with Macs and 3-5 years with Os X, right? Prove me wrong!
You're right... but that's rather precisely the point. I was able to leverage my experience with MacOS X's *other* applications to edit video. The consistency allowed me to make some intelligent guesses as to how the system worked, and use it without instruction.
If you've ever used other systems, you'll realize how rare this is. It only hammers home the point that Apple's software design teams, despite some bobbles, is still the leader for usability.
I think the example of iMovie is important though because while I still think it is a star of good UI design, it is in its fourth version now, and people don't give it the respect it deserves because it hasn't changed a whole lot. Sure, they added the Ken Burns effect (then fixed it ), added mor einfo and feedback to the movie timeline and such, but it has never really received a major overhaul of the UI like so many other apps in their history. But the reason for that is because it hasn't needed one!
I think a lot of people have the expectation, fueld by the refinements and cosmetic changes to the Aqua UI, that new versions of these apps should look or act like new versions and differentiate themselves more by appearance each time. However, if the developer really gets the UI right in the first place, then there can be a certain amount of "ho hum, what's really that new?" reaction from users. Pros are more used to that since companies like Quark and AutoDesk can't make big changes to their apps' UI due to their entrenched user base.
The pattern that iMovie demonstrates is that these UIs get refined over many versions if they're done right in the first place. It's just that a lot of software UIs aren't really done very well in the firs tplace. Often times, it is an afterthought for programers. With pro apps especially, apps tend to be very carefully structured and "verbose" with their UIs the first time in the attempt to future-proof them. This often produces UIs that are not very accessible because they end up either being too hierarchical, which makes them a pain to navigate and hides too much stuff from the user, or too generic/flat, which is confusing and overload info to the user. Striking a balance and implementing a system for accessible features via the UI is a tough task. Apple in these pro apps, as others point out, has invented their own means of doing this, going beyond the generic HI guidelines to create structure and data types that allow for an efficient if somewhat unique UI. They are based on standard HI guidelines, but go beyond where approapriate. That is, they use the guidelines as just that: guidelines.
I think this is a case of the interface isn't something you can just figure out on your own in less than a half hour. Even though it's Apple software it is Pro software no matter how you look at it. Your going to have to buy a book, and read it to figure out how to make, and get the most of it.
No, it's not how to use it, it's how it feels. An example is the text on menus, boxes, etc. The scroll bars feel like they are add-ons, etc. Maybe I'm just picky, but I do notice the difference between normal Aqua programs and Pro ones. It's subtl maybe to some, but it is ther.
Know what it reminds me of? A program that has been ported to the Mac, but not quite native yet, a bit like Maya.
Kinda nitpicking now, but it does bother me whenusing FCP for days on end.
I think Apple was extremely smart in not moving to a bright Aqua like UI for the Pro Apps. Grey is easy on the eyes and as close to neutral as you can get. Apple wasn't about to change Shake's UI as it's regarded as one of the best for compositors. I think once you get comfy with Apple's paradigm picking up the other apps is really easy.
I think Apple was extremely smart in not moving to a bright Aqua like UI for the Pro Apps. Grey is easy on the eyes and as close to neutral as you can get. Apple wasn't about to change Shake's UI as it's regarded as one of the best for compositors. I think once you get comfy with Apple's paradigm picking up the other apps is really easy.
Oh yeah, definitely, a darkish (grey) interface is far preferable to most who work in video/film than something like bright Aqua. But there's a sense of 'tacked-on' when it comes to Apple's Pro apps I feel.
Comments
Originally posted by sanity assassin
To be honest, I actually don't like Apple's Pro GUIs. Not so much the look, but the feeling of them, the widgets and controls seem less fluid compared to standard Aqua. It's more of a feeling when using them, than just looking at them.
I think this is a case of the interface isn't something you can just figure out on your own in less than a half hour. Even though it's Apple software it is Pro software no matter how you look at it. Your going to have to buy a book, and read it to figure out how to make, and get the most of it.
ARD 2.0 GUI should be like:
Apple Remote Desktop 2 'well worth the money' by computer world
AppleWorks 7.0: Why apple can't release a Kick-a** Office suite, including Keynote 2.0, a word processor (with an advanced mode based in Latex), a speardsheet and (the app I'm always bit&*($g) collaboration tool for sharing apps and desktop integrated in iChat, so like sharing desktops or apps during conferences calls... netmeeting is the king.. I know apple can come up with something 10X better...
Logic 7.0: I think someone in this forum posted some screenshots some time ago.
Apple just trademarked some names:iWork, iWrite, ProBand, and Pods.
http://www.macobserver.com/columns/d...0030817b.shtml
I think Tiger will have tons of new features and enhancements that steve did not show at the wwdc...
Originally posted by Kickaha
Definitely.
...
"Wow, that was slick! How long have you been editing video?"
"Um, this is my first time. I've never used iMovie before."
He was floored, but then I had him sit down and try it, and he was utterly amazed, and hooked. "It works just like you'd expect it to... this is incredible."
Well, as much as i appreciate your mac enthusiasm (it is a bit biased, isn't it?), BUT, ...er... i don't believe you that part with "...never used iMovie, though, ..."
Perhaps this part is true, but it is only true because you have at least 12-15 years experience with Macs and 3-5 years with Os X
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
Well, as much as i appreciate your mac enthusiasm (it is a bit biased, isn't it?), BUT, ...er... i don't believe you that part with "...never used iMovie, though, ..."
Tough.
Perhaps this part is true, but it is only true because you have at least 12-15 years experience with Macs and 3-5 years with Os X
You're right... but that's rather precisely the point. I was able to leverage my experience with MacOS X's *other* applications to edit video. The consistency allowed me to make some intelligent guesses as to how the system worked, and use it without instruction.
If you've ever used other systems, you'll realize how rare this is. It only hammers home the point that Apple's software design teams, despite some bobbles, is still the leader for usability.
I think a lot of people have the expectation, fueld by the refinements and cosmetic changes to the Aqua UI, that new versions of these apps should look or act like new versions and differentiate themselves more by appearance each time. However, if the developer really gets the UI right in the first place, then there can be a certain amount of "ho hum, what's really that new?" reaction from users. Pros are more used to that since companies like Quark and AutoDesk can't make big changes to their apps' UI due to their entrenched user base.
The pattern that iMovie demonstrates is that these UIs get refined over many versions if they're done right in the first place. It's just that a lot of software UIs aren't really done very well in the firs tplace. Often times, it is an afterthought for programers. With pro apps especially, apps tend to be very carefully structured and "verbose" with their UIs the first time in the attempt to future-proof them. This often produces UIs that are not very accessible because they end up either being too hierarchical, which makes them a pain to navigate and hides too much stuff from the user, or too generic/flat, which is confusing and overload info to the user. Striking a balance and implementing a system for accessible features via the UI is a tough task. Apple in these pro apps, as others point out, has invented their own means of doing this, going beyond the generic HI guidelines to create structure and data types that allow for an efficient if somewhat unique UI. They are based on standard HI guidelines, but go beyond where approapriate. That is, they use the guidelines as just that: guidelines.
Originally posted by onlooker
I think this is a case of the interface isn't something you can just figure out on your own in less than a half hour. Even though it's Apple software it is Pro software no matter how you look at it. Your going to have to buy a book, and read it to figure out how to make, and get the most of it.
No, it's not how to use it, it's how it feels. An example is the text on menus, boxes, etc. The scroll bars feel like they are add-ons, etc. Maybe I'm just picky, but I do notice the difference between normal Aqua programs and Pro ones. It's subtl maybe to some, but it is ther.
Know what it reminds me of? A program that has been ported to the Mac, but not quite native yet, a bit like Maya.
Kinda nitpicking now, but it does bother me whenusing FCP for days on end.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I think Apple was extremely smart in not moving to a bright Aqua like UI for the Pro Apps. Grey is easy on the eyes and as close to neutral as you can get. Apple wasn't about to change Shake's UI as it's regarded as one of the best for compositors. I think once you get comfy with Apple's paradigm picking up the other apps is really easy.
Oh yeah, definitely, a darkish (grey) interface is far preferable to most who work in video/film than something like bright Aqua. But there's a sense of 'tacked-on' when it comes to Apple's Pro apps I feel.