I think it's fine that it works for you. I don't think it's fine that you feel the need to continue to post about how wrong it is to care.
If it's a waste of time to critique the UI, than what does that say about the time you're taking to critique me?
Very true. I can't say I'm innocent, either. So let me close with this; why is it important? I assume we can agree that it's miles ahead of both Vista and Tiger in terms of visual appeal. If that's the case, why do the little things matter?
Very true. I can't say I'm innocent, either. So let me close with this; why is it important? I assume we can agree that it's miles ahead of both Vista and Tiger in terms of visual appeal. If that's the case, why do the little things matter?
Because the use of 3D space has major, major implications for the UI metaphor, unlike, say, the pinstripes on the menu bar.
The original, "classic" Mac UI was based on some pretty strict rules regarding the behavior and placement of UI elements, collectively know as the "Human Interface Guidelines" (HIG).
By a lot of people's lights, the "friendliness" and "ease of use" of the OS derived from just that-- things looked and acted and interacted in very predictable ways, ways that were, for computers of their day, very "natural" metaphorical extensions of how we interacted with actual items on a desktop.
Certainly I'm not the first person to have misgivings about the seemingly casual relationship to any apparent hard and fast HIG in OS X.
Whether you realize it or not, a carefully considered, consistent HIG that takes into account how human beings actually think, learn and interact with the things around them makes all the difference in the world regarding the usability of a given OS.
That doesn't mean UIs should never change, or that there aren't better ways of organizing the elements of an operating system that take into account new, larger and more numerous file types, or that take advantage of the graphical horsepower of contemporary machines.
But to be truly useful over the long haul, and to contribute to an OS that is both productive and pleasurable to use, such changes must be in the service of a well though out HIG.
Color schemes or surface treatments don't matter much (within reasonable limits) , since they don't effect the all over experience any more than using a desk with a cherry top vs. using a desk with an oak top would (although, as the move to a unified window look shows, too much variation on this count can be a problem in its own right).
But a change from 2D to 3D space, no matter how apparently trivially implemented, is a massive shift in the fundamental paradigm of what the OS "means".
EDIT: If you're interested, there's a sort of semi-famous article (in mac circles, at least) over at Ars Technica by a guy named John Siracusa that touches on some of these issues. It's primarily about the finder (although "finder" as it is used in the article is a term of broader significance than the app-like thing in OS X), and even if you think he's full of shit it's well worth reading.
Honestly, how many nonsense features does any Windows OS have? Billions and they can all be turned off. No need to worry my plain and boring friend, I'm sure Apple will throw in a feature called disable.
Honestly, how many nonsense features does any Windows OS have? Billions and they can all be turned off. No need to worry my plain and boring friend, I'm sure Apple will throw in a feature called disable.
If you'd read and understood what I posted (yes, I understand that it was too "boring" for you, my agressively stupid and proudly ignorant friend ), then you'd realize that I'm talking about the larger implications for Apple's UI plans. Being obliged to "disable" something like a 3D shelf, while no doubt par for the course in Windows land, is a serious breach of what makes a Mac a Mac.
Not to address anyone in particular, but while I welcome the growth of the Mac market share, I have noticed that with that comes users that have never even considered the possibility of an OS that is anything more than a semi-ad hoc collection of parts.
To a certain extent Apple seems to be adding elements for them, which makes baby Jesus cry.
Not to address anyone in particular, but while I welcome the growth of the Mac market share, I have noticed that with that comes users that have never even considered the possibility of an OS that is anything more than a semi-ad hoc collection of parts.
To a certain extent Apple seems to be adding elements for them, which makes baby Jesus cry.
Wholeheartedly agreed. Windows (and to a certain extent Linux) have trained millions to look at the length of a feature list as the only criteria for judging a product. How one accesses functionality is just as important as that functionality being there. Generally speaking, the elegant minimalist solution that provides the desired functionality with the *least conceptual burden* is the proper one. This is the key behind Apple's long-standing design philosophy... and they keep slipping from it, bit by bit. Unless they can show a replacement philosophy, well... we can look forward to future usability alongside that of Windows and Linux distros. Um, ew?
That's our concern, that Apple is throwing away a long-standing principle that is at the core of their success. Maybe they have something up their sleeve, maybe we simply don't see the larger picture yet. Fair enough. It's the lack of simplicity of vision that is worrisome.
Time Machine thinks we have infinite 3D space, CoverFlow figures an icons width worth, and the Dock believes it to be a few inches.
While I have not the time to watch the Apple demos of Leopard, even from my fragemented view of the issue I understand your concerns. However, give Time Machine a break here. The "infinite" dimension shown is not space. It is time. You can still argue (average consumer has not and has not to have General Relativistic bakcground etc.), but for now let's say that Time machine is a little more special than the others.
The original, "classic" Mac UI was based on some pretty strict rules regarding the behavior and placement of UI elements, collectively know as the "Human Interface Guidelines" (HIG).
By a lot of people's lights, the "friendliness" and "ease of use" of the OS derived from just that-- things looked and acted and interacted in very predictable ways, ways that were, for computers of their day, very "natural" metaphorical extensions of how we interacted with actual items on a desktop.
So true. I remember almost 15 years ago when I started my contact with the Macintosh, things were so intuitive. I cannot forget how rewarding was to be able to discover everything in the machine and how it works, without assistance. This was an experience that definitely left its marks on me. Then, I had to opportunity to play with a Next machine (a Cube perhaps, don't remember). Not so obvious. I had someone guide me through.
Now just think, who is the daddy of Mac OS X... Blessing and curse at the same time.
Very true. I can't say I'm innocent, either. So let me close with this; why is it important? I assume we can agree that it's miles ahead of both Vista and Tiger in terms of visual appeal. If that's the case, why do the little things matter?
are you from karelia? because that place is a HOLE
From what I've seen of it, I don't mind it. There has to be some way of setting the dock icons apart from other icons on the desktop, and whether it's a square around them as in Tiger, or the illusion of a floor that they sit on, it still does that job of setting them apart.
One thing I wonder about: I now have all my application, around 100, in an apps folder in my dock. It doesn't seem very practical to use stacks for that. They're all going to pop up in a big grid? It looks fine with 10-12 as in the demo, but I don't see how it's going to look nice with 100. And some of them are folders rather than files. I really can't picture how that's going to work.
Here's an odd note: the dock shelf looks exactly, and I mean exactly like an element from Sun's Looking Glass demo page:
The idea of a "glass shelf" seems too arbitrary to me for this to be a coincidence. With all the talk of Apple adopting ZFS, perhaps there is more to the Apple-Sun relationship than we realize?
Although, admittedly, using some random element from a theoretical UI is a funny way to express it....
EDIT: You'll notice that in Sun's implementation, the shelf makes a little more sense since the entire desktop is clearly being portrayed as 3D. Still gives me a headache, though.
One thing I wonder about: I now have all my application, around 100, in an apps folder in my dock. It doesn't seem very practical to use stacks for that. They're all going to pop up in a big grid? It looks fine with 10-12 as in the demo, but I don't see how it's going to look nice with 100. And some of them are folders rather than files. I really can't picture how that's going to work.
Can't you just have a folder in the dock as always and not have it be a "stack"?
I don't have too much of a problem with the reflective Dock, but I'm not particularly impressed by it either. It looks kind of neat, I guess. It's just a cosmetic change.
Stacks on the other hand look pretty nifty.
Overall, though, I had much higher hopes for a UI revamp in Leopard. It looks we're stuck waiting another few years for something more interesting.
Adding 3D to the dock would make sense if there was multiple layers to the dock, such as when you add so much to the dock that it starts to shrink. Instead of shrinking, what if the icons started a new row behind the main one? Then the trapezoidal 'floor' would make more sense.
Or rather use the second row behind the apps to hold recently opened documents in stack relating to that application.
cool ideas and i like the reflective floor but what i wonder about is how does this new dock look on either side of the window rather than at the bottom. i dont even use my dock at the bottom of the screen. i have WAY more screen real estate width wise. mine, like many other people, is on the right because im right handed and autohid because bouncing icons are obnoxious to a degree. with the current transparency, i cant even see the dock so its never obnoxious. i wonder how it will affect daily use with autohide and such.
but yeah, the top bar isnt just transparent, its also manipulating colors / contrast. im not a huge fan of that idea. i'd have much rather seen them add some consistency to their design by making it too reflective by default and have a toggle for "transparent or reflective" under appearances so we could choose our flavor.
Comments
I think it's fine that it works for you. I don't think it's fine that you feel the need to continue to post about how wrong it is to care.
If it's a waste of time to critique the UI, than what does that say about the time you're taking to critique me?
Very true. I can't say I'm innocent, either. So let me close with this; why is it important? I assume we can agree that it's miles ahead of both Vista and Tiger in terms of visual appeal. If that's the case, why do the little things matter?
Very true. I can't say I'm innocent, either. So let me close with this; why is it important? I assume we can agree that it's miles ahead of both Vista and Tiger in terms of visual appeal. If that's the case, why do the little things matter?
Because the use of 3D space has major, major implications for the UI metaphor, unlike, say, the pinstripes on the menu bar.
The original, "classic" Mac UI was based on some pretty strict rules regarding the behavior and placement of UI elements, collectively know as the "Human Interface Guidelines" (HIG).
By a lot of people's lights, the "friendliness" and "ease of use" of the OS derived from just that-- things looked and acted and interacted in very predictable ways, ways that were, for computers of their day, very "natural" metaphorical extensions of how we interacted with actual items on a desktop.
Certainly I'm not the first person to have misgivings about the seemingly casual relationship to any apparent hard and fast HIG in OS X.
Whether you realize it or not, a carefully considered, consistent HIG that takes into account how human beings actually think, learn and interact with the things around them makes all the difference in the world regarding the usability of a given OS.
That doesn't mean UIs should never change, or that there aren't better ways of organizing the elements of an operating system that take into account new, larger and more numerous file types, or that take advantage of the graphical horsepower of contemporary machines.
But to be truly useful over the long haul, and to contribute to an OS that is both productive and pleasurable to use, such changes must be in the service of a well though out HIG.
Color schemes or surface treatments don't matter much (within reasonable limits) , since they don't effect the all over experience any more than using a desk with a cherry top vs. using a desk with an oak top would (although, as the move to a unified window look shows, too much variation on this count can be a problem in its own right).
But a change from 2D to 3D space, no matter how apparently trivially implemented, is a massive shift in the fundamental paradigm of what the OS "means".
EDIT: If you're interested, there's a sort of semi-famous article (in mac circles, at least) over at Ars Technica by a guy named John Siracusa that touches on some of these issues. It's primarily about the finder (although "finder" as it is used in the article is a term of broader significance than the app-like thing in OS X), and even if you think he's full of shit it's well worth reading.
They were basically all scripted exactly the same and this seems a bit lazy to me, especially with the prices people were paying to go there.
We're not paying to see a keynote.
Honestly, how many nonsense features does any Windows OS have? Billions and they can all be turned off. No need to worry my plain and boring friend, I'm sure Apple will throw in a feature called disable.
If you'd read and understood what I posted (yes, I understand that it was too "boring" for you, my agressively stupid and proudly ignorant friend
Not to address anyone in particular, but while I welcome the growth of the Mac market share, I have noticed that with that comes users that have never even considered the possibility of an OS that is anything more than a semi-ad hoc collection of parts.
To a certain extent Apple seems to be adding elements for them, which makes baby Jesus cry.
Not to address anyone in particular, but while I welcome the growth of the Mac market share, I have noticed that with that comes users that have never even considered the possibility of an OS that is anything more than a semi-ad hoc collection of parts.
To a certain extent Apple seems to be adding elements for them, which makes baby Jesus cry.
Wholeheartedly agreed. Windows (and to a certain extent Linux) have trained millions to look at the length of a feature list as the only criteria for judging a product. How one accesses functionality is just as important as that functionality being there. Generally speaking, the elegant minimalist solution that provides the desired functionality with the *least conceptual burden* is the proper one. This is the key behind Apple's long-standing design philosophy... and they keep slipping from it, bit by bit. Unless they can show a replacement philosophy, well... we can look forward to future usability alongside that of Windows and Linux distros. Um, ew?
That's our concern, that Apple is throwing away a long-standing principle that is at the core of their success. Maybe they have something up their sleeve, maybe we simply don't see the larger picture yet. Fair enough. It's the lack of simplicity of vision that is worrisome.
Time Machine thinks we have infinite 3D space, CoverFlow figures an icons width worth, and the Dock believes it to be a few inches.
While I have not the time to watch the Apple demos of Leopard, even from my fragemented view of the issue I understand your concerns. However, give Time Machine a break here. The "infinite" dimension shown is not space. It is time.
The original, "classic" Mac UI was based on some pretty strict rules regarding the behavior and placement of UI elements, collectively know as the "Human Interface Guidelines" (HIG).
By a lot of people's lights, the "friendliness" and "ease of use" of the OS derived from just that-- things looked and acted and interacted in very predictable ways, ways that were, for computers of their day, very "natural" metaphorical extensions of how we interacted with actual items on a desktop.
So true. I remember almost 15 years ago when I started my contact with the Macintosh, things were so intuitive. I cannot forget how rewarding was to be able to discover everything in the machine and how it works, without assistance. This was an experience that definitely left its marks on me. Then, I had to opportunity to play with a Next machine (a Cube perhaps, don't remember). Not so obvious. I had someone guide me through.
Now just think, who is the daddy of Mac OS X... Blessing and curse at the same time.
Very true. I can't say I'm innocent, either. So let me close with this; why is it important? I assume we can agree that it's miles ahead of both Vista and Tiger in terms of visual appeal. If that's the case, why do the little things matter?
are you from karelia? because that place is a HOLE
Oh, cool!
One thing I wonder about: I now have all my application, around 100, in an apps folder in my dock. It doesn't seem very practical to use stacks for that. They're all going to pop up in a big grid? It looks fine with 10-12 as in the demo, but I don't see how it's going to look nice with 100. And some of them are folders rather than files. I really can't picture how that's going to work.
The idea of a "glass shelf" seems too arbitrary to me for this to be a coincidence. With all the talk of Apple adopting ZFS, perhaps there is more to the Apple-Sun relationship than we realize?
Although, admittedly, using some random element from a theoretical UI is a funny way to express it....
EDIT: You'll notice that in Sun's implementation, the shelf makes a little more sense since the entire desktop is clearly being portrayed as 3D. Still gives me a headache, though.
One thing I wonder about: I now have all my application, around 100, in an apps folder in my dock. It doesn't seem very practical to use stacks for that. They're all going to pop up in a big grid? It looks fine with 10-12 as in the demo, but I don't see how it's going to look nice with 100. And some of them are folders rather than files. I really can't picture how that's going to work.
Can't you just have a folder in the dock as always and not have it be a "stack"?
Or has that changed and I'm missing something?
Stacks on the other hand look pretty nifty.
Overall, though, I had much higher hopes for a UI revamp in Leopard. It looks we're stuck waiting another few years for something more interesting.
Can't you just have a folder in the dock as always and not have it be a "stack"?
Or has that changed and I'm missing something?
You could be right. I had assumed that folders in the dock would turn into stacks in Leopard, but that's just an assumption.
You could be right. I had assumed that folders in the dock would turn into stacks in Leopard, but that's just an assumption.
Well I hope you're assumption is wrong
If you can't have a folder, just stacks, that would kind of suck I think.
The reflective floor on the Dock, on the other hand, is a grotesque aberration that must be done away with.
I agree. The "eye candy"... Good. The menu bar I like. But the "3D" Dock! That has to go.
Spaces, what a waste, I have no use for it. Stacks... maybe, I'll wait and see. Other than that, OS X.5 rocks!
Adding 3D to the dock would make sense if there was multiple layers to the dock, such as when you add so much to the dock that it starts to shrink. Instead of shrinking, what if the icons started a new row behind the main one? Then the trapezoidal 'floor' would make more sense.
Or rather use the second row behind the apps to hold recently opened documents in stack relating to that application.
cool ideas and i like the reflective floor but what i wonder about is how does this new dock look on either side of the window rather than at the bottom. i dont even use my dock at the bottom of the screen. i have WAY more screen real estate width wise. mine, like many other people, is on the right because im right handed and autohid because bouncing icons are obnoxious to a degree. with the current transparency, i cant even see the dock so its never obnoxious. i wonder how it will affect daily use with autohide and such.
but yeah, the top bar isnt just transparent, its also manipulating colors / contrast. im not a huge fan of that idea. i'd have much rather seen them add some consistency to their design by making it too reflective by default and have a toggle for "transparent or reflective" under appearances so we could choose our flavor.
I HATE this new dock ! I just HATE the false 3D dock with reflection ! And I hate this transparent menu bar ! GEEZ C'MON APPLE !
thanks for adding your eloquent if not informative piece of poignant conversation to the discussion. there's a lot to build on with this comment.