It's not that they have new widget A, it's that they have new widget A, slightly different widget A1, another slightly different widget A', another one that just looks different but acts the same in A*, etc.
If you're going to produce a new widget, or a new methodology, make it consistent, at the very least. Optimally, make it based on feedback that indicates that it meshes well with the abilities (physiological and cognitive) of your user base.
I think that Apple is doing a lot of experimenting right now, and that's great, in my book. I just wish they'd make up their minds on some elements based on (and altering) an ever-evolving HIG, and standardize across their products more quickly, at the same time they move the functionality from /System/PrivateFrameworks to /System/Frameworks for 3rd party use.
Do we *really* need what, three variations of scroll bars? Standard 10.5, iTunes, iLife '09... I would hope that 10.6 unifies some of the experimentation into the OS. (At which point we'll have new experimentation that won't be unified until 10.7... whee. )
I agree that it seems that Apple has a methodology here. A very opaque, chaotic looking methodology, but one nonetheless. Personally, I'd like to see it made more explicit, in that each major OS version would have an updated HIG to go with it, and a caveat that "Apple will continue to innovate in the user interface in its own apps - if you wish to emulate one or more of these interfaces, be aware that they may be non-standard and in violation of the HIG for the next major update." Best of each round gets rolled into the standard, HIG is updated, cycle continues.
It'd just be nice if it were more explicit.
I'm sure that they aren't sure which method works best, and so they are trying them to see which it is.
Psychology, as I can tell you from my own studies in that area isn't such a strict, or exact, science. When you're dealing with people, you can only guess what works, no matter how many studies you do. Cognition and psychology are part and parcel of the same thing. At least with ergonomics, we have a leg to stand on, so to speak.
The problem these days, is that everything is so much more complex than when these guidelines originally came out, that it's almost impossible to keep things consistent. System 1 was oh so very primitive compared to OS 10.5, and there are so many more programs than there were back then.
In fact, Apple alone has more programs, both as part of the OS, and retail then the entire software industry did at that time, other than for the major business packages.
In addition, each of these major programs from Apple has more code and features than did ALL of those old programs put together!
No wonder it's becoming more difficult to work to the guidelines.
We have to regard everything as being a work in progress, and as such, we will see inconsistencies.
I can agree it would be nice if the changes where more even across all products. I was hoping they would change the old Aqua scroll bars into iTunes scroll bars with Leopard. We already know they are going to do it, I'm not sure what's taking so long.
On the other hand, if they made radical system wide changes too quickly people will complain that they suddenly made radical system wide changes. If Apple makes a radical change system wide that doesn't work out as well as Apple had planned, its difficult to make another system wide change. I think this is the reason they are moving slowly.
Right. This is exactly what I said before. They can't change the entire thing at once.
Cripes! Look at the hollering people did with "brushed metal"! And that wasn't even in the slightest bit important, just a color and texture!
The problem these days, is that everything is so much more complex than when these guidelines originally came out, that it's almost impossible to keep things consistent. System 1 was oh so very primitive compared to OS 10.5, and there are so many more programs than there were back then.
Right. Computing power is far far beyond what we had back then. 24 bit color, transparency, GPUs, 24" monitors, etc., etc. But as others said, it would be nice if Apple injected some discipline and consistency into all the experimentation they've been doing.
I actually do like the new interface, and I think it suits the 'playback' metaphor really well. I understand that Apple might be breaking it's own HIG's - however I think there may be good reasons for doing so (optimised for smaller displays, multi-touch etc). It might not please everyone, but I like progression of new ideas.
I just noticed that Apples GSX & ServiceSource support sites have a new look and feel. Very similar to what Marble and QT X are supposed to look like. If you have a GSX account log in and check it out.
Comments
It's not that they have new widget A, it's that they have new widget A, slightly different widget A1, another slightly different widget A', another one that just looks different but acts the same in A*, etc.
If you're going to produce a new widget, or a new methodology, make it consistent, at the very least. Optimally, make it based on feedback that indicates that it meshes well with the abilities (physiological and cognitive) of your user base.
I think that Apple is doing a lot of experimenting right now, and that's great, in my book. I just wish they'd make up their minds on some elements based on (and altering) an ever-evolving HIG, and standardize across their products more quickly, at the same time they move the functionality from /System/PrivateFrameworks to /System/Frameworks for 3rd party use.
Do we *really* need what, three variations of scroll bars? Standard 10.5, iTunes, iLife '09... I would hope that 10.6 unifies some of the experimentation into the OS. (At which point we'll have new experimentation that won't be unified until 10.7... whee.
I agree that it seems that Apple has a methodology here. A very opaque, chaotic looking methodology, but one nonetheless. Personally, I'd like to see it made more explicit, in that each major OS version would have an updated HIG to go with it, and a caveat that "Apple will continue to innovate in the user interface in its own apps - if you wish to emulate one or more of these interfaces, be aware that they may be non-standard and in violation of the HIG for the next major update." Best of each round gets rolled into the standard, HIG is updated, cycle continues.
It'd just be nice if it were more explicit.
I'm sure that they aren't sure which method works best, and so they are trying them to see which it is.
Psychology, as I can tell you from my own studies in that area isn't such a strict, or exact, science. When you're dealing with people, you can only guess what works, no matter how many studies you do. Cognition and psychology are part and parcel of the same thing. At least with ergonomics, we have a leg to stand on, so to speak.
The problem these days, is that everything is so much more complex than when these guidelines originally came out, that it's almost impossible to keep things consistent. System 1 was oh so very primitive compared to OS 10.5, and there are so many more programs than there were back then.
In fact, Apple alone has more programs, both as part of the OS, and retail then the entire software industry did at that time, other than for the major business packages.
In addition, each of these major programs from Apple has more code and features than did ALL of those old programs put together!
No wonder it's becoming more difficult to work to the guidelines.
We have to regard everything as being a work in progress, and as such, we will see inconsistencies.
I can agree it would be nice if the changes where more even across all products. I was hoping they would change the old Aqua scroll bars into iTunes scroll bars with Leopard. We already know they are going to do it, I'm not sure what's taking so long.
On the other hand, if they made radical system wide changes too quickly people will complain that they suddenly made radical system wide changes. If Apple makes a radical change system wide that doesn't work out as well as Apple had planned, its difficult to make another system wide change. I think this is the reason they are moving slowly.
Right. This is exactly what I said before. They can't change the entire thing at once.
Cripes! Look at the hollering people did with "brushed metal"! And that wasn't even in the slightest bit important, just a color and texture!
The problem these days, is that everything is so much more complex than when these guidelines originally came out, that it's almost impossible to keep things consistent. System 1 was oh so very primitive compared to OS 10.5, and there are so many more programs than there were back then.
Right. Computing power is far far beyond what we had back then. 24 bit color, transparency, GPUs, 24" monitors, etc., etc. But as others said, it would be nice if Apple injected some discipline and consistency into all the experimentation they've been doing.
- Jasen.
Right. This is exactly what I said before. They can't change the entire thing at once.
Cripes! Look at the hollering people did with "brushed metal"! And that wasn't even in the slightest bit important, just a color and texture!
Surely if that were true you wouldn't mind using this gem: http://bestplay-internet-radio-tuner...om/screenshot/...afterall, color and texture isn't important, right?
Of course, *you* might find this type of app acceptable. But I and others don't...that's why we're hollering.
Surely if that were true you wouldn't mind using this gem: http://bestplay-internet-radio-tuner...om/screenshot/...afterall, color and texture isn't important, right?
Of course, *you* might find this type of app acceptable. But I and others don't...that's why we're hollering.
No *I* don't find it acceptable, but that's not the point anyway.
The point is that there is going to be experimentation. That's what I and a few others are saying.
What the end result is I don't know.
But we do need something to replace some of the older interfaces which don't work as well as they used to.
I DO like what they're doing with the player, as do more than a few here, going by the posts I've read.