There is something to having an interface be unobtrusive, but on the other hand the screen shot above makes the widgets look like they're floating freely, with no relation to anything. The stripes gather the contents of a window together.
I must be missing whatever makes them distracting. I have hardly ever noticed the stripes, except as a subtle way to unify the contents of a window.
I have to say, it looks near perfect on my Cube. OS 9 looked wierd with that hardware.
As to the title of the thread, I expect continuous refinements. In particular, I expect that once Quartz rendering is hardware accelerated across the line, Apple will move from TIFFs to vectors to draw the crunchy bits of Aqua. Then they'll have options. In the mean time, the interface will continue to evolve - although I don't expect radical change - as Apple refines it, and the rules governing its use.
Much still stands. I accidentally click the Minimze instead of Close box sometimes. The window widgets should be on seperate ends of the top of the window like in OS 9. Also bigger window widgets would be nice, like in XP. I like how the widgets are bigger, but it is stupid to have all those controls next to each other.
The XP widgets have to be bigger 'cause XP (and every other version of Windows) uses linear mouse tracking, which means you can move across the screen fast, but it is difficult to make fine adjustments.
Mac OS X (and all other versions of the Mac OS) uses dynamic mouse tracking, i.e, move the mouse quickly and you can cover the screen in a few inches of mouse movement, move it slowly and you will quickly run off the side of your mousepad before covering the entire screen.
This is one of the biggest reasons I hate using Windows...it makes Photoshop a pain especially.
<strong>I accidentally click the Minimze instead of Close box sometimes. The window widgets should be on seperate ends of the top of the window like in OS 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This way you can separate destructive from non-destructive window widgets. I really don't know why they changed it in OS X. Just for cosmetical reasons?
This way you can separate destructive from non-destructive window widgets. I really don't know why they changed it in OS X. Just for cosmetical reasons?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably. Having a few at one end and one lonely one at the other doesn't look so great. Also, don't forget that some windows must have the toolbar collapse/show button. Might get a bit odd looking.
Look at the bright side, at least you don't maximize the window if you miss the close widget! In find that supremely annoying. Actually, I've never hit the wrong widget in OS X, though I have clicked and hit nothing (hit the title bar anyway).
<strong>The XP widgets have to be bigger 'cause XP (and every other version of Windows) uses linear mouse tracking, which means you can move across the screen fast, but it is difficult to make fine adjustments.
Mac OS X (and all other versions of the Mac OS) uses dynamic mouse tracking, i.e, move the mouse quickly and you can cover the screen in a few inches of mouse movement, move it slowly and you will quickly run off the side of your mousepad before covering the entire screen.
This is one of the biggest reasons I hate using Windows...it makes Photoshop a pain especially.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really!? If that's the case, then what does the "Acceleration" section under the "Motion" tab of the "Mouse Properties" control panel do in Windows anyway?
I have always found the interface nice for consumer machines but too round and colorfull for professional use.
Since then the hardware design line has changed quite a bit to a much more sleek and minimalistic design. Is the Aqua interface due to an update too? In my opinion the interface could use some optimizations here and there.
ap</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. I think the interface is too colorful and IMO, I think there is too much white in it. I don't care much for the pin stripes either.
I wish Apple would tone it down somewhat or add an option to set aqua to look like the old classic look.
I hope they also update the dock so that you can set it to behave like the top menubar in that it's fixed at the bottom and extends from side to side and such that windows of open apps act in the same way they act with the top menubar. I also hope they reserve a small section of it for 3rd party status indicators since they don't like 3rd party status indicators in the top menubar. Some 3rd party status indicators I'd like to have for this are new mail notification, network traffic, cpu usage, memory usage, external login or hacker notification, and Hard Disk activity.
<strong>Really!? If that's the case, then what does the "Acceleration" section under the "Motion" tab of the "Mouse Properties" control panel do in Windows anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine, it's called Acceleration. But does that mean dynamically accelerated? I guess it's just controlling the speed of mice.
Really!? If that's the case, then what does the "Acceleration" section under the "Motion" tab of the "Mouse Properties" control panel do in Windows anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're making it up. It doesn't exist.
No really, I believe it's just an emulation. I've always found that mouse acceleration on Windows worked really bad. No matte rhow I set it up, it's either too slow or too fast - dependant on what I'm doing. On Mac OS, though, the mouse speed has always been exactly right.
Emulation? What do you mean? Mouse acceleration in Windows does just what you'd expect it to do - move the mouse pointer farther the quicker you move the physical mouse.
[quote]<strong>I've always found that mouse acceleration on Windows worked really bad. No matte rhow I set it up, it's either too slow or too fast - dependant on what I'm doing. On Mac OS, though, the mouse speed has always been exactly right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I guess "exactly right" is really mainly a matter of what you're used to and what not. The Windows behaviour will feel just as "not right" to a Mac user as the Mac behaviour will to a Windows user.
Well, I guess "exactly right" is really mainly a matter of what you're used to and what not. The Windows behaviour will feel just as "not right" to a Mac user as the Mac behaviour will to a Windows user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think this is a matter of taste or habit. If it's more accurate, it's better.
The thing about the current Dock is that even though it can get in the way of stuff sometimes it doesn't give the impression of taking away screen real estate like a fixed opaque menu bar does. You can still see the backround behind it, and you can move things behind it easily enough. I think the next step in the Docks evolution will be the addition of code into the window manager that would make it impossible for any new window to spawn partially behind the Dock. That way it's impossible for a new window to pop up partially behind the Dock and then you have to move it over yourself, while still keeping the free floating look and feel of the current Dock. Right now Apple has left it largely to developers to implement this, and even some of Apples apps don't follow this guideline, it would be better and more effective if this functionality was just hardcoded into the display layer. They'll definitely fix this sometime in the future I think, it's a no-brainer.
The menu bar widgets are probably the worst designed part of the interface. They need to be about 2 pixels larger in diameter. The activation of the symbols when you mouse near it needs to be gotten rid of too, it's like a negative feedback that makes you think the button is available to press even though the cursor may not actually be over it. Probably the best thing to do though would be to space the close widget a little further away from the other two, so the resize widgets are grouped together. Right now, the spacing between each widget is about 9 pixels, which is a good amount. The space between the close widget and the minimize one should be increased by about 4 pixels though, so they are somewhat seperate; the space between the minimize and resize widget can be kept the same though. It is nice to have all the widgets in the same general area on the bar, especially with the super high resolution displays available today. A window can be so wide across that an OS 9 style window bar would be harder to use because you have to mouse all over the place.
As for the stripes, I'm another believer in the Unlined Aqua theme the someone displayed above. I have it on my iBook right now and it matches the aesthetic perfectly. And it's bright white and almost looks like shiny plastic, so it does have some character. I wouldn't mind a lightened, smoother striped aqua look though, right now the contrast between the stripes is distracting and messy looking.
<strong>The menu bar widgets are probably the worst designed part of the interface. They need to be about 2 pixels larger in diameter. The activation of the symbols when you mouse near it needs to be gotten rid of too, it's like a negative feedback that makes you think the button is available to press even though the cursor may not actually be over it.
....I wouldn't mind a lightened, smoother striped aqua look though, right now the contrast between the stripes is distracting and messy looking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They had larger widgets in the early developer previews, but they shrank them for a couple of reasons. One is that the general public outcry was that they took up too much space and look too cartoonish. Developers pointed out that the generally larger widgets (though obviously not the title bar ones) would wreak havoc on ported Carbon apps' since it forced new layouts on their existing dialogs and such. Apple shrank them by the time the public beta rolled out. The rollovers should work like the Dock's rollover effect. In the Dock, as soon as a name appears and as long as it is up, you can click the icon no matter if you're slightly off the icon. The title bar widgets should follow that pattern. I've always thought that the symbols should be static and the colors should be the rollover effect -- one at a time so you will be less likely to confuse which one you're clicking.
What percent gray are the stripes now? 85% white? If so, I could see them going up to 93% white.
While I have certain issues with the Aqua interface, its colourful nature isn't one of them.
Perhaps blandness and grayness are equated by some with ?professionalism? and ?seriousness?, or perhaps some favour it for reflecting the colours (or lack thereof) of their suits or of their skies.
It's a matter of difference in taste, and the OS does come with the ?graphite? option. As for those who insist on obliterating all traces of colour there probably is a downloadable hack (to use at one's own risk) to satisfy that whim.
The mass-market alternative is just as colourful, yet the compostion is somewhat lacking in coherence.
I have a taste for colours and lots of them, I'd have liked the possibilty to order my G4 with the Blue&White colour scheme, not that I'm complaining or anything.
Check out this one. It was ahead of it's time and I think to this day is still a very elegant interface. Three dimensional where needed but none of the fancy stripes and gimmicks of today's interfaces.
It's overcast, drab, '80s "hi-tek" looking with its steel greys and sharp corners, and so cluttered and lacking in contrast and differentiation that it's hard to tell where one widget begins and the other ends. It looks like a depressive tried to spruce up Motif. It would also fit perfectly into <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0088846"; target="_blank">Brazil</a>.
The truly classic Mac look, with white backgrounds and (after System 7) pretty, tactfully placed colors, has always appealed to me. One of the Mac's goals was to look upbeat and familiar (most people are used to black text on white paper), not "neutral" or "serious." Platinum also suffered from '80s "hi-tek" syndrome, and it dated as quickly as the slogan "The Professional Macintosh." (I need hardly add that the strategy behind that slogan was a dismal failure.)
I like the cheerful appearance of Aqua in any case. I hope whatever they do, they don't go back to all that gray (or beige).
NeXTstep was good-looking, but it looks so 80's now. Trendy 80's, better than any other computer appearances from the 80's, but 80's nonetheless. Then again, its dark grays would go well with the TiBook (which in another thread has been judged passé already!).
[quote]They had larger widgets in the early developer previews, but they shrank them for a couple of reasons. One is that the general public outcry was that they took up too much space and look too cartoonish. Developers pointed out that the generally larger widgets (though obviously not the title bar ones) would wreak havoc on ported Carbon apps' since it forced new layouts on their existing dialogs and such. Apple shrank them by the time the public beta rolled out.<hr></blockquote>
Just a one or two pixel increase won't make it look cartoonish at all i wouldn't think. I guess I'd have to see it first though.
Comments
I must be missing whatever makes them distracting. I have hardly ever noticed the stripes, except as a subtle way to unify the contents of a window.
I have to say, it looks near perfect on my Cube. OS 9 looked wierd with that hardware.
As to the title of the thread, I expect continuous refinements. In particular, I expect that once Quartz rendering is hardware accelerated across the line, Apple will move from TIFFs to vectors to draw the crunchy bits of Aqua. Then they'll have options.
[ 11-29-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
Much still stands. I accidentally click the Minimze instead of Close box sometimes. The window widgets should be on seperate ends of the top of the window like in OS 9. Also bigger window widgets would be nice, like in XP. I like how the widgets are bigger, but it is stupid to have all those controls next to each other.
Aqua definitely keeps getting better though!
Mac OS X (and all other versions of the Mac OS) uses dynamic mouse tracking, i.e, move the mouse quickly and you can cover the screen in a few inches of mouse movement, move it slowly and you will quickly run off the side of your mousepad before covering the entire screen.
This is one of the biggest reasons I hate using Windows...it makes Photoshop a pain especially.
<strong>I accidentally click the Minimze instead of Close box sometimes. The window widgets should be on seperate ends of the top of the window like in OS 9.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This way you can separate destructive from non-destructive window widgets. I really don't know why they changed it in OS X. Just for cosmetical reasons?
I have to say, it looks near perfect on my Cube. OS 9 looked wierd with that hardware.
<hr></blockquote>
I agree, OSX looks much better than OS9 on a Cube.
<strong>
This way you can separate destructive from non-destructive window widgets. I really don't know why they changed it in OS X. Just for cosmetical reasons?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Probably. Having a few at one end and one lonely one at the other doesn't look so great. Also, don't forget that some windows must have the toolbar collapse/show button. Might get a bit odd looking.
<strong>The XP widgets have to be bigger 'cause XP (and every other version of Windows) uses linear mouse tracking, which means you can move across the screen fast, but it is difficult to make fine adjustments.
Mac OS X (and all other versions of the Mac OS) uses dynamic mouse tracking, i.e, move the mouse quickly and you can cover the screen in a few inches of mouse movement, move it slowly and you will quickly run off the side of your mousepad before covering the entire screen.
This is one of the biggest reasons I hate using Windows...it makes Photoshop a pain especially.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Really!? If that's the case, then what does the "Acceleration" section under the "Motion" tab of the "Mouse Properties" control panel do in Windows anyway?
<strong>
I have always found the interface nice for consumer machines but too round and colorfull for professional use.
Since then the hardware design line has changed quite a bit to a much more sleek and minimalistic design. Is the Aqua interface due to an update too? In my opinion the interface could use some optimizations here and there.
ap</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree. I think the interface is too colorful and IMO, I think there is too much white in it. I don't care much for the pin stripes either.
I wish Apple would tone it down somewhat or add an option to set aqua to look like the old classic look.
I hope they also update the dock so that you can set it to behave like the top menubar in that it's fixed at the bottom and extends from side to side and such that windows of open apps act in the same way they act with the top menubar. I also hope they reserve a small section of it for 3rd party status indicators since they don't like 3rd party status indicators in the top menubar. Some 3rd party status indicators I'd like to have for this are new mail notification, network traffic, cpu usage, memory usage, external login or hacker notification, and Hard Disk activity.
<strong>Really!? If that's the case, then what does the "Acceleration" section under the "Motion" tab of the "Mouse Properties" control panel do in Windows anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Fine, it's called Acceleration. But does that mean dynamically accelerated? I guess it's just controlling the speed of mice.
[ 12-03-2002: Message edited by: Quick ]</p>
<strong>
Really!? If that's the case, then what does the "Acceleration" section under the "Motion" tab of the "Mouse Properties" control panel do in Windows anyway?</strong><hr></blockquote>
You're making it up. It doesn't exist.
No really, I believe it's just an emulation. I've always found that mouse acceleration on Windows worked really bad. No matte rhow I set it up, it's either too slow or too fast - dependant on what I'm doing. On Mac OS, though, the mouse speed has always been exactly right.
<strong>
You're making it up. It doesn't exist.
No really, I believe it's just an emulation.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Emulation? What do you mean? Mouse acceleration in Windows does just what you'd expect it to do - move the mouse pointer farther the quicker you move the physical mouse.
[quote]<strong>I've always found that mouse acceleration on Windows worked really bad. No matte rhow I set it up, it's either too slow or too fast - dependant on what I'm doing. On Mac OS, though, the mouse speed has always been exactly right.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I guess "exactly right" is really mainly a matter of what you're used to and what not. The Windows behaviour will feel just as "not right" to a Mac user as the Mac behaviour will to a Windows user.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Well, I guess "exactly right" is really mainly a matter of what you're used to and what not. The Windows behaviour will feel just as "not right" to a Mac user as the Mac behaviour will to a Windows user.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't think this is a matter of taste or habit. If it's more accurate, it's better.
The menu bar widgets are probably the worst designed part of the interface. They need to be about 2 pixels larger in diameter. The activation of the symbols when you mouse near it needs to be gotten rid of too, it's like a negative feedback that makes you think the button is available to press even though the cursor may not actually be over it. Probably the best thing to do though would be to space the close widget a little further away from the other two, so the resize widgets are grouped together. Right now, the spacing between each widget is about 9 pixels, which is a good amount. The space between the close widget and the minimize one should be increased by about 4 pixels though, so they are somewhat seperate; the space between the minimize and resize widget can be kept the same though. It is nice to have all the widgets in the same general area on the bar, especially with the super high resolution displays available today. A window can be so wide across that an OS 9 style window bar would be harder to use because you have to mouse all over the place.
As for the stripes, I'm another believer in the Unlined Aqua theme the someone displayed above. I have it on my iBook right now and it matches the aesthetic perfectly. And it's bright white and almost looks like shiny plastic, so it does have some character. I wouldn't mind a lightened, smoother striped aqua look though, right now the contrast between the stripes is distracting and messy looking.
<strong>The menu bar widgets are probably the worst designed part of the interface. They need to be about 2 pixels larger in diameter. The activation of the symbols when you mouse near it needs to be gotten rid of too, it's like a negative feedback that makes you think the button is available to press even though the cursor may not actually be over it.
....I wouldn't mind a lightened, smoother striped aqua look though, right now the contrast between the stripes is distracting and messy looking.</strong><hr></blockquote>
They had larger widgets in the early developer previews, but they shrank them for a couple of reasons. One is that the general public outcry was that they took up too much space and look too cartoonish. Developers pointed out that the generally larger widgets (though obviously not the title bar ones) would wreak havoc on ported Carbon apps' since it forced new layouts on their existing dialogs and such. Apple shrank them by the time the public beta rolled out. The rollovers should work like the Dock's rollover effect. In the Dock, as soon as a name appears and as long as it is up, you can click the icon no matter if you're slightly off the icon. The title bar widgets should follow that pattern. I've always thought that the symbols should be static and the colors should be the rollover effect -- one at a time so you will be less likely to confuse which one you're clicking.
What percent gray are the stripes now? 85% white? If so, I could see them going up to 93% white.
Perhaps blandness and grayness are equated by some with ?professionalism? and ?seriousness?, or perhaps some favour it for reflecting the colours (or lack thereof) of their suits or of their skies.
It's a matter of difference in taste, and the OS does come with the ?graphite? option. As for those who insist on obliterating all traces of colour there probably is a downloadable hack (to use at one's own risk) to satisfy that whim.
The mass-market alternative is just as colourful, yet the compostion is somewhat lacking in coherence.
I have a taste for colours and lots of them, I'd have liked the possibilty to order my G4 with the Blue&White colour scheme, not that I'm complaining or anything.
<strong> if you can find me a GUI that is better looking then show me, cuz i havn't found it.
[ 11-29-2002: Message edited by: ast3r3x ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4698/SS/workspace.jpg"; target="_blank">http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/4698/SS/workspace.jpg</a>;
Check out this one. It was ahead of it's time and I think to this day is still a very elegant interface. Three dimensional where needed but none of the fancy stripes and gimmicks of today's interfaces.
It's overcast, drab, '80s "hi-tek" looking with its steel greys and sharp corners, and so cluttered and lacking in contrast and differentiation that it's hard to tell where one widget begins and the other ends. It looks like a depressive tried to spruce up Motif. It would also fit perfectly into <a href="http://us.imdb.com/Title?0088846"; target="_blank">Brazil</a>.
The truly classic Mac look, with white backgrounds and (after System 7) pretty, tactfully placed colors, has always appealed to me. One of the Mac's goals was to look upbeat and familiar (most people are used to black text on white paper), not "neutral" or "serious." Platinum also suffered from '80s "hi-tek" syndrome, and it dated as quickly as the slogan "The Professional Macintosh." (I need hardly add that the strategy behind that slogan was a dismal failure.)
[ 12-04-2002: Message edited by: Amorph ]</p>
NeXTstep was good-looking, but it looks so 80's now. Trendy 80's, better than any other computer appearances from the 80's, but 80's nonetheless. Then again, its dark grays would go well with the TiBook (which in another thread has been judged passé already!).
Just a one or two pixel increase won't make it look cartoonish at all i wouldn't think. I guess I'd have to see it first though.