Least of which because Microsoft already did it and Google stole it from them. Though that's an important point. Microsoft reduced their OS to elementary shapes and primary colors. That's not necessarily bad, but it in their case it is.
Microsoft's model is to make something and force people to learn how to use it. By forcing people to do it the way they're told by Microsoft, they can be locked into the ecosystem. "Well, I've already spent ten hours figuring out twelve functions of this software; I may as well keep using it to get my 'money's worth' for my time, even if there is something better." That's why drastic UI changes are casually thrown around at Microsoft (Metro, Ribbon, the way Control Panel changes in every single release, etc.): they just couldn't care less about you and what is best for you. They want you to do it their way, which renders you incompatible with their competitors. Adobe does the same thing, except they do it within their own suite of applications, which is even more pathetic and embarrassing.
Apple doesn't do that. Apple does the polar opposite. Apple's model is to make something that operates in a way that everyone already understands. Apple wants people to pick up their products and instantly know how to use them. Jony has said that, if not word for word, in one of their product intro videos. Probably not word for word, but still. That's the reason for the skeuomorphism in the first place, and that's the reason it should NOT go away. Yes, it's overplayed. Slightly. But look: The point of the design of the hardware is to be as unobtrusive as possible. You shouldn't even notice the hardware as you use the software. That's why what Jony does is so difficult; it's easy to put a bunch of buttons and what have you directly on the product, but then you've stuck the user with the broad scope of "this button does that and only that" which comes from older, stupider appliances. You don't, for example, expect your blender's liquify button to do something different when you're after pineapple instead of mango. When the hardware is so simple, so seamless that it just becomes the window to the world that is software, then that world can be populated richly. Back to skeuomorphism. To make something that everyone already understands, you'd want to make it, well, look like something you already understand. Notes being a legal pad makes perfect sense, for example. Calendar looking like a desk calendar makes perfect sense. Where skeuomorphism can overstep its bounds is when the design itself detracts (or distracts) from the utility*. For example, the color and type of leather chosen in Calendar is wrong. Objectively. "But you can't…" Come on, it's just wrong. Take a gander at a physical desk calendar and you'll see that it has neither puffy nor yellow-taupe leather on top. It'll be a leather, sure. But it would be a deep maroon, it would be flat (like a rectangular prism), and it probably wouldn't even have a visible seam on it, much less one so large. That's where Calendar goes wrong: not that it mirrors a desk calendar, but the way in which it does so. Find My Friends also fails skeuomorphically. But not for the same reason. Find My Friends fails not because of the color and type of leather chosen, but because there is no physical analogue to its utility. The skeuomorphism there confuses the mind, both consciously and subconsciously, and distracts us from its use. In seeing it, both on its own and within the context of the entire OS, we are compelled to connect the dots between its UI and something we may have seen in life before. We get confused, then, because not only is there no physical analogue to Find My Friends, if we do manage to connect it to something, that something is wrong, and then we don't use the app as is intended, because we expect it to be something it never was. This is all really subtle stuff, but it's happening.
I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm worried enough that I feel compelled to: I hope Jonathan Ive still recognizes the extension of the role his hardware plays in this system and that the design of the software should not be handled in the same fashion as he does hardware. The hardware is sparse so the software can be rich.
*But, given that his greatness comes from making hardware whose design neither distracts nor detracts from its utility, I have confidence that Jonathan Ive, despite the media pathetically up-playing his "scorn" of skeuomorphism in that split second interview, in redesigning iOS (if at all) could make something beautiful, powerful, and simple, without removing the skeuomorphism that makes all Apple products the leaders they are.
Sorry about the wall. I hope I'm on the mark for most of it.
I'm sure Apple even knows they need to revamp their iOS. Hence the fact Jony Ive is on the team for iOS. Jony is an industrial designer so it isn't just all about form with him; it is form and function. If there's a overall swap out to a flatter appearance you can bet there functional reasons for it. Apple cannot afford a simple UI tweak so bet on there being major new features that demonstrate that Apple is as strong as ever and maybe more so than it was when Jobs was alive.
Least of which because Microsoft already did it and Google stole it from them. Though that's an important point.
That seems like a fairly poor reason, but let's move on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Microsoft's model is to make something and force people to learn how to use it. By forcing people to do it the way they're told by Microsoft, they can be locked into the ecosystem. "Well, I've already spent ten hours figuring out twelve functions of this software; I may as well keep using it to get my 'money's worth' for my time, even if there is something better." That's why drastic UI changes are casually thrown around at Microsoft (Metro, Ribbon, the way Control Panel changes in every single release, etc.): they just couldn't care less about you and what is best for you. They want you to do it their way, which renders you incompatible with their competitors. Adobe does the same thing, except they do it within their own suite of applications, which is even more pathetic and embarrassing.
Apple doesn't do that. Apple does the polar opposite. Apple's model is to make something that operates in a way that everyone already understands.
I'm just going to say right here that this black and white characterization seems rather partisan and incorrect. I think there are examples where Apple has pulled users along to a new way of doing things and examples where MS has tried to do things the way people already do them.
Still, this feel irrelevant to the specific speculations about what "flat" may or may not mean in Jony Ive's world. Flat doesn't necessarily mean Microsoft Metro. It also doesn't necessarily mean whoever is creating it is making something (entirely new and unfamiliar) and forcing people to learn how to use it. Sounds like a non sequitur to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple wants people to pick up their products and instantly know how to use them.
Agreed but, again, it seems presumptuous to sat that "flat," ipso facto, cannot do this.
Furthermore you seem to be assuming that people abilities, comprehension and cognitive abilities don't evolve with their experience with tools and technologies. They clearly do and, thus, the UI hand holding approach can change over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Jony has said that, if not word for word, in one of their product intro videos.
Agreed, which is actually why I have the utmost confidence with him in charge of this. I'm skeptical that Ive will do "flat" for the sake of "flat" but will, instead work to morph the UI in a way that honors that very idea with the likelihood that he'll certainly scrub some of the more gratuitous flourishes that have been added not for the sake of usability but for the sake of cleverness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's the reason for the skeuomorphism in the first place, and that's the reason it should NOT go away.
You assume that. I'm not sure I agree. There are certainly some cases where this seems like a dubious claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, it's overplayed. Slightly.
I'd say a lot. But we'll probably just have to disagree on this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The point of the design of the hardware is to be as unobtrusive as possible. You shouldn't even notice the hardware as you use the software.
I'd argue that the same principle, rightly understood, applies to software design as well. Most software (obvious things like games excepted) are there for a purpose...to achieve some goal...to get something done. When the UI designer "wags his tail in my face" (something else Jony Ive is reported to have once said) it potentially gets in the way or, at the very least, distracts and forces me to look at it while on the way to getting done what I want to get done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Back to skeuomorphism. To make something that everyone already understands, you'd want to make it, well, look like something you already understand. Notes being a legal pad makes perfect sense, for example.
But some of that is actually rather insulting in this day and age. I don't think people are quite that dense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Calendar looking like a desk calendar makes perfect sense.
Funny you mention that app...becauseI think that's the one that was done for least user-accessiblity reasons and mostly for cuteness. I'd also argue that it actually constrains a (software-based) calendar in a way that potentially restricts interesting an potentially useful calendar UI innovation that's not possible with older/traditional materials (i.e., paper calendars, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Where skeuomorphism can overstep its bounds is when the design itself detracts (or distracts) from the utility*.
Which, I believe, is happening more in iOS than you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Calendar looking like a desk calendar makes perfect sense. Where skeuomorphism can overstep its bounds is when the design itself detracts (or distracts) from the utility*. For example, the color and type of leather chosen in Calendar is wrong. Objectively. "But you can't…" Come on, it's just wrong. Take a gander at a physical desk calendar and you'll see that it has neither puffy nor yellow-taupe leather on top. It'll be a leather, sure. But it would be a deep maroon, it would be flat (like a rectangular prism), and it probably wouldn't even have a visible seam on it, much less one so large. That's where Calendar goes wrong: not that it mirrors a desk calendar, but the way in which it does so.
I guess we just completely disagree on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm worried enough that I feel compelled to: I hope Jonathan Ive still recognizes the extension of the role his hardware plays in this system and that the design of the software should not be handled in the same fashion as he does hardware. The hardware is sparse so the software can be rich.
*But, given that his greatness comes from making hardware whose design neither distracts nor detracts from its utility, I have confidence that Jonathan Ive, despite the media pathetically up-playing his "scorn" of skeuomorphism in that split second interview, in redesigning iOS (if at all) could make something beautiful, powerful, and simple, without removing the skeuomorphism that makes all Apple products the leaders they are.
I'm confident about Jony's work and am confident he'll come through on this. I could be wrong. But I suspect it will play well. I also suspect it will be Apple/Jony Ive unique and not just aping MS (or anyone else.) Again I may be wrong on this too. At best it will be a riff off of what others have done with Jony's rather unique and thoughtful insight brought to bear on it.
This article is pretty out of touch with reality. Obviously, Apple is doing a lot more than just removing the heinous skeumorphic garbage from the UI....so much more in fact they have had to divert resources away from the OSX team. At the same time, the UI is in disparate need of a refresh, but NOT because of that same hideous skeumorphism but rather because the OS is actually hampered in functionality by limitations in the UI design.
Endless nests of app tiles is a HORRID way to organize things, the lock screen is one dimensional in functionality, the settings panels are endless nests of menus that have become progressively harder to use, and so much more is wrong with the UI. The hardware design has long since eclipsed the UI and the overall experience is stale and less useful than it should be.
Finally, Blackberry and Palm and others have not failed because of a UI redesign as this article asserts, that's just a naive oversimplification of what has occurred in those companies that have lead to their problems. The idea the iOS UI is great just the way it is and that changing it would be disastrous is the worst kind of fanboyism. Shame on you, AI.
Totally agree. What I find amusing is we hear ad naesum how iOS is stale, boring, being left behind by Android and Windows (!) etc,, then when rumors of a redesign come out we're told iOS UI is fine and doesn't need to change.
The real problem is OSX, the elephant in the room is the separation of the menu bar from the window. Commands are all over the place, in menus and across the top of windows. It makes it difficult for programmers to write cross-platform software, and screen sharing is a joke. Windows got this right.
Why doesn't any reviewer tackle this issue? Instead we get long-winded discussion of side issues.
And a credible upgrade of functionality in iWork would be great, never mind facebook integration, the cloud, notifications and other useless idiocy. And the on-going removal of functionality and customising options from the OS is objectionable.
I would like to see deeper integration of Siri. Siri proxy on github has incredible potential. I think such a move will not only benefit the users but will support that exclusivity sought after.
Siri needs a lot of work. I find Google voice search on iOS much more advanced. For starters Google doesn't bother asking you if you would like it to search the web, it just does it when its voice agent doesn't have the answer. Plus it never gives you smart ass replies. Still my biggest complaint is that Siri cannot automatically detect languages. I have a lot of friends with whom I communicate in Spanish and many who only speak English. Siri speaks Spanish but not when your language preference is set to English. Google does the switch on the fly seamlessly recognizing the input language perfectly.
The Jobs/Forstall apologists claim iOS is completely intuitive. I beg to differ. If you wanted to change the text from that gawd awful marker felt to something else would the average person know you need to go in to the settings app to change it? There's nothing in the notes app that allows you to change it or takes you to the settings app. Also the leather pocket on the left hand side is annoying as if you have a lot of notes the ones at the bottom are covered up. Of course in the real world you could pull the paper out for under the leather pocket. In the digital version you can't. Also why should the notes app functionality be limited to the equivalent of writing on a legal pad? The digital version should offer more functionality, no?
The calendar app shows ripped paper on the top like a real calendar would if you tore off one month when switching to another. But in the digital world it doesn't really make sense because you can flip back to prior months. So what exactly does the torn paper really represent.
To set an alarm you have to scroll through a dial like a padlock rather than just being able to type in the date and time. Of course one could say just use Siri but not everyone uses an iOS device with Siri on it. Plus what's the point of having it work like that? It's certainly not user friendly.
These are just a few examples but the idea that 7 years after the iPhone first came out people still need to be patronized in this way makes no sense. Seems to me Ive is saying people are smarter than we've been giving them credit for and they don't need digital recreations of old physical objects to understand how to use things. Also I think he thinks a lot of this stuff is just plain fugly so he's getting rid of it. iOS will finally be grown up instead of cutesy and cartoonish. If some people still want it I'm sure there's an app for that.
Siri needs a lot of work. I find Google voice search on iOS much more advanced. For starters Google doesn't bother asking you if you would like it to search the web, it just does it when its voice agent doesn't have the answer. Plus it never gives you smart ass replies. Still my biggest complaint is that Siri cannot automatically detect languages. I have a lot of friends with whom I communicate in Spanish and many who only speak English. Siri speaks Spanish but not when your language preference is set to English. Google does the switch on the fly seamlessly recognizing the input language perfectly.
Yeah it drives me nuts when we hear how Apple is making Siri more whimsical. That's not what we need. The fact people were/are using Siri just to ask it stupid questions to get some cute/funny/smart ass reply back should be a bit of an embarrassment for Apple. That's not making Siri better, if anything it makes Siri worse over time.
Boring and stale equals predictable and reliable. Not the worst attributes but not exciting either. A new facelift and a few new APIs will add the excitement. Now you have iOS 7 and WWDC. That's it. Did we really need a full editorial to convey this idea?
The real problem is OSX, the elephant in the room is the separation of the menu bar from the window. Commands are all over the place, in menus and across the top of windows. It makes it difficult for programmers to write cross-platform software, and screen sharing is a joke. Windows got this right.
Yeah it drives me nuts when we hear how Apple is making Siri more whimsical. That's not what we need. The fact people were/are using Siri just to ask it stupid questions to get some cute/funny/smart ass reply back should be a bit of an embarrassment for Apple. That's not making Siri better, if anything it makes Siri worse over time.
The whimsical stuff is pure marketing a product differentiation. No one is counting on clever responses in day to day use but Apple is counting on Siri's quirky traits to carry "her" as THE defacto standard for voice recognition assistance. People already ask for Siri on their Android devices. This is the war that Apple never loses.
Although not originally intended to be a fully-fledged, traditional computing platform, iOS has now become much more of a computer than was ever imagined. You may recall the the first version of iOS didn't have copy/paste abilities, and it was never originally intended that developers could even write apps for iOS - it was restricted to web-apps. I don't believe that iOS can view itself as an 'island' any more, but a key part of the new version should be greater interoperability. A system-wide, simple way to wirelessly move data, documents, photos etc. is needed, in order to progress the operating system. I'm not talking about an app that allows it, rather a built-in API that ALL apps can seamlessly plug into. People are CREATING more content directly on their iPad/iPhone, requiring the need to share, distribute, upload etc. An iOS feature similar to air-drop would be great. I'd love to see simple, wireless, system-wide networking, to enable iOS devices to leap further into the world of computing, while maintaining its distinct ease of use and clean, beautiful operating system.
"Continuously improve and refine" vs "If it ain't broke don't fix it"
These aren't mutually exclusive. iOS has improved significantly since v1.0. That goes to the first part. iOS still looks/behaves very similarly to v1.0. That goes to the second part. Change for the sake of change is messing with that… the people calling for change simply because iOS is "stale" are calling for fixing things that aren't broken.
Clearly, Apple found something that works (vs the other companies going through multiple design iterations trying to find something that works as well), and have stuck with the basic premise that defines it. I have no problem with that as long as they continue to add to it, improve on it and keep it capable of doing what the current tech demands of the devices.
That said, I like that I don't have a whole new learning curve with every iOS update. There is much to appreciate by sticking with the familiar (aka 'stale') interface...
Jobs (or maybe some other exec or Ive) has stated that they only change something when they have something better to offer. This might have been in regards to the Mac Pro casing, but I may be also applying it to that erroneously.
That might be what they have said, but it's not what they have done. Mac OS has seen numerous changes that are not improvements. The best iPod Nano is either the first or the second generation design. Let's not forget FC10.
90% of the people I know use like 10% of the features of the iPhone. Same goes with probably every other smartphone, but to an even greater extent, if usage metrics are anything to go by. We may think that a shitload of more feature will increase sales, but I think more abstract things like carrier availability, etc have a much greater impact. The vast majority will always only brush the surface of what these devices can do, and they'll be satisfied with that.
That might be what they have said, but it's not what they have done. Mac OS has seen numerous changes that are not improvements. The best iPod Nano is either the first or the second generation design. Let's not forget FC10.
That's your opinion. For me, OSX 10.8 is by far the best version yet, from a stability, speed, and features perspective.
Comments
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Why do you believe that?
Least of which because Microsoft already did it and Google stole it from them. Though that's an important point. Microsoft reduced their OS to elementary shapes and primary colors. That's not necessarily bad, but it in their case it is.
Microsoft's model is to make something and force people to learn how to use it. By forcing people to do it the way they're told by Microsoft, they can be locked into the ecosystem. "Well, I've already spent ten hours figuring out twelve functions of this software; I may as well keep using it to get my 'money's worth' for my time, even if there is something better." That's why drastic UI changes are casually thrown around at Microsoft (Metro, Ribbon, the way Control Panel changes in every single release, etc.): they just couldn't care less about you and what is best for you. They want you to do it their way, which renders you incompatible with their competitors. Adobe does the same thing, except they do it within their own suite of applications, which is even more pathetic and embarrassing.
Apple doesn't do that. Apple does the polar opposite. Apple's model is to make something that operates in a way that everyone already understands. Apple wants people to pick up their products and instantly know how to use them. Jony has said that, if not word for word, in one of their product intro videos. Probably not word for word, but still. That's the reason for the skeuomorphism in the first place, and that's the reason it should NOT go away. Yes, it's overplayed. Slightly. But look: The point of the design of the hardware is to be as unobtrusive as possible. You shouldn't even notice the hardware as you use the software. That's why what Jony does is so difficult; it's easy to put a bunch of buttons and what have you directly on the product, but then you've stuck the user with the broad scope of "this button does that and only that" which comes from older, stupider appliances. You don't, for example, expect your blender's liquify button to do something different when you're after pineapple instead of mango. When the hardware is so simple, so seamless that it just becomes the window to the world that is software, then that world can be populated richly. Back to skeuomorphism. To make something that everyone already understands, you'd want to make it, well, look like something you already understand. Notes being a legal pad makes perfect sense, for example. Calendar looking like a desk calendar makes perfect sense. Where skeuomorphism can overstep its bounds is when the design itself detracts (or distracts) from the utility*. For example, the color and type of leather chosen in Calendar is wrong. Objectively. "But you can't…" Come on, it's just wrong. Take a gander at a physical desk calendar and you'll see that it has neither puffy nor yellow-taupe leather on top. It'll be a leather, sure. But it would be a deep maroon, it would be flat (like a rectangular prism), and it probably wouldn't even have a visible seam on it, much less one so large. That's where Calendar goes wrong: not that it mirrors a desk calendar, but the way in which it does so. Find My Friends also fails skeuomorphically. But not for the same reason. Find My Friends fails not because of the color and type of leather chosen, but because there is no physical analogue to its utility. The skeuomorphism there confuses the mind, both consciously and subconsciously, and distracts us from its use. In seeing it, both on its own and within the context of the entire OS, we are compelled to connect the dots between its UI and something we may have seen in life before. We get confused, then, because not only is there no physical analogue to Find My Friends, if we do manage to connect it to something, that something is wrong, and then we don't use the app as is intended, because we expect it to be something it never was. This is all really subtle stuff, but it's happening.
I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm worried enough that I feel compelled to: I hope Jonathan Ive still recognizes the extension of the role his hardware plays in this system and that the design of the software should not be handled in the same fashion as he does hardware. The hardware is sparse so the software can be rich.
*But, given that his greatness comes from making hardware whose design neither distracts nor detracts from its utility, I have confidence that Jonathan Ive, despite the media pathetically up-playing his "scorn" of skeuomorphism in that split second interview, in redesigning iOS (if at all) could make something beautiful, powerful, and simple, without removing the skeuomorphism that makes all Apple products the leaders they are.
Sorry about the wall. I hope I'm on the mark for most of it.
iOS does NEED some new features. It doesn't need gimmicks.
I'm sure Apple even knows they need to revamp their iOS. Hence the fact Jony Ive is on the team for iOS. Jony is an industrial designer so it isn't just all about form with him; it is form and function. If there's a overall swap out to a flatter appearance you can bet there functional reasons for it. Apple cannot afford a simple UI tweak so bet on there being major new features that demonstrate that Apple is as strong as ever and maybe more so than it was when Jobs was alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Least of which because Microsoft already did it and Google stole it from them. Though that's an important point.
That seems like a fairly poor reason, but let's move on...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Microsoft's model is to make something and force people to learn how to use it. By forcing people to do it the way they're told by Microsoft, they can be locked into the ecosystem. "Well, I've already spent ten hours figuring out twelve functions of this software; I may as well keep using it to get my 'money's worth' for my time, even if there is something better." That's why drastic UI changes are casually thrown around at Microsoft (Metro, Ribbon, the way Control Panel changes in every single release, etc.): they just couldn't care less about you and what is best for you. They want you to do it their way, which renders you incompatible with their competitors. Adobe does the same thing, except they do it within their own suite of applications, which is even more pathetic and embarrassing.
Apple doesn't do that. Apple does the polar opposite. Apple's model is to make something that operates in a way that everyone already understands.
I'm just going to say right here that this black and white characterization seems rather partisan and incorrect. I think there are examples where Apple has pulled users along to a new way of doing things and examples where MS has tried to do things the way people already do them.
Still, this feel irrelevant to the specific speculations about what "flat" may or may not mean in Jony Ive's world. Flat doesn't necessarily mean Microsoft Metro. It also doesn't necessarily mean whoever is creating it is making something (entirely new and unfamiliar) and forcing people to learn how to use it. Sounds like a non sequitur to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple wants people to pick up their products and instantly know how to use them.
Agreed but, again, it seems presumptuous to sat that "flat," ipso facto, cannot do this.
Furthermore you seem to be assuming that people abilities, comprehension and cognitive abilities don't evolve with their experience with tools and technologies. They clearly do and, thus, the UI hand holding approach can change over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Jony has said that, if not word for word, in one of their product intro videos.
Agreed, which is actually why I have the utmost confidence with him in charge of this. I'm skeptical that Ive will do "flat" for the sake of "flat" but will, instead work to morph the UI in a way that honors that very idea with the likelihood that he'll certainly scrub some of the more gratuitous flourishes that have been added not for the sake of usability but for the sake of cleverness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's the reason for the skeuomorphism in the first place, and that's the reason it should NOT go away.
You assume that. I'm not sure I agree. There are certainly some cases where this seems like a dubious claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yes, it's overplayed. Slightly.
I'd say a lot. But we'll probably just have to disagree on this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
The point of the design of the hardware is to be as unobtrusive as possible. You shouldn't even notice the hardware as you use the software.
I'd argue that the same principle, rightly understood, applies to software design as well. Most software (obvious things like games excepted) are there for a purpose...to achieve some goal...to get something done. When the UI designer "wags his tail in my face" (something else Jony Ive is reported to have once said) it potentially gets in the way or, at the very least, distracts and forces me to look at it while on the way to getting done what I want to get done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Back to skeuomorphism. To make something that everyone already understands, you'd want to make it, well, look like something you already understand. Notes being a legal pad makes perfect sense, for example.
But some of that is actually rather insulting in this day and age. I don't think people are quite that dense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Calendar looking like a desk calendar makes perfect sense.
Funny you mention that app...becauseI think that's the one that was done for least user-accessiblity reasons and mostly for cuteness. I'd also argue that it actually constrains a (software-based) calendar in a way that potentially restricts interesting an potentially useful calendar UI innovation that's not possible with older/traditional materials (i.e., paper calendars, etc.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Where skeuomorphism can overstep its bounds is when the design itself detracts (or distracts) from the utility*.
Which, I believe, is happening more in iOS than you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Calendar looking like a desk calendar makes perfect sense. Where skeuomorphism can overstep its bounds is when the design itself detracts (or distracts) from the utility*. For example, the color and type of leather chosen in Calendar is wrong. Objectively. "But you can't…" Come on, it's just wrong. Take a gander at a physical desk calendar and you'll see that it has neither puffy nor yellow-taupe leather on top. It'll be a leather, sure. But it would be a deep maroon, it would be flat (like a rectangular prism), and it probably wouldn't even have a visible seam on it, much less one so large. That's where Calendar goes wrong: not that it mirrors a desk calendar, but the way in which it does so.
I guess we just completely disagree on this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
I shouldn't have to say this, but I'm worried enough that I feel compelled to: I hope Jonathan Ive still recognizes the extension of the role his hardware plays in this system and that the design of the software should not be handled in the same fashion as he does hardware. The hardware is sparse so the software can be rich.
*But, given that his greatness comes from making hardware whose design neither distracts nor detracts from its utility, I have confidence that Jonathan Ive, despite the media pathetically up-playing his "scorn" of skeuomorphism in that split second interview, in redesigning iOS (if at all) could make something beautiful, powerful, and simple, without removing the skeuomorphism that makes all Apple products the leaders they are.
I'm confident about Jony's work and am confident he'll come through on this. I could be wrong. But I suspect it will play well. I also suspect it will be Apple/Jony Ive unique and not just aping MS (or anyone else.) Again I may be wrong on this too. At best it will be a riff off of what others have done with Jony's rather unique and thoughtful insight brought to bear on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Yikes, you wouldn't want to use that one absentmindedly.
Jony initially said that he wanted something that looked a bit more 'futuristic' but he wasn't happy with what the team came up with:
Originally Posted by MacTel
I'm sure Apple even knows they need to revamp their iOS. Apple cannot afford a simple UI tweak…
Talk about FUD.
Totally agree. What I find amusing is we hear ad naesum how iOS is stale, boring, being left behind by Android and Windows (!) etc,, then when rumors of a redesign come out we're told iOS UI is fine and doesn't need to change.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChristophB
Text search in Safari (or have I just not found it?)
On iPhone you just use the search box and at the bottom of the suggested search terms you should see "search term found on this page"
It is similar on iPad but there it also gives you another search box to "Find on Page"
--Thanks to Dick Applebaum for pointing this out to me when I could not find that feature either.
The phone is fine.
The real problem is OSX, the elephant in the room is the separation of the menu bar from the window. Commands are all over the place, in menus and across the top of windows. It makes it difficult for programmers to write cross-platform software, and screen sharing is a joke. Windows got this right.
Why doesn't any reviewer tackle this issue? Instead we get long-winded discussion of side issues.
And a credible upgrade of functionality in iWork would be great, never mind facebook integration, the cloud, notifications and other useless idiocy. And the on-going removal of functionality and customising options from the OS is objectionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ericbolt
I would like to see deeper integration of Siri. Siri proxy on github has incredible potential. I think such a move will not only benefit the users but will support that exclusivity sought after.
Siri needs a lot of work. I find Google voice search on iOS much more advanced. For starters Google doesn't bother asking you if you would like it to search the web, it just does it when its voice agent doesn't have the answer. Plus it never gives you smart ass replies. Still my biggest complaint is that Siri cannot automatically detect languages. I have a lot of friends with whom I communicate in Spanish and many who only speak English. Siri speaks Spanish but not when your language preference is set to English. Google does the switch on the fly seamlessly recognizing the input language perfectly.
The calendar app shows ripped paper on the top like a real calendar would if you tore off one month when switching to another. But in the digital world it doesn't really make sense because you can flip back to prior months. So what exactly does the torn paper really represent.
To set an alarm you have to scroll through a dial like a padlock rather than just being able to type in the date and time. Of course one could say just use Siri but not everyone uses an iOS device with Siri on it. Plus what's the point of having it work like that? It's certainly not user friendly.
These are just a few examples but the idea that 7 years after the iPhone first came out people still need to be patronized in this way makes no sense. Seems to me Ive is saying people are smarter than we've been giving them credit for and they don't need digital recreations of old physical objects to understand how to use things. Also I think he thinks a lot of this stuff is just plain fugly so he's getting rid of it. iOS will finally be grown up instead of cutesy and cartoonish. If some people still want it I'm sure there's an app for that.
No. Windows got this completely wrong despite Apple showing the way in 1984. To understand why read about user interaction design and Fitts Law. http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html
"Continuously improve and refine" vs "If it ain't broke don't fix it"
These aren't mutually exclusive. iOS has improved significantly since v1.0. That goes to the first part. iOS still looks/behaves very similarly to v1.0. That goes to the second part. Change for the sake of change is messing with that… the people calling for change simply because iOS is "stale" are calling for fixing things that aren't broken.
Clearly, Apple found something that works (vs the other companies going through multiple design iterations trying to find something that works as well), and have stuck with the basic premise that defines it. I have no problem with that as long as they continue to add to it, improve on it and keep it capable of doing what the current tech demands of the devices.
That said, I like that I don't have a whole new learning curve with every iOS update. There is much to appreciate by sticking with the familiar (aka 'stale') interface...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Jobs (or maybe some other exec or Ive) has stated that they only change something when they have something better to offer. This might have been in regards to the Mac Pro casing, but I may be also applying it to that erroneously.
That might be what they have said, but it's not what they have done. Mac OS has seen numerous changes that are not improvements. The best iPod Nano is either the first or the second generation design. Let's not forget FC10.
90% of the people I know use like 10% of the features of the iPhone. Same goes with probably every other smartphone, but to an even greater extent, if usage metrics are anything to go by. We may think that a shitload of more feature will increase sales, but I think more abstract things like carrier availability, etc have a much greater impact. The vast majority will always only brush the surface of what these devices can do, and they'll be satisfied with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
That might be what they have said, but it's not what they have done. Mac OS has seen numerous changes that are not improvements. The best iPod Nano is either the first or the second generation design. Let's not forget FC10.
That's your opinion. For me, OSX 10.8 is by far the best version yet, from a stability, speed, and features perspective.