I think Apple has implemented it better than MS, but I don't really think it has any pertinent use/function besides 'eye candy' in th end. Giving one "depth" etc in the UI with the transprency, as Ive mentioned, doesnt really seem to me that useful. Apple in the past just 'greys out' the background window from the forground and having a simple drop shadow along the UI window. I like the simplicity of Yosimite, but the transparecy with menus etc is pointless and bad for legibilty. As fas the new system font.... I love Helevetica in print, but display, Ill have to play around with it before I make any final judgements. It seems like making the OS UI clean & simple would/could greatly help with the whole resolution independence that has been talked about over the last few years.
Yes, the drop shadows definitely fool my perception in to thinking there is depth. But you raise an excellent point, there are many ways to show depth that don't effect legibility.
Regarding the fonts, I believe it is not standard Helvetica they are using but one with tweaks for GUI elements (this is from watching one of the WWDC talks). Personally I don't like the current system font OR the new one. They both take too much horizontal space. If their argument for making titlebars smaller and using transparency is that it gives the user's content priority, then they are contradicting themselves with this choice of font, because in other OSes, with thinner fonts, you can see much more of your content on the screen at once.
because in other OSes, with thinner fonts, you can see much more of your content on the screen at once.
I think that's a good point, but there are two caveats probably:
1. How much space will a thinner font really give you, considering the larger screen resolutions on newer machines?
and
2. Thinner fonts are OK, but I think they have a tendency to look bad and they can - sometimes - be more difficult to read. Apple should be wanting to strike a balance here, so that they can provide a very legible font (again, I suppose it comes down to form and function being equally matched, rather than giving priority only to function).
I think that's a good point, but there are two caveats probably:
1. How much space will a thinner font really give you, considering the larger screen resolutions on newer machines?
and
2. Thinner fonts are OK, but I think they have a tendency to look bad and they can - sometimes - be more difficult to read. Apple should be wanting to strike a balance here, so that they can provide a very legible font (again, I suppose it comes down to form and function being equally matched, rather than giving priority only to function).
Re screen sizes, well, most people buy laptops still. And extra res is now being used for sharpness not space.
Re thinner fonts potentially becoming ugly or illegible, yes, there does need to be a balance, but I think other OSes have shown that you can go a lot smaller and still be successful. One area where this font size issue manifests is the Finder. People have been saying for years "Fix the Finder." It has been said so much it even has it's own abbreviation: FTF. And Apple have changed it a lot but people still aren't happy.
I think the problem all along has simply been that Mac fonts in general are too big. Windows file Explorer is no work of art, but the fact that Windows uses smaller fonts means you can see so much more of your file listings at once, and therefore do much less scrolling, that it just feels like you're not fighting it all the time. (Yes I know you can reduce text size in the Finder, but I believe most people don't, and they don't know the text size is the cause of their frustration)
This new font they're bringing in *can* be slightly thinner (depending on the text being rendered) but not enough to effect the above.
I think the problem all along has simply been that Mac fonts in general are too big. Windows file Explorer is no work of art, but the fact that Windows uses smaller fonts means you can see so much more of your file listings at once, and therefore do much less scrolling, that it just feels like you're not fighting it all the time. (Yes I know you can reduce text size in the Finder, but I believe most people don't, and they don't know the text size is the cause of their frustration)
Well, when I think about my experience with the Finder... I just ensure that my columns are wide enough to see what I need to see. My screen real estate (on the 21.5 inch iMac) is more than enough to cope with that (and then some).
It's interesting actually, because there's a bit of a trend towards larger fonts in some GUIs (if you look at Windows 8 and Windows Phone, you see clear examples of that - although admittedly in those cases we're talking about a different kind of interface design).
I'm really happy with the text size in the Finder as-is, and I like the look of Yosemite. It'll be interesting to see how I feel about it once I really use it.
So having spent some time playing around with the public beta of Yosemite, I have to say my transparency concerns are ebbed. The transparent aspects of the UI inside the OS/ apps is very subtle and not destracting. I do like the dark mode and having the nice simple dock back. Much easier to see which aps are running now. I will look forward to seeing the evolution of it in new beta's as they arrive. Other than that, my only issue, is that it takes it a bit to boot up and is slightly slow with UI responsiveness.
Does anyone here know why it has to boot up twice? I have it installed on a separate HD partition.
Comments
I agree it is all useless eye candy, but it's subtler than what MS had done with Vista and 7 with gloss efx and such.
I think Apple has implemented it better than MS, but I don't really think it has any pertinent use/function besides 'eye candy' in th end. Giving one "depth" etc in the UI with the transprency, as Ive mentioned, doesnt really seem to me that useful. Apple in the past just 'greys out' the background window from the forground and having a simple drop shadow along the UI window. I like the simplicity of Yosimite, but the transparecy with menus etc is pointless and bad for legibilty. As fas the new system font.... I love Helevetica in print, but display, Ill have to play around with it before I make any final judgements. It seems like making the OS UI clean & simple would/could greatly help with the whole resolution independence that has been talked about over the last few years.
Yes, the drop shadows definitely fool my perception in to thinking there is depth. But you raise an excellent point, there are many ways to show depth that don't effect legibility.
Regarding the fonts, I believe it is not standard Helvetica they are using but one with tweaks for GUI elements (this is from watching one of the WWDC talks). Personally I don't like the current system font OR the new one. They both take too much horizontal space. If their argument for making titlebars smaller and using transparency is that it gives the user's content priority, then they are contradicting themselves with this choice of font, because in other OSes, with thinner fonts, you can see much more of your content on the screen at once.
because in other OSes, with thinner fonts, you can see much more of your content on the screen at once.
I think that's a good point, but there are two caveats probably:
1. How much space will a thinner font really give you, considering the larger screen resolutions on newer machines?
and
2. Thinner fonts are OK, but I think they have a tendency to look bad and they can - sometimes - be more difficult to read. Apple should be wanting to strike a balance here, so that they can provide a very legible font (again, I suppose it comes down to form and function being equally matched, rather than giving priority only to function).
I think that's a good point, but there are two caveats probably:
1. How much space will a thinner font really give you, considering the larger screen resolutions on newer machines?
and
2. Thinner fonts are OK, but I think they have a tendency to look bad and they can - sometimes - be more difficult to read. Apple should be wanting to strike a balance here, so that they can provide a very legible font (again, I suppose it comes down to form and function being equally matched, rather than giving priority only to function).
Re screen sizes, well, most people buy laptops still. And extra res is now being used for sharpness not space.
Re thinner fonts potentially becoming ugly or illegible, yes, there does need to be a balance, but I think other OSes have shown that you can go a lot smaller and still be successful. One area where this font size issue manifests is the Finder. People have been saying for years "Fix the Finder." It has been said so much it even has it's own abbreviation: FTF. And Apple have changed it a lot but people still aren't happy.
I think the problem all along has simply been that Mac fonts in general are too big. Windows file Explorer is no work of art, but the fact that Windows uses smaller fonts means you can see so much more of your file listings at once, and therefore do much less scrolling, that it just feels like you're not fighting it all the time. (Yes I know you can reduce text size in the Finder, but I believe most people don't, and they don't know the text size is the cause of their frustration)
This new font they're bringing in *can* be slightly thinner (depending on the text being rendered) but not enough to effect the above.
I think the problem all along has simply been that Mac fonts in general are too big. Windows file Explorer is no work of art, but the fact that Windows uses smaller fonts means you can see so much more of your file listings at once, and therefore do much less scrolling, that it just feels like you're not fighting it all the time. (Yes I know you can reduce text size in the Finder, but I believe most people don't, and they don't know the text size is the cause of their frustration)
Well, when I think about my experience with the Finder... I just ensure that my columns are wide enough to see what I need to see. My screen real estate (on the 21.5 inch iMac) is more than enough to cope with that (and then some).
It's interesting actually, because there's a bit of a trend towards larger fonts in some GUIs (if you look at Windows 8 and Windows Phone, you see clear examples of that - although admittedly in those cases we're talking about a different kind of interface design).
I'm really happy with the text size in the Finder as-is, and I like the look of Yosemite. It'll be interesting to see how I feel about it once I really use it.
yea you can
I think the system requirements for OS X Yosemite is an Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 2 GB of RAM, 8 GB of storage, and a 256 MB graphics card.
So having spent some time playing around with the public beta of Yosemite, I have to say my transparency concerns are ebbed. The transparent aspects of the UI inside the OS/ apps is very subtle and not destracting. I do like the dark mode and having the nice simple dock back. Much easier to see which aps are running now. I will look forward to seeing the evolution of it in new beta's as they arrive. Other than that, my only issue, is that it takes it a bit to boot up and is slightly slow with UI responsiveness.
Does anyone here know why it has to boot up twice? I have it installed on a separate HD partition.