Top
Best
New

Posted by zdw 2 days ago

The Window Chrome of Our Discontent(pxlnv.com)
129 points | 71 commentspage 2
drooopy 5 hours ago|
Oh, man... What I wouldn't give to have Pages (and other apps) appear like they did in OS X Lion. This is just depressing.
wobfan 1 hour ago|
While I feel so too, I do actually think that objectively Catalina is a UX-side step up. Current displays have 16:9 or even 3:2. Putting less things in the top bar and more stuff in the sidebar, especially in something like Pages where your content does not even fill half of your display horizontally, I think it makes sense.
systoll 58 minutes ago||
From the first version of iWork, the inspector panel had the same basic purpose and layout as the sidebar. (Screenshot: http://www.macosxtips.co.uk/index_files/120609-inspector-win... ).

The formatting bar was an (IMO unnecessary) option added in iWork 08.

With iWork 2016, they took the existing inspector panel setup and docked it into each window.

maliker 6 hours ago||
I'll play slight devil's advocate. The buttons in the toolbar are duplicative of the options in the menubar, and I don't want to learn 2 locations for every feature. You can't turn off the menubar items, so I end up turning off the toolbar. So I don't care what that part of the UI looks like, and the sidebar for formatting they added, as pointed out in the article, uses the horizontal space on screens better than options stretched out over the full width of the menu.

Now the visibility of the liquid glass stuff, that is definitely a problem. Can't recognize a UI element if it's constantly rendered differently and with very little contrast with the background elements.

Well, I guess someone is going to vibecode a decent Linux GUI or fix the driver pains there or something and we'll be free of this. Because Microsoft/Apple and to a lesser extent Google have jumped the shark with their UI these days.

kccqzy 5 hours ago|
When I used to use Pages frequently I just memorized all the relevant keyboard shortcuts and turned off the entire toolbar. It’s easy: for each button in the toolbar find the equivalent in the menu, and the shortcut is written on the menu item itself. That’s, however, entirely unacceptable for most users.

The sidebar for formatting they added is strictly worse than the inspector UI in old Pages ’09. The sidebar is constrained not to overlap with content, but the user can choose to overlap the inspector. It’s strictly better flexibility for users. If you are doing a lot of fine adjustments to a single text box, then of course it’s fewer mouse movement if the inspector is located right next to the text box, despite that it has obscured other irrelevant text boxes. I dearly miss Pages ’09.

vjvjvjvjghv 4 hours ago||
The Lion screenshot is just perfect. Everything you need to do is right there. And with every version from then on the usability goes downhill and stuff you need to do is more and more hidden and requires several clicks to access.

Pretty sad state of affairs. Software isn’t build for usability but purely for whatever designers find fashionable at the time.

djfdat 5 hours ago||
I think the idea of the Window Chrome "getting out of the way" of the user is a good concept, but we fail to consider what the user expects at arms length. We also have to consider the chicken-or-egg problem

In the example, we have a sidebar for the formatting in the newer example vs havign that in the toolbar in Lion. Was it that back then, people were more likely to configure fonts & formatting settings, and we've gradually as a society de-emphasized our formatting in word processing? Or did UI changes such as this, hiding formatting options push us towards a world where we care less about formatting? I'd like to think it's a bit of both; as the user-based broadened, you had less percentage-based people that cared so heavily about formatting, so UI changes were made to optimize for that, further pushing people in that direction.

On a different note, I want to call out just how badly the sidebar is laid out compared to the toolbar. In the Lion toolbar, there were unlabeled sections but it was pretty clear what the purpose of each group was. Then you have the sidebar, where labels are added in some places, excessive space given where uneccesary, tabs that are sectioned off from the settings they'll show/hide, collapsible sections that can also be shown/hidden, some dropdowns using up/down caret while others just use the down caret, most dropdown carets being right-aligned but not the gear one, and in the liquid glass versions, the overlay of toolbar buttons over the sidebar creating confusion.

netbioserror 6 hours ago||
Side-by-side, it's incredibly clear that the newest version is total UX garbage. Monochrome icons were a complete mistake, in basically all cases everywhere. A mix of the Lion color, shape/texture, and spacing, plus the Catalina sidebar, would be the best.

I really REALLY love the Lion icons. Colorful but subdued with only mild saturation, distinctive shapes, strong line borders with very slight halo, and mild gradients to make them pop.

igtztorrero 6 hours ago||
Few software companies consider this: users appreciate it when the interface remains constant over time, and especially if we can continue using previous versions without being forced to change, since learning new things again takes time.
baggachipz 5 hours ago|
It's laughable how often companies redesign the UI, when it's counter to what their users want. Nobody wants to re-learn how to interact with their software. Gradual changes, sure, but a total redesign and then releasing it as a "feature" is such a turn-off to so many people.
skywhopper 3 hours ago||
“Perhaps Apple has some user studies that suggest otherwise“

I can guarantee you they have done no such research. This redesign is a clear top-down imposition to make the visual language uniform and match some lead designer’s specs, not to actually make anything more useful or usable.

jmull 6 hours ago||
Of these all, I prefer the Big Sur design language, which this article calls an “atrocious regression”.

Arguing aesthetics is pretty pointless (it’s a decided question to me: my taste is great; most others have very poor taste).

What bothers me about Tahoe are all the sloppy bits, like things you can no longer click or scroll to. We’re on 26.3.1 now and it looks/works like 1.0.

wtallis 2 hours ago||
I think it's arrogant to call this merely "arguing aesthetics" unless you can point to real usability studies that say removing color from icons does not impair their legibility and recognizability, or that reducing contrast does not similarly have detrimental effects.

What really matters is not how the screenshots look, but how easy it is to use the software in action, with low error rate and without having to spend more than a fraction of a second finding the controls you need.

jmull 41 minutes ago||
If you want to claim an objective difference, then you need to be the one to substantiate that.

Anyway, we know people read symbols by shape/lines/pattern just fine without color because that's how reading works.

> What really matters is not how the screenshots look, but how easy it is to use the software in action, with low error rate and without having to spend more than a fraction of a second finding the controls you need.

Indeed. Which is why this article is mostly blowing wind.

cachius 6 hours ago||
> We’re on 26.3.1

I'm still on macOS Sonoma 14 and iOS 18

aaroninsf 3 hours ago|
Nothing enrages like change.