Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

wingdo · Jan 9, 2003, 10:46 PM

I have a confession to make. I'm a switcher. It was quite a long time ago, 7.5 was the operating system of the time. I had used Macs for quite some time before then, and had wanted to get one for some time.

One of the things I really liked about my first Mac (and System 7.5) was the consistant user interface. I always knew how to quit a program (never the same way twice on a PC), I always knew where the preference menu was located on each and every program. It is always in the same place. The look and feel is just so superior to Windows it isn't even funny. Which brings me to the topic at hand. I do NOT want to turn this into a Brushed Metal is better or worse than Aqua type of thread. There are tons of those going on.

What I would like to know your thoughts on the trend of applications losing their consistant look. Non-Apple apps have the standard Aqua look. The one Apple tells them to use. But many of the new Apple applications are brushed metal. Even worse, on some apps the widgets "bubble out" while on other applications the widgets are somewhat sunken. There seems to be no consistancy from the king of consistant look and feel.

How does everyone feel about the multiple looks of applications? Am I the only one who finds this troubling?

sideus · Jan 9, 2003, 11:19 PM

What I would like to know your thoughts on the trend of applications losing their consistant look. Non-Apple apps have the standard Aqua look. The one Apple tells them to use. But many of the new Apple applications are brushed metal. Even worse, on some apps the widgets "bubble out" while on other applications the widgets are somewhat sunken. There seems to be no consistancy from the king of consistant look and feel. [/B]

I consider OS X to be a work in progress and that there will be minor "glitches" here and there. OS 9 had 14+ years to refine its look. Give it time.

cpac · Jan 9, 2003, 11:29 PM

Originally posted by wingdo:
One of the things I really liked about my first Mac (and System 7.5) was the consistant user interface. I always knew how to quit a program (never the same way twice on a PC), I always knew where the preference menu was located on each and every program.
...
But many of the new Apple applications are brushed metal. Even worse, on some apps the widgets "bubble out" while on other applications the widgets are somewhat sunken. There seems to be no consistancy from the king of consistant look and feel.

Um, you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill.

Command-Q still quits every application I use, and Quit is always found under the application menu.

Granted preferences are not always consistently placed, but for all the new (cocoa) apps out there, they seem to be properly placed under the application menu. Time will allow non-complying carbon ports (and just shodily coded programs in general) to iron out their inconsistencies.

I generally can find whatever menu command I'm looking for exactly where I expect to find it.

I don't think there's a huge difference with a window appearing in brushed metal. I do happen to think it's easier on the eyes than aqua, and I acknowledge that Apple doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason for choosing which apps to make brushed metal. Eventually it may mold itself into a singular "system appearance" choice, for all I know. But bottom line, this doesn't confuse me as a user...

The slight difference in the appearance of the widgets is so minor that it could never confuse a user as to the widget's function.

So, no I'm not concerned in the least.

wingdo · Jan 10, 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by cpac:

I don't think there's a huge difference with a window appearing in brushed metal. I do happen to think it's easier on the eyes than aqua, and I acknowledge that Apple doesn't seem to have any rhyme or reason for choosing which apps to make brushed metal. Eventually it may mold itself into a singular "system appearance" choice, for all I know. But bottom line, this doesn't confuse me as a user...

The slight difference in the appearance of the widgets is so minor that it could never confuse a user as to the widget's function.

So, no I'm not concerned in the least.

My point wasn't that it was confusing, the fact people can manage to use MS Windows proves anything can work, but the fact that applications now do not have a consistant look. And you are also right in the fact that the widget difference is a very minor thing. My point is that Apple used to care about even the most minor thing.

MickS · Jan 10, 2003, 08:39 AM

You have to remember that the look and feel of 7.5 had gone through quite a few iterations to get where it did.

At present there are two development environments on the Mac (Carbon and Cocoa). The widget implementation in each is handled differently. The newer Cocoa applications have the sunken widgets, the Carbon applications have a hack to get the brushed metal and have raised widgets. I'd expect the difference to go away over time.

wingdo · Jan 10, 2003, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by MickS:
You have to remember that the look and feel of 7.5 had gone through quite a few iterations to get where it did.

At present there are two development environments on the Mac (Carbon and Cocoa). The widget implementation in each is handled differently. The newer Cocoa applications have the sunken widgets, the Carbon applications have a hack to get the brushed metal and have raised widgets. I'd expect the difference to go away over time.

Well, that answers one of the questions, and it makes sense. Now about the inconsistancies between using Aqua and Brushed Metal. If Microsoft Office all of a sudden started using the childlike XP color scheme / widget look for Office v.X, would Apple and the user community be OK with that?

Fallout · Jan 10, 2003, 06:08 PM

I seriously can't stand to use Aqua. Thank god for themes. Brushed Metal should be the systemwide interface.

redJag · Jan 10, 2003, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Fallout:
Brushed Metal should be the systemwide interface.

Wow never thought I would see that. To me, themes are a big part of being a mac user. I can NOT believe that Apple doesn't have some type of theme manager. Hacks like duality fix the problem, but they're not really solutions. I hope Apple soon supports themes (they'll have to use duality's format to have any support at all, though). Because while I think Brushed Metal is ugly and should be burned, others obviously like it. That's what themes are for

itai195 · Jan 10, 2003, 06:25 PM

Two things... Preferences, menu shortcuts and designs, etc should all be standard. I haven't seen a significant Apple app that broke those rules. The other thing is anybody can make a brushed metal app, not just Apple. Interface Builder has that option.

wingdo · Jan 10, 2003, 09:21 PM

Originally posted by itai195:
Two things... Preferences, menu shortcuts and designs, etc should all be standard. I haven't seen a significant Apple app that broke those rules. The other thing is anybody can make a brushed metal app, not just Apple. Interface Builder has that option.

Are there any non-Apple applications which use Brushed Metal?

mrtew · Jan 10, 2003, 09:36 PM

Originally posted by Fallout:
I seriously can't stand to use Aqua. Thank god for themes. Brushed Metal should be the systemwide interface.

I agree, and it is on my computer, with the brushed theme. I love the consistency. Only carp like RealPlayer and WMP etc. don't comply. It's ....... a bummer.

Synotic · Jan 10, 2003, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by wingdo:
Are there any non-Apple applications which use Brushed Metal?

Um yeah... like half the new AppleScript Studio and Cocoa apps are brushed metal for no good reason...

clarkgoble · Jan 11, 2003, 12:26 AM

Basically the way I look at it applications that are "tools" or "players" should be brushed metal. So, for instance, I think it is good that MPlayer (an DiVX player) is brushed metal. Safari I could go either way on. In a sense it is a player of web pages so I don't mind. You aren't "creating" documents with it.

Mail, Word, and so forth are more standard document oriented applications. They aren't really tool-devices like a phone, connector, or so forth.

Like I said, I think Safari could go either way.

As for the complaint about the Sys7 say of doing things. My BIG complaint in those days was modal application versus regular application. How many applications used modal windows when they didn't need to? Typically just because it was easier as well.

Certainly there are applications that are "metal" for no good reason. And there are applications whose interface makes no sense, (iDVD being one of them). But by and large I think Apple is trying to make things consistent.

Just look at what it is trying to do with Java, Carbon and Cocoa. A *lot* of work is going into making them all function very similarly. In the case of Swing for Java, that is not trivial. Now that X11 is out, I suspect we'll see more work to make toolkits like TK work in a more Mac-like fashion. (Check out the Wish environment that is now OSX native) Obviously Java and X11 toolkits can never truly be Mac-like. But Apple sure is trying to get them as far as possible.