Mr. Tognazzini recently posted an article that creates a great deal of criticism regarding the Aqua interface. My own website is not the appropriate forum for a rebuttal, but this message board is.
Tog says that the interface will distract professionals from their designs. To believe that widgets with full 3D perspective, and relationally correct specular highlights would be more distracting than the flat 2D fat grey is not totally without merrit. The reality of the Aqua interface is that these widgets fit nicely into the overall look and feel, and are FAR less jarring than the super contrast offered by most Windows schemes, and the Gnome interface for Unix.
Rather than ramble on and on about how great Aqua is, simply look into how many downloads of Kaleidoscope 2.2 have there been since the introduction of OS 8.5? Have you looked into most of the schemes offered by Kaleidoscope? Aqua seems mighty soothing after using those for a while, yet I know a great many professional who use Kaleidoscope to provide a little color, and flair to their otherwise thoroughly boring desktop which they must stare at for hours and hours each day.
The MOST important thing about aqua is its ability to make the extremely intimidating Unix underpinnings both attractive and exciting. New users will not migrate to OSX if OS9 seems friendlier. And most professionals who use the Mac prefer not to know too much about the actual system operation, they just want to launch photoshop and get to work.

What do you have to say?

[FooFooRabbit]

Well, Tog doesn't like change. He likes the MacOS the way it is right now. Pity...he's a flat character.

MacOS *must* change...it *must* grow...Tog hasn't even played with MacOS X yet, so it amazes me how a professional (if we can actually call him that) can show such immaturity by judging an OS before he actually played around with it.

Tog may be a respected person to many peoples eyes...not mine though.

If he doesn't like the idea that MacOS X is changing for the better (he thinks it's the worse) then he can simply stay with MacOS 9.

[FooFooRabbit]

Also...Tog is only expressing his opinions...and they do not necessarly reflect most people's opinions.

Tog would like to believe he is the alpha and the omega in GUI design. Not so! He'd like to make you think he knows everything about human interfaces,

Tog - "Now if you move the Apps menu back on the right and bring back the Apple menu and put it where it belongs, on the left..." (not a direct quote...I'm actually making fun of what I remember reading on his website.)

This is just a matter of opinion...he is more comfortable with the old design and doesn't want to try the new design.

People that are new to MacOS X will have as little trouble adapting than a person that was new to MacOS 9. Whether the Application menu is on the left or the right doesn't decrease performance like Tog says it will. Apple has simplified the GUI by only having the Application menu. The Apple menu is obsolete...we don't need it in MacOS X since other things have come to replace it such the new Finder window with button links to "Favorites", "Documents", "Applications" and the dock.

As for all those visual effects that Tog didn't like because they are "distracting" such as the "genie" effect. Well, those "visual cues" as I like to call them give feedback to what is going on. If a user minimizes a window and you don't get the genie effect to show where it is being placed in the dock...how the heck are you supposed to know where it went.

If Tog easily distracted by things as simple as soft shadows and color widgets...then, by god, he must be terrified of his shadow and streetlamps. Well, no wonder, with a name like Tog, he must be a caveman (I know his real name is Tognazzini, I'm just making fun of him *again*). "Me Tog. Me scared of shadow that follow me."

The only thing that *shouldn't* be there, and I think Tog mentionned it, is the Apple logo that supposedly does nothing. Decoration isn't good.

Tog should probably retire because he doesn't really know what he is talking about.

I probably agreed with 10% of his material.

[Keda]

I was also bothered by the non-functional Apple logo in the middle of the menu bar. My suggestion would be to make it less obtrusive. Maybe it could be the same color as the backgroung, but embossed. I dunno, it just throws the symetry off to me.

We'll kow in 6 months or so.

The OS interface as it is constituted today is neutral and doesn't serve as a distraction when viewing photos in photoshop. OSX's choice of red,green,yellown is a logical metaphor for new users-but as a power user I would like to be able to mute it some how ala scroll bars colors in the present OS. The "genie effect"love it or leave it seems to be arguing about the side mirrors on a car-you need some animation to show the user when a document or window is closed where it went,its logical and complaining whether it curves or closes diagonally seems to miss bigger issues. When I put in a disk does it show up on the desktop? That is a practical and logical metaphor that apple has used for years that should be kept along with the addition of the Next/ browser-like finder option.

[MAlan]

These are very difficult issues to resolve because its all so subjective. I didn't get the chance to play with the Aqua interface but reading about it makes me very happy. I think almost every idea is a great move forward.

There are a few key things that a lot of people are having problems with so I believe Apple should add in some flexibility in these areas.
1. The finder.
I loved the NeXT version of the finder when I used it. I personally feel that Apple is doing the right thing by migrating to that design. However, a lot of long time, hard core Mac users don't like the fact that the traditional finder is going away. I think Apple should find a way for these people to use the finder wholly in the traditional way by using preferences.

2. Filenames on the Dock.
Put a hot key to be able to show the filenames associated with the open applications in the Dock.

3. Classic apps using classic environment.
The classic applications should be able to not stand out so much in the Aqua environment. If your running a classic app you should be able to have your desktop revert back to the original Mac OS environment.

These are the three biggest concerns that I've read about and it seems that time and time again more people are spewing out these same concerns. I could care less about these things personally. I'm ready to abandon the finder and have Classic apps implemented as they were demonstrated. But I feel I'm in the minority. I believe that Apple should listen to their customers on this very closely or else they could end up with that New Coke scenario that Tog mentioned. But they should do it in a way that doesn't compromise their advances.

I ain;t bitter, dammit!

Oh and that comment about the trash being on the desktop where it belongs...heh it's very 'unprofessional' writing for a guy who wrote all those books. That goes for all the people who second that.

If I maximize a window or just have too many windows, the trash icon on the destop gets hidden, it doesn't belong there, and I bet it never should be, it should a place where you can always goto, ie, DOCK which goes above all the restrictions...

~Kuku

[FooFooRabbit]

Oh yeah, people think Tog knows everything about UI. Judging from what he said on his review of the still-not-released-Aqua-interface, he has proven to me that he knows nothing about UI.

I don't care if he was on Apple's UI team or if he did lots of contributions. He may be an ok UI designer but, phuq, he ain't the best UI designer. MacOS 9 has a great interface...everyone loves the Mac interface...Tog may have contributed to that interface at one point...but for phuq's sake, if there's a way to make the OS easier to use, then, by all means, Apple should implement it.

I think Tog is too attached to his own UI, which is great, but, dammit, if somebody can make it better (which MacOS X's Aqua interface is, IMO) then I'll go for the "better" UI.

What about a bit of give and take before tearing Tog apart? Manners anyone?! GUI stuff is subjective (please remember) but much of what Tog says is backed up with scientific statements, particularly regarding use of screen edges. Read the article and see he has a point. The dock's fairly cool, but actually I consider popup windows more useful since you can easily group things and they always stay in the same position.

Don't get too emotional about this please, it's only software we're talking about after all. And allow for the fact that others may have differing but still valid opinions on the matter; GUI is psychology to a large extent - not just engineering.

[FooFooRabbit]

So what gives Tog the right to tear apart an OS when the GUI is sooooo subjective.

I'm tired of this B.S. and people talking out of their butts.

Heck, I know I have better views on human interfaces and GUIs than Tog.

This is a very amusing discussion. People commenting and arguing over a picture. No, not a working UI to play with, but a few pictures. Perhaps we should argue over the Copland UI...

For the record

1 - Tog founded Apple's UI team.

2 - In reading between the lines of Tog's OSX critique, I would say his comments are based on actual tests of various UI designs. I think that people other than himself were given different UI's to use, and their interactions with each different UI were recorded and analyzed. I believe this is called the "scientific method", and its how all good science is performed.

[AJ]

I have to say that Tog is the best UI designer that Apple ever had, and I support most of his views in his MacOS X article. He is right about a lot of the stuff (e.g. the dock should display names...that is doubtless) Change is needed, without a doubt, and MacOS X is a step in the right direction, but the little changes that Tog suggested would make all of our lives more bearable in OS X.

AliJ

1. Well i think both parties are somewhat right (as usual). tog did have some pretty good comments, and from what he writes it does indeed seem that there are certain issues apple hasn't thought about enough.
on the other hand, when you publish something, you should always be aware of the tone you write your article in. tog perhaps wasn't aware that his article has a sauce of "gruntled ex-employee" and a teaspoon of "i could have done a better job" over it. Perhaps that wasn't his intention, but that certainly is the way it reads (i don't think anybody will argue on this?).

The examples of the dangerous button in red and fitt's law concerning edges, well, i must admit he has a darn good point in both cases.

2. i pray that apple will ask for comment of its users - i've read some pretty good remarks over on apple insider's forum. it seams the clue lies in customisability. make sure the gui is very customisable, so that users who wish to do so can set their own standards. in gui design, it is unwise to force a user to user a certain element - he should always have choice; words from apple, 1984.

3. I've said it before and i'll say it again: while steve may have made the right decision in axing the advanced technology group (and, part of it, the human interface team) when apple was low on the dough, now that they're safe on the green the human interface team NEEDS to be reinstated. Over the past two years we've heard many, many comments on interfaces from apple. Quicktime 4 was bashed at first, now Aqua receives it's share of comments... apple used to be equal to great interface. i beleive this was thanks to the HI team. I'm not saying the people woh design the interfaces now aren't doing a good job; i was pretty impressed with aqua, i must admit. But apple's interface in these days seems to lack consistency. Get that HI team back, steve!

Regards,

steve

This has been posted over on Omni OSX discussion list:

"Actually, Tog was not involved in the design of the Macintosh user interface at all. Neither was [Jef] Raskin. These are widely-held misconceptions. Tog is a good designer but he didn't have anything to do with the Mac user interface, at least not until several years after the Mac came out.

Still, I agree with many of his concerns about the new Aqua interface and am very pleased that he took the time for a critical look at the new elements in the interface. Time will tell.

�����Bruce Horn
�����Macintosh software 1981-1984

Early in his article Tog says:
"OS X is beautiful. If you haven�t seen it yet, take a look. The new aqua appearance is cool and clean, in sharp contrast to the ponderously-heavy 3D chrome look that Microsoft visited on the world and Macintosh quickly emulated."
...hardly tearing apart the new look of osX. In fact it sounds like he might prefer its appearance to the current MacOS. Not only does Tog not criticize the interface's appearance, but he actually praises it.
Tog's criticizm focuses on the functionality of the new OS - size and location of buttons/icons and, of course, the dock. og's critique does sound valid. It's not that the dock sucks... but, maybe it could be better.

BTW - I've been using an aqua kaleidoscope theme for a few days now (just for the fun of it) and in terms of appearance it's not bad at all, I just wish the theme included protected memory and preemptive multitasking.

In reference to Foo Foo Rabbit's remarks about Tog (you notice that I do not say "his response to Tog's arguments"): I am a regular reader of Macnn's and Macfixit's Forums, the main attractions of which are the give-and-take of opinion. I despise the kind of personal attacks of which Mr. Rabbit's posts are examples. He holds different opinions from those of Tog, and makes his argument. But to so unnecessarily and viciously attempt to diminish Tog personally and professionally (!) is insulting, not only to Tog but to the rest of the participants in this Forum.

After seeing the keynote, all I could think of was how many system resources were going to be tied up in running that interface's animations.

I am afraid that we will no longer be able to tab windows to the bottom of the screen like we have been able to do until now because of the dock.

[Millennium]

Tog did go a bit overboard. But he did have one or two valid points. My main beef with the OS is the buttons at the top of the window. OK, so red, yellow, and green is logical for a typical user. They do a color-blind user no good at all, however, and you don't get an idea as to what the buttons really do until you mouseover them.

My solution: take the "mouseover" graphics and make them permanent. They don't detract from the look of the buttons, and they make things much clearer.

I also have an issue with putting the Close button next to the Maximize and Minimize buttons; Apple's own interface should be fitting its human interface guidelines exactly, and this is a break from those (Apple wrote the guidelines, and they should be setting the example). But that one's less annoying; I've tried out several pseudo-Aqua interfaces (via K-Schemes and window manager themes in Linux) and it hasn't gotten in my way.

[NuVector]

Tog makes some valid points in his analysis.

One that I think salient is the position of the close button -- why start putting it next to the other buttons now? Just to be more Windows-like? Looking for Windows converts maybe? (I hope not, I'd hate to think they are dumbing down the UI just to be more compatible with Windows) But that's trivial compared to the loss of the destop metaphor. (And no, being able to place an alias on the desktop is NOT the same.)

Also, It seems as thought the new Finder borrows too much from a browser interface. I don't need a "Favorites" button or a "Documents" button if I can keep folders (open or not) on my desktop.

One of the great things about the Mac UI is that you don't have to muck with unfriendly, save dialog boxes and their kludgey browsers -- just save to the desktop, and file it later once you know where it wants to live. Change your mind? You can drill down as deep as you need into two separate trees, pop open window in each, and compare/drag to your heart's content. This is a process that is tedious at best in Windows Explorer, and from the looks of it, in the new Finder as well.

[FooFooRabbit]

John Engels,

All I'm saying is that it's very unprofesional of Tog to rip apart a GUI that he hasn't even put his hands on.

As has been shown by the latest Quicktime interface, someone at apple is focused on pretty, and is not focused on functional.

The one thing they go smash bang right on. Attaching the dialogs to the windows. I cannot tell you how many times in unix and windows a dialog has become lost behind a window and the only solution is to kill the progam. It solved my biggest worry.

I compare the present aqua interface to MS's comments about user interfaces. They said they tested them allt eh time for Word6. But the problem is that they tested them on windows computers with windows users. Word 6 lost alot of the functionality that would benefit users. (why the hell are all those menus at the bottom of dailog boxes, especially when they duplicate the programs menus (just use the programs menus)

I agree, the close button location comment is right on. Keep them apart, please.

Apple icon in the middle, of the menu bar. What does it do?

One thing I've missed in the demonstations. Can we get the mac standard, bring the application and all it's windows to the foreground, or it this damn aqua still single window based.

To Tog's critics, I would say that he at least has taken the trouble to ask "how would that work in real life?" and applied that standard all through in his critique.
Also, he knows what he's talking about: he has probably *forgotten* more about UI design than the folk disparaging him *know*. Every time I read his pages I find another detail that makes me think "Of course!"
And he doesn't sit there being grumpy. He gets paid for his knowledge of UI.
If you want a taste of the OSX Finder, try Greg's Browser (via www.kaleidoscope.net). I did. I quickly gave up - it's not spatial like a real or even UI desktop. It's less usable.
A lot of the "support" I see here for OSX is just people who want a shiny new toy, regardless of whether a day later the batteries will have run down or a key piece will have broken off. Grow up - yes, I know it's a phrase guaranteed to inflame; but being unable to analyse criticism, especially of things you like, is the real sign of immaturity.
So no, Tog's not bitter. He's smart. Let's see if anyone at Apple is grown up enough to be taking notes.

[MAlan]

You guys are all so hopped up about this article. Lets just take a step back from the brink for a second.

Firstly...lets not insult people here... differing opinions are good but I wouldn't like to have myself personally disparaged like Tog has been.

Second...I think its only natural for people to be scared of big change. I think we should not trash Apple's efforts too quickly. I believe Tog was probably too quick to judge. If I was an expert in UI's I would probably wait until I used the UI being critiqued for about a month or so.

However, I did agree with a couple of Tog's points. To support some of toloczko's statements, Tog's article did seemed to be based on logical basis not unlike the scientific method (however, it seems very difficult for anyone to really apply the scientific method to something so subjective).

We all are going to have different opinions on this let us respect each others right to disagree.

I think there is at least one point here that we can all agree on. That is, it would be wise for Apple to put the ability to navigate the file system with the old Mac OS finder if one wanted too. I personally will most likely use the NeXT like finder that they have currently deployed but there are a lot of people who want the option to switch back and forth. Can we all agree on this issue?

[Brian Marsh]

2 comments to make

the MacOS X Finder can act alot like the MacOS 9 and earlier finder, double-clicking on a folder to open it up as a seperate window, you don't have to use the "browser"
the new finder gives at least one extra
option for how to organize files, and you
can switch to it at any point, no running a
different program

second point, There is still 6 months or so before MacOS X is released, and they are still doing lots of work on it, including Aqua, the Aqua they showed off was definately not the final.

2 comments to make

the MacOS X Finder can act alot like the MacOS 9 and earlier finder, double-clicking on a folder to open it up as a seperate window, you don't have to use the "browser"
the new finder gives at least one extra
option for how to organize files, and you
can switch to it at any point, no running a
different program

second point, There is still 6 months or so before MacOS X is released, and they are still doing lots of work on it, including Aqua, the Aqua they showed off was definately not the final.

[penginkun]

MacOS X's interface is pretty, I'll give you that, and I'm not going to comment on it until I've had a chance to play with it. (Which reminds me - hurry up and release the next preview, Apple!)

My concern is that this new interface will rob the Mac of what's made it unique - the Finder/desktop integration. If the new interface is going to be similar in function to Windows's or a Unix X environment, why am I bothering with paying for THAT? I can get Unix for free. I use Windows daily, and my primary beef with it is its interface.

We've seen Apple slowly start to make the Mac more and more MS friendly. Is this is ultimate step?

I can only hope for Apple's sake they include a "Classic" environment which will give all us old-timers who really don't like this much change all at once the chance to play with the new interface and to adjust to it gradually. If not, MacOS 9 will be the last operating system I buy from Apple, and after that Linux will become my mainstay. Aqua's gotta want to suck up TONS of memory and CPU cycles to stay alive and give us those pretty effects...

I think the two biggest problems with Aqua that will have to change are:

1. The close/maximize/minimize buttons. Make them look different OTHER than just color, and don't put the all next to each other.

2. The dock will be close to useless in its current design. As soon as someone puts two or three documents from the same application in the dock, how on earth are you going to be able to tell them apart?

Moreover, the documents will be mixed up with all the applications - in my years of using a NeXT, one of the biggest problems was being able to distinguish which icons corresponded to which applications/documents when you put them in the dock.

My suggestion is to

a) put the name of the file on all the icons
b) provide a way to partition the dock so that you can keep documents, favorites and running applications separate.

Gee, when you look at the above, why doesn't Apple just implement pop-up folders which have both of the above characteristics and have been shipping for over 2 years in Mac OS 8!

Pop-up folders (perhaps dynamically generated always-on folders like a "Current Applications" are a much better solution than the jumbled dock will be).

[FooFooRabbit]

Whoa, Apple ain't robbin' nobody.

If you don't like MacOS X (even if you haven't even seen it), then stick with MacOS 9...it's that simple.

MacOS 9 supports carbon and classic programs. Carbon and classic programs are going to stay around for a veeeeeeeery long time.

In fact, most games will mostly be classic even a year after MacOS X...then they will probably become carbon to support both the pre-MacOS X crowd as well as the MacOS X crowd.

There won't be many cocoa apps for quite awhile.

So stick with MacOS 9 if you don't like the new Finder (which is an option). So what if you don't get pre-emptive multitasking and advanced virtual mem...MacOS 9 is still great.

Why does everyone feel excluded:

�MacOS 9 for the die-hard-Mac fans that don't want to let go of the old Finder.
�MacOS X for the professional Mac users that want power and stability...and for the new recruits that never touched the Classic MacOS.

Everything is settled...MacOS 9 is going to stay here for at least 3-4 more years. And by that time, everyone will be talking about how great MacOS XII is and how much easier it is to use than MacOS 9.

There you have it folks.

If ya don't like MacOS X, stick with MacOS 9 for at least 3 more years.

Hmm...

I have just perused through Tog's critique on Apple's new Aqua interface, and without question, he has a very strong understanding of what UI's are all about. In addition, he makes a number of points which are valid in regards to the forthcoming Mac OS X UI.

The one item that did leap out at me, however, is that many of his critiques were based on user data that is as old as the MacOS is. While in the 80's, when the MacOS was being constructed, this UI research was very relavent. People had no idea how to interact with a UI, and it was important to find out what worked for them and what did not.

16 years later, I belive that some of these finding should be revisited. A great deal has happened, and some of these 'truths' about UI design may no longer be the case.

Without being too lengthy in my post, I wanted to make a couple of quick comments on the Dock. This seems to be the most contraversial addition to the MacOS X UI, and one that I for one, am very happy to see. FINALLY, somewhere that I can minimize applications!! It's about time. The Application menu in the current iteration of the Mac OS has always been annoying at best, especially since the introduction of the tear-off application menu. Not only do I usually tear off the menu on accident (which, coincedently, places it right in the middle of the work that I am doing), but half the time that I try to switch between applications, I usually either select the wrong one, or hide others instead of the application that I am in. While there are certainly still issues with the Dock (the trash has GOT to go back out on the desktop, and items need to have names), I believe that the premise is right on track. For me personally, this will likely be one of the biggest additions to the new os, and one that will certainly enhance my productivity.

I remember back two or three years ago when I went to the Macworld expo. Yes, the same boston expo that killed copland. Copland was there and I remember looking at it and the guy was so excited about the menus. You see the menus didn't highlight like we see them now. When you brought your mouse over them, they flipped over and showed it highlighted. It was cool looking, but left me wondering two things: When will they get this out? and Why do they spend their time on these useless things instead of increasing stability, compatability, and speed? NeXT seems to have solved all those, but it looks as if the UI team at apple might have their wires crossed. I want functionality. If it animates... wohoo(sarcasm). Sure it looks nice and the big icons are great for people like me who have their resolution cranked up there, but the biggest question that will remain unanswered until the summer is: Will it perform well, not crash, be speedy, and help me get my job done quicker?

[Michelle Steiner]

Originally posted by FooFooRabbit:
John Engels,

All I'm saying is that it's very unprofesional of Tog to rip apart a GUI that he hasn't even put his hands on.

And it must be just as unprofessional to praise a GUI that one hasn't even put his hands on.

Regardless, Tog did not rip apart Aqua; he pointed out areas where he thought it lacked, based on his expertise in user-interface design. Wouldn't it be better for Apple to hear everyone's concerns now, while they have a chance to address them before shipping Aqua, than to hear those concerns after it is shipped?

I share some of Tog's criticisms of the interface, but disagree with him about others. He and I have discussed it in email. I don't know him at all, nor does he know me, but he does respond to email.

I read Tog's article as well and found it compelling, but I disagreed with most of it. He quotes Fit's Law (or some such thing) and argues this means that there should be lots of big corner gadgets and tabs or whatever sticking out of the side of the screen. Personally, I hate screen clutter, and I don't like big corner widgets. Small, functional elements in the corners are great. They are usefull and don't force me to narrow a programs window in order to see edge tabs that I would never use anyway.
Elseware in this thread i saw a comment like "people who want OS X, just want a shiney new toy..." in response to the discussion thread. People, please remember we were discussing AQUA the USER INTERFACE. The above comment seems to be be ignoring the potential benefits of the new OS's protected memory and multi-tasking abilities, something most of us have been looking forward to for a long time.
Finally, to all the worry warts out there, have a little faith will ya! I don't believe Apple will let us down by not thinking and planning ahead. Afterall, it WAS NOT an Apple guy who said "640K ought to be enough for anybody."

[This message has been edited by RockLord (edited 01-31-2000).]

I saw the demo at macworld and heard the oohs and ahhs and I know OSX is going to be huge--but I think like anything it'll take getting used to.

My concern is the underpinnings--how much memory this is going to suck up. OS9 already takes a significant chunk of my 224MB, and can you imagine someone with an iBook and 32MB trying to use it?

[benj]

I think there is a lot of gun jumping here.
There are two sides of GUI interation:
visual and function. THe cool thing that I
understand about OSX is that both of these sides are addressed. This is appropriate.
My feeling is that if you aren't visually
impressed that you'll be able to fix that ala
kaleidascope or some similar fix.
There will probably be a much bigger market
in this field given the popularity of
themes on the Gnome/windows front.
As for gui functionality, it will take some
adaptation, but at least crashing the finder won't take down the whole machine.
I'm wondering though, how the Gui/Unix
funtionality on a MAC will go over with its
users. Clearly the Geeks of BE dig it as do
the Gnome/KDE folks. But most Mac users I know
can't deal with arcane system files even in a
Systems Preferences folder. I'm hoping there
is a "simple Finder" switch which would turn off (visually) the underpinnings of
the unix system. Most people do NOT want to
know how it works as longs as it does work.
This, by the way, is another function of GUI
interaction. I mean, what if you had a phone
and everytime you picked it up you had to
figure out which of the 12 buttons were the numbers.
Since Apple brought up UI consistency for most
of what I consider computer/humna interaction I hope they maintain consistant standards (sherlock, QT, oyvey) and clue us in on it too.

[FooFooRabbit]

Originally posted by Michelle Steiner:
And it must be just as unprofessional to praise a GUI that one hasn't even put his hands on.

WHOA Michelle Steiner, first of all I'm not a professional...so what you have said here means absoultely nothing. And it's not the professionals that should have a say in this matter...it's the users. How can Tog think he is speaking for all the users out there? He certainly not speaking for me.

Second of all, I have played around with NeXT Step, MacOS 1-9 (yes, I've been on Macs since 1984...I have a Mac 128K), and MacOS X DP2, so I have some knowledge of the UI...and using this knowledge and piecing it with the keynote demo and the screenshots posted I can say Apple is on the right track.

I really don't want to sound arrogant but I know more about GUI's than most people here. Again, I've used Macs and MacOS since the very beginning. I've used Windows 3.1. I've used Windows95/98. I've used NeXT Step. I've used MacOS X DP2. So if you tell me that after 16 years of experience with GUI's, that I know less than Tog, you are gravely mistaken.

I am an end-user. I know what makes things tick. I've used all sorts of shareware and freeware to change the MacOS GUI to make it easier to use.

I may not represent everyone. But I believe I represent more than what Tog represents. People are still scared of MacOS X because they don't know what to expect. I kinda know what to expect since I've been following Apple's moves closely since the dawn of time.

Apple isn't going to make an OS that everyone hates. Do you think they would bring themselves down?

Gimme a break! Wake up and smell the coffee.

[mrl14]

It's amazing how one person has stirred this much comotion?

Who cares! Apple will never listen to us, they must control it all. We want cheaper computers, well we are going to get what Apple calls Cheap Computers, an iBook for 2399(CDN) thats not cheap! Thats expensive! A g4 here minimum configuration is 2400(CDN).

YOu're all wasting your time posting here because Apple will do what they want and how they want to...which always isn't good. ;p

[FooFooRabbit]

Ouch, you're not shopping at the right places. A G4 mininum config here in Ottawa is 2099(CDN) and that's an average price. There are some better deals out there.

Also, it's pretty hard to find a good laptop for under 2000. I think the iBook is about 2399(CDN) here and that's a reasonable price.

Although I have to admit I'd love to see a G4 under 2000(CDN).

Just because people download an Kaleidoscope Aqua theme doesnt mean they like it. I have downloaded four of them, like most schemes they are nice to look at but not something I would want to be faced with all day every day - way too garish, they are now off my computer.

[FooFooRabbit]

Yeah, but you also forget that just because they are called Aqua schemes, it doesn't necessarly reflect the true UI...

I'm sure the transparencies, shadows and alphablending handled by the Quartz engine is a lot easier on the eyes than the Aqua Kaleidoscope schemes that don't have transparency, shadowsor alphablending.

I'd have to say Aqua is a very neutral GUI...about as much as Platinum if it didn't have those red, yellow and green widgets.

Everything is pretty much whitish on the screen which makes a great contrast on the background...

But seriously folks...don't worry about the GUI...I'm sure there will be a 3rd-party program such as Kaleidoscope that will allow you to change the interface in MacOS X.

[akebono]

The new finder will presumably just be another UNIX app. That means that it can be killed and another one run in its place. That is, if someone is that ambitious...

not even that ambitious. i would think that any unix/ppc windowmanager would be able to be run in place of the finder.
i personnaly like the way aqua looks, though i think tog has some good points about the window widget placement. and i want drives and the trash to appear on the desktop. and of course i'm a bit concerned with how much RAM it will take, and what the speed hit will be for all the (really neat looking!) animations. and what's with the apple in the CENTER of the menu bar?
but this is still a developmental build (not even alpha, right?), and there is lots of time for things to change, things to get fixed. and since none of us have actually USED the aqua interface (DP3, which contains aqua, hasn't been sent out yet, has it?), i think we're all talking in the dark.
-ster

I have some issues with a few of Apple's choices for the Aqua GUI. However, does anyone know why they are basing Quartz on PDF instead of the more established PostScript technology? Native postscript support embedded in the OS would be awesome!

i understand that postscript has a few problems
1: it's oriented at the higher resolutions of printers, and does not look as good on 72dpi monitors
2: OSX-Server uses display-postscript, and apple has to pay a royalty to adobe for it. PDF, on the other hand, is a free (open?) internet standard. no royalties.
3: postscript doesn't handle links and some stuff that PDF has.
these are all remembered off the top of my head, but i think that these were some of the reasons they decided on pdf instead of postscript for the basis of quartz
-ster

[This message has been edited by Ster (edited 01-31-2000).]

I have spent much of the day reading the various discussions about MacOS X on all the Mac sites, on SlashDot, and even on a couple of PC sites. Everyone seems to agree that the change is altogether good, but that it's definitely looking like Apple has put cleverness and style above functionality in many places.

Tog's article seems to be the centerpiece of the myriad discussions, and this seems interesting to me, because his views are so moderate and the responses so widely varying.

It is fascinating to watch what Apple is doing, whether we like their choices or not. I respect Apple a great deal, and I tend to always look for a positive spin on actions that at first seem bizarre.

Take, for example, the Apple logo in the center of the menu bar. Well, it was a demo. But then again, when those MacOS X TV ads start popping up in the summer I wouldn't mind seeing the Apple logo prominently featured.

Tog mentions the poor mice and keyboards that Apple supplies. Well, when I bought my 8500 it didn't even come with a keyboard! Nope, that was $100 extra! Better a junky one than nothing? Well, consider the great opportunities that have been provided to third party hardware vendors to create a better mouse and keyboard. Look how many different models there are to choose from...

Likewise I think the weaknesses of the Finder and Dock -- if not addressed by Apple before the launch of MacOS X -- provide great opportunities for developers. It should be relatively trivial to create other kinds of file browsers and docks that more closely resemble our legacy systems.

Oddly, Apple's got a knack for making good bad decisions. Does any of this make sense??

Tog knows what he's talking about. That doesn't mean he's wrong, but his criticisms are reasoned and based on good experience. How about replying in kind? Maybe he's right on some points, wrong on others. I for one picked up the fact that the close control being next to the max and min controls was bad before reading anyone else's opinion on this.

I've also used both NeXTstep and OS X Server and have to agree that some aspects of the interface are a bit clunky -- if enourmously better than Windows and any X-Windows interface I've used. That's not to say that the Mac interface isn't overdue for an overhaul, but it would be a pity if Apple pushed ahead with this thing without being willing to take some feedback on getting it right.

Sadly, Apple's Human Interface Group -- disbanded by Jobs -- used to apply science where all the competition let programmers do whatever looked cool. Apple has lost a lot by trashing this group which really made the Mac what it is -- instead of giving them the challenge of making whatever Jobs thought looked cool actually work.

Level 3 PostScript *is* PDF. A superset.

Perhaps this is flogging the greasy spot on the pavement where the horse used to be. However.

1) You don't need all the fancy-schmancy stuff on top to implement preemptive multitasking and protected memory underneath. Also, PEM and PM are *overdue*. Windows has had them for ages. Leave 21st century looks aside for a moment, Apple, and implement some 20th century knowhow.

2) Foofoo Rabbit, oh GUI expert, name the software you've been involved with. I'm here to be impressed. State nature of involvement (eg dumb tester, smart designer, user champion, etc). 'Cos I still suspect you like it because you're on the inside of the loop, and it feels comfy there, regardless of how useful it really is.

3) Plenty of time for Apple to listen, it's true. Plenty of time too for them to decide it should all be brushed aluminium with no windowshading. That's why it's worth making a noise.