[cpac]

so it's bugged me for a while, and been the subject of way too many threads, but anyway, as I remember it the first pseudo-metal applications were quicktime and the apple video player (which you needed on the old 8500's if you hooked them up to video). Which got me to thinking:

Applications that mimic appliances in one way or another should be metal.

Applications that dont (because they create content, e.g.) should be aqua.

This seems to make sense. The iApps manipulate, organize, and modify content, but do not create it. Safari similarly is a "viewer" as are DVD player and Quicktime Player.

----------

the only program I can think of that doesn't really fit this paradigm is Preview, and maybe that should be changed...

----------

Thoughts?
Gaping logical holes?

[Developer]

.

[lookmark]

It's pretty clear that Safari was chosen to be Brushed because it just looked better.

The Apple UI team needs to do some serious thinking about *why* some apps look (and work) better in Brushed, and why some look (and work) better in Aqua.

And then share the insights with the rest of us, in form of of the AHIG. (BTW, you can read the current official rationale here .The "anything involving digital perpherials or mimicking familiar real-world applications" argument isn't, IMO, looking very strong right now.)

I'm in a muddle, myself. I definitely prefer Safari as Brushed, but would be appalled if all of Aqua were to be updated to Brushed. (Too much!) I actually don't mind the mix of the two (brushed apps take the glare off Aqua's whiteness). But dislike willy-nillyness of it all.

[sniffer]

What about finder?

To be honest I don't understand the logic behind what app should have metal or not.
My current theme, BBX Mercury X, took away the brushed metal look in my cocoa apps, and they look more integrated IMHO.
I don't understand where Apple is going with this.

[Silky Voice of The Gorn]

iMovie is content creation.

[awaspaas]

I was thinking Apple is just getting sick of the pinstripes which are beginning to look a bit pass�.

[awaspaas]

Although, in the Jaguar betas, Sherlock was a metal app, but they changed their mind and made it Aqua. Holy schizo!

[sniffer]

Originally posted by awaspaas:
I was thinking Apple is just getting sick of the pinstripes which are beginning to look a bit pass�.

Perhaps, but brushed metal in QT have been around for a while. Perhaps Steve is just very stubborn and want his bright ideas implanted at any costs? Brushed metal was very cool when it came in QT way back.

[lookmark]

Originally posted by awaspaas:
Although, in the Jaguar betas, Sherlock was a metal app, but they changed their mind and made it Aqua. Holy schizo!

Holy schizo sums it up just about right.

I'm beginning to wonder if they've painted themselves into a corner with this one. Still, I look forward to Apple UE's Houdini-like escape: e.g., repainting the room lime green and declaring a victory.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by lookmark:
Holy schizo sums it up just about right.

I'm beginning to wonder if they've painted themselves into a corner with this one. Still, I look forward to Apple UE's Houdini-like escape: e.g., repainting the room lime green and declaring a victory.

Lime green? What should we call OS 10.3 then?
"Poisen-Frog" -Jump start from sleep in a sec!?

[Superchicken]

Final Cut Pro also doesn't have a standardized interface... hehe

I think largely apple creates the app and then decides which interface makes it look spiffyiest.

It also helps to say which are apple apps and system utilities verses real apps for your digital hub... or something.. yeah it's dumb... but it's best to not think about it and just enjoy both interfaces.

[stew]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
... but it's best to not think about it and just enjoy both interfaces.

Oh wait...wasn't the thing that was so great about the MacOS in the first place that all the applications were using one familiar interface? Wasn't the major principle of the MacOS UI a little thing called consistency?

[lookmark]

Originally posted by stew:
Oh wait...wasn't the thing that was so great about the MacOS in the first place that all the applications were using one familiar interface? Wasn't the major principle of the MacOS UI a little thing called consistency?

I think Apple has gotten away with this for so long because although it *is* inconsistent, it's not destructively inconsistent. Brushed/textured windows aren't terribly different in behavior than regular Aqua ones -- except for dragging a window (and the appearance of a brushed window, with no title bar, even gives a clue to that difference).

What's so irritating, though, is just the randomness of it. We expect more from Apple, which for the most part produces such good, exemplary UI. We don't expect them to revise their HIG every six months to add more wiggle-room to the definition of why brushed exists.

If it's just for style, at least be out with it and say so! And explain why this is a good thing.

[stew]

Originally posted by lookmark:
I think Apple has gotten away with this for so long because although it *is* inconsistent, it's not destructively inconsistent.

Wasn't there a rule on the Mac that closing a window doesn't quit the app? iPhoto breaks that rue. Apples OS X style guide also wants your application to show or if necessary open a window when you click its dock icon - Project Builder doesn't. Apple provides exceptions for almost any UI rule they have.

[Dale Sorel]

Originally posted by lookmark:
What's so irritating, though, is just the randomness of it.

No randomness here, all my Cocoa apps are brushed metal with Metallifizer

[mrtew]

Originally posted by lookmark:
What's so irritating, though, is just the randomness of it.

Seriously! I would't be surprised if in 10.2.4 all the brushed apps became Aqua and all the Aqua apps became brushed. It's just so ridiculous for Apple to have both and pretend that there is some reason for it.

I think the MOST ridiculous thing is that Aqua is an all new interface for OSX but brushed is some kind of carryover from OS9, for no reason, again. Why keep half of the interface from OS9? I think OS9 looked very good, and I actually like brushed a lot. Not a big fan of Aqua at all, but the worst thing is mixing and matching all these totally unrelated designs and trying to pretend that they go together OK and make some sense. This should've convinced everyone that Apple has lost all credibility in GUI design, and by trying to prevent theming and constantly destroying themes by updating the sad extras.rsrc file for no reason, they're adding injury to insult! Pathetic!

[Superchicken]

I think the main reason is... they hadn't rewritten iTunes in Coccoa and wanted to have an OS 9 and OS X version that looked the same... and then they realized... oh hey we like this... makes our programs look cool. Ultimately I don't think the UI elements clash though, they're just different... but I do think that apple is very bad for breaking their own rules... I mean look at Final Cut Pro... or the orignal iMovie... I kinda wish I could make OS X have a more platanum look cause platanum was an awsome UI....

[The Evener]

Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
No randomness here, all my Cocoa apps are brushed metal with Metallifizer

LOL! I'm using DEMetallifizer to give all my Cocoa apps an aqua look -- ALSO no randomness here!

Seriously, Apple doesn't know what the hell to do with their UI guidelines, not that I'm terribly shocked. The guidelines were/are a work-in-progress, and consistency may never arrive on the scene if other considerations take precedence (ie. what interface looks better on an app-by-app basis rather than standardization).

I can understand the desire to differentiate iApps from the Finder, Mail, etc. "All iApps will be metal" seems fair enough, at least as far as "standards" go. But then they make Safari, Backup, & Address Book metal. Oops.

[lookmark]

Originally posted by stew:
Wasn't there a rule on the Mac that closing a window doesn't quit the app? iPhoto breaks that rue.

Sort of. Way back when, small apps (that technically weren't really apps, but DAs, "desktop accessories" -- don't ask ) *did* quit when closing the window. When these DAs evolved into bona fide apps like Calculator, the behavior stuck. So there is some precedent for quitting a "single window application" by closing the window.

iPhoto 1.0.2 now stays open when you close the window, btw. I take it people didn't like it when it didn't.

Apples OS X style guide also wants your application to show or if necessary open a window when you click its dock icon - Project Builder doesn't. Apple provides exceptions for almost any UI rule they have.

Let's be fair though -- Project Builder is an odd duck, for developers and not consumers. Every other Apple app does follow that rule.

[nickm]

I suspect that the people who write the guidelines are well motivated, but have no control over what actually gets released.

The Metal/Aqua inconsistencies are just like the Menu Extra inconsistencies. For those who don't know, there are two separate APIs for putting icons in the menu bar. In 10.2, Apple made the Menu Extra API lock out third party Menu Extras, saying that those items were only to be used to represent the status of hardware items, like the battery, airport etc. Of course, then iChat came out and used the same API, despite the fact that it has nothing to do with hardware. Fortunately, Unsanity has rectified the situation with Menu Extra Enabler

[ApeInTheShell]

Think about this:

There are tons of applications for Mac OS 7-9 that do not have aqua or brushed metal or even a platinum theme.

People create or use a theme of some sort to change there computer.

So isn't it the developers and themers who should get there act together?

Apple doesn't use too much brushed metal as they do aqua. This is because aqua is the system theme. While metal is a application theme.

Alot of switchers and mac users do not like aqua simply because it does not relate to what they have been using all these years.

So if say a desktop publisher saw the brushed interface they might think to themselves: ya know if i could have that same theme i might be able to get some work done.

Should Apple make a brushed metal theme for the professionals?

Should Apple keep everything in Aqua?

Should everything be themed so we can return to the day when Internet Explorer and Word 6 came to the mac?

Remember, without contrast the television picture would not turn out good.

[stew]

Originally posted by lookmark:
(that technically weren't really apps, but DAs, "desktop accessories" -- don't ask )

Hey! I remember these!

Let's be fair though -- Project Builder is an odd duck, for developers and not consumers. Every other Apple app does follow that rule.

Except CPU monitor? Or Preview?
What's worse is the fact that the only place in the Finder where you can get the "show package contents" command is a ctrl-click (right click), where the guidelines clearly state that context menus must only be a quick access for items that are in the regular menu.

[undotwa]

Originally posted by stew:
Hey! I remember these!

Except CPU monitor? Or Preview?
What's worse is the fact that the only place in the Finder where you can get the "show package contents" command is a ctrl-click (right click), where the guidelines clearly state that context menus must only be a quick access for items that are in the regular menu.

But preview only views documents, it can't create a new window unless you open a document.

People got to realise guidelines aren't a one size fits all, all apps are different. They should behave similar, but you can't expect them all to behave exactly the same.

[stew]

Originally posted by undotwa:
But preview only views documents, it can't create a new window unless you open a document.

It should show you a "File/Open..." dialog then. When the user clicks on Preview's icon, chances are he wants to open a file in it, right?

Strict guidelines are what made the classic MacOS shine in terms of usability. Microsoft has guidelines for Windows too, but those are changing every now and then and hardly anyone follows them precisely.
Your average Linux distro doesn't have any guidelines - and its usability stinks, every app looks different and behaves differently. Themeing makes things even worse.
I think I see a pattern there...strict guidelines are good for usability. Apple shouldn't break their own rules if they want the application programmers to obey them.

[Developer]

Originally posted by stew:
What's worse is the fact that the only place in the Finder where you can get the "show package contents" command is a ctrl-click (right click), where the guidelines clearly state that context menus must only be a quick access for items that are in the regular menu.

I think that's intentional since Show Package Contents is a feature for advanced users that's intentionally hidden.
Breaking the rules is a good thing, if you do it for a reason. Only breaking the rules without reason or because you don't know them is bad.

[CarpetFluff]

Doesn't anyone think it's possible that Apple will build some kind of appearance manager into a future version of OS X?

I personally think this is very likely indeed especcially in the next paid upgrade they release. Although it's likely they will need to concentrate on continued improvements to the infrastructure of X it's often the 'candy' that sells the product.

I think it's very important for Apple that Aqua be easily recognised by consumers so it's probably wise from a marketing point of view that they don't let us change it too much right now.

Hopefully in future Aqua or Metal will be themable on an App to App basis.

[dfiler]

Interface consistency is only good if inconsistency causes usability problems.

These problems can include decreased task efficiency and increased error rates. Also, inconsistencies can increase the mental load on users both consciously and subconsciously. The brain attempts to build a model of what the computer is doing and inconsistencies can cause people to use the wrong model or to create extraneous models. There is also a minute amount of time required to process distinctions in interfaces that aren't immediately and subconsciously dismissed as trivial.

However, inconsistencies can be good. That's right. Good! They provide reminders that subconsciously reinforce the correct mental model for a particular interface. This benefit should not be underestimated. Tasks that require dissimilar interactions should reinforce this requirement by providing immediate visual cues. If a consistent interface is provided for tasks that are inherently different, errors become quite common. This is why Apple has shied away from the cut, copy, and paste metaphor for file manipulation. When selected text is copied, it is guaranteed to be unmodified upon pasting. However, in order to accomplish this in the file system, users must wait for the lengthy process of duplicating the copied files. The CCP methodology also has merits. I'm simply using it as an example of how interface inconsistencies can reinforce interaction techniques less prone to error. Users will run into trouble if they try to CCP files in the same way they do text.

How does all this apply to the brushed-metal / aqua inconsistency? I don't think it does. I've been completely unable to think up even one scenario of how the inconsistency might slow down users, lead to errors, or increase the user's mental load. However, the inconsistency does provide the most immediate cue as to what program a window belongs to. On the other hand, I do think that it would be possible to design multiple window appearances that are linked to behavioral differences in how people must interact with a particular program or window. Yet, there doesn't seem to be a need for such a visual crutch. Window based modal dialogs are a thing of the past and tool palettes already have a distinct visual appearance. The only use I can think of is utilizing themes as a cue for differing window behavior. An example of this might be auto-sizing differences and application behavior upon window close.

Consistency is frequently lacking in software interfaces. However, there has yet to be any real justification as to how aqua inconsistencies have lead to interaction breakdowns.

[Developer]

Originally posted by dfiler:
Interface consistency is only good if inconsistency causes usability problems.

How does all this apply to the brushed-metal / aqua inconsistency? I don't think it does. I've been completely unable to think up even one scenario of how the inconsistency might slow down users, lead to errors, or increase the user's mental load.

Brushed Metal does cause usability problems. Them main ones are

• Because there is a difference in appearance, people think about why there is a difference. Look a the title of this thread, it's the best proof for it. If there isn't a reason for the difference, this wastes the users time.
• Since people always need a reason, the come up with one if they don't know or can't figure it out. Often it's "this is for single window applications." Due to this most people never notice (because they never even try) that iTunes for example allows for multiple windows for organizing libraries.
• There is no visible title bar (i. e. the window drag region is invisible). Due to this I was at first unable to drag the iSync beta, because I was trying to drag at the brushed area that was in fact part of the toolbar (between the buttons). The final version 'fixed' this. You can now drag between the buttons in the tool bar. The region that is draggable and the region that presses the next close button is still visibly not distinct though.
• Since there is no visible title bar, sheets slide out of nothing. That makes them look like non-movable application modal dialogs. I. e. it looks like you can't switch to another document window while a sheet is up in a brushed metal window.

[mattyd]

Originally posted by lookmark:
Sort of. Way back when, small apps (that technically weren't really apps, but DAs, "desktop accessories" -- don't ask ) *

remember the Font/DA mover?

[dfiler]

Originally posted by Developer:
Brushed Metal does cause usability problems. Them main ones are

• Because there is a difference in appearance, people think about why there is a difference. Look a the title of this thread, it's the best proof for it. If there isn't a reason for the difference, this wastes the users time.
• Since people always need a reason, the come up with one if they don't know or can't figure it out. Often it's "this is for single window applications." Due to this most people never notice (because they never even try) that iTunes for example allows for multiple windows for organizing libraries.
• There is no visible title bar (i. e. the window drag region is invisible). Due to this I was at first unable to drag the iSync beta, because I was trying to drag at the brushed area that was in fact part of the toolbar (between the buttons). The final version 'fixed' this. You can now drag between the buttons in the tool bar. The region that is draggable and the region that presses the next close button is still visibly not distinct though.
• Since there is no visible title bar, sheets slide out of nothing. That makes them look like non-movable application modal dialogs. I. e. it looks like you can't switch to another document window while a sheet is up in a brushed metal window.

All very good points.

I think the lack of a title bar in conjunction with sheets is the most problematic. The current implementation seems incomplete and hopefully we'll soon have metalized sheets that seem more linked to the containing window. There are a number of possibilities. One is to lightly emboss a horizontal line where the bottom of the title bar would usually be. Another would be to modify the look of sheets slightly so that they accomplish their original purpose. This was to cognatively link modal ops with a particular document or window.

Where I disagree is that the two window types are slowing users down or confusing them. I've only heard novice users exclaim 'neat' in response to the brushed metal look. They don't seem to be looking for a justification even subconsciously. They are OK with the notion of some windows being made out of metal and some being made out of... aqua Similarly, in real life, door knobs being made out of wood or metal woudn't confuse a door knob user.

MacNNers... well, they'll discuss four slightly brighter pixels if given the chance. (close widget indent) The existance of this thread doesn't imply that users are actively trying to construct seperate mental models of how to deal with windows made out of different materials.

Sheets flying out of thin space is definately a problem though. The purpose of sheets was to visually convey what a modal dialog pertained to. Fix this, and I think brushed-metal and aqua can coexist without creating inconsistancy related usability flaws.

[lookmark]

I agree that there aren't serious usability problems with brushed windows, other than some minor inconsistencies (as with the floating sheet issue).

I think the issue -- for me, anyway -- is more philosophical.

What exactly, if anything, really determines whether an app is standard Aqua or brushed?

What does an "interface for a digital peripheral" really mean (what *isn't* digital these days?), and why does brushed work better for these kind of apps?

Or for apps that don't currently fit under the AHIG for brushed, like Safari?

[dfiler]

Originally posted by lookmark:
I agree that there aren't serious usability problems with brushed windows, other than some minor inconsistencies (as with the floating sheet issue).

I think the issue -- for me, anyway -- is more philosophical.

What exactly, if anything, really determines whether an app is standard Aqua or brushed?
...

Is there a bennefit to creating criteria for what is brushed-metal or aqua?

Another real world analogy:
The rooms in my house are painted different colors and one is wall-papered. This causes no inconsistancy issues.


Colors were selected based upon what 'seems right'. There are a couple rules of thumb, but no real guidelines. Kitchens are normally painted with gloss or semi-gloss finishes. Ceilings are normally more textured than walls. Bright colors are used in cloudy climates and in small or windowless rooms. However, all of these suggestions can and should be contradicted on a regular basis. Furniture (aka widgets) considerations can easily override these general rules.

Can you imagine car companies trying to come up with guidelines on which car types should come in silver? SUVs? Commercial vehicles? Passenger vans?

As long as the choice only affects cosmetics, 'seems right' would be an exceptable criterion for Apple's designers to work from.

[Developer]

Originally posted by dfiler:

The rooms in my house are painted different colors and one is wall-papered. This causes no inconsistancy issues.

That's fine too. But then Apple should at least be honest and change their Aqua guidelines to somthing like this:

"Variety is the spice of life. Therefore you can freely choose between Aqua and Brushed Metal appearance in your app. In the upcoming 10.3 you can also tint your windows in any color or choose the new Flower Power window appearance. Also feel free to create custom push button appearances as we do in all of our iApps.
This doesn't cause any usability problems, as proven by metal/wooden door knobs or rooms painted in different colors."

[dfiler]

Originally posted by Developer:
That's fine too. But then Apple should at least be honest and change their Aqua guidelines to somthing like this:

"Variety is the spice of life. Therefore you can freely choose between Aqua and Brushed Metal appearance in your app. In the upcoming 10.3 you can also tint your windows in any color or choose the new Flower Power window appearance. Also feel free to create custom push button appearances as we do in all of our iApps.
This doesn't cause any usability problems, as proven by metal/wooden door knobs or rooms painted in different colors."

Heheh. Point taken.

I too am against widget proliferation. The iApps have a number of wierd radio control replacement widgets for mutually exclusive options. I've yet to observe these causing problems but the trend will definately lead to consistancy related usability problems and non-intuative interfaces.

However, custom widgets aren't tied to the brushed-metal option in aqua. They aren't available to third party developers.

The slippery-slope argument against window background textures is a good point. Yet apple seems to be aware of it. They are actively hindering OS X themers. Thus, it seems like they're striving for the proper balance of variety and consistancy. We won't be seeing flower powered window textures via Apple APIs.

[torifile]

Maybe all the metal apps will work with the new iDevice that's going to be release on the 25th. That's my guess.

[cpac]

Originally posted by lookmark:
What does an "interface for a digital peripheral" really mean (what *isn't* digital these days?)

That's actually the whole theory I was posting.

Metal apps generally aren't for creating content, but for viewing, playing, organizing or manipulating it.

Safari: view webpages
iTunes: play/organize mp3s
iChat: like a phone it is like an appliance which doesn't create iChat files
iMovie: manipulate/organize video, but NOT creation of video (it's not an animation app after all)
iPhoto: manipulate/organize photos, (it's not a paint program though)
iDVD: again, it's an appliance to put things onto DVD, not to create the things themselves
iSync: duh.
Quicktime Player: again play, maybe some small edit, but it's not an animation or recording program
DVD Player: duh.

Contrast these with:
Mail: *create* messages
TextEdit: *create* txt or rtf documents

Admittedly there are several applications which don't meet this requirement, but perhaps they should be metal:

Finder: find/view files, don't create them
Preview: duh.
Print Center: (especially since it's got that whole digital device thing going for it)
Sherlock: should be metal, and was in the previews of 10.2
----------

As for why/whether metal works better for these apps, I would suggest that it's because when you are merely viewing content, rather than creating it, its better to have the content better distinguished from the controls for its viewing: It's easier to see the difference between the page and its controls in Safari because of the metal.

[lookmark]

Originally posted by cpac:
That's actually the whole theory I was posting.

Metal apps generally aren't for creating content, but for viewing, playing, organizing or manipulating it.

(snip)

That's interesting, and the data viewing & organizing vs. data creation distinction has a great deal of merit.

However, most apps -- the Finder, all browsers, all system utilities, all media players, etc. -- would fall into the viewing & organizing category. All that's left are word processors, Office and design applications.

Plus, for all such data-creation tools, it's just as important to have your content distinguished from the controls when you're creating the content as viewing, no?

I think what you might be arguing for is standard Aqua to be replaced by Brushed.

[Spirit_VW]

Originally posted by dfiler:
As long as the choice only affects cosmetics, 'seems right' would be an exceptable criterion for Apple's designers to work from.

I tend to agree. If iMovie 3 was Aqua instead of brushed, it really would make very few differences. The widgets are all still in the same places. If I deMetallifize Address Book, it's still the same app - just Aqua, not brushed. It still works exactly the same, and the GUI is still the same, with the exception of the texture (and draggable area).

[Superchicken]

I think largely apple just wanted to have a feature to give their own apps OMPH!
Serious Steve said... OK iTunes is like an extention of Quick Time so we're gona make that cool looking like Quick Time... now oh cool look everyone loves the way iTunes looks... now we're gon amek iPhoto... well lets just make it iPhoto for pictures... and then he said... ok we need iChat... uhh... yeah well everyone loves the look of the other two so BOOM Brushed for em all and so on. My theory is Safari might go to being an Aqua app at version 1.
Personally I think it'd be best if it did... I think the reason that the finder is aqua is well it's the finder... it has to match the programs it runs. Mail, Text Edit, are all system utilities... they're like just there they don't have their own funny version numbers they're just Mail and Text Edit... which is kinda weird I'd figure Mail would get a number... oh well.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
I think largely apple just wanted to have a feature to give their own apps OMPH!
Serious Steve said... OK iTunes is like an extention of Quick Time so we're gona make that cool looking like Quick Time... now oh cool look everyone loves the way iTunes looks... now we're gon amek iPhoto... well lets just make it iPhoto for pictures... and then he said... ok we need iChat... uhh... yeah well everyone loves the look of the other two so BOOM Brushed for em all and so on. My theory is Safari might go to being an Aqua app at version 1.
Personally I think it'd be best if it did... I think the reason that the finder is aqua is well it's the finder... it has to match the programs it runs. Mail, Text Edit, are all system utilities... they're like just there they don't have their own funny version numbers they're just Mail and Text Edit... which is kinda weird I'd figure Mail would get a number... oh well.

iTunes was brushed metal before it was iTunes AND before brushed metal even existed. SoundJam had brushed-metal atctive-window-dragging in OS 9, prior to OS X's release. (iTunes = SoundJam)

I think it all boils down to what looks good for each individual app.

[lookmark]

Originally posted by dfiler:
I think it all boils down to what looks good for each individual app.

What app doesn't look or work well in Brushed, though?

[dfiler]

Originally posted by lookmark:
What app doesn't look or work well in Brushed, though?

This determination is highly subjective. Some people would say no apps look good while others would say all apps work well with brushed metal.

Its a good thing that we have the highly skilled designers of aqua thinking hard about this! They can't please everyone, but given the polish of aqua, who else would be better suited for the job?

[RGB]

Originally posted by dfiler:

Can you imagine car companies trying to come up with guidelines on which car types should come in silver? SUVs? Commercial vehicles? Passenger vans?

But car companies do this to a certain extent. Very few cars besids sports cars look good in bright, flashy yellow, and thus very few cars are made in yellow.

[mattyd]

Originally posted by lookmark:
What app doesn't look or work well in Brushed, though?

seems like apps with customizable toolbars are aqua, those without them are brushed. explains the last-minute change in sherlock, anyway.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by RGB:
But car companies do this to a certain extent. Very few cars besids sports cars look good in bright, flashy yellow, and thus very few cars are made in yellow.

The majority of yellow cars sold last year in the united states weren't sports cars. They were VW beetles. There are also quite a few yellow Aztecs.
This is my point.

Its ridiculous to try and formalize rules for which types of cars should be made in which colors. Fuzzy guidelines? Sure.

Brushed metal vs Aqua should be treated in the same way. (IMHO)

(Assuming Apple gets the floating sheet issue resolved, we'll be looking at an almost purely cosmetic difference. Differing dragable regions being the only remaining difference.)

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by cpac:
iTunes: play/organize mp3s

Funny, the last time I checked I could create MP3s with iTunes.

Granted, the line between creating content and manipulating it is hair thin. People will argue that they are creating movies with iMovie for instance as opposed to 'manipulating pre-existing video-clips'.

[cpac]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Funny, the last time I checked I could create MP3s with iTunes.

Granted, the line between creating content and manipulating it is hair thin. People will argue that they are creating movies with iMovie for instance as opposed to 'manipulating pre-existing video-clips'.

You mean "import" mp3s.

This is definitely a far cry from say, choosing "new mp3" from the File menu and then filling the content in the way you would with a true sound creation app.

[dfiler]

Originally posted by cpac:
You mean "import" mp3s.

This is definitely a far cry from say, choosing "new mp3" from the File menu and then filling the content in the way you would with a true sound creation app.

Well, i suppose that we aren't really creating letters and words in a word processor either. We're simply recycling existing characters and words. While iTunes isn't document based, it is a tool for creating and saving user generated data.

The line between utility and application is no longer as clear as it used to be. Networked applications, the web, and the ubiquity of library-trading has made the hard distinction between these two categories nearly obsolete. Would napster be considered a content creation app?

It is futile to try and come up with a scheme for visually grouping apps into two categories based upon this dated terminology.