[Mongrel]

I've been checking out the MS site and Railhead's preview pics of Office 10, and I gotta say, it's things like this that make me wanna go Windoze. The whole aqua-everything look is transforming what was a useful toolbar into what looks like a string of vomit after eating a bunk bag of Skittles. No offense if Iconfactory had anything to do with this version, but while the icons alone may look good individually on a desktop, they completely dominate an application where the DOCUMENT should be the focus! Pleas, please join me in petitioning the Microsoft MacBU to dumb-down the interface a bit, take a cue from Adobe's beta shots... Aqua and useability CAN live in harmony.

Here is what I wrote to Microsoft Feedback: Office 10 for Mac looks to be a promising and feature-packed product, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE back off on the AQUA-EVERYTHING interface. I've been looking over screenshots on your site and others, and it almost brings a tear to my eyes. Just because every icon CAN have a gradient fill and soft shadows doesn't mean every icon SHOULD have a gradient fill and soft shadows. I know you're going for that made-for-a-mac feel, but you already had that when you released Office 98, strictly because it worked, and worked well. All these oversized, kindergarten-friendly icons are an eyesore when you need to cencentrate on complex, important documents. And yes, Mac users DO conceive important documents!
I'm the only mac user in an all-PC corporation, and while I'm twice as productive than most users in my office documents, I'm envious of the clean, fresh interface of Office 2K and XP on their newer PCs. I've refused to upgrade to Office 2001 for my Mac, based STRICTLY on the interface being so overbearing. I've tested it out, and simple things take even longer to do because of all the hunting through rainbow colors to find, for instance, a Table icon which now has a fuzzy gradient blue frame and antialiased criss-crosses (in a sea of fuzzy bles and fuzzy oranges and fuzzy greens), as opposed to four simple squares that used to stand out based on their simplicity alone. In my opinion, the ICONS used in a productivity package should never be a lone reason not to buy a product.
Like the majority of fellow Mac users, I applaud the great work that has been coming the the MacBU, but please, at least give us an option to turn it all down a notch. Cut and paste the icons out of XP if you want!
My 2�. Thanks.

[starfleetX]

I'll bet you were one of the first to complain to Apple about the overall "eye candy" of Aqua, no?

Sheesh... Microsoft is updating their software so it looks like it fits with the rest of the operating system. Is that so bad? Take a look at some of the other software that's coming out nowadays for OSX. Microsoft isn't alone in Aqua-fying their software. IMO, it's a good thing that the MBU is putting so much effort into making Office "play nice" with OSX.

I've refused to upgrade to Office 2001 for my Mac, based STRICTLY on the interface being so overbearing.

Hmm, it sounds to me like you'd be better off running Office 4.2 on a Windows 3.1 machine then. Either that, or you need to learn to cope with a changing world.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: starfleetX ]

[ppmax]

if microsoft has done their homework and you dont like the color:

System Preferences/General/Appearance/Graphite

[addiecool]

Why do people like Mongrel discourage refinement and progress everytime. If you want to to stick old stuff go Mac OS9. Microsoft trying hard to bring a class product that lokks just beautiful.

I was wondering why didn't people like you stick with system7 or Win 3.11. Then you would have nothing to complain. Because you would have nothing.

[griffman]

Sorry, can't disagree more. I've seen the screenshots, and I'm quite looking forward to Aqua-Office. The icons are cleaner, easier to see, and more understandable. What's to 'focus' on about a document or spreadsheet? It's 99% of the screen, so it naturally gets my focus. I want a toolbar that's pleasant to look at and easy to understand. The current office product fails on both accounts; the new one looks like a nice improvement.

Combine that with built-in transparency support for graphics and the use of sheets and other X-features, and OfficeX is looking like a winner -- and probably the first "must have" application for X that will convince some users to make the transition.

-rob.

[Colonel Panic]

WOW! something I was hoping for but hadn't seen until now. The railheddesign pic of Entourage shows the "welcome" mail and one thing it mentions is that Entourage 10 will be an Exchange Server client as well! that's very cool - no more separate Outlook app needed. sorry if this is old news.

[Mongrel]

" I want a toolbar that's pleasant to look at and easy to understand."

That's just it... they already were easy to understand, and even easier to see, based at least on how crisp they were. I'm not trying to stay in the dark ages, and I think that in most cases Aqua is a great interface. But even Apple understands that "refinement" as you call it can mean returning to the roots, the basic idea behind the function. For an example of this look at the new toolbar icons that will be part of 10.1. Simple black icons, which take only one glance to realize their function. I just don't see why a "new document" icon, which has always been well-served by a simple blank sheet (again, exactly what you get when you press it) now has to have a glowing gradated orange plus sign over it.

Also, by minimizing the icons a bit, you free up ever-important screen real estate (even more important now that we all have Docks).
On the other hand, I love what they've done with the little tabs at the bottom of the Excel sheets, and the graphite-ish headers in the font palette work well with the feel of Aqua. But why should one have to work in a space that looks like it was designed for the slow comprehension of a 3rd grader, whose natural behavior IS to study each icon, down the row, until the abstract thoughts begin to work.

And StarfleetX, you of all people should appreciate what I'm saying about ACTUAL refinement, it's exactly why people have been flocking to themes like yours, that dispose of unnecessary mysterio-lines and little round corners. Beauty does not have to be complex, and with millions of color and ahigh resolution, simple certainly doesn't equal ugly. Don't be hypocriticical.

[Lolo from Paris]

You may write to Apple too
I mean, it's normal that Microsoft is using Aqua, they just follow the guidelines...It's great to see some companies acutally follow them.
Have you tried Hotline 1.8.5 for OS X or ICQ ? they are ugly because they still use OS 9 widgets and old icons.

But I agree, Office icons look weird, it looks like they are not at the same size as Omniweb ones or Apple Mail...

Anyway, you can still use Office 2001 which is really looking nice and icons are nice too. If you don't like it, just open the terminal and use emacs

[OAW]

I really don't understand all these "Aqua = Bad ... Aqua = Eye Candy" type of comments. Not only is this simply not true, but also, the way I see it ... if you prefer your GUI to be as exciting as watching grass grow, then OS 9 should suit your fancy just fine. To go out and purchase OS X with an Aqua interface that you KNEW was there from the get go ... and then turn around and b*tch about the interface is like going to the Mercedes dealership, looking at a brand new shiny S500, buying it, taking it home, and then starting to moan about "I don't like the body style and the instrument panel is laid out all wrong ..... but I really like the engine though!"

The bottom line is, if you don't like Aqua so much, why on earth are you using OS X? Would you buy a Palm PDA if you didn't like the interface of the Palm OS? And if you bought it anyway despite your reservations, why b*tch about it now? After all, you made your bed ... now it's time to lie in it!

OAW

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: OAW ]

[DannyVTim]

Mongrel the reason the icons are so big is that aqua's widgets are bigger so one can pump up the screen res and get the needed space without having extremely small text. In windows I can't make the screen any bigger than 1024x768 without straining to read the screen. The oversized widgets are a very good thing. You also don't seem to like color, I don't think color takes away but actually enhances readability. If the stop lights on the roads were all the same color would you have an easier time reading them? I actually prefer color over the drab windows gray office that I have to look at all day long.

[Boodlums]

Aren't the toolbars customizable? If so, then you can just delete any crap you don't want there.

What's the problem?

-boo

[Milio]

It just keeps looking more and more like the Fisher-Price OS. Especially the Entourage screen. Aqua isn't the only guilty party. WinXP is just the same.

Where is the subdued, sophisticated interface style for those of us over 30? It looks like the digital Romper Room.

[Mongrel]

Actually, OAW, it's more like when somebody buys an iMac, and then shops around for a CD burner (before they were built in, don't be a smartass), and thinks, "Oh, how nice, it's blue-ish and transparent like my iMac!"
But then three months down the road, there's blue-ish translucent printers, blue-ish translucent hubs, blue-ish translucent Mice and Visors and friggin' STAPLERS for crying out loud... And not a SINGLE ONE OF THEM the same blue as the iMac, much less than of eachother. And you find that in order to have a up-to-par workstation that's compatible with your mac, you have eight blue-ish and ruby-ish and graphite-ish shades of translucent-ish appliances, any of which would have been scoffed at immediately, had they not been desparately based off the success of the iMac.

Now, the same is hapening with the UI of every piece of software slowly working its way to OS X... Aqua, as it is built into OS X, is very easy on the eyes, and I have no complaints. Now Microsoft, in all their splendor, was one of the first. In anticipation of Aqua, they released a GREAT browser for Classic, and revamped it with multi-color "Aqua-ish" icons. That is, they're clear, and they're colorful... but admittedly, they're not... quite... Aqua. (I grant you, they hit the nail on the head with the Explorer icon itself; they must have sent it to Apple to be made up?)

So what I'm getting at is, NO... the interface in the new new Office is NOT Aqua-fied to merge with the OS. Instead, it's Aqua-ISH-fied, like so many things to come, and as a result it's just gaudy in most respects. I have noe problem with Aqua, I'm not hooked on Platinum, I would just like to see smart design. This of course is only my opinion, and nonetheless, I can't wait until Classic ceases to be necessary. I just think more long-term design and usability goals should be put into it.

The best use of Aqua in Office 10 - they actually use the genie in the app. When you click on a button that spawns a new palate, the palate genies out of the button so you very quickly learn which button causes that palate.

I don't know how many times I've already had a palate open but overlooked it, clicked on the button (or menu command) and been frustrated because nothing changes or comes to the front.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Milio:
<STRONG>It just keeps looking more and more like the Fisher-Price OS. Especially the Entourage screen. Aqua isn't the only guilty party. WinXP is just the same.

Where is the subdued, sophisticated interface style for those of us over 30? It looks like the digital Romper Room.</STRONG>

Oh, come on!

I thought sandbox arguments and the phrase "Fisher-Price OS" had been run over and dealt with a year ago and were now a fond and cherished memory kept alive only by the MacFixit fora.

I'm sure you're one of the three remaining people in the world who still thinks that the iMac was a horrible, horrible idea, suitable only for Fisher-Price fans in the Romper Room.

Ya, I know, you'd like the *option*. And I guess you're right in a way.

Still...you're not *that* old (at least not as old as your arguments are getting...and they *are* very reminiscent of system 7.1? when color icons and Platinum were introduced...).

-c.

[Nonsuch]

This is yet another chapter in a very old argument: some self-styled "sophisticated" (Milio's term) Mac users think that the Aqua interface is too intrusive and too, um, undignified I guess, and thus not an interface for anyone serious about getting work done.

Forgive my scorn, but I've had my fill of folks who mistake their own aesthetic predispositions for worldliness and sophistication. And I resent the implication that anyone who does enjoy working in OS X is either a dilletante or a rube.

As to the topic at hand, I think Office X is looking really great. As Lolo says, complain to Apple if you must: they created the interface and wrote the compliance guidelines; MS is merely doing what a good developer is supposed to do. All Mac users should be pleased with the speed and enthusiasm with which Microsoft is undertaking this development. As I've said before, all of Gates' BS about Apple holding a special place in his/Microsoft's heart is actually turning out to be sort of true. Who would've thought?

(It also occurs to me that, if one really hated the Office toolbar icons, one could create new, less opulent ones and distribute them as a "normal.dot" template, right? We already have people releasing icon packs, why not toolbar icon packs too?)

[Rando]

I'll just wait until the product is released (or until I get my hands on it) and render judgement then. Screenshots do not a UI make.

Actually, the toolbar icons remind me of what Office would have looked like if developed for BeOS.

--Rando

[griffman]

&gt;&gt;Where is the subdued, sophisticated interface style for those of us over 30?&lt;&lt;

Just for the record, I'm significantly on the far side of 30 and find the interface of both Aqua and OfficeX to be pleasing to the eye and pleasant to use ... and no, I don't still watch MTV, listen to grunge or house, or hang out at raves.

I just find the use of color, transparency and shadows leads to a more pleasing time in the OS ... and that's what it's all about. If you don't find Aqua pleasing, complain to Apple and don't use it until they fix it to your satisfaction. I'd tell you to buy a Windoze box, but if color's the cause of the problem, at least the Apple OS seems to have shown some sense of design coordination when picking the colors; Windoze (any variety) looks like someone dropped the palette and just started using any color they picked up while designing ;-).

Just my $0.02...

-rob.

[rogerkylin]

griffman...

I'm with you..although I'm a smidge under the 30 mark, I also find the interface pleasing.

What would be nice with menu bars is the option to show text only...like in many browsers. On my 12.1" (800x600) ibook screen, I like to be able to save space and big icons take a lot of space.

[Norm1985]

Originally posted by Mongrel:
<STRONG>I've been checking out the MS site and Railhead's preview pics of Office 10, and I gotta say, it's things like this that make me wanna go Windoze. The whole aqua-everything look is transforming what was a useful toolbar into what looks like a string of vomit after eating a bunk bag of Skittles. No offense if Iconfactory had anything to do with this version, but while the icons alone may look good individually on a desktop, they completely dominate an application where the DOCUMENT should be the focus! Pleas, please join me in petitioning the Microsoft MacBU to dumb-down the interface a bit, take a cue from Adobe's beta shots... Aqua and useability CAN live in harmony.

Here is what I wrote to Microsoft Feedback:
Office 10 for Mac looks to be a promising and feature-packed product, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE back off on the AQUA-EVERYTHING interface. I've been looking over screenshots on your site and others, and it almost brings a tear to my eyes. Just because every icon CAN have a gradient fill and soft shadows doesn't mean every icon SHOULD have a gradient fill and soft shadows. I know you're going for that made-for-a-mac feel, but you already had that when you released Office 98, strictly because it worked, and worked well. All these oversized, kindergarten-friendly icons are an eyesore when you need to cencentrate on complex, important documents. And yes, Mac users DO conceive important documents!
I'm the only mac user in an all-PC corporation, and while I'm twice as productive than most users in my office documents, I'm envious of the clean, fresh interface of Office 2K and XP on their newer PCs. I've refused to upgrade to Office 2001 for my Mac, based STRICTLY on the interface being so overbearing. I've tested it out, and simple things take even longer to do because of all the hunting through rainbow colors to find, for instance, a Table icon which now has a fuzzy gradient blue frame and antialiased criss-crosses (in a sea of fuzzy bles and fuzzy oranges and fuzzy greens), as opposed to four simple squares that used to stand out based on their simplicity alone. In my opinion, the ICONS used in a productivity package should never be a lone reason not to buy a product.
Like the majority of fellow Mac users, I applaud the great work that has been coming the the MacBU, but please, at least give us an option to turn it all down a notch. Cut and paste the icons out of XP if you want!
My 2�. Thanks.</STRONG>

You are being absolutly silly. As Microsoft demonstrated, Aqua can be both functional and beautiful when fully implimented. I saw the screenshots, the interface is really a cross between Office 2001 and Mac OS X Client/Server v10.x. You don't seem to have much of a problem the with the Office 2001 interface, and since you're willing to use Mac OS X Client/Server... Why would you be bothered by this?

[GaelDesign]

Mongrel, you're nuts. Office XP is UGLY! Microsoft's gone backwards in interface design with Office XP. Everything looks totally flat and drab, and those murky colors are enough to give anyone a headache. Why on Earth would you want Office 10 for OS X to look like that? My first reaction to seeing the Office 10 screenshots was "Wow! An office suite that actually looks good! Maybe writing boring business letters will actually be fun now!" If you have to get a bunch of tedious work done, using a beautiful, animated, dynamic interface makes it that much easier.

And I think you're off your rocker completely in regards to the toolbar icons. I've always hated programs that used tiny little black and white toolbar icons that just looked like a bunch of lines or dots and didn't mean a damn thing to me. A blank white box is meaningless. A box a grid in it may be somewhat intuitive, but it sure is ugly. I mean, gee, maybe we should just get rid of any color in computer interfaces. And, while we're at it, let's get rid of anything that looks 3D. 2D black and white boxes and lines are so much better. I mean, the original Lisa interface is so much better than the modern OS 9 or OS X interfaces, right? Actually, let's get rid of a GUI completely and just write our documents with a text-based screen! Then you can really concentrate on what you're writing without any other distractions!

I've just about had it up to HERE with the inane comments regarding Aqua. Aqua is beautiful, functional, and helps you get work done while actually enjoying yourself. Wow, what a novel concept.

Regards,

Jared

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: GaelDesign ]

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>

Oh, come on!

I thought sandbox arguments and the phrase "Fisher-Price OS" had been run over and dealt with a year ago and were now a fond and cherished memory kept alive only by the MacFixit fora.

I'm sure you're one of the three remaining people in the world who still thinks that the iMac was a horrible, horrible idea, suitable only for Fisher-Price fans in the Romper Room.

Ya, I know, you'd like the *option*. And I guess you're right in a way.

Still...you're not *that* old (at least not as old as your arguments are getting...and they *are* very reminiscent of system 7.1? when color icons and Platinum were introduced...).

-c.</STRONG>

While I agree with you, I have to point out that Platinum was introduced in 8.0, not 7.1. I understand your point, though. It was like pulling teeth upgrading to System 7. It was huge! It took up way too much hard disk space and RAM! You couldn't run it off of a floppy! And, above all, it was so slow compared to 6! There was color everywhere, and all the windows appeared a shade of red (or at least I think it was red - I'm red/green colorblind)! And the interface seemed so dumbed down and childish - INIT's were now extensions, cdev's were now control panels, an application was now an "application program" - just a bit redundant, don't you think? And the dialog box that said, "An application could not be found for this document" now read, "The document &lt;document name&gt; could not be opened, because the application that created it could not be found." What's up with that? It just had this feel-good politically correct attitude about it... and then they had the audacity to completely reorganize the System Folder and change the way things worked in there. System 6 was just so clean, so small, so fast, so simple, and so elegant! They RUINED the Mac with System 7!!

But after we'd used it for a while, we all learned to like it and appreciate it (even though it was slow), and after a while, System 6 just seemed so primitive...

It all seems very familiar to this long-time Mac user.

Charles

[Scrod]

Eww. I just saw the screenshots, and that's REALLY UGLY. However, it's not ugly because it uses the Aqua interface. Because in my opinion, it doesn't look very aqua-ish to me at all. It's almost as ugly as AppleWorks 6. The problem with Office 10 isn't that they're adopting the Aqua interface--it's that it looks like they're trying to imitate the AppleWorks 6 interface. I think if the Mac Business Unit were to implement a true Aqua-esque interface in Office 10, it would look a LOT better than it does now.

[Mongrel]

Thank you, Scrod... that's just what I was trying to say. It's not so much that I have a problem with Aqua, as these flamers are trying to imply... it's the poor Aqua-ish imitations. IMHO, if you can't do it right, just don't do it.

And another thought for those of you who think I should just switch to windows... isn't that what the populous told ALL OF US when we yearned for things like preemptive multitasking and protected memory? I don't WANT to switch platforms, I want to see the one that I love evolve in a manner that doesn't look completely ridiculous, that's all.

Originally posted by Milio:
<STRONG>It just keeps looking more and more like the Fisher-Price OS. Especially the Entourage screen. Aqua isn't the only guilty party. WinXP is just the same.

Where is the subdued, sophisticated interface style for those of us over 30? It looks like the digital Romper Room.</STRONG>

I got your back Milio - I totally agree. The Aqua (blue) interface is garish, it's the toilet seat iBook of UI. The graphite variation is better, but suffers from the same "let's make everything huge - it worked for Detroit in the 50s" syndrome. It'd be all right if everyone had Cinema Displays, but that isn't the case.

As for OfficeX specifically, I just hope that you can get rid of the Sherlock-style icon wells (er, that's what menus are for kids). And the scrollbars in Word are a mess, what's that blue blob on top supposed to be? And the search forward/back arrows look like crap (but then, they've never looked all that good). Other than that, an option for a muted, even greyscale set of toolbar icons would be nice. It's a business application after all. Just because Apple likes ugly icons (see: Finder toolbar icons) doesn't mean you have to as well.

OS X has a lot of potential, but it also has a ways to go. And this from someone who uses 10.0.4 all the time. Other than the speed issues the UI is where Apple has the most work to do.

Too bad they emasculated the theme support, this is just the sort of thing where a 3rd party redesign could have made a big difference.

[OAW]

Originally posted by Mongrel:
<STRONG>Thank you, Scrod... that's just what I was trying to say. It's not so much that I have a problem with Aqua, as these flamers are trying to imply... it's the poor Aqua-ish imitations. IMHO, if you can't do it right, just don't do it.

And another thought for those of you who think I should just switch to windows... isn't that what the populous told ALL OF US when we yearned for things like preemptive multitasking and protected memory? I don't WANT to switch platforms, I want to see the one that I love evolve in a manner that doesn't look completely ridiculous, that's all. </STRONG>

Mongrel,

Now I see the point you are trying to make. Basically, it appears that you don't have a problem with Aqua itself, but rather, the Office 10 IMPLEMENTATION of the Aqua guidelines. Well all I can say to that is "to each his own", because now we are clearly in the realm of opinion and preference. Personally, I don't have a problem with the proposed interface to Office 10. It basically looks like the current Office 2001 interface ... only with jazzier icons. And it certainly looks a lot better than AppleWorks 6. I bought AW6, and was most displeased to see that something as basic as showing state on the Bold, Underline, and Italic toobar buttons isn't implemented .... but that is a problem with the design of the app I think, not of the Aqua guideline. I do agree that Aqua (or perhaps Apple?) tends to favor larger toolbar buttons and this can be a problem for those with smaller screens/resolutions. An OS X app should simply allow Large and Small toolbar buttons, and leave the choice up to the user. I don't know if the Aqua guideline calls for only large toolbar button icons ... but if it does, it certainly should be changed.

OAW

[ink]

Originally posted by Mongrel:
<STRONG>I've been checking out the MS site and Railhead's preview pics of Office 10, and I gotta say, it's things like this that make me wanna go Windoze.
</STRONG>

I take it you haven't seen Windows XP running Office XP then. It looks like the Easter Bunny has come along and painted all the widgets in happy pastels.

<STRONG>
The whole aqua-everything look is transforming what was a useful toolbar into what looks like a string of vomit after eating a bunk bag of Skittles.
</STRONG>

I used to think that was the case myself until I actually *used* some intense Aqua-ready applications (well, at least one: FreeHand, but I'd also count ProjectBuilder as an intense application). It's actually quite nice, and I expect that you'll be pleasantly surprised when you sit down to Office 10. You're right to be wary with all the tweaking Apple is doing, but at least give it a whirl down at CompUSA before you start over reacting.

<STRONG>
No offense if Iconfactory had anything to do with this version, but while the icons alone may look good individually on a desktop, they completely dominate an application where the DOCUMENT should be the focus!
</STRONG>

We've been hearing that since Word 4. I remember a MacWorld funny (Guy Kawazaki) where he depicted Word 10 as a bunch of buttons surrounding a miniscule document. There were angry Mac people abound when they introduced the button bar ("The Mac way is to use menus!!!"), and now it seems that you're clamoring for the past revision already. Well, you can always stick with Office 2001 under Classic.

[Drizzt]

@ Work, we have PCs with Win98 and Office 97.

Those 2 remmembers me of system 8.1... that would look something like this :

"We're going with a 3D interface, but please don't puke on our icons"

When I look back @ my iBook, I'm just so pleased to see the dock with nice icons (and it does'nt take that much place... I've used Linux too and the shelves with Gnome were as big), I'm just eye pleased and I can get to work without thinking "why is my icon so ugly, I'm in 24bits True-Color".

Anyways... I'm looking forward for apps that look (and work) good.

[macaddled]

Originally posted by Mongrel:
<STRONG> what was a useful toolbar</STRONG>

Do others really like the Office toolbar approach to making interfaces? I've always hated it. Either you're constantly hunting through a bunch of icons which are difficult to decipher, or you have to spend forever setting it up with limited functionality. What's wrong with menus?

Also, it bears repeating that the size of Aqua is related directly to its resolution-independence, and when your screen is 3600x2700 or whatever you'll be pretty happy about it.

[OAW]

Well I just had a chance to head over to Railheaddesign.com and check out those Office 2001 screenshots that have generated so much "controversy". All I can say is that those who are complaining about the interface must be smoking crack or some other controlled substance!

All kidding aside, I think the Office 10 interface is WONDERFUL. Everything is bright, colorful, and easy to read ... and the toolbar buttons aren't oversized by any stretch of the imagination. Office 10 certainly puts to rest the notion that an Aqua interface inherently means oversized toolbar buttons. AFAIC, Office 10 demonstrates how an OS X app should look. I can't wait until it is released!

OAW

[Simon Mundy]

Whether you like the icon style or not, the UI stills seems to be falling foul of the same mistake many digital apps fall into. The interface should only be as helpful as it needs to be without getting in the way. It shouldn't be the focus of the page!

I use Entourage for classic at the moment, and the reason the interface seems pleasant is that platinum has enough neutral tones to tone down the icons.

But Office for X seems like the designers had a huge sugar rush when they started the icon design. Because Aqua is more lively and colourful, the icons themselves should be less colourful to keep the balance. Although I don't agree that it's becoming more 'Fisher Price', I think it could definitely come back a couple of notches. Plenty of other apps for X have icon schemes that don't go OTT - OmniWeb, Mail, Virex are a couple of the top of my head. I'm sure there are others.

Before I get the inevitable 'Stay in Classic' argument, just let me add that I saw the keynote address and I'm still dead keen to start using Office for X so I can fully migrate. OS 9 feels like my old mobile phone - worked well (still works) but it isn't nearly as dead cool as my new slimline one!

I'd prefer to argue usability over aesthetics, because taste is something that everyone is sure to disagree on.

[ 08-02-2001: Message edited by: Simon Mundy ]

[OAW]

Originally posted by macaddled:
<STRONG>

Do others really like the Office toolbar approach to making interfaces? I've always hated it. Either you're constantly hunting through a bunch of icons which are difficult to decipher, or you have to spend forever setting it up with limited functionality. What's wrong with menus?

Also, it bears repeating that the size of Aqua is related directly to its resolution-independence, and when your screen is 3600x2700 or whatever you'll be pretty happy about it.</STRONG>

First let me say that I'm a Windows user by day and a Mac (OS X) user at home. In fact, I'm an IT consultant so my background is rooted in Windows application development. When it comes to toolbars, the Windows standard is that the toolbar is merely a SHORTCUT to a menu selection. That is, the toolbar is a place for frequently used menu items, thereby, saving the user the extra time it takes to open a menu and navigate to the desire menu item. Also, there should NEVER be a toolbar button for something that can't be accessed via a menu.

Having said all that, the toolbar in any Window app that follows the Windows standard is generally on by default, but is definitely OPTIONAL. Personally, I like toolbars because they are quicker than menus. I also like contextual menus (another very useful feature that Apple seems reluctant to support beyond a rudimentary level) instead of the seemingly Apple preferred method of obscure keystrokes (i.e command-shift-option-XYZ, etc.) that the user has to REMEMBER to access functionality. But anyway, I digress.

To answer your question, there is nothing wrong with menus. Just as there is nothing wrong with toolbars. However, as I said earlier, a good app should always make toolbars optional and leave the choice up to the user.

OAW

[OAW]

Originally posted by Simon Mundy:
[QB]Whether you like the icon style or not, the UI stills seems to be falling foul of the same mistake many digital apps fall into. The interface should only be as helpful as it needs to be without getting in the way. It shouldn't be the focus of the page!

I use Entourage for classic at the moment, and the reason the interface seems pleasant is that platinum has enough neutral tones to tone down the icons.
QB]

If one were to follow this line of thinking then the instrument panel and dashboard of a car should be boring and plain because it shouldn't "get in the way" of the user's focus on the road! Better yet, the iMac should have never been developed because its form factor and colors only get in the way of "real work" ... the Cube should have never even been THOUGHT ABOUT ... and we should all be using plain beige machines. After all, the WORK is the focus right? Not the machine we use to get it done? When it comes to computing there are 2 basic interfaces ... the hardware interface and the software interface. If one agrees that it is OK to have a colorful hardware interface, then why not the same for the software interface? I don't know what your view is on the Apple hardware designs, but if you think they are OK .. then it would be intellectually inconsistent to say that a colorful software interface is all of a sudden a big problem. When I'm in the middle of a project, I am not distracted in the least by the looks of my Cube .. nor was I distracted by the Bondi Blue color of my iMac before that. Likewise, I don't think the colors in the Office 10 interface will cause someone to lose concentration on some Word document they are writing. Not unless they suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder or something!

Originally posted by Simon Mundy:
[QB]I'd prefer to argue usability over aesthetics, because taste is something that everyone is sure to disagree on. QB]

Agreed. Beauty is definitely in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps we can agree that the GUI of Windows XP is simply BUTT UGLY in comparison to Aqua?

OAW

[Milio]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>

Oh, come on!

I thought sandbox arguments and the phrase "Fisher-Price OS" had been run over and dealt with a year ago and were now a fond and cherished memory kept alive only by the MacFixit fora.

I'm sure you're one of the three remaining people in the world who still thinks that the iMac was a horrible, horrible idea, suitable only for Fisher-Price fans in the Romper Room.

Ya, I know, you'd like the *option*. And I guess you're right in a way.

Still...you're not *that* old (at least not as old as your arguments are getting...and they *are* very reminiscent of system 7.1? when color icons and Platinum were introduced...).

-c.</STRONG>

Actually I still despise the iMac aesthetic, and do still think it too looks Fisher-Price. It reminds me of the early sixties "Age of Plastics". I couldn't have been more happy when that fad was over. The iMacs and Aqua are just the same. They are industrial design and interface fads with no longevity.

Of course I know that aesthetics are something that can't be agreed upon, and currently my opinion of appealing design is out of vogue. I can use OS X, but I can't help but think it's childish and garish. Like I said, the same goes for WinXP. In fact, I think that WinXP makes Aqua look dull in comparison. I know that it is all a fad though and will be replaced soon enough. I've survived enough of them to know.

[macaddled]

Originally posted by OAW:
<STRONG>

That is, the toolbar is a place for frequently used menu items, thereby, saving the user the extra time it takes to open a menu and navigate to the desire menu item. Also, there should NEVER be a toolbar button for something that can't be accessed via a menu.
</STRONG>

Fair enough, although personally I find remembering key commands easier and faster than either menus or toolbars. A little steeper lurnin' curve but definitely still the fastest method. Until the mind-reading UI, of course.

[King Kong]

My problem with the aquification of Office is the wasted screenspace and the in your face design...
For example, look at all the wasted space (filled with stripes!) on the right side of this Entourage screen:
http://www.railheaddesign.com/graphi...tourageBig.jpg

Even fat borders in OS 9 waste less space.

While I like the way they separated out the mail, address book, and calendar icons, does everything have to be so gigantic?

Also why did the folder icons go back to being flat (and ironically even busier colorwise).

Sigh. As with everything on X it seems like two steps forward, one step back.

[applenut1]

I'm sorry but I don't see your point.

I think Office 10 is not only absolutely gorgeous but it looks a lot more well thought out and useful. I am shocked at the work Microsoft is doing with Office 10. It looks better than most Apple apps and even the system itself.

[Pale Rider]

I looked at Railhead's screen shots, and I have to say that I am definitely impressed with what Microsoft has done.

One big question: the Entourage screen shot contains a reference to improved performance with Exchange servers. Does anyone actually know if Entourage X will be a true Exchange client or just a souped up IMAP client?

A true Exchange client, with group/calendar capabilities would be a godsend. It would eliminate all need to run OS 9/Classic for me and a bunch of my colleagues.

[xi_hyperon]

This is a debate on a subjective matter. But while we're at it, I put my vote in for the Office 10 interface. And yes, I'm over 30.

[Scrod]

Do you also like the way AppleWorks looks? Because Office 10 looks a lot like AppleWorks 6 to me, and I can't stand the way AppleWorks' toolbars look under OS X. It's just so UGLY. It doesn't look like Aqua at all to me--more like a crappy Aqua Kaleidoscope color scheme that was heavily mutilated in hopes of avoiding Apple's ever-persistent intellectual property laywers (which is obviously not to say that this is the case with respect to Office 10).

[Subzero Diesel949]

Oh come on now...if anything, XP takes the prize for being more Fisher-Price like. Office XP is butt-ugly IMHO...makes Aqua look more conservative.
I actually like the new interface of Office X. I don't think it's overkill, unlike Office XP. Then again, if you prefer the dull platinum look of Office 2K1 more power to you...I've grown out of the sandbox thank you very much.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by Scrod:
<STRONG>Do you also like the way AppleWorks looks? </STRONG>

Couldn't tell you. Don't use Appleworks.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by King Kong:
<STRONG>My problem with the aquification of Office is the wasted screenspace and the in your face design...
For example, look at all the wasted space (filled with stripes!) on the right side of this Entourage screen:
http://www.railheaddesign.com/graphi...tourageBig.jpg

Even fat borders in OS 9 waste less space.

While I like the way they separated out the mail, address book, and calendar icons, does everything have to be so gigantic?</STRONG>

I don't get it.

The argument against wasted screen space works where it takes away real estate from the actual document you're working on. This applies to anything where getting an impression of as large a segment of the doc as possible is important, i.e. anything to do with layout or graphics.
And even there, it's far less important than it's always made out to be - sorry, but if you're doing graphics, you're likely to have *at least* 1280x1024 resolution. I find it difficult to believe that five pixels more or less will break an interface - as long as the rules of interface design (such as Fitts' Law - where the idiotic two pixels at the bottom of the Windows Task Bar, for example, make a huge difference) are respected.

So your argument doesn't exactly apply to Entourage, or at least, I fail to understand it.

-chris.

For those of you are interested, Office 10 beta is floating around Carracho right now...

NOW I am not one to pirate software - I own Office 2001and will buy Office 10 as soon as I can. But I coun't resist a wee download.

All I can say is this software is fast, stable and as a designer - I think it looks great and seems much more user friendly than Office under 9.1.

I am running 5f24 - and after testing Entourage for X for quite a while - I am now using it as my mail client. Also using Word and Powerpoint no problems.

Excel has some issues still - but the others are pretty near to perfect and useable. I am sure you guys will have no complaints when this software is released, and you have used it for a while.

P.S. A little tip for those who want to road test: The gallery doesn't seem to work - so open a word file, and then turn off the gallery in your preferences.

Microsoft - the guys we love to hate - have been doing a great job. You can have my money as soon as you ask for it.

[morgan]

Gotta say that MS seems really on the ball. I really like the new Entourage interface, at least from the screen shots. I can't wait for the release.

Also, did anyone note that Railhead has some news on Photoshop for X beta? It sounds promising.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Milio:
<STRONG>Actually I still despise the iMac aesthetic, and do still think it too looks Fisher-Price. It reminds me of the early sixties "Age of Plastics". I couldn't have been more happy when that fad was over. The iMacs and Aqua are just the same. They are industrial design and interface fads with no longevity.</STRONG>

It's nice to be discussing things like this w/o breaking out in curses and personal attacks.

I respect your opinion, but the iMac does serve to make the point about Aqua:

Somebody (either on this thread, but I think it was the Aqua usability one) said that they hadn't heard a SINGLE valid argument in favor of Aqua.

IMO, from Apple's perspective, there can be only one:

It's gonna sell. Microsoft realized this immediately, which explains Luna.

That's also the argument which makes your aesthetic judgment moot, since it's sold 5 million + computers.

As for it just being a fad: Irrelevant. If the general aesthetic taste changes (probably in 4-5 years), Aqua will receive an overhaul, just like System 7's monochrome appearance did.

-chris.

[Milio]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
<STRONG>It's nice to be discussing things like this w/o breaking out in curses and personal attacks.</STRONG>

Bah! I'm a designer. I put up with clients and their bad taste all the time. Aesthetics is ultimately just opinion. If I got worked up over it every time I disagreed with someone's idea of "pretty" I would have had an aneurism by now.

<STRONG>It's gonna sell. Microsoft realized this immediately, which explains Luna.

That's also the argument which makes your aesthetic judgment moot, since it's sold 5 million + computers.

As for it just being a fad: Irrelevant. If the general aesthetic taste changes (probably in 4-5 years), Aqua will receive an overhaul, just like System 7's monochrome appearance did.
</STRONG>

The fact that everybody is jumping on the bandwagon only reinforces that it is a fad. The Age of Plastics has that name for a reason. Now we're just in the Age of iMac or the Age of Aqua or Luna or whatever you want to call it.

As for it just being a fad: extremely relevant! When the general aesthetic taste changes, it will receive an overhaul. It's the same thing you said, but from my perspective. I just have to sit tight and wait it out.

In the meantime, everyone needs to rush out and buy one of these to go with their Age of Whatever iMac/Aqua/Luna fetish:

[OAW]

Originally posted by King Kong:
<STRONG>My problem with the aquification of Office is the wasted screenspace and the in your face design...
For example, look at all the wasted space (filled with stripes!) on the right side of this Entourage screen:
http://www.railheaddesign.com/graphi...tourageBig.jpg

</STRONG>

Surely you jest! The "wasted space" on the right side of the screen? Oh ... you mean that space that will give you a mere ONE additional CHARACTER per line to view if the preview field was widened? And even if it did, it would likely make no difference because text wrapping is going to make many a word appear on the next line anyway! I suppose you won't be satisfied until the field just runs right off the right edge of the application window itself! Seriously though, I suspect the MacBU decided to leave a little space to give an "edge" to the application since Aqua has BORDERLESS windows.

Originally posted by King Kong:
[QB]While I like the way they separated out the mail, address book, and calendar icons, does everything have to be so gigantic?
QB]

Well they certainly aren't any bigger that the icons in the Outlook Bar in the Windows version of the Outlook client! Also, if you are concerned about the amount of horizontal space those icons take I think you need not be since there is a resize control that will likely allow you to shrink this area. You can hide the folder list completely if you want more room for the preview pane. And I suspect (though it's not readily apparent) that you will be able to hide the major icons as well. Quite frankly, I don't see anything wrong with this interface!

OAW

[Sven G]

Thanks for the Entourage screenshot, by the way - *very* interesting...

In the same web site, there are also some other screenshots: I would like to compare the Word 10, Excel 10, and Entourage 10 "previews"...
http://www.railheaddesign.com/graphi...10/WordBig.jpg
http://www.railheaddesign.com/graphi...0/ExcelBig.jpg
http://www.railheaddesign.com/graphi...tourageBig.jpg

As one can see, Word and Excel still have a very Classic/AppleWorks 6-like interface, with individual elements - windows, toolbars and palettes - "scattered" all over the screen (albeit, fortunately, in a rather orderly manner); and *how* ugly it is (IMO) to see the desktop and its icons (some "obscured", some not) in the background - in a few words, still a quite cluttered, "System 7/8/9-like" interface.

Entourage, on the other hand, has a beautifully integrated IDE-style interface, that is, way more "modern" and Mac OS X-like (IMO); the stripes on the right side of the application window aren't really of any concern, compared to the clutter and waste of space of the Classic-style apps.

The one thing Mac OS X could - and *should* - learn from Windows is the more efficient and better-looking "stylishness" of IDE-type interfaces: see, for example, iMovie, iTunes and iDVD, which really look as more modern and visually exciting apps...

(2001-08-04: Sorry, but they removed the screenshots!)

[ 08-04-2001: Message edited by: Sven G ]

[OAW]

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>As one can see, Word and Excel still have a very Classic/AppleWorks 6-like interface, with individual elements - windows, toolbars and palettes - "scattered" all over the screen (albeit, fortunately, in a rather orderly manner); and *how* ugly it is (IMO) to see the desktop and its icons (some "obscured", some not) in the background - in a few words, still a quite cluttered, "System 7/8/9-like" interface.</STRONG>

Indeed you are correct, but that's simply the "style" of most Mac applications. Windows, toolbars, and palettes are all free-floating items that the user can place wherever they want in most Mac applications (i.e. Photoshop). The style of Word and Excel certainly doesn't have anything to do with Aqua, since these applications adopted this look in Office 2001. Office 10 (from an interface perspective) is basically Office 2001 with an Aqua interface and brighter, more colorful icons. In fact, Office 2001 was a widely lauded application and went with this style instead of the IDE style of Office 98. Granted, Office 98 was basically a port of the Windows Office 97 to the Mac platform ... but one of the major complaints about it was that it didn't have a "Mac style" interface. Well Microsoft went and gave us that interface style with Office 2001 (and as a result Office 10), but I guess some of us will never be satisfied!

Originally posted by Sven G:
<STRONG>Entourage, on the other hand, has a beautifully integrated IDE-style interface, that is, way more "modern" and Mac OS X-like (IMO); the stripes on the right side of the application window aren't really of any concern, compared to the clutter and waste of space of the Classic-style apps.

The one thing Mac OS X could - and *should* - learn from Windows is the more efficient and better-looking "stylishness" of IDE-type interfaces: see, for example, iMovie, iTunes and iDVD, which really look as more modern and visually exciting apps...</STRONG>

I agree. I like the IDE style apps better in general ... but I must admit I like using the floating formatting palette in Word. For some reason I can just get to what I want easier with it than when I use the formatting toolbar. I would like Mac apps to work like Windows when it comes to toolbars. They should be allowed to free float if the user prefers it that way, but if the user prefers them integrated they should be able to "dock" them (I know a bad term in the OS X context, but that's what it's called in the Windows world) into the overall application window.

OAW