Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

drainyoo · Jan 16, 2005, 01:18 PM

I was looking through the new Tiger videos on the Apple site and I noticed that the GUI is all over the place. Mail has this new look to it, which Im not sold on yet, but there are still apps that have the brushed metal. What is the reasoning behind this? Just make all the app look the same.

Does anyone know if there is a logical reason behind all this?

jguidroz · Jan 16, 2005, 01:39 PM

I believe the new look of Mail, System Preferences and maybe even the Finder (couldn't find a picture to determine this) is because they have spotlight integrated into the apps.

drainyoo · Jan 16, 2005, 01:42 PM

Originally posted by jguidroz:
I believe the new look of Mail, System Preferences and maybe even the Finder (couldn't find a picture to determine this) is because they have spotlight integrated into the apps.

Isnt spotlight integrated into all Apple apps?

TETENAL · 11:56 PM

New GUI rules for Tiger:

Standard apps: Aqua (only to be used if an app doesn't fit into one of the other categories)
Apps which connect to a device or simulate a device or have a sidebar or just look better like it: Brushed Metal
Apps that include Spotlight: Grayish Blue
Apple's pro applications: Pro look
Audio apps which name begins with a G and ends with arageBand: Timber look
Dashboard widgets: Gimmicky look
Adobe apps: Quick Windows port look
Quark XPress: System 7 controls
Java apps and Windows Media Player: look like crap

Apple encourages developers to strictly follow these guidelines to guarantee a consistent look and feel of Macintosh applications (you may design your own push-buttons though).

Randman · Jan 16, 2005, 01:55 PM

Maybe it's because Tiger hasn't been released yet.

- - e r i k - - · Jan 16, 2005, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by TETENAL:
New GUI rules for Tiger:

Standard apps: Aqua (only to be used if an app doesn't fit into one of the other categories)

Apps which connect to a device or simulate a device or have a sidebar or just look better like it: Brushed Metal

Apps that include Spotlight: Grayish Blue

Apple's pro applications: Pro look

Dashboard widgets: Gimmicky look

Adobe apps: Quick Windows port look

Quark XPress: System 7 controls

Windows Media Player: look like crap

Priceless

You forgot about X11 and Java-apps though

ManOfSteal · Jan 16, 2005, 11:15 PM

"It's hawt."

nforcer · Jan 16, 2005, 11:44 PM

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Priceless

You forgot about X11 and Java-apps though

Indeed. They would also go under the "look like crap" category.

TETENAL · Jan 16, 2005, 11:52 PM

Updated to include Java apps.

Superchicken · Jan 17, 2005, 12:49 AM

Priceless.... yah... the interface could really use someone to come along and force the UI designers to meet each-other, talk, have dinner, and BE FREAKING CONSISTENT!

Judge_Fire · Mar 23, 2005, 12:23 PM

Well, no sign of consistency yet....

Hopefully this means Apple is hiding a new, concise, fresh, customizable look til the last minute. Realistically, probably not.

While Longhorn will clutter itself with App Archetypes based on some logic, Aqua is just spiralling out of control.

J

kcmac · Mar 23, 2005, 12:31 PM

I am betting the GUI will all come together in 10.5. It has been a long climb from 10.0 to today and a lot has been done. It appears that Tiger will pull a lot of the powerful things about OS X all together.

So maybe in the next version they will have more time to focus on the consistency of the look and feel.

OmniX · Mar 23, 2005, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by kcmac:
I am betting the GUI will all come together in 10.5. It has been a long climb from 10.0 to today and a lot has been done. It appears that Tiger will pull a lot of the powerful things about OS X all together.

So maybe in the next version they will have more time to focus on the consistency of the look and feel.

Indeed; 10.5 might be the first time in a very long time (the Bruce Horn days?) that Apple will get to focus on the core visual and informational interface, i.e. Finder and its mission to locate and organize information. This is uninformed speculation, but perhaps finally Apple will ditch the current hacked-up Carbon version of the Finder and do a complete re-write in Cocoa, while incorporating CoreData and additional elements toward the ultimate goal of the datbase-based file system (this is also where Google and MS are going in the long term).

ox

Big Mac · Mar 23, 2005, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by OmniX:
Indeed; 10.5 might be the first time in a very long time (the Bruce Horn days?) that Apple will get to focus on the core visual and informational interface, i.e. Finder and its mission to locate and organize information. This is uninformed speculation, but perhaps finally Apple will ditch the current hacked-up Carbon version of the Finder and do a complete re-write in Cocoa, while incorporating CoreData and additional elements toward the ultimate goal of the datbase-based file system (this is also where Google and MS are going in the long term).

ox

There is no proof to support the claim that Apple plans to seriously revise the Finder any time soon. Throughout the development of OS X, the Finder has received the least attention of any major system component, and I do not foresee that situation changing.

OmniX · Mar 23, 2005, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Big Mac:
There is no proof to support the claim that Apple plans to seriously revise the Finder any time soon. Throughout the development of OS X, the Finder has received the least attention of any major system component, and I do not foresee that situation changing.

I did not claim any proof for this hypothesis; my supposition is in fact based mostly on process of elimination (as you mention, Apple has covered just about everything EXCEPT the Finder at this point in OSX's development) and logical directions in which the entire industry is headed (i.e. managing and manipulating metadata). Underlying technology may be another driving factor: with the advent of CoreData and the proliferation of 64-bit processors, the adoption of a serious database platform may be much more feasible by the time 10.5 is ready than in previous years. A final (and actually perhaps most compelling) consideration is competition: WinFS and Linux are both forging ahead with long term plans for metadata; in this respect, even if Apple were inclined to the contrary (which I suspect, with Dominic Giampaolo on board, is not the case), it would not have much choice other than this route (drastically improving the Finder) if they wish to remain a competitive player in the professional and consumer OS markets.

Cadaver · Mar 23, 2005, 11:32 PM

Originally posted by kcmac:
I am betting the GUI will all come together in 10.5. It has been a long climb from 10.0 to today and a lot has been done. It appears that Tiger will pull a lot of the powerful things about OS X all together.

So maybe in the next version they will have more time to focus on the consistency of the look and feel.

I suspect Stevie J. will be too preoccupied with 10.5's 150 new features to worry about something as trivial as GUI consistency. I mean, he did retire OS 9 years ago.

C'mon Apple. Get on the ball

CaptainHaddock · Mar 24, 2005, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by TETENAL:
New GUI rules for Tiger:
Standard apps: Aqua (only to be used if an app doesn't fit into one of the other categories)

Apps which connect to a device or simulate a device or have a sidebar or just look better like it: Brushed Metal

Apps that include Spotlight: Grayish Blue

Apple's pro applications: Pro look

Audio apps which name begins with a G and ends with arageBand: Timber look

Dashboard widgets: Gimmicky look

Adobe apps: Quick Windows port look

Quark XPress: System 7 controls

Java apps and Windows Media Player: look like crap

I missed this the thread the first time around. Too funny!

I just want to know why the new Mail.app is going in the Look-Like-Crap category! (At least, if current screenshots at Apple.com are any indication.)

leperkuhn · Mar 24, 2005, 12:47 AM

Originally posted by CaptainHaddock:
I missed this the thread the first time around. Too funny!

I just want to know why the new Mail.app is going in the Look-Like-Crap category! (At least, if current screenshots at Apple.com are any indication.)

I've really liked the Mail.app screenshots, I think it looks much better than it does now. I think you agree with me here.. but I've had a few chardonnays this evening, what of it?

Big Mac · Mar 24, 2005, 06:57 AM

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
I've really liked the Mail.app screenshots, I think it looks much better than it does now. I think you agree with me here.. but I've had a few chardonnays this evening, what of it?

Haddock is placing the new Mail in the "looks like crap category," so no, he is disagreeing with you. And most other people do as well. The new Mail looks like something Linux dragged in. . . someone's really screwed the pooch with that look.

OreoCookie · Mar 24, 2005, 07:22 AM

I'm inclined to think that Mail's new interface is a testbed for future technologies so they have enough time to polish it for wide-spread use. Historically, Mail and the Finder have been the testbed for new technologies (Mail for improvements in Cocoa and the Finder for Carbon), so I would think we will see some major interface changes in 10.5.

While I like Mail's new interface, I dislike the buttons, they look pretty fugly. I hope Apple will fix this.

(Please note this is pure speculation on my part.)

Judge_Fire · Mar 24, 2005, 07:44 AM

In the new Mail, it's silly how the Toolbar buttons don't dynamically melt into eachother to form these new attached buttons, thus necessitating a huge load of redundant items to pick from.

Like in having separate 'Back', 'Forward' and 'Back/Forward' buttons (example, don't recall if these exact buttons were available.)

But my new pet peeve is the new iPhoto, which re-invents the Toolbar by placing it at the bottom of the window and not allowing to control the items or their layout. I mean, you switch them on and off from a menu - WTF?!

J

Bi@tch · Mar 24, 2005, 10:32 AM

Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
In the new Mail, it's silly how the Toolbar buttons don't dynamically melt into eachother to form these new attached buttons, thus necessitating a huge load of redundant items to pick from.

Like in having separate 'Back', 'Forward' and 'Back/Forward' buttons (example, don't recall if these exact buttons were available.)

But my new pet peeve is the new iPhoto, which re-invents the Toolbar by placing it at the bottom of the window and not allowing to control the items or their layout. I mean, you switch them on and off from a menu - WTF?!

J

Not only that, it took me a while to understand that you couldn't drag the keywords, and they look like buttons yet they're somekind of tab. Plus, you have to drag the pictures on the keywords and not the other way around. How confusing...

I wish Apple would get their act together. It seems their new strategy is to make everything look new rather than actually adding worthwhile and functional features. If you think about it, iPhoto hasn't changed a whole lot in 5 versions.

H. Georgan · Mar 24, 2005, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by TETENAL:
New GUI rules for Tiger:
Standard apps: Aqua (only to be used if an app doesn't fit into one of the other categories)

Apps which connect to a device or simulate a device or have a sidebar or just look better like it: Brushed Metal

Apps that include Spotlight: Grayish Blue

Apple's pro applications: Pro look

Audio apps which name begins with a G and ends with arageBand: Timber look

Dashboard widgets: Gimmicky look

Adobe apps: Quick Windows port look

Quark XPress: System 7 controls

Java apps and Windows Media Player: look like crap

Apple encourages developers to strictly follow these guidelines to guarantee a consistent look and feel of Macintosh applications (you may design your own push-buttons though).

So true. So funny. So sad. Re: "Apple's been working out the kinks in the UI since 10.0, by 10.5 it'll be great (and consistent)", or something to that effect. Well, I disagree, I think that with each new release the GUI has become *more* inconsistent. I hated pinestripes, but at least they were everywhere in 10.0. At the rate things are going, by 10.5 we should have a bunch more application "looks" to add to the list above.

Fonzie · Mar 24, 2005, 11:04 AM

I have no doubt thatever Apple does to its GUI in OS X there will be no rest for these types of threads. There will always be complaining.

However, I think that Apple needs to get it self together whether to use brushed metal or not. It does make Apple's GUI stand out that's for sure. Maybe that is what they are going for. To look like they are the outsider(which they perhaps are).
Let's wait it out and see what Apple finds out about the GUI. I bet it will look lovely and crisp whichever way they do it. I'll just use a theme if all else fails.

Judge_Fire · Mar 24, 2005, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by Fonzie:
I bet it will look lovely and crisp whichever way they do it. I'll just use a theme if all else fails.

It's not the looks most of us critisizing. You could slap on any theme and the inconsistencies would still be there.

A GUI combines aesthetics with function to achieve some sort of meaningful form. Behaviour and consistency are the magic part, the coveted 'feel' in look & feel.

The OS could be even better, so critique is just fine

J

OreoCookie · Mar 24, 2005, 12:09 PM

In my opinion, there should be one kind of GUI, not two or four (right now, at least four).

Integrate the ProApps look into the regular look, and melt brushed metal and (regular) Aqua into something that resembles Mail's interface, with less toyish buttons.

kman42 · Mar 24, 2005, 12:14 PM

Inconsistency aside, I think the new Mail interface is great and that bridesmaid is a babe.

leperkuhn · Mar 24, 2005, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by kman42:
Inconsistency aside, I think the new Mail interface is great and that bridesmaid is a babe.

Yeah man, both those chicks are pretty hot. Could be why i like the new look.

Fonzie · Mar 24, 2005, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
It's not the looks most of us critisizing. You could slap on any theme and the inconsistencies would still be there.
J

Hmm, okay.. I've always considered this consistensy with themes. My fault. Some of my points like the one with that there will always be threads like this still stands.

mAxximo · Mar 24, 2005, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
In my opinion, there should be one kind of GUI, not two or four (right now, at least four).

Integrate the ProApps look into the regular look, and melt brushed metal and (regular) Aqua into something that resembles Mail's interface, with less toyish buttons.

I'd like to be able to choose the pro look for all my applications. Finder, Mail, Safari, everything. Get rid of the whole distracting lickability and metal ugliness...oh...

Judge_Fire · Mar 24, 2005, 12:46 PM

Originally posted by Fonzie:
Some of my points like the one with that there will always be threads like this still stands.

Complaints will end when the world (or OS X) is feature complete, finshed and done

Actually, someone just said that OS 9 is now just that - how true.

J

OreoCookie · Mar 24, 2005, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by mAxximo:
I'd like to be able to choose the pro look for all my applications. Finder, Mail, Safari, everything. Get rid of the whole distracting lickability and metal ugliness...oh...

I don't think it is possible to make things such that the user can choose (it's more than resizing buttons and all that). But for sure, at least the developer should be able to choose.

legacyb4 · Mar 24, 2005, 12:58 PM

Dunno. Seems like there is a lot of wasted space on the top part of the window...

Originally posted by kman42:
Inconsistency aside, I think the new Mail interface is great and that bridesmaid is a babe.

leperkuhn · Mar 24, 2005, 02:49 PM

Lets not forget in iPhoto when you make adjustments, it comes up with a semi transparent black window, with a circular (x) to close. Very odd.

SS3 GokouX · Mar 24, 2005, 03:44 PM

The adjustments window comes from Motion. Though a little out of place, I think it works great. I'd love to see more apps use a window like that, as long as the app has a reason to see the content behind it aside from looking pretty.

Chuckit · Mar 24, 2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by legacyb4:
Dunno. Seems like there is a lot of wasted space on the top part of the window...

I don't think it's any more than now.

nforcer · Mar 24, 2005, 05:05 PM

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
In my opinion, there should be one kind of GUI, not two or four (right now, at least four).

Integrate the ProApps look into the regular look, and melt brushed metal and (regular) Aqua into something that resembles Mail's interface, with less toyish buttons.

Agreed. I don't see the point of having all of these interface styles for only specific types of apps or only specific apps (mail). I am dreading the new mail interface because of those buttons.

Was brushed metal the start of the whole apple interface clusterf*ck or was there something before that?

Chuckit · Mar 24, 2005, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by nforcer:
Was brushed metal the start of the whole apple interface clusterf*ck or was there something before that?

Pretty much. To my recollection, Apple apps generally had a consistent (if ever-changing) look until QuickTime Player introduced brushed metal.

darrick · Mar 24, 2005, 05:11 PM

it has ocurred to me that the metal look for iTunes and Quicktime might be to give them a consistant appearance when ported over to the windows side. could the other metal apps have the dark side in their futures?

Chuckit · Mar 24, 2005, 05:15 PM

If Safari is ported to Windows, I'll eat my hat.

Boondoggle · Mar 24, 2005, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
I don't think it's any more than now.

It is about the same if you're viewing the status bar. Otherwise it is bigger. It also looks bigger because there are no discernible divisions.

I really wish there was an option for a very lo-cal. interface to all the apps. It boggles my mind that these toolbars take up so much vertical space while at the same time all of Apple's displays are wide format. Why eat up space that is already at a minimum? Especially with the dock at the bottom... Seems goofy to me.

bd

Chuckit · Mar 24, 2005, 06:06 PM

More to the point, isn't the idea of the universal menu bar not to have redundant, moving commands stuck on every window?

Judge_Fire · Mar 24, 2005, 06:26 PM

Originally posted by leperkuhn:
Lets not forget in iPhoto when you make adjustments, it comes up with a semi transparent black window, with a circular (x) to close. Very odd.

Yeah, as said it comes from Motion, where it is called.... Dashboard.

J

- - e r i k - - · Mar 24, 2005, 09:30 PM

Just to chip in, after having used the new mail-buttons I have to say I much prefer them. The toolbar take up just as much space vertically (easily checked by comparing it to the search-box) as before, but the grouped buttons actually take less space than before horizontally. Also they feel more solid, and with button groups (you can choose to put them in as single buttons as well) are grouped logically. The symbols are also clearer and more icon-like (not picture-like) than before.

CaptainHaddock · Mar 25, 2005, 03:13 AM

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
Just to chip in, after having used the new mail-buttons I have to say I much prefer them.

Tastes will vary, but ... seriously?

Why are the icons grouped in little glassy bundles? (I like to call them "turds".)

Why are the icons themselves so tiny? What happens if I add, say, "redirect" to the icons? Does it connect with the reply/reply all/forward turd, or form its own? Come to think of it, is it possible to completely eliminate the turds and just have the icons by themselves?

What is that big empty space on the left? Is it the result of a poor attempt to center-align the icons?

Ugh, I sometimes feel that Apple hired some Windows GUI designers, the way the GUI is completely fragmenting and getting farther from Apple's own human interface guidelines.

Big Mac · Mar 25, 2005, 03:25 AM

Turds, lol. I really don't know where Apple's going with the new Mail's UI. The huge amount of unseemly wasted space near the stoplights is the result of doing away with the very functional drawer and not having anything to stick up there.

Judge_Fire · Mar 25, 2005, 04:14 AM

Whitespace (blue/grey) isn't necessarily wasted space.

Sometimes app toolbars have a cluttered feel to them.

J

OreoCookie · Mar 25, 2005, 05:05 AM

Originally posted by Chuckit:
More to the point, isn't the idea of the universal menu bar not to have redundant, moving commands stuck on every window?

You can always hide the toolbar.

CaptainHaddock · Mar 25, 2005, 05:19 AM

Off-Topic:

OreoCookie, you used to live in Nagoya, Japan? I'm planning to move there in a few months!

Boondoggle · Mar 25, 2005, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
Whitespace (blue/grey) isn't necessarily wasted space.

Sometimes app toolbars have a cluttered feel to them.

J

I agree, but I would like a compact option. This would be especially nice for us powerbook users. And the format of the display should have an influence on how whitespace is allocated. AFAIK all of Apple's displays are now Wide. (OK except for the eMac) Eating up vertical space on a wide format display seems sub-optimal to me.

bd