[thalo]

Originally posted by madra [again!]:
<STRONG>however i still think that there is one solid feature of the old OS which has been badly broken in X and that is the division between the menubar at the top and the rest of the screen...</STRONG>

Madra,
that last post is EXACTLY the kind of stuff we should all be thinking about. Those are the issues that help make an interface make sense. Make it easy to use. I want those GUI engineers at Apple to step back and think about the major screen-divisions of the Mac OS and ask WHY is it like this? Does this or that make it easier or harder to use? I want them to go over every menu and widget and feature with a fine toothed comb.

For example. "Services" If these are indeed representative of global functionality, then why are they NOT in the Apple Menu, where the other "global" commands are? Always accessible.

A few smaller developers seem stymied about where to put "Preferences"... and confused at whether something like a custom toolbar is an application preference or a "View" option, a "Window" option, or something else entirely. Stuff like this needs to be addressed. Apple needs to address it for the Finder. I want to know the DIFFERENCE between a Finder Pref, and other visual aspects of the Finder appearance which are not currently included in Finder prefs.

And for these upcoming "System Menus"...I've got to ask WHY. What criteria for functionality makes them appropriate for the menubar, as opposed to the Dock? Why can I drag a dockling into the Finder toolbar and have it appear? It obviously doesn't belong there, because it doesn't work outside the Dock. Why don't I get an alert "Docklings belong in the dock, moron" or something to that effect.

With OS X I get the impression that human interface guidelines have become thoroughly subservient to eye-candy. The answer to a lot of the "Why is it this way?" Questions are "Because it's pretty" and that's just not good enough for me.

A big part of the interface is BEHAVIOR. In 9.1 things behave in a more consistent, predictable way. Even the crashes are better. There's a kind of internal logic to Platinum that is more important than the appearance of Platinum. But in OS X you get UNPREDICTABLE behavior. An application icon will go into perma-bounce mode if there's been a mishap, and when it eventually times out, it comes to rest in the dock with it's "running" triangle; as if it loaded fine, when in fact it's hosed. The interface communicates none of this, when it should. I don't care if it's a RED triangle, or an alert box, or something.

Copying files, or downloading, and having the Finder not INSTANTLY update the contents of the destination, with visual feedback (in the form of your new files becoming visible as icons), is an interface MISTAKE. Sorry, I hate to break the news.

Waking from sleep and having the menubar clock not update instantly is an interface MISTAKE. Logical, visual feedback from computer to user needs to happen when it's, er, "timely".

I could go on and on. I get the feeling that Aqua defenders are somehow blind to, or way too forgiving of these flaws. If something doesn't make sense, it needs to be fixed. No greater example of Aqua wrecking a great application than this: Quickeys X. It went from easy to use, to ridiculous. And I don't fault the developers. I hang that one squarely on the fact that the interface itself is not resolved.

[Mskr]

1) Dock taking up all kinds of space (Madra [again!]): Ever heard of auto-hide? It's quite useful...

2) Scrolling text or dock items should be in the menubar: On the one hand, we will worship minimality, on the other, ask for more stuff to be put into the menubar. Now, you may argue that stuff should move from the Dock to the menubar, but what does that buy you? You still have the same amount of "clutter" (which most people call functionality), but in different locations. This isn't more minimalistic, either.

3) Aqua is a mixed metaphor: Any sufficiently complex system will have to have multiple metaphors, just like a previous poster pointed out (windows on your desktop, etc.). Think about this: the human-computer interface deals with very abstract notions that cannot be represented perfectly by physical-universe items. Example: data are stored in "files". "Files" can hold any type of binary data, and in UNIX are the basic metaphor; every "object" is basically a file. In the physical universe, a file can be a folder that contains other objects. These objects may be media that hold data, or may be data themselves. But, when we store more abstract forms of data (text, video, audio, etc.), they are not stored directly in the file, but rather on some form of media (paper, magnetic tape, cellulose, etc.). The metaphor is breaking down already.

How do we handle files?

• We can "open" them to look at their data (Erm, Ok. I guess so)
• We can "copy" them (whoa, what? How can I just "copy" a file? What if my file holds a $5 bill? Can I "copy" that?)
• We can "edit" them (Huh? Do you really edit real world files, or do you have to edit the media?)
• We can "save" them (Ok, this is just right out. Changes made to real world files are permanent until I physically reverse the changes. You mean I have to actually take the extra step to say that what I've spent all this time doing, I wanted to do?).
• We can "compress" them, so they take up less space. (You get the point).

Now, nobody is going to say that "files" are a terrible metaphor and should never have been adopted. It's just that their not a perfect metaphor for "chunks-of-data-stored-in-a-binary-representation-on-some-form-of-computer-accessable-media". Guess what? There IS no perfect metaphor, that is going to encompass all of the things that you would want to do with them. And, we don't NEED to have a perfect metaphor, as long as we can all learn how to use our computer for useful work.

Thalo, I think that you have good goals: simplification, consistency, ease-of-use. But I think that you are taking these good goals to too much of an extreme. While you think that the Aqua interface is not a simple, consistent, easy-to-use interface (or at least not as simple, consistent, or easy-to-use as you would like; I'm not entirely sure you have anything good to say about Aqua at all), many human-interface engineers have been working towards those same goals, and Aqua is what they came up with. If you disagree, fine, but your opinion is just different from theirs. However, to say that the Windows interface is more simple, consistent, and easy-to-use that Mac OS X needs more clarification and support, since I think that Win95 (or NT, or 3.1) is about the worst thought out interface I've ever used (well, that comes from a professional company; I have used some really bad Enlightenment themes).

What I think your whole gripe really boils down to is that you would have liked Apple to make theming available for OS X, so you could CHOOSE your look/feel. Apple had the hubris to think that their HI engineers could make a simple, consistent and easy-to-use interface that everyone would like, and they seem to have failed.

Just my take on this whole thread.... (I'm sure that I'm going to have to edit this hugely long post to correct typos, bad formatting, etc. My gripe with the MacNN forum posting is the lack of a PREVIEW option to let me see my hugely long post as it will be presented to everyone else before I commit it.)

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: Mskr ]

[thalo]

Originally posted by Mskr:
<STRONG>Thalo, I think that you have good goals: simplification, consistency, ease-of-use. But I think that you are taking these good goals to too much of an extreme. While you think that the Aqua interface is not a simple, consistent, easy-to-use interface (or at least not as simple, consistent, or easy-to-use as you would like; I'm not entirely sure you have anything good to say about Aqua at all), many human-interface engineers have been working towards those same goals, and Aqua is what they came up with. If you disagree, fine</STRONG>

Thanks man, concentrate on those goals. The extreme part is just satire, as I think you are well aware.

I have plenty good to say about Aqua. Here, I'll prove it. Sorry to repeat, some of this, but
1) View Widget = superior. An alien could land here and figure it out in 2 clicks.
2) Pulsing buttons = superior. Do exactly what they're supposed to do, in a dynamic, attractive, and arresting way.
3) Genie effect: while I question how essential it is, and I generally prefer function over frivolity... it's fast and responsive on my machine, and it tells me in no uncertain terms that my window is being minimized into the dock. I have similar attitudes toward the hide/mag effects. I'd rather we didn't NEED a mag effect, but it is more responsive than the rest of the OS, so I definitely don't hate it.
4) auto window resizing in System prefs: represents a GREAT direction that more of Aqua could have gone in. Adjust window sizes automatically based on content. Makes things attractive, conserves screen real estate...I'm all for it.
5) Application status in dock, e.g. new e-mails. Another terrific idea that didn't go far enough and doesn't actually work right yet. But assuming they get the kinks worked out, this is the kind of interface thing that is loaded with potential and could really make Aqua shine.
6) Alerts attached to appropriate windows... great. But I have a problem with them being transparent. And I have a readability problem with type on stripes... but as an interface IDEA, I'm all for that one.
7) The sliders in the system prefs (volume, icon size) are a good use of eye candy. They are slim, handsome, discreet and do the job. There is no question what they do. Next to the view widget, probably my favorite Aqua element.

Maybe my list of Aqua criticisms is much longer, but I will give credit where credit is due. Believe me, when something is superior, I notice it. I merely want the whole of Aqua to hang together. I've used it long enough to determine that it's NOT a joy to use. I want it to be.

[Brad Nelson]

Just a couple ideas for you, friend.

1) Hollow disclosure triangles for empty folders
2) The option for aliases to have their names in a different color
3) Badge for trash to show how many items it holds
4) Finder windows that "snap to" each other

I went on like a raving lunatic (still am in some places) over stuff like this in the Beta. Often criticisms of Aqua were answered by "but it looks cool" when I was really talking about the usage of the interface. We're all supposed to be not set in our ways, so here's to Apple UI engineers going with that spirit. We're still in the beta stage. Nothing need be set in stone.

Onward and upward, Thalo.

[thalo]

Originally posted by Brad Nelson:
<STRONG>Just a couple ideas for you, friend.

1) Hollow disclosure triangles for empty folders
2) The option for aliases to have their names in a different color
3) Badge for trash to show how many items it holds
4) Finder windows that "snap to" each other

I went on like a raving lunatic (still am in some places) over stuff like this in the Beta. Often criticisms of Aqua were answered by "but it looks cool" when I was really talking about the usage of the interface. We're all supposed to be not set in our ways, so here's to Apple UI engineers going with that spirit. We're still in the beta stage. Nothing need be set in stone.

Onward and upward, Thalo.</STRONG>

Woo Hoo!
The trash badge is brilliant. The kind of idea that makes you wonder what they were thinking NOT to put it there. Especially now that the trash is in the Dock, and now that trash warnings have become somewhat vague.

I'm also digging the hollow triangle bit... which should of course be extended to the Dock triangles... hollow for hidden apps, perhaps. Flashing red for toast (?) Yeah, triangle synchronicity would be nice.

I'm still chewing on snap-to Finder windows, and colored alias text (as opposed to italic).

Whatever you do, don't stop going on like a raving lunatic. In one day I've heard enough ideas that were Apple to implement ANY ONE of them, The Mac Interface would be better for it.

[MacOS761]

Bravo to you thalo for bringing some worthwhile and intelligent conversation to these boards. I sat on the sidelines during much of the school year for obvious reasons, but when I had opportunities to work my way back into the boards, I found that there was not much left (or not many people with whom) to discuss. Maybe I'm guilty of not trying hard enough, I don't know. Anyway...

I can resound with many of the comments made on either side around here. I do like the Aqua interface by and large, but I can also see how it could be so much better. The Dock is a struggle for me, in that I think it is a wonderfully designed tool, and the direction that its pop-up menus are taking us (particularly in 10.1) is great. I really look forward to the efficiency of right clicking on the iTunes icon to pop between songs and the like. Between that and icon badging/notifications, I think Apple has made a wonderful tool that is a million times better and much more beautiful than the task bar in Windows.

HOWEVER, the fact that it infringes on my workspace annoys me.

"But you can hide the dock!" you may say.

B freaking S. I tried that and it was crappy. It was unresponsive when I wanted it to snap forth, and intrusive when I wanted it to stay put. At WWDC, Apple told us that they want us to "respect the Dock," by which they meant that they want windows to avoid its space. This behavior is already apparent in OmniWeb and iTunes, and it ticks me off. Fortunately, someone stood up and said, "That's dumb. If users don't want stuff there, they can move it." If I have my Dock on the right side of my screen, I don't want my OmniWeb window to refuse to open to the full length of the screen since it expects the dock to be in the last 3/4". Unfortunately, that's exactly what it does. Any way you look at it, the Dock is going to take up space, or get in the way, unless you hide it or toggle it somehow with the menubar. Maybe we could stop wasting the top corners of the screen and have a toggle button there to "spill" the Dock into place and suck it back up.

To be honest, I don't think I've ever had a problem with not being able to read something on a translucent sheet or stripes. Translucency is SO much nicer in OS X than in Windows 2000, where it is terribly obvious that it was added as a gimmick ("Well, uh.. those guys at Apple are doing it."). Not to say that it is necessary in OS X, but I don't consider it an obstruction either. Stripes are a little overdone, but mostly light enough to not cause a problem - I would say they are more of the appearance than the interface (you don't interact with them anyway).

I liked the progress bar idea. Those things are a waste, now that I think about it. Plus, they are kind of a thing of the past. Who cares how long it will take for something to finish if you can go on doing other things anyway? Ah, bliss. What says we throw them into one of these crazy system menu thingies? Nah...

While there are many shortcomings, there are a number of things being addressed as we speak. I don't think I know of any that most people wouldn't, but as a result of knowing these things that will be changed/added/removed in 10.1, I have greater confidence in both Apple engineers and Mac users everywhere for making changes and speaking up when something needs changing.

On that note, I would like to know what thalo thinks a more "idealistic" interface would look like. You have spoken much of Aquas faults, how about some more practical ideas? Should we be able to resize windows from any direction a la Sun OS (and other Unices I would imagine), and if so, how would that work? In short, how do you want a "professional" UI to look, feel, and work?

For the interest and amusement of those nice enough to read all this and still be somewhat interested, I present a link to a very old (okay, only a bit over a year) thread about even farther out UI's. This was a lot of fun, and I think a lot of people are expecting the kind of thing I talk about to happen in the not-so-distant future. Or at least, people who are thinking about it.

[edit: double negative. tee hee]

[ 08-07-2001: Message edited by: MacOS761 ]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>A big part of the interface is BEHAVIOR. In 9.1 things behave in a more consistent, predictable way. Even the crashes are better. There's a kind of internal logic to Platinum that is more important than the appearance of Platinum. But in OS X you get UNPREDICTABLE behavior. An application icon will go into perma-bounce mode if there's been a mishap, and when it eventually times out, it comes to rest in the dock with it's "running" triangle; as if it loaded fine, when in fact it's hosed. The interface communicates none of this, when it should. I don't care if it's a RED triangle, or an alert box, or something.

Copying files, or downloading, and having the Finder not INSTANTLY update the contents of the destination, with visual feedback (in the form of your new files becoming visible as icons), is an interface MISTAKE. Sorry, I hate to break the news.

Waking from sleep and having the menubar clock not update instantly is an interface MISTAKE. Logical, visual feedback from computer to user needs to happen when it's, er, "timely".</STRONG>

Um...these things here are NOT behavioral "mistakes" but simply *bugs*.

I'm 100% certain that *none* of these points are situations where a programmer, or the UI conference, sat there and said, "Well, the clock doesn't update properly when we come out of sleep, and the Finder won't update folder contents until the folder is reloaded, but nobody's gonna care about this anyway."

Oversight, yes. Deliberation and/or design - no.
(And before somebody explains that bugs are just mistakes, too, let me add that this was not the gist of thalo's post - he quite clearly implied that nobody'd care if he didn't complain, and that this was bad interface design. It's not. It just doesn't work right, yet.)

You make some pretty good points, thalo, even if I don't always agree with you (I don't mind the pinstripes or transparency at all, for example), but you went a little "overboard" with these.

&lt;roaring&gt;
"KEEL HAUL 'IM!"
&lt;/roaring&gt;



-chris.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>Here's the test: when 10.1 comes out, how many people are satisfied enough with OS X 10.0.4 NOT to load it? I'd say a grand total of, oh, ZERO Mac Users. How many of those would seriously OBJECT to interface improvements? Again, I don't see too many hands.</STRONG>

Not quite fair.

Almost nothing is ever so good that there is no room for improvement.

OS 9 has a lot of shortcomings, and yet many will claim that it's the best thing out there. Still, you'll have a hard time finding OS 9 users who *wouldn't* upgrade to a version with substantial interface/usability enhancements.
(Except for Beatlebug - he is the only OS 9 user I have ever seen taking exception to a sensible memory management. )

-chris.

[Boodlums]

Mskr: "Now, you may argue that stuff should move from the Dock to the menubar, but what does that buy you? You still have the same amount of "clutter" (which most people call functionality), but in different locations."

No, because in the menubar you can have hierarchical menus.
There's no need for 5 menus of 3 items each; you can have a single menu containing 5 submenus. Just because the existing dockling-menus have only a few items does not mean you couldn't have a more concise menu organization.

-Walter

[Zadian]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>

For example. "Services" If these are indeed representative of global functionality, then why are they NOT in the Apple Menu, where the other "global" commands are? Always accessible.</STRONG>

No, services are functionality that other applications give the current running application - not the system. It's the running application that uses the service not the system. So i think services are exactly were they should be - in the applications menu.

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG> A big part of the interface is BEHAVIOR. In 9.1 things behave in a more consistent, predictable way.

Waking from sleep and having the menubar clock not update instantly is an interface MISTAKE. Logical, visual feedback from computer to user needs to happen when it's, er, "timely".
</STRONG>

That's exactly what happens in Mac OS 9 - on my Mac. Yes it's annoying but it happens in OS 9 and OS X.
That is something with a low priority for me, there are other things that should be addressed first (speed, drivers...)

[ntsc]

with the dock; unhiding/hiding, growing/shrinking sometimes a piece of my working area is effectively a menu, sometimes its my working area. and too often for comfort it thinks its one while i'm trying to use it as the other. i just think it's dumb.

Why don't you just think of the Dock as your personal desk-tidy. Sits on your desk and holds your most useful pens and pencils (like the Cross one that Mum gave one your 21st etc...). If you don't like it there is no compunction to use it - just hide it and don't use it.

I am no UI designer and to be honest i find this thing with metaphors here and there very boring. My take is Aqua works for me, i find it an easy progression, and having been using Mac OS 7.6.1 for i while the other day i have to say that i don't find it any better or worse than Aqua. To me the UI is just something you live with, Windows, Mac OS and Mac OS X UIs are not necessarily better than each other they are just different. Windows users can quite happily use there machines and while they may need some help now and then they are quite happy to plod on. I use Macs now because that is what i started on so it remained familiar to me. Windows on the other hand while no less useable was completely different and at the time inferior technology wise also (though this is arguably no longer the case.) Its all down to what you are used to, what i can see at the moment is long time Mac users who are being faced by a UI which is radically different from Platinum and they have to relearn how to do certain things which they had under Platinum understandably they aren't happy about this.

Mac OS X i use as my primary OS i have not booted into Mac OS 9.1 since March - i have no reason to. The next reason is that i wanted to learn Aqua as well as i did Platinum, and to those of you who have problems with Aqua its not easy but once you've made the switch that is it!

Now i will acknowledge that there are problems with Aqua, responsiveness comes to mind, however Apple is working on this and i think that they have made an excellent first effort with 10.1 from what i have seen. To those of you who ask how someone can argue for the Aqua UI and concede that there are problems with it, i would ask how can you say that Platinum is not without its faults as well.(the egyptian hyroglifs spring to mind of the window widgets!)

To summarize Aqua is good for me, it is different from Platinum but you will get used to it, there are problems but then its new. Apple is not going to bring back Platinum so if you want it then you are going to have to use OS 9.1 or less. Finally to those of you who want a "less-is-more" system, why not try Linux or something since you can chose the Window managers and i can tell you some of them are very minimalist!

[madra [again!]]

Mskr
1) Dock taking up all kinds of space (Madra [again!]): Ever heard of auto-hide? It's quite useful...

er... yes i have heard of it which is probably the reason i made a specific point of mentioning it and saying why i thought autohide wasn't much use.

you ever heard of reading the other person's post before replying to it?

ntsc]
Why don't you just think of the Dock as your personal desk-tidy. Sits on your desk and holds your most useful pens and pencils ....If you don't like it there is no compunction to use it - just hide it and don't use it

fair enough, but...

1. if it's my desk tidy it shouldn't be impinging on my working area

2. hiding it and not using it isn't an option since... i can't put aliases to apps in the apple menu anymore. nor can i switch between running apps using the finder menu. nor can i see when i've got email via a flashing alert in the menubar. nor can i drag and drop documents onto a running application via the application switcher pallete [the dock's great grandad?] etc.. etc..

and again for those who didn't get it first time around...

hiding the dock doesn't work for all the reasons outlined by MacOS761. plus the fact that even with the dock hidden you effectively lose screen real estate along the bottom [or sides] of the monitor where the dock is. it's so easy to accidentally overrun with the mouse and pop-up the dock when resizing windows/moving toolbars etc. near the bottom of the screen that i end up leaving a buffer zone of a few pixels just to be sure.

this is wasted space as is the wasted space in the menubar where the dock should live in the first place... blah.. blah... etc... etc... [repeat until x=11]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by madra [again!]:
<STRONG>nor can i see when i've got email via a flashing alert in the menubar.</STRONG>

er...if you use Eudora, you can: http://www.versiontracker.com/morein...d=11317&db=mac

-c.

[thalo]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
[QB]You make some pretty good points, thalo, even if I don't always agree with you (I don't mind the pinstripes or transparency at all, for example), but you went a little "overboard" with these./QB]

Overboard is my middle name, chris. Just trying to shake things up, muster the crew... we all need to be thinking about these things; I'll tell you right now that complacency and warm fuzzy pro-OS X rhetoric is not the path to pirate glory. Like what you will, we need to discuss the stuff you don't.

Some people are calling those bugs simply "limitations" of the dialog between the Unix underpinnings and the GUI. Those are the guys we need to keel haul. Anywhere there's a roadblock between guts and interface, it needs to be addressed.

The other bugs really do need fixing. The disappearing Classic cursor bug hits me every session, and is ready to make me jump off a building. I also have this weird "repeating text" bug in Classic from time to time. Where the last character in a browser's input field, gets endlessly repeated in any Classic app with an i-beam cursor available. Sheer insanity. I'm also not crazy about the "perma-poof" bug (dock icon dragged off leaves a lingering puff of smoke until you quit and restart the dock). Another one of my favorites: the HUGE ICON bug... another dock bug where a gigantic icon pops up under the Apple menu and stays there. And finally, the "shadow bits" bug... where the drop shadows in icon labels on the desktop are improperly drawn...showing as random dark smudges on the white text. I've reported all of these to Apple about two versions ago, and they haven't fixed them yet.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>

Overboard is my middle name, chris. Just trying to shake things up, muster the crew... we all need to be thinking about these things; I'll tell you right now that complacency and warm fuzzy pro-OS X rhetoric is not the path to pirate glory. Like what you will, we need to discuss the stuff you don't.

Some people are calling those bugs simply "limitations" of the dialog between the Unix underpinnings and the GUI. Those are the guys we need to keel haul. </STRONG>

um...pardon me? I've never been keehauled, but it DOES sound a bit painful.

anywho, on your list of bugs, I've only personally encountered the disappearing cursor bug, and that IS a bug, but easy to workaround. I know others have individually encountered others on your list, but you're the first I've known to have all of them, so that perhaps explains your fervor (or the parrot on your shoulder!)

Going back a few posts to your litmus test that you thought proved that the GUI was flawed if we all adopted the next update to 10.1, I think this assumes that my wanting the next update is only related to GUI. In fact, I hope they dont tweak it too much because I happen to like it the way it is. I'm upgrading because I"m anticipating other things unrelated to GUI, more compatiblity with peripherals, data burning from the finder, increased stability and improved speed. None of those are GUI related. Besides, that litmus test is just bizarre, it's sort of like (inherently imperfect analogy to follow):

If you give person A and person B a million dollars, and person B is thrilled and happy but person A complains bitterly and constantly that it wasnt a million 500 thousand dollars instead --- and then both men are given an extra million --- it doesnt mean that person B was unhappy with the first million if he accepts the second million. (gosh I'd like it if someone did this test in real life!)

But, I predict person A would immediately start complaining it wasnt 2 million 500 thou.

[thalo]

Lerk,
I want to quote you, but I'm OS X right now, and working in this text field is making me mental, so you'll have to remember what you wrote.

I was able to workaround the disappearing cursor bug for a while, when it first started happening. Now it's very, very tenacious. And more frequent. Nothing short of quitting all open apps and restarting them works... and sometimes it disappears again right away, forcing a Classic quit.

My litmus test is proof that people like improvement, nothing more. They like improvement in performance, and they like improvement when things become easier to use, and make more sense. We may differ as to how much tweaking the interface requires, but the fact of the matter is, if even the most hardened X-champion was to see something that was MORE intuitive, they'd opt for it without feeling threatened that their precious Aqua was going to become hamstrung visually. I'll say it again, no matter how much somebody loves Aqua, they are not going to turn down improvements. I can point out things that are inherently counter-intuitive, and I guarantee you that if Apple made those things MORE intuitive, nobody would make a peep.

I mean, how many people cried when Finder toolbar buttons lost their big, Fisher Price crystal enclosures? None. Why did they lose those horsey buttons? Because people like me POUNDED Apple feedback about them. Mercilessly. Including goo-goo ga-ga baby talk letters, some serious dissing. Just like I'm pounding them now when anything strikes me as counter-intuitive or a waste, or worthless, or ugly. Instead of going "ooh, aahhh, how cool, how pretty..." I rushed for the trenches. I question everything about the interface, and I suggest all of you do too. If you are 100% satisfied, by all means, enjoy your software. If you are not, think about what you don't like and attempt to change it.

I doubt very strongly that they'll listen to me about the traffic light... but that doesn't stop me. The symbology of the resting, and mouseover states of the array are both intrinsically flawed. Sorry, but they are. The visual similes of both traffic light and calculator ('traffic light' came from the horse's mouth), NEITHER say anything about what that widget array is supposed to do--in an effective manner. It works BETTER in graphite mode, but still gives users the unfortunate experience of clicking on a plus sign to make a window smaller.

And another thing...(hahaha)...
Here's one gripe I keep forgetting to mention. How come the scrollbars in a BACKGROUND window look something like A THOUSAND times better than ones in the foreground?? Glad you asked. Because they are more unobtrusive. Simpler, cleaner. They have that nice, slick, crystal effect without the useless horizontal banding inside that wrecks their appearance. The "mini" scrollbars are nicer still. If you are in graphite mode, like me, you have to agree that those sliders might actually be OK if they turned down the color a hair, and got rid of the banding. I'm pretty sure they could find a way to give a similar sense of atmosphere (the illusion that the slider is catching light as you slide it); without disrupting the clean vertical slickness of the slider itself.

The scroll arrows? Beautiful. The tracks that the sliders run in? Need work. They are not reading as recessed trenches, but often as raised. When horizontal and vertical "tracks" intersect, as in non-active columns in column view, the illusion is destroyed. One of THE ugliest things about Aqua is the scroll separators (when sliders are not visible) especially in column view. Cheap looking. Like bad 3-D primitives.

[thalo]

Originally posted by Zadian:
<STRONG>That's exactly what happens in Mac OS 9 - on my Mac. Yes it's annoying but it happens in OS 9 and OS X.
That is something with a low priority for me, there are other things that should be addressed first (speed, drivers...)</STRONG>

Zadian,
The clock thing doesn't happen with me in 9.1. By the time my drive spins up, my clock is right. In OS X, I either have to force an update, or wait a good long time.

I figured "Services" were things that transcended the application; things that would work similarly DESPITE the application they were enacted upon. Stuff like spell-checking, auto-completers, going to man pages, grabbing, etc. Things that work the same, no matter where you are. In other words, globals. Like sleep is a global.

[Lerkfish]

well, this must be another instance of me misreading what you said, then. you originally said:
Here's the test: when 10.1 comes out, how many people are satisfied enough with OS X 10.0.4 NOT to load it? I'd say a grand total of, oh, ZERO Mac Users. How many of those would seriously OBJECT to interface improvements? Again, I don't see too many hands.

then, you said:

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>My litmus test is proof that people like improvement, nothing more. They like improvement in performance, and they like improvement when things become easier to use, and make more sense. We may differ as to how much tweaking the interface requires, but the fact of the matter is, if even the most hardened X-champion was to see something that was MORE intuitive, they'd opt for it without feeling threatened that their precious Aqua was going to become hamstrung visually.</STRONG>

I have to agree with the last thing you said, but when I read the first thing, it seemed you were trying to counteract other people's position of being happy with the GUI by saying that if they accepted an upgrade, they werent happy...which I thought was a bad argument. the second thing you said I agree with ...as far as it goes, but it still comes from the perspective that there is a great deal of fixing to be done for the GUI, which is not my perspective. Again, since you feel very put out by aqua, this is a vastly more important issue to you than it is to me. Which is fine, but in your arguments, again, you keep invoking predictions of the attitudes of other people to support your own arguments in some way...which you don't really need to do. Your arguments stand well enough on their own without things like "but the fact of the matter is, if even the most hardened X-champion was to see something that was MORE intuitive, they'd opt for it.."
I dont know if you understand my point about that, but it seems to water down your own argument if it must be bolstered by characterizing those on the other side one way or another, as either soon-to-be-convinced converts to your perceptions, or as people who cannot see the truth for one reason or another. This tends to sidetrack the discussion into defensive reactions that have little to do with your points.

Your points are fine, stand up, say them, take your money and go home. (misquoting arthur treacher here) I disagree with them, but I'd rather disagree with them because you said it, instead of arguing what groups of other people will or will not do or say or feel in the future.

[Xaholic]

To read through this thread, one almost gets the idea that thalo finds himself in an almost intolerable situation, and that virtually all graphic artists feel the same way he does. I really doubt that's the case.

Well, here's one who would welcome more speed and configuration options, but who finds things quite usable as they already are.

Just my three pesos (which ain't worth much).

[Zadian]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>
I mean, how many people cried when Finder toolbar buttons lost their big, Fisher Price crystal enclosures? None. Why did they lose those horsey buttons? Because people like me POUNDED Apple feedback about them.
</STRONG>

I guess many wrote about that and probably wrote about other things they don't like. There is a way to express an opinion without pounding and getting loud.

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>Instead of going "ooh, aahhh, how cool, how pretty..." I rushed for the trenches. </STRONG>

Starting a "war" is easy but in most cases completely useless. In most cases an opinion will be evaluated by the way it is voiced and an aggressively voiced opinion is more likely to be ignored.

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>I doubt very strongly that they'll listen to me about the traffic light...</STRONG>

I really hope they don't listen to you about that. I think the traffic lights ar a intuitive and good metaphor for the window controls. Close, minimize and optimize. And guess what, i wrote feedback to apple that i like the traffic lights :-)
What's wrong with a "-" for minimize, a "+" for optimizing the window size and a "x" for "don't do this (unless you know exactly what you are doing)"?

[Spheric Harlot]

thalo - I'm not going to quote your entire post here, but I'm talking about your list from 3:33 p.m.

I think I can honestly say that the *only* point I agree upon with you is that them Finder toolbar buttons in the Beta needed to be smaller (which they now are).

*Everything* else, from scrollbars to separators and window widgets, look absolutely stunning, work well, and are definitely *not* a problem.

If something better comes along - or they're somehow even further optimized - fine.

But I sincerely hope that these things are, if at all, at the very, *very* bottom of Apple's to-do list.

BTW, whether the scroll-bar "tray" is hollowed or prominent will change if you stare at it long enough - even real-world 3D-objects will trick the mind eventually (if you've ever seen one of those "inverted" King Tut busts). The *only* way to make this clear on a 2D surface is by shadowing, which can be ambiguous w/o a point of reference.
However, every other widget has light coming from above, at left.

I find that I very rarely have scroll-bar trays falling off the screen towards me, and this usually only after an abnormally heavy bout with controlled substances.
YMMV.

-chris.

[thalo]

Originally posted by Xaholic:
<STRONG>To read through this thread, one almost gets the idea that thalo finds himself in an almost intolerable situation, and that virtually all graphic artists feel the same way he does. </STRONG>

No, not "almost the idea" that IS the idea. That's my assertion and I stand by it. I know it's not popular. I know people would rather I pepper my posts with plenty of "in my opinions" and other polite PC catch-phrase dilutions, but I'm not going to. I strongly believe all graphic artists and designers feel the same way I do. Every single one I know does. When I physically walk into another studio and hear from someone who feels differently, I will come here with my hat in my hand and let you guys know about it. But I will have to see it with my own eyes. Call me doubting thalo. I will have to watch a professional graphic designer, one whose paycheck comes from working on a Mac, (press or web or digital artist) boot up OS X and use it and say they love it, and love Aqua.

All you guys,
I've tried to love OS X, and in particular Aqua. Lord knows I've tried. I've simulated typical work sessions, using OS X programs where available (BBEdit, Freehand, Acrobat, Virtual PC test drive), and Classic for the other major stuff, like various combinations of Quark, Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive, Dreamweaver, Flash, some 3-D apps, Office, all current browsers. And well, let's just say "crash and burn" is putting it mildly. I could get through certain small things, like an easy self-mailer or postcard (that is, if the cursor didn't disappear and I didn't have too many fonts loaded). But the SECOND I tried anything more demanding, OS X (Classic in particular) wasn't up to the task at all. Especially for things like testing a web design on multiple browsers concurrently. Something I do in 9.1 all the time. I always lost the cursor then. Overall performance degraded WELL below 9.1 standards, to the point where I could outmouse and out-type most of my apps. Photoshop or Painter "scribble test"...failed abysmally. I struggled with Aqua and the Finder at every turn. Both in terms of slowness and usability. Readability of semi-transparent menus over a page of code is no picnic. Especially when you want to read the greyed-out menu items (People need to do that from time to time, in BBEdit I do anyway) Not impossible, but certainly not what I'd call "very readable" at all. The Dock was in the way more often than not, even using auto-hide. It became very slow to appear and slow to disappear the more I taxed my system. When I needed the Finder to update big numbers of files, being moved from one directory to another, the delays were interminable. Wheeling through huge lists labeled in the much larger Lucida Grande felt like they were twice as long as are in 9.1.

And I wasn't able to do key things like copying big directories to or from a backup server over ethernet without Finder mishaps and errors. When I'd try to view site pages in IE 5.1, I'd get sudden Quits (and yes, I was sure I had quit IE 5.0 in Classic before launching 5.1). Stuff like that all adds up. One of my friends, a PC user, gently suggested that I might be projecting the poor performance of OS X onto Aqua, in effect associating the kludginess and slowness of OS X with the Aqua graphics. In effect letting Aqua BECOME my visual feedback for poor performance (now THERE'S a metaphor Apple did not intend). For example, if things are consistently going wrong, breaking, misbehaving, acting slow, and all you see from shore to shore is stripes... her argument was that you'd grow to hate stripes. It was a very sobering idea, impeccably astute; and I had to think hard for a minute. It made me wonder, is this something like "Early Adoption Syndrome"? Am I not giving Aqua a fair shake on a design level, because OS X has failed to perform? If OS X was speedy right out of the blocks, would Aqua's stripes have become magically imbued with a gestalt that said snappy and responsive? I don't think so. But I'm certainly willing to test the theory with 10.1. Supposedly then the interface will be responsive enough. After a few weeks, I'll see if my attitude changes. I live and breathe design, and I'm certainly able to say something looks great when it does, even if it is associated with terrible functionality; I'm also able to determine that an interface is poor visually, even if it sits on a rocket . I figure one of the worst, most irritating performance features of OS X is Finder Window resizing. But I don't hate the resize widget. And that's certainly where my attention is focused when I attempt to resize a window.

Meanwhile, I don't hate the stripes EVERYWHERE, I merely object to the proliferation of them, their poor use in that kind of overall, too-much way. Stripes are seductive, and so it's definitely not "more is better." If i could tattoo any phrase on an Apple UI engineer's forhead, it would be "LESS IS MORE". This interface is not Aqua, it's STRIPEqua... And in some places, they just don't work; for example behind smaller typefaces (case in point: Apple System Profiler). I think, however, that the login splash screen is handsome. Really big type looks great on the stripes. I don't mind stripes in the title bars, but I'd rather they didn't go behind the type. I don't like stripes on titlebars, menus, window headers, borders, and the dock all together. I'd rather they be used more judiciously. Or I want them tweaked, finer, less contrasty.

[ 08-08-2001: Message edited by: thalo ]

[putamare]

I am a

professional graphic designer, one whose paycheck comes from working on a Mac, (press or web or digital artist)

and can unequivocally say that I deeply respect and admire X, share many of the same goals and interests, and look forward to spending a substantial amount of my time with X. But, since I'm looking for more of a casual relationship with an OS (call it fear of commitment if you must), love is just too strong a word. Why I can't even promise I won't see 9 or 2K from time to time, I guess I'm just that sort of dog.

We recently changed ISP's and have been having some trouble getting our new provider to activate our email accounts in a timely manner (it has been over 15 days). Last weekend I managed to set X (that is 10.0.4) up on a Beige G3 Pizzabox w/ 700 some odd megs (being a graphic design studio we never dreamed of trying to run any 9.0 machine on less than 500MB, I mean even at '99 prices RAM was cheaper than paying for someone to watch photoshop dialog boxes). Over the course of one weekend I set up apache, ssh, a vnc server, sendmail and a couple of other goodies, yanked off the monitor & keyboard and hid the thing in the closet (closet X user?). I've been using X in a dual-boot manner on my production machine since the 1st Saturday, and was generally pleased, but frustrated by the obvious and oft-stated limitations (though it worked with all my hardware). But having the ability to control our own in-house web & mail server makes me very, very happy. If we would've been left to the devices of our ISP, we wouldn't have been able to get some very important files to a client and might have lost future business and as a

professional graphic designer, one whose paycheck comes from working on a Mac, (press or web or digital artist)

that's as close to love as I'm going to get with an OS. I can control this machine w/ a graphic interface from 9, X, or win2K via VNC, so this is slightly relevant to an aqua discussion, the specific point being you can set the desktop to grey, the dock to hide and the icons to be tiny.

My interest/excitement/love comes from OS X's capabilities as a system for web (and multiplatform) design (our print-oriented machines will stay w/ 9 for a while). If an operating system gives me more power and more capabilities, I don't care if it is designed by Sanrio, I'm going to use it. Honestly, in an office of pretty catty graphic designers that have all spent some time w/ X, no one has actually mentioned the way aqua looks. I have a repulsive flowery mug, but that doesn't have any impact on how much I enjoy my coffee.

I've actually managed to find the ability to set terminal windows to semi-transparent quite useful. I can read instructions in a web browser and apply them in the terminal window above them. Sometimes you have to move things about for legibility, but it really works quite well. It is the new features and new ways of looking at things that impress me about X.

[Oneota]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG> You see, my friends, pirates are the key.
�</STRONG>

I'd rather be a pirate than join the Navy.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

[Militant Grammarian]

Thalo, To you're credit, this has turned into a pretty interesting thread despite the sheer ridiculous of the initial post. I agree that constructive criticism is important, and I'm delighted by the good ideas that are being thrown out. However, I have to agree with one of the previous posters that most of your complaints are not design flaws but immaturity in the system. I for one, as a software developer, am impressed at the speed Apple is moving on OS X. I don't think a lot of you appreciate what a monumental task OS development is, and that's partially why a lot of us are in the "well, OS X isn't that bad" mode even though we all know there is a lot of room for improvement.

I doubt very strongly that they'll listen to me about the traffic light... but that doesn't stop me. The symbology of the resting, and mouseover states of the array are both intrinsically flawed. Sorry, but they are. The visual similes of both traffic light and calculator ('traffic light' came from the horse's mouth), NEITHER say anything about what that widget array is supposed to do--in an effective manner. It works BETTER in graphite mode, but still gives users the unfortunate experience of clicking on a plus sign to make a window smaller.

I'm bemused by your fixation with the traffic light . Granted the traffic light metaphor isn't perfect. However, I find it just as intuitive as the OS 9 window controls and if one doesn't find it intuitive it only takes about 30 seconds to burn the functionality into your brain.

Also, I've never heard anyone else refer to the "calculator" metaphor, so I never really considered the icons as mathematical operators. I would like to point out though, in regards to your complaint about the "addition operator", that you can add a negative number to a value and the result will be a smaller value.

I've tried to love OS X, and in particular Aqua. Lord knows I've tried. I've simulated typical work sessions, using OS X programs where available (BBEdit, Freehand, Acrobat, Virtual PC test drive), and Classic for the other major stuff, like various combinations of Quark, Photoshop, Illustrator, GoLive, Dreamweaver, Flash, some 3-D apps, Office, all current browsers. And well, let's just say "crash and burn" is putting it mildly.

This is valid. I'll definitely admit that OS X falls far short on many common tasks. This is due both to bugs in the system and lack of application support. However, I'd like to point out some of the things I've been doing tonight that are impossible on OS9:
[*]Build dynamic web application with WebObjects[*]Use Java 1.3 VM[*]tar, ssh, ftp from command line[*]nslookup, traceroute, etc.


Yes, OS X still falls short in a lot of areas. I think time will fix most of these. But OS X has amazing power and flexibility in just as many areas. So keep screaming about stuff that bothers you, but also realize that OS X defenders are more than Apple zealots.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Militant Grammarian ]

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Militant Grammarian ]

[GaelDesign]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>

--snip--

Here's the test: when 10.1 comes out, how many people are satisfied enough with OS X 10.0.4 NOT to load it? I'd say a grand total of, oh, ZERO Mac Users. How many of those would seriously OBJECT to interface improvements? Again, I don't see too many hands.</STRONG>

And your point is? I don't think anyone would object to interface improvements, but if your idea of interface improvements equals whatever YOU happen to want in the next version of OS X, you're even more amazingly arrogant than I thought.

If all OS X users upgrade to 10.1 when it comes out, that doesn't prove your point one bit. The only reason I'd upgrade to 10.1 is for enhanced speed, more complete APIs, and a DVD player. No other reason whatsoever. I'm perfectly happy with 10.0.4 right now (except for the issues I just mentioned, but to me they're pretty minor).

Don't you have anything better to do than complain all the time? Like, go get some work done, or play a game, or read a book, or take a walk in the woods, or something?

Regards,

Jared

P. S. My name isn't GaelDesign, BTW. It's Jared.

[thalo]

but if your idea of interface improvements equals whatever YOU happen to want in the next version of OS X, you're even more amazingly arrogant than I thought.

Yes, as a matter of fact, my idea of interface improvements equals EXACTLY what I happen to want in the next version of OS X.

Name me one person whose ideas of interface improvements DO NOT equal what they happen to want.

Apple: "Jared, what would you like for interface improvements?"
Jared: "I want a bunny rabbit dockling that hops up and down. That's my idea of an interface improvement, and I want it."
Apple: "OK. Done. You want it, you got it. A Bunny Rabbit Dockling coming right up in the next version."
Jared: "No. Don't."

Jared, please, you're embarrasing yourself. You really need some more troll practice before you can play with the adults.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: thalo ]

[thalo]

I would like to point out though, in regards to your complaint about the "addition operator", that you can add a negative number to a value and the result will be a smaller value.

Oh, now I get it. So we're not so much shrinking a window, as we're adding negative windowness.

I've had some good laughs in this thread, but this one takes the cake.

[thalo]

I have a repulsive flowery mug, but that doesn't have any impact on how much I enjoy my coffee.

What if you had a repulsive flowery mug with the handle on the bottom?

[Evan Animosity]

Speaking of mugs, which you guys are, kinda, my better half collected my favorite, ripening, Apple mug from my desk and gave it a good soak in bleach.... neglecting to rinse it out all that well. And I.... Being equally lazy and nonchallant about my overall well being went ahead and drank my coffee tonight despite the taint and flavour of bleach.

And It reminded me very much of my experiences with OS X....

For my betterment and well being it seems the ex-NeXT programmers have taken most of the things I used to love about the Mac UI and scrubbed them down and changed them in seemingly random and unnecessary ways. It's left a bad taste in my mouth and perhaps killed a few brain cells.... Oh well.

I'll stop meandering now!
Ev

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>

No, not "almost the idea" that IS the idea. That's my assertion and I stand by it. I know it's not popular. I know people would rather I pepper my posts with plenty of "in my opinions" and other polite PC catch-phrase dilutions, but I'm not going to. I strongly believe all graphic artists and designers feel the same way I do. ... I will have to watch a professional graphic designer, one whose paycheck comes from working on a Mac, (press or web or digital artist) boot up OS X and use it and say they love it, and love Aqua.</STRONG>

um, again, thalo, I must object. For one thing, I AM a professional graphic designer with a slew (read: over 50) of international awards to my credit, including a contribution to a pulitzer-prize winning series,
I most DEFINITELY make my living from working on a mac, both my day job at a newspaper and my freelance work at home. I dont care how "strongly you believe" that I feel the same way you do, the fact is I don't. I have both booted up OSX, and have created deadline graphics , even complicated ones on my home system with Freehand, in addition to updating and revamping websites with over 400 individual pages, all on OSX/classic and without problems, and I like(love is a bit strong) and I like Aqua.

again, please get this through your obviously thick skull, do NOT pretend to speak for me or any other professional graphic artist when making your arguments. You dilute your point and make it ridiculous when you do. In short, you undermine your own credibility. And the shame is, you have some valid points mixed in there, but you make them impossible to see for all the dross you have to wade through to get to them.

Is this a difficult concept? apparently. You do not represent an entire industry, and stop trying to. For that matter, exactly what kind of graphic artist are you, anyways? Yes, it IS relevant. If you are pretending to speak for an entire industry, it behooves you to tell us exactly what you do.

sheesh!

[putamare]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>

What if you had a repulsive flowery mug with the handle on the bottom?</STRONG>

I don't buy my coffee mugs from Redmond.

[davebagel]

what if there was an option to put the dock up in the menu bar vis-a-vis TaskMenuBar (http://home.netcom.com/~kawahara/taskmenubar.html). the icons would be _much_ smaller, but it'd always be there when you need it, it just wouldn't be in your way so much. not as much room for feedback through the icons from applications (like the battery meter or the clock face) but it'd sure save a lot of screen real estate (again, while staying out of the way) and i just like things in the menu bar. just a thought.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: davebagel ]

[Mediaman_12]

Originally posted by davebagel:
<STRONG>what if there was an option to put the dock up in the menu bar vis-a-vis TaskMenuBar (http://home.netcom.com/~kawahara/taskmenubar.html). the icons would be _much_ smaller, but it'd always be there when you need it, it just wouldn't be in your way so much. not as much room for feedback through the icons from applications (like the battery meter or the clock face) but it'd sure save a lot of screen real estate (again, while staying out of the way) and i just like things in the menu bar. just at thought.</STRONG>

Ahh but that is a terrible idea, to take something that has a few flaws and turn it into something that is just plain wrong. What if you put many things in your menubar/dock thing then open an app that has a lot of menu items, one will have to overlap another.

[thalo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>again, please get this through your obviously thick skull, do NOT pretend to speak for me or any other professional graphic artist when making your arguments. You dilute your point and make it ridiculous when you do. In short, you undermine your own credibility.

...You do not represent an entire industry, and stop trying to. For that matter, exactly what kind of graphic artist are you, anyways? Yes, it IS relevant. If you are pretending to speak for an entire industry, it behooves you to tell us exactly what you do.</STRONG>

Lerk, you are going to have to get it through YOUR thick skull that I believe I DO represent an entire industry. And I WON'T stop trying.

You are not going to change my mind about that. Just like athletes can talk about athletes, and astronauts can talk about astronauts, I am well within my bounds to discuss these issues from the perspective of MGPs (Mac Graphic Professionals). If that undermines my cred in your eyes, so be it. I'll get over it. Go ahead and work yourself up into a froth, but I suggest you really try to think about what it is that you're truly upset about. I know what I'm upset about: Aqua and OS X. You seem to want to talk more about how exasperating it is for you when people presume to speak on your behalf, than you do about, for example, refuting my assertions that Aqua is counter-intuitive. Maybe you'd be better off in some psych forum specializing in identity crises.

You've stood up to be counted, you disagree with me about OS X and Aqua. Good for you. Again, I'll get over it. Do you need me to sign an affadavit that I don't represent you? No. You've made it abundantly clear I don't speak for you all by yourself. I trust that people can make up their OWN minds about large concepts like "The Total Number of Graphic Design Pro Users on Planet Earth that Thalo Represents" It doesn't bother me personally, if that value is 10 or 10 million... the message is the same. And I'm not going to water it down for you, or anyone. I'm perfectly comfortable with the consequences of my rhetoric, because I believe what I'm saying is 100% true. It's not about credibility, it's about conviction. And bruising one or two egos like yours along the way really doesn't make the slightest difference to me.

Yeah, Lerk, I've heard your litanies and resume before. And I'm pretty sure I've already told you in another board that I run a hardworking, non award winning, roll-up-your-sleeves design company. Press and web. Mine is a view from the trenches. I think all you really need to know is that I'm a veteran creative professional, mac-based. With enough academic training, mac experience, and years in business to know what I am talking about when I say that the OS X interface is counter-intuitive, and is wholly inadequate and inappropriate for the needs of pro users.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: thalo ]

[Lerkfish]

Now you misread ME. my objection is NOT that you state your opinion from your own perspective as a graphic artist, I in fact prefer that.
my objection is rhetoric like:
"I strongly believe all graphic artists and designers feel the same way I do"
is quite frankly, unprovable and ridiculous. In fact, you are the only artist I know of that objects to aqua this strongly.

Now, you're backpedaling from that by saying:

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>I trust that people can make up their OWN minds about large concepts like "The Total Number of Graphic Design Pro Users on Planet Earth that Thalo Represents" It doesn't bother me personally, if that value is 10 or 10 million... the message is the same. And I'm not going to water it down for you, or anyone. I'm perfectly comfortable with the consequences of my rhetoric, because I believe what I'm saying is 100% true. It's not about credibility, it's about conviction. And bruising one or two egos like yours along the way really doesn't make the slightest difference to me.</STRONG>

my ego isnt involved to any degree, that I'm aware of. You just say you represent ALL graphic artists, and continue to spout that inaccuracy. I even complimented some of your valid points...something I guess you missed. I'm just saying this empty meaningless rhetoric dilutes your own message. But believe, I'll stop trying to help you out here...go right ahead.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: Lerkfish ]

[lookmark]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>

Lerk, you are going to have to get it through YOUR thick skull that I believe I DO represent an entire industry. And I WON'T stop trying.

You are not going to change my mind about that. Just like athletes can talk about athletes, and astronauts can talk about astronauts...

[snip]

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: thalo ]</STRONG>

No, when an athlete claims to represent all athletes, or an astronaut claims to represent all astronauts, or, as in your case, a graphic designer claims to represent all designers, it's called egomania.

Even icons of the field, who often are asked to do just that, will often hesitate before doing so.

Make your arguments on the strength of your ideas, not by placing a crown on your head and declaring yourself king.

look!mark

[thalo]

Originally posted by putamare:
<STRONG>I don't buy my coffee mugs from Redmond.</STRONG>

hahaha!

It's all about function. Intuitiveness. Things like the transparency effects in Aqua bother me because they make no sense. I can't even picture the discussion where some GUI designer at Apple said: "OK, let's make things that are supposed to command our attention....SEE-THROUGH!" It boggles the mind. Why not make traffic signs semi-transparent?

I really don't think there is a danger of my forgetting what's behind a menu or alert. Aqua doesn't have to be like a department store window. God forbid somebody at Apple goes to work for Macy's, I can see it now, the first modern department store with opaque windows.

And it kills me that with all the powerful opportunites to really USE transparency for the benefit, the increased intuitiveness of the interface, they opt not to use the effect where it really might do some good. Imagine background application windows ghosted out, really making the active window pop. Imagine windows that become semi-transparent while you are dragging them: not only shows that they are in the middle of an operation, but to assist in their positioning. Some graphics applications use this idea, when you drag something to position it, it becomes translucent. In short, find the times people NEED to see behind other things, and use your special effects accordingly.

The answer to this question: "why are menus semi-transparent?" is none other than "because we can". Not good enough. Sorry.

Even though I'm pretty hard on eye-candy, it's not all bad. Dock Poofs, for instance, are COMMUNICATING something. De-docking an icon is a clear, understandable activity because it's assisted by that simple animation. Can you imagine using some stuff like that in the Finder? I can. Especially considering how awful, unresponsive, and slow to update the OS X Finder is. In short, I want everything to make sense. Not just a few select things. If there is an opportunity to make something clearer, better, I don't want them to miss it.

Aqua is like putting a Mac User in a (striped) room in the Pentagon, in front of a console, blaring iTunes from somewhere, and with a big single button in the middle of it. On the button is a graphic of a flower. Oooh, what a pretty flower.

I say, if you guys are not willing to make the button solid red... at least put a freakin' MUSHROOM on it instead of a flower.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: thalo ]

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: thalo ]

[thalo]

Originally posted by lookmark:
<STRONG>Make your arguments on the strength of your ideas, not by placing a crown on your head and declaring yourself king.</STRONG>

Hey, I'm not placing a crown on my head and declaring myself king. I'm not the one giving my c.v. here and displaying my awards. I'm saying I'm joe schmoe everyman. I'm the buck private slogging it out in the field and telling you what it's like to be in the infantry.

[thalo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>But believe, I'll stop trying to help you out here...go right ahead.</STRONG>

Thank You. I appreciate that. I don't need your help.

That wasn't a backpedal. I still strongly believe ALL graphic designers feel the way I do. I plead guilty. If I'm hearing you right, your issue is my use of the word "ALL". Do me a favor, then. Whenever you see that word, substitute whatever word or phrase that makes you feel better. I have no problem with that rhetoric. It's a very clear question of intuitiveness versus counter-intuitiveness; and I assert that all graphic designers require an intuitive interface, and moreover I maintain that Aqua is not. Like I said, I'll let you all know when and if I meet my first real OS X-based designer who gives its GUI glowing reviews.

Despite your objections that I'm putting words in your mouth, which have no bearing on my views... it has not budged me one iota. I'm not stopping you from speaking with your own words, or expressing your own unpopular opinions. In fact I welcome it. If you want to say "all kittens are fuzzy", and I have a kitten that is not, it's not going to make ME crazy. I don't sit around obsessing about the ramifications of inclusive language or generalities. I can read past that stuff.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: thalo ]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>
If I'm hearing you right, your issue is my use of the word "ALL". Do me a favor, then. Whenever you see that word, substitute whatever word or phrase that makes you feel better.</STRONG>

Okeydoke. Are there any other words you use I should ignore completely or replace as I'm reading? how about all of them?

[thalo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
<STRONG>

Okeydoke. Are there any other words you use I should ignore completely or replace as I'm reading? how about all of them?</STRONG>

The beauty of this place, Lerk, is that it's entirely up to you.

[thalo]

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
<STRONG>

Ahh but that is a terrible idea, to take something that has a few flaws and turn it into something that is just plain wrong. What if you put many things in your menubar/dock thing then open an app that has a lot of menu items, one will have to overlap another.</STRONG>

I dunno, I kinda like the idea of a menubar dock. On a Cinema Display, anyway, I see a good 10" + of wasted menubar space. It would have to be some honkin' application to eat up all that... most don't because they have to work on smaller monitors. And besides, even now the dock can resize itself... Finder toolbars give you a "&gt;&gt;" when the number of toolbar buttons exceeds the East-West viewable of your Finder window. I'm sure something similar could be done. Some kind of click-and-hold feature to show an expanded view. It would definitely have to be a pro-user/big monitor option. On a 15" display it wouldn't make much sense. Another factor is Lucida Grande. If System fonts were customizable, you could scare up even more room in the menubar. Look at the difference between Charcoal in OS 9 and Lucida Grande in X... A smaller typeface means more menubar to play with.

[putamare]

Things like the transparency effects in Aqua bother me because they make no sense.

I believe this is more of a "proof-of-concept" sort of thing (much like the OS as a whole), one team makes something "cool" and someone else figures out a useful application. Most complex systems have worked this way throughout history, it is hard to find people (or teams) that can view things both conceptually and practically. So, don't let it kill you, "because we can" is indeed good enough for now, better things won't come if we don't start with something.

What if you had a repulsive flowery mug with the handle on the bottom? Redux.

My "perception" of the problem is that you're complaining that the handle is on the left instead of the right & I'm suggesting a "paradigm shift" might be more productive than that skanky old cracked mug you're currently using (though a reduced caffeine intake might be just the ticket).

MGPs

Boy have I got a few disconnected thoughts on that one. Primarily is that be you a MGP, designer, graphics professional or whatever what you do is use a mac to make money. Does OSX help you make money? Without Photoshop & Printer drivers that's awful hard. Do stripes or big text in menu-bars and "good 10" + of wasted menubar" space stop you from making money? If they do I'll have no problem taking over you client list for you until apple sets up aqua just the way you like it.
I (and my partner) as well "run a hardworking, non-award-winning, roll-up-your-sleeves design company, press and web with view from the trenches," and from that experience have a very positive outlook on X (except for that whole no PhotoShop & no print thing, am I harping?). Why? Because it benefits my business. It gives me capabilities to do things I could never do w/ 9. I've been using both mac & pc (same desk, shared monitor & keyboard, kvm switch) for about two years now. Over the last year I've been spending more and more time on the pc & I expected that trend to keep going, but X (for our office) will effectively counter that. Also, imagine yourself pitching a job to a client, now you can say we can do this job for such-and-such a price, but you'll also have to shell out this for these M$ products. I then come along & say hey, sure we cost a little more, be we'll get you up & running with OpenSource software with an easy-to-use interface. Who do you think is going to get the job?
Furthermore, as a mgd/mgp/whatever can you seriously tell me that when confronted with a particularly tasteless, shortsighted and juvenile client you haven't made just about everything blue & big? Hell man, works for us like money in the bank. Apple has survived for years pandering to our own little niche market, but the future lies with the imac buyers on top, powerful *nix underneath.
Christ, what a long winded post in a long winded forum.
Honestly, I don't have any problems with the way the user interface looks. Is it the way I'd make it look? No, but I can make windows that show plenty of detail of the thing I'm working on to do whatever it is I need to do while still getting a good view of the overall picture. I can navigate the directories quickly (except for the sluggishness of the finder, I'm just talking about usability here) and launch applications with ease. I didn't think much of the dock either until I found myself mousing for it in 9 (I find it is much more common for my non-conscious self to try X things in 9 than 9 things in X, buy the way), I still don't think much of it but my behavior seems to imply otherwise. Are you really listening to yours?

[thalo]

---I'd have quoted you, puta... but again, OS X makes it impossible to edit here--

Does OS X help me make money? Uh, not without Classic it doesn't. Not without performance it doesn't. Great transitional period, huh? Just like Apple promised...continue working in OS 9.1, but get all the benefits of X! Then in July (oops) all those Apps will come flooding in, with a few stragglers following in the Fall. Did THAT turn out to be the biggest crock. But this is an interface discussion.

The devil is in the details, man. I'll make money no matter what. But given the choice to work with a good product or an inferior product, to have maximum productivity, or to fight an interface, try and guess which one I'll pick? And since, to be honest, we are really all in a massive BETA effort, you better be sure that I'm making my needs known to Apple. All of you should be.

you know puta, actually, I hear most of what you are saying. And I don't disagree at all with your assessment of Apple's role or strategy in this, and who they are targeting with OS X. I am not arguing about the validity of a Unix based interface, or the sanity of OpenSource deployment. In fact, the very reason I am such a hardcore early adopter and have installed X on every computer in my studio, was precisely because of all the promise and potential you are alluding to. Nor am I such an art-snob that I refuse on principle to make things big and blue for an audience that ASKS for things big and blue. Money talks, you are right.

I am instead concerned with our role in making the MacOS interface MORE intuitive, MORE attractive, MORE functional, and easier to use. I am frankly astonished at the resistance to this. If there's a bug in Quark, you pick up the phone. If Photoshop's text-handling features are counter-intuitive, you complain and they change it. It's the way of the world. Suddenly Aqua is untouchable? Good Lord, you'd think I was criticizing the baby Jesus.

I am not afraid to grab Aqua by its striped lapels, gaze straight into its gaping crystalline pie-hole, and give it a long, cold look with a critical eye toward function and usability. There is no good reason why the interface can't be superb. Not fair. Not adequate. But superior. And when it comes to more subjective issues like Big vs. Smaller, or Bright vs. Blander... again, there is no good reason we can't have it both ways. If you want to attract digikids, AND you want to keep pro users, it seems only logical to me that you'd expend some time and energy figuring out the differing needs of the two user groups. Look at OS 9... you had the infamous "Launcher"... big, barn-door buttons. You had "simple finder"... both of these features designed to be attractive to newbies. BUT YOU COULD TURN THEM OFF.

Aqua has what I feel is the bare minimum in the way of customization options. Thank God I can use "graphite"...thank god I can hide Finder Toolbars... but sweet merciful crap, don't stop there. OS X doesn't even provide us with many of the key customization options that we had in the previous OS, and I for one see that as a step backwards. Seems to me that much of what I'm disappointed with visually could have been cured with an "Appearance" pane and a few tabs like "themes" "fonts" "options" and so forth. Seems to me that some of the widgets could have been MUCH better designed, but I made my point with that. I know they have it in them, look at that magnificent View widget. Seems to me, that they went overboard with the stripes. And overboard is putting it very mildly. If changing a few pixels of graphics makes it better...I say go for it. Seriously, we all know it's not that hard. I'm not asking for Platinum. I'm asking that some of the interface lessons LEARNED in Platinum not be abandoned. I say exceed Platinum. What have we got to lose? Are you worried about hurting Apple's FEELINGS by saying "hey, what's up with --insert the GUI feature of your choice--?"

As far as I'm concerned, they can take it. And not settling for a poor interface is, in the long run, going to benefit the Corporation, and all end users. And furthermore, there is nothing "either-or" about interface improvements. It doesn't necessarily have to be "Aqua Pro" OR "Aqua" or else. While there is a real and pressing need for "Aqua Pro" or pro-customization options, that doesn't mean that there doesn't also have to be newbie options as well. I say we already have a softer, friendlier, cuter GUI for the masses. I think it needs lots of work, but I'm looking at it from the pro user perspective. NOW I want something more geared toward power users. Apple has proven it can satisfy generation rip-mix-burn. Now it has to throw the pro users who never left the platform, a bone.

Go into an Apple retail store. See how it's divided into sections? There's kids, home, and PRO. Apple itself makes the distinction. I want them to reflect that distinction in the operating system and the interface. I don't want big, splashy, bright, and goofy. I want lean, mean, slick, compact, and no nonsense. I believe the two can live side-by-side. I believe they will have to. Yes, I could drive one of those new silly looking skateboard-scooter things to work. I'd eventually get where I was going. But I'm not a teenager, and as far as I'm concerned I'd get there faster and better in my car. People could tell me "get with the program, those scooters are cool! They are new! They are the latest thing! They're shiny! We like them! It really doesn't matter how you get to work, as long as you get there!" No thanks. Tell you what, I'll race you. My V-8 against your Skechers.

And yes, unfortunately when push comes to shove--and it will--eventually it's OS X for me no matter what shape Aqua is in. Because I find Aqua ridiculous and difficult, doesn't mean I won't be forced to use it. Putting a professional user in the awkward position of having to drive a dumbed down interface. I'll manage, believe me. I can always use the command line if I have to. But I'd RATHER have a better graphical interface. Which is exactly why I refuse to throw my hands in the air and just put up with Aqua's flaws.

You know what? I don't have to drink coffee out of a godawful mug with a handle on the bottom and stupid flowers on it. If I want, I can smash the mug to smithereens against a brick wall and help the Acme coffee-mug company come up with a better design. I can make a difference. I can help create a mug that I'd be PROUD to drink out of every day, one that feels good in my hand, keeps the Joe hot...something everyone will eventually agree is simply a better goddamn coffee mug. And in the process, I can piss off all the naysayers who whine that it can't or shouldn't be done. Life is sweet.

Apple will make just as much money off of everyone whether I petition for excellence or not. The difference is, YOU can still have a say in how this beast Aqua turns out. And I implore you all to take an active role. ESPECIALLY if you've got gripes. Praise makes Apple complacent. Gripes force them to work. Bookmark feedback and EVERY TIME you run into a glitch, or something that seems stupid or weak, let Apple hear from you.

[ 08-09-2001: Message edited by: thalo ]

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by thalo:
<STRONG>

Thank You. I appreciate that. I don't need your help.

That wasn't a backpedal. I still strongly believe ALL graphic designers feel the way I do. I plead guilty.</STRONG>

You've heard it from one who's obviously quite capable and knowledgable in the field. There've been one or two others that have raised their hand in objection on these fora when people like you claimed that "all designers hate Aqua."

Lerk, you are going to have to get it through YOUR thick skull that I believe I DO represent an entire industry. And I WON'T stop trying.

You are not going to change my mind about that. Just like athletes can talk about athletes, and astronauts can talk about astronauts, I am well within mybounds to discuss these issues from the perspective of MGPs (Mac Graphic Professionals)

Well, let me tell you - speaking for an entire industry here - that all musicians HATE Trance music. Oh wait - some of us actually *make* Trance music...hmmm...
...well, never mind; as a musician, I'm surely more than qualified to talk for the industry here, so you're not going to change my mind: All musicians hate Trance music.


I get the feeling that so few graphics professionals are objecting to your inclusion of their opinion with your own because most of them are actually busy working - and likely a number of them at least part-time in OS X, as it pays to familiarize yourself with the future, even if it may not be quite ready for what *you* want to do with it.


Doing a little bit of layout for the college paper, or having designed your girlfriend's website does not qualify as "working in the graphics industry." It would certainly be interesting to hear what important work you're doing to assume that that you're in any way representative of an entire industry.

-chris.

[xi_hyperon]

Thalo, how the hell do you find the time and energy to write the shear volume of statements you've posted on this board? You've beaten your points into the ground a long time ago.

You're message, as long and convoluted as it is, could be summed up in one or two sentences. You are displeased with Mac OS X from a usability standpoint. And you alone, as leader of the graphic design masses, can show Apple the way.

Why don't you move to a shack in the woods, compile your posts into a manifesto and ship it off to Apple in one tidy package?

You make some very valid observations about X, but at some point you take on the characteristics of a caricature, and this thread becomes entertainment. I'm sorry, I don't mean to slam you, but it's true that those who speak the loudest are sometimes the ones who become least heard.

[madra [again!]]

as a pixel monkey [read MGP or whatever] i'm broadly in agreement with the thrust of thalo's arguments. tho' he does let himself down a bit with the ego tripping ocassionally.

i've posted up there about my views on aqua so i won't rehash. just a quicky....

PINSTRIPES: the thing i find quite alarming about the aqua look is the way that it is starting to become a design style in it's own right. you've only got to look at the way the pinstripe &/or aqua look is permeating its way through the hundreds of mac related websites out there to see what i mean... apple, macnn, poweron, ambrosia etc... etc... [hell. i've been guilty of it myself. i've used a couple of aqua-esque buttons on my own site [tho' it's not mac related].

seems to me we're in danger of starting to think in tramlines here. "this site is mac related... i want it to look modern and cutting edge... therefore i'll give it the aqua look..." hopefully this is just a novelty which will wear off soon and as designers we'll start to look beyond the interface in front of us once more, when seeking inspiration. otherwise we can look forward to a very totalitarian looking future....

here i sit working at my aqua styled box.... looking at my aqua styled GUI... browsing an aqua styled website... for aqua styled applications... which i can use to create aqua styled graphics.... for my aqua styled artwork....

is this a sign that the interface is too overbearing, or like i say is it just the 'shock of the new' and a passing fad?

[answers on an aqua style postcard]

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by madra [again!]:
<STRONG> seems to me we're in danger of starting to think in tramlines here. "this site is mac related... i want it to look modern and cutting edge... therefore i'll give it the aqua look..." hopefully this is just a novelty which will wear off soon and as designers we'll start to look beyond the interface in front of us once more, when seeking inspiration. otherwise we can look forward to a very totalitarian looking future....</STRONG>

yes, this is a refreshing and very valid point...and a concern. While I have no problem with aqua for the OS, if EVERYTHING looks aqua, that could be overkill over a long period of time. For one thing, I like to be able to tell by style what program I'm in. Last night, for example, I downloaded Netscape 6.x and installed it and played around with the themes. I tried the mozilla aqua theme you can download, but in the end preferred the "modern" theme that is included.

So, a very good point there. I have to say that there should be some balance between consistency throughout all applications, but some diversity between them. just IMHO.

[xi_hyperon]

Originally posted by madra [again!]:
<STRONG>is this a sign that the interface is too overbearing, or like i say is it just the 'shock of the new' and a passing fad?
</STRONG>

Many people are guilty of the pinstripe/aqua overuse, including myself... look at my sig (I hate it and I haven't even had it that long). Anyway, I think we're looking at a fad, sort of like rainbow colors became a fad after the iMac. It'll pass, and Apple will have to re-think the look-- otherwise X could begin to look a bit dated.