[Terri]

This item was originally on Macfixit,
In what can only be described as very good news for the future of Mac OS X user interface development, Dr. Guy (Bud) Tribble, one of the original members of the Macintosh team, is returning to Apple. Dr. Tribble will report directly to Avie Tevanian and hold the title vice president of Software Technology. Most recently with Eazel, where he worked on the Linux-based Nautilus UI with other former Mac pioneers Susan Kare, Andy Hertzfeld, and Mike Boich, Dr. Tribble was previously a chief technology officer for Sun Microsystems and one of the original designers of Next's UI. According to Apple's press release, "Tribble will be responsible for helping define the software engineering group's technical direction."


As someone who is less then happy with the current Max X interface I see this as a very good sign.

[starfleetX]

I liked Susan Kare's old skool icons.

[starfleetX]

[+ spiral +]

Originally posted by Terri:
<STRONG>Dr. Guy (Bud) Tribble, one of the original members of the Macintosh team, is returning to Apple. </STRONG>

Thank god. He has alot of bad interface to fix.

[Terri]

Originally posted by + spiral +:
<STRONG>Thank god. He has alot of bad interface to fix.</STRONG>

Hopefully this will start the deSteveing of the Mac X's interface

[ls -al]

Hey, terri maybe he'll even give you labels. Then again maybe not ;-)

[Terri]

Originally posted by ls -al:
<STRONG>Hey, terri maybe he'll even give you labels. Then again maybe not ;-)</STRONG>

Really, do you think Maybe if I rub my Steve doll's head

[ink]

Originally posted by Terri:
<STRONG>This item was originally on Macfixit,
In what can only be described as very good news for the future of Mac OS X user interface development, Dr. Guy (Bud) Tribble</STRONG>

Now if only Guy Kawasaki would come back to Macworld.

[ink]

Originally posted by Terri:
<STRONG>
Hopefully this will start the deSteveing of the Mac X's interface</STRONG>

Ummm, have you seen Eazel Nautilus?

They can make the Finder slower, you know....

[OverclockedHomoSapien]

I like OS X's interface. It's better than OS 9's once you get used to it, IMNSHO.

It's not refined, but that will come with time.

[Liquidity X]

I Love aqua to...

[BTP]

For those that recall Wired a few years back:


You might also recall that there was a brain drain, negative press and the word Apple was seemingly always preceeeded by the word "beleagured". There was no good news and the future was in doubt.

Now today, we have through SJ (IMHO), a much stronger Apple and one of the last signs of that is the return of previous talent. There are and have been a lot of talented people at Apple and it is nice to see more joining the ranks. For those that missed it, there is another hire for Apple in the UK, where they lured a Sony exec away. Not a tech geek, but a nice hire.

I enjoy the OS X interface more than OS 9, but I'd love to see more interface refinements. [Obvious] The Classic Mac OS had almost 2 decades to get where it is.[Obvious]

[lookmark]

Originally posted by Terri:
<STRONG>

Hopefully this will start the deSteveing of the Mac X's interface</STRONG>

As someone who has their feet in both camps -- I'm a designer who, while appreciating and for the most part liking what Apple is doing in the OS X UI, still spends most of his time in OS 9 until the major design apps are carbonized and a few issues are sorted out -- I'm curious what your problems are with X, and why interface feels "Steved" to you.

Besides the lack of labels.

I've seen the contention around a lot -- along with the Applites vs. NeXties "civil war" argument -- that the OS X UI has been crafted deliberately to serve the nefarious Steve's pleasure, and his alone.

It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. It seems to me that Ken Bereskin and the Mac OS X UE Team are taking great pains to design a UI that's gorgeous and very easy for novices, Windows users, and various other first-time Mac users to use. They've still some work to do for the power users and professionals, but there's a lot there, and it's coming along.

I completely agree with certain complaints about OS X's responsiveness (on G3 systems esp.) and the UI's responsiveness at times, but many of the anti-X arguments (awfulness of the Dock, less spatial Finder, interface elements too big, and so on) don't hold much water to me. In almost every case there's a trade-off, often (once you use it for a few moments) designed to make things easier and faster, and up-to-date.

Anyway. Genuinely curious what your issues are, and if you can please quote from your experience, and not list from a Togian manifesto.

Thanks.

[edit: minor tweaks]

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: lookmark ]

[BTP]

There are a lot of people that have a strong opinion on the Mac OS X interface, and I seem to notice a lot of people that know what's "wrong" with it.

If that comment about the interface being "Steved" means it shares likenesses with NeXT or that it is too great a change from the Classic OS, then my response is that it is a classic problem. Balance, where does it lie? If you innovate and change too much too rapidly, or too little and slowly, you are going have a lot of unhappy people. You will have unhappy people no matter what you do, so I think the best thing is to have someone stand up and make a decision and stand by it. I am quite happy with the current state of the UI and I can get a lot done and move around my system quickly and efficiently, but maybe I am one of a kind.

I have become so used to OS X that I have sharply moved away from Classic. Soon, I hope to close the book on it, as I have done with many previous versions.

[VRL]

Sure, the X interface takes some getting used to. It's more different than bad, IMO. ... I think it's quite nice.
And Dr. Tribble will only help to make it "better".

Off topic: starfleetX, love the signature. The variation I've heard and used is "Trying is premeditated failure." Both work.

[stevenhaddon]

The hope that the interface will somehow be seriously changed by this move is rather naive. There are not going to be any major UI changes to OS X for a long time, get used to it! The last thing that is going to happen with a new operating system, one that Apple are crossing their fingers and hoping people get used to, is a major paradigm shift of some sort that will confuse even those people who are completely comfortable in X (e.g. me for example ).

I just switched to 9 last night for the first time in ages, so I could use some software that's not yet carbonized. In comparison, I found 9 to be awful. I got so fed up with endlessly spawning windows of different sizes (and no column view) that I decided not to use the finder at all, if I could help it. It just gets so confusing.

We do need springloaded folders and probably labels, yes. But these are enhancements, rather than changes. I'd like to quote my dad, a lifelong classic Mac OS user, the first time I installed X for him and let him play around with it for a while: "Oh God, this is better."

Steve

[Zadian]

Originally posted by Terri:
<STRONG>Hopefully this will start the deSteveing of the Mac X's interface</STRONG>

From Apples Press Release:
"Tribble also helped found NeXT Computer, where he was vice president of Software Engineering and a key architect of the NeXTStep operating system."

From the first post in this thread:
"Dr. Tribble was previously a chief technology officer for Sun Microsystems and one of the original designers of Next's UI."

I don't think he has nothing to do with springloaded folders, Platinum theme, tabed folders and other Mac OS 8-9 GUI "enhancements".
If he is willing and in the position to change the GUI the chances are high that he will change the GUI more in the NeXT or Eazel direction - some more steps away from the Mac OS 8-9 GUI.

Has somebody else noticed, that Aqua looks like a mix of the NeXT and the System 7.5 GUI?

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Zadian ]

[Boondoggle]

I like Aqua just fine, while I recognize plenty of room for improvement.

Those of you who think that Apple is worried about the success of OSX based on UI niceties should consider the historical success of other less-than-stellar interfaces on other mainstream OS's.

Think Windows95.

From Apple's perspective there is no rush to tweak Aqua for the handful (that means everyone here) of people who even notice the irritations. Speed, compatibility, core features (like DVD playback) and Wow factors (cool bouncing icons!) are the things they are more likely to work on improving in the near term.

Of course this doesn't mean they won't continue to fine tune Aqua, Apple has a long history of adding features to the UI over time, I just wouldn't hold my breath for resolution of the pet peeve du jour.

bd

[lookmark]

Terri? Any response?

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: lookmark ]

[Terri]

Originally posted by lookmark:
<STRONG>Terri? Any response?

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: lookmark ]</STRONG>

I have posted on this subject so many times on this board, but very briefly. I'm doing a bunch of things at once right now so I may miss a few.

Interface is too bright and colorful, give my back platinum .
I miss the finder feedback, little things like a folder being greyed out to let you know that it is open. Under 9 I feel like I'm working with objects, but in 10 it feels more like winboze.
Finder font size is too big in menus.
I miss tabbed folders.
I miss spring loaded folders.
I miss navigation services.
I need labels since I use them to mark my files for workflow.
Why did they change all the keyboard shortcuts?
I like my trash on the desktop.
I miss seeing all my drives when I click on desktop in open/save, yes I know you go to computer now.

These are things that we have been given back through 3rd party so I don't miss them anymore
Fruit Menu
ASM
Windowshade, but I still can't opting windowshade for all open windows

Dock isn't too bad since I've turned it into nothing but the old style app switcher, but what if I want it on my second monitor?


Don't get me wrong, I love what System 10 brings, I just wish they had keep a lot more of what was an interface refined over many years.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: Terri ]

[lookmark]

Originally posted by Terri:
<STRONG>

I have posted on this subject so many times on this board, but very briefly. I doing a bunch of things at once right now so I may miss a few.

Interface is too bright and colorful, give my back platinum .
Finder font size is too big in menus.
I miss tabbed folders.
I miss spring loaded folders.
I miss navigation services.
I need labels since I use them to mark my files for workflow.
Why did they change all the keyboard shortcuts?
I like my trash on the desktop.
I miss seeing all my drives when I click on desktop in open/save, yes I know you go to computer now.

These are things that we have been given back through 3rd party so I don't miss them anymore
Fruit Menu
ASM
Windowshade, but I still can't opting windowshade for all open windows

Dock isn't too bad since I've turned it into nothing but the old style app switcher, but what if I want it on my second monitor?


Don't get me wrong, I love what System 10 brings, I just wish they had keep a lot more of what was an interface refined over many years.</STRONG>

Well, I'm definitely with you on the need for improved Navigation Services and some version of SLF, but in many of those case, it sounds like you just prefer good old OS 9.

Well, I suppose with little extras.rsc-switching (Sosumi?) and a bunch of 3rd party additions and haxies... you'll eventually be able to get it working pretty close, if not exactly the same.

(Have you checked out DragThing, btw? There's an option for putting the Trash on the desktop. And probably another utility out there do just that by itself.)

For what it's worth -- and speaking as someone who works in 9 day in and day out -- *I* certainly wouldn't try to make OS X look or even work like OS 9. There are some well-thought-out ideas in X that I find work, for the most part, very well.

But UI is a funny thing -- so subjective and personal.

In my case, things about OS 9 UI have been increasingly bothering me for years: the lack of launcher/process dock (a la DragThing, and now the Dock), the increasingly difficult Finder navigation, with so many spawning windows, the faintly depressing gray Platinum interface, the clunky window miniturization method, and so on.

Nearly everything OS X I've been waiting impatiently for years: the cleaner, brighter look, the slight size bump to fit a way-post-1984 screen size, an interesting dock (though it still needs to be much better), an excellent app/window hiding & minituration combination, long-delayed new key commands, better window management, etc, etc. I miss the (obviously forthcoming, imho) missing elements, and a few dumb things here & there drive me crazy, but I'm generally impressed. And consistently astonished at the venom some Mac people seem to have for it.

The fact that the OS is still so new muddies the water, no doubt. There's a big, gray fuzzy area between a different philosophy (needing refinement) and just plain unfinished. It doesn't help that Apple keeps carefully mum on which is which.

[ 01-11-2002: Message edited by: lookmark ]

[booboo]

Originally posted by BTP:
<STRONG>
If that comment about the interface being "Steved" means it shares likenesses with NeXT or that it is too great a change from the Classic OS, then my response is that it is a classic problem. Balance, where does it lie? If you innovate and change too much too rapidly, or too little and slowly, you are going have a lot of unhappy people. You will have unhappy people no matter what you do, so I think the best thing is to have someone stand up and make a decision and stand by it. I am quite happy with the current state of the UI and I can get a lot done and move around my system quickly and efficiently, but maybe I am one of a kind. </STRONG>

I think what people generally mean about the interface being "Steved" is that it has been taken in one particular direction, and that everyone either has to like it or lump it - there's very little, if any, opportunity afforded the user to make it into something he would feel happier with...

It's about options...or rather the lack of them....

[Terri]

Originally posted by lookmark:
<STRONG>

But UI is a funny thing -- so subjective and personal.

In my case, things about OS 9 UI have been increasingly bothering me for years: the lack of launcher/process dock (a la DragThing, and now the Dock), the increasingly difficult Finder navigation, with so many spawning windows, the faintly depressing gray Platinum interface, the clunky window miniturization method, and so on.
</STRONG>

I very much agree with you about the UI being a subjective and personal thing. Why can't it be customized like Windows allows. Yes I know there are hacks, but most of them are less then perfect in some apps, like the finder.

Platinum interface IMO rocks for doing color work.

Under 9 hold down the option key when double clicking a window, you will not end up with a bunch of windows.

[booboo]

Originally posted by Boondoggle:
<STRONG>I

Those of you who think that Apple is worried about the success of OSX based on UI niceties should consider the historical success of other less-than-stellar interfaces on other mainstream OS's.

Think Windows95.

bd</STRONG>

I think it would be stupid to ignore Aqua's failings just because Win95 is so much worse (in most ways...) Apple actually has to provide a superior experience to maintain its market share, not just a different, but equally dumb one...

And for those who insist that diminished screen real-estate in X is not a problem, I suggest they get themselves an iBook or an Apple LCD display before they speak so authoratively...

[MacGorilla]

Aqua=leaving the old Mac UI behind to start anew with a new OS. Deal with it.

[Terri]

You know what else I'm really starting to miss, dragable window boarders. Just like in the days of system 7 I'm getting windows stuck under the menu bar and pallets stuck under windows. Under system 7 there was a hack you could install where you held down a key combo and the could grab any part of a window.

[aenemated]

hehheh i have a 21" apple studio display at 1600x1200. ergo ... plenty of real estate.

[dogzilla]

"Be careful what you wish for - you may get it"

That's the thing with progress - it involves change and change is always difficult and onerous for some, even if it is change for the better.

I don't think anyone would seriously try to argue that OS9 is overall a better OS than OSX. I think some folks have become extremely attached to OS9 for any number of reasons (sheer long-term familiarity, the fact that it was refined over a number of years, etc.), but the truth is that it had a huge number of failings that we were complaining about just 2 years ago. And while our familiarity with the OS9 interface allowed some of us to be extremely productive, it was also a barrier to entry for a number of first-time computer users and would-be Windows/Unix refugees. I believe that OSX and Aqua are an attempt to address those issues, and I think the OS is generally more approachable *to more people* than OS9 was.

I'd have to say that Bud Tribble's return to Apple is excellent news, but I honestly think that folks who expect him to integrate OS9 features into Aqua will be sorely disappointed. His work since leaving Apple indicates a desire to move interfaces forward, and the direction he seems to have taken is more like what Aqua is today than what OS9 is today. I'd expect him to help significantly in improving and refining the Aqua experience, but I sincerely doubt he'll be advocating the addition of labels to Aqua, or anything like that.

With any luck, Bud Tribble will be advocating hard for the better integration of next-gen interface technologies and services in Aqua - things like speech recognition, gestures, active assistance, and a file system built on a powerful open database. I'd much rather see Aqua integrate or create the great technologies of tomorrow rather than the great technologies of yesterday.

The Mac UI is dead - long live the Mac UI!

[lookmark]

Originally posted by Terri:
<STRONG>

I very much agree with you about the UI being a subjective and personal thing. Why can't it be customized like Windows allows. Yes I know there are hacks, but most of them are less then perfect in some apps, like the finder.

</STRONG>

Hacks are not great, but if you're going to try to make OS X work like OS 9 in all respects, I'm afraid hacks and haxies and 3rd party additions are probably going to have to be the way to go.

Which is not the end of the world. I couldn't use OS 9 without about half a dozen 3rd party additions. And still need 1 or 2 for OS X. And might need more if I was using it full-time.

It *is* subjective. I can kind of even see the rationale behind windowshading and having a strict spatial (as opposed to browser-like) metaphor, even if in practice they're not as important to me. And I agree OS X needs more options. Apple-supplied themes would be nice too, though we'll have to wait a little while for that, probably.

The problem with options (there was an interesting, if fiery, thread going on in the Apple HI discussions list about this) is that they can be a dangerously easy solution. Throwing options at a problem sometimes ends up being a good thing (I'm certainly very glad to be able to "scale" windows instead of using "genie") but often it's very easy to just to throw the user many options and give up on what the best solution is. It adds up -- a vast array of options, a la the Window Managers in Linux, may be interesting for an expert, or geek, but bewildering for anyone else. I generally find that Windows has too many options as well.

So I don't mind Apple UE taking their time deciding what to add. They'll come, in time.

<STRONG>Under 9 hold down the option key when double clicking a window, you will not end up with a bunch of windows.</STRONG>

Oh, my thumb is practically wedded to the option key when using the Finder OS 9. But I find X's Column view beats tunneling through endless windows -- no comparison.

[wadesworld]

There are two undisputable facts:

1) OS X's inteface is a lot more usable than some would lead you to believe.

2) Some people will simply not be happy unless they get OS 9 back.

Wade

[lookmark]

Originally posted by booboo:
<STRONG>

I think it would be stupid to ignore Aqua's failings just because Win95 is so much worse (in most ways...) Apple actually has to provide a superior experience to maintain its market share, not just a different, but equally dumb one...

And for those who insist that diminished screen real-estate in X is not a problem, I suggest they get themselves an iBook or an Apple LCD display before they speak so authoratively...</STRONG>

I use OS X on a iBook (500mhz), and it's very usable at 1024 x 768.

I haven't used X on the first-generation iBook at at 800 x 600.

[booboo]

Originally posted by wadesworld:
<STRONG>There are two undisputable facts:

1) OS X's inteface is a lot more usable than some would lead you to believe.

2) Some people will simply not be happy unless they get OS 9 back.

Wade</STRONG>

Hmmm...

"OS X's inteface is a lot more usable than some would lead you to believe..." Oh, so OS X's interface is a lot more usable than I'm leading myself to believe. So why am I deluding myself?

What do I want from a computer? Well I want to get my work done, and I'll even pay a little extra for the privelege if I can do it with a little style. As I always have done. Think Apple.

I'm probably stupid to have thought that the 6 iMac's I bought last year for the office (post OS X 10.0 release) my iBook 466 and my G4/400 (576MB RAM) + Apple 15 inch lcd would even ever function adequately with OS X. If it weren't the lack of speed, Apple made doubly sure by making sure OS X won't fit adequately on 1024*768, and is a total pita on 800*600.

It's NOT a case of getting 9 back, smart@ss, but it is plainly and simply a case of having a new OS that can be used roughly within parameters of the old one... i.e. OPTIONALLY offer sufficient customization options to fit on my old screen, a size that is standard on the brand new iMac for gawd's sake, and possibly even allow me to view sufficient numbers of files on the screen, i.e. smaller display font size, so I don't have to endlessly scroll around.

You have no legitimate argument against this. I am not suggesting that YOUR version of OS X be set to display list views in 9 point text, you can have it a big as you like (24?) I'm merely respectfully asking that I be given the option to change the default sizes to something smaller and, for me, more useful.

I'll accept that you can use OS X on 1024*768 if your approach to using a computer is akin to surfing the web with one browser window open, and as frequent use of the 'back' button as the concept of having more than a few windows open is alien.

Well my brain multitasks severely, despite years of trying to negate this fact, and I feel that OS 9 seemed not only to not penalise me too heavily for that, but even actively attempt to cater to those similarly afflicted.

Maybe it's an American thing, 'I believe this, so I'm actively going to fight for you to have no alternative...'

And I would also argue, at this point, that OS 9 is still the better OS. Who cares about the technical underpinnings if I can't actually do any work in the damn thing... OS X is so cool because it doesn't crash. (Who cares that the app's crash like crazy...)

But then OS X is still less than 2 years old... BULLSHEET. Whoever started this crap, and then milked it to death? So everything that had been learned prior to the point that OS X's feature set was decided upon is redundant, and therefore ignored? You wouldn't accept that argument for a car; the new BMW is only 2 weeks old, it's bound to have serious teething problems, sure it can't corner very well right now, but it needs to mature.....No! you'd (rightfully) expect that all BMW have learned about what's good and bad in car design will be assimilated and reflected in the latest designs... You'd expect to be able to go round corners as well in the latest models, as you could in last year's.

Really, we get nowhere endlessly apologizing, and apologizing endlessly isn't going to make OS X a better OS.

[BTP]

Originally posted by booboo:
<STRONG>

I think what people generally mean about the interface being "Steved" is that it has been taken in one particular direction, and that everyone either has to like it or lump it - there's very little, if any, opportunity afforded the user to make it into something he would feel happier with...

It's about options...or rather the lack of them....</STRONG>

In that case, then I tend to agree as well.An interface CANNOT be ambiguous. I think as far as the user making it into something else (customizing), there are and will be more ways for personalization.

I'd hate it if Steve or anyone in charge of UI were to waver on the interface everytime someone complained. It is not you, but many people here that want a lot from Apple al at once. Let me bastardize a great quote to make my point:

Never have so many, demanded so much, of so few.

[BTP]

Well, I'll take you to task on that. You might aware of a common perception that you never buy first model of anything until they get the bugs out. If BMW were to make a new model, from your post, am I to understand that you mean that since they have been making top notch cars for so long they won't have any recalls or faulty designs or even have room for improvement on existing designs? Maybe you just haven't owned enough BMW's.

In that same vein, OS X is not even a year old, regardless of how long it has been designed or thought about. It has not been together and functioning as an OS for even a year. It is not an excuse, or I am not using it as one. However, it is unrealistic to have great expectations of an OS given the constraints.

I won't bother to argue if you like 9 over X, but for what I need to do, X is far better. It seems 9 is better for you.

[rw]

Originally posted by lookmark:
<STRONG>I'm curious what your problems are with X, and why interface feels "Steved" to you.

Besides the lack of labels.

</STRONG>

Let's face it, everybody -- it's labels. If OS X only had labels:
* the interface would feel snappier
* file navigation would be a breeze (who would need spring-loaded folders?)
* the dock would no longer be in your way
* developers would produce Mac software in droves -- and half of it would be free!
* all the OS 9 luddites would stop griping and adopt OS X with joy
* Windows users would toss their computers in the trash and clamor for the new iMac -- Bill Gates would gracefully admit defeat and retire
* Linux users would universally switch to OS X without a word spoken

Face the facts: the only thing standing in the way of Apple's success and rightful dominance in the computing world is the lack of labels in OS X!

(Please, don't anybody tell me I have a particular ax to grind -- I'm sure I speak for millions.)