5 ms·

"Apple used to lead the world in interface design" does not mean their designs were without serious flaws. Nobody would get up and defend System 7 as the pinnac

"Apple used to lead the world in interface design" does not mean their designs were without serious flaws. Nobody would get up and defend System 7 as the pinnacle of usability, it was downright quirky and strange in places, and by the time System 9 arrived it'd gotten downright surreal. Things only made sense in the context of history. The difference between Apple and other companies is not that Apple gets it right every time, but that Apple genuinely tries. Some other companies literally do not care how their products look, they just ship whatever the engineering team cobbles together with snippets from from Google Image Search. Microsoft's making similar efforts lately, so that's encouraging to see, and even Google is making strides in reducing the amount of rampant ugly in their applications.

cmiles74 11y ago
I would say that right now, Apple isn't really trying. Things have always varied from application to application, but right now it's a real hodge-podge. The tiny link targets in particular drive me nuts. I've been using the iPhone for years and sometimes I look at an app and I can't tell what is "click-able" and what's not.
- jcoby 11y ago
  Try turning on button shapes. It's been a major help for me. It may not be as clean as the stock setup but it's far more usable for me. Settings -> General -> Accessibility -> Button Shapes.
  - Malic 11y ago
    I do think the loss of visual affordances was a mistake on Apple's part. But enabling Button Shapes does offset things quite a bit. However, I do suspect that not all developers test with Button Shapes enabled. The native Twitter client looked a little "broken" for the longest time with Button Shapes enabled. It took awhile but I think it has been fixed.
oconnore 11y ago
> reducing the amount of rampant ugly in their applications The fact that you are talking about "ugly" is the entire problem.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  Aesthetics do matter, though. People don't like using ugly products.
  - nemo44x 11y ago
    Not only that but people using 2 products with the exact same function but different form not only prefer using the one with better form but actually encounter fewer difficulties and have a better experience. [1] Or this bit [2]. Read the entire article, but this is where those bits were from. [1] http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section7 http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section7 [2] http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section3 http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section3
- nemo44x 11y ago
  Form and function are both equally important.
  - oconnore 11y ago
    You get the think about form when you've optimized function.
    - nemo44x 11y ago
      That is known as "form follows function" and one philosophy. The philosophy I stated is "form and function are one" which came about after the former. But it's important to consider that form and function are not necessarily separate things and that beauty is not only decoration. Read this article, in particular this [1] section. [1] http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section3 http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section3 And here's a nice quote: “…users judge the relevancy of identical search results from different search engines based on the brand…Participants in the study indicated that the results from Google and Yahoo were superior to identical results found through Windows Live or a generic search engine.”
AlexandrB 11y ago
> Microsoft's making similar efforts lately, so that's encouraging to see, and even Google is making strides in reducing the amount of rampant ugly in their applications. I disagree regarding Microsoft. While Windows 8 was not well loved at least the 2 halves of its modal interface were internally consistent. Windows 10 looks like it was designed by committee by picking bits of Windows 8 desktop and Windows 8 Metro and stuffing them together. There's no clear direction or goal to it all. In addition there's just plain manifest ugliness like some of the icon choices.

cmiles74 11y ago

I would say that right now, Apple isn't really trying. Things have always varied from application to application, but right now it's a real hodge-podge. The tiny link targets in particular drive me nuts. I've been using the iPhone for years and sometimes I look at an app and I can't tell what is "click-able" and what's not.

jcoby 11y ago
Try turning on button shapes. It's been a major help for me. It may not be as clean as the stock setup but it's far more usable for me. Settings -> General -> Accessibility -> Button Shapes.
- Malic 11y ago
  I do think the loss of visual affordances was a mistake on Apple's part. But enabling Button Shapes does offset things quite a bit. However, I do suspect that not all developers test with Button Shapes enabled. The native Twitter client looked a little "broken" for the longest time with Button Shapes enabled. It took awhile but I think it has been fixed.

oconnore 11y ago

> reducing the amount of rampant ugly in their applications The fact that you are talking about "ugly" is the entire problem.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
Aesthetics do matter, though. People don't like using ugly products.
- nemo44x 11y ago
  Not only that but people using 2 products with the exact same function but different form not only prefer using the one with better form but actually encounter fewer difficulties and have a better experience. [1] Or this bit [2]. Read the entire article, but this is where those bits were from. [1] http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section7 http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section7 [2] http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section3 http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section3
nemo44x 11y ago
Form and function are both equally important.
- oconnore 11y ago
  You get the think about form when you've optimized function.
  - nemo44x 11y ago
    That is known as "form follows function" and one philosophy. The philosophy I stated is "form and function are one" which came about after the former. But it's important to consider that form and function are not necessarily separate things and that beauty is not only decoration. Read this article, in particular this [1] section. [1] http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section3 http://alistapart.com/article/indefenseofeyecandy#section3 And here's a nice quote: “…users judge the relevancy of identical search results from different search engines based on the brand…Participants in the study indicated that the results from Google and Yahoo were superior to identical results found through Windows Live or a generic search engine.”

AlexandrB 11y ago

> Microsoft's making similar efforts lately, so that's encouraging to see, and even Google is making strides in reducing the amount of rampant ugly in their applications. I disagree regarding Microsoft. While Windows 8 was not well loved at least the 2 halves of its modal interface were internally consistent. Windows 10 looks like it was designed by committee by picking bits of Windows 8 desktop and Windows 8 Metro and stuffing them together. There's no clear direction or goal to it all. In addition there's just plain manifest ugliness like some of the icon choices.