4 ms·

Personally I'm fine with application specific UI schemes. It's a bit silly every application would follow the same guidelines as applications are intended to do

by fsloth 7y ago

Personally I'm fine with application specific UI schemes. It's a bit silly every application would follow the same guidelines as applications are intended to do different things. Platform UX/UI conventions place too strict limitations on innovation. The original point - that people would get confused from non-platform UI schemes - has been proven kind of moot since most games have their own domain specific UI schemes and people love them anyway.

saagarjha 7y ago
> It's a bit silly every application would follow the same guidelines as applications are intended to do different things. Platform UX/UI conventions place too strict limitations on innovation. They really don’t. Have you taken a look at the thriving ecosystem of native, powerful macOS apps that follow platform conventions?
- jcelerier 7y ago
  Most apps that I know people use in MacOS are really not native-controls based - Ableton Live, Max/MSP, VDMX, Resolume, Mathematica, JetBrains IDEs, VSCode, Sublime Text...
  - pfranz 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure the parent was talking about macOS exclusive apps. The ones I recognize there are all multi-platform, which have always had the problem of keeping their own conventions between platform or adopting the platforms--most chose to keep their app consistent platform-to-platform. I also think "professional" apps are a special case (which is a totally subjective classification). Even Apple and Microsoft have done their own thing for professional apps since forever. If I'm going to use that app for 8hrs every day, I'm more accepting of learning something new. I'm still more likely going to pick up an app if it follows existing conventions...I already chose my OS because I've learned and like those conventions.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      There are a couple that are cross platform and still native, such as Microsoft Office and the Affinity suite.
      - dwaite 7y ago
        Microsoft Office has gotten way better over the years. They used to design the UX around the idea of "Office Users", not "Mac Users"
        jimnotgym 7y ago
        This is very frustrating when supporting a mixed team of Mac and PC users on office. I would prefer it to be the same everywhere.
        pfranz 7y ago
        And that's the problem. I imagine those Mac users chose it because they like the OS' conventions. Photoshop seems to have gone the other way from using OS conventions to doing their own thing the same on each platform. iTunes, which didn't always follow macOS conventions, did port everything to Windows.
- killface 7y ago
  My mac's primary purpose is to run bash, firefox, intellij, and docker. they've all got their own UI, and I don't feel wanting for power.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    That’s not the assertion I was refuting, which claimed that Apple’s platform conventions restricted the power of apps.
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  You might have a point there, if at any time in their sordid history Apple actually followed any of their own UX/UI conventions in their flagship apps. http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/qtime.htm http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/qtime.htm
  - dwaite 7y ago
    That example was 20 years ago, and Apple specifically discarded the skeuomorphic focus which that resulted from around six years ago (partly in concert with retina displays). Do you have a more modern example?
pfranz 7y ago
> has been proven kind of moot since most games have their own domain specific UI schemes and people love them anyway. I emphatically disagree. There are still jokes (from legitimate annoyance) that the main consoles have different conventions for buttons and button names. It's awkward to navigate menu system with a simple up, down, left, right, accept, cancel when accept/cancel move around system to system. At least on desktop computers Spacebar/Enter and Escape are mostly consistent. As for in-game control schemes, it's generally coalesced around wasd + mouse and USE. Even with that there are jokes (stemming from legitimate annoyances) about putting down a game for a week because you're older, are a parent, and have other responsibilities, then having trouble picking it back up. This is a major reason I'm incredibly selective about the games I play and one reason I avoid online play. Sure, I'm one data point, and it may not apply to a majority of the cashflow for gaming, but I see it expressed online quite often.
- fsloth 7y ago
  I hear you. I forget the control schemes as well, whether they are keyboard or controller. But the thing about those is that they are 'hidden' and require memoization. There is no on-game HUD that would show legend of all the available actions all the time. If you could have that, then people would be much more comfortable about even the hidden schemes. There are game UI:s that are mostly mouse operated, and expose the user interaction grammar using the game specific, visual UI narrative. My kids seem fine navigating between those. A great example is Roblox, which has lot of "controller heavy" games where there are custom UI:s for building and configuring lots of things. There are no guidelines that the authors defer to, but, they organically try to make the UI:s as understandable as possible. Most of the time they copy established conventions anyway, and when they don't either the UI is still understandable or no-one will play the game.

by fsloth 7y ago

saagarjha 7y ago

> It's a bit silly every application would follow the same guidelines as applications are intended to do different things. Platform UX/UI conventions place too strict limitations on innovation. They really don’t. Have you taken a look at the thriving ecosystem of native, powerful macOS apps that follow platform conventions?

jcelerier 7y ago
Most apps that I know people use in MacOS are really not native-controls based - Ableton Live, Max/MSP, VDMX, Resolume, Mathematica, JetBrains IDEs, VSCode, Sublime Text...
- pfranz 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure the parent was talking about macOS exclusive apps. The ones I recognize there are all multi-platform, which have always had the problem of keeping their own conventions between platform or adopting the platforms--most chose to keep their app consistent platform-to-platform. I also think "professional" apps are a special case (which is a totally subjective classification). Even Apple and Microsoft have done their own thing for professional apps since forever. If I'm going to use that app for 8hrs every day, I'm more accepting of learning something new. I'm still more likely going to pick up an app if it follows existing conventions...I already chose my OS because I've learned and like those conventions.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    There are a couple that are cross platform and still native, such as Microsoft Office and the Affinity suite.
    - dwaite 7y ago
      Microsoft Office has gotten way better over the years. They used to design the UX around the idea of "Office Users", not "Mac Users"
      - jimnotgym 7y ago
        This is very frustrating when supporting a mixed team of Mac and PC users on office. I would prefer it to be the same everywhere.
        pfranz 7y ago
        And that's the problem. I imagine those Mac users chose it because they like the OS' conventions. Photoshop seems to have gone the other way from using OS conventions to doing their own thing the same on each platform. iTunes, which didn't always follow macOS conventions, did port everything to Windows.
killface 7y ago
My mac's primary purpose is to run bash, firefox, intellij, and docker. they've all got their own UI, and I don't feel wanting for power.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  That’s not the assertion I was refuting, which claimed that Apple’s platform conventions restricted the power of apps.
DonHopkins 7y ago
You might have a point there, if at any time in their sordid history Apple actually followed any of their own UX/UI conventions in their flagship apps. http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/qtime.htm http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/qtime.htm
- dwaite 7y ago
  That example was 20 years ago, and Apple specifically discarded the skeuomorphic focus which that resulted from around six years ago (partly in concert with retina displays). Do you have a more modern example?

pfranz 7y ago

> has been proven kind of moot since most games have their own domain specific UI schemes and people love them anyway. I emphatically disagree. There are still jokes (from legitimate annoyance) that the main consoles have different conventions for buttons and button names. It's awkward to navigate menu system with a simple up, down, left, right, accept, cancel when accept/cancel move around system to system. At least on desktop computers Spacebar/Enter and Escape are mostly consistent. As for in-game control schemes, it's generally coalesced around wasd + mouse and USE. Even with that there are jokes (stemming from legitimate annoyances) about putting down a game for a week because you're older, are a parent, and have other responsibilities, then having trouble picking it back up. This is a major reason I'm incredibly selective about the games I play and one reason I avoid online play. Sure, I'm one data point, and it may not apply to a majority of the cashflow for gaming, but I see it expressed online quite often.

fsloth 7y ago
I hear you. I forget the control schemes as well, whether they are keyboard or controller. But the thing about those is that they are 'hidden' and require memoization. There is no on-game HUD that would show legend of all the available actions all the time. If you could have that, then people would be much more comfortable about even the hidden schemes. There are game UI:s that are mostly mouse operated, and expose the user interaction grammar using the game specific, visual UI narrative. My kids seem fine navigating between those. A great example is Roblox, which has lot of "controller heavy" games where there are custom UI:s for building and configuring lots of things. There are no guidelines that the authors defer to, but, they organically try to make the UI:s as understandable as possible. Most of the time they copy established conventions anyway, and when they don't either the UI is still understandable or no-one will play the game.