5 ms·

I'm going to nitpick the title a bit. (Please downvote if inappropriate) But this isn't evolutionary. It's a random sample of totally different takes on the sa

by jspash 7y ago

I'm going to nitpick the title a bit. (Please downvote if inappropriate) But this isn't evolutionary. It's a random sample of totally different takes on the same UI component. If scrollbars truly were designed in an evolutionary process, then all OS's would build upon the previous version and improve (or regress) from that. Or maybe I'm being too pedantic?

wtallis 7y ago
It's unreasonable for you to expect "evolutionary" to imply a single lineage, especially when it's so obvious that many competing companies were involved in designing scroll bars for their platforms. And in at least some cases, differences were introduced to avoid litigation (hence NeXT scroll bars being so different from early Mac).
thristian 7y ago
The site depicts a linear progression, but (like most things) it's more like a tree. You can draw a line from Star → Lisa → System 1 → Windows 1 → Windows 3 → Windows 95, and maybe Windows 1 → NeXTstep, but it's more likely to be System 1 → NeXTstep. MacOS 8's scrollbar comes from Win95, System 7, and NeXTstep (it was an option to have the arrow buttons at one end, like NeXT, or at both ends, like System 7), and MacOS X's scrollbar comes from MacOS 8's. Windows XP's scrollbar comes from MacOS 8 (the grab handle), MacOS X (the bitmap-all-the-things theme) and Win95 (in function), and of course Vista's scrollbar follows on from that. MacOS Lion's scrollbar actually comes from MacOS X and the conventions of mobile devices, which is a whole other lineage not even present. And the Windows 10 scrollbar comes from MacOS Lion (and the minimalist design trend in general) and Vista.
- eschaton 7y ago
  The Windows 95 look and feel is almost entirely attributable to NEXTSTEP. Proportional scroll bars on the Mac go back to Lisa and were used in GS/OS before Mac OS. Windows had nothing to do with their adoption.
  - kick 7y ago
    That's false, actually. The Windows 95 look can be tied to IBM doing a massive amount of market research for their previous operating systems efforts; the monotone and 3D look was found to be the least-offensive UX globally.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      And the feel/function of a Windows 95 scrollbar differs from that of a NeXT scrollbar in almost every way possible.
- echelon 7y ago
  > The site depicts a linear progression, but (like most things) it's more like a tree. > Windows XP's scrollbar comes from MacOS 8 More like a DAG, then! :)
ken 7y ago
In the NeXT/Mac family tree, at least, it has steadily improved. - The thumb became proportional. - The arrows moved to the same end (so you didn't have to hit another tiny target on the opposite side of the screen when you overshoot by one line), and then disappeared entirely (when hardware scrolling interfaces became commonplace). - They gained the ability for click to mean "jump here" (and option-click to reverse this setting on-the-fly). - They disappear when not in use (to save space), and became bouncy at the ends (to show you more clearly when you're at the end). Not every OS has improved their scrollbars in the same ways, but most other OSs have proven themselves not-quite-competent at understanding (and copying) the state-of-the-art in GUIs. Windows 1.0 was terrible at everything, not just scrollbars. That's not an indictment of this process as evolution.
slowenough 7y ago
Outside of programming, language can connote and suggest. It doesn't need to unambiguously and objectively define, particularly in a way that necessarily aligns with your specific "interpreter" (yer noggin!). Methinks engineers oftentimes forget this. I feel like yelling, It's English for Chrissake, not some RFC! There's nothing wrong with nitpicking. Details are important. I think you're accurate, just not focused on what's important. Would an editor ask your question? Event within the realm of non-clickbaity titles, I think "Evolution" does pretty well. I think the question to ask is, even if I can make the word more clinically accurate, does it make for a better title? It's sort of like a English major who comes to programming and obsesses over the etymology of words in function names (trying to create a etymologically cohesive network of names) and about the poetic imagery and rhyme of code comments. All valid efforts, in the right domain, but in the programming domain that English major ought to just focus on clean function names and clear concise comments. But hey, that's just my aesthetics. It seems normal and common for me, but maybe there are some people, yourself included, who want blindingly clear accuracy everywhere (suggestion and connotation be damned) because that's what's beautiful and feels right for them. I get that too. So if you're like that or similar, then you can take my comment a valid effort in the wrong domain, too!

by jspash 7y ago

wtallis 7y ago

It's unreasonable for you to expect "evolutionary" to imply a single lineage, especially when it's so obvious that many competing companies were involved in designing scroll bars for their platforms. And in at least some cases, differences were introduced to avoid litigation (hence NeXT scroll bars being so different from early Mac).

thristian 7y ago

The site depicts a linear progression, but (like most things) it's more like a tree. You can draw a line from Star → Lisa → System 1 → Windows 1 → Windows 3 → Windows 95, and maybe Windows 1 → NeXTstep, but it's more likely to be System 1 → NeXTstep. MacOS 8's scrollbar comes from Win95, System 7, and NeXTstep (it was an option to have the arrow buttons at one end, like NeXT, or at both ends, like System 7), and MacOS X's scrollbar comes from MacOS 8's. Windows XP's scrollbar comes from MacOS 8 (the grab handle), MacOS X (the bitmap-all-the-things theme) and Win95 (in function), and of course Vista's scrollbar follows on from that. MacOS Lion's scrollbar actually comes from MacOS X and the conventions of mobile devices, which is a whole other lineage not even present. And the Windows 10 scrollbar comes from MacOS Lion (and the minimalist design trend in general) and Vista.

eschaton 7y ago
The Windows 95 look and feel is almost entirely attributable to NEXTSTEP. Proportional scroll bars on the Mac go back to Lisa and were used in GS/OS before Mac OS. Windows had nothing to do with their adoption.
- kick 7y ago
  That's false, actually. The Windows 95 look can be tied to IBM doing a massive amount of market research for their previous operating systems efforts; the monotone and 3D look was found to be the least-offensive UX globally.
  - wtallis 7y ago
    And the feel/function of a Windows 95 scrollbar differs from that of a NeXT scrollbar in almost every way possible.
echelon 7y ago
> The site depicts a linear progression, but (like most things) it's more like a tree. > Windows XP's scrollbar comes from MacOS 8 More like a DAG, then! :)

ken 7y ago

In the NeXT/Mac family tree, at least, it has steadily improved. - The thumb became proportional. - The arrows moved to the same end (so you didn't have to hit another tiny target on the opposite side of the screen when you overshoot by one line), and then disappeared entirely (when hardware scrolling interfaces became commonplace). - They gained the ability for click to mean "jump here" (and option-click to reverse this setting on-the-fly). - They disappear when not in use (to save space), and became bouncy at the ends (to show you more clearly when you're at the end). Not every OS has improved their scrollbars in the same ways, but most other OSs have proven themselves not-quite-competent at understanding (and copying) the state-of-the-art in GUIs. Windows 1.0 was terrible at everything, not just scrollbars. That's not an indictment of this process as evolution.

slowenough 7y ago

Outside of programming, language can connote and suggest. It doesn't need to unambiguously and objectively define, particularly in a way that necessarily aligns with your specific "interpreter" (yer noggin!). Methinks engineers oftentimes forget this. I feel like yelling, It's English for Chrissake, not some RFC! There's nothing wrong with nitpicking. Details are important. I think you're accurate, just not focused on what's important. Would an editor ask your question? Event within the realm of non-clickbaity titles, I think "Evolution" does pretty well. I think the question to ask is, even if I can make the word more clinically accurate, does it make for a better title? It's sort of like a English major who comes to programming and obsesses over the etymology of words in function names (trying to create a etymologically cohesive network of names) and about the poetic imagery and rhyme of code comments. All valid efforts, in the right domain, but in the programming domain that English major ought to just focus on clean function names and clear concise comments. But hey, that's just my aesthetics. It seems normal and common for me, but maybe there are some people, yourself included, who want blindingly clear accuracy everywhere (suggestion and connotation be damned) because that's what's beautiful and feels right for them. I get that too. So if you're like that or similar, then you can take my comment a valid effort in the wrong domain, too!