4 ms·

What makes you say that?

vintagedave 7y ago
It uses different UI paradigms, doesn't even try to look like native controls let alone use them, and isn't fully system-integrated with the behaviour you'd get from a native app. I just opened, and saw: * Has an expand/collapse panel on the left, using large icons. Not Mac-ish, very Google though. * Title bar isn't integrated with the system (eg can't right-click on the filename to access locations.) * General look and feel uses different controls. For example, the Problems/Output/Debug Console tabs: they aren't rendered like macOS tabs. They're capitalized text, and the UI is completely different. * Cmd+, to open Preferences opens a tab, not a Preferences dialog. This is text (which is nice, good for a dev environment) but even the headings and collapse/expand controls are custom. There is no UI here that behaves like a Mac app. I could continue for hours. There's almost _nothing_ in the app that is built in an Apple or macOS-congruent style. Now, it's a good app. Absolutely. But it's not a Mac-ish app. With a native app, all of these things could be done in just as clean (and very similar in layout) UI, but in a Mac style and with what you, as a Mac user, have grown to expect as Mac app behaviour.
- snazz 7y ago
  I'm not sure how much non-developers care about "native look and feel". In the arena of iOS apps, extremely popular ones like Snapchat, Discord, Gmail, GroupMe, and Facebook (to an extent) use non-native-looking controls and different user interface paradigms. All of them are cross-platform as well.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - _jal 7y ago
    That's mobile. Single-small-screen use patterns are quite obviously very different than desktop use. I care very much when normal Macintosh facilities are ignored, widgets don't act like they should, etc. etc. The entire point of the Mac is that seamlessness. I wonder how many of these folks claiming nobody cares about desktop consistency will turn around and say the reason why Linux on the desktop isn't popular is because of lack of desktop consistency.
    - mroche 7y ago
      Part of the burden of building a cross platform desktop application is making sure the experience is consistent across platforms as users may need to be moving between them. For example, most CG/VFX applications are multi-platform to various degrees. None of them are native by your standards as that would be an obscene amount of complexity to develop, maintain, and more importantly support. However, all of the applications behave identically on all the platforms they run on (sans some specific host platform features like D3D support, RTX/Optix, macOS menu bar, etc), which makes supporting vast user bases simpler, and enabling mixed OS environments without introducing cognitive load just to understand what’s different about the app. We have our own gripes with UI/UX of these apps because they are complex, but not because they are not "native". Building a "native" application only works when you choose to target a single platform (like the Chime Go text editor), or if you have the reasonable ability and resources to have and support separate teams for each platform and the organization to coordinate roadmaps and priorities across them. From my experience, the only group I really see complain about "native" appearance is macOS users. Windows users really don’t seem to care, and on Linux (there are some vocal people) I guess you could say GTK is the native toolkit above X/Wayland, but it’s really up to the DE/WM for determine what the "native" context is.
      - _jal 7y ago
        This is hardly a new argument. I personally remember Mac users complaining about the Microsoft Word/Mac 4 -> 5 transition back in the early 90s, when big gray pseudo-3D button bars invaded. And you're right, Mac users are mainly the only ones to complain. That's because we do have a fairly consistent, unified experience and like it that way. Which is why I don't use apps that don't play nice on the Mac. If I wanted inconsistent, I'd use another platform. Developers have to make their own choices, of course. > but not because they are not "native". This is incorrect, and contradicted by your next paragraph. On my work machine, I use two non-native apps because I have to (Chrome is installed but only used for troubleshooting Chrome-specific issues). My home mac has zero. Adobe left a market gap for a few independent shops to step into on the graphics side, MS on the office app side. Here's hoping more do elsewhere. I like indies.

It uses different UI paradigms, doesn't even try to look like native controls let alone use them, and isn't fully system-integrated with the behaviour you'd get from a native app. I just opened, and saw: * Has an expand/collapse panel on the left, using large icons. Not Mac-ish, very Google though. * Title bar isn't integrated with the system (eg can't right-click on the filename to access locations.) * General look and feel uses different controls. For example, the Problems/Output/Debug Console tabs: they aren't rendered like macOS tabs. They're capitalized text, and the UI is completely different. * Cmd+, to open Preferences opens a tab, not a Preferences dialog. This is text (which is nice, good for a dev environment) but even the headings and collapse/expand controls are custom. There is no UI here that behaves like a Mac app. I could continue for hours. There's almost _nothing_ in the app that is built in an Apple or macOS-congruent style. Now, it's a good app. Absolutely. But it's not a Mac-ish app. With a native app, all of these things could be done in just as clean (and very similar in layout) UI, but in a Mac style and with what you, as a Mac user, have grown to expect as Mac app behaviour.

snazz 7y ago
I'm not sure how much non-developers care about "native look and feel". In the arena of iOS apps, extremely popular ones like Snapchat, Discord, Gmail, GroupMe, and Facebook (to an extent) use non-native-looking controls and different user interface paradigms. All of them are cross-platform as well.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- _jal 7y ago
  That's mobile. Single-small-screen use patterns are quite obviously very different than desktop use. I care very much when normal Macintosh facilities are ignored, widgets don't act like they should, etc. etc. The entire point of the Mac is that seamlessness. I wonder how many of these folks claiming nobody cares about desktop consistency will turn around and say the reason why Linux on the desktop isn't popular is because of lack of desktop consistency.
  - mroche 7y ago
    Part of the burden of building a cross platform desktop application is making sure the experience is consistent across platforms as users may need to be moving between them. For example, most CG/VFX applications are multi-platform to various degrees. None of them are native by your standards as that would be an obscene amount of complexity to develop, maintain, and more importantly support. However, all of the applications behave identically on all the platforms they run on (sans some specific host platform features like D3D support, RTX/Optix, macOS menu bar, etc), which makes supporting vast user bases simpler, and enabling mixed OS environments without introducing cognitive load just to understand what’s different about the app. We have our own gripes with UI/UX of these apps because they are complex, but not because they are not "native". Building a "native" application only works when you choose to target a single platform (like the Chime Go text editor), or if you have the reasonable ability and resources to have and support separate teams for each platform and the organization to coordinate roadmaps and priorities across them. From my experience, the only group I really see complain about "native" appearance is macOS users. Windows users really don’t seem to care, and on Linux (there are some vocal people) I guess you could say GTK is the native toolkit above X/Wayland, but it’s really up to the DE/WM for determine what the "native" context is.
    - _jal 7y ago
      This is hardly a new argument. I personally remember Mac users complaining about the Microsoft Word/Mac 4 -> 5 transition back in the early 90s, when big gray pseudo-3D button bars invaded. And you're right, Mac users are mainly the only ones to complain. That's because we do have a fairly consistent, unified experience and like it that way. Which is why I don't use apps that don't play nice on the Mac. If I wanted inconsistent, I'd use another platform. Developers have to make their own choices, of course. > but not because they are not "native". This is incorrect, and contradicted by your next paragraph. On my work machine, I use two non-native apps because I have to (Chrome is installed but only used for troubleshooting Chrome-specific issues). My home mac has zero. Adobe left a market gap for a few independent shops to step into on the graphics side, MS on the office app side. Here's hoping more do elsewhere. I like indies.