3 ms·

The problem is, it seems to be not so much about space efficiency, but about streamlined appearance (e.g., there's now less horizontal space and fewer controls

The problem is, it seems to be not so much about space efficiency, but about streamlined appearance (e.g., there's now less horizontal space and fewer controls are shown at once), which translates to low semantic contrast, wich again translates to lower work efficiency. And it's the latter, which causes most of the criticism, as not all users want to trade personal time and usability for looks (or prettier printouts of the UI).

SllX 6y ago
I'm not going to defend Apple's work on this front, it's just they decided to consolidate the title bar and toolbar to free up some vertical screen real estate pressure and they're leaning hard on these slide animations to hide some of the UI elements so as to not overload the toolbar/titlebar thing. That to me looks like a botched attempt to make it more space efficient, although I do at least like the bit with the search bar. John Siracusa has a different theory though, and having had time to go through and examine to changes in the HIG in more detail, I'm inclined to agree. The spacing and layout and sizing appears to make Mac OS XI more "touchable", i.e. we should expect Macs with touch screens at some point.
- masswerk 6y ago
  I can also see, why this is not a bad choice for touch interfaces. However, at the same time, this also illustrates, why it may be not that great a choice for a WIMP interface: the kind of "intimacy" related to the specific mode of interaction is essentially different. Where contrast and too much of variety may be irritating for a touch interface, it may be already too low in contrast and information density for a WIMP GUI. On the other hand, visual grouping (and semantic collapsing of groups) is much more important for the more remote WIMP interface, whereas touch already is much more locally focused. Generally, treating them both the same isn't a good idea.

SllX 6y ago

I'm not going to defend Apple's work on this front, it's just they decided to consolidate the title bar and toolbar to free up some vertical screen real estate pressure and they're leaning hard on these slide animations to hide some of the UI elements so as to not overload the toolbar/titlebar thing. That to me looks like a botched attempt to make it more space efficient, although I do at least like the bit with the search bar. John Siracusa has a different theory though, and having had time to go through and examine to changes in the HIG in more detail, I'm inclined to agree. The spacing and layout and sizing appears to make Mac OS XI more "touchable", i.e. we should expect Macs with touch screens at some point.

masswerk 6y ago
I can also see, why this is not a bad choice for touch interfaces. However, at the same time, this also illustrates, why it may be not that great a choice for a WIMP interface: the kind of "intimacy" related to the specific mode of interaction is essentially different. Where contrast and too much of variety may be irritating for a touch interface, it may be already too low in contrast and information density for a WIMP GUI. On the other hand, visual grouping (and semantic collapsing of groups) is much more important for the more remote WIMP interface, whereas touch already is much more locally focused. Generally, treating them both the same isn't a good idea.