7 ms·

I'm not a designer so I might be missing some of the terminology here but I really dislike the move towards "buttons that don't look like buttons". Have a look

by st1x7 6y ago

I'm not a designer so I might be missing some of the terminology here but I really dislike the move towards "buttons that don't look like buttons". Have a look at the old and new Notes app for example. In the old one it's very clear just visually where on the screen you can click to make an action like creating a new note or changing the font. In the new design all those actions just float in the top ribbon without any separation from the background or from each other. Seems worse to me.

zozbot234 6y ago
Good point. In non-flat widget themes. the distinction between an "active" widget you can interact with and a background element is given precisely by the 3D look of active widgets. This is a simple and intuitive approach, whereas "flat" themes offer no real alternative.
- paleogizmo 6y ago
  I keep hearing this point brought up, but I haven't seen a good case for flat widget elements being confusing. In this very form I'm typing in, all the clickable elements (hyperlinks and submit button) are flat, but different styles immediately distinguish them from non-clickable elements, even if these styles vary between web pages and browsers. It's never been the case that GUIs consistently used 3D appearances to denote clickable widgets. 3D elements add a lot of visual clutter for complicated interfaces, which is why those "flat UI sucks" posts only show <10 GUI elements side-by-side. Google "Word 95" and "Word 98," both have a flat menu bar, though Word 98 has the addition of flat toolbars which helps readability.
  - tokamak-teapot 6y ago
    When it’s common enough that a menu bar and toolbar are part of applications, the user knows that the elements within are clickable. When you have clickable elements in places where they might not be expected to be clickable, that’s when it gets confusing.
hugi 6y ago
This is the exact reason why I absolutely hate flat styled UIs. I find it difficult to see what the different types of elements are, what they do, what their state is, wether they're actual elements to begin with… It's a step backward.
- m463 6y ago
  it's even more fun in the phone app, where you touch random things and it makes a call.
polytely 6y ago
I think the term is signifiers, I think coined by Don Norman (The Design of Everyday things), basically every object has affordances (the things you can do with it) and signifiers are the thing that communicate these affordances to the user. Apple has decided that usability is less important than making the whole bar one colour because they have totally lost the fucking plot. Apples whole design team should be fired into the sun.
- achairapart 6y ago
  The plot is really clear to me: The road to iOS look and feel exact match. There are millions of iOS users that now will look at macOS UI with more familiarity and confidence. And like any business goal, it is far more important for them than any usability perspective (not that they don't care, but...). Apple Silicon will help break this barrier even further. The two OSes will also share the same apps. This is also what Windows 8 and Chrome OS tried, even hard, and failed, more or less miserably. Ironically, the new Finder looks a lot more like the Windows 10 file explorer to me.
- nubizus 6y ago
  I think this "highly polished" visual first - usability second approach has cognitive overload for the user. In my view desktop interface must be designed around mouse pointer interaction which is precise and demands clear separation of UI. Here we have clear focus on content area which is in harmony with touch based interaction. There are two options in my mind: 1. Design team follows marketing brief - do it like iDevices ASAP. 2. Apple will introduce touch as a part of desktop experience in near future. Personally I don't find this design appealing or easy on the eyes, but I am interface designer and obviously I have personal bias.
- m463 6y ago
  It's obvious they're just lacking leadership at the top. I think all the groups have just kept doing what they've always done which is to incrementally improve what they're good at. so "I have these two codebases that are drastically different, let's combine them" - toolkit folks and "I have all this hardware that's drastically different, let's optimize and make them the same" - hardware folks and "I collect a little data, can I have a little more?" - marketing folks and on and on until it's all mud.
jmull 6y ago
I think they look like clickable things, and would to the vast majority of users. This kind of design has been validated on enumerable sites and app. I think it's important to note that the visual cues that make something look clickable are based on convention, not some inherent clickableness. Generally, I like this trend because it deemphasizes window and by contrast emphasizes content. Content is the general point of apps.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- moron4hire 6y ago
  Counterpoint https://twitter.com/Sean_McBeth/status/1324803044219998208?s=19 https://twitter.com/Sean_McBeth/status/1324803044219998208?s... Lack of UI differentiating decoration is a problem.
  - hu3 6y ago
    To add to that, before I had a comfortably sized, well delimited, search bar to click and start typing on Notes. Now it's just a small flat gray icon: https://www.andrewdenty.com/blog/assets/img/macos-new-ui/notes/0-notes-first-launch-macos-catalina-big-sur-comparison.png https://www.andrewdenty.com/blog/assets/img/macos-new-ui/not...
  - jmull 6y ago
    I think that tweet is referring to a Windows-specific issue, where many windows have no visual border so that when one is on top of and offset from another, they run into each other. That makes it difficult to see or select a window. In Big Sur the icons are visible. You just need to understand the design language that in a bar of icons, the icons are buttons.
    - simonh 6y ago
      My Windows 10 desktop at work drives me nuts, it’s extremely hard to identify the delineation between overlapping windows. There is a setting to highlight windows borders, but restrictions policy prevents you from selecting it.
seanwilson 6y ago
> I'm not a designer so I might be missing some of the terminology here but I really dislike the move towards "buttons that don't look like buttons". I wish people would put this common criticism in perspective though. Maybe the buttons are a little harder to recognise in flat design but not a huge amount. And maybe it makes them look at little better. Everything about software design is about tradeoffs and not everyone is optimising for the same thing. I don't think any commercial product is designed with 100% usability for every design choice, if that's even possible.
- st1x7 6y ago
  Of course. I just don't see what's on the other side of this tradeoff. What was gained through the redesign?
  - seanwilson 6y ago
    Did you mean this example? https://www.andrewdenty.com/blog/assets/img/macos-new-ui/notes/0-notes-first-launch-macos-catalina-big-sur-comparison.png https://www.andrewdenty.com/blog/assets/img/macos-new-ui/not... The actions bar redesign looks good to me. It's obvious they're buttons to me. It looks cleaner, more modern and less cluttered than before to me. Having the buttons not draw your eye too much can be good if they're rarely used because your focus is drawn to more important parts of the UI. Not keen on the poor contrast white on mustard coloured button though. What would you give out of the 10 for the design before and after? Is it really so bad or just a little worse for you?
    - shard 6y ago
      Without edges on the buttons, you no longer know where you can click. The affordances thus have shrank to the edge of the images themselves, reducing usability, especially for people who have motor control issues.
      - seanwilson 6y ago
        > Without edges on the buttons, you no longer know where you can click. I don't see the issue. It's obvious to me by looking that they're buttons and users aim to click in the middle so if they miss by a little it's likely going to work if you mean that. Even if it was an issue, it sounds like a very small one and a tradeoff for a cleaner look. Nothing is perfect.
cosmotic 6y ago
If you, not a designer, realize the problem, imagine how it feels to be a designer looking at this from the outside. It's hugely frustrating.

by st1x7 6y ago

zozbot234 6y ago

Good point. In non-flat widget themes. the distinction between an "active" widget you can interact with and a background element is given precisely by the 3D look of active widgets. This is a simple and intuitive approach, whereas "flat" themes offer no real alternative.

paleogizmo 6y ago
I keep hearing this point brought up, but I haven't seen a good case for flat widget elements being confusing. In this very form I'm typing in, all the clickable elements (hyperlinks and submit button) are flat, but different styles immediately distinguish them from non-clickable elements, even if these styles vary between web pages and browsers. It's never been the case that GUIs consistently used 3D appearances to denote clickable widgets. 3D elements add a lot of visual clutter for complicated interfaces, which is why those "flat UI sucks" posts only show <10 GUI elements side-by-side. Google "Word 95" and "Word 98," both have a flat menu bar, though Word 98 has the addition of flat toolbars which helps readability.
- tokamak-teapot 6y ago
  When it’s common enough that a menu bar and toolbar are part of applications, the user knows that the elements within are clickable. When you have clickable elements in places where they might not be expected to be clickable, that’s when it gets confusing.

hugi 6y ago

This is the exact reason why I absolutely hate flat styled UIs. I find it difficult to see what the different types of elements are, what they do, what their state is, wether they're actual elements to begin with… It's a step backward.

m463 6y ago
it's even more fun in the phone app, where you touch random things and it makes a call.

polytely 6y ago

I think the term is signifiers, I think coined by Don Norman (The Design of Everyday things), basically every object has affordances (the things you can do with it) and signifiers are the thing that communicate these affordances to the user. Apple has decided that usability is less important than making the whole bar one colour because they have totally lost the fucking plot. Apples whole design team should be fired into the sun.

achairapart 6y ago
The plot is really clear to me: The road to iOS look and feel exact match. There are millions of iOS users that now will look at macOS UI with more familiarity and confidence. And like any business goal, it is far more important for them than any usability perspective (not that they don't care, but...). Apple Silicon will help break this barrier even further. The two OSes will also share the same apps. This is also what Windows 8 and Chrome OS tried, even hard, and failed, more or less miserably. Ironically, the new Finder looks a lot more like the Windows 10 file explorer to me.
nubizus 6y ago
I think this "highly polished" visual first - usability second approach has cognitive overload for the user. In my view desktop interface must be designed around mouse pointer interaction which is precise and demands clear separation of UI. Here we have clear focus on content area which is in harmony with touch based interaction. There are two options in my mind: 1. Design team follows marketing brief - do it like iDevices ASAP. 2. Apple will introduce touch as a part of desktop experience in near future. Personally I don't find this design appealing or easy on the eyes, but I am interface designer and obviously I have personal bias.
m463 6y ago
It's obvious they're just lacking leadership at the top. I think all the groups have just kept doing what they've always done which is to incrementally improve what they're good at. so "I have these two codebases that are drastically different, let's combine them" - toolkit folks and "I have all this hardware that's drastically different, let's optimize and make them the same" - hardware folks and "I collect a little data, can I have a little more?" - marketing folks and on and on until it's all mud.

jmull 6y ago

I think they look like clickable things, and would to the vast majority of users. This kind of design has been validated on enumerable sites and app. I think it's important to note that the visual cues that make something look clickable are based on convention, not some inherent clickableness. Generally, I like this trend because it deemphasizes window and by contrast emphasizes content. Content is the general point of apps.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
moron4hire 6y ago
Counterpoint https://twitter.com/Sean_McBeth/status/1324803044219998208?s=19 https://twitter.com/Sean_McBeth/status/1324803044219998208?s... Lack of UI differentiating decoration is a problem.
- hu3 6y ago
  To add to that, before I had a comfortably sized, well delimited, search bar to click and start typing on Notes. Now it's just a small flat gray icon: https://www.andrewdenty.com/blog/assets/img/macos-new-ui/notes/0-notes-first-launch-macos-catalina-big-sur-comparison.png https://www.andrewdenty.com/blog/assets/img/macos-new-ui/not...
- jmull 6y ago
  I think that tweet is referring to a Windows-specific issue, where many windows have no visual border so that when one is on top of and offset from another, they run into each other. That makes it difficult to see or select a window. In Big Sur the icons are visible. You just need to understand the design language that in a bar of icons, the icons are buttons.
  - simonh 6y ago
    My Windows 10 desktop at work drives me nuts, it’s extremely hard to identify the delineation between overlapping windows. There is a setting to highlight windows borders, but restrictions policy prevents you from selecting it.

seanwilson 6y ago

> I'm not a designer so I might be missing some of the terminology here but I really dislike the move towards "buttons that don't look like buttons". I wish people would put this common criticism in perspective though. Maybe the buttons are a little harder to recognise in flat design but not a huge amount. And maybe it makes them look at little better. Everything about software design is about tradeoffs and not everyone is optimising for the same thing. I don't think any commercial product is designed with 100% usability for every design choice, if that's even possible.

st1x7 6y ago
Of course. I just don't see what's on the other side of this tradeoff. What was gained through the redesign?
- seanwilson 6y ago
  Did you mean this example? https://www.andrewdenty.com/blog/assets/img/macos-new-ui/notes/0-notes-first-launch-macos-catalina-big-sur-comparison.png https://www.andrewdenty.com/blog/assets/img/macos-new-ui/not... The actions bar redesign looks good to me. It's obvious they're buttons to me. It looks cleaner, more modern and less cluttered than before to me. Having the buttons not draw your eye too much can be good if they're rarely used because your focus is drawn to more important parts of the UI. Not keen on the poor contrast white on mustard coloured button though. What would you give out of the 10 for the design before and after? Is it really so bad or just a little worse for you?
  - shard 6y ago
    Without edges on the buttons, you no longer know where you can click. The affordances thus have shrank to the edge of the images themselves, reducing usability, especially for people who have motor control issues.
    - seanwilson 6y ago
      > Without edges on the buttons, you no longer know where you can click. I don't see the issue. It's obvious to me by looking that they're buttons and users aim to click in the middle so if they miss by a little it's likely going to work if you mean that. Even if it was an issue, it sounds like a very small one and a tradeoff for a cleaner look. Nothing is perfect.

cosmotic 6y ago

If you, not a designer, realize the problem, imagine how it feels to be a designer looking at this from the outside. It's hugely frustrating.