5 ms·

Interesting. The article starts with this: > Sequoia → Tahoe It’s bad And I look at the image... And I like it? I agree with the author that it could be bette

Interesting. The article starts with this: > Sequoia → Tahoe It’s bad And I look at the image... And I like it? I agree with the author that it could be better, but most of the icons (new, open recent, close, save, duplicate, print, share etc), do make it easier, faster and more pleasant for my brain to parse the menu vs no icons. Again, I don't disagree that you could do it better, I just disagree with the premise that the 1992 manual is "the authority". Display density has increased dramatically; people use their computers more and have been accustomed to those interfaces, which makes the relationship of the people with the interfaces different. Quoting a 1992 guideline on interfaces in 2026 feels like quoting the greeks on philosophy while ignoring our understandings of the world since then.

afandian 9mo ago
I wouldn't take too much into a book about optimising database storage written for 90s-era hard disks and CPUs. But a file menu is still a file menu, and save is still save. In fact it's remarkable how little that has changed since 1983.
vehemenz 9mo ago
The author addresses this. Humans are the same in 2026 as 1992. Besides, that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face.
- paulcole 9mo ago
  Why is it highly implausible on its face other than the fact it makes arguing against him harder?
  - jollyllama 9mo ago
    Why would UX be getting worse across the board if there is greater understanding now?
    - paulcole 9mo ago
      Did you mean to reply to me? The person I replied to said, "that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face" Think of computer users at the ages of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 in 1992. For each group, estimate their computer knowledge when they sat down at a computer in 1992. Now do the same exercise for the year 2026. How is it highly implausible on its face that the average computer user in 2026 understands less than the average computer user in 1992?
      - jollyllama 9mo ago
        > Did you mean to reply to me? I think so. > The person I replied to said, "that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face" Yes, I agree with this person. >How is it highly implausible on its face that the average computer user in 2026 understands less than the average computer user in 1992? I don't think it is. Particularly with the average user, the bar of understanding is lower now.
        paulcole 9mo ago
        > Particularly with the average user, the bar of understanding is lower now. Can you explain how this is true given that everyone using a computer today has had a lifetime of computer use whereas in 1992 many people were encountering computers for the first time?
        jollyllama 9mo ago
        > Can you explain how this is true given that everyone using a computer today has had a lifetime of computer use whereas in 1992 many people were encountering computers for the first time? The userbase has been watered down with a larger proportion of individuals who are not highly technical.
        FarmerPotato 9mo ago
- mxfh 9mo ago
  Humans are definitely not the same as in 1992 when it comes to their everyday knowledge of computer interactions. And even if human cognition itself were unchanged, our understanding of HCI has evolved significantly since then, well beyond what merely “feels right.” Most UX researchers today can back up their claims with empirical data. The article goes on at great length about consistency, yet then insists that text transformations require special treatment, with the HIG example looking outright unreadable. Menu text should remain stable and not mirror or preview what’s happening to the selected text IMHO. Also, some redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing in UI design, and not all users, for various reasons, can read with a vocabulary that covers the full breadth of what a system provides.
  - iainmerrick 9mo ago
    Most UX researchers today can back up their claims with empirical data. HCI work in 1992 was very heavily based on user research, famously so at Apple. They definitely had the data. I find myself questioning that today (like, have these horrible Tahoe icons really been tested properly?) although maybe unfairly, as I'm not an HCI expert. It does feel like there are more bad UIs around today, but that doesn't necessarily mean techniques have regressed. Computers just do a hell of a lot more stuff these days, so maybe it's just impossible to avoid additional complexity. One thing that has definitely changed is the use of automated A/B testing -- is that the "empirical data" you're thinking of? I do wonder if that mostly provides short-term gains while gradually messing up the overall coherency of the UI. Also, micro-optimizing via A/B testing can lead to frequent UI churn, which is something that I and many others find very annoying and confusing.
    - mxfh 9mo ago
      I there not any user testing as we know it today, mostly top down application of priciples. This was all experts driven in that time to my knowledge. Empirical validiton did not really take off until the late 00s. https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/4p-guidelines.html https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/4p-guidelines.html Don had the explicit expert knowledge first stance in 2006 and 2011, nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's defenitly no research driven. "Always be researching. Always be acting." https://jnd.org/act-first-do-the-research-later/ https://jnd.org/act-first-do-the-research-later/ Tognazzini and Norman already criticized Appple about this a decade ago, while the have many good points, I cannot shake the feeling that they simply feel like the were used to just brand Apple as user friendly in the 90s and that Apple never actually adopted their principles and just used it as it fit the company's marketing. https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-desi... there are a bunch of discussions on this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10559387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10559387 [2015] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19887519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19887519 [2019]
christophilus 9mo ago
If you haven’t done so, I’d suggest reading that HIG. It is clear thinking, expressed well, and it stands the test of time.
jaffa2 9mo ago
most of your points are refuted in the article. but I'll pick this one : "Display density has increased dramatically" Yes, it has, and Tahoe does not take advantage of this, infact the icons are smaller, and harder to read, using fewer pixels than windows icons of 25 years ago.
- josalhor 9mo ago
  > most of your points are refuted in the article Sure, we can debate about the general points. Yet, we can't refute that my subjective opinion evaluation of the opening image looks better (for me) , reads better (for me) and is easier (for me) to parse. Either I don't fit the general guidelines, or the general guidelines need a revision, that's my point overall.
  - jaffa2 9mo ago
    Well - that's just your --- opinion, man. But answer me this. You say "but most [but not all? - interesting] of the icons do make it easier, faster and more pleasant for my brain to parse the menu vs no icons." How does a list of icons that are used inconsistently, duplicated, used in other places, sometimes used and sometimes not used, not to mention illegible, positioned inconsistently, go directly against the broad (reasoned) rules of the Apple HIG, help 'make it easier' as you say? This is literally what half the article is explaining and you are just saying - no it's easier to not be able to tell an icon apart, and it's easier to have the icons sometimes be the same or move locations, be so small as to be illegible. How many did you get when the menu text was removed ? I just don't believe it makes it easier. But who am I to argue against someones 'subjective opinion evaluation' I'm just a guy on the internet. ps I assume by the opening image, you mean the first screenshot supplied by the author of the article - the Sequoia to Tahoe menu comparison, which he brilliantly posted below a shot of the HIG which literally is explaining the exact same thing and why not to do it the Tahoe way. That in it self is confusing. It makes no sense why Apple chose to do that with Tahoe? I'll add a general comment - one of the reasons I use Apple systems was they had the UI stuff nailed down. Stuff was consistent. It looked and behaved in proper ways. It felt like a properly designed, holistic approach to UI design. Lately it's just a mess. This article touch the surface of the issues. My current beef is this stupid 'class of window' that appears now and again which is half-way between a dialog and a window. Best place to see it is immediately after a screenshot - click the thumb that appears. This window type doesn't behave like any other window. Z-order, closing, focus, actions that occur when you click certain things, are all different and inconsistent. But it does look a little like IOS though.

afandian 9mo ago

I wouldn't take too much into a book about optimising database storage written for 90s-era hard disks and CPUs. But a file menu is still a file menu, and save is still save. In fact it's remarkable how little that has changed since 1983.

vehemenz 9mo ago

The author addresses this. Humans are the same in 2026 as 1992. Besides, that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face.

paulcole 9mo ago
Why is it highly implausible on its face other than the fact it makes arguing against him harder?
- jollyllama 9mo ago
  Why would UX be getting worse across the board if there is greater understanding now?
  - paulcole 9mo ago
    Did you mean to reply to me? The person I replied to said, "that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face" Think of computer users at the ages of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 in 1992. For each group, estimate their computer knowledge when they sat down at a computer in 1992. Now do the same exercise for the year 2026. How is it highly implausible on its face that the average computer user in 2026 understands less than the average computer user in 1992?
    - jollyllama 9mo ago
      > Did you mean to reply to me? I think so. > The person I replied to said, "that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face" Yes, I agree with this person. >How is it highly implausible on its face that the average computer user in 2026 understands less than the average computer user in 1992? I don't think it is. Particularly with the average user, the bar of understanding is lower now.
      - paulcole 9mo ago
        > Particularly with the average user, the bar of understanding is lower now. Can you explain how this is true given that everyone using a computer today has had a lifetime of computer use whereas in 1992 many people were encountering computers for the first time?
        jollyllama 9mo ago
        > Can you explain how this is true given that everyone using a computer today has had a lifetime of computer use whereas in 1992 many people were encountering computers for the first time? The userbase has been watered down with a larger proportion of individuals who are not highly technical.
        FarmerPotato 9mo ago
mxfh 9mo ago
Humans are definitely not the same as in 1992 when it comes to their everyday knowledge of computer interactions. And even if human cognition itself were unchanged, our understanding of HCI has evolved significantly since then, well beyond what merely “feels right.” Most UX researchers today can back up their claims with empirical data. The article goes on at great length about consistency, yet then insists that text transformations require special treatment, with the HIG example looking outright unreadable. Menu text should remain stable and not mirror or preview what’s happening to the selected text IMHO. Also, some redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing in UI design, and not all users, for various reasons, can read with a vocabulary that covers the full breadth of what a system provides.
- iainmerrick 9mo ago
  Most UX researchers today can back up their claims with empirical data. HCI work in 1992 was very heavily based on user research, famously so at Apple. They definitely had the data. I find myself questioning that today (like, have these horrible Tahoe icons really been tested properly?) although maybe unfairly, as I'm not an HCI expert. It does feel like there are more bad UIs around today, but that doesn't necessarily mean techniques have regressed. Computers just do a hell of a lot more stuff these days, so maybe it's just impossible to avoid additional complexity. One thing that has definitely changed is the use of automated A/B testing -- is that the "empirical data" you're thinking of? I do wonder if that mostly provides short-term gains while gradually messing up the overall coherency of the UI. Also, micro-optimizing via A/B testing can lead to frequent UI churn, which is something that I and many others find very annoying and confusing.
  - mxfh 9mo ago
    I there not any user testing as we know it today, mostly top down application of priciples. This was all experts driven in that time to my knowledge. Empirical validiton did not really take off until the late 00s. https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/4p-guidelines.html https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/4p-guidelines.html Don had the explicit expert knowledge first stance in 2006 and 2011, nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's defenitly no research driven. "Always be researching. Always be acting." https://jnd.org/act-first-do-the-research-later/ https://jnd.org/act-first-do-the-research-later/ Tognazzini and Norman already criticized Appple about this a decade ago, while the have many good points, I cannot shake the feeling that they simply feel like the were used to just brand Apple as user friendly in the 90s and that Apple never actually adopted their principles and just used it as it fit the company's marketing. https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-desi... there are a bunch of discussions on this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10559387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10559387 [2015] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19887519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19887519 [2019]

christophilus 9mo ago

If you haven’t done so, I’d suggest reading that HIG. It is clear thinking, expressed well, and it stands the test of time.

jaffa2 9mo ago

most of your points are refuted in the article. but I'll pick this one : "Display density has increased dramatically" Yes, it has, and Tahoe does not take advantage of this, infact the icons are smaller, and harder to read, using fewer pixels than windows icons of 25 years ago.

josalhor 9mo ago
> most of your points are refuted in the article Sure, we can debate about the general points. Yet, we can't refute that my subjective opinion evaluation of the opening image looks better (for me) , reads better (for me) and is easier (for me) to parse. Either I don't fit the general guidelines, or the general guidelines need a revision, that's my point overall.
- jaffa2 9mo ago
  Well - that's just your --- opinion, man. But answer me this. You say "but most [but not all? - interesting] of the icons do make it easier, faster and more pleasant for my brain to parse the menu vs no icons." How does a list of icons that are used inconsistently, duplicated, used in other places, sometimes used and sometimes not used, not to mention illegible, positioned inconsistently, go directly against the broad (reasoned) rules of the Apple HIG, help 'make it easier' as you say? This is literally what half the article is explaining and you are just saying - no it's easier to not be able to tell an icon apart, and it's easier to have the icons sometimes be the same or move locations, be so small as to be illegible. How many did you get when the menu text was removed ? I just don't believe it makes it easier. But who am I to argue against someones 'subjective opinion evaluation' I'm just a guy on the internet. ps I assume by the opening image, you mean the first screenshot supplied by the author of the article - the Sequoia to Tahoe menu comparison, which he brilliantly posted below a shot of the HIG which literally is explaining the exact same thing and why not to do it the Tahoe way. That in it self is confusing. It makes no sense why Apple chose to do that with Tahoe? I'll add a general comment - one of the reasons I use Apple systems was they had the UI stuff nailed down. Stuff was consistent. It looked and behaved in proper ways. It felt like a properly designed, holistic approach to UI design. Lately it's just a mess. This article touch the surface of the issues. My current beef is this stupid 'class of window' that appears now and again which is half-way between a dialog and a window. Best place to see it is immediately after a screenshot - click the thumb that appears. This window type doesn't behave like any other window. Z-order, closing, focus, actions that occur when you click certain things, are all different and inconsistent. But it does look a little like IOS though.