How Apple Is Giving Design a Bad Name

Post by spronkey » Sun, Nov 15, 2015, 12:43 AM UTC

dpkonofa wrote: post #64

sorenjan wrote: post #9

I've long found it strange that the same company that didn't want a second mouse button because they didn't want to hide functionality in context menus now hide so much functionality behind gestures with a varying amount of fingers. This started while Jobs where still at Apple, so it can't be blamed entirely on his successors.

I disagree a bit with this assessment of Apple's intentions. It wasn't that they didn't want a second mouse button because they didn't want to hide functionality because you could always hold down the Control key and click to access those functions, even on a single button mouse. The issue (and where I think the design is really thoughtful) is that it's never required to use that second mouse button (or Control) but…

Post by spronkey » Sun, Nov 15, 2015, 12:54 AM UTC

marssaxman wrote: post #88

MCRed wrote: post #53

It's sad to see Norman and Tognazinni-- men whose books I've read-- giving themselves a bad name. The bashing Apple bandwagon has been going on for 35 years now, and while being able to put up a headline like that guarantees publication, the quality of the articles below them has not improved. Clearly this is an article written by guys who have not been regularly using other products to see the competition- the lack…

Maybe it's just that I never got on the iphone bandwagon, but I've never found anything about the Android UI confusing or frustrating, other than the inherent frustration that comes with the limitations of a tiny touchscreen-based interface. What exactly do you have in mind?

Post by ThomPete » Sun, Nov 15, 2015, 1:12 AM UTC

Silhouette wrote: post #108

ThomPete wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All interaction is learned. There is literally nothing that is obvious to the unexperienced thats not the discussion here. The question is whether the metaphor model that Don & co are advocating is a better one and to which I would argue it's not because that too rely en metaphors to be learned. The touch metaphor is litterally the way into the interface (ahh i can touch things, ahh i can also swipe things etc.) In t…

All interaction is learned. There is literally nothing that is obvious to the unexperienced thats not the discussion here. But there is a scale of how easily something is learned, and a UI with more or better affordances will be easier to learn than one with worse or fewer affordances. As someone who designs a lot of UI, I was nodding through much of this article. The most obvious part I disagreed with was the idea t…

Post by commandar » Sun, Nov 15, 2015, 1:23 AM UTC

pedalpete wrote: post #109

sorenjan wrote: post #9

I've long found it strange that the same company that didn't want a second mouse button because they didn't want to hide functionality in context menus now hide so much functionality behind gestures with a varying amount of fingers. This started while Jobs where still at Apple, so it can't be blamed entirely on his successors.

The company that didn't want the second mouse button because they didn't want to hide functionality in context menus always hid the functionality behind a keypress-mouseclick. How this was ever better for the end user is beyond me. My theory has always been that Apple liked the design aesthetic of a single mouse button and and aesthetic won out over actually good design. From my experience this is the Apple way. I ca…

Post by dionidium » Sun, Nov 15, 2015, 1:24 AM UTC

mikepalmer wrote: post #32

"Gone are the fundamental principles of good design: discoverability, feedback, recovery, and so on. Instead, Apple has, in striving for beauty, created fonts that are so small or thin, coupled with low contrast, that they are difficult or impossible for many people with normal vision to read. We have obscure gestures that are beyond even the developer’s ability to remember. We have great features that most people do…