1. wunderlist. How is this beautiful? They crammed a wood-styled UI into OS X's standard window chrome. The toggle switches at the bottom are not the OS-provided ones and look like they're intended to match the iPhone app more than the OS they're running on. Things is a far better example here. 2. Reeder. See http://danielkennett.org/blog/2010/12/analysing-a-touch-to-d... 3. Sparrow. These are not OS X toolbar icons…
4. It's not that unique, is it? I used KDE's FileLight[1][2] some years ago and it had that same visualization. [1]: http://www.methylblue.com/filelight/ [2]: http://kde-apps.org/content/show.php?content=9887
Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces
21–30 of 47 posts
Re: Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces
#221. wunderlist. How is this beautiful? They crammed a wood-styled UI into OS X's standard window chrome. The toggle switches at the bottom are not the OS-provided ones and look like they're intended to match the iPhone app more than the OS they're running on. Things is a far better example here. 2. Reeder. See http://danielkennett.org/blog/2010/12/analysing-a-touch-to-d... 3. Sparrow. These are not OS X toolbar icons…
2. I don't get how that invalidates Reeder in any way? Seems like a minor niggle ("buttons should be larger").
Re: Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces
#23I agree that Transmit and 1Password are exemplary Mac OS X user interfaces. The other apps mentioned: not so much. To me, they look like iOS ports. Lots of chrome, wasted screen real estate. My personal favorites: Versions - http://versionsapp.com/ Kaleidoscope - http://www.kaleidoscopeapp.com/ Coda - http://panic.com/coda/ Espresso - http://macrabbit.com/espresso/ PixelMator - http://www.pixelmator.com/ BoinxTV - ht…
Re: Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces
#24The performance of some of these apps is appalling. The Sparrow GMail client idles in the background on my MacBook Air around 20 or 30% CPU usage on one core. If you try to scroll the list of mail, resize the window, or breathe on it wrong, it will chug, the graphics will stutter, and it will peg itself at 100% cpu for several seconds. If I have it running, it cuts my estimated remaining battery life from 4 hours to…
Sparrow may not be that terrible; on first launch, it fetches, caches, and indexes the entirety of your Gmail account. I'm hoping that the CPU usage will subside once it finishes that process, but I still have a few thousand messages to go... Edit: After finishing caching everything, Sparrow's CPU usage dropped to ~0% when idle. Scrolling, however, causes it to rocket up to ~70-80% on a 2.66 GHz Core i7 MacBook Pro.
Anyway the interface is so much better that I'm willing to make the tradeoff!
Re: Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces
#251. wunderlist. How is this beautiful? They crammed a wood-styled UI into OS X's standard window chrome. The toggle switches at the bottom are not the OS-provided ones and look like they're intended to match the iPhone app more than the OS they're running on. Things is a far better example here. 2. Reeder. See http://danielkennett.org/blog/2010/12/analysing-a-touch-to-d... 3. Sparrow. These are not OS X toolbar icons…
Re: Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces
#26Why is this wrong? 1) Lucida Grande was optimized for legibility on low- and medium-resolution screens [1], and Helvetica is a 50-year-old print font. 2) Lucida Grande is the system font, and other fonts stick out like a sore-thumb, contrary to the consistency designer’s strive for [2].
The problem, of course, is that Apple keeps using Helvetica in their own Mac apps, most recently across vast swaths of iPhoto, seemingly for the sole benefit of making it more like an iOS app (especially when full screen), disregarding much of what makes a Mac app unique.
Re: Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces
#27I don't think it looks prettier, but to me most modern GTK apps on Ubuntu seem much more consistent and strict as far as respecting the platform UI guidelines.
Re: Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces
#281. wunderlist. How is this beautiful? They crammed a wood-styled UI into OS X's standard window chrome. The toggle switches at the bottom are not the OS-provided ones and look like they're intended to match the iPhone app more than the OS they're running on. Things is a far better example here. 2. Reeder. See http://danielkennett.org/blog/2010/12/analysing-a-touch-to-d... 3. Sparrow. These are not OS X toolbar icons…
> http://danielkennett.org/blog/2010/12/analysing-a-touch-to-d... Jeez, where did you find this junk? Ridiculously lopsided and it reads like the Reeder's designer peed in author's morning coffee at some point. > The user is moving towards those (quite small) buttons from a fair distance away, and are therefore likely to overshoot. Likely to overshoot? Really? I take if buttons were larger, the user would just hit th…
I disagree. I've been using Reeder like crazy since the first beta is publicly released, and up till now my experience is: it is the best OS X app I've ever used. The UI is not flawless on a screen without touching, but it's the most efficient and elegant interface I've ever seen on a desktop app.
Complaining those little buttons are hard to reach is kinda pointless for two reasons:
1) It's secondary usage. One spends most of time in a feed reader scanning through headlines, or reading the actual content. How many times do you actually star an article? I don't believe I have a higher standards for articles, but I probably star 2~4 articles a day. Why do you want to clutter an elegant interface for such low value functionality? As for the management feature, sure you'll manage the feeds in Google Reader. Reeder is supposed to be just a, em, reader.
2) Those actions all have really really simple and easy to remember shortcuts. If you are a power user of feeds and you do a lot of unreading, starring, etc, the right way to do is to press the shortcut keys. M for marking un/read, S for starring. How hard is that?
What has Reeder got right as a feed reader, compared to, say, NetNewsWire or Google Reader? Layout and typography.
The 3-column layout is so much more efficient than the two-panel with right-panel split into headlines and body (a.k.a. Mail.app style). The left column to select categories and feed. This is the same in Reeder, NNW and GR. But the killer is the middle column.
In the headline views in both NNW and GR you get a single line to show the title and the first few words of a feed. This line is spanning too long horizontally, which makes it hard to scan through long lists of feeds due to the inability to quickly reposition visual focus back to the beginning of the next line. There is a reason why we have an “optimal line-width”.
In Reeder the middle column positions titles and the first few words vertically, which makes the line-width shorter (it has to make room for the right column anyway) and far easier to scan through. I believe this style is actually pioneered by Microsoft in Outlook. Look at any well-designed newspaper and you'll see the same design: narrow columns for quick scanning.
Plus, in NNW's Mail.app-style right column, the vertical screen asset for the actual feed content is significantly wasted when you want to read a long feed: by default more than half the vertical pixels are devoted to the headline view (although you can adjust this but then it conflicts with the headline view when scanning titles). Sure you can click and open a feed, but that extra one click kills efficiency. And because the content view is much wider, we get the same line-width issue before. Reeder's Outlook-style right column, being both taller and narrower, makes it much easier for reading feeds.
And don't even get me started on typography! In the official GR, the typography is basically a completely failure (as in nearly all Google products anyway). They don't even bother to provide a larger line-height! Reading in GR is just a painful experience.
Re: Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces
#291. They have glossy websites that talk about how awesome they are. 2. They have copy that claims they have awesome UI. 3. You download them, try them, and realize they do almost nothing except look pretty.
It's pretty hard to find exceptions to this.
Re: Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces
#301. wunderlist. How is this beautiful? They crammed a wood-styled UI into OS X's standard window chrome. The toggle switches at the bottom are not the OS-provided ones and look like they're intended to match the iPhone app more than the OS they're running on. Things is a far better example here. 2. Reeder. See http://danielkennett.org/blog/2010/12/analysing-a-touch-to-d... 3. Sparrow. These are not OS X toolbar icons…