Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

tonsky.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 984 posts

Re: It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

#811

Post by vehemenz »

paulcole wrote: post #462
jollyllama wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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?

Here are a few perfectly acceptable explanations.

1. Computer users were generally well-educated, unlike today.

2. UX designers didn’t inherit any mess and could operate from first principles.

3. The “experience” of modern users—phones, tablets, and software that does everything for you—doesn’t translate the way you think. And it explains why Gen Z seems to have regressed in terms of tech knowledge.

Re: It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

#812

Post by tonymet »

The 90s marketplace was very different. Most of Apple’s customers were English speaking with a high reading level. Even in the US market, that is no longer the case.

I agree the icons look cluttered, but they are likely addressing the fact that most users may not comprehend the meaning of those actions.

Re: It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

#813

Post by shuntress »

avidiax wrote: post #613
staplers wrote: post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber, Airbnb, Robinhood all took off because they created easy to use beautiful apps (compared to their predecessors). The anti-design bias in this forum is genuinely unhinged. I see some saying the entire destruction of the natural world stems from design lol.

I worked at Uber. The UX designers were pretty obsessed with the iPhone app, making sure it was pixel perfect and the little cars in the city view moved smoothly and every transition was crisp and so on. The vast majority of new users at the time were on the comparatively ugly Android app. Things got pretty bad. More than 95% of all employees (and I'm guessing 99% of designers) were using iPhones at the time. There w…

Using the term "Legacy Taxi" to imply that a taxi you don't summon by phone is somehow out-dated is wild. I understand the reason you would use it, especially at a company like Uber, but it still seems hilariously delusional.

Re: It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

#814

Post by publicdebates »

Bjartr wrote: post #750
publicdebates wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't trust such books and research. The fundamental thing in question here is what makes Beauty beautiful, which I think is indefinitely mysterious and perpetually elusive. If anyone claims to have grasped at a few concrete conclusions or tangible expertise, I think they're just trying to sell it. The concepts of beauty apply equally to all forms of art, which includes GUIs. I do agree that Steve was somewhat revo…

> The fundamental thing in question here is what makes Beauty beautiful GUIs are tools first and art second. Any GUI that looks good, but gets in the way, or fails to make the task at hand easy is not a good GUI. The books and research are about making GUIs functional in an effective way. No one is claiming that a GUI that follows all the principles will look good. However it will make the task at hand easier to perf…

I don't disagree with much of what you said. Form and function have to be married harmoniously, which inherently increases beauty. When form decreases function, so does beauty dissipate. And I think GUIs have gone in that direction. They have not maintained the principles that would help bring proper balance.

Re: It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

#815

Post by morshu9001 »

Noaidi wrote: post #273
sirwhinesalot wrote: post #247

It's hard to justify Liquid Glass in general. The wastefulness of flat design (in terms of space) married with the visual excess of skeuomorphism, but without even providing any affordances (does the sidebar being raised give you any new information on how to use a sidebar? No). If you're a designer at a top 10 S&P 500 company making 6 figures, you owe it to yourself to have some love for your craft. If a PM tells yo…

Alan Dye ruined everything at Apple, no idea how he clung on for so long. You know he designed the horrible ios7 as well? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSzjcVZXolc https://tjkelly.com/blog/ios-7-sucks/ And he also takes credit for the dynamic island. It is an assault on my senses to see everything constantly moving around on my screen. I have been working with Macs since 1995, but this year is my first using Pixel…

Is he the one responsible for the 2016 MBP? It took Apple like 6 years to fix everything about that

Re: It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

#816

Post by mcslambley »

ctippett wrote: post #561

500+ comments and no one's mentioned the jack of all trades "share" button? I would really love to see the internal metrics around how many users press share because they're actually sharing something versus wanting to use any one of the myriad of other functions it hides. Exhibit A: In Safari I had to "share" this page to use the "Find on Page" feature to search whether anyone had mentioned the share button yet. Bon…

> Exhibit A: In Safari I had to "share" this page to use the "Find on Page" feature to search whether anyone had mentioned the share button yet. Bonkers.

You can also long-press on the address bar to see a whole slew of even more hidden functionality

Re: It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

#817

Post by jbl0ndie »

xnx wrote: post #455
sirwhinesalot wrote: post #247

It's hard to justify Liquid Glass in general. The wastefulness of flat design (in terms of space) married with the visual excess of skeuomorphism, but without even providing any affordances (does the sidebar being raised give you any new information on how to use a sidebar? No). If you're a designer at a top 10 S&P 500 company making 6 figures, you owe it to yourself to have some love for your craft. If a PM tells yo…

> If a PM tells you to shove a UI style More than likely designers are making up work to justify their jobs. Not good for your career if you admit the desktop interface was perfected in ~1995.

I can't see how half of the icon choices made in the article would pass internal testing, let alone actual user testing.

Maybe stakeholders were calling the shots and everyone was like, "Fine. If you want us to reuse the same icon for different purposes, you're the boss. We are done trying to explain why this is a bad idea."

Re: It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

#818

Post by Bluestrike2 »

cyberge99 wrote: post #482
solfox wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% this. I recall watching their launch video about Liquid Glass. It was filled with ego-driven "we're changing the world here" nonsense. They were designing in a bubble and wanted to do something different so they could justify the work. It was never about the user.

You’re not looking far enough ahead. Liquid glass isn’t about Mac. It’s about VisionPro and wearables. This is a strategic play by Apple.

If it's a strategic play, it's a terrible one that douses usability in gasoline and sacrifices it at the altar of visual novelty for no real gain. Apple has spent literal decades working on and refining their Human Interface Guidelines for different devices. Between Tahoe and Liquid Glass, they seem to have just tossed them on the bonfire for no justifiable reason.

VisionPro was meant to literally overlay its interface over your field of vision. That's a very different context and interaction paradigm. Trying to shoehorn the adaptations they made for it into their other, far more popular interfaces for the sake of consistency? It's absurd.

Re: It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

#819

Post by herbturbo »

sirwhinesalot wrote: post #247

It's hard to justify Liquid Glass in general. The wastefulness of flat design (in terms of space) married with the visual excess of skeuomorphism, but without even providing any affordances (does the sidebar being raised give you any new information on how to use a sidebar? No). If you're a designer at a top 10 S&P 500 company making 6 figures, you owe it to yourself to have some love for your craft. If a PM tells yo…

Nielsen Norman used to be quoted constantly during UX discussions at various places I worked. Seems like UX folks and Information Architects have slowly been replaced by a general purpose “designer”

Re: It's hard to justify Tahoe icons

#820

Post by xnx »

Zealotux wrote: post #81

Tahoe and Liquid Glass™ solidified for me the idea that Apple completely dropped the ball when it comes to design. Clearly they needed an a-hole in charge, Jobs would've crucified a few people. It's painful to see the decay, update after update, into a more confusing, cluttered, and tacky experience.

> Jobs would've crucified a few people.

Steve Jobs had good taste in many areas, but he also approved the puck mouse.

Post reply on HN