[HN Gopher] The New Apple Human Interface Guidelines ___________________________________________________________________ The New Apple Human Interface Guidelines Author : soheilpro Score : 59 points Date : 2022-06-08 19:26 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (developer.apple.com) (TXT) w3m dump (developer.apple.com) | o_____________o wrote: | What changed? | _jal wrote: | Apple blesses a converged Mac/iOS approach, which in practice | means you basically throw away a lot of what made the Mac | excellent. | | Not that Apple is even following their own guidelines... | | https://mjtsai.com/blog/2022/06/08/system-settings/ | | The incoherent design, weirdly bipolar automation efforts, | letting the command line rot, and a new-feature focus on lock- | in are making the platform increasingly something I just don't | care about anymore. | | Not to mention every time I get another Buy Apple Music! nudge | or deal with their bratty "not now" dismissal of the fucking | credit card offer makes me actively dislike Apple a bit more. | | I'm clearly not the customer Apple wants, and all good things | come to an end. It just saddens me a bit - I've been using Macs | for over 30 years now. Watching them become more annoying and | arrogant than IBM sucks. | gubby wrote: | And the atrocious disregard for performance over the last few | years. My 2014 OSX 10.14 home Mac Mini is _so_ much faster | and more responsive than my 2021 OSX 12.4 work Mac mini (with | no notable difference in features) it is difficult to | conclude anything other than malice. | daniel_iversen wrote: | Are we moving towards a tablet-laptop hybrid Apple device in | the next few years I wonder? (similar to MS Surface).. I know | there's the issue of cannibalisation but I think such a | device could be awesome (but hard to do right) | jjtheblunt wrote: | > letting the command line rot | | how so? | seltzered_ wrote: | Oddly, the settings panel in Ventura looks closer to what | Gnome Settings looks like. Just without the "Buy Apple Music! | nudge" or "credit card offer" elements. | Macha wrote: | The last redesign of Apple Mail made it look a lot more | like Gnome too | smoldesu wrote: | Apparently, they revised a few recommendations to change the | look of MacOS Ventura: | https://old.reddit.com/r/MacOS/comments/v7o87z/apple_should_... | sph wrote: | That Ventura screenshot looks terrible. Is that real or has | it been photoshopped? | Gigachad wrote: | I like the new one more. Looks kinda cluttered and | unorganised with the checkbox version. | | But I think I'm general HN tends to hold a very | conservative view on UI while the general public does not. | The feeling I get is that most users here believe that | windows XP was the peak of UI and everything after was | worse. Which is not at all what the average person would | say. | SllX wrote: | It's real. Not that System Preferences was blowing anyone | away, but System "Settings" is Apple answering the question | no one asked: what if we had iPhone Settings but on the | Mac? | SkyMarshal wrote: | I like it better actually. Cleaner, less cluttered, | everything related to an option is clearly grouped and | visually associated. | mafalda wrote: | This makes sense if you came from touch ui. Mouse and | keyboard UI favours the old design because the way you | hit things with the mouse is different. It is also bad to | compare the two screenshots because the sizes are not in | the same scale. | | The new grouping is not a clear cut, like why is the | position of the docked grouped with window behaviour? The | older makes it trivial to discover that the dock moves | unlike the newer one. | | My view is that the design is much less refined and have | a lot of space to improve. It isn't bad, the potential is | there if you consider a touch + mouse ui. So let's wait I | guess. | smoldesu wrote: | Not sure how I feel about detaching controls from their | label like that. I thought we learned our lesson with | this when we switched to HiDPI displays, but oh well... | cosmotic wrote: | It was all clearly grouped before, but also had visual | anchors. The new groups don't satisfy the WCAG contrast | ratio guidelines. The new view is definitely 'cleaner', | but in this case, that's worse. This isn't an artistic | effort, this is a human interface. Did the 40 years of | HCI research just turn up the wrong answers before? And | the all-along more obvious approach is now the supposedly | better approach? Unlikely. | ushakov wrote: | it's likely taken from that tweet | | https://twitter.com/siracusa/status/1534261202167152649 | hbn wrote: | I hate this converging of touch interfaces and desktop | interfaces. I get that it's easier than ever to share | codebases between your desktop and mobile app, but all you | get out of this trend is interfaces that are neither good for | touch nor for desktop. They're just... passable and | occasionally annoying for each. | | It's why I'm against the idea that so many have put forward | of bringing macOS to the iPad. It just means that macOS will | be forced into being a touch-first OS (since many people use | iPads without keyboards, so every interaction now needs to be | doable without one) and it'll just be a worse experience for | a keyboard and mouse setup. | anonymouse008 wrote: | Don't be misled, it's not easy to transfer code bases, IF | you are performing truly context based UIs. Meaning, you're | appropriately designing for the keyboard and mouse or the | finger context. | | That's why everything is starting to look the same (System | Preferences in 13 is atrocious). This is the worst path I | didn't see coming; I'm a huge advocate for MacCatalyst!! | Not SwiftUI! | | The reason is once you get familiar with the architecture | and UIKit/AppKit paradigms, things begin to flow in all | contexts -- however, it does usually require working on | lower levels than just UITextView for example. What SwiftUI | has done has made it indescribably difficult to work on | those levels -- that's why everything is so similar. You're | only as good as your top level APIs. The new layout for | SwiftUI will advance this somewhat - but it's more second | order fall over than primary driver. | | I was so excited about a single language and general life | mindset for Apps in all of Apple. They should have leaned | into Storyboards and NSLayout helpers (it's just too | verbose for what you want to do sometimes, but it's so | powerful). | alsetmusic wrote: | And it's been shown that the new System Settings app breaks the | HIG (end of the article as "Addendum"). | | https://lapcatsoftware.com/articles/SystemSettings.html | ushakov wrote: | > The HIG has merged its platform-specific guidance into a | unified document, making it simpler to explore common design | approaches while still preserving relevant details about each | platform | | i'm very much against this approach of generalizing design | | instead of strict rule set they now offer some opaque suggestions | | this is how material design lost its meaning | | hopefully this decision won't result with everyone implementing | their own design language rather than using the standard the | platform dictates | | frankly, same design language across all apps is what makes me | choose Apple software | | this looks like an attempt to keep their design language to | themselves while asking others to implement their own | nvrspyx wrote: | That quoted bit seems more like, IMO, that they're just | unifying their HIG since the design across macOS, iOS, watchOS, | and tvOS are converging, partly due to the unified developer | process for all of these platforms. It doesn't seem any more | generalized than it has in the recent past. It's just that each | platform previously had their own distinct design languages, | which have been gradually reaching a shared state. | | One can certainly argue against the merits of said convergence | though. However, I don't see how this is any indication of them | hoarding their design language for themselves. | ushakov wrote: | fair point, but i still don't see what the benefit of shared | design system is when you have 4 different screen-sizes | (iPhone, iPad, Mac, Watch) with unique capabilities for each | platform? | nvrspyx wrote: | Agreed, I'm not a huge fan either because something's gotta | give and in my opinion, it's macOS in this case with how | they've been iOS-ifying it year after year. | | With that said, I do see the benefit if you primarily | develop for Apple platforms to take advantage of their push | for the "universal app" development where you can share | most of the same code base and have a consistent UI/UX | across all of their devices. | Tagbert wrote: | Funny as I've seen iPad users complain that their iPads | are getting too much like Mac OS. At it's core Mac OS is | not getting iOSified. Some elements are borrowing ideas | from the other platforms. Some things that have been in | need of change for a while are getting addressed. I think | it is a good thing that Mac OS is finally getting some | TLC. | trs8080 wrote: | The benefit is consistent design and branding across | platforms. | | They're not eliminating design that leverages the unique | capabilities of each platform, they're standardizing | inconsistent shared design. It says as much in the second | part of the text you quoted: | | > making it simpler to explore common design approaches | while still preserving relevant details about each platform | toiletfuneral wrote: | Can you elaborate more? Most of the 'specificity' I see missing | just lives inside SwiftUI and IB now. The platform/OS manages | so much layout automatically these days I think the 'design' | work is moving up the abstracting ladder as well, or are you | talking about something totally different? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-06-08 23:00 UTC)