[OSX-Users] Fwd: Re: what we've been missing !

[mc]

i kinda like charlie brooker's take on this:

tweat 1:
This one fills me with a raw, animal disgust for humankind. Is that what
you want, Microsoft? http://bit.ly/nEdm7

tweat 2:
I'd love to see the Windows 7 Launch Party 'gang' doing a modern
're-imagining' of these: http://bit.ly/JdkQ5

mc

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [OSX-Users] Re: what we've been missing !
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 2009 19:02:21 +0100
From: Steve Harris <swh at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: List for users of Mac OS X <osx-users at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Reply-To: List for users of Mac OS X <osx-users at ecs.soton.ac.uk>

On 26 Sep 2009, at 16:31, Philip Boulain wrote:

> Steve Harris wrote:
>> On 26 Sep 2009, at 15:18, Philip Boulain wrote:
>>> Steve Harris wrote:
>>>> I think that's exactly it, MS execs can't tell the difference  
>>>> between that youtube train wreck, and the Reality Distortion  
>>>> Field, and I honestly believe that they think Windows 7's UI is  
>>>> as good as OS X.
>>> Surely that makes the questionable assumption that user interface  
>>> "goodness" is a subjective and artistic attribute, rather than  
>>> something which can be objectively measured via usability studies?
>> Not really. I didn't use the word "usable". It just implies that  
>> not all individuals can make widely believed judgements about  
>> "goodness".
>
> The difference, though, is that while car aesthetics may have  
> nothing better than individual judgements to go upon (that's the  
> claim presented, anyway), user interfaces can actually be evaluated  
> experimentally.

 From a usability p.o.v., perhaps, but not aesthetically.

>> To turn it around, are you try to say that the artistic merit of UI  
>> design can be quantitatively measured?
>
> No; I'd go on to say it's pretty much irrelevant beyond initial  
> impressions (which can have an affect, admittedly). Vim could never  
> be accused of being pretty, but it's extremely usable. (I'm sure  
> Emacs advocates would say much the same.)

I disagree. I find it genuinely unpleasant to use ugly interfaces. The  
vt100, fixed width font thing is fine by me though, it's merely  
utilitarian.

> Conversely, "artistic" effort tends to work against usability. The  
> new special folder icons in 10.5 and their minor distinguishing  
> marks were terrible, as was the reduced drop area in the Finder side  
> panel. This very list saw plenty of complaints about the readability  
> of the newly translucent/blurred menu. "Artists" are not being  
> forced to obey HIG.

I'm not a fan of the transparent menubar, but my point wasn't that  
Apple always get it right, or more, that my sense of aesthetics isn't  
always in line with Apple's, but I would argue that Apple get it right  
more of the time in my opinion.

> (e.g.
>
http://web.archive.org/web/20080507112334/http://www.indiehig.com/blog/2007/09/09/fix-the-leopard-folders/
> from
> http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2007/10/mac-os-x-10-5.ars/4
> )

I think that backs up my point that aesthetics are subjective.

- Steve