Apple iPhone Hints At Future OSX Look?
If you’re reading this, chances are you’re also subscribing to a feed that has recently informed you about the new Apple iPhone. You might have even heard that the next Mac OS X will probably get a new UI.
Keeping this in mind and looking at the video depicting the phone aspect of the iPhone, I’m wondering if we aren’t being dropped hints at the new OSX look. I spy some iTunes 7 like chrome and some new fancy semi transparent (* cough * Vista) black glass. Your thoughts?
- Could Indy IV Have Been Star Wars VII?
- Apple iPhone Hints At Future OSX Look?
- Via Transport
- Top 20 All-Time Stupid Republican Quotes
the ipod part of the phone really looked like wmp 11! pretty surprising considering how much Jobs slates microsoft, still the multi-touch interface looks insanely good.
To be fair, OS X has had transparent black windows for various purposes for a while. The look might’ve changed slightly, but I’d expect no less.
Sure but what’s with all that transparency? Whoever thought that was great? I was stuck on Mac:Word yesterday and the fact that the “formatting palette” goes semitransparent after a short period of inactivity bugs the hell out of me. Sure it’s purty, but wth?
Mac::Word is a Microsoft application. I have nothing further to say about that :)
Transparency makes things seem lighter I think.
I’m not so much interested in the iPhone (and cell phones in general) but I fully agree with you on this, Joen: what’s the point of all this (semi-) transparency?
It’s technically possible, which it hadn’t been for a while and it can be sold as being more advanced like 3D over 2D. Of course this is no real advancement but only design driven by tools and technology.
Also, to me this is not a design/interface but mostly a marketing decision.
I don’t need no gloss and transparency.
Hrm… Fair enough. You win this round.
Sure, when used well. Now I won’t “defend” Vista, but at least UI widgets aren’t transparent, only the flat window chrome. In comparison, the entire word palette becomes transparent.
Indeed. Officially, Microsoft added transparency because, as michael said, it makes the chrome seem “lighter”. As such, this allowed them to make the borders and headers thicker, making them easier to hit (see Fitts law).
I still stand by my opion that it’s mostly driven by technology and marketing. If you look at the screenshot in your post (of course, not Vista in this case) then the UI doesn’t look “light”. It looks confusing because the distracting background image is shining through each UI element making the buttons look like having a texture. Also, in my eyes, readability and hierarchy are reduced.
Your website is a good example of an interface looking “light” without any transparency, 3D or what not. Typography, whitespace and colors still ist the key, imho.
I forgot to mention, I agree with you, for the same reasons as you mentioned.
Thanks.
I am not a fan of transparency, pretty sure it will be the first thing to be turned off when I install vista. That said for things like the expose/dashboard effect it can be very effective.
I tried a beta at work, and sure the first thing I did was adjust it so at least the foremost window was almost opaque. It did look sorta pretty thought. Problem is, pretty + time = faded. What annoyed me the most though, was that “velour” texture they had added… that was just hideous. Unfortunately I found no way to turn that off, though I suspect that’ll happen.
I’m sure transparency can be used for good… I just haven’t seen many examples just yet. The usual problem is that it makes what’s below look “muddy”.
Like Mike said the panel concept has been part of OS X for some time now. As for the Mac:Word issue? That’s MS’s crap. Seriously. Never try to say that something you saw in a MS app on a Mac was ever an Apple idea. That’s just MS taking a nifty Apple technology and just going ape-shit with it.
Also, don’t try to shoe-horn Fitt’s Law into MS’s reasons for transing (I’m making up that word now) the chrome of Vista windows. I’ve never seen anyone from MS come out and say, “oh yeah, of course, Fitt’s yeah.. That’s the ticket. Nothing to do with trying to do something with our fischer price UI”
As for the idea that putting transparency on things is detrimental to usability. Serisously, Joen, I love you man, I do. There comes a point where you have to sacrifice one way or the other. You can either have a completely 100% “the usability guys say this is the right way to go” interface or you can have something that doesn’t make you vomit when you look at it.
You can rant and rave all damn day about usability but if I don’t even want to look at it then it’s moot. I don’t care. It’s Jakob Nielsen’s website and I’m not interested.
You want to know why I don’t read useit.com? ‘Cause I can’t bear to look at it for any extended period of time. It may be the most usable thing on the net but I can not bear to look at it. It would be better if he never came near an editor.
And don’t tell me that you can’t hit those huge transparent buttons cause the fish is distracting you.
Chris,
Oh my science I’ve missed your flamebait-like method of arguing. It’s delicious. And it’s always so easy to pick apart! En guarde!
Yeah! Fine! Goood.
First of all, I was partly playing devils advocate because I don’t really like the Vista interface (and you took the bait, tool), and secondly, I am actually quite sure I have read (not seen) Microsoft people seriously thinking about fitts law. I think maybe on the Shell blog or something like that, maybe about the Office ribbon. Point is, they’re late to the game, playing catch up and all that, but Fitts has been mentioned.
Ever heard of good transparency and bad transparency? Good transparency is the one used in actual windows, you know those you look out through? Bad transparency is used for flooring or walls in public spaces. Point is, there’s a time and place for everything (and that’s high school).
Yet you write here? You care, I know you do! I know there’s good in you.
I should make something like Godwins law but about mentioning Nielsen in a bad light.. How about:
Joen’s Law:
As an online discussion about usability design grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Jakob Nielsen or his website approaches one.
Can’t be avoided. You don’t get to be a gas-bag and not have people poke at you.
It’s too late for me… my son.
No one likes a semantics nazi. That’s worse than a grammar nazi.
Ever heard of, it really doesn’t matter transparency? The image you’re linking and all the images I’ve seen of the new phone don’t throw up a flashing light in my noggin that blinks “impossible to navigate UI”.
Here’s the real thing. Rather than trying to find any opportunity to complain about a UI you’ve only seen screenshots of for a device that doesn’t come out in the US till June why not try critiquing all the other phones that are out there now and then tell me the iPhone isn’t a vast improvement on all of them.
Really, isn’t this just interface envy? Nokia, Palm, Motorola all have phones and have been making them for 30 years. Their interfaces are often atrocious. Where’s your post lambasting them? There isn’t one (no, I’m not going to search your archives. I’m a lazy american).
But the thing is, Nielsen is a quack. You can’t preach the gospel out one side of your mouth while you bang hookers out the other… Ehm… HIGHSCHOOL!… Not that I want to discuss Mr. Nielsen, I think he is horribly uninteresting, riding a wave of ‘usability expertness’ that he somehow started many moons ago.
But come on; one thing is theoretical ‘transparency confuses the eye’ and another is ‘does it in fact add even a milisecond of response time and/or an iota of stress when you need to press the ‘take call’ button?
I’m going to go with a resounding ‘no!’.
I mean honestly. Honestly, do you really think this is a problem?
I just don’t see it. I see a lot of things, most of them ending it ‘ ,hot damn that’s just too sexy!’, and none of them end in ‘ ,hot damn that’s just too sexy, but unusable!’.
I’m loving this discussion already, and I’ll respond more indepth later. For now I just want to point out two things:
But your bias is in the wrong direction. Joen. You know you want a Mac. I fear at some point you will have spent so much time not liking the Mac that you will have painted yourself into such a corner that you’re not even allowed to like the Mac.
And, no, I don’t think we’ll see transparency in OS X in an place that doesn’t make sense. We’ll know soon enough. The next OS X comes out in the Spring.
Who ever decided flip-flopping was a bad idea? If the Mac convinces me, I’ll consider a switch. For I subscribe to the same oath as Gabe – the Hypocrathic Oath.
Now I have time to answer properly.
Michael,
Heh heh. Well said, and a hard one to counter. So I won’t. I’ll just say that his books are well lay out (I agree his website isn’t), and his books offer sound advice. As such, he is an author I respect.
Actually no, I don’t see a problem. And yes, it looks pretty sexy. I can in this case, even see that people would want to make their cellphones personalized thereby creating an emotional attachment (did you see that photos could be cropped to wallpapers?). Taking that to one of the the primary uses of the device, the phone aspect, I can see why the big buttons for “take call” would benefit from being slightly semi transparent so that the emotional attachment shines through instead of being all blocked out.
That said, the topic of the controversy was taking these emotional attachment and lightness of the chrome metaphors to the extreme of making them the new default UI for OSX. This would make me uncomfortable, for a number of reasons (and make a switch less likely to happen).
So, long story short: why should OSX which shines in many aspects, especially UI look, copy this aspect of the Vista window chrome? Think a transparent black glass Finder and stuff. No sir, I don’t like that idea.
I agree, damn sexy. I like this device for the video, the mp3, the internet and the photo stuff. As for the phone aspect, I’d be too scared of scratching it to use it as a phone, i.e. roughly and storing it among keys and other sharp things.
Edit: Fixed typos and stuff.
I think we need to get over that idea, “oh no I’ll scratch it”. Big deal. My white Adidas are white for about a week. My blue jeans remain so for maybe a month. My car? Never clean. Ever.
When did we decide that shinies have to remain shiny lest they lose their utility?
Well said Chris.
Joen, I agree that bringing this directly into OS X would probably be a bad idea as such, with the exception of various things here and there.
I doubt that windows as such will become transparent. I doubt it very much.
You know, I really should just move to Copenhagen. We could just have these discussions over coffee or whatever it is that Danes drink and save everyone else from being subjected to our ravings.
Well, Apple dropped it for their iPod Nano, didn’t they?
I’m not saying the iPhone should’ve been metal like the new shuffles / nanos. In fact, now that I think about it, I shouldn’t even be talking about this until I’ve actually tried the device. Flipflopping allowed, remember? :)
My point is / was that if the surface is similar to that of a regular iPod, it’s bound to get visibly scratched if used as a phone will be used. I know this would annoy me, at least when watching videos. That said, the thing will sell like hotcakes, so the point is moot.
We shall see! I’m unsure which side of the fence I should place myself on here… so just to stay in the game, I’ll say … inactive windows will be semitransparent!
You really really should.
“Everyone”? You assume I have readers? Oh but seriously.
We drink coffee, sometimes beer, sometimes White Russians. We as in the royal “we”.
Whatever, Lush.
Regarding the materials for the iPhone. My understanding is there are 4.
I’m not 100% on the glass bit. I’d heard ahead of the Keynote that it was something called Zirconium (basically the faux diamond substance).
The plastic on the bottom is where the speaker/mic is and actually allows a signal to get out of the phone.
Ooh, zirconium.
The fact that it has a touch screen, and I agree that is a cool thing, they’ll pretty much have to find a pretty solid substance… it’s not like the Nintendo DS touch screen where it’s protected when closed.
Grubers iPhone photo gallery puts my plastic / scratch speculation almost to shame. It doesn’t look like iPod plastic, it looks more like iPod shuffle metal. Let’s hope that zirconium touch screen is scratch proof as well.
Well do the next best thing, gather for coffee and have you along on video iChat.
At the moment I’m just sitting the corner sipping my tea listening to the discussion. Some valid points have been made, but I am not prepared for the full-fledged dive just yet (still at work).
I guess I’ll have to get an iSight then.
But, but I don’t have that pretty boy Euro look going for me. Do I have to shave?
Course, it is the excuse to have an isight I’ve been looking for.
Shave? What’s that mean?
Yay! Joen reads Penny Arcade :)
Moving on, is it me or is it wierd that the iPhone prioritises email over sms? If I want to message someone, especially while on the move, I’d want it to get to their person, rather than their computer.
Chris: Just look at the profile pic, not so much shaving for Joen! (That we know of…)
Everyone else: That’s an iChat vid conf I gotta get in on….but no mac, so Skype vid? Please? ;)
The SMS icon is the first on the home screen…
Well yes, but it’s not next to phone/(mail)/internet/music in the main bar…just seemed odd.
See, now that’s something a tad odd. Am I wrong, I’m not looking now, but is there duplication on the home page? Sort of a “desktop launch and startbar/dock launch that duplicates launch mechanisms” thing going on? That doesn’t seem to be too snazzy.
Yes, that is odd. Maybe it can be customized (probably not, it is Apple after all).
Ooooh, is that a concession!? I thought I was the one who always conceded.
As for those interface quirks, I’m thinking “beta”. After all, it’ll be a while until June.
I’m thinking “steve”. After all, “Americans” use SMS muchos less than the rest of us do, and/or Steve thinks mail is better cos it has pictures, etc.
I bet the phone companies would like to see the SMS button there too instead, as it’s a lot more profitable for them.
On the talk of transparent, black glass, I just wanted to throw this into the discussion:
http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/
Especially this:
http://www.thinksecret.com/archives/leopard9a321/source/picture-20.html
Sure, these are old, and from the “rumors” post I linked in this entry, but that is black glass, and it DOES look very similar to that on the iPhone.
It makes you shine, Joen, your honesty regarding flip-flopping. It’s not necessarily hypocrisy if someone simply helped you change your mind. But that’s some irrelevant philosophy.
I dig the iPhone. I think it’s a preview of Leopard. I think it’s a great manifestation of what Apple is all about. The most important part, however, of the keynote, was the ending. At which point Steve thanked the families. It made clear one very important thing: Apple does not do magic. Apple employs human beings with lives and love and brains who work their asses off. That was the big thing for me, and I think it will have its results.
Thanks. I do try to be honest.
This just made me think: how long until we all use Wacom Cintiq like computers and control them a la the iPhone multi touch display? I’d love it. Use fingers for most stuff, pick up a pen when I want precision. Suddenly this seems like the logical next step.
I just want a PADD.
You should check out the LG KE850 too – looks excellent (and was previewed before the iPhone!):
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2006/12/15/the-lg-ke850-touchable-chocolate/