13 September 2008
Top 10 Usability highs of the Mac OS – Debunked
A while ago I stumbled upon this article (Smashing magazine) about Mac OS X usability highlights, after reading it for a while I couldn’t take it anymore. It was a classic case of cherrypicking things to make A look better than B, and all this in the name of usability, my favourite issue. So, after a month (started the post then moved to another country, started a school etc. and now, finally, finished it), here we go; Debunking Mac OS X usability highs.
One of the problems with the article – alongside others, is that it gives very limited set of examples for given area and via that extremely filtered results makes the assumption that OS X does the whole thing better. Someone would say that the whole list is just cherrypicked to make the OS X look better than it really is. Like claiming that OS X is more intuitive than the rest of the competition because it is apparently easier to install software in it, which even isn’t the case.
Claim no. 1
“1. Consistency
The whole OS and almost every application looks and feels the same, as if a single team developed the whole thing, thanks to Apple HI Guidelines. Official guidelines for user interface design made it possible for users to actually use most Mac-applications in a very same way, creating a seamless and comfortable experience in the end. Users are able to anticipate how system behaves and what to expect from its applications. In fact, consistency dramatically improves learnability and usability of interacting with the system.”
Like the text says, almost every application. Then and there the very point is shot down and morphed to, “OS X is more consistent than Windows because parts of it’s software are consistent“. And still, I’m not convinced it’s more consistent UI than, say Microsoft Vista, as I have seen no evidence of such as i.e. iTunes changes it’s colours etc. Not to mention that every big HMI project/team project has some sort style guide, as it is one of the key parts of UI design, and I have absolutely no doubts that the Windows UI dev team has one.
Not to mention the writer hasn’t even bothered to look if Microsoft has published any comparable guidelines, whatsoever. He just makes assumptions that only Apple could have such things, and proceeds to make his claims. Quick Google and fourth hit revealed this: MSDN: Windows Vista User Experience Guidelines.
He is right on one thing though; consistency improves learnability and usability.
Claim no. 2
“2. Intuitiveness
Installing and uninstalling applications is simply drag-and-drop. It can’t get much simpler and more intuitive than that. In fact, it’s hard to make any errors here, e.g. selecting some wrong option in a drop-down menu or clicking occasionally on the cancel-button. Quick and simple.”
It can’t, eh? Maybe the writer should look the way Ubuntu does things.
OS X
1. Find your application web-page
2. Find the downloads
3. Figure out proper download
4. Locate the downloaded package
5. (Unpack it)
6. Find the icon to drag it to
7. Do the drag
Done
Ubuntu
1. Open package manager
2. Select application
3. Press Apply
Done
The package manager takes care of re-installs, installs, missing packages, updates, the whole nine yards. That, ladies and gentlemen, is pretty close of “as simple as it gets”. Although, still not perfect but it’s getting pretty damn close.
The OS X does it better than Windows*, I give you that but it’s definately not “doing it better” than the competition. However, doing it better at one example does not make the whole OS more intuitive.
*When it comes to at least installing applications
Claim no. 3
“3. Effective and appropriate metaphors
Mac effectively uses the power of unambiguous metaphors. The different overviews in the OS just work. Exposé does the right thing, Time Machine uses a 3D view where appropriate (none of that 3D-flip ‘just for the sake of it’-nonsense of Vista). Depth in Time Machine represents the location in time and therefore uses a neat metaphor helping the user, and browsing your albums with Cover Flow in iTunes (and Finder) feels almost like the real thing.”
Yes, Time Machine, as a methaphor, is nice but how about if you look past the current OS X hype? Let’s take an example: The Dock. Hmm. How approproate metaphor is that? Not to mention how the dock completely forgets every usabilty rule and metaphor when you “save document” on it, as I’ve seen people do (so called regular users). Now, you want some space to your all cluttered dock and you’d like to move “the document” from the dock to the desktop, some dragging action and release – *poof* The icon, thus the document (as visual clues to it are removed) vanishes, as it was just deleted. Enter panicking user.
Or something simpler and more mundane: The traffic lights on the corner of your window. Their metaphor suggest that they control the execution of the program. Sure enough, red light stops it.. Or does it? It does kill every (except the teeny weeny pathetic triangle below the icon at the dock) visible clue that the application is still running, however it just closes the windows or visible clues, hence telling the user that he has succesfully stopped the application, even though the application is still on the background, munching on happily. How about yellow and green light? The yellow green light makes the window bigger changes the size of the window while green yellow makes the visible clue of the application disappear? Hardly an “Effective and appropriate metaphor”.
Authors Note: Yes, the moment I wrote the part about traffic lights, for some reason I remembered the yellow and green blobs the other way around. Since I don’t have Mac in here far-far-away-land…
Claim no. 4
“4. Informative error reporting on-demand
Contrary to other user interfaces, Mac-applicatinos display user notifications only when something goes wrong, not permanent baloons when some process is being started or finished. Think of it, do we really need someone to tell us when something goes the way it should?”
Yes, usually you shouldn’t inform the user for things that are going as expected, however, this as all things have a flipside; you should inform user if the process is critical (like getting access to your docucments) and it’s taking more than couple of seconds, like telling the user that there is driver installation going, and the user can’t use the things before it’s complete.
Now, I’m not sure if author is talking about the OS itself or the applications that have been written for it so I’m just going to leave this as it is.
Claim no. 5
“5. Hiding the technical details
Manually having to defragment a hard drive? Hmm, not here. On Mac users use technical tools by communicating with simple and memorable metaphors. Most users are not savvy and they have no clue how to take care of technical details so why should a user interface prompt them to do this?”
Remember when I told about cherrypicking? Oh, yes. OS X does your hard drive defragmenting for you, that is nice, but if that is really a top ten Usability issue then we are on thin ice here.
Claim no. 6
“6. Fitts’ Law
Essentially, the famous Fitts’ Law says that users are more productive with the mouse when they have less distance to travel and a larger target to click on to do their tasks. Mac’s design engineers have incorporated this rule in their design: almost all application menus are attached to the top of the screen, rather than to the applications’ windows. It improves the usability and reduces screen clutter. Compared to other user interfaces, regarding Fitts’ Law Mac performs better.”
Like most of the text, the author either lacks knowledge how the Fitt’s law works or just decides to leave out the part that is contradicting to his goals. Yes, OS X’s global toolbar is a target which by Fitt’s law is of unlimited size, hence it’s easy to hit, however the law works both ways; When you have to travel waaay far to your menu, which you might hit quickly, you still have to travel waaaay far, back the place you are doing your work at, and by Fitt’s law this works much better in Windows, specially with big and/or multiple screens, since the menubar is always close to the place youre working at. Imagine working on small window at the right-lower corner of your 24″ CinemaDisplay. Effective? Hardly. Usable? Hardly.
The Mac’s global menubar was deviced at the times when users were using single application at the time, having it maximised, thus having the menubar in top of your titlebar gave the Mac edge on usability, however, now when screens are growing bigger and bigger and users are using increasing amout of applications at the same time, OS X is starting to drag it’s behind.
Claim no. 7
“7. User input feedback
Mac applications have no useless “OK” and “Apply”-buttons and changes are applied immediately and on the fly. Thus the system seems to be more responsive and requires less input from the users, making user feedback as effective as possible.”
From all of the weird claims this has to be the one to claim the title. So, offering user a configuration (which may be very complicated, depending on the program) which has no way of getting back to the setup you just were before your phone ringed, is more effective? What in the nine hells? You need only to glance any usability literature to see how many things people can keep at their heads at a time or how important it is to give users a way back, without destroying everyhing. And for some reason as Apple has decided that at some points you don’t need such things, they are now becoming useless? Yes, you can do dialogs which have no OK or Apply buttons, but the dialogs basically can have no more than 5 things on them, and even then they must be completely devoid of anything else than the utter basics. Anything else and you are royally fucked. Cancel, as a way of getting back without applying the changes you just made, gives you a way to get to know of the options you have, without breaking everything.
Claim no. 8
“8. User support and navigation
Remember Clippy? Mac has its own (OS wide) version as well, called Spotlight. The only difference is that it’s actually a lot more helpful and versatile. And damn speedy too! Really, navigating an OS hasn’t ever been that straightforward. It does calculations as well and launching applications is as easy as typing in its name and hitting Enter (see screenshot below).”
Yes. Clippy. But lets bring this to this century, ok? Both, Vista and Ubuntu have the same search and launch functionality. Ok, Vista does not do the calculations but I wouldn’t say that improves usability too much since 90% of regular users won’t even know that the function it there, instead they use the calculator, as they should.
Claim no. 9
“9. Workflow
Mac doesn’t force you to focus on a single window, but keeps them all visible in the background ensuring a more efficient workflow. However this might be a thing of taste and getting used to.”
This one must be the runner-up for the weirdest claim title. First of all, how the hell does the competiting OS’s force you to focus on single window? It’s nice and easy to make claims without proofs, but it makes absolutely no sense. Secondly, from the three (OS X, Vista, Ubuntu) it is the Mac that specifically forces you to focus on single window with having the only one menubar (the focused application) visible. The author again forgets to mention how it increases clutter on your screen but hey, as it turns out, it’s a good thing because all the windows are there, filling up your screen. And while reading the other entries I thought clutter was bad, oh well. This, like the global menubar, is a remnant from the times that people had smaller screens, less powerfull computers and used the single application maximised; there was no need for window control; Macs still have no effective window control. Exposé is nothing but fancy ALT+TAB (was it control+tab in OS X? can’t remember) replacement, plus on usability side (since we’re on it) it’s representation is a classic case of “moving target“.
Claim no. 10
“10. Even kernel panic looks nice!
A funny but still nice example of Apple’s attention to detail. On the rare occasions when Mac crashes, it still does so in a respectable manner. Usability-wise it’s not perfect, since it doesn’t let the user know what went wrong and only asks the user to reboot the system. Still, beautiful and elegant.”
Hey, a nice looking kernel panic. It’s not as usable as say the feared Blue Screen Of Death. But hey, at least it looks nice. Oh, wait. This was the Top 10 Usability highs of the Mac OS. Oh, crap.
So, what did we learn? Probably nothing. However, I was kinda forced to write a post of these, since they all seemed to grasp thin air. As the article was written for a competition on Smashing magazine, where a brand-spanking-new Mac was one of the prices, it’s pretty clear that it’s not the way to create good articles. People will write anything just to get the price.
Disclaimer: I do like the OS X (Although I prefer Ubuntu, if only it would be ready for everyday use), but this was just wrong and at some cases even nothing to do with usability.
[...] Apple news by admin [...]
Grammatically flawed and riddled with spelling errors. Mac OS X does include features to alleviate this, and has had a HIG for decades, unlike the rest. If you are going to unabashedly advocate Linux over OS X, state so up front. You aren’t debunking, you’re advocating.
Probably, because english isn’t my native language, but hey, at least I try. There is a world outside english, after all.
And I am not trying to advocate anything over other. I’d even claim that only reason youre mentionin Linux is the part where I mentioned that I actually prefer Ubuntu. Each of the three OS have their strengths and weaknesses but at the moment, all things considered, they are all even.
The point is, like I said at the very beginning, that the whole list was so purely cherrypicked and plainly wrong that I just couldn’t stand by (or sit, for that matter) and watch it go.
if they’re all equal, why bother writing this bashing OS X?
Also, these are obviously OS X marketing points, so OF COURSE THEY’RE CHERRY PICKED.
this article is a waste of space.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I just wasted a click getting here.
I only read through the first several points before i tired of the grammar and spelling mistakes. But the big problem was the author’s use of an argument that applied to his own argument. So, since he was already shooting himself in the foot, I saw no need to continue to read. As someone else wrote, the article is a waste of space, unless you really enjoy watching self flagellation. I don’t. Please stop before you hurt yourself.
Poor grammar and spelling mistakes as previously indicated. Waste of bandwidth.
“How about yellow and green light? The yellow light makes the window bigger while green makes the visible clue of the application disappear? Hardly an “Effective and appropriate metaphor”.”
You also need to take into account the x, – and + that pop up when you hover over
“When you have to travel waaay far to your menu, which you might hit quickly, you still have to travel waaaay far, back the place you are doing your work at, and by Fitt’s law this works much better in Windows, specially with big and/or multiple screens, since the menubar is always close to the place youre working at.”
Bollocks. This is the same uninformed tripe I hear from almost anyone trying to counter Fitts’ law. The fastest places to access on a screen are (in order):
1. Directly under the cursor
2. Directly around the cursor
3. Screen corners
4. Screen edges
5. Anywhere else in the screen, getting progressively further away from each of the above.
Now unless your mouse is directly above the menu bar all the time then Windows will be slower. With windows, you have to go to an arbitrary point on the screen to get to the menu and then go back to where you were working. At no point does Fitts’ law apply in that scenario. Even if the screen is maximised it doesn’t apply. Compare this to the Mac, where you can access the menu bar quickly as it is on a screen edge and then go back to where you were before. It’s not perfect, but at least Fitts’ law applies, which you cannot say about menus on Windows. (The one area where Fitts law DOES apply on Windows is the taskbar).
“Yes, you can do dialogs which have no OK or Apply buttons, but the dialogs basically can have no more than 5 things on them, and even then they must be completely devoid of anything else than the utter basics. ”
I believe the author is referring to preference dialogues, where there is no real need for apply or cancel. If you don’t like a preference you can just change it back. You should be putting as few preferences in as possible so it’s not like the user will ever have 10s of changes to cancel.
“Ok, Vista does not do the calculations but I wouldn’t say that improves usability too much since 90% of regular users won’t even know that the function it there, instead they use the calculator, as they should.”
So because Vista doesn’t do it, it should be ignored? I’ll agree that many users don’t know it exists, but saying that they should use the calculator instead is just stupid. That is like saying they should use the Finder to launch applications instead of Spotlight. It is there, it speeds things up. The calculator thing isn’t the only search option, there is also a dictionary search built in.
And while we’re on the subject of that, the system wide google and dictionary searches as well as the system wide grammar and spell checking greatly improve usability
“Macs still have no effective window control.”
The Mac OS has never been a window based system, it is an application based system. That said, the combination of Exposé, alt-tab and Spaces make for very powerful application and window management.
“if they’re all equal, why bother writing this bashing OS X?
Also, these are obviously OS X marketing points, so OF COURSE THEY’RE CHERRY PICKED.”
Because the post isn’t about bashing, it’s a reply to the article I mentioned.
There is difference between bashing and responding to an adverticement article. Of course it will sound like “attacking/bashing” if the reply will aim to turn the “marketing points” on their head. (instead of just blindly attackin everything there is in OS X, which would be bashing)
Martin, that is not Fitt’s law, those are just what by Fitt’s law are the fastest places to access on your screen. The Fitt’s law basically states that as the target is moved away from the cursor, it has to grow in size to maintain the same “response time” when user is acuiring it, thus the screen boundaries are by size limitless because you can’t go past them. Fitt’s law applies every time you move your cursor to a target on the screen. Hence, the Fitt’s law still have to take under consideration when the cursor is heading back from the global menu.
Yes, the + and – etc. help, but I was talking about the pure metaphor of the traffic lights. Those hovers can be classified almost as tooltips and as such can’t be count in when considering the effectiveness of just the metaphor.
I didn’t mean that because Vista doesn’t do it, it should be ignored. I just don’t see it as a big deal since the OS gives proper ways of i.e. calculating numbers. You can do the same thing with Google on every computer. Of course it could help a bit but only on very small amount of cases where the numbers are big enough not to calculate in head and the calculations made are simple enough, since 99% users still would use calculator for them.
I know that Macs haven’t, and still aren’t, a windows based system, however, the point is that the increasing amount of applications running at the same time increases the amount of windows, thus increasing the time spent on window controls.
The author clearly has OSX jealousy issues.
The Mac GUI is document-centric and the document opens in a window. This document-centric window has controls that are contextual to that window. The menu-bar at the top of the display is again contextual and changes with the document that is active and being worked on. Microsoft Windows GUI based on an having an application centric-window within which the document windows open, wasting a lot of screen real estate!!!
The writer has no idea what he is talking about, but that is certainly excusable. One of MANY examples, the notion that installing software in Ubuntu is easier is insane. Linux software is found in MANY different formats, only some of which can be handled properly by a package manager. For many others, you have to mess around with terminal commands – even for basic things like adding VMWare Tools to Ubuntu under Fusion.
The real shock, though, is that someone would approve this for publication. Even if the opinions were correct (or incorrect but interesting)l I would never publish anything by anyone who thinks that “definately” is a word.
Didn’t read the whole article; terribly superficial conclusions drove me away. What I read was grasping at straws. Do you have a job? Surely it isn’t related to thorough analysis.
“How about yellow and green light? The yellow light makes the window bigger while green makes the visible clue of the application disappear?”
Actually, the yellow light minimizes a window to the right side of the Dock. The green light switches the window between two sizes.
I stopped reading .5 sec. after seeing “Ubuntu…”
These variants will NEVER be ready for prime time -if for no other reason than the lack of a diverse software ecosystem anything like OSX (or XP for that matter.)
But they keep trying!
“Martin, that is not Fitt’s law, those are just what by Fitt’s law are the fastest places to access on your screen. The Fitt’s law basically states that as the target is moved away from the cursor, it has to grow in size to maintain the same “response time” when user is acuiring it, thus the screen boundaries are by size limitless because you can’t go past them. Fitt’s law applies every time you move your cursor to a target on the screen. Hence, the Fitt’s law still have to take under consideration when the cursor is heading back from the global menu.”
I know this, but you are claiming that a menu bar being attached to a window in Windows is better than the global menu bar on Mac OS X using Fitts’ law. As I stated in my previous comment, on Windows none of the optimal places taken from Fitts’ law are used whereas on the Mac one of those places is used.
You have to move from where you are to the menu bar back to where you were on both platforms, Apple makes the first action much faster than on Windows. The only way in which the Windows method is seen as good under Fitts’ law is if the mouse is already over or near the menu bar, but those rules can also apply to the Mac.
You can come up with many ways that you think Windows is better than OS X and make decent arguments for them, but Fitts’ law compliance is not one of them. And to say that Apple should give up on the global menu bar and attach it to windows would be like saying MS should give up on the global task bar and attach it to the bottom of each window.
Yeah, OS X makes the first action (getting to the menu) faster but if you are working with multiple windows and applications Windows more than usually makes the second (getting back) faster because the distance between the menu and the target (where you was) is shorter. And I’m not saying they should make it like Windows does it, I’m just saying that the global menu is getting slower and slower as the numbers of windows and applications increase. So maybe both of them should think of something new.
@ admin
And that’s why the utility “Windowshade” exists. It allows minimal pointer travel to switch between apps. It’s a godsend for fast UI / app switching inside OSX.
http://unsanity.com/haxies/wsx
I very much appreciate the time you took to make this post. Please don’t be bothered by these Mac fanboy idiots — their feeble brains aren’t capable of understanding or appreciating anything that Steve Jobs doesn’t spoon-feed them…
I’m a former Mac lover. Let me state that first and foremost. I still love the machine, but left it for various reasons. Thinking of getting a new one, though.
Let me first state that a friend just bought a 24″ iMac. He was a long time Windows user and finally made the jump to a Mac. Well, he’s frustrated. I know that a new UI takes some time to get used to, and there is a learning curve to any new OS. However, he stated plain and simply that it takes him, now, 4 to 5 steps to do tasks he could have done in 1 to 2 steps.
Second, I agree with the menubar and the screen real estate. When you’re using a 20″ or smaller screen, it’s no big deal. However, starting with 24″ screens, that’s quite a distance to cover to access the menu, especially if you’re working on a cramped desk with little room to maneuver the mouse. This is something, I think, Microsoft got right. When Windows first came out, screens were much smaller, and I thought that menus in the window was the dumbest idea I had ever seen, since part of it disappeared when the window was resized smaller. However, with large screens, this has come full circle and reversed itself.
Also, I completely agree with the authors assessment of installing an application. Some Linux distros are miles ahead of both Windows and Mac in this area. It would be difficult to implement something similar to Ubuntu’s Synaptic in Mac or Windows, unless you went to something more like the iTunes Store type of application and downloaded all of your software. Boxed software simply adds extra complexity. However, it could be done by inserting the CD/DVD and a Synaptic-like app pops up and allows you to install via just a couple of clicks, and the installation also sets up a repository for getting updates. Still, this is inferior to the Linux distribution model, particularly distros like PCLinuxOS, where there is only a single repository and the applications have all been gone over with scrutiny by the distro’s developers. This adds stability and prevents unwanted mischief from the software, be it spyware/malware, DRM, or whatever.
FWIW, Ubuntu did not invent the wheel in this regard and deserves too much credit. The command line Apt installation system is from Debian, who Ubuntu gets it’s packages from, and Synaptic was the work of Connectiva, who was bought out by Mandriva. Synaptic relies on Apt to do the work. There are similar competing applications that do similar stuff, such as Yum/Yumex, URPMI/RPMDrake, and Smart.
Also, when you see claims of 20,000+ packages by some distros, 95% of that are libraries, supporting packages, and redundancy (multiple versions of the same package). There isn’t really 20,000+ software titles. This, however, points to something that is confusing in the Synaptic distribution model. The user sees all of these packages, and most don’t have a clue as to what they are looking at.
Lastly, Linux is the poster child for UI headaches. Some apps rely on GTK/Gnome, some on Qt/KDE, and yet some on just the X-Window system. Each has their own guidelines. Yet, there are other apps that still defy this altogether. Gimp is in the Gnu fold, as is GTK/Gnome, yet it doesn’t even adhere to the Gnome standard. It has menus in the main window and each tool window. It’s very confusing. It has improved over the days you had tor right-click in the window to even get a menu, but it’s still not something that’s comfortable for the majority of users.
Some strides have been taken to fix some of it. There is now a Qt/GTK widget set that allows a Gnome users to have KDE apps appear in the window decorations of Gnome, and vice versa. And, Mark Shuttleworth (Ubuntu owner) has offered to do a heavy amount of funding to get everything more in sync and push the Linux UI experience to a higher lever.
There are advantages and disadvantages to Mac OS’ single top menu: yes, it requires far less precision to the user’s mouse gestures, but current big monitors, OS X’ windowsitis and multitasking actually force us to stop and read that menu to learn which app has focus currently, something that Windows avoids at the cost of demanding more controlled mouse gesturing. I don’t think there is an universal solution. Perhaps it would help to get better app focus visual cues (the current gray vs. light gray is a bit too subtle when one has a dozen or more windows open).
I am an Apple products user since the Apple IIe era, and I too find there are lots and lots of big and little frustrating problems in OS X’ UI, frankly. I wouldn’t get too defensive about that.
AC, ty
LinuxLover
or many others for that matter, I’m merely comparing things to it since usability vise it’s the disto that is nearest to complete desktop experience, though it’s still not completety there.
I am aware that Ubuntu did not invent the Synaptic wheel
The install process is still pain in the ass in Ubuntu if you don’t happen to find the right software from the repos, but in the case of developing software, that is something you just can’t dodge.
Well, Windows model isn’t perfect either, as it is slower for the first part, of accessing the menu. I’d rather see something that is crossover between these two.
OS11
Have to check that out as I get my internet connection working properly. Now, it’s slow as h*ll.
The mouse on a Mac works differently than in Windows. Move it quickly and it will move far. Move it slowly and it will move a shorter distance. So it is possible to move quickly across large screens even if your mouse is in a cramped area. Also having the main menu at the edge of the screen helps with this kind of mouse behavior because you can now flick the mouse very quickly to get to the menu without worrying about overshooting your target. Thanks to this behavior of the mouse, I have not had trouble with larger screens. People transitiong from windows are probably not aware of this and are understandably frustrated.
What a rubbish analysis. I would have written counter arguments for all of them but I’m sure one of the many commenters has already done so.
Just because things are different from Windows doesn’t mean it is inconsistent.
Deepak, the same thing (mouse acceleration) is on Windows and Ubuntu too, however it doesn’t solve the thing that more than usually global menu forces you to shift your focus from what you are doing to the menu, which could be “miles away” from your actual focuspoint.
@ admin
also check out “witch”… for fast window switching
http://www.manytricks.com/witch/
and don’t forget… hitting Command / Tab — will move you between running Apps
AND
Apple’s built in “Expose” allows you to move between open windows
so there are plenty of options once you know they are out there…
I just wanted to add that, as someone that used Apple products as far back as the II+, I think the Mac OS 9 and earlier UI is more usable than the current one. In many ways, I find the OS X UI a step backward in usability, though it’s a giant leap forward in ‘wow’ factor.
Yes, Admin, I know you didn’t give Ubuntu the credit for Apt/Synaptic, but every comparison to Windows acts as if Ubuntu is the only game in town with it. Also, Ubuntu is far from a complete desktop experience in Windows. This can be debated all you want, but it completely lacks any sort of control panel application, and therefore if the automated scripts don’t do all the work for you, you’re in for a fun time with CLI commands and file hacking. On the flipside, distros like OpenSuse and especially Mandriva have excellent control panel applications, but use other package installation methods. PCLinuxOS is the best of that bunch, providing a modified Mandriva Control Center, combining it with Synaptic/Apt, and simplifying just about everything it possible can, such as a single repo for everything with simplified sections and the distro is a “running release”, meaning updates are just updates and there’s no reason to reinstall with new releases. If your install is completely updated, you’ve got the latest. It’s probably as close to nirvana as a distro can be for home desktop use. It’s a little long in the tooth on the current version, though an updated version should be along within the next month, making it easier for users with newer hardware to install.
1. Mac OS X is certainly not perfectly consistent. It’s just less inconsistent than its rivals. Finding inconsistencies in other operating systems isn’t exactly difficult.
2. It takes longer to find an app in Ubuntu’s Application Widget than it does using Google — and that’s IF you know the name of the app and it’s in there. If not, you’re screwed. The widget can only perform one installation (which may be of multiple apps) at a time, so you’re basically locked out until it finishes. Next, if an application isn’t listed, installing it is totally confusing. Finally, after installing an app in Ubuntu you may not be able to figure out where it is or how to launch it.
With Mac OS X you don’t NEED to install apps. Just double-click on them and they work. All the extra steps you’re talking about are superfluous.
3. Actually, the basic problem here is a “straw man”. The whole “metaphor” thing is the mid-80s approach. Today, a computer is a computer, and a “window” isn’t a metaphor, it’s a legitimate entity that people understand. Time machine’s “metaphor” is 95% eye candy. Its functionality is what makes it great.
6. It’s not like other operating systems don’t put menus a long way from the action. The difference is simply that the Mac menubar is at the TOP of the screen and EASY to hit, versus usually somewhere near the top of the screen and hard to hit.
8. Comparing spotlight to clippy indicates you’ve lost your grasp on reality. Clippy appears whether you want it or not (it’s actually hard to turn off) and provides “help” that is usually useless and sometimes actively harmful. Spotlight finds things for you, fast, when you explicitly invoke it.
Yawn!…. anyone else find this article so boring they couldn’t make it past reason #3?
A quick post, excuse the typing errors etc. that might occur (more than usual)
Tonio Loewald,
Yes, no OS is completely consistent but A) the article I was responding to deemed OS X as a completely consistent wonder-OS (“the whole os”), which is just false and B) yes, it’s certainly more consistent than say, Ubuntu but at least looks vise I’d say it might even be less consistent than Vista. Of the feel, I really can’t say, there are differences in both of them. It would actually be interesting to see a proper study of this.
Yeah, I admit that the naming scheme in Ubuntu installations could be a hassle every now and then (but you have to keep in mind that it’s still work in progress OS), but still, the tool itself is definately more efficent than the rest of the game.
Metaphor, in laymans terms, could be a thing from ’80s but it’s still a very important part of usability. By utilizing proper metaphors (like OS X hype does) the user already has an idea what the things does and how to use it even before he’s even opened the thing.
Yes, OS X menu is easy to hit. However, the problem is the increasing number of concurrent applications running and increasing screen real-estate. This increases the number of “back from the menu -actions” and ever more slower complete usability.
I wasn’t comparing clippy to spotlight, the original article was.
Gotta run.
I agree DWalla. Boring and exhausting.
Well, to be fair,I probably wouldn’t have made it past #3 in the original article either. I feel like “Why are we still having these troll fests?” Use what you use when you need to use it and that’s it.
No, I just check I got to #5 on the Smashing article – less verbose.
Well, there is lots of text because I wanted to explain my points. Short answers would have led to a situation where I would find explaining myself over and over in the comments. Sure, that gets more comments and even traffic but in the same time it makes the whole thing feel like tabloids, and that is NOT what I want. The end doesn’t justify the means.
Besides, it wasn’t written as an general entertainment, rather than to the people who are interested of usability and user interfaces; as it turns out, it’s an usability blog. So, yes, it might be tad boring for those who seek just entertainment.
I find it funny that all you guys complaining about the spelling and grammar errors make plenty of typos yourself.