A Look At OS X Yosemite And iOS 8.1
by Brandon Chester on October 27, 2014 8:00 AM ESTRethinking OS X
The original interface for iOS was inspired by Apple's Aqua UI, with skeuomorphic elements that mimicked real world objects. Computers have always mimicked the real world to a degree. They have buttons you press, and knobs you turn. The entire desktop metaphor is really just a digitization of the real world office with folders, documents, and a trash can. As computers have evolved and people have become more familiar with them, this overall metaphor has remained for the most part. But many of the visual elements that previously mimicked these real world objects could be simplified to copy in function, but not design. Users who are familiar with computers no longer need a distinct outline and heavy shading to recognize that a button is something they click or tap. They don't want their Calendar and Reminders applications to have leather borders, stitching, and paper like their calendar and date book in the real world, because doing so confines them to the limitations of those physical objects.
iOS 7 was in a sense a rebirth of iOS. The interface that had existed for six years was entirely redone. Core design elements like the homescreen remained, but everything was given a new visual style that eliminated skeuomorphism and ushered in a new era with a new design philosophy for Apple. This style of design is fairly well understood now. iOS makes heavy use of translucency and color. Each application has a primary color throughout which is indicated on its icon. Calendar uses red, Notes uses yellow, etc. With all these massive changes, the future of the design of OS X was uncertain.
One month after we got iOS 7, we got Mavericks. Mavericks was not the major overhaul that iOS 7 was. The visual elements of the operating system were very much the same as previous versions. This can simply be attributed to a lack of engineering resources. Apple's work to redesign iOS most certainly would have began after the departure of Scott Forstall which occurred after the release of iOS 6. Redesigning iOS in less than a year was quite an accomplishment, even with the bugs that were brought along with such a major change. It would have simply been impossible to do the same for OS X within the same period of time.
However, the design in Mavericks did not stand still. While the interface remained the same for the most part, many key applications that implemented skeuomorphic interfaces were redesigned. The leather and stitching was ripped out of apps like Calendar and Notes. The linen was removed from Notification Center and the login screen. These changes were the beginning of the path to what we have now with Yosemite.
For someone used to older versions of OS X, the above interface may seem like a shocking change. But for people who have been exposed to newer versions of iOS, it will actually feel quite familiar. The use of translucency, the flatter interface, and the new system font all draw upon the design principles that were established with iOS 7. It's important to understand what is meant by that. Apple is not establishing a common interface across their devices. OS X and iOS are not the same, and Apple has shown no interest in making them the same. What they are doing is using the same method of design, and the same type of interface elements, to create an experience across those two different operating systems that feels seamless and unified without having to compromise one to fit within the limitations of the other.
I was a fan of Apple's design direction with iOS 7, and so the same has held true for Yosemite. The use of translucency allows the customization of your wallpaper to have an impact on the appearance of the entire operating system. The status bar, the Dock, Launchpad, and any other window that uses translucency can look very different based on the wallpaper that is chosen. Using the new interface tends to have an interesting effect on the user by revealing how dated many parts of the older interface had become. Even users who enjoyed the older design will quickly find themselves questioning how they ever used such a dated interface. It's the same reaction I observed when the iOS userbase moved to iOS 7.
Usability and UI Performance
When the new design of Yosemite was revealed at WWDC 2014, some users voiced concerns that the new design would reduce clarity due to its lighter weighted fonts and heavy use of blur and transparency. On a typical 23" 1080p monitor I haven't noticed any issues reading text that uses the new system font which seems to be a modified Helvetica Neue, but I can see how it may be an issue on non-retina Macbooks where the viewing distance from the display is smaller than a desktop monitor. The blur is also well implemented to preserve legibility. Only the currently active window has the blur effects and transparency enabled. These sections turn opaque when a window is not being used, which means there are not layers upon layers of blur making it difficult to read any text on top of it.
For those who do find that some of the new design choices affect their ability to read or see things, Apple does provide a number of options for accessibility and visual customization. New additions include "Reduce transparency" which removes the translucency effects across the OS, and "Use dark menu bar and Dock" changes the white translucent material in the status bar, the Dock, and Spotlight Search to a black translucent material similar to Notification Center. I tried using the dark mode but I quickly reverted to the original design because the dark menu bar and Dock looked out of place amongst all the white and grey in the rest of the interface.
One issue I have observed with the blur is that windows will show the desktop wallpaper in addition to the applications between which should be blocking the wallpaper from showing through. As you can see above, despite me putting a completely opaque white box behind the calculator, there is still an area with an orange tint in the center. Removing the white reveals that the desktop has the same pattern. During the beta cycle the transparency would only display the wallpaper, and so there was a fix implemented but it introduced a problem of its own. I have seen complaints from other users about this issue, so hopefully it will be remedied in an upcoming update.
Performance is another area of concern with a new design and graphically demanding visual effects like translucency. I have noticed decreases in UI framerate compared to OS X Mavericks based on measurements with Quartz Debug. Overall the OS runs fairly well, but I would be lying if I said it didn't have its issues. Some scrolling lists will regularly drop to somewhere between 30 and 40fps. Scrolling performance in Notification Center is inconsistent, with performance closer to 60fps at some times, and closer to 30fps at others. The worst case I have encountered is the animation for Mission Control which has dropped as low as 5fps when many applications are open. Going forward it will be interesting to see how quickly and to what degree these issues are fixed by Apple.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
173 Comments
View All Comments
DPUser - Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - link
I'm not gonna buy an iMac, but who wants a touchscreen on their desktop? I, for one, do not like fingerprints on my monitors. Or beer for that matter.annah_souls - Saturday, November 1, 2014 - link
$2500 is very cheap. I can buy as many as I want. Soorrry for you, poor guy.I don't understand why you are so upset with Apple. If you think it didn't worth your money, don't buy it. I don't see anyone threaten you to but Apple product. Post your comment like grown up people please.
shahrooz - Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - link
I think people who buy apple products don't really care where their money is going, because all of their products are overpriced. they are not bad at all, but they are never as good as their price suggest.Wolfpup - Wednesday, October 29, 2014 - link
<<<Users who are familiar with computers no longer need a distinct outline and heavy shading to recognize that a button is something they click or tap.>>>This is just plain false. It's not that we don't understand that something doesn't have to physically look like a button to be clickable-the outline or shading or 3D look or whatever is so that it's easily readable AS an interface element.
Mostly the "flat" look is just a stylistic thing, but it does have some drawbacks in areas where it's no longer immediately clear if you can interact with something.
Mostly in both iOS 7 and Windows 8 I don't find it to be a big deal, but an example where it's clearly inferior is the "show desktop" button on Windows 8. In 7, it's not offensive, it just looks raised and is clearly an interface element. In 8, it's still there, but there's no visual way to know that it's there. 8's lack of a start button is another great example. There was no way to know that was clickable and would bring up the start screen unless you already know that it's clickable and brings up the start screen. 8.1 thankfully fixes that, and I think it's an improvement regardless of whether you know what it does.
<<<They don't want their Calendar and Reminders applications to have leather borders, stitching, and paper like their calendar and date book in the real world, because doing so confines them to the limitations of those physical objects. >>>
Neither part of that is true either. The first part is a stylistic choice, and frankly I think it's a fun one. Knowing that a notepad doesn't have to look like a notepad doesn't mean that you won't prefer a fun visual design that looks like one over a plain flat white area to type in (or whatever). that's just personal preference. And making it look like something physical doesn't really restrict any function either. These programs can do all sorts of things physical objects can't, and that's true whether they have a fun real world texture or not.
At any rate I'm 100% in the camp that buttons should look like buttons. Whether flat looking, or 3D looking (once our designer overlords come back around and claim flat is so yesterday and 3D is the big hot new thing again), either way artistic design should NEVER get in the way of usability design. You should be able to at least tell what things you can interact with even if you've never used a program or OS before.
jdshewman - Friday, October 31, 2014 - link
Reading some of these comments are comical and mostly bias. First, the complaint about cost between Mac vs Windows laptops are hysterical. The parts utilized in the Mac are all top notch parts. They are not poorly fabricated nor statistically vulnerable to technical aspects. How many windows laptops have solid state drives, let alone at a reasonable price? I mean, windows runs faster loaded on a mac than a PC manufacturer at the same price point. Second, able to upgrade. Seriously, what would a person need with more than 16gb of ram or a higher CPU (higher than an i5) unless you are cracking the genetic code. These are mindless arguments to the uniformed. Buy a Mac laptop today it will run flawless with any apps for many years. Buy a windows laptop and pray it last more than a couple years with their outdated parts.Impulses - Friday, October 31, 2014 - link
"How many windows laptops have solid state drives, let alone at a reasonable price?"Umm, there's plenty, and you can usually get a larger drive for the same price. Apple has charged a larger than usual premium for drive/RAM upgrades since time immemorium. What does "statistically vulnerable to technical aspects" even mean?
There are things that can justify an Apple price premium (Apple Care, resale value, preference for OS X, display quality)... Somehow you fail to mention even one relevant reason, bravo.
P.S. Every content creator under the sun would smack you for asking who needs more RAM or a faster CPU, for video and photo editing both those things often pay for themselves in no time flat within a professional environment.
V900 - Saturday, November 1, 2014 - link
"Umm, there's plenty"What nonsense. Sure, you can get a Windows laptop with some of the same features as a Macbook. It'll sometimes be cheaper too, just like you can find a Hyundai with a V6 engine for less than you'd pay for a BMW with a V6.
But the two can't compare in neither quality, experience nor resale value, just like the cheap Windows laptop can't compare with a Macbook.
(And usually will cost more in the end. Its nice to save a couple of hundred dollars. But a two year old Macbook will easily sell for 50% of what you paid for it, whereas the "inexpensive" Windows laptop will typically be close to worthless, and will cost you more in the end.)
Sorry buddy, if you want a quality laptop, you can find one running Windows. They're just pretty rare, and cost as much or more than an Apple product.
V900 - Saturday, November 1, 2014 - link
BTW: Your comment about content creators doesn't make any sense.The Macbook and Mac Mini both max out at 16GB RAM. Since time is money for these people, why would they try to save, what amounts to a couple hours overtime pay for them, on installing 3rd party RAM themselves?!?
If they'll really need it eventually, they might as well splurge on the 16GB machine from the get go. Hence they don't really need expandable RAM.
As for regular consumers, they strictly speaking don't really need it anymore either. Upgradable RAM had a purpose when 1gb or 2gb ram was the standard, but not today. A 4gb Macbook will still be plenty fast 5 or 6 years from now. This isn't Windows machines we're talking about, that seem to degrade exponentially for every year.
Which you'd know if you'd ever tried a Macbook. A 4 year old Mac with 2gb ram is fine for everyday use even today.
Impulses - Saturday, November 1, 2014 - link
Not sure why you're so gung ho about replying to my comment, specially when you don't even seem to have read it. I was only refuting that there aren't plenty of Windows laptops with SSD, which the comment I replied to stated.I quoted many of the same reasons you did why a MBP can justify it's price premium (MBA has a tougher case IMO), or did you miss that?
Regarding RAM, the argument wasn't about third party upgrades, but about the fact that "maxing out" at 16GB ISN'T enough for content creators. That would be the bare minimum for many, some would prefer 32GB+ and it has nothing to do with the OS.
V900 - Saturday, November 1, 2014 - link
It's a lot of useful features for sure, but personally I'll wait with upgrading.I really dislike the new design, but hopefully there'll be some third party software options to bring back the Mavericks look. If not, I guess I'll have to wait for 10.11, and the inevitable paring down of the flatness...