“The HIG is only credible if it accurately reflects Apple’s actual policy. If the policy isn’t going to change, then the HIG should. To those of you who think this state of affairs is just fine, that there’s no problem with Mac OS X providing two disparate themes for developers to choose between based on whim, I ask this: If two themes are OK, why not three or four?” Read the editorial at DaringFireball.
Brushed Metal and the HIG
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
This has been discussed ad nauseum here and other places. I agree, Apple’s use of brushed metal hasn’t really followed their HIG. It’s not just Safari, but also iChat.
Still, they can do whatever they’d like. If people don’t like brushed metal in Safari, they can use Camino or Firefox or whatever.
At least things in OSX are closer to the HIG’s than in Windows. There are W32 apps these days that look like they belong on a whole other platform.
…because Tiger will probably be different, again.
There are W32 apps these days that look like they belong on a whole other platform.
Which is an interesting point: Apple’s alternative theme (ie. brush metal) may be the main factor preventing this UI divergence. If an application developer feels that the default appearance doesn’t suit their needs, they will probably develop their own. Apple simply provided them with two distinct options which are somewhat consistent in how they behave, so all is somewhat well.
Anyhow, maybe it is because I use X too often, but I don’t think this is a big deal. Having developers plop menu items in the wrong place is going to have a more negative impact on usability than Aqua vs. brushed metal any day.
“Anyhow, maybe it is because I use X too often, but I don’t think this is a big deal. Having developers plop menu items in the wrong place is going to have a more negative impact on usability than Aqua vs. brushed metal any day.”
No one said it was about usability. It’s about consistency. I agree with arguments in the article, but maybe that is because personally I hate brushed metal.
If two themes are OK, why not three or four?
I agree completely. Choice is good.
I am not a developer, yet, but I was wondering how hard it would be for apple to change the pin strips, or brushed to some other default that they make up? It would seem that since everyone uses the default libraries it wouldn’t be that hard for apple or a third party person with permissions to change the skins.
There are already three themes, if you count the wood paneling of GarageBand. Then Spotlight is going to add in another one: http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/spotlight.html
And then, each Dashboard widget will also have it’s own theme, it seems:http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/dashboard.html
In that case you may also say that Apple’s proffesional apps have their own interface, e.g.: Final Cut Pro, Motion and Logic Pro:
* http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/
* http://www.apple.com/motion/
* http://www.apple.com/logic/
Personally, I don’t care that much, all interfaces look and work allright.
Didn’t I read a while ago the new Safari will have yet another theme that’s a merge with the metal and pinstripe?
at least metal is easy to get rid of: http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/21363
just download and install whiteout. the only apps that stay metal are the skinned ones (quicktime and itunes.. maybe a few others).
windows, consistency wise, is the worst
with xp installed and the luna theme active try running
visual studio .net
office 2003
firefox
and some windows 2k look and feel app
those aren’t just different looks. they are ENTIRELY different toolkits. the most consistent look and feel today is in gnome. sad, but true. a good ubuntu install with gnome 2.8 looks absolutely beautiful, with pure gtk2 everywhere.
I say we should have a theme per application! I get so bored with the same looking apps. 🙁 Perhaps I should run X11! *joke*
You guys are forgetting something…HIGs aren’t rules, they are guidelines. They suggest the method that usually works out the best. Usually. If a certain app/interface happens to work better outside of one of those guidelines, then by all means use what works the best. Safari uses metal because they want it to feel like the Finder (both are browsers). It’s what feels natural and that’s the most important thing in UI design.
HIGs are important. You may say that aqua vs brushed metal doesn’t matter. However, if that doesn’t matter, then the rest of the HIG is devalued. THIS is Apple’s main problem. If Apple are not religious about their HIG, then third party developers won’t be either. Apple should just dump this altogether from the HIG, or say something like “choose whatever you want”, simply to maintain the integrity of the HIG.
hurdboy: “There are W32 apps these days that look like they belong on a whole other platform.” Yes, iTunes being a glaring example of such a thing, while we’re on the Apple topic.
That’s a third-party developer thing – people know damn well what Windows looks like by default, but they choose not to for whatever reason. It’s a bit different when it’s Apple themselves breaking the guidelines.
Personally I don’t get why they have two different ones. I can’t see why they think it doesn’t look okay for TextEdit.
And the list of situations you can use it in is pretty weird – it’s not like it’s intuitive: “Oh this one uses brushed metal, so it’s either for a digital peripheral, or recreates a physical device, or lists files”.
Simple solution: Make _everything_ one or the other. If people can’t settle on one, have two options. Solved.
Yep, HIG are just guidelines, that is what they must be so clear and obvious. So I guess pretty much everyone agrees to:
“If a certain app/interface happens to work better outside of one of those guidelines, then by all means use what works the best”
But the problem arises when the guidelines are ambiguous and developers start ignoring them “just because”.
There are quite a lot of guidelines in the apple HIG document on when to use Metal and when absolutely not use it. One absolute is that using metal is for creating a software that “is a hardware” like itunes and iChat which are like their own handheld hardware, and use Aqua for normal applications like Word processors and such.
Haven’t read the Tiger HIG, but just read it, it is online on developer.apple.com.
Personally, I like metal for normal app’s
I have a recent screenshot of Tiger which is very large and allows you to look at the interface close up. Safari and iChat are both open in the shot and one thing I noticed is that blushed metal in iChat is more subtle just as the pinstripes are more subtle these days compared to before. I think it looks a lot better and hope all brushed metal apps will revert to this because Safari still looked the same but they probably haven’t gotten around to changing it yet. Another thing is that the menu bar has changed to a glossy gray with no pinstripes and isn’t flat looking. I like this also but I havn’t made up my mind on the blue with the Apple and Spotlight menu. The application stop, minimize, & maximize buttons also look to be much sharper then before. Overall I say I like the new interface changes but I sure people who don’t like change will go crazy.
The irony in the way Apple is following their own HIG is that all those freaks who are trying to copy the Mac OS X interface on Windows (while they can’t even spell Mac OS X) will get e more and more realistic OS X experience, because consistency in Mac OS X is getting worse and worse. This situation is already better in GNOME than it is in Mac OS X.
To me, the problem isn’t really the two different looks, but that the themes behave differently and the interface gets unpredictable (This is not difficult with two themes, but if we had three or four, would the average user know how the window behaves when he/she clicks it?).
the most consistent look and feel today is in gnome. sad, but true.
why is that sad ?
i like it to use a free desktop that can really compete with “the big ones”
When Safari first shipped with the brushed metal theme, I thought it was quite ugly (bordering on hideous). I even went so far as opening the bundle and switching it back to the standard OS X theme for a short time, but then switched it back.
I’ve grown so accustomed to the brushed metal theme in Safari that I couldn’t remember if it was brushed metal or normal (I’m on my Windows XP machine from work). I had to go to Apple’s web site and see a picture of Safari before writing this comment.
To summarize, I really don’t like the brushed metal theme, and wish it was a user-selectable option for each application. The fact is, I’ve grown accustomed to the brushed metal theme, and even though I don’t like it, I really don’t pay attention to it any longer.
“This is not difficult with two themes, but if we had three or four, would the average user know how the window behaves when he/she clicks it?”
The average user doesn’t know what the right mouse button is used for, what each of the three window button options (minimize maximize, and close), or the difference between their browser and their email client. I think doing things like removing tabs and replacing them with long “strips” (see system preferences for examples), or even offering the option to hide the buttons on a window (the “pill” in the upper right hand portion of many mac windows) is far more “anti-human” than having multiple themes.
From the standpoint of usability and supportability, metal vs. aqua makes very little difference. From the standpoint of TEH BYOOTEE vs, TEH FUGLY, well, the eye of the beholder and all of that. I’m not a screaming metal fanatic, but I like it a hell of a lot better than the pinstripes.
and, while it does what it says,, the feel of OS X is not good with out the metal. perhaps it is because it looks better with grey colored app windows. I think that the app windows should have a darker tone than the menu bar, maybe that is what platinum is for..replacing the metal with a color that has been part of the pkg installer for a while now because right now all there is is speculation about what platinum will be.
It’s a bit different when it’s Apple themselves breaking the guidelines.
You mean like how Microsoft breaks their own guidelines? All their major product lines look different! You’ve got the Office look (which is apparently now a garish Keramik reject), the .NET look (for Visual Studio, the lone .NET app on most peoples’ desktops), the IE look, etc, etc.
how exactly do they act differently? I think you are pulling that out your rear because I use OS X every day and see no difference in function.
I prefer the Office 2k3 look tot he Office XP look…. at least from a “looks like candy, just like the rest of XP” stand point. but then I assume that Office XP was mean to sell more to the Windows 2000 group since they were more numerous than the XP folks at the time.
Well, there may not be a complete consistency across the interface, but there is a consistency of useage. i.e. Digital media apps (plus safari) use the brushed metal look.
This probably, psychologically, creates a differentiation in the users mind between “ordinary” apps and so-called digital media apps.
Of course, Safari, iCal etc aren’t exactly digital media, so there’s where the idea breaks down.
Three or four themes would be truly confusing.
Someone asked if it was easy to switch between Metal and Aqua for OSX.
They seem to share the basic GUI elements so it must be a pure skinning issue. If you design your own Cocoa application in XCode you can switch between Aqua and Metal by flicking a switch in real time, easy peasy. I don’t think there is anything an Aqua app can do that a Metal one can’t and vice versa.
It’s even possible to switch it on compiled apps.
I’ve ran across some messages here and there where people have had problems with Unsanity’s software, but I run several of their apps, and have never had a problem.
In particular, Shapeshifters a very nice skinning app (although I’m still waiting for the ability to mix and match parts of themes, and to be able to save my own creations). It has allowed me to tweak out my OSX theme, and this means that instead of a mix of GUI styles, you get a nice consistent look most of the time (“most of the time” because some apps still use their own look/feel, such as Final Cut Pro).
In fact, though many of the Mac heads out there would puke, the OSXP theme is one of my fav’s (Think XP’s Luna meets OSX look/feel).
I’m just wondering if..
Aqua => theme for ‘normal’ apps
Metal => theme for ‘consumer’ apps
pro Theme => well, for (Apple) pro apps
Simply and despite what the HIG and Apple say.
HIG is great, but in truth a good environment needs HIG for one type of application: the type of application that does emulate an existing established device.
That is to say, you need HIG for a word-processor or a spreadsheet application, but not for a CD or MP3 player application. Why not a CD or MP3 player (or TV/VCR)? Well, CD players and TVs are widely established as separate devices with physical interfaces of their own. Most people who have been exposed to a CD player or TV can operate one with little or no instruction. There are few controls, and there is some logical consensus on what they are and how they operate.
You don’t want a simple pocket-calculator application to look and operate like your word-processor. Ideally, you want it to look and operate like the pocket calculator you would buy if you were to purchase the real thing. That’s true of music players as well. Sure, something that looks like the HIG proscribes might be nice, but wouldn’t it feel more natural if it had the same display and layout as that Onkyo up there on the shelf? It sure would.
That doesn’t explain why Safari uses the brushed-metal theme. But, it does address why many media-player skins look like consumer electronics… An HIG should only be faithfully adhered to in the absence of an established real-word model to emulate. In the presence of such a model, there’s no reason that the model wouldn’t suffice (until you load it with so much extra functionality that it fails to behave the same way).
You don’t want a simple pocket-calculator application to look and operate like your word-processor.
Yes, you do.
Ideally, you want it to look and operate like the pocket calculator you would buy if you were to purchase the real thing.
No you don’t. The pocket calculator has certain physical limitations that a computer does not have to deal with. These limitations make it harder to use than it would be otherwise.
but wouldn’t it feel more natural if it had the same display and layout as that Onkyo up there on the shelf? It sure would.
The Onkyo up on the shelf, because of physical limitations, is a rather terrible interface. It can’t hide irrelevent buttons, it can’t give you a lot of feedback, it requires a very cumbersome procedure to change out music tracks, and it’s tiny display is cryptic and hard to read. There is a reason that iTunes looks nothing like a real music device.
I generally agree with the author of the article: the HIG is pretty clear. Whether or not it’s just a “guideline,” Apple is all over the road implementing the various themes in its own software.
The wood-paneled Garageband trim is a particular abomination. 😉
In my opinion, the pinstripe theme is starting to look dated. It doesn’t coincide with any of Apple’s current hardware design, which is all artic white or brushed aluminum. These two schemas should probably define desktop look.
We’ve all seen the dummies of what appears to be a new white Apple desktop theme. I think it looks pretty attractive: clean title bars flowing into the windows, a hint of texture — not bad. It would make a great replacement for Aqua’s pinstripe.
I’d like to see Apple standardize on the new white theme for most applications, with brushed aluminum utilized as outlined in the current HIG. Pinstripe would simply go away, consigned to the enless array of lurid “Agua” “Akkwa” “Lickuid” and “Wa-wa” knock-offs which have propagated across Linux and Windows desktops.
Choice is good, but one of Mac’s traditional strengths has been a unified base environment. It’s a good thing. Users can always apply third-party themes, if they’re so inclined.
I’m betting the upcoming Dashboard themes will add plenty of color and individuality in coming years.
sorry, it wasn’t meant to come off as an insult or anything. i use gnome on my linux machine. the reason i said sad, but true is that apple is known for being the best at good interfaces and usability. metal and aqua mixing goes directly against this. they single handedly had a leg up for awhile (for quite some time gnome had two toolkits: gtk1 and gtk2.. by mixing things like xmms, gimp, firefox, and nautilus. it looked weird). apple just passed the torch though on this issue to gnome. consistency is very important to me, and as such it pisses me off that my macs aren’t as consistent anymore as *nix desktop environments.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned KDE in comparison to Apple…
Not only are the core KDE apps consistent on look and feel, you even have the GTK-Qt engine that makes GTK2 apps feel less out-of-place.
Where Apple has still remained very consistent is in the metrics of their window controls. Like for example when you see a slider in a program you can bet that it in proportion to others of the same type will always be the same size. They give a few different size options for those sliders which allows the designer of the theme to be creative at the larger sizes yet have sliders that look good at smaller sizes.
As a side effect this gives a themer who uses shapeshifter for example a larger canvas to be creative on. Apple simply has chosen the best size and shapes for the control’s canvas and this doesn’t change even through all this style adding.
On windows microsoft only gives the option of one size… small. And a lot of developers don’t develop with consistency in mind so they do things like make a tiny slider with a huge slider track. Either that or like some developrs I know they don’t care at all as long as it works they don’t care about looks or consistency. Or there are legacy applications.
And this goes even for some I know that make applications for Linux and Windows. One developer I know makes programs for Windows and Mac OS X and only really cares about using native controls for the OS X version.
The only saviour on OS X to consistency to me it almost seems is theming however with all the looks that are going in it’s going to be a hell of a lot of work which it already is anyway, just magnified.
On windows Longhorn it looks to maybe make things better but I am not so sure about that because of what I have seen on people drawing buttons with the xml files that are to be used to define a window. That coupled with the whole widget craze and pretty soon there will be a theme per window.
BTW, I myself am just fine with having 2 looks as long as you can change both systemwide with a theming program so you have choices.
Apples HIG states that any application can use Aqua or Brushed.
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/UserExperience/Conceptual/…
Safari uses metal because they want it to feel like the Finder (both are browsers).
No. Safari was always released as brushed metal, whereas the original Finder was Aqua. The correct history is that “the Finder changed to match Safari”, not “Safari was designed to match the Finder.”
http://www.thinksecret.com/news/pantherfindersystem.html
It’s what feels natural and that’s the most important thing in UI design.
What would have felt natural, is if they’d have stuck with Aqua for both, rather than changing from 10.2 to 10.3.
I wrote a reply to Gruber’s article. Would appreciate comments.