# Moving Toward Next Desktop Paradigm



## whlitwa (Feb 25, 2011)

How many years has it been that we've had the same buttons and the same bars in the same places with the same design problems?

Admittedly, a complete overhaul is fairly out of the question.  It would alienate most of Apple's customer base.  Everyone would have to relearn the OS and most would be more than slightly irritated.

However, Apple has always been focused on design (sometimes in _spite_ of usability) and recently has made improvements that suggest it's finally coming around to changing age old standards.
e.g.
Quicktime no longer shows a bar or controls unless you hover.
iTunes Cover-Art-Player (name?) does the same.
Lion has a somewhat redesigned Exposé.
Attempts have been made at redesigning the mouse (Magic Mouse / Trackpad).

On the other hand, other items stay irritatingly outdated.

I have only a couple of points to make.

Firstly, there is a fair bit of wasted space in "bars."
The menu bar consists of items on the left and items on the right, yet spans the entire width.  This could easily be removed and the space used widened as needed.
The top bar on most windows is completely useless.  It's not quite as bad in some apps, such as iTunes, but most apps take up a large amount of space simply to display the name of the app.  Granted, this space is typically used to drag the app around, but I argue that such functionality could be limited to a single space rather than an entire bar.  The title doesn't need to be present at all as it already exists in the menu bar.  If could, of course, simply be displayed aligned left and leave the rest off.  Some applications, Safari for example, could use this method.
In many applications there is still a useless bottom bar used to "frame" the window visually.  We all know it's a window, you can stop.  Usually doodads are added to make the bar more functional, but the bar can serve better by being removed entirely and any present features moved elsewhere.
There is also much wasted space in left bars, such as in Finder.  I enjoy the functionality of having shortcuts there, but much of the space at the bottom is wasted.

Secondly, the idea of using "windows" at all is extremely outdated.  I would say Apple is fully aware of this judging by their development of the iPad (which is both awesome and lame all at once, but this isn't a discussion of iPads).  The next step is, I believe, quite obvious--the evolution of the desktop itself.
I would say the main reason this hasn't happened yet is the general reaction from the end users (havoc, mayhem, etc).  If I had to guess, and if I'm assuming that the people in charge at Apple know what they're doing, I would say the release of the iPad was to acclimate the end user to a new paradigm (obviously while pulling a large profit.)  I've seen an Apple patent around that suggests they might be thinking this, combining the desktop with the touch screen features of the iPad.  Whether the case or not, people will more than likely balk at any radical change, so my suggestion is to continue to acclimate the end user to a new model.
One idea I've been mulling over is the disorganization of windows and windows and yet more windows.  Some steps have been taken to reduce this (Tabs, Exposé), but they focus on the problem rather than the solution.  I propose moving the functionality of Exposé into the normal operation of the OS (possibly as just an option).
First, a button/shortcut might be added that spread and/or sorted windows much like Exposé, but on the desktop itself.  It might also be an option whether to resize windows or simply sort as best as it can without.
Second, a feature might be turned on from the start to auto-sort windows as they open.  If you want to leave a window open in the background, a button might be added to do so.  Or, on the other hand, it could simply be minimized.  After all, if the windows is in the background unseen, there is little need for it to actually be open.

Lastly, and in conclusion, we all seem to be fixated on leaving buttons in the same places and in the same configurations simply from habit.  Drastic changes would, understandably, confuse more than help most users, but transitional changes are long overdue.

Poor sketch attached.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Feb 25, 2011)

So... you're suggesting we go back to BeOS?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BeOS_Desktop.png


----------



## DeltaMac (Feb 25, 2011)

I though that looked familiar - glad you jogged my memory about BEOS.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 27, 2011)

Ahhhh BeOS! Now there was an OS!


----------



## whlitwa (Feb 28, 2011)

Ok, I knew I'd seen that somewhere before.  Still, I'd say Mac does today a better job of design.  I just think everyone's a little behind the ball.


----------



## rubaiyat (Feb 28, 2011)

Whilst there are some features in OSX that are improvements there is a wide swathe of unnecessary complexity and bewildering obscurity. 

For all its tendency to bomb occasionally the Classic Mac OS was more transparent and logical.

OSX particularly suffers from hidden interfaces and a reflexive method where you can only get to something once you have done something less obvious or even totally hidden. The reflexive method pervades everything. Instead of select, refine, act it is often hunt for tool, select, hunt for another tool to act, hunt for menu option buried 2 layers deep.

There are many features in Apple's software that are hidden trapdoors, only visible if you approach in the right number of steps and make the correct incantation.

It is the stupid nerd's approach. I hid it, you find it.

btw Jonathan Ives may be moving on, so we shall see what becomes of the hardware design as well:

http://mashable.com/2011/02/27/is-apples-design-guru-quitting/


----------



## whlitwa (Feb 28, 2011)

It does make me wonder about the hiring practices and employee structure at Apple.  What oversight is there on the OS design?  It seems obvious to me; if I had any say in the matter I would have regular meetings / brain storming sessions that asked "Is this the best way to do this? What other ways would work? Is it designed like this out of convention or because it best solves a problem?"  I'm intrigued by your comment of it being "a nerd's approach."  Large companies inevitably suffer from bureaucracy issues, but I can't imagine there isn't someone in some kind of oversight position that isn't just managerial.  It leads me to wonder what this person or persons qualifications are.  Are they experienced in programming? design? or do they simply have managerial experience?

The few improvements Apple has made in its OS are superficial at best.  In order to design a new paradigm, someone with a bigger fist needs to reorganize the entire structure of the design team or create a new one from scratch.


----------



## rubaiyat (Mar 1, 2011)

Decision process:

Is Steve, Is good!


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Mar 1, 2011)

rubaiyat said:
			
		

> OSX particularly suffers from hidden interfaces and a reflexive method where you can only get to something once you have done something less obvious or even totally hidden.



Can you give a specific example or two of this?


----------



## Giaguara (Mar 1, 2011)

I still haven't seen a good UI for a desktop or a laptop that does not use _windows_ as part of the user interface element. iPad interface? Great for the gadgets, such as iPad. But for a laptop/desktop/actual more powerful workstation? Show me. I don't want it to have only one app only running at a time, and I don't want a giant dashboard looking thing either. (I still usually disable dashboard; I'm still not a fan of it)

I've seen some relatively neat and usable UIs for some netbook OSes that were nice, but I didn't quite fall in love with either. Or how about doing as Solaris and most Linux distros? Give a few different UIs and UI styles to make your pick of, great. (Except when you need to cross-test every single feature in every single combination of apps, UIs, the dozens of languages included etc, before each dot update or app update).

For one of the points in the first post, about the buttons: most of Mac users by now aren't those who came from OS 9, but from Windows and other platforms. By numbers, the majority of them switched in the past 3 years, and the ones who came to OS X from OS 9 or other Mac pre-X are a minority. So would those users be alienated if the location of some buttons of a UI window was changed? If they were really annoyed by that, wouldn't they have quit using the OS when Finder changed from 10.3 to 10.4 or 10.4 to 10.5 looks? Or when iTunes changed from a nice, clean, small, fast program to an OS within OS? Or when the who UI changed from pre-X to X?

Show me some good examples of UI design please. 

I would love to get back to the other points in this discussion too, but I'm not really allowed to do that.


----------



## icemanjc (Mar 16, 2011)

I want Mac OS X's GUI to be only green and red.


----------

