This has been a serious problem since macOS Tahoe. Whoever signed off on the UI for Tahoe needs a serious schooling in UI/UX design principles - it's incredibly hostile to users. Not only does it make it impossible to distinguish between overlapping windows as this tool seeks to mitigate, there's many confusing UI elements and lack of contrast not to mention why it has so much padding on everything - you're left with far less usable space.
It’s not too much of a stretch to imagine why someone from that world would prioritize things looking good in promotional photos/videos, and not care too much about human factors and fundamentals of interaction design.
Blaming any one person doesn't seem very useful without extraordinary insight into the development process. It could be this approach was dictated, and it's not like the rest of the product team didn't have say, and it allows scapegoating them even if both the above are true.
Being on the E team is literally about being the one person to blame when things aren’t right.
When you’re an exec in charge of a whole area, the buck stops with you and, to quote Steve Jobs - the reasons stop mattering.
As a user I don’t care about having “extraordinary insight into the development process”. All I know is you’re vice president of interface design and the interfaces are getting worse over time.
Well that's all well and fine when you're trying to scapegoat someone in the corporate hierarchy, but it doesn't make very much sense to respect if you're trying to make sense of it in general.
Isn't that the point of a hierarchy, though? The important decisions come from the top.
When I worked for someone else (now self-employed), some bugs were my fault. But with features and other intentional changes, the bosses had to sign off on them, and in some cases there were vigorous internal debates, but the bosses had the final say and could overrule objections.
In a vague sense, yes, but in a specific sense, no.
The stockholders do not make design decisions but only elect the board of directors. The board of directors do not make design decisions but only elect the CEO. The former CEO Steve Jobs did make design decisions, but the current CEO Tim Cook appears not to make design decisions, delegating that to subordinates. Alan Dye is Vice President of Human Interface Design at Apple. He does make design decisions; indeed that's in his job title. Dye previously reported to Jeff Williams, COO, but Williams just retired, so it's unclear who Dye reports to now. In any case, Dye is likely the person at Apple who has the final say on design decisions.
it bothers me when this kind of thing needs spelling out in such detail. the initial claim of scapegoating showed an incredibly childish world view and then when it was pointed out what this role was, they doubled down. do people really hold that kind of world view, or do they enjoy being contrarian?
It is not scapegoating. It is actually helding people responsible for the huge compensation they are getting. If something is successful it is these people who gets the big bonus.
Even when everyone is to blame, one person is to blame. That's why prime ministers resign when they can't hold together a government. That's why leaders step down.
There are tens of thousands of interface designers who would be able to make a better interface than what is Tahoe and iOS 26. One of them should have the job.
So if you hired a plumber to install a new faucet or whatever, and he totally fucks up (eg. floods your entire kitchen), you're saying we shouldn't blame him, we should blame... you, for hiring him in the first place?
>not the people who could have said no?
Going to the plumber example, you're saying that you should be hovering over him to catch any mistakes? Isn't the whole point of hiring a professional is that you don't have to worry about stuff like this? If you're able-bodied and are going to have to supervise the whole thing, why bother hiring someone?
Similarly, when you switch to another app via command+tab, the keyboard events are being sent to the previous app for a couple of hundred milliseconds.
I cannot remember the number of times I quit the wrong app because of this or pasted something to the wrong window. I genuinely have to wait a second on every app switch.
It seems mindbending that this would pass any stage of testing. As a non macOS user, this feels like a complete dealbreaker for ever considering a switch. But macOS is demonstrably popular, and I haven't heard this complaint before. Is it less of an issue in reality than I imagine it would be?
Windows also has problems with mouse clicks and window stacking.
And an ugly bug, when closing a window with the mouse on "x" button, will also close the window below.
This also happens on switching virtual desktops, even with reduce animations there is a 100ms+ delay before any input on the new desktop will be sent to the correct app.
Indeed. Here’s an article from Don Norman, author of The Design of Everyday Things and former Apple employee, that talks about Apple’s decline in usability back in 2015:
Apple had usability experts like Bill Atkinson (RIP), Larry Tesler (RIP), Bruce Tognazzini, and Don Norman. At one point, what differentiated Apple products from competitors was Apple’s focus on usability and consistency. However, it seems that sometime during Apple’s revival under Steve Jobs, there became a big focus on appealing design. Beige desktops and black laptops gave way to colorful desktops and metallic laptops, and the Platinum interface was replaced with Aqua. Nothing was wrong with this; in fact, this was peak Apple, IMO, with usability and visual appeal. But somewhere along the line, Apple lost the plot. Apple became less about usability and more about visual appeal, but with usability taking a hit.
To be fair, Apple makes world-class hardware, and I still prefer macOS to its competitors. The problem is that I prefer 2000s Mac OS X and even the 1990s classic Mac OS (from a UI perspective, not necessarily a UX perspective due to stability issues) to modern macOS.
Seems everyone has. Which is weird, given how bad everything looks despite this focus.
I'm not sure what's going on in the design world. I mean, of course there's the influence of the web design spheres. The web didn't have the GUI standards that e.g. Macs were known for. In the beginning, they couldn't emulate the desktops. Toolkits like ExtJS tried, but you stated with the basic problem that you didn't know what desktop you wanted to emulate. Windows? Mac?
By the time the browser caught up, the damage already had been done, and the stop-gap solutions and styles more suitable for ads created a "web style". Flashy, flat, deserts of whitespace. The aesthetic stranglehold this had then not only persisted, but crossed over first into mobile (the somewhat standardized look & feel of early iOS quickly vanished), then the desktop.
And now nobody knows where they're going, despite having more people solely focused on "UX" than ever before. But you need to do something to justify your position/salary, and that's how we get the Microsoft/Apple designs of the last decade or so. And not having any ideas beyond type systems or init replacements, the open source world just emulates that.
