Top 10 Usability Highs Of Mac OS, it is not so easy

Smashing magazine gave out new material on "usability of» OS X. However, being written rookie-switcher, he came out a few crumpled and not too objective (about love journalists to round figures obtained even with a considerable stretch, I say nothing), but because I would like to post on items:

Consistency
According to the author, MacOS interface and applications is very homogeneous, largely due to the HIG. Disagree here it is difficult, although it is worth noting the following:
Before the release of "Leopard," the appearance of applications OS X has been very uneven. And the reason for this mess hidden in Apple itself, which allowed freedom to developers to manage external applications View (nightmare brushed metal, which, despite the all the instructions HIG developers, developers managed to debase, plastic-metal design options, inconsistency in the appearance and behavior of standard applications), and in developers, with their experiments only aggravate the situation (you may recall, for example, numerous attempts to impose controls on Aqua HUG window or a hodgepodge of "plastic" and Aqua). And it's not talking about soft-trash kind of programs that require X11, or "cross-platform" applications. In addition, Apple has been repeatedly seen in a very liberal interpretation of its own HIG (look in the iTunes side). On the other hand, the competition is even worse things. Vista UXG is a completely horrible Talmud, which seems to have almost none of the developers (including those working Microsoft) reads, in full-time applications anarchy (compare, for example, the Paint and Windows Media Player or try to count how many icons of the set Vista redmondovskie designers forgot to redraw), after which the top Tiger seems logic and organization, let alone the third-party applications, and will not say :) Linux is not to comment on For sin will laugh at miserable (skeptics can look through documents on designing interfaces for GNOME / KDE, then look for a regular application of the the SUSE).

Intuitivity
And there is not so simple. Learnability (learning, which is often meant by intuitive) and easy to use yet highly different things. In addition, there are habits formed over the years, from which have to give. Is the use of a proxy icons intuitively? Or the use of the cross is not always closes the program intiutivno? Or zoom? Nothing like this, everyone will have to learn, and then to deal with convenience. In addition, not every decision that comes to mind first is true. Each of you probably remember dozens of examples of how the "intuitive" (read inspired by previous work experience Windows / Linux) solutions proved awkward in comparison with the proposed "ten", but which had to find independently. On the other hand, the interface MacOS and many applications for it quite logical and predictable so that we could expect that any decision would be correct. The examples are not far to go: widespread drag'n'drop, logical and concise component system settings ...

Effective and appropriate metaphors
Here the author talks primarily about the validity of using "trehmerki" in MacOS interface. In fact, the theme of using metaphors can be developed for a long time, and then it all limited and 3D effects. The fact that Apple usually uses a past I have written many times. In Microsoft / OSS advocates of this, oddly enough, it does not work so far. The first beating animation at all, including a menu or try to arrange to switch windows using "Rolodex", while the latter does not grow from the age when they think that last "rubber" window - that's cool. In fact, the best examples can be cited a lot, although the use of metaphors is not always the best solution (Microsoft Bob - a visual confirmation). On the other hand, the theme of "metaphor against the idiom" as has been repeatedly thumb and then each side has its strong arguments allowed.

Informative error reporting on-demand
And it is not so simple. Theme could be deployed more widely, telling about the organization Apple applications to communicate with the user. Options can then be set. This classic dialogues designed, by the way, on the order of clever maykrosoftovskih (incredulous go to compare Apple HIG, Vista UXG and XP dialogs) and a variety of ways to communicate non-modal: bezels (volume control, disconnect the mouse), pop-up information windows (iChat, Growl), icons Dock (badges, animation, jumping), and a lack of information die and fall of the sea of ​​garbage per user ( "I have found a new device, which I well done! I'll go and look for another driver and... ").

Hiding the technical details
Here, too, I have something to add, for the benefit of the examples do not have to go far: Presentation audio disk as a set of aiff files (when there are named correctly relevant information cddb), work with bluetooth, hides the internal protocol, only one request for information applications, which really needed for the job. The reverse side of the coin - "insufficient", in terms of power-user'ov opportunities for setting up the system.

Fitts' Law
This topic I have discussed in some detail, nothing to add here. Is that the author could have chosen other examples and simultaneously explain, at what Comrade Fitts here.

User input feedback
In fact, here we are talking about the use of instant change, unlike the classic Save / Apply / Cancel in Windows. Indeed, in many cases, the changes you make are displayed instantly, although the cases when it is necessary to apply the changes press the Save / Apply to restart the application or even too much (router settings, display settings, and program icons etc.). On the other hand, Windows applications, professing a similar approach is becoming more, and GNOME applications are trying to keep up.

User support and navigation
No, guys, it's not just one thing spotlayte. Spotlight - just one example of how the refusal of submission to the extension user a hierarchical file system can be useful (see also iTunes, iPhoto ...) Just for digging in classical deployed Finder filesystem trees adapted Least of all, including professional bureaucrats are so much navigation dissatisfied. And only one "spatial navigation» Finder is worth. Search here does not rescue, because Again, it does not provide information about the hierarchy of documents.
Another thing makos gradually teaches the user to the fact that the previous methods of data organization (rigid adherence to the name and path, tree organization and navigation) are not the only possible and, moreover, available now are quite good alternatives. And yes, search for Windows Vista yet byaka rare, exactly as clumsy attempts to create search folders :)

Workflow
Here we are on the ground to combat MDI and SDI. Apple then sometimes goes too far, encouraging developers to develop applications mushrooming myriad windows, palettes, "boxes", inspectors, and other components, in the commotion which leaves plenty of time, which is not OK. Yes, work with a bunch of windows arranged well (thanks Dock, Exposé and Spaces), but the ability to quickly OS X taken separately turn the screen can not be underestimated in a jumble of windows, and much to be proud of here all the more nothing.

Even kernel panic looks nice!
Controversial statement. Yes, outwardly kernel panic prettier than Windows BSOD, but the best manifestation thereof would constitute its complete absence. Whether "screen of death» Vista or OS X painted by Monet at least, the joy of contemplation thereof, once again it would not be added.

By the way, comments on SmashingMagazine site also deserve attention, and at the time of writing this post has not yet moved into the category meryanie Linux distributions.