Comment by halapro
Comment by halapro 2 days ago
The worst part here is that the style works decently on mobile but they shoehorned it onto a 25-year-old UI and shipped it.
Comment by halapro 2 days ago
The worst part here is that the style works decently on mobile but they shoehorned it onto a 25-year-old UI and shipped it.
Because they absolutely can't have disparate visual styles in their product lines, practicality be damned ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
To be fair, there is sorta kinda a mobile version: Phosh.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosh
And amusingly Ubuntu uses Qt for its phone clone of Gnome.
Allegedly the next gen MBPs will have a touch screen. I think Apple have pushed a touch-enabled macOS UI out a year ahead of the hardware: maybe to iron out issues; maybe 'cos they could... I worry that we're stuck with this shit for a few more years, 'til the touch screen goes the way of the touch bar.
yeah, but somehow consistency was not a concern when picking icons for menu items. as pointed out by some previous discussions on this matter.
i also hate this "consistency" idea. was working on mobile app for android/ios. and a requirement was for apps to look identical on both platforms. whyyyyy. sure for designer it looks nice, but as a user who uses either ios OR android im used to conventions of particular platform. why throw that all away just to look identical an both platforms.
Consistency is the absolute fucking worst design principle.
There are two different things that can be called consistency.
Visual consistency means that your app looks as similar as possible across platforms. Regardless of those platforms' native UI. It's the bad kind.
UX consistency means that your app behaves the same across platforms, but adopts their style and conventions. You actually want this.
I think the core issue here is that consistency bounds are arbitrary and some people tend to push to much on these. Finding the middle is hard and is political. Arguing with UX or QA whether previously unrelated features on different screens should behave the same is exhausting. That's why I prefer small projects where I am the only customer or all users are extremely aligned (internal developer tooling).
I'm fond of saying that most problems in the software world are due to one thing trying to do two things, or two things trying to do the same thing. In this case, it feels like the former: getting the same implementation to cater to both desktop and mobile is obviously the most efficient solution from a development perspective, but not an end user (and ultimately business) perspective.