Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces(designshack.co.uk) |
Mac Apps With Beautiful Interfaces(designshack.co.uk) |
2. Reeder. See http://danielkennett.org/blog/2010/12/analysing-a-touch-to-d...
3. Sparrow. These are not OS X toolbar icons -- they're UIKit icons! They look as out-of-place on OS X as OS X ones would on an iOS device.
5. DaisyDisk. The UI here is very unique and usable. The mouse-over support on the file graph is actually very, very useful for determining where storage space is being used.
6. Transmit 4. I personally found Transmit 3's favorites interface and syncing interface to be more usable. The animations they've added slow down use and some buttons (e.g., disconnect) are far harder to reach than in T3.
7. Courier. While the interface is novel and interesting at first glance, I have to question how useful it is for repetitive tasks. I have not used the app, so I can't comment there, but more often than not fancy graphics get in the way of speed.
8. 1Password. This one I love. It's useful and very usable. I've used multiple versions of this program and the UI changes they've made with the current one far outshine the previous versions both in terms of appearance and usability.
My only gripe still would be with the browser plugin. I've tried setting up other less computer-savvy people to use it, and the menu does not make it immediately obvious to them which item to select to log in -- the top several options are too crammed together visually.
Jeez, where did you find this junk? Ridiculously lopsided and it reads like the Reeder's designer peed in author's morning coffee at some point.
> The user is moving towards those (quite small) buttons from a fair distance away, and are therefore likely to overshoot.
Likely to overshoot? Really? I take if buttons were larger, the user would just hit them with one flick of the wrist, no correction, not slowing down half way through, no undershooting or overshooting. Just one motion with a beautifully smooth acceleration curve every user is so striving for.
The app is optimized for better reading experience, and the blog guy makes no attempt to account for what the app's primary and routine usage is. It is - suprise - reading. Not clicking the buttons. Reading. Make buttons larger - and you just introduced extraneous visual noise and took away from the screen real estate in the app that (won't hurt repeating) is for reading.
> Someone came out with a Mac OS application that’s clearly a touch UI crowbarred into a point-and-click universe
Someone came out with a pretentious blog post crowbarred into a formal UX analysis format.
> This is NOT how to make Mac apps, guys.
And this is now not to... ah, nevermind.
I disagree. I've been using Reeder like crazy since the first beta is publicly released, and up till now my experience is: it is the best OS X app I've ever used. The UI is not flawless on a screen without touching, but it's the most efficient and elegant interface I've ever seen on a desktop app.
Complaining those little buttons are hard to reach is kinda pointless for two reasons:
1) It's secondary usage. One spends most of time in a feed reader scanning through headlines, or reading the actual content. How many times do you actually star an article? I don't believe I have a higher standards for articles, but I probably star 2~4 articles a day. Why do you want to clutter an elegant interface for such low value functionality? As for the management feature, sure you'll manage the feeds in Google Reader. Reeder is supposed to be just a, em, reader.
2) Those actions all have really really simple and easy to remember shortcuts. If you are a power user of feeds and you do a lot of unreading, starring, etc, the right way to do is to press the shortcut keys. M for marking un/read, S for starring. How hard is that?
What has Reeder got right as a feed reader, compared to, say, NetNewsWire or Google Reader? Layout and typography.
The 3-column layout is so much more efficient than the two-panel with right-panel split into headlines and body (a.k.a. Mail.app style). The left column to select categories and feed. This is the same in Reeder, NNW and GR. But the killer is the middle column.
In the headline views in both NNW and GR you get a single line to show the title and the first few words of a feed. This line is spanning too long horizontally, which makes it hard to scan through long lists of feeds due to the inability to quickly reposition visual focus back to the beginning of the next line. There is a reason why we have an “optimal line-width”.
In Reeder the middle column positions titles and the first few words vertically, which makes the line-width shorter (it has to make room for the right column anyway) and far easier to scan through. I believe this style is actually pioneered by Microsoft in Outlook. Look at any well-designed newspaper and you'll see the same design: narrow columns for quick scanning.
Plus, in NNW's Mail.app-style right column, the vertical screen asset for the actual feed content is significantly wasted when you want to read a long feed: by default more than half the vertical pixels are devoted to the headline view (although you can adjust this but then it conflicts with the headline view when scanning titles). Sure you can click and open a feed, but that extra one click kills efficiency. And because the content view is much wider, we get the same line-width issue before. Reeder's Outlook-style right column, being both taller and narrower, makes it much easier for reading feeds.
And don't even get me started on typography! In the official GR, the typography is basically a completely failure (as in nearly all Google products anyway). They don't even bother to provide a larger line-height! Reading in GR is just a painful experience.
plus, wunderlist is open source:
Kiwi 2, the twitter client, uses 100mb of ram for one twitter account. What?
I know most people aren't going to check these numbers or care, but when I open an email client and feel my laptop getting warm underneath my hands, something is wrong.
Edit: After finishing caching everything, Sparrow's CPU usage dropped to ~0% when idle. Scrolling, however, causes it to rocket up to ~70-80% on a 2.66 GHz Core i7 MacBook Pro.
Anyway the interface is so much better that I'm willing to make the tradeoff!
Actually, Skype is a good example of how to not do it. Having Skype run in the background decreases my battery life by a good quarter. Actually talking to someone over Skype can easily get the laptop fans going. Skype even freezes for a few moments every now and then. And Skype is still a tremendously useful app, so I will even take this abuse. (The new design of the Skype beta for Mac is a different matter, though)
Sparrow on the other hand is smooth sailing.
AL-motherf###ing-PINE
I swear, I've tried to get in to gui mail apps. I even got pretty far once with gmail's offline mode. I've tried so damn hard, but I can't stay away from alpine. It's so fast, so small, I never have to look for anything. All the commands are staring me in the face at all times. You cannot ask for a better UI.
[p.s. how do you emit literal asterisks here, I've never run across this problem before?]
My personal favorites:
Versions - http://versionsapp.com/
Kaleidoscope - http://www.kaleidoscopeapp.com/
Coda - http://panic.com/coda/
Espresso - http://macrabbit.com/espresso/
PixelMator - http://www.pixelmator.com/
BoinxTV - http://www.boinx.com/boinxtv/overview/
LittleSnapper - http://www.realmacsoftware.com/littlesnapper/
OmniFocus - http://www.omnigroup.com/products/omnifocus/
I don't think it looks prettier, but to me most modern GTK apps on Ubuntu seem much more consistent and strict as far as respecting the platform UI guidelines.
Have you used an iDevice recently? Their apps are designed around the fact that they can have the entire screen to themselves, and this sort of reasoning is bleeding out into computer application development. Some of the designs there could well be iPad apps, if it weren't for the window borders.
It's strange that when I used OS X, I was told that the proper way to do things was to use floating windows instead of having everything maximised, and now Lion is encouraging full-screen interfaces.
Why is this wrong? 1) Lucida Grande was optimized for legibility on low- and medium-resolution screens [1], and Helvetica is a 50-year-old print font. 2) Lucida Grande is the system font, and other fonts stick out like a sore-thumb, contrary to the consistency designer’s strive for [2].
The problem, of course, is that Apple keeps using Helvetica in their own Mac apps, most recently across vast swaths of iPhoto, seemingly for the sole benefit of making it more like an iOS app (especially when full screen), disregarding much of what makes a Mac app unique.
Designers, please, if you are thinking of using wood paneling or shelves in your design, stop, move on to the next idea.
1. They have glossy websites that talk about how awesome they are. 2. They have copy that claims they have awesome UI. 3. You download them, try them, and realize they do almost nothing except look pretty.
It's pretty hard to find exceptions to this.
I only like the SweetFM. wich is nothing clever, they just copied the first version of the official lastFM desktop application (at least how it looked in linux). Probably the guys at lastFM did some usability research and ditched that old version for something more itunesque.
Mutt, Pine, sup, and everybody else: I'm looking at you.
Safari’s default toolbar buttons (Back, Add Bookmark, …) have actually a smaller clickable area than Reeder’s buttons (about 800 square pixels vs. about 1300 square pixels) and if you overshoot the utterly unimportant Back button your mouse is right above the Close button. Depending on the size of the text label, Mail’s and Preview’s default toolbar buttons have about the same area as Reeder’s. OS X relic TextEdit has just as small toolbar buttons as Safari.
The minimum size for standard toolbar buttons on OS X is about 800 square pixels, the maximum (and default) is about 1800 square pixels. Reeder falls somewhere between those two and is certainly not some weird outlier because of that, if only because so many apps for the Mac, whether they are from Apple or other developers, have had the smallest toolbar buttons (smaller than Reeder’s default buttons) as a default for a long time.
I’m not saying that small buttons are a good idea, I don’t know that. All I’m saying that picking out Reeder and identifying iOS as the culprit seems misguided.
Apart from "they look old" (which is a fake argument), what about console mail clients makes them feel as though they aren't designed for the modern era? Sure, they don't look like other mail clients, but that's as much other clients' fault as theirs. What exactly about their UI, intrinsically, do you dislike? Or do you just love the mouse too much to give it up?
It’s also not like the edges of the App help you a lot. Mac apps are at least by default not fullscreen, putting buttons in the corners doesn’t make sure that your mouse will be stopped by the edge of the screen right above or in close proximity to the button.
NetNewsWire has the window titlebar above the toolbar. Reeder has those two combined in one bar (so there is less vertical space).
