iOS 19 supposedly a huge change

[Yoused]

I want the option to add a number row to the top of the default keyboard.

I have PKeyboard, which has a text-based layout scheme (takes a lot of effort to do a custom layout like mine). It does have severe limitations, but I still prefer it – I have the numbers in a 10-key on the side. Makes the letter keys smaller, but that is a good thing.

Personally, instead of a number row, I would like a swipe action where you could pull the 10-key pad in from one side (or the other) and slide it away at your pleasure. But, for me, it is moot because they will never support my key layout.

 

[theorist9]

I have PKeyboard, which has a text-based layout scheme (takes a lot of effort to do a custom layout like mine). It does have severe limitations, but I still prefer it – I have the numbers in a 10-key on the side. Makes the letter keys smaller, but that is a good thing.

Personally, instead of a number row, I would like a swipe action where you could pull the 10-key pad in from one side (or the other) and slide it away at your pleasure. But, for me, it is moot because they will never support my key layout.

Interesting. I need the keys to be bigger rather than smaller to avoid mistyping. And you give up dictation with PKeyboard, right?

 

[KingOfPain]

I don’t mind visual changes - the mockup at this link is fine by me.

I think the menu bar with rounded "corners" looks stupid.
Some changes may be useful, but some other changes just feel like changes for the sake of changing something.
Let's hope they at least make clickable controls clear. That macOS/iOS suddenly followed the Windows 8 look of ironing everything flat was one of the biggest UI blunders every.

I think I'm in the same camp as @theorist9 that I really liked the look of Snow Leopard. Here is a bit of an outdated comparison:

A retrospective look at Mac OS X Snow Leopard

Yes, Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard is as good as I remembered.

morrick.me

 

[Yoused]

And you give up dictation with PKeyboard, right?

Yes. I never use dictation. And I found it annoying when I accidentally hit that button that brought it forth. As I said, it has serious limitations, but I still prefer it 98% of the time.

macOS/iOS suddenly followed the Windows 8 look of ironing everything flat was one of the biggest UI blunders ever

I mostly disagree. I had a ShapeShifter theme in Tiger (when you could have themes) that looked like parchment and technical pen drawings for buttons, windows, menus and stuff, which was much nicer than the standard GUI, IMO. If they allowed theming, they would lose some of the Mac visual trademark but would make a boatload of users much happier. Like, I replaced the double-caret text cursor with a feathered quill and never lost track of it. Much handier than the jiggle trick or whatever, given than the cursor hides when you type anyway.

 

[Artemis]

Yeah, I remember this for iOS 18 and was left disappointed (?). Or not, let's hope it isn't like iOS 7. They'll evolve design over time to a degree but that was plainly half-baked and tacky

 

[Herdfan]

Yeah, you're preaching to the choir—my favorite system is still Snow Leopard .

She was my first.

 

[Jimmyjames]

Looks like I’m the only one here who much preferred the iOS 7 redesign and thinks Snow Leopard was overrated!

Skeuomorphism was fine in the early days of iOS as was Aqua in early Mac OS X days. They both became fatiguing though.

Reminds me of this:

 

[theorist9]

Looks like I’m the only one here who much preferred the iOS 7 redesign and thinks Snow Leopard was overrated!

Skeuomorphism was fine in the early days of iOS as was Aqua in early Mac OS X days. They both became fatiguing though.

Reminds me of this:
View attachment 34183

I should clarify that my preference for SL isn't because of the look (with two key exceptions), it's because of the functionality. You could tell their design goal with SL was to provide the most functionality in the simplest, cleanest, and most intuitive way.

I did like the skeumorphic design at the time, but I understand that can get old, so I don't mind the change to the current look, with these exceptions:

1) I'm blessed (cursed?) with very good close vision (I used to be able to read the microprinting on US paper currency), so I'm very sensitive to text sharpness. Unfortunately, Apple changed text rendering after SL, and again after Big Sur, to require higher-res monitors for text to look good. Thus I found text on SL looked good with an ≈100 ppi display. Not so with the next OS's, which required ≈160 ppi (4k@27") for text to not look blurry. Thus, to avoid eye fatigue, I had to stay with SL until I could upgrade my external display to that. And we all know about the loss of native subpixel text rendering after High Sierra. That caused the beautiful text on my 4k to no longer look so beautiful. Thus I had to stay with High Sierra until I could upgrade to a Retina display (≈220 ppi, e.g., 5k@27").

2) SL had exellent contrast. Apple has progressively reduced the reduced the contrast with subsequent OS's, making things harder to find and read. It's prettier but less functional, which seems to be a theme for them. I always select "Increase Contrast", which helps, but it's not enough with some OS's. When I tried upgrading from Monterey to Ventura, I had to go back, because Ventura was less sharp and contrasty.

 

[Nycturne]

Looks like I’m the only one here who much preferred the iOS 7 redesign and thinks Snow Leopard was overrated!

Skeuomorphism was fine in the early days of iOS as was Aqua in early Mac OS X days. They both became fatiguing though.

I’m not really a fan of excessive skeuomorphism (it creates its own usability problems and ages quickly IMO), but the iOS 7 redesign went too hard the other way. It took many iterations to "fix" most of the lack of context issues, but they still aren’t fully fixed. Instead we get dark patterns and other tricks to try to push user behavior one way or another, rather than changes meant to make things truly intuitive and aimed to let the user do what they want.

 

[Yoused]

I use CMs a fair bit in macOS, but some of them have become problematic. Looking at 20 lines of plain text that is not always in the same place (due to context) to find the command I want is wasting my time. They really need to do something to make that work better. iPadOS menus can be difficult sometimes as well.

They used to charge money for macOS, twenty years ago. That drove the idea that this new version must have sexy UI features, to compel you to fork over for it. At this point, since they are not charging for the OS, it would make sense to separate the UI part from the functional part, update the background part in the background, without getting the user involved, and offer the user some choices on the UI side. A modularized system might be more efficient and cost effective for the company.

 

[Jimmyjames]

I should clarify that my preference for SL isn't because of the look (with two key exceptions), it's because of the functionality. You could tell their design goal with SL was to provide the most functionality in the simplest, cleanest, and most intuitive way.

How could you tell that? Is it that their intent was as you describe and now it isn’t? Or is it that the way it worked then aligns with certain tastes?

I did like the skeumorphic design at the time, but I understand that can get old, so I don't mind the change to the current look, with these exceptions:

1) I'm blessed (cursed?) with very good close vision (I used to be able to read the microprinting on US paper currency), so I'm very sensitive to text sharpness. Unfortunately, Apple changed text rendering after SL, and again after Big Sur, to require higher-res monitors for text to look good. Thus I found text on SL looked good with an ≈100 ppi display. Not so with the next OS's, which required ≈160 ppi (4k@27") for text to not look blurry. Thus, to avoid eye fatigue, I had to stay with SL until I could upgrade my external display to that. And we all know about the loss of native subpixel text rendering after Big Sur. That caused the beautiful text on my 4k to no longer look so beautiful. Thus I had to stay with Big Sur until I could upgrade to a Retina display (≈220 ppi, e.g., 5k@27").

2) SL had exellent contrast. Apple has progressively reduced the reduced the contrast with subsequent OS's, making things harder to find and read. It's prettier but less functional, which seems to be a theme for them. I always select "Increase Contrast", which helps, but it's not enough with some OS's. When I tried upgrading from Monterey to Ventura, I had to go back, because Ventura was less sharp and contrasty.

Ironically I feel the pre iOS 7 design was more “pretty”! I am confused, as someone with seemingly worse vision than you, that I can use the current design without issues to do with contrast.

 

[Jimmyjames]

I’m not really a fan of excessive skeuomorphism (it creates its own usability problems and ages quickly IMO), but the iOS 7 redesign went too hard the other way. It took many iterations to "fix" most of the lack of context issues, but they still aren’t fully fixed. Instead we get dark patterns and other tricks to try to push user behavior one way or another, rather than changes meant to make things truly intuitive and aimed to let the user do what they want.

It’s probably me but I’m not sure I understand what is meant by “context issue”, “dark patterns”, “tricks” and “truly intuitive”. Could you expand on any of these? Who gets to decide what is “truly intuitive”?

 

[Nycturne]

It’s probably me but I’m not sure I understand what is meant by “context issue”, “dark patterns”, “tricks” and “truly intuitive”. Could you expand on any of these? Who gets to decide what is “truly intuitive”?

Dark patterns are UX decisions that are not meant to be obvious, but leverage human psychology to elicit a particular behavior/response. A physical analogue would be retail stores configuring their layout to spur more impulse purchases. Candy and cheap junk bits and bobs while you wait for the cashier, end caps that tell a story (everything you need for your pumpkin pie near thanksgiving) and so on. Microsoft and Apple both use dark patterns when you go to setup your computer these days. Using a prominent button style to enable Siri, sign-up for iCloud/OneDrive, etc, and a small hyperlink button that doesn’t even really read as a button in comparison for skipping the step. Using notifications to "remind" you that you haven’t done something that ups some desirable metric for the company, mixed in notifications you actually want. These in particular drive me up a wall because they are increasingly intentional, but the point is to push you into a particular behavior that may not even be beneficial to you.

Apple/Microsoft is not going to align on "what a button is" on their platforms so long as certain buttons can be used to illicit different behaviors.

For me, truly intuitive is when the UX can be used the way the customer wants without being needed to be guided through it, or avoid pitfalls. Apple used to be great at this where they pushed to make sure that things weren’t buried and hard to find. If it was there, you could do it, if it wasn’t, you couldn’t. Now there’s more and more where that isn’t the case. So long as ‘data-driven metrics’ has a throttle-grip on engineering, it will be tough to return back to this, because that mentality of using telemetry metrics for success (and then letting the business side define them) is what drives dark patterns in the first place.

For iOS 7 the issue there is that it stripped away context that tells the user what something was. Buttons were now tappable text, navigation bars were just white space, tab bars were white space. The separation between different elements removed and/or made subtle. People with muscle memory figured it out, and we’ve seen changes that add some of that context back, but here’s an example of today’s set of "what does a button look like on iOS":

In iOS 7, Apple was pushing for just #3. So the context of what was a button was in terms of borders/etc was stripped away in favor of color. It blends into the content more. Which it turns out is not great if you want someone to know where they can tap to get actions. And now, where you have both, it’s common to mix #1 and #3 because it turns out that people are less likely to see #3 as a button if it is in the same "region" as #1, so they will tap #1 more often for you.

 

[theorist9]

How could you tell that? Is it that their intent was as you describe and now it isn’t? Or is it that the way it worked then aligns with certain tastes?

From the quality of the finished product.

Of course this is all ultimately subjective, and I can't speak to the actual intents of the software engineers then vs. now.

But if we consider the intent of the executive team (those who determine the release schedule), the fact that they've changed the release schedule from every two years to every year is, IMO, a clear indicator that their intent is to prioritize shiny new features over delivering the most refined product possible.

Plus—and I don't recall whether this language came from Apple or not—SL was widely considered to be a "stability release", which means they prioritized making the OS operate as well as possible over introducing new features. The only other OS that I know of as a refinement release was High Sierra (which I also liked), though there may be others.

Ironically I feel the pre iOS 7 design was more “pretty”! I am confused, as someone with seemingly worse vision than you, that I can use the current design without issues to do with contrast.

I was only speaking about MacOS. I can't speak to the history of iOS, since I got my first iPhone (and thus my introduction to iOS) only two months ago!

 

[Jimmyjames]

Dark patterns are UX decisions that are not meant to be obvious, but leverage human psychology to elicit a particular behavior/response. A physical analogue would be retail stores configuring their layout to spur more impulse purchases. Candy and cheap junk bits and bobs while you wait for the cashier, end caps that tell a story (everything you need for your pumpkin pie near thanksgiving) and so on. Microsoft and Apple both use dark patterns when you go to setup your computer these days. Using a prominent button style to enable Siri, sign-up for iCloud/OneDrive, etc, and a small hyperlink button that doesn’t even really read as a button in comparison for skipping the step. Using notifications to "remind" you that you haven’t done something that ups some desirable metric for the company, mixed in notifications you actually want. These in particular drive me up a wall because they are increasingly intentional, but the point is to push you into a particular behavior that may not even be beneficial to you.

Interesting. I think you make some good points here. There is no doubt that this kind of design can “nudge” you to perform an action, and I am sure Apple has done so. Where it becomes more difficult, is determining whether those design decisions are in service of a desirable metric or actually in service of what would benefit a customer.

As part of a previous job, I had to deal with people with companies, schools, and shops who had purchased computers: both PC and Mac. It is surprising how often users (less technical ones usually) were upset that a feature that was offered had not been pushed right into their face! For example, you mention iCloud/OneDrive. Many users wanted this kind of service as a “backup” (it isn’t really, but I won’t digress). Those same users often had no idea this cloud storage was included for free and even if you showed them how to enable it, they would be deeply unsatisfied that so many steps were involved. They wanted the computer to prompt them, with a big window asking “WOULD YOU LIKE FREE CLOUD STORAGE? YES, NO”. I lost count of how many times people complained about features being…too subtle.

So while I accept that many find these kind of design decisions a “dark patter”, to others they are a welcome prompt for a feature they otherwise wouldn’t have known about.

Apple/Microsoft is not going to align on "what a button is" on their platforms so long as certain buttons can be used to illicit different behaviors.

For me, truly intuitive is when the UX can be used the way the customer wants without being needed to be guided through it, or avoid pitfalls. Apple used to be great at this where they pushed to make sure that things weren’t buried and hard to find. If it was there, you could do it, if it wasn’t, you couldn’t. Now there’s more and more where that isn’t the case. So long as ‘data-driven metrics’ has a throttle-grip on engineering, it will be tough to return back to this, because that mentality of using telemetry metrics for success (and then letting the business side define them) is what drives dark patterns in the first place.

For iOS 7 the issue there is that it stripped away context that tells the user what something was. Buttons were now tappable text, navigation bars were just white space, tab bars were white space. The separation between different elements removed and/or made subtle. People with muscle memory figured it out, and we’ve seen changes that add some of that context back, but here’s an example of today’s set of "what does a button look like on iOS":

In iOS 7, Apple was pushing for just #3. So the context of what was a button was in terms of borders/etc was stripped away in favor of color. It blends into the content more. Which it turns out is not great if you want someone to know where they can tap to get actions. And now, where you have both, it’s common to mix #1 and #3 because it turns out that people are less likely to see #3 as a button if it is in the same "region" as #1, so they will tap #1 more often for you.

Agree that many buttons on iOS 7 were initially too “un-button-like”. I suppose my issue is with the narrative that Apple used to be a company that made better decisions than this previously. Aqua (pinstripe and brushed metal) had bad UI decisions. Drawers being most prominent in my mind. Various bits of important information hidden in a slide out window. Awful.

Apple had UI issues before and has them now. I am not convinced it’s worse now.

 

[Jimmyjames]

From the quality of the finished product.

OK, but unless we have some metric in terms of crashing etc, then as you say it is ultimately subjective. I have been using Macs for a long time, over two decades. It has never been more stable not just from my experience but that of other networks of Macs I’ve managed. I haven’t had a kernel panic in at least 3 years, if not longer. In the early days, and up to say Lion, it wasn’t uncommon to have 2 or 3 a year.

Of course this is all ultimately subjective, and I can't speak to the actual intents of the software engineers then vs. now.

But if we consider the intent of the executive team (those who determine the release schedule), the fact that they've changed the release schedule from every two years to every year is, IMO, a clear indicator that their intent is to prioritize shiny new features over delivering the most refined product possible.

I don’t think this is true though. The release schedule is more frequent, but the features are far fewer. Leopard boasted over 300 new features iirc. It’s not the release schedule, it’s the amount of work crammed into that release schedule. Recent Mac releases have a handful of features. I think it’s red herring to suggest it would be better if things went back to the old days of two or more years between releases.

Plus—and I don't recall whether this language came from Apple or not—SL was widely considered to be a "stability release", which means they prioritized making the OS operate as well as possible over introducing new features. The only other OS that I know of as a refinement release was High Sierra (which I also liked), though there may be others.

Snow Leopard boasted no new user facing features. Under the hood, massive changes took place. Grand Centra Dispatch etc. Early Snow Leopard was full of bugs and issues. It was only fine towards the end of its life.

 

[Nycturne]

They wanted the computer to prompt them, with a big window asking “WOULD YOU LIKE FREE CLOUD STORAGE? YES, NO”. I lost count of how many times people complained about features being…too subtle.

To me there’s a huge difference between asking on setup, and what Apple/Microsoft do today.

If it was a simple "YES/NO" with equal footing given to each, sure. But that’s not it. Instead the no is de-emphasized so that some percentage of people don’t even pick up that no is an option. And if you do say no, you start getting notifications and the like telling you to turn it on. In other words, it doesn’t honor the user’s choice.

My iPhone is on my ass right now because I dared to skip turning on Apple Intelligence with the latest bug fix update.

 

[Jimmyjames]

To me there’s a huge difference between asking on setup, and what Apple/Microsoft do today.

If it was a simple "YES/NO" with equal footing given to each, sure. But that’s not it. Instead the no is de-emphasized so that some percentage of people don’t even pick up that no is an option. And if you do say no, you start getting notifications and the like telling you to turn it on. In other words, it doesn’t honor the user’s choice.

My iPhone is on my ass right now because I dared to skip turning on Apple Intelligence with the latest bug fix update.

My experience is that a significant portion of people want that very behavior. It’s definitely annoying to the more knowledgeable person, but having dealt with thousands of non-technical users, aka people who hate computers, this is often wanted. People are not paying attention on setup. They want to bypass all questions because it’s all too confusing for them and they just want to browse Facebook or YouTube.

 

[dada_dave]

To me there’s a huge difference between asking on setup, and what Apple/Microsoft do today.

If it was a simple "YES/NO" with equal footing given to each, sure. But that’s not it. Instead the no is de-emphasized so that some percentage of people don’t even pick up that no is an option. And if you do say no, you start getting notifications and the like telling you to turn it on. In other words, it doesn’t honor the user’s choice.

My iPhone is on my ass right now because I dared to skip turning on Apple Intelligence with the latest bug fix update.

My experience is that a significant portion of people want that very behavior. It’s definitely annoying to the more knowledgeable person, but having dealt with thousands of non-technical users, aka people who hate computers, this is often wanted. People are not paying attention on setup. They want to bypass all questions because it’s all too confusing for them and they just want to browse Facebook or YouTube.

I don’t mind some notifications to remind me that something is available if I skipped during setup, but there should be a “Don’t remind me again” button and the skip/stop reminder buttons shouldn’t be smaller or more difficult to read as a button than the accept button. Oh and of course OS updates shouldn’t keeping turning things on that I’ve explicitly turned off and on/off buttons in control center should actually be on and off not on and pause and at least it should read more explicitly as pause. MS is worse for this - especially forced OS updates - but I agree with @Nycturne that Apple could be better and there’s a balance between being helpful and being irritating (see clippy).

 

[Cmaier]

My experience is that a significant portion of people want that very behavior. It’s definitely annoying to the more knowledgeable person, but having dealt with thousands of non-technical users, aka people who hate computers, this is often wanted. People are not paying attention on setup. They want to bypass all questions because it’s all too confusing for them and they just want to browse Facebook or YouTube.

If the YES button is big, colorful, and shaped like a button, but the “NO” button is a text link that differs only from surrounding text by being dark blue instead of black, the developer isn’t doing that in order to be helpful to the user.