In several hours Apple will unveil its new products, which are believed to be the new iPads, MacBooks and the new Mac Pro.
Some people have speculated that along with the new Mac Pro Apple will release a new 4K display. Or at least expressed an opinion that such a move would be welcome. Particularly, Marco Arment has said in the latest Talk Show, that he would buy one (or even two) immediately.
A new, better desktop display is what I want either, but 4K is not an answer to that at all.
I am currently using the Apple’s 30-inch Cinema Display from 2004 running at 2560×1600 resolution. Unfortunately, noone, including Apple, has since released a better display for me. Apple’s own newer displays, i.e. a 27-inch Thunderbolt display or a 27-inch iMac display, run just 2560×1440. And not only the resolution is lower, these displays are also glossy, whereas I prefer a mirror to be a separate device. If Apple announces a 4K display later today, I don’t see how it can be better than the 2004 one I already have.
There are different definitions as to what 4K resolution means. Let’s say Apple picks a 4096-pixels-wide option. So for a 16:10 display, the resolution would be 4096×2560. Now there are three options as to how to use these pixels.
The standard “retina” pixel-doubling approach will result in an effective 2048×1280 resolution. So I will end up with 36% less real estate than I have now. Also, on a 30-inch display such 2×2 “pixels” will be gigantic and all non-retina stuff will look ugly (and I don’t want to “upgrade” to a smaller display). So this does not work at all. Another option would be to use scaling (as available on the retina MacBook Pros). While scaling definitely looks OK on retina, I want to enjoy razor-sharp pixels on my new display, not some blurry crap (even if it is not that blurry). And the last option would be to use the actual 4096×2560 as is. With Mac’s very poor ability to scale UI fonts, I don’t think I will be able to see anything in such a mode. I doubt this option will even be available without some sort of a hack.
As you see, there’s no way a 4K display can be any better than the good old 2004 Cinema Display. So I hope Apple will not use 4K and will go straight to “5K” with a 5120×3200 30-inch matte Retina Cinema Display. Please?
In “The Humane Interface”, Raskin explains that confirmations do not help prevent destructive actions, as people quickly form a habit of responding “Yes” to every “Are you sure?”. To protect the user’s data from their own mistakes, it is much more effective to implement the undo feature ubiquitously.
But if you are too lazy for that, at least check if the thing I am deleting is valuable. Adobe Lightroom is at least this smart: when you ask it to delete an empty folder, it does so stat. Apple’s Reminders, on the other hand, is very dumb: when you try to delete an empty list, it still wants to make sure you are sure.
Many designers seem to not like the size of the circles in iOS 7 icons constructed with the help of “Jonny Ive’s grid”. Here is a fragment from Neven Mrgan’s blog:
The large circle is too big. Many apps in iOS 7 use it: all the Store apps, Safari, Messages, Photos… In all these icons, the big shape in the center is simply too big. Every icon designer I’ve asked would instead draw something like the icon on the right. To our eyes—and we get paid to have good ones, we’re told—this is more correct.
At first, I also liked the smaller “iOS 6 style” circle better, it looked more balanced to me. But I also kept thinking that there was something good about the new icon. Somehow the fact that there were almost no margins around the circle makes it look lighter. Why?
A couple of days ago I accidentally saw a state-of-the-art washing machine (by pure accident it turned out to be Samsung). My own washing machine is about 20 years old, but it still works fine, so I never bothered to look at the new ones. On the left, the washing machine I saw, or the right, my own one:
Notice something? After having seen the one on the left, I can no longer tolerate the old iOS 6 icons. Those gigantic margins make them look heavy and outdated (like the washing machine on the right). The old TV sets’ curvy screens also had very large areas around them, it was technically necessary. The old houses had very small windows, or it would be next to impossible to heat them. But today people build houses where the whole wall is a window. Televisions try to have as thin frames as possible. And washing machines have large transparent doors.
The new App Store icons should be spacious. There is no need to balance the inner and outer parts of the circle: the outer part has no reason to exist at all. At the same time, the bigger the App Store sign is within the icon, the easier it is to see it. Which is a win.
What we perceive as beautiful is largely defined by the technological progress.
Web services send notification emails. The links in such emails serve a sole purpose of bringing users back to the services’ websites. Therefore, there should always be exactly one link per such email. The flow: the receiver clicks the blue underlined text without even reading anything and ends up in the right place.
Example: an email to confirm registration by following a special link
Typical mistake (the links in the example don’t work, obviously):
The right place to tell the user about the blog and the iPhone app is the website itself. You will have more room to talk about them, and the user will be much more motivated to check them out after he or she has completed the registration.
Example: an email to notify you about a shipped online order
The links leads to a page with tracking information, recommendations and all the service links.
It may seem hard to leave just one link in an email. What if you need both this and that? The solution is to change the approach: treat the whole email as a link. There is only one by definition. Ask yourself: “Where does this email lead?”, and it will all make sense.
Obviously, the principle is not applicable to email designed for reading and thus does not lead anywhere.
