Apple just announced Mountain Lion, the 10.8 version of the Mac operating system, scheduled for delivery in late summer of this year. I dutifully installed the developer preview; it works, mostly (see here for PCMag’s list of notable features, and here for a quick video tour.). More important is that less than a year after the introduction of OS X 10.7, we now have two data points and can draw a line…and the slope confirms our expectations: Mac OS X begat iOS but, now, iOS fathers Apple’s Unified User Experience.
iOS leadership came about for two reasons.
First, the numbers. You’ve probably seen this “viral” Asymco graph, compliments of Horace Dediu, that compares the installed base growth for various Apple products, alive and historic:
Quoting Horace:
The iOS platform overtook the OS X platform in under four years, and more iOS devices were sold in 2011 (156 million) than all the Macs ever sold (122 million).
No one, Apple execs included, expected such an explosion. But here we are: The son of OS X is now the Big Daddy and everything else must line up behind it. Imagine an alternate universe in which Scott Forstall, Apple’s iOS czar, hadn’t won the decision to pick a version of Mac OS X as the software engine for the iPhone. (Scott is also the “father” of Siri. He convinced Jobs to buy the company and to put substantial resources behind it after the acquisition.)
Just as important, iOS provides a fresh (or “fresh-ish”) start. iOS is a rebirth, rid of (many) sins of the past. Because it must run on less of everything — RAM, MIPS, screen, power –engineers were “forced” to shed the layers of software silt that accumulate inside any OS. This gave iOS designers and coders the opportunity to rethink the User Experience (UX), and to pass these ideas back to the Mac.
As examples: The multi-finger trackpad gestures, inherited from iOS, are welcome additions to OS X, they help us find our way in a maze of application windows. So are the full-screen apps with their felicitous and subtly size-conscious ways of hiding and revealing menubars and the Dock. The animation may differ between the smallest 11.6” MacBook Air and a large 27” screen, but physically it feels the same.
Under the hood, we discern an iOS-inspired ways of installing and uninstalling applications. In another trick learned from iOS, Lion manages application state from fully on to fully off and, more interestingly, various levels of readiness in between.
[For an in-depth and opinionated discussion of the technical aspects of OS X Lion -- including glimpses into the Mac’s possible future -- you can spend $4.99 on Mac OS X 10.7 Lion: the Ars Technica Review. It’s available in Kindle e-book form, but not as an Apple i-Book. You can also turn to Fraser Speiers’ lucid discussion of iOS multitasking here, with videos here.]
In 2007, while clearly coming from the same company, the Mac and the iPhone had markedly different UXs. The phone’s small screen was the biggest reason for the differences. When the iPad came out in 2010, some folks joked that the new device was simply a Brobdingnagian iPhone, perfect for the fat-fingered. But the size-appropriate translation of the iOS UX onto a much bigger screen hinted at things to come…and, indeed, later that year Apple announced its intention to further adapt iOS user interface ideas and fold them into the Mac.
If the Mac is a now-traditional personal computer, the iPad is a more personal one, and the iPhone is really personal. (This should please Messrs. Ballmer and Shaw at Microsoft. According to their hymnal, there is no shift to a post-PC era, it’s turtles, err… PCs all the way down to smartphones.)
For a company that prides itself on simplicity and elegance, it only makes sense that Apple would offer a consistent UX across all its devices, a GUUX, a Grand Unified User Experience. Apple customers should be able to move easily and naturally from one device to another, selecting the best tool for the task at hand. Add another unification, iCloud storage services, and Apple can offer more reasons to buy more of its products.
It’s a lovely, soothing theory.
In reality, the Grand Unification isn’t there yet. We still face antiquated limitations, bad bugs, aging applications, and capricious flourishes.
Let’s start with the menubar at the top of the OS X screen. It worked well on the original Mac with its small screen and lack of multitasking, but on today’s 21.5’’ or 27” displays and the many applications they contain, the menubar is bad ergonomics and leads to confusion. Novice and experienced users alike are often misled: If you unintentionally click outside the app window, the menubar at the top of the screen becomes associated with another app, or with the Finder:
On apps such as Pages, it gets worse: You have to deal with two menubars, the one inside the app window, and the one at the top of the screen. Why does Apple cling to this antiquity?
(Friends tell me that it would be difficult to move the top menubar into the app. Perhaps…but more difficult than moving from the undebuggable OS 9 to the Unix/NextStep-based OS X?)
In Microsoft’s Windows, each app window carries its own menubar, there’s no need to move to the top of the big screen to access the File menu, there’s no confusion about the context of your action. Furthermore, when you close an app’s last window, the app quits. Apple recently started doing something similar, but it’s apparently limited to a few utility programs; big apps don’t quit when their last window is closed.
Why not take a few good ideas from Windows?
Moving to bad bugs, the Mac’s Mail app is still an abomination, an app that was either poorly architected or poorly implemented or both. It keeps quitting or freezing on my machines. All on its own — meaning with no prodding by this user — Mail will spin the dreaded beachball for tens of seconds. Is it talking to itself?
Another of my favorite apps, Preview, will suddenly lose part of its mind:
With the Mountain Lion announcement, Apple execs tell us that OS X is now on a once-a-year release regimen. Great…but what about iWork apps? When will they be updated?
I have a long list of iWork bugs, and some are really embarrassing. Take a simple Numbers graph and copy it into Pages:
Works fine…but it loses its title and legend when copied into Word. It must be Microsoft’s fault, right? No, the same thing happens when the chart is moved to Apple’s own Preview:
(When I tried it again, just to make sure this wasn’t a “luser” error, Preview crashed on me.)
Speaking of Microsoft Word, the US version knows the punctuation rules for both US English and French. Not my version of Pages…which is why I have to keep Word around.
Some apps aren’t merely not improving, they seem to be going downhill. The Lion version of Address Book made it harder to manage multiple books, and the app ignores some of Apple’s own UI conventions, such as double-clicking at the top of the window to minimize it.
I’ll finish this litany with Apple’s skeuomorphic flourishes. This apparently is a new fashion: Make computer objects look more like the “real” thing in order to provide familiarity. Sometimes, as with the faux stitched leather and bits of torn paper in the iCal app, familiarity breeds contempt:
The Address Book is even worse, I won’t reproduce it here.
Sure, a good UX needs to extend a welcome mat, but we don’t need extraneous, functionally pointless simulacra of the physical world. Perhaps these details are just a case of brainstorm hysteria in Cupertino: “Idea: Put a rod and hoops at the top of each window, hang drapes on the side and give users a choice of styles!”
Apple must choose between its established Bauhaus elegance and 70‘s Rich Corinthian Leather:
Let’s end on more measured notes.
- Bugs and brain flatulence aside, a Grand Unified UX is the right idea. Who will argue against making it easier to move from one Apple device to another? Especially when using fresh and successful iPhone/iPad constructs as the model.
- Lion and Mountain Lion are transitional versions, and the awkwardness shows…but they’re moving in the right direction. Mountain Lion, even in its buggy preview form, shows a large number of nice improvements over Lion.
- It’s been a very long time – three years — since the latest iWork release. But this lull is very likely due to Apple’s focus on the first set of iOS releases. Sooner or later, we’ll see a fresh iWork that cures the most glaring bugs — and that makes OS X and iOS file formats more compatible.
Lastly, having spent a little more time with Mountain Lion, I hope we’ll get the newer version of Safari ASAP. At the top of the list of neat improvements: we’ll be granted the ability to search directly from the URL bar. Yes, finally, just like Opera, Firefox, Chrome and Internet Explorer…
Related columns:
- User experience — Microsoft Buying Love TweetSilicon Valley VC-dom is having a grand time watching Microsoft. It always did, in fear some time, with hope the Bill Gates would buy ingenious or annoying startups at other moments, always with respect for the giant’s impact on the high-tech industry. Lately, the respect has turned into puzzlement. Because of, to simplify, Google and [...]...
- The Apple Tax, Part II TweetOnce upon a time, Steve Ballmer blasted Apple for asking its customers to pay $500 for an Apple logo. This was the “Apple Tax“, the price difference between the solid, professional workmanship of a laptop running on Windows, and Apple’s needlessly elegant MacBooks. Following last week’s verdict against Samsung, the kommentariat have raised the specter [...]...
- The Apple Tax TweetToday, let’s have a little fun with Microsoft’s latest attempt at countering Apple’s “Get a Mac” campaign. Their premise is simple: for the same amount of computing power you pay more for a Mac, you pay an Apple Tax. As Steve Ballmer, Microsoft’s CEO, puts it: You pay $500 to slap an Apple logo on [...]...
- iPhone Applications: Apple people now believe in a Supreme Being TweetNo, no, not Steve Jobs but an even higher entity smiling upon the company. As I hope to show, Apple’s hard work years ago is now about to pay huge unexpected dividends on the iPhone. When the iPhone first came out of Steve Jobs’ quasi-divine hands in January 2007, it was a hack, the result [...]...
- Fantasy Apple TV TweetOn August 15th, The Wall Street Journal published yet another story about Apple’s imminent invasion of the TV business. According to people who are “familiar with the matter”, the Cupertino company is… …in talks with some of the biggest U.S. cable operators about letting consumers use an Apple device as a set-top box for live [...]...
34 Comments
Moving the menubar into apps is a mistake, because it gives you a target you can overshoot/miss. The reason the menubar is at top is because you can give your mouse a shove to the top of the screen, and it will not overshoot. See Fitt’s law:
http://www.asktog.com/basics/firstPrinciples.html#fittsLaw
So no, it is NOT time they move menus into the app windows. If you want that, make your apps full screen. Then the menus will be at the top of the window of the app…..
Apple follows Bauhaus in exterior design. OSX or iOS have little common with Bauhaus.
http://kruzeniski.com/2011/how-print-design-is-the-future-of-interaction/
I prefer the menubar on top of the screen, not within EACH window of an application.
Imagine having each window of several Safari windows having the entire menubar taking up space and cluttering up the window.
There wouldn’t be space either for all of the status and notification icons we have and need to make Mac OS X wonderful.
Note that the top menubar still exists in iOS. Otherwise we wouldn’t know what time it is and wouldn’t be able to slide open the notification window, wouldn’t know whether or not we have a cell phone signal, etc. etc.
The top menubar is very very useful for status information. Thus the need to keep it exists.
Imagine if we did not have a top menubar. Each application would then be cluttered by numerous notification icons and the time. Imagine seeing a clock on EVERY window rather than simply on top of the menu bar.
Copying Window’s Taskbar way of doing things stinks. It quickly also gets cluttered. It is better to split up its task by having both a top and bottom menubar.
Menu bar at the top of the screen is the best way to go. The front application’s name is displayed as the first item in the menu bar and is an instant reminder of what application is in the forefront. In Windows having a menu bar in each application window is confusing. With multiple open application windows (all displaying the same File, Edit, View etc…) you don’t actually know what app you’re in.
Another way OS X is taking a page from iOS: users shouldn’t have to care whether an app has really quit or not. Lion started in that direction (with some minor issues) and I expect it will become less of an issue over time, along with your “close-to-quit” issue. It’s true there is occasionally confusion when the front app has no open windows, and I don’t have an answer there, but I must agree with the previous commenters that it’s not per-window menubars. Anyway, OS X has already borrowed a good idea from Windows: As of Lion, app windows can now be resized from any side. But I’m not sure if anyone noticed.
Your idea of “easily moving between” OS X and iOS, rather than the over-the-top “convergence to one OS” meme we hear in some places, is nicely focused.
Thanks for Monday Note. I feel smarter every week reading it.
I too am a fan of the top menubar, though I also acknowledge the occasional problem of not realizing which app is active, and attempting the wrong keyboard shortcut (canonical example: close mail window, think I’m in Safari, hit cmd-T to open a new tab, and get the font dialog.) I have no idea how to properly solve this problem; I certainly would rather that applications *not* close when their last window closes (the inconsistency of app behavior in this regard is maddening.)
Also, I can imagine that the top menubar becomes a bit ungainly on very large displays. On my 21.5″ iMac, it’s fine, but I wonder about working on 27″ or 30″ displays.
But for my use, I wouldn’t trade for the Windows approach, which I spend 8 hours using every day. As an ever-present dock for little utilities and whatnot, it works perfectly, and the behavior of those to pull down a menu is completely consistent with the rest of the menubar functionality.
> It’s been a very long time – three years — since the latest iWork release. But this lull is very likely due to Apple’s focus on the first set of iOS releases.
Rather: Apple’s choice of paginated image presentation interface does not support Apple’s extensions to the TrueType Specification. No Adobe application and no Adobe PDL (not PS and not PDF) support data structures that encode Apple TrueType 2 glyph runs. Apple iWork User Guides advise that there is support for glyph substitution, that support for glyph substitution is in Apple TrueType 2 (Apple Hoefler and Apple’s TT2 implementation of Linotype Zapfino), and that there is support for saving into abstract archival space in Adobe PDF, but no Apple iWork User Guide advises that Apple has no support for search of glyph substitution in Adobe PDF. Also, no Apple iWork User Guide is in fact encoded with Apple iWork or any other Apple software whatsoever. They are encoded with Adobe software that does not support Apple type services for UCS/Unicode. One of two Adobe PDLs encode Apple ColorSync 2 and higher ColorWorlds, and Apple supports ISO 15930 PDF/X-3. However, ISO 19005 PDF/X-3 does not support transparency, so the everyday enduser has to render the device-independent transparency to a device-dependent bitmap resolution at the point when ISO 15930 PDF/X-3 is saved to disk. Microsoft marketing maintains that XAML for the UI part and XPS for the e-paper part are integrated, that is, both the input of UCS/Unicode character information, the settings for the feature selectors in the font, and the glyphs themselves are encoded cf chapter 12 of the XPS specification / ECMA 388 standard.
Best wishes,
Henrik Holmegaard
would-be technical writer
That GUUX is a “selfish gene” that directs behavior of any individual incarnation. Usually for that individual’s prosperity/survival, the GUUX will direct self-destruction if it helps other copies to propagate, so that GUUX survives in an evolved form even tho all individuals die.
.
Mac users had better get used to the idea that Apple wants OS X to survive only as much as OS X will provide a body that propagates GUUX. You’ll never see a “Macs Forever!” flag at 1 Infinite Loop.
.
GUUX is not “in” Apple’s DNA. It IS Apple’s DNA.
Wow, I never expected that somebody of the caliber of JLG can be so wrong on the menu bar. Wrong, wrong, wrong. A thousand times wrong.
And because you are so completely right about GUUX, I fear that Apple will never put its emphasis on the type of high-maintenance office (Office) competence that Microsoft is clinging to as it starts wondering whether the Coriolus Effect will matter much.
.
But “turtles?”
Surely there’s no coincidence to JLG’s desire to see menu bars moved into app windows that his own, long departed BeOS had them that way.
I personally expect that what we’ll see Apple do with the menu bar is allow it to be scalable, like the Dock, once 4x HiDPI displays come to Macs. The Apple menu and all the menu bar widgets are going to need new 4x graphics, anyway. It would make sense at that time to give them even higher resolution versions that can be scaled like icons in the Dock and Finder windows are. With your big 27″ display you can then choose to upsize the menu bar a bit to make using it easier (and seeing the name of the current app easier, too). This will also greatly help people with vision problems, so it might be targeted specifically at them. The Universal Access control panel would then be the place you’d find the menu bar scaling options.
>Furthermore, when you close an app’s last window, the app quits. Apple recently started doing something similar…
There is a logic behind this. C’mon JLG. Please don’t confuse opinion with fact.
Applications which are uni-window e.g. DVD Player, System Prefs, will quit if you close their window because there is no reason for them to hang around anymore. However multiwindow apps (e.g. apps which enable you to create multiple documents (Pages, Word, Keynote etc.)) do not. Because you might want to create another doc after you’ve closed the last one and not want to wait for the app to relaunch.
The multitouch user experience is only now starting to hit adolescence. Look at the new Clear iPhone app for an example of an iOS app which has NO buttons – which are probably a legacy from a point and click interface.
We live in exciting times.
Alan
Window’s nonsensical closing of app based on the last window is incredibly irritating. It’s assuming you are finished when in fact you are not. I have some apps which behave this way, ported from Windows. For instance, in SPSS, the very widely used statistical software, the app os now compiled in Java. This means that is not only runs slow, can’t print, etc… but it also insists on quitting if you close the last database window. It’s absurd, I have to open an empty database to prevent the stupid app from quitting. And it’s a monster, so it takes a good while, even on the latest hardware, to open.
Menu bar on the window? This is even worse. I don’t care how large the screen is, that is pointless. The edge of the screen is still easier to hit and is consistent. You can turn up your mouse/track speed if it’s taking more than a little flick to get to it. The menus on the window are just ugly, look at iTunes in Windows, for a great example.
@ All: Thanks for the “vigourous” feeback, especially on the menubar. Having had several in-person instances of this discussion in various Palo Alto watering holes, I knew I was in the minority.
@ Alan Goldberg: I want to reassure you, I’m not in the Truth business, I just have opinions. One Guardian commenter once hectored me asking ‘Where is your objectivity?’ I was tempted to ask if he could lend me some of his overflowing supply. My views are subjective, honest ones, I try, and, on occasion, misguided.
@ Alan Goldberg, @ Brian and others: You’re right, terminating a single-window app when its window closes is simple, logical. And, shutting down a multi-window app such as Pages/Word under the same circumstances can be annoying if one wants to immediately start/open another document.
On the other hand, as I do tech support to family/friends/colleagues, I see the confusion between open and not open apps.
This said, as mentioned in the piece, Lion/Mountain Lion is acquiring iOS-like ways of deciding how applications are kept open, or dormant right under the surface, or completely off. See how, as a default, Lion hides the “app open” white dot in the Dock.
@ Experienced Mac User and others: I respect your view. What I fail to hear is an explanation for the need to have two menubars: one on top of the 27″ iMac I’m using right now, and one inside the Safari or Pages window. Why are two menubars better than one — especially in the context of Apple’s justly revered less-is-more culture?
“What I fail to hear is an explanation for the need to have two menubars: one on top of the 27″ iMac I’m using right now, and one inside the Safari or Pages window. Why are two menubars better than one — especially in the context of Apple’s justly revered less-is-more culture?”
I hear what you are saying. I think that is why they are pushing for yet another Windows (and now iOS) feature, the full screen apps. With the app at full screen, and Mission Control used to move between them, your document’s menu rides right below the menubar.
@ EB: You’re right, the full-screen setting works great on my 11” MB Air, not so much, IMO, on my 27″ iMac. I used the link in your comment, and also went to the quiz it links to and found both quite interesting. In particular, in view of Apple’s recently increased use of auto hide/reveal for menus and the Dock in full-screen mode, I found askTOG’s condemnation of such features in Windows quite interesting. I much prefer the overall Mac experience to Windows; each time I have to go back to on of my Windows computers, or to tha Parallel VM insided one of my Macs, I find the experience frustrating. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t on eor two ideas to drwa inspiration from. For example, as stated in the note, Windows clones have had recovery partitions for several years, more than 5 if memory serves. OK, I know, they needed those
@ Grzegorz Maj: you’re right, I was speaking metaphorically, that is minimalism versus throe everything against the wall and see what sticks. In that sense, I find the calendar, the address book and, I forgot to mention it, the bookshelf, deviant flourishing that bring neither cognitive nor aesthetic benefits.
Yes, I think we all evolve in our views (I wonder what Tog would say if asked again. I’m sure Romney would change back and forth multiple times
). If you asked me if I’d ever use full screen mode 5 years ago I would have said no (that was before having an iPhone/iPad). Then again, it drives me batty that I cannot have a video window in QuickTime player be full screen on one of my monitors and not take over (Thankfully VLC 2.0 gives me the option of Lion/Mountain Lion full screen, or old style full screen).
And yes, as a developer who is used to using lots of windows, I am not the biggest fan of full screen – but then again, I am not bothered by the single menu up top (the menus you refer to that are on the windows are document windows, and while I see that fitt’s law does not work with those, I am content with them being attached to the documents).
Thanks for engaging!
@ WaltFrench: Coriolis/Coriolus. Is it a discrete, learned way to say: “Company XYZ is circling the drain”?
“What I fail to hear is an explanation for the need to have two menubars: one on top of the 27″ iMac I’m using right now, and one inside the Safari or Pages window.”
.
@ JLG: As you wish:
.
First off, Safari and Pages don’t HAVE menu bars in their windows, they have tool bars. A menu bar and a tool bar are very different in form, function, and purpose.
.
As distinct from a tool bar, a menu bar can be clicked once and scrubbed across to reveal all of the menus*. The major items in a menu bar are single, succinct words. The layout of a Mac’s menu bar is very standardized: The user always knows where the Apple, (application), File, Edit, and Help menus are going to be, and the Window menu is always going to be one of the furthest right items. Widgets that effect the system as a whole are always going to be on the far right of the menu bar. Most of these standardized options would be inappropriate and/or cluttering inside a document window.
.
A tool bar, on the other hand, has none of these conventions. The arrangement of items in a tool bar is entirely arbitrary. Any consistency in tool bars between applications is litte more than coincidental. Many tool bar controls are single-click items, with no menus attached to them. The tool bar is populated exclusively with options that apply solely to the document you’re working on in that single window. Tool bars are customizable by the user, allowing more or less frequently used options to be added or removed.
.
Then consider that Apple’s best selling computers are not 27″ iMacs with wide, expansive screens like you have. Instead they are laptops with a most common screen size of 1440×900 (on the 15″ MacBook Pro and 13″ MacBook Air), and as small a size as 1366×768 on the 11″ MacBook Air. On your 27″ iMac it might theoretically be possible to fit all of the items from both an application’s menu bar and its tool bar into a single strip at the top of a window or the top of the screen, but this is not possible on these smaller laptop screens. Even though there appears to be an amount of duplication of items between menus and toolbars in Pages and Safari, removing these duplicates still wouldn’t reduce the total number of options and controls required in these applications enough to make them fit. So there’s always going to be at least two rows of controls. In this case, it’s best to take advantage of Fitt’s Law and have one row of them be at the very top of the screen.
.
Given all this, full screen mode is really targeted at use on constrained displays like these laptop screens. Automatically hiding the menu bar and dock gives that much more screen real estate for the single document that full screen mode is supposed to allow you to focus on. The toolbar remains, again, to provide you with only the controls that are appropriate for the document in that window.
.
*Fitts’s Law helps here, with the top edge of the screen providing a barrier for you to “push against” as you’re scrubbing. Menus grouped together in a tool bar could be made “scrubbable,” but without that top edge it would require more effort to keep your mouse pointer aligned to them.
I wanted it to be called “Lioness.”
The original Mac OS X was “Mac OS Pro.” It had to appeal to Mac OS users as a better Mac OS. Then the Intel Mac was “PC Pro” — a better PC for PC users. Now, the Mac is an iPad Pro. You already have an iPad and you need more. It makes sense for all the iPad things to be the same on the Mac. But the reason you use a Mac will be what is different from iOS. For example, running Xcode or Photoshop.
Another big thing will be Retina Display. If that comes to the Mac this year then a lot of app resources would have to be redone for Retina. In that case, the realistic interfaces make more sense. The idea that you can just paint the entire digital universe in blue or blue gradient is the absurd result of making unrealistic interfaces. You recognize an app based on its look, including the texture. These are 3D GPU objects we are looking at. They have texture, even if you choose a flat one. If every app does that, it’s Soviet.
“Furthermore, when you close an app’s last window, the app quits. Apple recently started doing something similar, but it’s apparently limited to a few utility programs…”
Unless I’m misunderstanding your meaning, this isn’t quite right: there’s nothing at all new about Apple apps that quit when you close the window. The utility apps you mention have worked this way for many years.
Yes, at first it looks like two uncoordinated models for whether app quitting behavior upon closing the last window – but there’s actually a logic behind this, and it’s a sensible logic – *when it’s consistently followed*. (Unfortunately, Apple itself doesn’t consistently follow it, and that’s where criticism is deserved.)
For anyone not aware of the Mac’s logic behind window closing and app quitting, here’s an overview:
http://www.mactivist.com/blog/macemx/2009/01/understanding_macs_and_pcs_closing_apps
Final note: Re the Mail app, let me note for the record that the problems you experience are by no means universal. Mail is fast and rock solid for me. I hope Apple can find and fix the reason why it isn’t so for everyone…
Salut ! J’ai noté que votre blog est bien référencé mais pourrait etre un peu plus optimisé. Etes vous passé par un expert seo et backlinking ? Sinon, voici mon site . A+
Everything published was very logical. However,
what about this? what if you typed a catchier post title?
I am not saying your content is not solid, however suppose you
added a headline to maybe get a person’s attention? I mean Apple’s Grand User Experience Unification | Monday Note is a little boring. You might peek at Yahoo’s front page and see how they
create news titles to get viewers interested. You might add a
related video or a picture or two to grab people excited about everything’ve got to say. In my opinion, it could bring your posts a little livelier.
What a material of un-ambiguity and preserveness of valuable knowledge regarding unpredicted emotions.
Good way of explaining, and pleasant piece of writing to obtain data
regarding my presentation focus, which i am going to deliver in institution of
higher education.
Hi to every one, the contents present at this web site are really amazing
for people knowledge, well, keep up the good work fellows.
Thanks for the good writeup. It if truth be told was once a
enjoyment account it. Look complicated to more added agreeable from
you! By the way, how can we communicate?
It’s an amazing paragraph designed for all the online viewers; they will take advantage from it I am sure.
I’m not that much of a online reader to be honest but
your blogs really nice, keep it up! I’ll go ahead and bookmark your website to come back later. Cheers
I am curious to find out what blog system you are working with?
I’m experiencing some small security problems with my latest website and I would like to find something more safe. Do you have any solutions?
Hello my friend! I wish to say that this article is awesome, nice written and come with almost all vital infos.
I’d like to peer extra posts like this .
6 Trackbacks
[...] has a great article dissecting Apple’s Grand Unified User Experience, the term coined by Jean-Louis Gassée in his analysis of the OS. The essential idea is that no matter what the device — laptop, tablet, or phone — the user [...]
[...] getting to my own experiences, let me share a thoughtful piece that homes in on what Apple is doing, from Jean-Louis Gassée’s point of view. Here is a key excerpt from his most recent Monday [...]
[...] getting to my own experiences, let me share a thoughtful piece that homes in on what Apple is doing, from Jean-Louis Gassée’s point of view. Here is a key excerpt from his most recent Monday [...]
[...] devices will still likely choose an Android device in the near term. But people looking for a “grand user interface unification” may give up some control in order to gain a seamless experience across devices and choose iOS, [...]
[...] February, when Apple announced OS X 10.8, Mountain Lion, software industry thought leader Jean-Louis Gassée coined the phrase Grand Unified User Experience to describe what he saw in Apple’s multi-platform operating systems that crossed mobile, [...]
[...] iOS vs. the desktop version, and former Apple President Jean-Louis Gassee points out that the two Apple user interfaces are converging in terms of [...]