Do Adobe AIR apps pose threat to Mac user interface guidelines?
Ask any Mac user why he uses (and swears by) his Mac and you will most likely get many responses. One of such replies might be the fact that applications on the Mac all have a uniform “look and feel”, making the user feel right at home with any application, new or old. But there is an evil spirit flying in from the south, one that can put an end to this beautiful uniformity. This spirit goes by the name of Adobe AIR. Read on to find out what it brings.User interface consistency on the Mac was most prominently implemented in OS X Leopard. What does that mean? Simply put, it is the way all Mac applications (programs) work and look the same across the Mac OS. Take a look at the way applications look and operate on OS X Leopard and it jumps right out: from the dark Aqua title bars and the Inspector to the Application > Preferences menu, no matter which program you’re in, you’re bound to find these features there.
Mac OS X Leopard: application uniformity
Uniformity
In this screen shot, the four red arrows point to the title bar of currently open applications. The single yellow arrow points to the title bar of Address Book. Notice that the title bar of Address Book is a shade darker than the other title bars. This is due to the fact that in the screenshot, Address Book is the active application and the windows of other apps are inactive (meaning I’m not using them at the current moment) . This uniform method of displaying windows in the operating system is what sets OS X Leopard apart from other OSes: it just makes everything peaceful and uniform, allowing the user to focus on the task at hand.
The two blue arrows point to a little triangle on the bottom right corner of Address Book and Slife applications. This little triangle is used for resizing windows in OS X. The best part is that this window resizing tool is also continuous throughout the Mac operating system.
The Inspector (not pictured) is another element that is consistent across applications – ones that deside to use it, anyway. It is a tool chest that makes great use of space, since its design adapts to whatever the user is working on.
Lastly, the user can – at any time – navigate to the menu bar (green arrows) and click on the name of the application he is currently in. From there, the Preferences submenu will always be available; again, it doesn’t matter which app is being used, the menu bar > Application title > Preferences will always be there.
Such uniformity allows the user to feel right at home in any application, rather than having to get used to an entirely new user interface, as is too common in Windows. Want to re-size a window? Use the triangle on the bottom right. Want to make changes to a document, use the Inspector. Want to change the way an application performs? Go to its preferences in the menu bar. All this and more in OS X is accomplished using “window dressing” that gets out of the way and unclutters your workspace.
Meet the enemy: AIR
Adobe AIR applications disregard Mac design and usability principles set out by Apple and Mac developers. The AIR applications look like separate apps, as if they were ripped right off a web page and thrown onto the Mac desktop. This is because AIR is just a wrapper for web applications that are installed locally (on your computer). But they most likely originated in the web. Just have a look at the following AIR app – Twhirl (an excellent Twitter client).
Adobe AIR app: Twhril - a Twitter client
The app looks nothing like the applications designed to run, feel, and look like Mac applications pictured in the above screen shot.
So what?
This is where the question lies: must applications look and perform uniformly on a platform – as current OS X-native apps do – or does it simply not matter? I believe there is room in this world for both apps. In the end, users will decide what sticks and what doesn’t. Moreover, there is no reason why AIR applications can’t look like native Mac apps, down to the dark Aqua display techniques.
We really like to hear from readers. Email us with your ideas or leave a comment below.
Like reading TechNest Report? We greatly appreciate that you share articles with your friends, link from your blog, and subscribe to our feed. Submit to Digg, Reddit, or Slashdot by clicking ShareThis on the bottom of each post. If you really like TechNest Report then please consider making a small donation through PayPal on the right hand side of the page; it will really help paying the bills around here.
Enjoy and, as always, thanks for reading, listening, and subscribing to TechNest Report.
Posted in Adobe AIR, Featured, Mac, Operating Systems, Software
12 comments to “Do Adobe AIR apps pose threat to Mac user interface guidelines?”
Leave a comment
Additional comments powered by BackType
21. January 2009 at 11:18 pm :
I tend to prefer a bit of standardization unless the app is just unique enough to pull off a custom interface like Blogo. I’m not really into the whole widgets floating around. I find too many web apps have lowest common denominator UI.
22. January 2009 at 9:13 am :
@hmurchison:
Wow, Blogo is cool. I haven’t tried it out but just went on the page and I might use it to blog for TNR. I currently use the WordPress browser interface.
I agree with you 100%, regarding the question of app interface standardization and uniformity. However, I would like widgets that float on the desktop. I, for one, look back to the days of Konfabulator – when Dashboard wasn’t present on the Mac. To me, that was a perfect combination of “activate by keystroke” and “desktop-dwelling” widgets. Some widgets are just necessary to sit on the desktop, so of the time – and I wish Apple would make this possible with Dashboard.
Alex
1. February 2009 at 8:56 am :
Interesting and informative post, Alex.
This morning I was thinking along these same lines (which, thanks to the Google, I found this post) – coincidentally, I was also using twhirl, an application I totally love using. I posted this comment to the the twhirl feedback forum earlier today: http://twhirl.uservoice.com/pages/general/suggestions/109428-twhirl-in-the-status-bar-of-the-mac-and-not-in-the-dock-. I realize that the issue lies not entirely with the twhirl application or its developers, per se, but with AIR itself. Exactly your point above.
I would add that this nonconformity isn’t limited to Mac OS X. The issue you describe is endemic to AIR as an application framework on all platforms; AIR applications on *all* environments allow the implementor to ignore the user interface guidelines set forth by the designer, regardless of how stringent those guidelines are.
-Danny
1. February 2009 at 9:22 am :
Thanks, Danny; gotta love the Google!
I’ve been giving this some thought over the last few days. I’ve come to the conclusion that since the trouble is with AIR itself being a non-conformer to UI guidelines, it’s as if there are three giants battling over UI: Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe. Apple wants to push its own UI theory and has done so on the Mac, but also does this on Windows (iTunes + Safari). Microsoft doesn’t seem to really care that much about the question with Windows. Adobe is pushing AIR to be cross-platform, as we have discussed.
Maybe this is all a question of who will “beat” who in this space – which aforementioned company will get the most users/downloads/acceptance. And to make it even worse, I think that regular users – you know, ones who don’t even think about this stuff – don’t care at all about this.
Looks like we’ll just have to wait and see how all this plays out. Personally, I’d like all my apps to perform and behave in a uniform manner; looks-wise, I don’t know if it really makes that much of a difference.
PS: thanks for posting the article to twhirl. Let’s see what people say.
Alex
14. February 2009 at 5:55 am :
I just stumbled on this article and its a really interesting read, I am actually reading it from the perspective of an AIR/flash developer and I dont believe it is Adobe who are responsible, as you said AIR is merely a wrapper to host what would otherwise be an internet app. In this way I think it is the designer of the applications that are being created which do not understand the need for a little conformity, this will get better in time, as AIR becomes more mature and it is no longer seen as a new toy for all web developers to play with, it will be then that the issues that you’ve raised above in my opinion will start to dissipate.
From a personal point of view the applications I create I try to include all the things that you have discussed above as conforming to simple standards such as where the close button for a window is, or how a window is resized is really common sense and hopefully this area will become better and we will see more useable apps created.
Pete
14. February 2009 at 3:20 pm :
@Pete:
Agreed. As AIR gets more mature, the apps that run on it will most likely become more tailored to the user interface guidelines of the system it was designed for.
Thanks!
23. March 2009 at 7:24 pm :
I think I like Adobe’s idea of ununiformed UI because of the elegant way Air apps have instead of the ugly Windows look. But in Mac’s case, this might not be good. Adobe AIR cannot tare apart its UI because it is cross platformed. So I think Adobe settling for ununiformed UI is better until apps don’t start to get ugly. One amazing thing about Adobe AIR that I like is it introduces apps to linux too which is only developed by open source software people. Webcam clients such as TokBox can now be introduced to linux for the first time and more commercial stuff can be added. AIR simply tries to make one uniformed installer and app so the developer does not have to shred his power to make three different apps.
18. April 2009 at 4:28 pm :
Get use to it. Everything is going web based, including applications (Software As a Service).. I have customers who have moved entire business applications from desktop to the web. Google is stepping onto OS toes with Google Apps, basically replacing features of the OS with web apps. Adobe Air is just an extension of a web app. Looking at the future, I just see the OS being a go between the applications/browser and the hardware, and less about an interface. That, of course, gives developers much more latitude for a UI tailored to the application.
2. February 2010 at 6:24 pm :
Wow. Is this really a concern? I like to think people are intelligent enough handle a little variance. Should every web page have the same user interface? Should every application do the same thing? Should computers just have one big button?
Variety is good and the responsibility of good usability should rest on the developer. I have also seen mac applications that carry their own UI; therefore Mac developers are not necessarily tied to it either. Is AIR really the enemy, or should you be looking at UI development as a choice between developer decision based on the application vs. Mac Nazi look and feel? (See? I can make something innocent and non-important look evil as well.)
Also, when developing an AIR application there is an option to use the system chrome. So a mac will look like a mac and a PC will look like a PC. Again, it comes down to developer decision. I think the most valid point in this article is, "in the end, users will decide what sticks and what doesn’t." Well said. I say we leave it there. If the UI is bad, users won't use it just like they wouldn't visit a site with bad UI regardless of how good it looks. Developers know this. . . or should anyway.
AIR does have securities in it so the app does not run unless the user wants it; making it impossible to write a virus on that platform. You don't like an AIR app, don't run it. Uninstall it. Delete it. But to mask ban a platform because it allows individuality is foolishness. Who knows? Maybe you will find an app that has a better UI than the Mac and wish every application conformed to that.
So, which is better? Creativity and innovation, or conformity and fear of individuality? You decide. It's your computer.
5. July 2010 at 11:17 pm :
One could argue that an app UI should mimic the native appearance within the OS just as much as another could argue that an app should look the same across systems. Take all of Adobe's new products for instance. Photoshop and others now look the same on Macs as they do Windows. This familiar Adobe UI may indeed make the "switch" easier for users moving over to a different operating system.
I might suspect that most runtimes like AIR or Java aren't going to try too hard to build in all of the native UI components of the OS. This could cause way more overhead than desired. Instead, focusing primarily on the native functions of the OS for filesystem reading and writing seems to be the goal.
I'm sure even Mac users have the capacity to identify a slightly different looking close button. Anyone complaining about such little things needs to live a day in the life of a developer like me, where a big focus is to allow any user access to the same tools, regardless of platform. As stated above, demanding uniformity in UI appearance could be considered an invitation to "runtime bloat."
27. November 2011 at 1:03 pm :
Have you ever thought about creating an e-book or guest authoring on other blogs? I have a blog based upon on the same ideas you discuss and would really like to have you share some stories/information. I know my readers would value your work. If you’re even remotely interested, feel free to shoot me an email.
27. November 2011 at 6:17 pm :
Hello my family member! I wish to say that this article is awesome, great written and come with almost all important infos. I’d like to peer more posts like this .