About the un-clickable program name in the menu bar. I agree that it'd be nice, like OS X, to have that as a menu. OS X, or probably Apple, forces control over what items go into different menus. Linux is a lot more free. So, a "preferences" menu item could go in 'file' or 'edit' or 'view' or 'tools'; or maybe only some of the preferences are there and the rest are in a config file. It took me some getting used to.
> OS X, or probably Apple, forces control over what items go into different menus.
No, not in the least.
It's technically possible (indeed, trivial using Interface Builder) to remove all these menus (the application menu is probably the only one whose removal may lead to your application crashing), and move or remove just about all of their content. Neither OSX nor Apple forces anything (at least outside the AppStore, I do not know if there are imposed standards there).
On the other hand:
1. Apple provides extensive application templates in IB, they're generally used unless there's a good reason not to
2. Apple publishes extensive Human Interface Guidelines, the latest revision of the "OSX Human Interface Guidelines" document (2011-07-26) is 276 pages (a low actually, in 2009 it was more than 350 pages), as a PDF it weighs 26MB. And much like the IB templates, it is followed unless there's a reason not to
3. users care about consistency, when guidelines are broken for no good reason users will generally make their displeasure known. And because OSX has a thriving "indie" development scene (paid, low-cost software by very small teams) this generates an environment where interface care and consistency is taken pretty seriously.
Yes, I agree. My post was worded very poorly. Thank you for the corrections! I didn't realise that Apple didn't force the HIG. I do enjoy the care and thoughtful interface decisions.
Comments
About the un-clickable program name in the menu bar. I agree that it'd be nice, like OS X, to have that as a menu. OS X, or probably Apple, forces control over what items go into different menus. Linux is a lot more free. So, a "preferences" menu item could go in 'file' or 'edit' or 'view' or 'tools'; or maybe only some of the preferences are there and the rest are in a config file. It took me some getting used to.
> OS X, or probably Apple, forces control over what items go into different menus.
No, not in the least.
It's technically possible (indeed, trivial using Interface Builder) to remove all these menus (the application menu is probably the only one whose removal may lead to your application crashing), and move or remove just about all of their content. Neither OSX nor Apple forces anything (at least outside the AppStore, I do not know if there are imposed standards there).
On the other hand:
1. Apple provides extensive application templates in IB, they're generally used unless there's a good reason not to
2. Apple publishes extensive Human Interface Guidelines, the latest revision of the "OSX Human Interface Guidelines" document (2011-07-26) is 276 pages (a low actually, in 2009 it was more than 350 pages), as a PDF it weighs 26MB. And much like the IB templates, it is followed unless there's a reason not to
3. users care about consistency, when guidelines are broken for no good reason users will generally make their displeasure known. And because OSX has a thriving "indie" development scene (paid, low-cost software by very small teams) this generates an environment where interface care and consistency is taken pretty seriously.
Yes, I agree. My post was worded very poorly. Thank you for the corrections! I didn't realise that Apple didn't force the HIG. I do enjoy the care and thoughtful interface decisions.
It's not that Apple don't force the HIG. But if you break them you need to have a good reason as your users expect you to follow the HIG.