I didn't say they posed UX problems. I don't even think the author of the article suggested that.
The article literally says that there a still many rough edges in OS X. I don’t see rough edges. There are small inconsistent details and extremely minor legibility problems. It’s not worth mentioning and Apple won’t listen anyway.
I merely suggested that small problems add up to a less than optimal user experience.
I believe that this is only true if you delude yourself into thinking these minor inconsistencies and flaws matter.
There will always remain some "rough edges" because costs rise exponentially when approaching an optimal design. People have lifes, deadlines etc. and Apple is no exclusion to that. Of course they could find and fix these problems if the threw another $10MM at it, but they don’t because they’ve already reached 98% of optimal and the last 2% aren’t even worth thinking about. There are much bigger problems elsewhere (both from their perspective and from customer perspective).
Comments
The article literally says that there a still many rough edges in OS X. I don’t see rough edges. There are small inconsistent details and extremely minor legibility problems. It’s not worth mentioning and Apple won’t listen anyway.
I believe that this is only true if you delude yourself into thinking these minor inconsistencies and flaws matter.
There will always remain some "rough edges" because costs rise exponentially when approaching an optimal design. People have lifes, deadlines etc. and Apple is no exclusion to that. Of course they could find and fix these problems if the threw another $10MM at it, but they don’t because they’ve already reached 98% of optimal and the last 2% aren’t even worth thinking about. There are much bigger problems elsewhere (both from their perspective and from customer perspective).