Differences in Usage Between Platforms: Was:Striped Background in OS X Revisited

[Scott Kane]

From: "J. Landman Gay" <jacque at hyperactivesw.com>

> I'm interested in learning more about this, being mostly Mac-oriented 
> myself. Could you (or anyone) sketch out what you see as the differences 
> in behavior and general usage between the platforms?

That's a facinating but very deep question.  I could write pages!  <g> 
However I'll resist the temptation and summarize some of most significant 
things and we can discuss other things later on...

First and foremost we can look at how Steve J steers the ship.  I think his 
perspective on computing in general is the key.  The Apple vs PC adds make 
this very clear but the most succinct example is the IPod.  "A thousand 
songs in your pocket" was the opening marketing gambit.  Simple. Elegant and 
right to the point and more importantly - *fun*!!   Think now about the 
Apple vs PC adds and you'll notice the emphasis is largely on getting it 
done simply without complication.  "It just works".  The Apple OSX UI is 
simple.  It expands the classic Mac interfaces and, to my mind, streamlines 
them.  Most often when I talk about this PC programmers (and technically I 
am one of them) yell at me that the OSX (i.e. Aqua) UI is "just eye candy". 
This is all to often the only argument that is levelled and it is in fact 
the crux.  The "eye candy" is what makes the experience so darn nice.  It's 
simple and elegant.  Compare a Windows program to a Mac program.  Windows 
programmers, no disrespect meant, write incredibly complex and deep 
programs.  Everything goes in there.  This is great if you are a computer 
programmer or tech type (maybe - as there are plenty of programmers and tech 
types who prefer a Mac) but for average users all to often they never use 
all the functions.  Creating a deeply complex application on a Mac is quite 
a challenge (I'm reffering to a program exceeding 150,000 lines of code not 
including that generated automatically by RAD IDE's).  The Mac interface 
seems to limit one in the available options for doing it without breaking 
the HIG.  However - as one studies the Mac and really gets into the HIG one 
finds this isn't as much a problem as one might first believe - but that's 
not the point here.  The point here is that every aspect of the Mac UI is 
about the "user experience".  Aqua is pleasing to the eye.  Grey (Windows 
prior to Vista) is utilitarian.  It actually is fun to use a Mac.  So it 
tends to attract people who just want to "get on with it" and "have fun". 
Windows Vista literally rips bleeding chunks off the Mac paradigm in an 
attempt to access this market segement - and fails.  Vista does lots of cool 
fun things - but it falls short of being really "fun".  Mac icons are chunky 
(in a nice way) with smooth drawing and are very clear (the defaults being 
larger in size than a pre-Vista desktop).  This ties directly to usability 
as it is easy to identify as opposed to the Windows 32 x 32 standard icons 
(now larger on Vista).  Vista even adopted the slight angling of the Mac 
icons and light source.  Again this is to create a "fun" factor and probably 
to a larger extent increase identification and therefore usability.

When a Windows 3.11 or below user ran a program they would know to explore 
the program menu of a new program.  Just like Mac users know to explore the 
menu.  Windows 95 + users tend to have no such concept.  This is because 
Windows 3.11 and before has a menu structure like the Mac.  It was always 
there and adapted when you loaded a program.  I have taught IT with Windows 
machines over the years at TAFE colleges here as well as running beta tests 
for my various software products over the years.  Overwhelmingly Windows 
users now ignore the menu (and accellerators and other keyboard shortcuts) 
and search the toolbar.  Time and time again I've been told the program 
needs such and such a feature.  The feature is there - but it's not on the 
toolbar and therefore the user intuits it as not present.

Psychology of usage really is the key to this issue though, and probably the 
most generally interesting.  On a PC you are supposed to *work*.  The PC 
market is flooded with utilties, office suits and even programming 
languages.  I'm yet to hear a PC user, however, wax lyrically over an FTP 
tool like Mac users do over Transport.  You never see the wars on the PC 
platform like you see from Mac users over Mac Soup.  On Windows you can 
break just about any HIG rule with impunity.  Most users simply don't get it 
the way Mac people do.  This of course is risky as your original widget 
control might not be intuitive and may cost you sales from confusion - but 
generally not because you broke the HIG as such.   I learnt this on the Mac 
very quickly however because one beta tester said (and all the other Mac 
users responded in kind) "we don't want no stinking Windows program".  My 
software relied heavily on the Treeview control on Windows and the toolbar 
paradigm.  My Mac users rejected the treeview outright (also known on a Mac 
as the heirarchial list for those not familiar with the tree nomleclature). 
Nor would they wear my long (to them) toolbars.

The whole toolbar thing is really important.  Look at Rev for a moment.  On 
a PC Rev locates itself at 0 x 0 on the desktop (the top left of the 
screen).  There is a caption bar with minimize and close widgets (the 
crosses etc).  Each window (stack) we open in Rev on Windows is independent 
of the main UI and floats above the desktop.  This is a shock horror for 
Windows people because the "standard" is to include everything in one window 
and imbed windows within (not actual MDI because the caption bars are no 
longer present - it works in the manner of a Rev stack and cards.  Borland 
used the same paradigm for their IDE as Rev with Delphi until recently and 
it was a pet hate of many programmers (personally I quite like it as it lets 
me arrange things the way I like to work).  Producing a program like this on 
Windows is risky - you've really got to make sure the user is clear on what 
is part of the program and how it works - on a Mac it's common.  Rev does 
it,  some browsers do it (AOL), Quicken does it and so on.  This is directly 
tied to the omniprescent menu bar on the Mac.  It's always there - no matter 
what.  Windows programs may or may not have a menu. If they do not you have 
to intuit how to - for example - close a program or load the help file.

The PC - IMHO - is still living in the days of computer users being either 
techos and programmers or office workers.  The whole paradigm is not about 
people but about bytes and algo's.  The Mac, again IMHO, is about *people*. 
After many long arguments with Windows programmers I've found they embrace 
the PC and reject the Mac because this concept is alien.  However.... 
Increasingly I'm finding people are looking at the Mac (not necessaruly 
Windows programmers) and seeing this emphasis.  It is attractive.  Will the 
Mac overtake PC sales?  I don't think so.  People buy the PC for three 
reasons.  It's what "everybody they know uses".  It's "like the one at work" 
and there are still more programs available for Windows than the Mac.  If 
Jobs could force their C++ tools to work like VB or Delphi (or even Lazarus 
if it ever becomes a true Carbon/Aqua aware tool - a dangerous thing for Rev 
as it has the potential to attract legions of Delphi and VB programmers due 
to it's use of Object Pascal (cross platform between Win, *nix and Mac) 
base.  In fact - if I was Rev - I'd be aiming heavily at the shareware 
industry for new customers because the real key to getting more software 
built for the Mac (and that IMHO directly translates to Rev sales) lies in 
that market segment.  Borland learnt this lesson in a sense.  Their new 
Turbo Delphi range is squarely aimed and priced at this market segment. 
It's important not to let our natural prejudices about "shareware" to play 
out here.  The name is merely a marketing method.  In 2007 it means a 
downloadable trial as opposed to the quality of the software.  Consider that 
WinZip, Paintship Pro etc are - or where - shareware marketed software.

OK - I could go on about stuff like modal windows and sheets etc et al.  If 
you're interested in those topics we can discuss them later.  If not I'll 
shut up!  <g>  But I'll conclude with a perspective.  My first experience of 
a Mac was the Lisa and then the IIe.  I inherited a Wallstreet G3 and was 
not impressed with System 8 or 9.  However - I was instantly blown away with 
OS X.  Simplicity and elegance are what did the trick for me.  Not security 
or any of the issues we tend to commonly assume as marketing points.

Scott Kane
Moderator comp.software.sharware.*