Human Interface Guidelines: The Mac Zealots’ Con?
Recently when questioning the Apple Way, it was politely suggested I read the Human Interface Guidelines and then I’d know why the one-button mouse had survived over 20 years. That wasn’t the first time I’d had HIG waved at me when suggesting Apple do something differently in OS X. So I decided it was time I read the HIG and learn why Apple’s way is the right way. Except, that’s not what I found.
For many years, whenever anyone has dared question any part of the Mac OS experience, hordes of Mac zealots would flame them to a crisp, fanning those flames with the Good Book, that is the Human Interface Guidelines. (Insert appropriate oooohs and aaahs and other sounds of veneration here). The one-button mouse and all its associated interface implications was a favorite of the HIG Wavers.
Except, the problem is, the Gospel according to HIG is a crock: A con perpetrated for the last 22 years. Where did this venerable Book of HIG come from? I guess, like me, you thought that an independent organization was established to oversee HIG. Not unlike W3C works to develop Web standards.
But guess what? You’ve been misled. Deliberately of course. It’s time to blow HIG’s cover.
A couple of myths
There’s two myths surrounding Human Interface Guidelines:
Myth #1: Human Interface Guidelines are universal, with one text that should be applied to all operating systems.
Myth #2: Human Interface Guidelines are a universal truth, defining correct design, interoperability and usability of computer interfaces.
The truth about Myth #1
There isn’t one unifying HIG. Each OS or interface developer has their own. So if you search the Internet, you can find the GNOME HIG, the KDE HIG, the Windows HIG and of course, the Apple HIG.
The first HIG myth reminds me how a couple of years ago, Microsoft released a report from a study claiming that Windows had lower TCO than Linux. Guess who sponsored the study? Microsoft.
Guess who wrote the HIG that supported the one-button mouse? Apple. Okay you might say, but maybe the usability research behind it was independent. Yeah, and maybe it was a different Microsoft that sponsored the TCO study.
This is so much like the “God” argument, with most religions claiming theirs is the one true God. Except in the HIG case, it only seems to be the Mac zealots claiming Apple’s is the one true HIG.
The truth about Myth #2
The other fallacy perpetuated by Mac zealots is that the HIG defines the best way of doing things—which of course to them, means the Mac way. How many times have you been beaten over the head with that one? I know I’ve lost count.
As the Introduction to Apple Human Interface Guidelines says:
These guidelines are designed to assist you in developing products that provide Mac OS X users with a consistent visual and behavioral experience across applications and the operating system.
Nothing in there about superiority of the Mac way over any other interface, nothing about “one-button mice rule”.
As that Apple HIG says, the primary purpose of the HIG—any HIG— is so developers can create software that provides an interface consistent with the rest of the OS or interface.
Myth busted
So there you have it, the HIG myth busted by Apple’s own HIG.
Human Interface Guidelines are nothing more than a set of guidelines by interface designers for developers so their software is consistent with the interface. And in no way does an HIG claim or justify that any approach (eg 1-button mouse) is superior to any other OS or interface’s method. Read the Apple HIG and it’s predecessors and there’s no claim of one-button mouse superiority - even when used on a Mac. The HIG simply states that to be Mac OS compliant, an application should be operable with a single button mouse.
I’m not anti-OS X by any means and will happily admit it’s superiority in a lot of things. But not everything. It’s just that I’m tired of been beaten over the head with HIG every time I dare point out things I don’t think OS X does so well.
So next time you get accosted by a Mac Zealot waving HIG at you for daring to suggest the Mac could do something in a better way, politely suggest that he actually read it, because maybe you are onto something.
In the words of Mythbusters, these two HIG myths are busted and busted.
Footnote: So why did the one-button mouse survive over 20 years? Because Apple wanted it to, so it wrote the HIG to ensure it would.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Chris and Beeblebrox
The Apple HIG indicates that application UIs should be created in such as way that all major functions can be accessed without requiring a two button mouse.
Perhaps you’d like to share how we’ve been conned by that guideline?
I prefer a two button mouse. But I know several casual computer users that have no desire to learn shortcut keys or use contextual menus while operating their computer. These users are quite different than you and I. They just don’t care.
Are you suggesting that these users be forced to use a two button mouse just because you the rest of the industry thinks they should?
Perhaps you can explain why their choice to use a one button mouse should be taken away from them?
Yes, obviously you have a real problem with people being condescending. Unless of course, it’s you.
*splat* Argh! You got me! I take it all back. Your comment was overflowing with insight.
Of course, there’s a slight difference when someone’s being condescending _about you being condescending_. Now above you’re condescending about me being condescending about you being condescending and here I’m being condescending about that.
What fun.
Would you have preferred if I’d specified what I actually meant, that your comments bear little or no relation to the preceding discussion?
On topic, I’d like to qualify what I said about 1 button mice - I don’t think (it would be ludicrous) that they’re a complete solution. People like the first poster will always need more complex interface tools and those people will always need to customise their setup. I just think they’re a great idea for beginners.
Scott and others, you delightfully sidestep my arguments and try to turn it back on me. Let me re-iterate:
Myth #1: Human Interface Guidelines are universal, with one text that should be applied to all operating systems.
Myth #2: Human Interface Guidelines are a universal truth, defining correct design, interoperability and usability of computer interfaces.
I know what the HIG says about one-button mice - and in fact, the Windows Experience also says that applications shouldn’t be reliant on the second button.
My argument is that often to justify why Apple does things a certain way, defendents point to “The HIG” - often forgetting to say “The Apple HIG”
Again I’ll say, the Apple HIG does not define or justify why Apple chooses to do things a certain way. The Apple HIG is for developers to create applications that are consistent with OS X.
Somewhere there’s probably documents that justify the one-button mouse, the “copy and replace” when copying folders, the sorting of folders with filenames etc etc. But it is not the Apple HIG.
The Apple HIG is a “How” document, not a “Why” document. I just want people to stop using it to prove the one-button mouse (or any other aspect of OS X) is superior to the way other OSes do it.
I really have to question the validity of this article. No one I know in software development, nor any Mac users I know would agree with the statement in the first myth. Now I’d imagine there’s many Windows users, especially young zealots, who might claim that Apple is claiming to have the one true HIG, but they are hardly people to be listening to on matters of Macs. So Apple wrote Apple’s HIG. BIG SURPRISE! There’s a significant difference between the HIG and the Microsoft Linux TCO study, and that is this: Apple’s monetary stake is only indirect, and if the number of Mac software developers were greater, there wouldn’t be any monetary stake at all for Apple to encourage the HIG as much as it does.
Also, Myth #2 is simply paraphrasing Myth #1, and since Myth #1 doesn’t actually exist…
On the footnote: What a completely useless statement. The author completely fails to analyze WHY Apple wanted the one-button mouse in the first place. Could it possibly be that there’s a scientific or psychological rationale behind it? Here’s a hint: it wasn’t arbitrary, and, AFAIK, Apple has never, or maybe only during the “monitor and keyboard sold separately” era, made any money on one-button mice. The original plan for the Macintosh was a three-button mouse. Why didn’t Apple keep that? To compare it to the Microsoft Linux TCO study is asinine.
I’ll admit there are some Mac zealots who likely haven’t read the HIG, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Chris,
“My argument is that often to justify why Apple does things a certain way, defendents point to “The HIG” - often forgetting to say “The Apple HIG”
That’s a perfectly reasonable point, and having made that mistake myself, I apologize.
“Again I’ll say, the Apple HIG does not define or justify why Apple chooses to do things a certain way. The Apple HIG is for developers to create applications that are consistent with OS X.”
I believe one crucial problem in understanding each other may be that when you speak of the HIG, you’re talking about the one currently on Apple’s website.
I believe most of the posters who are disagreeing with the gist of your post are talking about the original Apple HIG, which were derived from the years they spent coming up with the Macintosh OS (& the PARC/Lisa/Apple III saga).
“Somewhere there’s probably documents that justify the one-button mouse, the “copy and replace” when copying folders, the sorting of folders with filenames etc etc.”
And there are. Which is my point, again. If you’re going to set out to write about something profoundly affected by those documents, it behooves you to at least have given them cursory notice
From what I can tell, you haven’t yet realized that those documents even exist.
“But it is not the Apple HIG. The Apple HIG is a “How” document, not a “Why” document.”
Please reference my earlier point.
Or, to put a finish to it, I hope:
“I just want people to stop using it to prove the one-button mouse (or any other aspect of OS X) is superior to the way other OSes do it.”
Good Gravy Man!
I hope you understand: I love my Mac, but no one’s proclaiming that Apple’s provided us what we need. One button mice are for those people who’ve still got difficulty figuring out how to launch FreeCell (sorry, that’s a Windoze thing).
You have to remember, Apple’s still got a bit of ideology behind it. It takes a while to change things like a one-button mouse. Hell, 95% of the computing world is not like us.
So, those of us who use Macs, despite all of Apple’s failings, love them in a way that, most likely (at least after the first 3 months) no PC user could. Which is why you‘re taking the time to post on a site named “AppleMatters.”
So yeah! There’s a lot that I don’t like all that much about the Mac OS right now. But, yeah, we do believe our OS is superior.
To all, in disagreeing you agree.
The truly disagree with me you’d have to argue that the Apple HIG is universal and proves OS X superior. Any other argument, although you may think you are disagreeing, is actually by its nature, supporting my argument that it is neither of those things.
Obviously we haven’t had anyone yet who does think those things about the Apple HIG, because they’re not really going to come out and say so, or else we’ll all have a go at them.
There’s also a fair few differences between the “classic” Apple HIG and the OSX HIG. Not least that Apple ignores both of them (and consistent application behaviour) nowadays.
I have never met anyone who beleives either of the ‘myths’ you’ve come up with here. Who exactly are you trying to wow with this ‘revelation’? That Apple’s HIG were written by - gasp - Apple? Or that they only apply to - gasp - Apple’s OS?
Get a grip.
I think there is a lot of misunderstanding of history here coupled with an attempt to make a point that was already decided before the argument and investigation started.
All OSes have IGs. The first HIG was from Apple and the key word here was the H. The study was sponsored by Apple to try and find what would be the best way to do things that were NOT being done for average users at the moment. Menus, icons, windows and the like were unknown at the time, which meant they all had to be “invented” in a way (not conceptually, but in the sense that they had to be defined in a way that made sense for the public, that at the time knew nothing about them).
Now there may be other OSes that have their own HIG, but this is because the name has stuck. Most of the early Microsoft IGs were focused on doing the same as Apple but differently enough so they couldn’t be sued. Almost everything in the linux world GUI is copied from any of the two above so it doesn’t cound (no, really, it doesn’t. Very few attempts at creating new GUI conventions in Linux have passed the “grandma” test and this is not a coincidence).
So, yes, Apple funded their research. This isn’t big news. It’s not important that Apple did it but that it was done to come up with the best possible GUI conventions for the time. Apple didn’t define the HIG after the whole OS was defined but it was the other way around. What keys to use, how should icons behave, what should the location of menubars be and, yes, how many buttons should a mouse have.
A completely different point is the fact that nowadays Apple is one of the companies that stomp all over the HIG documents but to me that is a good sign. The HIG was originally designed for a different public than the modern one (yes, there are people these days that know as little as new users did back then, but information is more readily available) and its showing its age.
You should do much better pointing the incompatibilities between the HIG and Apple soft itself than taking the completely misguided route of missing the point that the HIG was made before the Mac GUI was completed and, thus, the GUI is *obviously* based in the HIG and not the other way around. Apple went with one-button mice because the HIG specified so, and it specified so because the study had shown it was easier for new users (the original mac was all about friendliness and ease of use).
You’re also incorrect in thinking that disagreeing with you means we agree with your arguments. I disagree in the way you have put the HIG documents and the history behind it. I’d be the first one to say no IG can ever be universal and the most I’d say is that Apple’s is the closest I have ever seen to take as much care of new users as experienced users (experienced users usually forget they were n00bs once and decide all the little things that made their lives easier should be scrapped). I like a set of IGs that *tries* to make a computer as easy to use for me as for my dad or my son. I think that is a very commendable position.
Again, the point is moot, both for you and for the users you refer to. The HIG is wonderful and probably the best IG there is, but Apple itself doesn’t follow it coherently and the discrepancies of the OSX HIG vs. the Classic HIGH (which is the better of the two) are enough to separate them as different beasts.
Also, when will you fix the damned comments page so one doesn’t spend half an hour writing a response just to have it error out because it didn’t provide fields for registering simultaneously? Either put the authentication fields or don’t put a falsely-available form or put the authentication afterwards remembering the comment text.
The truly disagree with me you’d have to argue that the Apple HIG is universal and proves OS X superior. Any other argument, although you may think you are disagreeing, is actually by its nature, supporting my argument that it is neither of those things.
Do I think that OS X is “better” than Windows? Sure, otherwise, I wouldn’t have switched to OS X from WIndows in 2003. Do I think it’s “Perfect”? No, but I’m more than willing to trade slow Finder windows for a better designed, well thought out UI, lack of viruses and spyware, etc. Perhaps your not.
And that’s the point that you seem to be missing. People are more than willing to trade efficiency and complexity for simplicity. Automatic transmissions are a concrete example. It’s not that people are too stupid to drive stick, they just don’t want to, even if it means getting better gas mileage and more control. They just don’t care.
Funny too how there’s been no backlash from novice users of other OSes about how complicated 2-button mice make things. Having worked in IT and trained users, I found the 2 button mouse caused no problems, even for the novice.
If automakers never invented the automatic transmission, do you think that people would “backlash” from novice drivers about having to driving stick? Transportation is an important part of our society. So are computers. People learn to adapt. But why?
The Apple HIG is a “How” document, not a “Why” document. I just want people to stop using it to prove the one-button mouse (or any other aspect of OS X) is superior to the way other OSes do it.
OS X is “superior” because it gives users choice.
Apple doesn’t always follow it’s own HIG, but they put there money where their mouth is and made Mac OS X useable with a single button. In fact, the last time I checked, every Mac still effectively ships with a button mouse. While you can change it to to act like a two button mouse in software, it only excepts primary button clicks by default.
Regardless of what the Windows Experience guide says, Windows is designed to expect a two button mouse. You can’t even create a folder on your desktop without one. Again, why? Does something so simple as creating a folder really REQUIRE a two button mouse?
Incidentally, there’s no bigger fallacy here than the phrase: “The truly disagree with me you’d have to argue that the Apple HIG is universal and proves OS X superior. Any other argument, although you may think you are disagreeing, is actually by its nature, supporting my argument that it is neither of those things.”
Which, essentially means: “If you can’t disagree with one of my points then you’re forcefully agreeing with all of my exposition”. Which is ludicrous at best and ridiculously shortsighted at worst. I don’t agree with your basic premise and I outlined why and, still, you’re not right in your exposition (to my eyes)
I’m not sure I get the point of this article. People insisted the 1-button mouse was the best way because they thought Apple’s Aqua HIG said so? That’s retarded.
The Aqua HIG is a, as the G in HIG says, a guideline for designing the interface of Aqua apps in Mac OS X. And, YES, that includes brushed metal, you whiney naysayers.
I wonder what the Pro HIG is like…
And since when did anyone think that the Aqua HIG was supposed to be universal or that it was devised by an independant group? Of course Apple made it for OS X.
What is wrong with people?
Incidentally, here is an excellent example of Apple ignoring their own HIG (right in the core of the user interface for OSX).
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/more_smart_cut_copy_paste