I recently upgraded to the latest version of Mac OS X (Lion). There are a lot of nice improvements, but unfortunately a few disappointments. When I initially opened the new iCal and Address Book apps, I had a momentary “that’s cool” reaction when I saw that these apps now have some visual panache. They now look like a physical desk calendar (the oversized kind where you see a month at a time and rip off the pages) and leather-bound address book (a real book with nice stitching to hold the pages together). Those initial positive impressions were crushed within moments when I realized that they screwed up these apps in an effort to chase metaphors.
iCal
I have multiple calendars. I have a big screen on my computer. There is no reason that I now have to open a stupid flyout menu in order to see/change which calendars I am looking at. I’m guessing this has to do with some misbegotten notion that there should be convergence in the UI between OS X and iOS. This is just dumb. Please let me take advantage of the fact that I’m using a real computer with plenty of screen real estate and persistently show the list of my calendars.
Address Book
The changes to Address Book are similar to what they did with iCal, but much worse. Address Book used to have a single mode of browsing and viewing contacts with a 3-pane interface: (1) Groups/Directories, (2) Contact List and (3) Contact Details. This now happens in three different modes.
Mode #1
In this mode, you see the contact list on the left page and contact details on the right. This is the only useful view, where I can pick a contact and see the details. Okay so far, but what if I want to filter the list by selecting one of the groups I’ve set up, or search one of the directories I have connected? See that pretty, red, bookmark-like icon? What does it mean? I guess it means “switch into a different, goofy, not very useful mode” where I can see those things.
Mode #2
So, to get to mode #2, you click on that mysterious, meaningless icon (which, by the way, is a toggle that jumps to a different location when you click it). At least iCal has a clearly labeled button called “Calendars” to switch among calendars.
In this mode you see groups on the left page and your contact list on the right page. Groups make it easy to filter the list of my contacts, but I don’t really care about the list per se – ultimately I still want to get to contact details (the only reason I use an address book). So, this view is useless because when I find the contact I want, I have to double click it and the app completely switches modes (back to Mode #1). Going back and forth between these modes is very disorienting.
Mode #3
There’s another mode toggler that hides the contact list, so can look at a single contact record at a time. In the image at the left, the “book” mode is selected. What’s cool is that clicking on the “single” mode (a square) makes the page you’re on disappear and the toggling control moves to a different place (just like the other view toggling button). Oh and this toggle only appears in modes 1 & 3 (not mode 2) … and you can’t get to mode 2 from mode 3. This is UI design 101 stuff they are breaking here!
Anyway, in this mode, you can flip through your contacts one by one. This is possibly the most useless functionality and view for a desktop address book application. Why would I ever want to page through my contacts one at a time?
About Search
On the positive side, search is snappy. But the search box moves around in the interface depending on what mode you’re in. That’s not cool. Again, violating basic UI principles.
Don’t Let the Metaphor Ruin the Design
There are a lot of smaller interactions and design choices that are improvements, but the messed up the big stuff (basic navigation and viewing). The mistake Apple made this time around was allowing physical metaphors to drive the design of these apps in unhealthy ways, so that the skin of the apps look like the physical equivalents, but they do not behave like those equivalents at all. Paper does not have flyout menus or content that scrolls. A physical book does not switch modes. These discrepancies just create unnecessary cognitive dissonance. I understand that there can be a case made for favoring style over substance, especially if it means simplifying the experience or creating a more compelling overall experience. Unfortunately, these style choices have made it more complicated to do the basics without any upside.
