Paul (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Wed Aug 29 20:20:46 2007

It was suggested (by the infamous Chockenberry) that Mr. Jalkut and I go to Cupertino for a little "clean up". We'll need some backup though - who's in?

Kevin: I used Cleardock for a long while, though I eventually gave it up. The dock having a background in 10.4 is OK, it shows it's on a different layer. But on 10.5, it's on a different geometric plane entirely, one that doesn't even make sense.

Mark: That's an interesting app, one I don't recall ever seeing it back in the day. There are Dock alternatives though that you can check out - I just prefer the standard options to not be terrible.

Anonymous Coward: You sir, have too much time on your hands - well done! 8) The RDF could keep icons afloat, but wouldn't it grow weaker as computers get farther from Cupertino? Machines in the UK will have their icons scattered around the bottom of the window! I do like the sound of a constant reflection of me - then I can see if anyone is sneaking up on me!

Constable: Dock position is relatively arbitrary - all choices are effectively the same according to Fitts' Law (since they're pinned to a side), though the left side on a single display setup is a bit closer to the menu bar on most. On my desktop, I have two monitors with the right side being the master, so I keep it on the right. Regardless though, if the sides are an option, it should look usable.

Steve: It's different sure, but it's not "just" different, it's also worse. Why is there a new perspective? What benefit does it provide? Why are the running lights so hard to see? Why the reflections? I joked, but these are serious questions. If these changes aren't beneficial in anyway, then they're wasting CPU and potentially distracting. It's visual noise and it adds nothing.

As far as the desktop goes, the desktop is 2D. You're effectively looking down at a desktop (hence the name) There are perspective issues there with some icons, yes, but it's nothing compared to what we're seeing in the Dock.

For my part, I think contemplating the reasons behind change, and behind design, keeps the mind nicely active. You're the first of several people who've seen this who think it looks just fine. I'm sure others will agree with you, but plenty of people have seen this and felt it simply did not look right, or good in anyway.

Paul (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Sun Sep 2 11:43:49 2007

Whoo - comments on this exploded in the past day. Thanks TUAW and Daring Fireball. I'll respond to just a few.

Also, taking this post's comments as an unscientific poll, there are 28 anti-New Dock comments, 5 pro-New Dock comments, and 8 ambivalent. Take that for what it's worth.

Derek Hagen: Putting the dock left and hidden may be a workaround, but it's a terrible solution. If the Dock is to have options like right, and visible, they should look acceptable.

My main setup is two displays with the master on the right. Having the menu bar on the right and the dock on the left would be a bit troublesome. As for visibility, I keep it open so I can see indicators like Mail.app's New message counter.

monsieur jobs: More options and more preferences aren't an ideal solution to design problems. If a design is flawed, an option to "turn it off" isn't the proper solution, it should be fixed. More choices lead to more confusion.

MatzeLoCal: We actually checked, because it easily could have been called that, but unfortunately it's just separator.png. 8)

AG: Plenty do keep the dock bottom, hidden. But again if there are options for sides, and visible, it should look decent. It does in 10.4, it doesn't in 10.5. If you plan to use the Dock on the bottom, then most of this post doesn't apply to you (though I'd argue that the Running lights are still terrible on the bottom).

John Muir: I think on the bottom, the new Dock is passable, though it has issues with perspective there too. If you only keep running apps there, then the lights aren't an issue either. Certainly the new Dock isn't the end of OS X, but it's in major need of improvement for many setups.

YodaMac: Believe it or not, this IS work. We work in OS X day in and day out, developing for it, and feel a certain responsibility for it. We see something that represents a very large step backwards for the Dock, and we're discussing it. Clearly, we're not the only ones who see a problem here.

As for "what all the fuss is", on the bottom it may be fine, but if you're using it as an app launcher, you're not going to be terribly happy with the running lights.

olivier Hericord: You make a very good point here - displays are wider than they are tall, so using the Dock on the side makes sense. I'd love to see stats on where the Dock is used across the Mac user base.

Jon H: There are other issues, no doubt, but we left those for another post, or another writer.

nico: Now you're talking. Maybe they could flash like police or ambulance lights? I think you're right on when you say that on the bottom, it's ok, but not on the sides. There are still issues with bottom dock (the pointless reflection does nothing but distract, and the Running lights are still no good), but the perspective makes a lot more sense.


mattybinks: Interestingly, the visibility of the lights isn't too much different under light backgrounds. They look better against a darker background, but because the Dock has a darker portion along the edge where the lights are, they're less affected by the background. That said, they still look bad on any background.

Spencer Lavery: Sure, 10.5 isn't out yet. But that's the point - with enough outcry, there might be changes. If we just sit and hope it changes, it won't.

ACoolie: Oh very nice! For those that can't replicate, you have half a button, but due to the reflection, it looks like a full button. The bottom right of his sshot is a reflection in the Dock, and can't be clicked.

Fred Hamranhansenhansen: So we've moved on from ball bearings then?


foljs: Well, the place to petition is http://bugreport.apple.com. I know they've looked at our own bug.

DBL: I applaud your own snarkiness, but it's misguided. The Running lights are not problematic because they're different, but because they're both bright and fuzzy. The black triangle in the current Dock is far from flashy, to be sure, but it's completely functional.

Indeed, it's a dotted line - what purpose is it trying to serve? It's separating two pieces of the Dock. Does it need to be so large? Or so faint? The old separator was a thin line, and the separation was clear. This is a faint line that might not be noticed, but it's also much taller than it needs to be.

You think I'm being too literal minded, but here's the problem. Apple is trying to setup a visual 3D metaphor, but they've only gone halfway. Is it 3D? Sort of. But then the Trash isn't, not on the side. On the bottom, items seem to rest on the Dock, and that works well enough (for the most part). On the side, however, the metaphor is broken.

Yes, because it's reflective. THERE'S a literal answer. How about this - WHY is the Dock reflective? What purpose does it serve? Where's the benefit to the user. Do I need to see open windows backwards or upside down? It's harmful in that it's distracting. The question when designing anything should not be "What's the harm?" but "Where's the benefit?". If there isn't one, it shouldn't be there. This isn't art, it's a tool - there's no room for extraneous cruft.

Marty: Much obliged 8).

Anonymous Coward: Oh lord, don't give them idea. An animated swoosh, that's the worst thing I've heard all day.

Simon: I'm not sure how I'm "being a dick", but that's alright. As far as the physics go, it doesn't HAVE to obey the laws of physics, no.

But when things don't, people get confused. Why break from the training we've had for all our lives? If there's a real benefit, great - but here, it seems that no thought went in to the side dock. The bottom dock follows the laws of physics - items rest on the Dock in a relatively natural way (instead of being flat on it like in 10.4) - this new metaphor is fine. On the side, however, the metaphor is utterly broken. That's different, and not really fine.

alberto: Reading top to bottom in general is a little weird, but personally I never needed app names. I've had my Dock on the side from the get go, to save vertical height, and I know I'm not alone. But again, the point is, if side dock is an option, it should look decent.

I dunno if only using the new perspective on the bottom is the best of both worlds, but it's certainly an idea.

Adam W: This definitely isn't the worst thing people are bitching about in Leopard, it's just one of the most visible, thanks to the handy visuals.


John: I fear the future you envision. Excuse me while I curl into a fetal ball.

Mark: Unfortunately, in practice, it's NOT the behavior you want. The current indicator (little black triangle) is subtle, but instantly visible when you go looking for it. This is hidden from your eye at times when you want to see it, and visible when you don't. I think when you look right at it, the visibility is reduced, but when you glance at the Dock, it pops out. That's actually the exact opposite of what you want.

As for "anal retentive syndrome", I'd have to say that not seeing this as a large step backwards is an instant indicator of a lack of attention.

MarsViolet: Harsh. Possibly true, but harsh 8).

Mark Thomas: "The problem with the 3D dock is that it's too literal, but as such isn't properly executed." I think that's exactly right. Some commenters are saying that it doesn't need to obey physics, but the problem is that it starts to, and doesn't finish.

oomu: You mention menu transparency as something they'll tone down, which is interesting - older versions of OS X had higher degrees of menu transparency, which got toned down. Now it's back. It's an odd cycle.

Rob F: Well for one, we HAVE used the Dock, for months now. So I wouldn't say our reactions to it are premature.

To say there's nothing objective about this, however, is to disagree with decades of usability testing. This isn't a work of art, it's a tool that people need to use. It's not imaginary (though it is virtual), and some changes will make it more usable, some will make it less usable. That is entirely objective.

As noted, the issue is that this introduces physics to the Dock (in the form of 3D), but doesn't finish it.

Mattjumbo: "It's 2007 do we still need our GUI to play out some real-world analogy?" No, perhaps not, but if the analogy directly contradicts a lifetime's worth of real-world learning for no reason, you've reduced usability. It's pretty well understood that translating something correctly from the real world to the virtual enhances usability. Here, Apple went halfway and stopped.

pudge: It's interesting to hear how people use the Dock. As noted above, I keep mine open for notification badges such as Mail and NetNewsWire. I spent a couple days with it hidden, and didn't like it.

Thomas Fitzgerald: Indeed, having publicly shown things off, it's harder to change them. But that's up to Apple to figure out, if they choose. The best we can do is point to the problem and hope for change.


Seniore Soosy: The Dock has been what developers have complained most loudly about, because it's easy to express visually, for all users. Unfortunately, there's plenty of other issues behind the scenes that users won't see directly (including a 3-6 month delay on launching).

However, the purpose of changes shouldn't be "to look cooler", at least not solely. A graphical refresh is just fine, but if it reduces usability, it's a step backwards.

Paul (Rogue Amoeba Staff)
Tue Sep 4 12:52:59 2007

jlnr: Unfortunately, you're not wrong. Design isn't a pure science, but there is scientific thought behind much of it. Too often, however, people are unwilling to explore that.

As for Coverflow Dock, that might actually make more sense than Coverflow Finder.

Rob F: Looks for a functional tool are not subjective at all. For instance, the new Dock reflects windows. This serves no useful purpose, but it can be distracting. Is that subjective, or objective? There is science to this. As far as the tone of other commenters, I can't really speak to that, but it is what it is.

Robert C.: The thing is, the Dock is made for everyone. There's no official way to turn it off, which means it needs to work across the board, for all users. I'm not sure how my needs for the Dock (seeing active apps, seeing badges on apps, and launching 6 or 7 most frequently used apps) could possibly be THAT different from other users, nor from Apple's intentions.

Something like reflections reduces the usability of the Dock, for anyone and everyone. Very average users are as likely, or perhaps more likely, to be distracted by that.

csbmonkey: I find that interesting, as I've used LaunchBar for years as my app launcher. However, I still keep a few apps in the Dock to launch, and I use it to see activity in background apps (new mail in Mail, new items in NetNewsWire, listeners on Nicecast). Do you just keep the Dock hidden and never use it at all?

Dane: "Quit bitching and just be happy that you have a solid windows alternative" is a great attitude to have, if you want that "solid windows alternative" to gradually fall apart. Instead, we're interested in keeping OS X as great as it can be. This Dock falls far short of that ideal. "Just hide it" is a workaround, it's not a solution.

As for "being an idiot", I don't think you need to be an idiot to be distracted by unnecessary reflections in the Dock. Does it serve a purpose? If not, why is it here? That's how design should be done, not "Let's cram in all we can!"

Whocares: This isn't about how the Dock works for us, it's about how it works for everyone, including the millions of users who don't know anything about changing the Dock, or replacing it. A third-party Dock app is not the solution to a bad default design.

Oliver Nielsen: This is a rather absurd attitude. You're stunned that we, what, care about the direction of the platform upon which our work runs? We've spent a couple hours in an attempt to get some recognition for the fact that the new Dock is a step backwards. There are more hours in the day, and more days in the year, to do plenty of other things - you have no idea what we do with our personal funds, nor personal time.

It's just a dock, yes, but it's also representative of the direction Apple is headed. Cool new graphics and tricks that serve a purpose are fine, but something like the reflection in the Dock has zero upside. Once again, design should be built around the idea of "What do we need? What purpose does this piece serve?" and not "What can we cram in here?" The Dock is something millions of people will see when they first run OS X, and will be a large part of their first impressions. We care about the health of the platform, and the Dock is part of that.

Errrrrr.: Indeed.