Better User Interface

I would LOVE an updated, more modern look for Scrivener…

Have you actually read the rest of this thread? What does an “updated, more modern look” even mean? Scrivener uses the standard Mac UI - the standard toolbar using graphical elements that are based on those recommended by Apple for modern UIs, the standard Cocoa buttons provided by Apple for modern program interfaces, the standard source lists as used by other Apple programs, and so on. So do you mean that you wish Apple would provide OS X with an updated, more modern look (whatever that means), because you don’t like the way Apple programs look? Or do you mean you would like us to completely change all the UI elements so that they override the Apple UI code just to try to look different? Scrivener looks like a modern Mac app, so I don’t really understand requests for a “more modern” look. I think you must mean something other than “modern”?

(Before replying, please read Ioa’s - AmberV’s - first two replies to this thread.)

With these icones the Blinder is terible

http://www.deviantart.com/art/Etched-for-IP-270983507

Yep, the binder is a good example of a UI element that should never be monochrome, because of the amount of information its icons need to convey.

Never say never

You were the one who said they looked terrible - I was just agreeing! It would indeed be terrible trying to navigate a monochrome binder like that. Even Apple realised this and reverted to colour for iTunes, reserving monochrome for source lists that require fewer icons.

Sorry, this is a translation problem. When I say “terrible”, I mean beautiful and very simple. When you work 4 or 5 hours a day on scrivener for years, and you’ve built your own Binder, I think the problem does not arise. You know where things are. Now, maybe for new users, actually, the color is needed, new users or for thick novels like dictionaries that you tell the story of man since time immemorial to the present day.

Well, document icons can be customised via Documents > Change Icon, so you can always create your own monochrome binder if you like. Set up some document templates with the default icons you want for different file types and you’re all set.

Simpler still, you can invoke the hidden preference to hide binder icons entirely (c.f. §D.4.1 in the user manual).

Color is a great shortcut - monochrome makes me work harder, looking at the icon. Although the current finder in Mac Os X is monochrome, icons remain colorful because they look pretty and they color information makes it much more easy to find what you are looking for. As for modern, what is modern about the lack of color ?

As a colorblind person, it’s the ‘great shortcut’ part that often gets interfaces into trouble. Relying on color to convey information is problematic for me as a user (I know I’m in the 10% minority, but still).

This is why both shape and colour are important: both should be used as cues so that the maximum number of users can distinguish them easily. As a colourblind person, I bet you would struggle if an application’s icons were all the same shape - distinct shapes are crucial for those who are colourblind. But colours are vital for those who see colours better than they see shapes. I’m one of those people - the Finder’s sidebar has been useless to me since it lost colour, and now I read the text rather than using the icons. I frequently click on the wrong buttons in Mail’s toolbar, too.

The only reason computer programs use icons is that they are quicker to register than words. And the reason for this is that they can quickly represent a concept using shape and colour. Omitting one of these pieces of information when the user is faced with dozens of icons is poor design, in my opinion.

This isn’t to say that all monochrome icons are bad. They look clean, and there are places where monochrome icons work well. They can work well in certain toolbars, even - Ulysses 3.0 makes very good use of monochrome icons, for instance. The reason they work well there is that there is very few of them and they never change place. So you not only have shape but also position, and you don’t have to squint to try to differentiate between dozens of icons of the same colour. Safari’s toolbar works well with monochrome icons, too, because there are very few icons there, likewise iTunes. So monochrome icons work well where they aren’t likely to change position and where there aren’t many of them, but they are completely inappropriate for Scrivener’s binder or for Scrivener’s toolbar so long as the latter offers so many commands.

Yup, what Keith said.

I’d say that I’m “shape blind” in the same way that some people are “color blind”; sure, some shapes clearly mean one thing or another, but I focus on color almost to the exclusion of shape. With Apple’s not-so-recent implementation of monochromatic icons, it’s like I’m relearning the whole interface as if I’d never touched a computer before.

And I too have difficulty with Apple’s Mail app icons; I’m always confusing the “mark as unread” & “mark as read” icons for the “get new mail” and “compose a message” functions. I have to scan the whole toolbar to re-discover the icons for the later functions so that I can correctly interpret the former; and since they’re so far away from each other, this confusion persists long term. I never had this trouble with colored icons.

This is interesting finding out different ways of processing UI. I have to say that I prefer consistent position,then colour and lastly shape to find an icon. If an icon/box moves (Windows 8), I have no hope of finding it.

The only thing I’d change on the UI (other than the language, of course) is the difference in height between the Binder header and the Editor header (and similarly the other ones, such as the Format bar, the Ruler, the Collection header, and those in the Inspector panel as well).


But that’s just me being very very picky. Let’s be honest, Scrivener is a very attractive program.

I agree completely with Keith and am not advocating for monochrome, just against the concept as color as a shortcut. I can’t count the number of unusable web pages are out there because of color combos that blend completely together to me, not to mention charts, graphs and graphics that rely on color to distinguish data. Monochrome forces a certain attention/variability to shape, but to be honest I’m used to not keying of icons alone so I doubt it ‘helps’ and thus can be a dubious aesthetic-only choice.

Scrivener’s binder icon colors are great, though I doubt I process them. I do set my toolbars to text only, can’t distinguish between ‘compile’, ‘settings’, ‘script’, and ‘notes’. They pretty much are identical and blend into the gray background. In fact, at a glance I can’t tell add, colors, or inspector apart.

All of which to say choices are great, and I certainly get the value of color as identifier to most!

That’s interesting feedback, thank you - very useful for when the icons come to be redesigned.

All the best,
Keith

Never thought much about it, but I realize now — reading through comments — that one other element helps me find the right tool/control/setting.

It’s location.

I’m sensitive to colors, but don’t rely on them much in this matter, and often I’m unaware of — or indifferent to — icons. Wherever possible, I usually opt for “text only” with no icon.

But I do remember where things are that I use frequently, and can get thrown off if the layout changes.

phil

I’ve got an app on my iphone that filters out various colors and shades of colors to give a rough idea of what something looks like to people with various kinds of color blindness. Seems like there should be something similar for the desktop to assess icons and UI color schemes to make sure adjacent colors don’t blend together for some people. You know, like having a red object on a green background. :wink:

And a quick google search yields michelf.ca/projects/sim-daltonism/ as one option.

If you already have it, recent versions of Photoshop have “proofing” models for the various common forms of colour blindness, using the same engine it uses for proofing print gamut ranges. That is what I use to make sure important details are not lost.

I only just discovered the Use Label Color In options and was pleased to do so. They make identification many times easier. And more pleasant. They add color, which is always nice. I’m naming characters and locations and picturing scenes, and being able to colorize those figments of my imagination makes for a better workspace. I don’t want that space to come with a prefab aesthetic that can only get in the way. I want extreme functionality extremely well-implemented. That requires a UI, which means there’s going to be some stuff on the screen. Which is fine. Meeting those requirements unobtrusively is a far better measure of “modern” than chasing trends in dropdown box and button design.

I’m coming at this from the Windows side (and with under a week using Scrivener, which I’m loving by the way.) I know the Apple side is older and more developed, but I’ve watched a handful of videos many/most of which were done on Apples (presumably not in emulation mode), and when not viewed at full screen it’s hard to tell if it’s that or Windows 7. Even at full screen the two Scriveners look identical in overall visual impact, and it’s only when I see the window controls, or sometimes by how fonts look, that I know for sure which it is. And that’s interesting and amusing considering that KB, who would know, says that Scrivener’s visuals are Apple to the core (ha ha!) while I think it looks exactly like Windows 7. Go figure.