Pages 5 features checklist

mythmatic wrote:

@crumvoc

...if you actually study / research User Interface Design and read any article about the core principles, you'll find that contextual choices / limiting visibility of non-relevant choices is a fundamental on almost every list.

From the Wikipedia article on "Principles of user interface design":

"The visibility principle: The design should make all needed options and materials for a given task visible without distracting the user with extraneous or redundant information. Good designs don't overwhelm users with alternatives or confuse with unneeded information"

Ah, but as Jackson Pollock apocryphally said, "The trick is knowing when to stop."

The key thing is "make all needed options and materials for a given task visible without distracting the user" To my mind, some context is necessary, and the new UI leaves very little of the context that allows users to sort out what they're doing and how to proceed. It leaves almost none of the tools visible unless you're actively using them.

For pro users, there's also muscle memory to consider. I don';t mean that it's so bad if we have to relearn things when an improvement necessitates change, but that once a system is learned, tasks should be repeatable without too much thought- your tools should be jsut where you leftthem each and every time and behave in predictable ways.

In all design, editing is everything. If you leave everything on the table it's an unworkable mess, but taking too much away is just as bad. My own belief as a designer is that you shouldn't conceal meaningful workings, but celebrate them. Only hide that which is necessary, but not meaningful. If it's niether of those things: kill your darlings.

It's not just these now 67 pages of complaint. Beyond the almost 1000 comments in this thread, review the last week or so of this forum- there are dozens and dozens of threads, each with between 2 and several hundred comments. And there's very little of the usual "I've got this probelm- thanks for the help."

They almost all begin and/or end with users absolutely appalled.

When I briefly handled consumer complaints years ago, I was told by my boss that every call we got represented an additional 16 people who didn't bother- either because it wasn't that important to them or they abandoned our product. Don't know where he got that number, but the idea has always stuck wth me.

Thanks for the Facebook link, I've gone there. Is it going to work? Not so sure! No more reason Apple should look at a Facebook page than on their own forums. But I'm happy to propogate the Facebook link. Maybe an online petition would be better?

@enteecee

enteecee wrote:

To my mind, some context is necessary, and the new UI leaves very little of the context that allows users to sort out what they're doing and how to proceed. It leaves almost none of the tools visible unless you're actively using them.

For pro users, there's also muscle memory to consider. I don';t mean that it's so bad if we have to relearn things when an improvement necessitates change, but that once a system is learned, tasks should be repeatable without too much thought- your tools should be jsut where you leftthem each and every time and behave in predictable ways.

Yeah... I agree that the amount of context supplied isn't ideal, and that it could be better organized. Also agree with what you point out about muscle memory and things being where you left them... very important parts of UI Design, for sure!

I guess my only point, which isn't a defense of Apple, per se, but only my own speculation, is that the changes to the OSX UI are very likely motivated by a rethinking of UI in an attempt to reduce clutter, achieve practical minimalism, and adhere to good UI principles. Whether Apple achieved those goals and how well is certainly up for debate, but I find very little evidence that the new UI is an attempt to make the OSX version look and behave identically to the iOS version (or simply port the iOS version to OSX). Rather I think both UI designs are motivated by a desire to simplify, consolidate and be more contextual, and I think that all evidence points to a likliehood that the OSX version will continue to develop and add features / capability not present in the iOS or iCloud versions.

Whether users like how the UI evolves and develops is certainly up for debate, and we'll have to see where that goes as Apple iterates and users acclimate...

enteecee wrote:

It's not just these now 67 pages of complaint. Beyond the almost 1000 comments in this thread, review the last week or so of this forum- there are dozens and dozens of threads, each with between 2 and several hundred comments. And there's very little of the usual "I've got this probelm- thanks for the help."

They almost all begin and/or end with users absolutely appalled.

When I briefly handled consumer complaints years ago, I was told by my boss that every call we got represented an additional 16 people who didn't bother- either because it wasn't that important to them or they abandoned our product. Don't know where he got that number, but the idea has always stuck wth me.

I know it's been said before, and I probably shouldn't be surprised, but I'll go ahead and say it anyway: I'm completely flabbergasted at the total radio silence and lack of any communication whatsoever to their customers that Apple continues to maintain in regard to these issues. They can't and shouldn't expect anything but anger, frustration, disaffection and shaken confidence from their users as a result of this awful policy of saying nothing and responding to nothing.

- No more Autocorrect where you can automatically replace text by choice.

- pasting pictures is a pain in the butt because it's not Inline by default and you can't choose default. It takes 5 clicks to inline images with text. STUPID

I'm an Apple developer and have to say that the choices Apple will have made will be nothing to do with having to make OS X like the iPad version. Consistency of interaction across platforms is very important, but should not trump features on the Mac version.

One things Apple has pushed very hard to developers for a decade is the MVC paradigm - Model, View, Controller.

Model, in this case, is the unified file format which is now coherehent across OS X and iOS. You never see this.

View, is the screen display that allows you to view and update the Model. This is the interface you see.

Controller, is the glue that binds these two together. You never see this.

The reason for this is, if designed correctly - and I'm sure Apple have done - is that the Views need to know nothing of the Model leading to more flexible and robust programming. This means that if you want to have two page-up display on the Mac version you can and leave it off the iOS version. It is an aspect of the View, but independent of the Model and the same goes for vertical rulers and many other missing features. Linked text boxes would affect all three as it must retain that knowledge once the document is saved as well as providing a means to express that visually.

Hopefully this makes clear that aspects which are related only to the view and controller can be changed as Apple wish on the Mac (or the iPad come to that) without either having impact on the other platform. Some changes - linked text boxes and probably inline images are two that spring to ming - would require a Model update, meaning an update to both platforms' versions for file compatibility is to be retained.

The implication is that Apple could have put in two-up view and vertical rules and page reordering and more without breaking the Model at all but chose not to do so. We can only hope that this is simply due to deadline constraints after rewriting the entire guts of Pages and that they plan to restore them on the Mac as soon as feasible.

The alternative is too horrible to think about ....

@KiltedGreen Thank you for taking the time to write that most interesting post from your informed viewpoint as a developer. I hope you are right in your speculation about deadline constraints.

However do you think all the missing features are merely symptoms of incomplete View/Controller implementation? For example, I imagine that linked text boxes, captured pages and the like would be fundamental to the data structures in the Model. Of course I suppose they could remain in the Model without a way to create or view them but how would we know?

@IanB I'm glad you found it helpful.

Annoyingly I just made an edit to correct some mistakes in the post above, but the forum bounced me out without saving them telling me that the site was just being updated. 😢

To summarise my corrections. Any state information that must be retained across saves in the OS X version such as two-page view and ruler positions must go into the Model (your Pages document holds this). Both the OS X and iOS versions must honour this even if they never display it.

As you say correctly, and as I noted in my post :

Some changes - linked text boxes and probably inline images are two that spring to ming - would require a Model update

It's also entirely possible that the Model/document Apple has created for the latest iOS and OS X Pages already supports vertical rulers, two page views, inline images, linked text boxes and more but that the view and controller have not been updated so far to allow us to edit them! Only Apple know.

Also, as I mentioned (in my post that the system rejected) page reordering is a temporary action which need not be recorded in a document and so only requires a Model and Controller change so could be an OS X update only.

Ah thanks, that makes sense.

How granular is that Model then? Is it the whole document or portions of it? I ask because Apple trumpted the ability for two people to simultaneously edit a document in iCloud. I wonder how well it supports people making changes to different parts of the document and how those multiple changes would be unified.

The document is the external permanent representation of an application's Model.

As for granualrity of updates that's not something I feel knowledgeable enough to say but I'd guess that it's more down to the Controller implementation which has to mediate between potentially conflicting multiple edits, but I'm speculating here. Thankfully I've never had to write anything like that ... 😉

Grrr. I still seem unable to make edits - it keeps telling me I don't have permission.

The last paragraph two posts back should have read:

Also, as I mentioned (in my post that the system rejected) page reordering is a temporary action which need not be recorded in a document and so only requires a View andController change so could be an OS X update only.

Peter, I think you are being a little over dramatic here and getting into some serious flights of hyperbole which may make you feel better but you may want to go and punch a cushion instead.😁

Yes, we know that Apple knows that the Mountain Lion's share of its money comes from iOS and that share is growing and that from OS X (and desktops generally) is falling. However, by your logic they would have simply made Pages 4.3 Mavericks compatible and focussed all their new development efforts on the shiny new iOS version. Clearly that has not happened which implies that Apple is likely to have other, more favourable intentions for Pages.

Of course this is speculation but so is yours. We know what Apple have done before and some of that history may be applicable this time round and some may not. All we can do at the moment, as many including yourself have done, is to ensure that we post our clearly detailed and reasoned dissatisfaction with the direction of Pages 5 here and on the App Store and send Apple feedback too.

Anyone who is really keen could setup www.ihatepages5.com I suppose but that maybe going a little too far.