Is Apple.com's designer pissing anyone else off?

[Zenith]

Apple has been very inconsistent in so many areas, like what you described, but also:

1) Red button either closes the window or quits the app

Actually, the red button quits apps which have got only one window. System Preferences for example. There is a certain logic to that, but it is confusing because it isn't really obvious.

 

[redAPPLE]

anyway, in 3 minutes I put this together (resize it). i didnt bother putting in the css to put it in layers on top of each other, but if i can do that in three minutes, surely a highly paid apple web desinger can use a similar solution to make their website work for everyone.

was that done using css? or what method? looks like something i would like to implement next time.

 

[chaos86]

was that done using css? or what method? looks like something i would like to implement next time.

nothing was done with css or javascript. thats pure html tables baby. a real production would need css and javascript though (hint window.innerWidth and window.innerHeight return the pixel width and height of the window). i'm just showing how easy it would be to do a variable width layout.

Personally I design for 1024x768, im sick of being restricted by such small sizes.

Perhaps it's just a conspiracy to annoy those still browsing at 800x600 so they bite the bullet and upgrade to a new mac with a higher res while they're at the site.......

we've been through this above. my screen is 1280 wide, most others have similar or higher resolutions, but when websites or a particular website has fit in 800px wide browser windows for years, we all make our browsers around 800px wide (we dont maximize, we're mac users!).

 

[Bubbasteve]

doesnt piss me off with a cinema display!!!

lol yeah I would imagine... maybe Apple is just trying to show that the intel transition is a big transition?

Or maybe it's just bad web design, I dunno.

 

[macOSX-tastic]

i really really wish that OS X 10.5 is more consistent with UI styling and gets rid of brushed metal all together. at the very least, choose one or the other. i hope all windows aill look like iLife 06, it feels much cleaner to me. the inconsistency drives me mad sometimes.

S

 

[_bnkr612]

Apple has been very inconsistent in so many areas, like what you described, but also:

1) Red button either closes the window or quits the app
2) Brushed metal and plastic UI
3) to name a few...

The variable width on Apple's home page doesn't bug me as much as this:

Bugs me too... I thought they would have caught that by now. I am sure the web designer was in a hurry and had to pick up their new 5 series BMW.

 

[redAPPLE]

nothing was done with css or javascript. thats pure html tables baby. a real production would need css and javascript though (hint window.innerWidth and window.innerHeight return the pixel width and height of the window). i'm just showing how easy it would be to do a variable width layout.

so excuse my ignorance, but, could you point me to a weblink re: instructions how to do this html "magic"?

or css?

 

[eXan]

I personally like new page more. You know, the monitors has grown in size since Apple made there initial design.

 

[eXan]

1) Red button either closes the window or quits the app

Use Command-Q

 

[chaos86]

so excuse my ignorance, but, could you point me to a weblink re: instructions how to do this html "magic"?

just look at the source. theres a few tables, each is set to width="100%" so it scales with the window, and the cells inside it that don't have defined widths scale themselves too. save my file and edit it to border="1" on all the tables then look at it and it will make more sense. i dont have time right now to do the layers and stuff (finals, portfolio submission, work, other job, and a cranky fiancée)

heres the link from above

 

[chaos86]

You know, the monitors has grown in size since Apple made there initial design.

the point i was trying to make was that the rest of the web is scalable to 755 pixels wide, so portable users and screen real estate conservers tend to make their browsers that width.

 

[iGav]

so excuse my ignorance, but, could you point me to a weblink re: instructions how to do this html "magic"?

or css?

you could do that easily in CSS as well.

 

[whocares]

According to thecounter.com 28% of internet users going to ANY website with a thecounter counter on it are using 800x600. thats a pretty big chunk.

anyway, in 3 minutes I put this together (resize it). i didnt bother putting in the css to put it in layers on top of each other, but if i can do that in three minutes, surely a highly paid apple web desinger can use a similar solution to make their website work for everyone.

Noooooooo! Layout done with tables!






Ok, I read your subsequent post. You're forgiven.

 

[mac.FINN]

Getting back to the apple website design...

Has anyone else noticed that the store page is lower than the rest and that there's a gap at the top? I don't mind the wider pages, but this gap is just irresponsibilty.

I say 'boo' apple web designer!

 

[portent]

we've been through this above. my screen is 1280 wide, most others have similar or higher resolutions, but when websites or a particular website has fit in 800px wide browser windows for years, we all make our browsers around 800px wide (we dont maximize, we're mac users!).

 

[fowler.]

the internet crowd is probably the hardest to please, most anal group of people that I have ever seen. if there is something to complain about, they will.

i'm not saying apple is perfect, but honestly, is it that big of a deal to you?

the thing that bothers me the most, is the fact that they're still rocking the same basic layout that they have been for nearly 5 years. i think it's time to update a little bit. get away from the aqua thing and move towards the pro app/hardware style.

 

[fowler.]

According to thecounter.com 28% of internet users going to ANY website with a thecounter counter on it are using 800x600. thats a pretty big chunk.

anyway, in 3 minutes I put this together (resize it). i didnt bother putting in the css to put it in layers on top of each other, but if i can do that in three minutes, surely a highly paid apple web desinger can use a similar solution to make their website work for everyone.

it's never going to make everyone happy. those of us with larger screens are going to wonder why they made such a narrow page.

 

[iShane]

What I dislike is the new design of their support pages.

 

[chaos86]

it's never going to make everyone happy. those of us with larger screens are going to wonder why they made such a narrow page.

yeah, i remember going into the apple store and pulling up a safari window on a 30 inch cinema display. the person on it before me was a switcher and had made it fill the screen; the ipod hifi looked really lonely in the middle there.

 

[aegisdesign]

According to thecounter.com 28% of internet users going to ANY website with a thecounter counter on it are using 800x600. thats a pretty big chunk.

anyway, in 3 minutes I put this together (resize it). i didnt bother putting in the css to put it in layers on top of each other, but if i can do that in three minutes, surely a highly paid apple web desinger can use a similar solution to make their website work for everyone.

Dropped to 17% now in March. That's a big drop.

Apple's new design is 900px wide. There's quite a few sites now using 900px+ as a new width. See ArsTechnica, AListApart, I think Apple are just reflecting the tipping point where designers are using wider displays and relying on 70%+ of users having 1024x768 screens or greater. For their audience, I'd guess they're getting much higher than 70% > 800x600.

They're also using Flash a lot more, and in such a way that it's quick and well done too. I like their new design. Now if only they'd ditch the Aqua tab bar.

 

[Cloudgazer]

Personally I design for 1024x768, im sick of being restricted by such small sizes.

Its all about target audience too, exactly how many of those 28% are visiting apple.com on a regular basis? i would say less than the people that are viewing it on a 30 inch screen.

Are you guessing?
Are you saying more than 28% of people are viewing the site with 30 inch screens?
I seriously doubt that. 30 inch screens are not that common.
Unless of course, you're a web designer.


If 28% of people are using 800x600, how many are using 1024x768?
I would think less than 28%.

I do agree that sites should be optimised for 1024 resolutions, but definately not more than that.

 

[dotdotdot]

MacRumors (and all forums) look horrible under 800x600 like Apple.com's "old design."

 

[chaos86]

MacRumors (and all forums) look horrible under 800x600 like Apple.com's "old design."

i disagree, but this is one of those things that you can agree to disagree about.

 

[BakedBeans]

Are you guessing?
Are you saying more than 28% of people are viewing the site with 30 inch screens?
I seriously doubt that. 30 inch screens are not that common.
Unless of course, you're a web designer.


If 28% of people are using 800x600, how many are using 1024x768?
I would think less than 28%.

I do agree that sites should be optimised for 1024 resolutions, but definately not more than that.

What i am saying is.......

that 28% are running 15/17inch displays, a fair amount will be in the windows world (probably 80/90%) who will have hardly any interest in apple.com, where as people that buy 30inch monitors from apple probably view it a hell of a lot more than the 28% that think apple is just a fruit.

Of course, some of the 28% will and some of the 30inchers wont.


anyone know what percentage is 1024x786 EDIT its 61% (with 800x600 at just 17%)

interestingly, there are 350k users at 640x480.... should we design for those too? (that is sarcasm by the way)

 

[aegisdesign]

anyone know what percentage is 1024x786 EDIT its 61% (with 800x600 at just 17%)

interestingly, there are 350k users at 640x480.... should we design for those too? (that is sarcasm by the way)

To some extent, yes. Mobile phone screens are rarely even that big so at least an alternative small screen layout may be useful to some sites.