macOS Tahoe: A Pattern of Poor Usability and Design Regression

[Kal Madda]

It's all good, I wasn't offended by you or what you said, I'm simply offended by the passage of time haha. (And it was really, really funny honestly; m kid is at that stage where they're expressing opinions this morning and used '...that ugly old fence!')

You're right that the new design is more consistent with the existing UI and general trends. I like the idea of a glass-like UI, and I would love to see MacOS updated with a healthy functional design, but the implementation in MacOS makes it hard to appreciate. Personally, I see the current design asking for more space around elements, which is further frustrated by inconsistent UI behaviour and bugs. It's hard to appreciate the UI as it is when elements shift subtly with each interaction unintentionally (there's a bug about the volume icon in the Beta 3 thread that's been there for a while) or what was glass is now clear or opaque.

I think you're coming at this from a perspective that modern hardware and software are an all-in-one-package (correct me if I'm wrong), which is very different from my expectations of both software and hardware.

If I’m correctly understanding what you’re meaning by an all-in-one-package, than I probably do agree with that perspective. 👍🏻

 

[nebojsak]

Flawed reasoning in computer science. Just because I have more resources doesn't mean I have to waste them. Optimizing and prioritizing efficiency should always be the main focus.

It's not about computer science only. It's about negative space and breathing as well, and those two have to be balanced.

 

[TumbleDryer]

hmmm. how much bigger (for example) does the transmission window need to be? and how many open windows do you look at at the same time?

still think this is a non-issue (but i respect that others see it differently) 🤷

I predominantly have InDesign or Photoshop open taking up most of my primary screen (3440x1400) with double page spread document (or imagery if in Photoshop). Alongside this are 3 levels of tool panels to the right. I leave a gap further to the right side of those panels to quickly access files on the desktop and Finder windows behind as its quicker to save to desktop and drag to the relevant folder than it is to keep messing with gloopy open and save dialogues when dealing with as many files as I do. I work extremely quickly as I work on 40 publications at once, each with between 10 and 15 adverts each - sometimes more - if it's a special edition it's close to 30 adverts. I design and produce everything myself. I deal with every single client regarding their adverts be it ‘change this to a capital T’ or calling them to discuss their requirements in the first instance. For this I have multiple spreadsheets on my second screen alongside email and Messages app for internal communication so I can keep track of all the changes and what stage each individual advert or publication is at. There is a massive amount of data coming at me that I need to organise quickly and efficiently to meet deadlines and get things off to print.

Each advert for example goes through a very specific process to reach fruition. As I work on MANY of these a day not to mention the multitude of page layouts, thousands of words of text (that all needs proofing by me), revisions, emails back and forth, comparing of spreadsheets and artwork revisions there are a lot of processes that get repeated. One single extra click along the way will end up having to be repeated again and again throughout the day. So having an efficient OS that values less clicks per operation is of massive importance. This is what MacOS used to be famous for. Intuitive, efficient and quick and easy to use. Having a UI that takes up more space and requires extra clicks and/or larger windows just to see what used to be visible at a glance before is poor design. As has been pointed out to you im talking about the function, not the style. Unfortunately though it is the style that has caused this lack of function. I think this is where you are confusing things. Im not a fan of the style because it makes the UX less efficient and my work harder just for a silly effect. I’ve offered some solutions that would help retain the style yet make better use of the space. Not that anything would come of it unless Apple decide to take note but I haven't seen anyone else do that.

I posted about the Transmission app as it was a very good example of the above. What used to fit into a specific width now either requires a larger window to be used to see the same amount of data as before or I keep the same width and click twice instead of once like before to access the tools that no longer fit inside the window. If you believe 2 clicks is more efficient than 1 then I don’t know what else to say.

 

[Kal Madda]

I predominantly have InDesign or Photoshop open taking up most of my primary screen (3440x1400) with double page spread document (or imagery if in Photoshop). Alongside this are 3 levels of tool panels to the right. I leave a gap further to the right side of those panels to quickly access files on the desktop and Finder windows behind as its quicker to save to desktop and drag to the relevant folder than it is to keep messing with gloopy open and save dialogues when dealing with as many files as I do. I work extremely quickly as I work on 40 publications at once, each with between 10 and 15 adverts each - sometimes more - if it's a special edition it's close to 30 adverts. I design and produce everything myself. I deal with every single client regarding their adverts be it ‘change this to a capital T’ or calling them to discuss their requirements in the first instance. For this I have multiple spreadsheets on my second screen alongside email and Messages app for internal communication so I can keep track of all the changes and what stage each individual advert or publication is at. There is a massive amount of data coming at me that I need to organise quickly and efficiently to meet deadlines and get things off to print.

Each advert for example goes through a very specific process to reach fruition. As I work on MANY of these a day not to mention the multitude of page layouts, thousands of words of text (that all needs proofing by me), revisions, emails back and forth, comparing of spreadsheets and artwork revisions there are a lot of processes that get repeated. One single extra click along the way will end up having to be repeated again and again throughout the day. So having an efficient OS that values less clicks per operation is of massive importance. This is what MacOS used to be famous for. Intuitive, efficient and quick and easy to use. Having a UI that takes up more space and requires extra clicks and/or larger windows just to see what used to be visible at a glance before is poor design. As has been pointed out to you im talking about the function, not the style. Unfortunately though it is the style that has caused this lack of function. I think this is where you are confusing things. Im not a fan of the style because it makes the UX less efficient and my work harder just for a silly effect. I’ve offered some solutions that would help retain the style yet make better use of the space. Not that anything would come of it unless Apple decide to take note but I haven't seen anyone else do that.

I posted about the Transmission app as it was a very good example of the above. What used to fit into a specific width now either requires a larger window to be used to see the same amount of data as before or I keep the same width and click twice instead of once like before to access the tools that no longer fit inside the window. If you believe 2 clicks is more efficient than 1 then I don’t know what else to say.

There are scaling options… 🤷🏼‍♂️. And that third party developer chose to hide away those extra options, nobody forced them to… 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

[Sniper08]

If I’m correctly understanding what you’re meaning by an all-in-one-package, than I probably do agree with that perspective. 👍🏻

Awesome! Let me tell you why your perspective is objectively wrong...just kidding 😅.

I understand that perspective, and it's one I held for a long time in my early days with MacOS once I got an iPod Touch. The stainless steel skeumorphic elements fit in with the actual product, which was cool and novel at the time. In that case it was a specific OS for a specific device with limited functionality and power.

My perspective comes from the Beige PC tower days. The PC hardware's appearance never mattered, but the software was the focus in terms of stability, appearance, and so on. Matching the hardware was not a goal. I recall using and watching software get more and more complex and build upon a stable base (e.g. Photoshop) until the 2010s where it became more about SAAS subscriptions than discrete editions.

So to sum it up; I don't have the same expectations of hardware and software matching each other. I expect software to build upon itself (both in terms of features and core competencies) which is probably why we disagree on the appropriateness of the LG on MacOS at the moment.

 

[amancalledsun]

This is actually not true… From a technical optimization/efficiency perspective, a command line uses less resources than a GUI. Ripping away the GUI in favor of command line should be the best option for “optimizing and prioritizing efficiency”, so should Apple do that? So no, optimizing and prioritizing efficiency should not always be the main focus.

The main focus should be features and design that appeal to users and makes their computer experience better. In other words the user should be the main focus. And I am going to hazard to say that the new design there appeals more to modern users than the old design… 🤷🏼‍♂️

I think part of the problem here is that you’re looking at changes made to appeal more to modern users as a “waste” of resources. Making things more pleasant of an experience is not a “waste”… 🙂👍🏻

What is a "modern user"? Someone who thinks touchscreen-centric design also belongs in an interface navigated by a precise mouse and keyboard? You keep referencing this mythical user group but provide no specifics. And the main focus, as you try to re-frame above, applies to some users, but not all, and perhaps not even a majority. The fact remains that many design changes that went into Tahoe DON'T make the experience better for many if not all users. What you subjectively think about the appeal of the new design is irrelevant.

 

[Kal Madda]

What is a "modern user"? Someone who thinks touchscreen-centric design also belongs in an interface navigated by a precise mouse and keyboard? You keep referencing this mythical user group but provide no specifics. And the main focus, as you try to re-frame above, applies to some users, but not all, and perhaps not even a majority. The fact remains that many design changes that went into Tahoe DON'T make the experience better for many if not all users. What you subjectively think about the appeal of the new design is irrelevant.

Modern user, as in, the people who are picking up the platform and using it today… Mostly younger, probably around 30 and below…

And that isn’t a “fact”, that’s your opinion. I’m pretty sure most users probably like the changes in Tahoe… There’s not really any evidence otherwise…

And many of the things you would call “touchscreen-centric design” just make sense… Sidebar structure in System Settings makes sense for cursors, most other system Mac apps use sidebar structure… Rounded window corners look nicer and more modern. Circular buttons still work perfectly fine with a cursor… The design works great with trackpad input… 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

[Minghold]

Modern user, as in, the people who are picking up the platform and using it today… Mostly younger, probably around 30 and below…

I.e., the set of people who keep getting scammed on FB Marketplace buying stolen and inevitably bricked ipads and iPhones because they don't have two nickels to rub together in the first place. These persons (often ESLs who can't type, thus their desire for touchscreens) are not even in Apple's market demographic, save at the lowest level (the education tablet market, which is much more about data-harvesting and tadpole-tracking than long-term customer recruitment).

 

[Apple Knowledge Navigator]

c'mon now. transmission is up-to-date here, and my window looks exactly the same as it has for a long time.

I’ve updated my Transmission; it is indeed now a different window design.

 

[svenmany]

I am a professional freelance graphic designer. I don’t do web design, but am familiar with it, and have dabbled some with html. I design static works like brochures, posters, etc. And I have a friend who is a web developer, he doesn’t have any issue with the rounded window corners either… 🤷🏼‍♂️

Thanks for that information. I see that you have no experience in software development, especially web application development. HTML is not related to the layout issues you offered an opinion on. CSS would be the relevant technology.

It is helpful to know what level of experience formed your intuition and motivated you to disagree with another post. When you posted

I don’t know that that is going to make much difference for most web development… 🤷🏼‍♂️.

You were responding to my post. It's only fair that I share my experience. Unlike yours, my experience level is not zero.

I have been a professional, full-time, software developer for 35 years. I am not a freelancer and have had no breaks in my employment. The first 5 was working with mainframe applications. The next 10 was spent on desktop applications. The final 20 was dedicated to web applications. At all times, I've been what's known as s full-stack developer, responsible for back-end and front-end architecture and development. I am actively working on two applications. I am the sole architect, developer, tester, bug fixer, and enhancer for them. They have both been in production for years and have approximately 300 users.

Of the last 4 applications I delivered, 3 would have been impacted by the exaggerated roundness of Safari's corners. Luckily, only one of those had to support public consumption. The others were enterprise applications where users would not likely be using Safari or smaller devices. When I develop for multiple platforms/browsers, I leave many browsers open at the same time; every layout change causes all browsers to refresh (I have heavy Angular experience in this regard, a bit of React). Subtle layout differences and incompatibilities are easily noticed. Extreme corner differences would require compromise if the page design extends to the corners. Or, specifal efforts would have to be made to detect the difference and cater for it. I've done plenty of both - compromise and geometry detection. To date, for corner radius differences between different platforms, I've settled on compromise. If I had to support the new Apple radius, I might have to wade in and get it right.

You also said that you were a freelance graphic artist. That information helps me understand where you're coming from. You probably focus on aesthetics. But you have no experience in user interface issues and how nice looking things impact a variety of users.

Through my decades of software development I've interacted with users, getting positive and negative feedback. I've discussed interface design with many other developers and read papers on the topic. I've attended some software conferences and many software developer gatherings. I've learned that my tastes don't always coincide with good design. I've had an entire month of my work discarded in an attempt to deliver a UI to present complex data relationships; The users just didn't like it even though I did. A good design is one that works for all the users, not just something I like. We learn the most through failure.

I've witnessed and been part of poor design choices made due to lack of experience. The whole development team was guilty, but we were young and this was at the end of the 90's. All the developers worked on large, high-resolution monitors. We produced absolutely beautiful stuff. Then I visited the users and saw them all working on small 1024x768 monitors. They had to constantly scroll to use the app. They couldn't easily read what was on the screen, with the older users being most impacted. Surprisingly, the users had never complained to us. Most people just put up with inferior stuff. One on one, they did politely ask for changes - "I can't read this part of the screen easily. Can you make it a bigger?" I was mortified. This was a life-changing lesson. The arrogance of youth never ceases to amaze.

The analogy of this example in Tahoe is pretty obvious. I'm in a unique position in that I've experienced Tahoe with good and bad eyes. I had three eye surgeries at the end of the year. The final being a vitrectomy on one of my eyes. Once everything had settled and new prescription glasses put in place, I'm seeing like a kid again. With visual challenges (not just focusing issues), even non-translucency changes in Tahoe were problematic. But with my new eyes it's pretty. Experiencing weakness is also a great learning opportunity.

When we are discussing some of the good and bad of Tahoe, I sometimes notice that the criticisms and counterpoint responses are discussing different things. In such cases, the criticism would be discussing a design mistake that, on net, challenges uses as a group. That can only be known from experience or training. Then the response which tries to counter that talks about the responder's personal preference. A slight variant of that which I've seen in your responses is to assert a design choice "reduces to user preference". Unfortunately, that derails an important subtopic of discussion by talking about a completely different topic. Even knowing that this is a different topic requires experience.

There is no correlation between the poster's experience level on a topic and how many posts they make. It's good that you've provided your own experience in these matters. Knowing that you offer strong opinions in areas where you have no experience puts things in perspective.

 

[Kal Madda]

Thanks for that information. I see that you have no experience in software development, especially web application development. HTML is not related to the layout issues you offered an opinion on. CSS would be the relevant technology.

That is not true, I have experience with some web development, I just don’t do it professionally… Furthermore, I am also familiar with CSS, which is usually taught alongside HTML… 🙄🤦🏼‍♂️

It is helpful to know what level of experience formed your intuition and motivated you to disagree with another post. When you posted

I also have friends who are professional web developers, and they agree with me… But let’s not engage in logical fallacies with faulty appeals to authority…

You were responding to my post. It's only fair that I share my experience. Unlike yours, my experience level is not zero.

I have been a professional, full-time, software developer for 35 years. I am not a freelancer and have had no breaks in my employment. The first 5 was working with mainframe applications. The next 10 was spent on desktop applications. The final 20 was dedicated to web applications. At all times, I've been what's known as s full-stack developer, responsible for back-end and front-end architecture and development. I am actively working on two applications. I am the sole architect, developer, tester, bug fixer, and enhancer for them. They have both been in production for years and have approximately 300 users.

Of the last 4 applications I delivered, 3 would have been impacted by the exaggerated roundness of Safari's corners. Luckily, only one of those had to support public consumption. The others were enterprise applications where users would not likely be using Safari or smaller devices. When I develop for multiple platforms/browsers, I leave many browsers open at the same time; every layout change causes all browsers to refresh (I have heavy Angular experience in this regard, a bit of React). Subtle layout differences and incompatibilities are easily noticed. Extreme corner differences would require compromise if the page design extends to the corners. Or, specifal efforts would have to be made to detect the difference and cater for it. I've done plenty of both - compromise and geometry detection. To date, for corner radius differences between different platforms, I've settled on compromise. If I had to support the new Apple radius, I might have to wade in and get it right.

Faulty appeal to authority. I know enough about web page formatting that a difference in corner radius doesn’t magically render the web page “unusable”… 🤦🏼‍♂️🙄. Unless you’re sticking tiny buttons at the very corners, which is bad practice anyways…

You also said that you were a freelance graphic artist. That information helps me understand where you're coming from. You probably focus on aesthetics. But you have no experience in user interface issues and how nice looking things impact a variety of users.

Through my decades of software development I've interacted with users, getting positive and negative feedback. I've discussed interface design with many other developers and read papers on the topic. I've attended some software conferences and many software developer gatherings. I've learned that my tastes don't always coincide with good design. I've had an entire month of my work discarded in an attempt to deliver a UI to present complex data relationships; The users just didn't like it even though I did. A good design is one that works for all the users, not just something I like. We learn the most through failure.

I've witnessed and been part of poor design choices made due to lack of experience. The whole development team was guilty, but we were young and this was at the end of the 90's. All the developers worked on large, high-resolution monitors. We produced absolutely beautiful stuff. Then I visited the users and saw them all working on small 1024x768 monitors. They had to constantly scroll to use the app. They couldn't easily read what was on the screen, with the older users being most impacted. Surprisingly, the users had never complained to us. Most people just put up with inferior stuff. One on one, they did politely ask for changes - "I can't read this part of the screen easily. Can you make it a bigger?" I was mortified. This was a life-changing lesson. The arrogance of youth never ceases to amaze.

The analogy of this example in Tahoe is pretty obvious. I'm in a unique position in that I've experienced Tahoe with good and bad eyes. I had three eye surgeries at the end of the year. The final being a vitrectomy on one of my eyes. Once everything had settled and new prescription glasses put in place, I'm seeing like a kid again. With visual challenges (not just focusing issues), even non-translucency changes in Tahoe were problematic. But with my new eyes it's pretty. Experiencing weakness is also a great learning opportunity.

More faulty appeals to authority… Again, I have web development friends who agree with me as well… And there are accessibility settings for a reason… 🤷🏼‍♂️. You can’t accommodate for everyone. As I have previously mentioned, I wear prescription lenses, and can see Tahoe just as clearly as Sequoia without them…

When we are discussing some of the good and bad of Tahoe, I sometimes notice that the criticisms and counterpoint responses are discussing different things. In such cases, the criticism would be discussing a design mistake that, on net, challenges uses as a group. That can only be known from experience or training. Then the response which tries to counter that talks about the responder's personal preference. A slight variant of that which I've seen in your responses is to assert a design choice "reduces to user preference". Unfortunately, that derails an important subtopic of discussion by talking about a completely different topic. Even knowing that this is a different topic requires experience.

It does largely boil down to personal preference. I know that from my experience in design… Sure, there are some general design standards/guidelines for good layout and design. But nothing Apple’s done with Tahoe goes against those. And they’re general guidelines, not tablets of stone from Mt. Sinai. They can be changed with time and changes in preference and understanding. Things like button material are mostly preference based decisions…

There is no correlation between the poster's experience level on a topic and how many posts they make. It's good that you've provided your own experience in these matters. Knowing that you offer strong opinions in areas where you have no experience puts things in perspective.

I do have experience in this area, I just am not a “professional web developer”… 🙄🤦🏼‍♂️. That is not the same as not having experience…

This whole post is nothing but “I’m an “expert” so I am right”, even though other experts disagree with you, which is a logical fallacy, and a bad argument…

 

[Kal Madda]

This is a web app with quite a complex UI. It’s called Photopea, and is essentially a full Photoshop alternative. Rounded corners don’t impact its functionality… The windowing button covers some stuff, but that’s easily fixed by full-screening the web app, which is what I would usually do anyways. I just made it a smaller window to show the rounded corners in the screenshot on my iPad. I have yet to see a web app that places teeny tiny buttons in the very corners. Because that isn’t standard practice… Furthermore, displays and windows with rounded corners have been a thing for many years now…

Edit:
Since another commenter complained about my use of an iPad screenshot to demonstrate a complex web app working fine with rounded corners, I also have included a screenshot of the same web app on my Mac running macOS 26 Tahoe. And it makes my case even better. Because on the Mac, the web app is completely functional. The rounded corners don’t interfere at all with the web app, and it’s a complex web app… Rounded corners don’t interfere with the functionality of the web app on either platform…

 

[TumbleDryer]

This is a web app with quite a complex UI. It’s called Photopea, and is essentially a full Photoshop alternative. Rounded corners don’t impact its functionality… The windowing button covers some stuff, but that’s easily fixed by full-screening the web app, which is what I would usually do anyways. I just made it a smaller window to show the rounded corners in the screenshot on my iPad. I have yet to see a web app that places teeny tiny buttons in the very corners. Because that isn’t standard practice… Furthermore, displays and windows with rounded corners have been a thing for many years now…

Now add LiquidGlass to it and what happens? The 'file' menu item will overflow the left edge of the window so you'd have to fix that, and that's just the first thing I noticed right away. How do you fix it? Add padding to the left which means less space for the rest of the menubar. It's not hard to comprehend but anyhoo... in other news my parents new iPad came today, they like the LiquidGlass look but hate how it works. Who knew? 🤣 Its really nice bit of hardware though, shame they've wrapped it in a £10 case. 🙄

 

[Kal Madda]

Now add LiquidGlass to it and what happens? The 'file' menu item will overflow the left edge of the window so you'd have to fix that, and that's just the first thing I noticed right away. How do you fix it? Add padding to the left which means less space for the rest of the menubar. It's not hard to comprehend but anyhoo... in other news my parents new iPad came today, they like the LiquidGlass look but hate how it works. Who knew? 🤣 It’s really nice bit of hardware though, shame they've wrapped it in a £10 case. 🙄

Liquid Glass isn’t automatically applied to web apps… Web apps can do basically whatever they want design wise. Whether they should is another question, but Apple isn’t forcing Liquid Glass into web apps. That screenshot is a web app running on iPadOS 26 with Liquid Glass… So the rounded corners don’t impact the web apps functionality, nor does Liquid Glass… 🤷🏼‍♂️

If it were a native app, the “file” menu would be in the Menu Bar… So it wouldn’t “overflow” anything… 🤷🏼‍♂️

Even assuming your premise, if it did, you could easily shift it over a bit and add padding as you said. There’s clearly plenty of empty space up there, so it doesn’t need more space for the menu strip, it already has a ton of empty unused space…

 

[TumbleDryer]

Liquid Glass isn’t automatically applied to web apps… Web apps can do basically whatever they want design wise. Whether they should is another question, but Apple isn’t forcing Liquid Glass into web apps. That screenshot is a web app running on iPadOS 26 with Liquid Glass… So the rounded corners don’t impact the web apps functionality, nor does Liquid Glass… 🤷🏼‍♂️

If it were a native app, the “file” menu would be in the Menu Bar… So it wouldn’t “overflow” anything… 🤷🏼‍♂️

Even assuming your premise, if it did, you could easily shift it over a bit and add padding as you said. There’s clearly plenty of empty space up there, so it doesn’t need more space for the menu strip, it already has a ton of empty unused space…

Its fine. You don't understand, no worries. All good. 👍

 

[Kal Madda]

Its fine. You don't understand, no worries. All good. 👍

I do understand, you’re just trying to make an issue out of a non-issue. All good. 👍🏻

 

[01cowherd]

I just made it a smaller window to show the rounded corners in the screenshot on my iPad

Let’s not use iPad screenshots in the macOS Tahoe thread. That screenshot belongs in the iPadOS 26 is a mess thread with the horrible traffic light button placement.

 

[Kal Madda]

Let’s not use iPad screenshots in the macOS Tahoe thread. That screenshot belongs in the iPadOS 26 is a mess thread with the horrible traffic light button placement.

The topic was the window corner rounding. It’s the same on both. I had my iPad handy. It’s perfectly applicable in relation to the corner rounding.

And no, I don’t have any issue with it, and it doesn’t belong in any such thread…

 

[CrabQueenInc]

Let’s not use iPad screenshots in the macOS Tahoe thread. That screenshot belongs in the iPadOS 26 is a mess thread with the horrible traffic light button placement.

An easy solution to the traffic light problem, in any case, would be a proper title bar.

 

[Kal Madda]

An easy solution to the traffic light problem, in any case, would be a proper title bar.

Yeah, or, as I also mentioned, full-screening it. 🤷🏼‍♂️. I think you can choose to have a toolbar at the top of web apps in iPadOS 26 if I recall, I’d have to look again. But as I said, it isn’t a problem for me. And isn’t an issue on any other web app I use either. 🤷🏼‍♂

But that’s an iPadOS thing anyways. I used the iPad screenshot in relation to corner rounding, since it is the same as in Tahoe.

 

[Kal Madda]

But it also does make you wonder. The iPad has used rounded display corners for many years now, and rounded window corners for many years as well. If you’re a web developer, would you really not expect anyone to ever look at your page on a display with rounded corners? Or in a window with rounded corners? Are you really going to only optimize your website/web app for only desktops? I think not… So pretending this is somehow a “new issue” for web developers created by Tahoe is disingenuous in the first place. Beyond the fact that the vast majority of websites and web apps aren’t placing teeny tiny little buttons at the very tippy corners of the window or display… As that wouldn’t really make any sense…

 

[CrabQueenInc]

Yeah, or, as I also mentioned, full-screening it. 🤷🏼‍♂️. I think you can choose to have a toolbar at the top of web apps in iPadOS 26 if I recall, I’d have to look again. But as I said, it isn’t a problem for me. And isn’t an issue on any other web app I use either. 🤷🏼‍♂

But that’s an iPadOS thing anyways. I used the iPad screenshot in relation to corner rounding, since it is the same as in Tahoe.

Apple could add a title bar to macOS windows again and to iPad OS windows thus allowing the full title of the document or application to be clearly visible, space for the traffic light buttons, all while providing a clear area to click/tap and drag—for those of us who don't use applications in fullscreen mode.

 

[Kal Madda]

Apple could add a title bar to macOS windows again and to iPad OS windows thus allowing the full title of the document or application to be clearly visible, space for the traffic light buttons, all while providing a clear area to click/tap and drag—for those of us who don't use applications in fullscreen mode.

Ok, personally I don’t really see any need for that, but they could add it as a setting or something. 🤷🏼‍♂️. Personally, I prefer not having so much space wasted by an unnecessary title bar. But that’s my preference. 👍🏻

And there are many apps I don’t use in fullscreen mode, and clicking at the top edge allows you to drag and reposition the windows. 🤷🏼‍♂️

 

[CrabQueenInc]

But it also does make you wonder. The iPad has used rounded display corners for many years now, and rounded window corners for many years as well. If you’re a web developer, would you really not expect anyone to ever look at your page on a display with rounded corners? Or in a window with rounded corners? Are you really going to only optimize your website/web app for only desktops? I think not… So pretending this is somehow a “new issue” for web developers created by Tahoe is disingenuous in the first place. Beyond the fact that the vast majority of websites and web apps aren’t placing teeny tiny little buttons at the very tippy corners of the window or display… As that wouldn’t really make any sense…

The line of thinking that is counter to this reasoning is that there are hundreds of millions of devices that do not have rounded corners. Apple's own Studio Displays don't have large rounded corners, while the bottom corners on MacBook are not rounded. Even where the top corners are rounded on MacBooks, the actual usable area falls below the menu bar and is thus square, unless the application is being run in fullscreen mode.

 

[CrabQueenInc]

Ok, personally I don’t really see any need for that, but they could add it as a setting or something. 🤷🏼‍♂️. Personally, I prefer not having so much space wasted by an unnecessary title bar. But that’s my preference. 👍🏻

That seems to be the crux of the discussion: titles, window controls and application controls all mashed into one bar versus separated elements or elements that do not overlap. Others have opined that Tahoe has unnecessary padding that wastes space without providing any meaningful delineation of UI elements, and I concur with those opinions, particularly when Apple elegantly solved these issues decades prior.