While the symbols could also have better contrast I was mainly talking about the text on the symbols.
Accessibility options won't affect those icons in the Finder and the contrast concern has nothing to do with visually impaired people – it is problematic for people with good vision too.
It hasn’t been problematic to me. 🤷🏼♂️. And I’m pretty sure there are contrast accessibility settings that absolutely do affect those icons just like everything else on the display.
Maybe so, but the white text with blue background still has higher contrast than in the examples with the icons i posted. And pointing out that Apple could have done a better job in the past doesn't justify doing worse in more or other areas now than before. Two wrongs doesn't make one right.
Only slightly higher on the accessibility standard’s scale, and it still fails it. And the point isn’t that Apple “could have done a better job in the past”, the point is that macOS default settings has never been designed to perfectly meet said Accessibility standards you are citing. Nor are many other platforms…
Yes, especially that grey email text on the grey background. I don't think the white text on the blue background is as bad contrast wise. But again, just because Apple could have done better in the past in no way justifies doing worse in even more areas now.
The problem is, there are many examples of “low contrast” stuff just like the examples you’re using but in older macOS versions as well. So pretending that macOS was always “high contrast” until Tahoe came along just isn’t accurate. That narrative quickly falls apart when held to scrutiny. And as to the “just because they could have done better in the past doesn’t justify them doing worse now” argument, the thing is, people weren’t making such a fuss over many elements of the older designs that were either just as “low contrast” on Figma’s accessibility scale or even worse in several cases. That’s the point. It seems suspect that you had these supposed “low visibility” elements for decades that we didn’t see tons of threads in this forum about, yet the moment Apple introduces something new with about the same number of “low contrast” elements, people suddenly are nitpicking things and pulling out accessibility color standards, and everything.
Take, for example, the symbols that are used on folders in macOS for many years now.
This is actually lower contrast according to Figma’s accessibility scale than the symbols on files in Tahoe. And it’s been used in macOS for about at least a decade, I think even longer. Yet I never saw threads constantly posting screenshots of these folder symbols and trying to make claims that macOS was “low visibility” and that people couldn’t use it… It seems that people are being selective and hyper-analyzing the new version…
Yes, apparently. But maybe the contrast was still better than in the examples from Tahoe I showed?
There is still as span of better or worse even withing that area where contrast is too low for set accessibility standards.
No, I wouldn’t say that just because a UI’s default settings don’t meet that particular accessibility standard that it’s a “bad design”. If we were to try to make that argument, than virtually every major platform for decades have been “bad designs”. It’s far more probable, that the accessibility standard isn’t the only consideration when you’re designing UI, it’s just a thing that can be factored for people with vision issues, but isn’t the only metric of what constitutes a good design or not… Like with the white text on blue background example. This fails the cited accessibility standard and gets a low score, even though this is used with Exit signs along highways that show traveler services. These are signs that also must be read quickly. So clearly it’s visible enough for people to read in fast moving vehicles for the vast majority of people. It’s also used for handicap parking signs. Yet it’s score in the Figma accessibility tool is only slightly higher than the file thumbnails you are talking about… So either Figma’s accessibility tool demonstrates that the file thumbnails are nearly just as visible as Exit traveler services signs and handicap parking signs, or the cited accessibility standard is inaccurate?
Furthermore, there are many examples of UI elements in older versions of macOS that are scored
lower by the accessibility standard than the symbols on files in Tahoe. Like that email in that screenshot is rated lower than the file symbols…
They still shouldn't all look more or less the same? Why not just agree Apple should use darker text on those icons for example? An easy fix in the right direction.
The new app icons don’t look “more or less the same”. They just share a consistent outer shape and size. Just as buttons in toolbars don’t look “more or less the same” because they share the same outer button shape, but use different symbols to represent their functions…. It just makes the App Dock look more balanced and consistent. And I no longer have to take the time to make a squircle app icon for every third-party app that tries to use some weird shape for their icon in order to make things look balanced, because macOS now does that for me automatically.
Some file types don't get thumbnails generated for them in the Finder (such as the one in the example…) because there is no reasonable thumbnail that would match the content of the file. What thumbnail should a DMG file get for example? I think you're moving focus away from the actual problem here.
Most people don’t probably tend to use tons of DMG files… And as I said, the file name, file extension, and category the files are in are the primary way of sorting out file types. It isn’t “moving focus”, to point out the fact that in most scenarios these thumbnails aren’t even visible because most files render preview thumbnails of the file.
The icons are one of the ways of determining what kind of files said files are. Just like Apple has added the functionality to give folders in the Finder different colors (and improvement in Tahoe – look there are those too…) to be able to discern them more easily from the rest.
And the symbols on said folders are given a lower accessibility score by Figma’s tool than the file thumbnails, yet I notice you didn’t mention the custom folder icons are “illegible”… 🧐
Maybe you could look at those two articles – it is clear to me that people or more concerned by Tahoe's visuals than previous macOS version. But you can keep claiming it's just an opinion and that I don't have any scientific evidence to prove it (well, I think I have, but I guess what counts as scientific or not is also an opinion nowadays…).
Apple's macOS Tahoe menu icons break long-standing design rules, creating visual clutter and inconsistency that slows user navigation.
www.technobezz.com
From a design perspective, there's never been an Apple software update cycle as controversial as last year's.
Quick @Kal Madda – tell the article publisher it's just an opinion! 😉
The macOS Tahoe icons are drawing heat.
www.creativebloq.com
Just two random blogs. Just because some bloggers who have motive to sell negativity for clicks claim something doesn’t make it so… 🤷🏼♂️. And no, it is not “scientific” it is opinion…
