Say what you like, the HIG are still relevant

I generally tend to distance myself from debatable issues, but I couldn’t bear to see the Apple Human Interface Guidelines take such a battering. The phrase “HIG is dead” must have been repeated at least a few dozen times in various places.

I’m sorry, but the HIG aren’t dead (Note the plural, please. It’s ‘Guidelines’). Quite the contrary; guidelines are needed now more than ever if the Macintosh is to remain the great example of usability it was.

I’ll say it again:

Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines are not dead.

We’ve seen a large number of bloggers pointing out (or linking to) facts about consistency and usability, giving examples of Disco and GarageBand and iTunes and Safari… and most of them are absolutely correct in saying that the levels of consistency are currently in a state of steady decline. The inconsistency is present not only in Apple’s applications, but also in a lot of third party software¹.

Whenever a topic such as this is discussed, there are always people that get… different… ideas. What I want to make clear, is that although Part III of the HIG is possibly outdated or redundant², it certainly does not disqualify the rest of it from being a valid and useful resource.

Let me ask you this: Have you even read the HIG?

If you answered no and are a developer, believe you me when I say you’re missing out. It’s no longer enough to follow the crowd. Disco is cool (or hot considering it burns) but if every app in the galaxy starts using the same interface, it would be a real disaster. Same goes for GarageBand and iClip and almost every heavily UI-dependent application. It may work for the purposes of the individual application, but to standardize it would be ludicrous.

So what’s the problem?

Why the sudden revolt? Why are we badgering Apple to update the HIG, and why are people setting up their own version or additions to it?

The fuss, I believe, was really started when Apple started to introduce the HUD windows.

What!? What makes you guys so special that you can have semi-transparent black windows with white text and custom pictury-looking controls? How come we can’t use these new-fangled window things? I want one!!

I admit, I’d like HUD controls from Apple as much as the next person, but where does the HIG come into this? I’ll tell you where.

It’s outdated

I mean, really, who wants to use Aqua now-days, right? Which Apple apps use Aqua? System Preferences? TextEdit? Dictionary? Forget it. My app has to be cooler than that. All the cool kids are writing their own schemes and themes, so why can’t I?

Yeah, right. If you didn’t notice, the above statement is not only paradoxical and hypcritical, it’s probably what most of us are thinking. In writing our own windows and buttons and scrollbars, we’re going against the very thing we were crying out for from Apple: consistency.

Who needs consistency?

We’re not making custard, are we, so why should we bother about consistency? (Excuse the bad joke)

I wont extoll the benefits of a consistent UI for an OS, as I’m sure you’re already aware of it’s importance. But with consistency lost somewhere in the woods these days, it can be easy for a developer to think that they need to provide eye candy and unique-ness for their product to sell. And maybe they’re right. But I’m sure many will agree (especially the ones who have written some of these custom UI’s) that if there’s no need to spend hours writing the front-end, why bother? For applications like Disco, it’s a selling-point, so it’s understandable, but why in the world would you spend days writing a completely custom interface when you’ve already got Apple’s classes for you to use? Unified seems to be the craze these days, and that doesn’t require a single line of code. Think about it.

Obviously there will be instances when you need to write your own custom UI, and it’s perfectly ok. But it’s up to you to make sure that it’s complementary to the existing standard UI and wont look like an alien spaceship next to TextEdit. I’m not saying “don’t do it”. There are a lot of applications that rely on or use custom front-ends effectively. Voice Candy, ImageWell, QuickScale, Cha-Ching… they all have minor differences but thankfully enough Mac developers are smart people and the differences have been kept to a minimum where they would be harsh or contrasting, such as the background color of the window.

“But Apple don’t …”

Are the HIG neglected by Apple themselves? If Apple are pushing for custom controls at every opportunity and giving their each of their applications unique appearances, why should the developer community have to conform to the Aqua interfaces? Two words: you don’t.

Have Apple ever dictated what you can or cannot do? All the HIG does is stipulate a few key concepts that are vital to providing a “consistent visual and behavioral experience”. Aqua or not, that’s important.

The HIG introduction states the obvious:

Users will learn your application faster if the interface looks and behaves like applications they’re already familiar with.
Users can accomplish their tasks quickly, because well-designed applications don’t get in the user’s way.
Users with special needs will find your product more accessible.
Your application will be easier to localize, because Apple has worked through many localization issues in the Aqua design process.

The implementation of Apple’s human interface principles make the Macintosh what it is: intuitive, friendly, elegant, and powerful.

So they’re not dead

The Apple HIG are not dead³. The majority of the HIG remains applicable to the development environment, worthy of at least a quick glance.⁴

Some of the portions have been correctly⁵ labelled as neglected, and so we wait in the hope of the HIG 2.0 (or the HIG 2.0 Beta, if the Apple team are feeling particularly Web 2.0). That, and ~~Leopard~~ the iPhone. The joys of being an Apple fanboy!

Possibly as a result of Apple’s experiments in UI. Or possibly not. ↩
Though in my view it isn’t. Developers are free to play with interface just as Apple has done if it suits the application. Delicious Library, Disco and even GarageBand wouldn’t be the same without their non-standard UI, but for an application like NetNewsWire or TextEdit to ditch Aqua would most likely be utterly lurid. ↩
It’s impossible to kill something that’s not alive anyway. Didn’t you study biology? ↩
Although most of it is really common sense, it probably wont do any harm to glance through it. ↩
That’s debatable too, but I don’t want to stir up too much controversy. ↩