Tim Morgan has similar thoughts to me about the Mac App Store, adding that the back/forward buttons don’t stand out (unlike in Safari), meaning many users will consider them greyed out, and the login sheet has irksome wording and poorly considered design elements:

Firstly, “Billing Info” is a noun and button names should generally be verbs or verbal phrases. (What am I doing with my billing info when I click this?) Worse in my mind, however, is the “Forgot?” hyperlink. I’ve been seeing hyperlinks (or faux-hyperlinks) pop up in applications here and there and I’ve never been a huge fan of it in desktop applications. Much like on the Web, these hyperlinks come in different colors, sizes, and styles; here in the App Store it’s just blue text (not even underlined!) that could easily be mistaken for a plain static text element (especially by the colorblind).

Morgan also dismantles the new Twitter 2.0 app’s UI, exploring its many odd decisions and trying to decide if it’s good that devs are experimenting or whether they should conform to standards. John Gruber also offers an excellent take.

So the Mac App Store just showed up as part of Mac OS X 10.6.6 (check Software Update if you don’t already have it installed). As expected, it pretty much confirms my thoughts that someone decided to shoot most of Apple’s designers some time around when brushed metal appeared, along with giving everyone at Cupertino a taste-ectomy. The app UI is just hideous, kicking conventions in the bollocks, laughing in the face of clarity, and mercilessly setting fire to UX and pushing it off a cliff.

Here’s what it looks like (with an front-page app slot shown at full size):

There are two major problems with the Mac App Store as it stands:

The toolbar. The Mac App Store lacks a standard toolbar for dragging the window about. Instead, it shoves the window controls, navigation and search field into a non-standard chunky toolbar. This is bad on several levels:

• There’s no standard ‘blank’ drag strip, enabling you to drag the window about. Instead, you must aim for and click specific blank areas between the various navigation items. This reduces usability and also obliterates accessibility for users who have less dexterity.
• The window controls are positioned in a different place to usual. This screws up muscle memory for Mac users used to ‘snapping’ to specific points to interact with controls. (Consistency is a cornerstone of good application design. It enables users to intuitively know how to interact with things. Apple is one of the worst offenders for breaching Mac OS X interface guidelines, despite chiding third-party developers for doing so).
• The window controls and primary back/forward navigation buttons are close together in terms of horizontal spacing, which may lead to accidental window zooming when attempting to navigate ‘back’. (Compare this to Safari, where the navigation controls are at the far left of the window.)

Still, Adobe might be happy, since Apple’s effectively validated the dire ‘Application Frame’ in the Creative Suite applications by doing the same thing itself (i.e. icons in the toolbar).

Clarity. I zoomed the Angry Birds box for a reason. Look at the price tag. It’s pretty indistinct and not easy to read. When slightly darker on a mouseover… well, it’s still pretty indistinct and not easy to read. Perhaps this is intentional, with Apple trying similar mind games to those used on restaurant menus. To me, it just looks like poor design. Someone liked the shade of grey and small text and went with it, rather than thinking if it offered enough contrast and clarity (a problem relatively common throughout the application). It reminds me of an era of web design, where designers became infatuated with small grey text on slightly darker grey backgrounds. And like many web pages of old, you of course cannot zoom the text in the Mac App Store.

I should point out that in terms of general use, the Mac App Store is fine. Applications download and install with a single click, and the process seems flawless. The clarity issue also improves somewhat on individual application pages (although the layout here is, to be kind, a total mess, like someone’s just slapped a wireframe together and a lazy boss has gone “yeah, whatever”). Furthermore, Apple’s also done some extremely aggressive pricing on its own products, which is great to see and should encourage more people to buy rather than copy software.

However, Apple used to stand for more than ‘good enough’ when it came to design in computing. While this is something that certainly still exists in Apple’s perfectionist approach to hardware design, something’s gone very wrong with its software interface design. Apple is fast becoming one of the worst developers in this area on its own platform.

Android fans keep arguing that seven inches is all you need, and Apple’s ten-inch iPad is overkill, ignoring the very obvious fact that Apple must have created hundreds of prototypes before deciding on the iPad’s form factor. (Clearly, the fact even Google admits Android’s not suited for ten-inch screens is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.)

Gizmodo just reviewed the Samsung Galaxy Tab. Aside from the box-quote strap—“A Pocketable Train Wreck”—Matt Buchanan nails what the problems are with all these seven-inch iPad wannabes:

If you take iPhone apps and simply scale them up for the iPad, most of them don’t feel right. If you take Android apps and scale them up for the Tab, the majority of them—Twitter, Facebook, Angry Birds—work perfectly. That’s because the Galaxy Tab is small enough that apps simply blown up a little bit still fundamentally work. Which means, conversely, that there’s almost no added benefit to using the Tab over a phone.

And while the iPad’s keyboard—especially in landscape—enables seasoned users to type at speed, things change dramatically as you move from a 4:3 ten-inch display to a widescreen seven-inch display:

In portrait, it’s like tapping on a massive, nerdy phone. In landscape, it’s just dumb. You still have to thumb type, only you’re stretching out further, and text entry swallows up the entire screen. […] In other words, you get the worst of a phone’s input problems—amplified.

Along with calling some of the default apps “Chinatown knockoffs of Cupertino software”, Buchanan suggests the Tab is:

[…] like a compromise’s evil twin, merging the worst of a tablet and the worst of a phone. It has all of the input problems of a tablet, with almost none of the consumption benefits.

On first seeing the slew of seven-inch tablets, I wondered if this would be the case, and, unsurprisingly, it is. Sadly for the hardware guys, this isn’t easily fixable either—most of the issues are simply down to the form factor being wrong for most use-scenarios and input types.

Here’s hoping someone sees the light and starts challenging Apple next year with a full-size tablet, because only that will drive Apple to improving the iPad with any urgency.

TechRadar’s James Rivington on the Galaxy Tab. Some choice cuts:

Is it a phone? No – it makes phone calls, sure, but it’s too big to use as a primary mobile phone.

Is it a tablet? Again, no we don’t think it is one. It’s too small and fiddly and lacking in optimisations. Tablets need to distinguish themselves from smartphones by being bigger, better, more powerful, feature rich and interesting.

The pricing is all wrong, too. Clearly, Samsung needs to avoid undercutting the prices of its own Android smartphones like the Galaxy S. But in doing so, it’s made the Galaxy Tab £100 more expensive than the cheapest iPad – a class-leading product.

The camera, too, is fairly poor. Again, it’s nice to have this feature, but remember this is a £530 gadget. It’s expensive, and so you expect all the features to be top-notch… But they’re not.

It had the potential to deliver a serious blow to Apple’s iPad sales. But in truth, the Galaxy Tab is no match for the iPad. It’s nowhere near as smooth, it’s not as polished and remarkably, it’s not even a match when it comes to value for money.

Other 7″ Android tablets all seem to have similar problems. Personally, I’m very much hoping to see a 10″ Android, webOS or Windows Phone 7 tablet in 2011. I love the iPad, but Apple needs some serious competition to drive it on. It has this in the smartphone space, but right now the iPad remains so far ahead in its field that it’s starting to get a bit depressing.

A regular criticism of Apple is that the company tends to push aesthetics over functionality. I’ve never entirely agreed with this thinking, believing that—for the most part—Apple advocates usability over everything else, and aesthetics form a major part of how usable something is.

However, two recent reports of upcoming Apple products concern me, since it seems Apple is in some cases sacrificing usability for platform consistency.

The first case is in the iPad, where Steve Jobs has reportedly confirmed via email (9To5Mac) that the iPad screen-rotation lock will become a mute button as of iOS 4.2. This matches the functionality on the iPhone and iPod touch, which is presumably why Apple has made the change. However, it doesn’t seem to take into account how people use the various devices; a rotation lock is far more important on the iPad, since the accelerometer is so sensitive. The iPad is also less likely to be used in scenarios where a mute button will be required, unlike the iPhone and iPod touch.

What grates for me in this scenario is that when asked “Are you planning to make that a changeable option?”, Jobs responded “Nope”. In other words, Apple is changing the functionality of a major hardware component of its device, without providing users with a means to revert, despite the button’s functionality being controlled by software. That there won’t be an option buried in the Settings app suggests Apple cares more for platform consistency than anything else. (Note: I’m aware iOS 4.1+ provides a software-based orientation lock by swiping the apps tray, but this is sub-optimal. Not only is this control awkward to access—and will be more so on the larger iPad—but many users won’t even know it exists.)

MacRumors today reports on some equally concerning aspects of Lion (the next version of Mac OS X). According to a reader, the scrollbars are as per iOS (appearing only when needed and fading when they aren’t). This is idiotic from a user-experience standpoint. One of the biggest issues with iOS is that while it’s mostly intuitive, there’s a lot of ‘mystery meat’ navigation. Users have to ‘discover’ things far too often, since navigation and UI components are regularly hidden. Visible scrollbars provide an indication of a document’s size and your location within it; only showing scrollbars temporarily does not enhance usability—it degrades it; it’s also alien to a desktop operating system.

Both these things point to Apple wanting to merge concepts in iOS and Mac OS X at all costs. Some cross-pollination is undoubtedly a good idea—Mac OS X having system-wise auto-save/app-resumption will be a major productivity boost if implemented properly; but Apple must also remember that what works on one system won’t necessarily work on the other—and it should also realise that some things really don’t work from a usability standpoint on iOS as it is, and so welding such concepts to Mac OS X isn’t a great idea.