There’s been a lot discussion recently about the state of Mac apps, particularly on what the future holds with Marzipan bringing iOS apps (and their design language) to macOS.

Naturally, many Mac enthusiasts have been concerned about how Marzipan could corrupt the look and feel of macOS—look no further than Mojave’s additions of Home, Stocks, Voice Memos and News last year for noisy complaints.

These apps are early demonstrations of what will be possible from WWDC this year and most notably, Steve Troughton-Smith has been reassuring users of the positive aspects of such a transition, both with his tool Marzipanify and recent videos on Twitter, showing the last major transition from classic Mac OS to Mac OS X. People should calm down—we’ve been through this before and some degree of inconsistency has always been present in macOS. (Just look at the three different ways that I had to write the name of the operating system in this paragraph… Apple has changed its mind over time too.)

With Apple set to make a massive cross-platform effort, the company and its third-party developers can only work to improve the experience in the system.

A great example of the current inconsistency in macOS is the variety of ‘About’ boxes in default and third-party apps. Sometimes this variation can be frustrating; other times it can add personality. Let’s look at a few examples.

The default ‘About’ box generally looks something like Safari’s below.

Top-quality macOS citizens, such as Pixelmator Pro and Ulysses for Mac follow Safari’s simple, default design.

Of course, iTunes does its own thing.

Slack, as a somewhat controversial Electron app, still manages to keep consistent with this design, however it does not honour the activation of dark mode in Mojave.

Reeder 4 for Mac, whilst an entirely new app that respects Mac conventions like keyboard shortcuts, has its own ‘About’ box design which is completely inconsistent with other apps. That being said, it is clean and includes nice credits to the creators of the app.

Pastebot also includes a different type of ‘About’ box and is yet to support dark mode on Mojave, however, like Reeder 4, it also includes a nice list of credits.

Mactracker takes its focus on Apple history seriously and even extends this philosophy to its own ‘About’ box, going into more detail about the make-up of the app.

Perhaps the worst example that I have ever seen, Microsoft Teams, (an Electron app like Slack) opens a line of descriptive text within the app window rather than as a separate window. In fact, the app doesn’t even support multiple windows, which is dreadful in macOS.

Whilst other inconsistent ‘About’ boxes may be frustrating or out-of-date to some, at least they can be interesting or offer some personality and variety to the interface. Teams flies in the face of macOS design sensibility and convention.

The lesson to take from this is that design consistency, whilst aesthetically pleasing and particularly great for accessibility, can be bent a little bit in macOS to add variety and personality. With the exception of Teams, which disrupts the macOS norm, each of these developers can their own special something to their ’About’ boxes, along with the design of their apps.

As we approach the era of Marzipan and truly cross-platform apps for macOS and iOS, we should be positive and enthusiastic about the change that is coming. Apps will look different; their ‘About’ boxes will certainly be different… but new and perhaps even better ideas about interface design should rise to the top.

Furthermore, with easier development tools from UIKit, we will hopefully see more developers keen to develop for the Mac platform. In an ideal world, we’ll all receive great, new interfaces over time that are consistent overall, yet still bring their own special something.

If you’re still not convinced by this and fear a horribly inconsistent design future for the Mac, check out this interesting piece by writer Riccardo Mori on the history of vintage Mac ‘About’ boxes. Things have always been a little different and there’s certainly nothing to fear.

Apple has been at the forefront of accessible hardware and software design for years with both macOS and iOS. Whilst numerous features (particularly in iOS) were included from the beginning, many new ones have been added over time, in response to the needs of an ever-expanding user base.

To highlight the company’s efforts, Apple Australia’s home page is currently linking to a comprehensive section on accessibility, with the heading: Technology is most powerful when it empowers everyone. This is in celebration of Global Accessibility Awareness Day.

Whilst accessibility features are tremendously useful for people with disabilities, medical conditions or special needs, I could not agree more with this key term in the heading: everyone. When I read down this page, I see features that I use all the time:

• The speak-screen function, whilst useful for the visually impaired, has been a great language-learning tool for me, as I highlight articles in German to be read out through my AirPods at whatever speed that I want;
• Safari Reader, as a tool for improving legibility with larger, sans serif San Francisco, has been a great way of cutting out advertisements and reducing strain on my eyes while browsing the Web at night;
• Siri, although a tool for people who may not be able to touch a display or use other input mechanisms, frequently enables me to interact with devices when my hands are full, whether on iPad Apple Watch or HomePods;
• Type to Siri lets me define words or make calculations quickly in public with my iPhone, if I don’t want to speak aloud; and
• The system zoom and dynamic type functions have obvious use cases, however I’ve found them to be genuinely useful for expanding parts of interfaces that cannot be adjusted with the pinch-to-zoom feature.

I could go on but I’ll stop there.

Why am I carrying on about this? It’s rather simple: when we design for the majority, we actually miss really important things. It takes a willingness to listen to the needs of minorities and the marginalised to make technology accessible. Features that may seem niche, obscure or even useless, once baked into the operating system, can have enormously positive consequences for all users.

The term ‘diversity’ is thrown around a lot these days, particularly by organisations that are looking to reassure customers and shareholders of their corporate social responsibility. When we push past this though, we realise that diversity is not just about gender or cultural background. Diversity, in its modern usage, is about different ways of thinking and approaching problems. People with different skills, circumstances and abilities can bring new things to the table and address issues that no one else might have considered.

Looking at this accessibility page, I’m grateful for these technological enhancements and thank the people out there who advocated for such improvements. With their creativity, contributions and feedback, everyone can benefit.

As long as Apple continues to look beyond the majority, the tools that we use every day will only improve.

When Apple News first launched with iOS 9 in 2015, I was enthusiastic about its potential to deliver a variety of high-quality news sources and stories, in contrast to the algorithmic, sensationalist tripe that is surfaced by Facebook, Twitter and other social networks.

Key to Apple News’s strength, supposedly, has been the focus on human curation in its Spotlight section. For some time, I used the app to follow various Australian and foreign news sites. I enjoyed it and admired the idea of human curation. Sure, it couldn’t be perfect, however it did sound great that someone—a real person—would be ensuring that people are exposed to diverse stories and views.

More recently, after Apple’s albeit impressive services event, I have been less enthusiastic about Apple News. The focus on News-app-specific addresses, rather than URLs on the open Web, has made me less comfortable with it. I’ve now moved to the new Reeder 4, relying on open RSS feeds. Consequently, News has been sitting in a folder for some time now.

Still, wanting to keep an open mind, recently I thought that I should open it to see what was happening in Spotlight. I had forgotten that everyone was in the grip of ROYAL BABY FEVER. Here are a few screenshots from Spotlight on one day last week.

Apple’s editorial team took the term ‘spotlight’ way too seriously. I have absolutely zero interest in the royal baby and the monarchy that continues to rule (technically) over Australia. Now, I understand that this may seem to be an issue of subjectivity—many people are indeed interested in the royal baby.

However this is just one baby on our planet. How many other children were born on that same day? For that matter, how many died from poverty around the world? Is this really news or is it a tacky human-interest story, swept up in romantic, monarchistic ideals from centuries past?

Of course, you may be thinking, ‘…but Martin, this is the point: it wasn’t algorithmically personalised, so you just shouldn’t tap on it if you’re not interested’. I think that’s besides the point. If this is the standard of news presentation and journalistic ‘curation’ that Apple envisages for its News service, as thousands of arguably more important stories swirl around the globe, then that’s a concern to me. Apple shouldn’t want its Spotlight section to morph into Women’s Weekly.

I’m sure that Apple was serious when it first asserted its passion for journalistic integrity, however with the recent announcement of Apple News+, which is a paid service, I am unsure of the company’s ability to uphold this ideal. Unlike podcasts, which until now have remained a relatively open media space, Apple is looking to increase its services revenue in the news space. Can a company that is driven to attract eyeballs and dollars to its News app fulfil its promise to provide diverse, high-quality content? When Apple News+ rolls around to Australia, I may still try it, but at this point I’m not so sure.