Protecting Files On Your Mac

In the past, I have spoken at length about protecting your information with good passwords, especially when traveling. I have a tip this month for protecting files. I wish the same techniques apply to iOS devices, but it is not possible. Maybe someday.

The technique will work on Macs going back to Snow Leopard (at least) and all the way up to Yosemite. This technique can protect any type of files that can be copied from one disk to another. I suggest protecting your password file this way. Every Mac has the tool needed to perform this technique.

The technique is to create a password protected disk image, a special type of disk image called a SparseBundle. Think of it as a special file that can contain other files, and it is comprised of formatted space, not unlike any formatted disk, such as your USB drive.

For all of this to make sense, follow along on your Mac.

To create this disk image and the space for your files, open Disk Utility, found in your Utilities folder. At the top is a button called New Image. Tapping the button opens a dialog box with a number of fields.

At the top is a Save As field used to name the disk image (SparseBundle) which will contain everything. This file is the file you can copy from one Mac to another or even save in your Dropbox account. Give it a good name, and then use the Save As area to show it where to save the SparseBundle.

Next is the Name field. This is the name of the virtual disk contained within the disk image. The virtual disk will appear on the sidebar of a Finder window, just like your Mac's hard drive may show up as Mac HD.

The next field is Size in megabytes or MB, which is the *maximum* size this disk image can attain. The disk image starts out small and grows larger as files are dragged into the disk. If the maximum space you need is 150 MB, give it some leeway, and put 180 MB in this field, because the SparseBundle will itself take some space.

In the Format field, select Mac OS Extended (Journaled). The next field is Encryption. If you need to protect your files, select 128-bit AES Encryption. With encryption selected, you will be asked to enter a password. Make it one you can remember, since this disk image will hide your file of passwords from prying eyes.

In the Partitions field, select No Partitions Map. And, in the last field, Image Format, select Sparse Bundle Disk Image. Then, tap the Create button, and the new disk image will be created with the virtual disk sitting on the sidebar of your Finder window along with an eject button.

To use this disk image, drag files to the virtual disk, and they will be copied, just as if you had dragged the files to a USB drive. If you don't want unprotected files around, delete the original file on your hard drive.

Unmount the virtual disk by clicking on the eject button in the sidebar. The files are now protected by the password you chose. To get to the protected files again, double click on the disk image (with the name from the Save As field). You will be asked for the password.

The really great thing is you can copy the disk image to a thumb drive or other device and open it on any Mac running Snow Leopard or newer. Just don't forget your password! I have copied my disk image to my Dropbox account, and it works on all my Macs. But, if someone breaks into my Dropbox account and steals the disk image, they cannot open it without the password. The same goes for any USB drive containing a copy of the disk image.

Remember that the disk image is open as long as you leave it mounted; it will be unmounted when you shut your Mac down, but will remain mounted if your Mac simply goes to sleep.

As I previously stated, the disk image (SparseBundle) file will grow in size to accommodate files you have copied into the virtual disk, up to the maximum size you gave. When you remove files, the size will not automatically decrease. This may be a problem for those trying to fit a big disk image onto a USB drive.

There is a way to shrink the disk image after deleting files from it. You must be willing to use the Terminal. First, click the virtual disk eject button in the Finder window to unmount it. Then, go into the Finder and type this command:

hdiutil compact  /Users/rick/TestDMG.sparsebundle  -batteryallowed

The -batteryallowed option tells it to compact even if you are on a MacBook running on battery. In the middle is the path to your disk image. The easy way to get the path is to type the first two words of the command and a space, and then drag the disk image file to the Terminal window, and the path will be added for you.

Give it a try, and protect those files!

Is Apple Too Confident?

Business Insider had an interesting article on Google, questioning if the people at Google are too confident and too isolated from the real world.    www.businessinsider.com/a-google-employee-says-googlers-are-too-confident-2014-7   The article suggests Googles projects/applications would be better for users, if their employees didn't rationalize away problems or failures they have. This idea is based on a blog published by Google employee Avery Pennarun, found here:    apenwarr.ca/log/?m=201407#01

Pennarun indicates problems are rationalized by ideas such as "This project doesn't need to be profitable; we can use it to get more user data." And, apps lacking user appeal are rationalized with "Users are unhappy, but that's just because they're change averse."

Google has a habit of throwing many apps out to the world without explaining them or providing any help; getting any form of customer support from Google is an act of total frustration. When apps or services don't perform to Google expectations, they are withdrawn, leaving users high and dry.

One problem with Google apps and services are the poorly designed user interfaces. Understanding the user settings for Google Voice is very frustrating. These factors and more illustrate what Pennarun has said in his blog.

The Business Insider article had me thinking about Apple, wondering if some of the same factors apply. As you know, I have been increasingly frustrated by Apple's interfaces, particularly some factors found in iOS 7. Ars Technica published an article collectively listing interface frustrations endured by their writers, some complaints specific to iOS 7.   arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/07/the-software-design-trends-that-we-love-to-hate/    This article in turn pointed to a critique of the iOS 7 interface via Daring Fireball.  uxcritique.tumblr.com/

Apple appears oblivious to the clear cut human factors problems in the iOS 7 interface, ignoring reasonable criticisms of their design. Yes, Apple listens to feedback better than Google, but the beta of iOS 8 does not fix problems found in iOS 7.

Are these types of problems due to the same factors Pennarun has attributed to Google? Are the people at Apple too confident and too isolated from their users? Apple is not as isolated as Google! Apple has Internet channels for user feedback in the form of a web page and an email address. They have hundreds of stores where people can express their opinions. The question of the effectiveness of feedback remains. Apple may be too confident. We have seen this in their products; they do products a certain way, and if you don't like it too bad! But, is over confidence causing them to wonder off the course of providing truly useful tools? This question will require more thought and empirical evidence!

What's Wrong With the New Mac Pro?

When Apple first revealed the new Mac Pro, I criticized the design in posts and in my regional newsletter column, saying Apple could have done a better job in three ways. The GPUs need to be upgradable, there should be more RAM slots, and certainly more internal SSDs.

I would also add that Apple needs to provide better support for OpenCL and OpenGL. So, that's four complaints, and it turns out that Apple is responsible for two of the four, while Intel is to blame for the others.

But, it's important to know who will be using this Mac Pro. Apple has been touting this machine for 4K video editing. In my previous blog post, "Who Was the New Mac Pro Designed For?" I talk about the need for a machine that does serious number crunching.

Now is the time to discuss the limitations of the Mac Pro.

The first complaint is the lack of upgradable GPUs. The architecture of the Mac Pro includes two GPUs called the AMD FirePro. These GPUs have very fast RAM, and a good amount. The FirePros come in three flavors called the D300, D500 and D700.

These GPUs have the power to run three 4K monitors and high end video editing applications. They can also be used to supply lots of number crunching capacity to programs that crunch numbers for hours and hours. As I discussed in the previous blog, this is my area of interest.

The FirePro GPUs Apple is using are among the most powerful GPUs you can purchase today. The primary difference to those you might purchase for a Windows box is they are clocked a little slower to reduce power and thermal requirements, and Apple's FirePros do not contain ECC RAM.

But one thing we all know is that next year, there will be more powerful GPUs, and the Mac Pro you buy today will be out of date no later than two years after purchase. Is there a technical difficulty in making the GPUs upgradable or does Apple think they will sell more Mac Pros this way? The fact is they will sell less, because those engineers and scientists who might buy a new Mac Pro will realize they cannot justify the short life of the machine to their bosses.

My second complaint is the limit on RAM slots. The new Mac Pro has four RAM slots, which with today's available RAM will hold a maximum of 64 GB of RAM. To someone using a Mac to get on the Internet, do some email, create presentations, and so on, this is a lot of RAM. To people doing high end 3D work, performing complex simulations and calculations, it might be OK.

To the folks at www.realearthmodels.com who create detailed 3D models of the real world, 64 GB is just a start. They would prefer 128 GB of RAM, more if possible. But, there are reasons Apple limited the Mac Pro to four slots, which will be discussed a little later.

My third complaint is the single internal SSD. SSDs are faster, seem to be more reliable (ask the folks at ProSoftEngr about the people who come to them with problems). It's difficult to find an SSD of one terabyte capacity, and nothing larger. Using Real Earth Models as an example, a 1 TB SSD *might* be able to hold system files, applications, and a single model of the complexity of Crazy Horse.

People will argue external Thunderbolt 2 hard drives should be used. Beyond the problem that there are few true Thunderbolt drives available, the Mac Pro suffers from some I/O issues that could slow the external drives (discussed later). And, I have yet to see any good reviews of Thunderbolt that delve into the question of latency. Anyone who argues that Thunderbolt is really fast, and the latency isn't an issue has never dealt with computations that take hours or days. These computations will access storage millions of times, and even an extra nanosecond of latency added by external storage vs internal storage will add up to significant time.

My fourth complaint is the lack of support from Apple for OpenCL and OpenGL. Support for these graphic and computing programming interfaces is extremely important to those who need the Mac Pro. Apple invented OpenCL, yet is not fully supporting it. OpenGL is so poorly supported in OS X that speed tests have shown you are better off running the older generation Mac Pro in Windows than in OS X for OpenGL work where performance matters. There is no evidence that Mavericks on the new Mac Pro services OpenGL any better.

For more detail on the Open CL and Open GL question, read the article by Dave Girard on Ars Technica at arstechnica.com/apple/2014/01/two-steps-forward-a-review-of-the-2013-mac-pro/

So, there are four complaints. Apple is responsible for the lack of upgradable GPUs and OpenGL and OpenCL support. Intel is responsible for the limited RAM and single internal SSD. How? Read on for the technical nitty gritty.

Based on Anand's work of deriving the Mac Pro's architecture, it is possible to say that Intel has limited the I/O of the Xeon chips used in the Mac Pro and other workstation class machines. I have no fear of basing my conclusions on Anand's efforts; like Mr. Spock, his guesses are better than most people's facts. See Anand's article here: www.anandtech.com/show/7603/mac-pro-review-late-2013 .

I/O or input/output is the term used for the part of the architecture of a computer system necessary to get data into and out of the CPU in sufficient quantities and fast enough to support the capabilities of the CPU. Fast I/O has been a central issue since the days of big mainframe computers, and remains an issue with todays workstation computers.

The new Mac Pro is powered by an Intel Xeon E5 processor with number crunching assistance from two FirePro GPUs. Together, these processors can perform teraflops; that's trillions of math operations per second; if they aren't choked by slow I/O. So, let's use Anand's efforts to examine the I/O in the Mac Pro.

Starting with the Xeon E5 CPU, which has 40 lanes of PCIe 3.0 I/O, along with four RAM channels, and a 2 MB/s interconnect (or Direct Media Interface in Intel parlance) to other chips. This is shown in the following diagram:

Four RAM channels? The memory controller is now built into the E5, rather than a separate chip. So, Apple is limited to four RAM slots, unless they want to multiplex the memory channels, which will impact memory access speed. This is a limitation Intel built into their chips.

Next is the 40 lanes of PCIe 3.0, used for the GPUs and Thunderbolt I/O. PCIe 3.0 runs at 985 gigabytes per second, an impressive number. Those super fast GPUs each need 16 lanes, using a total of 32 of the 40 lanes.

This leaves 8 lanes for the Thunderbolt 2. ports. There are six Thunderbolt 2 ports, each needing 2 lanes of PICIe 3.0. Anand explains how the six ports are controlled from three TB controllers in pairs; this is important to those plugging peripherals into the Mac Pro (read Anand's article). For us, it is important that there are six ports requiring 12 lanes of PCIe 3.0 I/O, and 8 lanes are available. Oops.

This means the Thunderbolt ports could be choked if you have very many peripherals plugged in, possibly limiting the performance of external drives you rely on in lieu of the single internal SSD. And, who knows if this architecture somehow limits the performance of an external TB drive, even if it's the only thing plugged in? Only future performance tests will give some indication of this.

Another strike against Intel, and I haven't yet told you why the Mac Pro is limited to the single internal SSD.

We need more I/O for the SSD, ethernet connections and USB. This is where that Xeon interconnect comes in. It is connected to a PCH or Platform Controller Hub, which is a PCIe hub. The one used by Apple in the Mac Pro adds 8 lanes of PCIe I/O. Not PCIe 3.0, but PCI 2.0! Intel doesn't bother to make a hub for these workstations that use PCIe 3.0. Intel, you aren't winning any friends for yourself!

This little PCH has 8 lanes for the remaining I/O we must have. Two lanes are used for the two Gigabit ethernet ports. One lane is used for the WiFi controller, and one lane is used for the four USB 3.0 ports.

Hmmm. One lane for four USB ports? PCIe 2.0 runs at 500 MB/s. USB 3 is claimed to run at 500 to 640 MB/s, but experience tells us USB peripherals will typically top out at half that. So, we'll be conservative and say we need 250 MB/s per port. Four ports then need 1000 MB/s, if all four are used, and they are hooked into a single PCI lane providing 500 MB/s. This does not compute! Another bottleneck in Intel's architecture.

That leaves us with 4 PCIe 2.0 lanes for the SSD, which needs … 4 lanes or a total of 2 GB/s. Do you remember that the interconnect from the PCX back to the Xeon E5 runs at 2 GB/s? So, the SSD can theoretically run at full speed, if you aren't running *any* I/O for the ethernet, WiFi or USB ports.

And, there is no room on the PCX for a second SSD. So, the lack of a second SSD is Intel's fault, not Apple's. Intel is shipping CPUs with PCIe 3.0, and no I/O support at those bandwidths.

What could Apple do to solve these I/O problems? Some have suggested the Mac Pro should have two CPUs, along with the two GPUs. It looks like the cost of two Xeons with 4 cores each wouldn't be much more expensive that a single Xeon with 8 cores, and so on. This could really help the I/O problem if the system software could keep performance numbers up. But, there is still that nasty problem of the interconnect being limited to 2 GB/s. That would slow down communication between two CPUs using PCIe 3.0.

The bottom line is that Intel needs to do a much better job. And, don't get me started on the lack of Haswell support in the Xeon chips months after the low end chips have it!

Who Was the New Mac Pro Designed For?

The new Mac Pro has very serious computing power. Although Apple doesn't seem to use the word workstation, the new Mac is designed as a workstation class machine.

So, it would seem the new Mac Pro is designed for those needing serious number crunching capabilities.

My long-ago background is in aerodynamics and simulations, and the needs for number crunching in these fields is severe. In days of yore, main frame computers were used for number crunching, and they were typically limited by I/O (input/output). This means they can crunch through a lot of numbers, if you can get those numbers in and out of the CPU fast enough.

I/O was often the problem, and it's a big problem with the new Mac Pro. Yes, people who need number crunching support can use clusters, but whether they are individuals, part of a small company or a large institution or a government entity, they often cannot afford to rent all the time they need on a cluster.

The plight of individuals and small companies is obvious, but even in large organizations, every penny has to be justified, whether the money is spent to buy a new Mac or buy time on a cluster.

Typical number crunching requires the fine tuning of various parameters, before the final data runs are performed. People doing this type of work prefer to do as much fine tuning at a low "resolution" on a local machine, rather than spend money on a cluster. But, even low resolution models require a serious workstation, and the hope was that the new Mac Pro would be this type of machine.

This sort of work is done by people performing computational DNA, all sorts of physics and much more. A friend is a retired mathematician, who is retired from the aerospace business after being involved in the math behind the radar mapping of the surface of Venus by the Magellan spacecraft. His extracurricular activities have included contributing to math papers that have defined computational DNA. When he bought a new iMac a few years ago, his question was where he could get a Fortran compiler …

A good example of a small company doing serious number crunching is www.realearthmodels.com. They don't use artists to build 3D models mimicking the real world. They build 3D models of the real world using scanner data, high resolution photos, and other data combined to create what they call PhotoReal models of the world, models having engineering accuracy.

Take a look at their web site, and you will see models of buildings, geological sites, and of Mount Rushmore, and Crazy Horse. Their models are used to guide the sculptors at Crazy Horse to avoid faults in the rock that could ruin the sculpture forever.

Their process for creating these models is intense. At one point in the process, they put the data together and let a specialized Windows computer crunch on the data for 4 or 5 days. Then, they tweak the data and do it again, and sometimes again. They need machines that will save a couple of hours here and there. They had hopes for the new Mac Pro.

And, this is the type of serious number crunching Apple doesn't understand. Apple understands video editing, and the artistic creation of 3D models. But, the serious number crunching these tasks require comes in spurts. The artist works hard to set up a model and apply a filter or effect, and then crunch through that effect for seconds or minutes. They try to avoid the number of times they must render an entire project.

Apple doesn't really have a feel for the many types engineers and scientists who need the machine that can run data 24 hours a day, because they are spread out, not clumped together in "Hollywood."

Several years ago, Apple had a group of three people tasked with evangelizing the Macintosh to engineers and scientists. John Martellaro was one of them, and he has stated that the evangelizing required of his group was as much inside Apple as outside. Apple no longer has such a group.

If you look at the limitations in the new Mac Pro architecture, it becomes obvious the new machine has short comings for the needs of the people mentioned in this post. Even people doing 4K video editing will find it somewhat limiting.

Go to my post "What's Wrong With the new Mac Pro" to learn about these limiting factors.

Human-Computer Interface Elements in iOS 7

As a follow up to my previous blog about the iOS 7 interface as observed in the beta, I thought I should discuss a couple of specific elements of iOS 7 that break good human-computer interface design.

There are some things to like about iOS 7. Clutter has been greatly reduced, and it appears that information may [?] be more logically arranged and connected. Plus, the under-the-hood improvements in memory and multi-tasking management will improve user experience.

My greatest concern has been the suitability of elements in meeting the needs of most users. Is Apple designing the new interface while chasing new Windows Mobile and Android interfaces? Have Apple designers forgotten the lesson of human-computer design learned over the past 30 years?

I have previously asked if these designs are intended to sell iDevices in the stores, rather than meet the needs of the users. And, I won't delve into the issues of skeuomorphism and the poor definition used by many bloggers; see my previous blog for that discussion.

If the beta designs are used as evidence, it might be concluded these new elements were designed by 20-something, right handed males with 20-20 eyesight.

Good interface design takes into account the differences implied by this statement. For example, researchers have studied the differences between men and women with respect to using computers and performing tasks. They have found men are better at spatial perception, and women are better at language. Some of these ideas have been pointed out on the Brain Games episodes on the National Geographic channel.

A study years ago revealed these differences, although I have never found this study referenced on the Internet. In the study small groups of men and women were given several pages of text to memorize. Although told they would have up to two hours for the memorization efforts, groups were interrupted at significantly shorter periods.

Asked what they could remember about the text, men remembered text passages in relation to visual stimuli, such as a small stain on the page or a bent corner. Women remembered facts based on language and emotional content. "that fact was mentioned in the paragraph that described the conflicts between negotiators."

Of course, not all men and all women have these traits, but these are tendencies. This points out that people are different and react to different types of stimuli.

So, one of the interface problems in the beta iOS 7 is the reduction of buttons, labels and icons to a single type of interface. Graphic only versus text only.

There are icons supported by text labels in iOS 6, but many unsupported icons iOS 7. Icons clearly understood in 6 are too simplified in 7, their meaning is obscured. One version of the share icon is so simple, no one could know the meaning of the graphic. And some icons not simplified, yet changed and now obscure in meaning. This has negative impact on the discoverability and learnability of an interface.

There are now buttons that are just text labels and do not look like buttons. This type of button does not meet the needs of the user as described by Fitt's Law. As discussed by Bruce Tognazinni <http://www.asktog.com>, Fitt's Law described the increased difficulty when trying to hit a small target; the user must slow down to be sure to hit the smaller target, pulling her concentration away from the task at hand. And no, the task at hand is not to manipulate the computer interface, it is to write or create graphics or answer email.

A button comprised of a text label only is a smaller target than the same label surrounded by a nice button graphic. Slower interface, distraction from task, less discoverable, less learnable. Just knowing that the label doesn't have to be precisely targeted does not help. The button graphic makes that target easier to hit, while reinforcing the idea that, yes, this is a button to be pressed; it's not just a label.

Michael Heilemann <http://binarybonsai.com/blog?tag=iOS+7> has discussed this type of button causes confusion for the user. His example is the music player interface in iOS 7. At the bottom are the labels "Repeat Album", "Create" and "Shuffle". Does the label "Repeat Album" indicate the music player is already in repeat mode or must be pressed to repeat? Is it a button, and does it represent state or action? If you look very closely, you can see this label is in bold, apparently indicating it is in this state; even more difficult to discern if you are color blind. Do I have to press this label again to exit this mode or press a different button? The old buttons, especially OS X buttons came in various styles indicating which action is required.

Michael also discusses the new iPhone unlock screen has the label "slide to unlock" with no graphic at all! So, which direction should I slide, and what am I sliding?

Not that all older Apple interfaces are without problem. Mac OS X Mail app has a button in the junk folder that says "Not Junk". Does this indicate the stuff in the folder is not marked as junk, and the button should be pushed; no, it's indicating the stuff in that folder is already tagged as junk, but my mom forgets this from time to time. This is not just a problem for retired people; people are all different and interpret interfaces in a different manner. Some people use glasses, prefer labels and graphics that reinforce each other or are left handed.

Changes to buttons and labels began in OS X some time ago in small ways, leading to increased confusion in the interface. This confusion has come to the fore in iOS 7. Overly simplified interfaces will confuse a significant percentage of any population, and will distract many more from their tasks.

A friend points out that many of these issues are analogous to a car radio. His has a large volume knob (see Fitt's Law). He can adjust the volume with the smallest glance from the corner of his eye, while keeping his eyes on the road. My car radio has a small knob, difficult to get my fingers on, distracting my attention from the road.

In iOS 7, we are seeing changes in graphics for the sake of changes while decreasing the usability of the interface. The signal strength meter on the iPhone changed from five bars to five dots. Why? Apple can do better!

For others' opinions about the iOS 7 interface, you can check out this link: <http://www.quora.com/iOS-7/Is-the-new-Apple-iOS-7-look-an-improvement?srid=Atx&share=1>.

You will have your own opinions of the iOS 7 interface. Don't forget you can send feedback to Apple with an email to feedback@apple.com or by going to <http://www.apple.com/feedback>.

WWDC Evidence of The iOS 7 Interface -- Opinion

This past week, Apple demonstrated new versions of OS X and iOS at WWDC. As a developer, I could download the new versions and try them out, although I admit to being reluctant to try software that is very much beta. I have too much work to do, as it is. So, I rely on the publicly available information to fuel my initial impressions.

I like what I have seen of Mavericks, the new OS X. It doesn't try to get closer to iOS in function, and doesn't add more fad driven options, such as buttons linking directly to Facebook.

It has a number of improvements in the OS and apps such as iBooks, but I tend to focus on improvements under the hood, and Mavericks should make me happy. There are improvements to memory handling and multitasking, making older Macs run quicker. Based on fleeting words at the WWDC keynote, these ideas may have some intelligent software behind them, knowing, for example, when to reduce processing for apps in the background.

I find it interesting that Apple had just one 3rd party company come to the stage during the keynote. Aika is a startup defined as an AI (Artificial Intelligence) company with a simple product to begin, race cars toys controlled by sensors and AI software running on iOS devices.

A simple product with a simple demo that did not highlight any Apple products. So, is Apple actually signaling they are beginning to fold rudimentary AI capabilities into the OSes? Or, am I reading too much into this?

iOS 7 has similar improvements under the hood. I think there are many improvements we will see in iOS 7, including greater consistency across the interface. Lots of good stuff under the hood. I don't expect to see this consistency in full bloom from an early beta, like some bloggers. I am not concerned with the inconsistencies of the icons and controls; this is a beta, and Apple will likely address those concerns before release. I am, however, an engineer, and the danger of being an engineer is seeing the problems, and immediately trying to fix them. If I am not in a position to fix them, I point the problems out.

This early iOS 7 beta has some problems that can be fixed before the release. Maybe Apple doesn't see these ideas as problems, but I think they are. The visible part of iOS has problems that can be divided into aesthetics and mechanics.

The general aesthetics left me feeling a little underwhelmed. It's a simple white interface with minimalist interface elements. It has a new thin font that can be difficult to read with icons that provide little information. It uses weird color schemes to try and provide interest.

Leo Laporte said in a podcast the color palette seems to be inspired by Nicki Minaj's stage wardrobe. Sarah Lane chimed in saying the interface lacks sophistication. I agree with both. The color palette reminds me of a teenager's stripped down, used car painted bright purple.

Don't get me wrong. I am glad the blatant skeuomorphism of earlier versions (stitched leather look) is gone, but I am not one of those who defines skeuomorphism as *anything* that even seems to be taken from the real world. In the article  "A closer look: iOS 7 Control and Notification Centers" by Sanjiv Sathiah if Electronista said the semi-transparent panel of the Control Center is skeuomorphic because it resembles semi-transparent glass. He could not be more wrong; this is not skeuomorphism. Nor is a calendar that looks like a calendar as I pointed out in a previous post. This is mimicry that provides context.

I have read that iOS 7 has greatly improved fontography, and those thin fonts can be adjusted for those with eyesight problems. So, I am relieved about this one interface element, and no longer believe the this font will be a problem.

But, I am bothered by this new design that seems to be more about selling iOS devices in Apple stores than providing people with good usability.

Now for mechanics, which I believe contains problems more important to users. I define mechanics as the actual elements of human-computer interface, and how those elements contribute to or detract from the task being performed by the user.

I have never been in favor of hiding information from the user. I do not like the hidden scroll bars found in either iOS or OS X. The user must take focus away from the task at hand to discover the position of the information shown on the screen in a long document.

A similar problem occurs with these simplified icons. Even after learning the meaning of an icon, the user will still pause on occasion from the task at hand, and think "Does that icon represent what I need to do?" People who defend stripped down interface often say that users are now so much more sophisticated. If this is true, shouldn't they be presented with icons conveying significant information? The same can be said of other interface elements.

Among many comments on iOS 7, Josh Topolsky of the Verge said "again Apple seems to ignore the utility of glanceable information" . Glanceable information is found in interface elements that convey meaning without the user shifting focus away from the task at hand. In a previous blog, I mentioned that icons and controls removed of all detail may cause the user to "pull focus."

One more example of iOS 7 detail I question; many buttons now comprise the label for the button without any graphic depicting a button. Somewhere in the interface you may see the word "Done" or "OK" and when first encountered wonder if it's a button. Yes, this can be learned, but should it be necessary, especially for those who will never be fully comfortable with computer interfaces? And, I wonder if they provide poor targets for touch?

If I interpret Bruce Tognazinni's writing correctly, the elimination of the standard button graphic will slow the user's use of the interface, according to Fitt's Law. .

So, I am seeing a number of things in the new iOS interface design I do not like. I don't think Apple should be chasing Windows mobile or Android designs for sales in their stores. They should be applying solid human interface design principles and *lead* the way to a better touch interface.

Apple Interface Directions -- Flattened Interfaces

Apple announced the World Wide Developers Conference for the week of June 10. New versions of OS X and iOS should be on display at the conference.

Rumors regarding changes to OS X and iOS have begun with this article on the new iOS interface

I am most concerned about rumors of the iOS 7 interface being flattened. This isn't the only question about Apple's direction for interface changes, but it is the subject of these current rumors. In recent months, there have been a number of web pundits calling for the removal of all skeuomorphism from computer interfaces. Should Apple designers follow this advice regarding the iOS interface to the degree Microsoft has for Windows, users may be presented with an interface lacking the detail necessary to make iOS easy to use.

To see how this may be possible, consider the meaning of the term skeuomorphism. Quoting one Wikipedia definition of skeuomorphism "an element of design or structure that serves little or no purpose in the artifact fashioned from the new material but was essential to the object made from the original material." A good example of this is pottery with clay rivets mimicking copper pots.

Unfortunately, a large group of pundits have skewed the meaning of skeuomorphism to anything in a computer interface resembling anything in the real world. The definition of skeuomorphism in Wikipedia was edited just a couple of weeks ago to reflect this bias. But, you would be strained to find well recognized interface experts who will accept this broad definition. In , Clive Thompson seems to believe the formatting of calendar apps similar to printed calendars is a skeuomorph. It is not.

Perhaps this attack on anything that smacks of skeuomorphism comes from users' frustrations with cute interfaces. Some years ago, we entered a period referred by many as Web 2.0. This was a period of creating web sites more like on-line applications. We often got web site interfaces with cute artwork in place of solid interface mechanics. Web sites difficult to use with little substance behind them.

It's understandable many people rebel against these too cute interfaces. On iOS, look at some of Apple's apps, such as Contacts, Calendar and Mail. They have faux leather trim and stitching. This is skeuomorphism. I am reminded of U.S. cars from the 1970s. With faux leather and stitching, they mimic expensive European imports. But, the faux nature of this trim made the car look classless and cheap. People want the European import with understated trim.

People looking to throw out any paradigm extracted from the analog world are going too far. Look at Windows 8 with its tiles for examples of an interface that doesn't work well. Windows and dialog boxes in Windows 8 (and it's tablet counterpart) are very "flat." There are no gradations in color, no shadows, and elements within those windows are minimalistic. A dialog box can be open when the Charms panel pops out from the left side of the screen; it is very difficult for the user to know what task should be performed first, and which window or dialog is which!

Extend this problem to other parts of the interface, and you begin to see the scale of the problem when an interface is too flat. There are many other usability problems as touched on in this article and this .

Why have we come to this? In part, because people don't think things are new unless they change. Change for the sake of change. I have to wonder if we are going in this direction, because the young designers don't know the original lessons of computer interface design learned through the 1980s and early 90s. Perhaps we will be forced to repeat history.

We must have some skeuomorphism as defined in the pundits' broadest sense to increase the usability of the interface. We need some sort of design to tell us which element to focus on. We need buttons with a slight 3D appearance to allow us to discern detail out of the corners of our eyes, so we don't constantly scan the screen over and over to dredge details from an interface lacking details.

A completely flat interface is boring. Microsoft knew this when they backed the uninteresting elements of their interface with pretty pictures in the background. Why not make the interface itself more interesting?

Perhaps most users are now so used to the graphical interface, each has her own desires for the type of interface used. Maybe this is just one more argument for the adaptable interface. I don't want those wishing for dull, classless interfaces to dictate how I must interface with my machine. If you feel the same way, look for the iOS 7 introduction in mid-June. Then, voice your opinion at and/or send an email to feedback@apple.com.