Way to make one feel good: "oh, you were fine using our previous product, but you're clearly not good enough for this one. There, have a look at the options for differently-able people, you're now officially in that category. Do you need help crossing the road, by the way?"
How else should s/he make the point? As someone with "normal" eyesight, I should not have to enable accessibility aids in order to read the clock on my iPhone.
In a sane world, iOS 7's graphic design decisions alone would already have knocked ten billion dollars off of AAPL's market cap. Slavishly copying the people who slavishly copied you in the last round is not the way forward.
What you are saying is that the option would be fine if it was in a fonts menu but it’s offensive because it is in accessibility. That is not right.
You are absolutely free to think the font choice is poor and that the existence of that option proves it, but you should not use the accessibility menu as your rationalization excuse.
Apologies, but that's exactly the point: people who wouldn't otherwise think of themselves as different are now forced to go through the accessibility features, which inevitably carry some baggage. Would BMW ever force left-handed people to install a visibly different steering-wheel?
No, it's not the point. Is the UI difficult for many people to see? Maybe, but unlike you, I don't hear Apple telling people who need to use their accessibility tools that they're "not good enough."
Thank you for classifying me as "not good enough."
As somebody who has to wear glasses, I can assure you that the day I was diagnosed, my ego took a hit. One of the worst aspects of getting old is that one is forced to accept the increased loss of independence from aides of any sort. Of course you get over it, in time (well, some people don't), but it's far from a pleasant experience -- and "I'm not good enough" is exactly what you think, deep down, especially if you're male and proud. It's bad enough that we all have to go through that by default, but being forced by Apple to relive the experience for no good reason, it's fairly humiliating, wouldn't you say?
Maybe this is just bitching and whining, but as far as I am concerned iOS 7 is another "Apple Maps"-style upgrade disaster if they don't make a lot of UI changes. I really think people are going to hate it. I know it's just a beta, but I had the same hopes that Apple Maps would be improved during its beta (and commented to people that Apple was going to have big problems if it didn't) and look where that went.
It's a shame too because they added a lot of good things like the new notifications layout, Siri improvements, control pane slide-out, etc.
Apple Maps was a regression in functionality. The design of the home screen is a subjective opinion. Whether good or bad, it seems to have created more self proclaimed graphic designers and experts on the Internet than anything else in recent memory.
In my opinion this UI update is a regression in functionality in terms of the icons being harder to discern and the text being harder to read (and significantly so). And since this affects the entire OS (not just one app) I think the blowback could be just as high even if it isn't as bad as maps was. Hopefully they'll make changes though and I'll eat my words.
Making things more difficult to read is a valid argument for regression. Even if it is for some people (where previously it wasn't) that should be pointed out and complained about (as you are rightly doing ).
The whole brouhaha in the armchair designer community over icons, colors & design is simply nuts though. "Designers" are coming out of the woodwork in droves to prove that they can do better in 1 hour what Johny Ives & Co took many months to do.
Apple Maps was trying to replace a service that had almost a decade of engineering and data powering it. It's kind of a miracle they were able to ship anything at all, IMHO, when you consider the weight of what they were trying to accomplish.
Now, some time later, it's disappointing to see that Apple Maps fails to work well in a lot of places. I'm not so sure this says anything about Apple per se, or is more of a testament to just how advanced Google's technology is.
True, but even the look and feel of Apple Maps (the map display content specifically) was shoddy in my opinion. It's actually improved in this current beta, but really that's a testament that Maps should have been worked on for another update cycle, and I think the same is true of this UI refresh. Hopefully they can make the needed changes before release later this year (assuming that is when they plan to release).
Edit: Also just a comment along the lines of your second paragraph... it's crazy that Apple Maps still can't find the News Corp. building in Manhattan (at least by that well-known name). It's a building that I noticed it couldn't find at launch and continually checked for over the months just to take the temperature of Apple's data updates. Still nothing.
I think there were external factors that forced a hard deadline for Apple Maps: the Google contract expiring, and the fact that for a service like mapping, not releasing the app into the wild serves as a blocker on a lot of engineering work that cannot begin until there is real-world usage data to work with.
Really? When have we seen Apple change its game like that before?
Don't like Mission Control? Too bad, get used to it. Want Google Maps back after Apple pushed their maps too soon? Sorry, your stuck with Apple maps. Bad cell reception? You're just holding your phone wrong.
There are many examples like this. I've seen many people say something along the lines of, "oh don't worry, this is just beta, it will all be better when it is released." It may, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
Mission Control? Redone in 10.9. Apologies if their engineers work too slowly for your pace.
Google Maps? Google didn't want to license their data without Apple giving them location data. Apple can't force Google to let them use Google's data. The next best thing was Google Maps on the App Store, which his what happened.
Bad cell reception? Sort of a silly example, given they provided video examples on their site of every other major cell phone sold at the time exhibiting that behavior. However, they gave out free bumpers and extended the return period if it was an issue worthy of return. Also, they redesigned the phone _on the very next release_, the Verizon iPhone 4. This was unheard of at the time, and to this time, core hardware usually doesn't change on the *S releases, much less before then.
You can continue to enumerate the many examples you know like this (sic), if you'd like.
However, they gave out free bumpers and extended the return period if it was an issue worthy of return.
It took quite a bit of community anger for them to get to this point. They spent a lot of effort doing the "you're just holding it wrong" angle first. The issue isn't that they fixed it by doing -foo-, it's that they considered the fault to be in the user, not their design.
Why should they be necessary though? Presumably the original commenter was indicating that iOS 6 and earlier worked well for him/her in their default state. So how is it better to make the default state in iOS 7 less usable thus requiring the use of accessibility settings for a larger group of people?
