I mostly lament the simplification of app icons as an artistic loss, not as a usability loss. Shameless plug, but I made a project based on the idea of icons as pure art with no utility https://www.benedelste.in/post/__001
They've gone too far on enforcing uniformity of icons and abusing liquid glass, but I disagree that arbitrary shapes were better. All the random icon shapes looked cool in isolation, but were harder to scan at a glance. The uniform squircle is a useful constraint.
I wouldn't mind if they allowed something similar to that audio hijack icon, where you require the rounded rect as the guiding frame but are allowed to have some elements protruding out of it. But completely arbitrary shapes are too jarring imo.
“Build vs buy” assumes that there are only two parties. If it’s easier to build internally, then it’s easier for a 3rd party competitor to enter the market and bid the price down. I think the "zone of viability" is real, it just narrows and shifts downward.
The author hints at this in a footnote:
> It does, however, pencil out to use a different product instead. In this particular case, it’s easy: use Linear instead of Jira.
I agree. I followed this article for a repo I'm working on, and I had a very hard time inferring how, specifically, they implemented "providers" and enforced import layers. A sample repo would've been nice.
Apple mostly cares about legibility and consistency in icons now, not art. All the new iOS features like tints and liquid glass don't lend themselves well to intricate designs. It's disappointing, but I tend to agree that the skeuomorphic icons are harder to read.
From their icon guidelines:
"Embrace simplicity in your icon design. Simple icons tend to be easiest for people to understand and recognize. An icon with fine visual features might look busy when rendered with system-provided shadows and highlights..."
https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guideline...
Self plug, but I made an app related to this - it's a conceptual art gallery for app icons. I thought it would be an interesting experiment to remove the functional premise and just let an icon be a decorative symbol. It's called 001 (https://001.graphics)
I don’t feel great about this ruling. Whatever a “reasonable” fee is supposed to mean, Apple will interpret it to some ridiculous amount. Before the ban, they tried to charge 27%
I think app icons are an underrated artistic format, but they’ve only been used for product logos. I made 001 to explore the idea of turning them into an open-ended creative canvas. There are 99 “exhibit spaces” in the gallery, and artists can claim an exhibit to install art within. Visitors purchase limited-edition copies of pieces to display as the app’s icon, the art’s native format.
It’s a real-money marketplace too - the app makes money by taking commission of sales (Not crypto). I like economic simulation games and I think the constraints here could be interesting.
I’m currently looking for artists to exhibit in the gallery, if anyone is interested, or knows someone who may be, please let me know!
iOS default animation speed is 350 ms, at least for SwiftUI. This has always felt a bit too slow. And recent system animation changes felt gratuitous to me (opening the action bar on iMessage for example).
OTOH this article is basically downstream of Apple’s interface design philosophy.
Why do we still have to write `catch let error as SystemError`? Why can't the error be inferred to have the type thrown by the function? I've always found swift's error handling syntax to be awkward