Big Sur Makes Changes to Many Apple Apps and Basic Features

Originally published at:

Apple unveiled macOS 11.0 Big Sur during the WWDC keynote, showing off overhauls of Messages and Maps, while improving Safari, Photos, and other apps. Mail was conspicuously absent for now.

Too bad they didn’t talk about Mail. Possibly because it’s the most frustrating Apple app to use and it’s the one I use the most. I don’t care what else they do, as long as they get rid of the damn hide-and-seek interface (not just in Mail, but that’s where I notice it the most). As a Mac consultant, I find myself having to explain to clients that they must magically know to hover the mouse in a certain area to see a control they know must be somewhere.

I long for the days of Jef Raskin. We are deep in the territory of form over function.

1 Like

They may not have been ready. I expect it’ll look like iPad Mail, which was demoed and I was not that big a fan of the new look.

Like you, Colleen, I would have also liked to hear and see more about Mail. Ironically, it’s Mail they chose to show the refreshed UI. But just very little detail, unfortunately.


Thank you for sharing your clients’ problems with hidden controls, Colleen.

As Don Norman said:

Does the user perceive that clicking on that location [on the screen] is a meaningful, useful action to perform?

If an indicator of such a “meaningful, useful action” is hidden unless the pointer is close to it, you obviously cannot easily answer that question. Especially in highly complex applications, there can be good reasons to hide some less-commonly used controls to reduce the perceived complexity of the overall UI (“progressive disclosure” is the technical term).

That typically applies to applications for expert, and well-trained, users, but not for something as mundane and widely-used as a mail client. Or a browser. Or a to-do list. Etc.

In other words, the ubiquity of such hover-only controls across all kinds of applications just isn’t justified. It’s simply bad design.

That’s why I appreciate hearing first-hand from people who disagree that “everybody knows how this works these days,” as so many designers claim these days.

1 Like

Actually, my complaint goes back to the beginning of the hide-and-seek interface, which has been around for lo these many years now, and I’m not any fonder of it, not one bit. Jonny Ive was brilliant at hardware, but as I said before, the software is now so form-over-function that it’s really hard for a lot of people to figure out. Apple’s user interface is just not so friendly anymore. My first Mac was a 512K Macintosh, so I guess I’m getting old and cranky.

I read this on my iPad, with the large blank area on the bottom, and the cryptic curved arrow that brings up a dozen options. Let me put some of those options on that blank space rather than having to click on the arrow, then click on…

Here’s a very nice collection of macOS and app windows. Catalina on the left, Big Sur on the right. (Unfortunately, Mail is missing).

And if you want to see a comparison of just icons, that’s here.


While Apple pioneered the standardization of GUI and even wrote the book on it (Macintosh Human Interface Guidelines from the '80’s), the younger software engineers were essentially instructed by Jony Ive to not read the book (as he never absorbed its intent). But let’s think for a moment about how “progressive disclosure” is potentially a death-dealing philosophy.

The Boeing 737MAX debacle was a result of Boeing altering the 737 design to accept larger engines in an effort to increase the range of the aircraft. But this re-design changed the center-of-gravity of the plane and required some goofy software hacks to the control systems in order to correct the deficiencies. Then Boeing decided to completely automate that system hack and hide it from the pilots so they (Boeing) could claim that retraining wasn’t necessary in order to transition pilots from the 737 to the 737MAX. Then the system catastrophically failed in two planes and the pilots, who had a few minutes to correct the system, had no specific instructions to enact the corrections; instead, they had to rely upon progressive disclosure - they had to learn on-the-fly (pun intended) how to alter the flight characteristics of the aircraft having never been specifically trained how to do so…and they failed.

So, Apple, you can take your progressive disclosure and shove it up your USB port.

BTW, the deficiency of the 737MAX was bad design and Boeing’s attempt to fake out the control systems is completely wrong. The airframe is inherently dangerous and I will not fly in one again.

1 Like

Do you have any reputable sources for this? I couldn’t find any. But I did find a lot of references about how HCI was added to Ive’s portfolio after the skeuomorphic interface design disaster, and how he cleaned up the messes and brought back a clearer and less distracting and confusing interface:

All one has to do is read the Human Interface Guidelines books (I still have mine) and then simply examine the horrors inflicted upon us with Ive’s “peek-a-boo” process of discovery. It’s been insulting to the users and stresses some sort of “cleanliness” of design by withholding useful knowledge in an homage to Ive’s clean sheet of paper approach. Note that I am not referring to “starting with a clean sheet of paper”; Ive’s design aesthetic ends with a clean sheet of paper. Anything beyond that detracts from…whatever it is that Ive tries to push on the masses. Lose the keyboard, lose the ports, lose the mouse; if the apps require those details, well, then, cripple the apps.

1 Like

Actually… :smirk:

If you have the 1992 issue of the HIG, have a peek (no pun intended…) at page 35:

1 Like