zlacker

>>duckte+(OP)
where did the myth that people prefer apps that look native to the platform come from?

There are two types of apps: 1. the ones that professionals use and 2. the ones that consumers use.

for 1. they don't care if it looks native, as long as it works and is performant e.g. DAWs, Video Editing tools, Trading, etc.

2. likewise I don't think it matters that much.

my guess is the myth came from OS makers.

>>dzonga+XH7
When apps have native look and feel, they have consistent behaviour, affordances and accessibility:

- buttons are labeled and placed correctly, and respond to expected input (including secondary focus and secondary action on MacOS, for example)

- dropdowns/selects behave correctly, and respond to expected input (for example, you can type to select in MacOS dropdowns).

- windows have OS-defined areas for drag/resize, for titles, for toolbars etc. They also appear correctly in the OS's window management tools (app switchers etc.)

- text inputs use the OS-default shortcuts and have access to OS-provided tools (e.g. spell checker)

- controls and windows respond correctly to keyboard and mouse. E.g. for a while Apple's own Catalyst apps didn't have the standard Cmd+Q to close the app. Many custom modals do not dismiss the modal on Escape

- context menus are standard in the places where you expect standard context menus. Well, app menus, too.

And the list just goes on and on.

>>troupo+Ef8
All good points, all true. But what’s also true is that current trend is to come up with arbitrary-looking controls even on apps made by Apple themselves. Nobody knows what native is supposed to look like. I’m not saying it’s good, it’s just what is happening.