smartphones were a mistake.
i could be convinced that the mouse was a mistake.
this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2026
14 points (100.0% liked)
technology
24427 readers
171 users here now
On the road to fully automated luxury gay space communism.
Spreading Linux propaganda since 2020
- Ways to run Microsoft/Adobe and more on Linux
- The Ultimate FOSS Guide For Android
- Great libre software on Windows
- Hey you, the lib still using Chrome. Read this post!
Rules:
- 1. Obviously abide by the sitewide code of conduct. Bigotry will be met with an immediate ban
- 2. This community is about technology. Offtopic is permitted as long as it is kept in the comment sections
- 3. Although this is not /c/libre, FOSS related posting is tolerated, and even welcome in the case of effort posts
- 4. We believe technology should be liberating. As such, avoid promoting proprietary and/or bourgeois technology
- 5. Explanatory posts to correct the potential mistakes a comrade made in a post of their own are allowed, as long as they remain respectful
- 6. No crypto (Bitcoin, NFT, etc.) speculation, unless it is purely informative and not too cringe
- 7. Absolutely no tech bro shit. If you have a good opinion of Silicon Valley billionaires please manifest yourself so we can ban you.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
I get it somewhat, but I couldn't care less about esthetics. I'm the dev that will go function over form all the way and give you a CLI.
I care about the icon being legible most, I need to be able to distinguish it form everything else. Other than than, it looking out of place is not even on the list.
All of my design esthetic then stems from this — function. Is it an error? here's some red text. Warning? enjoy your yellow.
I'm often annoyed by all the animations and transitions in a program: it puts a pause between me and information and adds visual noise. Unless the thing conveys information to me, I don't want it in my software.
I never really understand this viewpoint, especially because typically this comes from developers who have extremely strong opinions about how code should look. "Well code should follow this long set of standards because it's more readable, more maintainable, more accessible, more scalable etc." Great so let's do the same with the thing that users use to interface with the code? And suddenly there's complaints about how it's usable enough, or it's usable for me so if you can't use it it's your problem, etc.
It's very siloed thinking. Unless you're making something only for you or a really tight group of users, the best application is one that anyone can use to solve whatever specific problem the application solves. And in order for anyone to use it the design must be extremely thoughtful and intentional. Just like the coding standards that often drive the development of these kinds of apps.
I think it's important for people to know that "applications" don't actually exist. On macos they're just folders that have a specific file structure.
When you run an application on mac, you're really just running a folder with all the assets inside. You could technically have an app that opens a folder, but runs arbitrary code when it's clicked and the user wouldn't be able to tell. Especially if you make the icon look like a folder.
Saying applications don't exist in this way is like saying books don't exist because they're actually just paper glue ink leather and wood
Lol, I'm agreeing with you. I'm just trying to make it clear that there is an actual special distinction in macos between an app package and an executable file. Which is why this design decision makes total sense.
App packages are closer to flatpacks in Linux. Windows just has the exe binaries with registry info for them. It's good design to visually distinguish different concepts in the GUI.
But that's exactly the thing. If it's just flare, I don't care. Often design of websites and apps is excessive animations and visual noise. Unless your design decision has clear defined purpose, I don't care about it.
Animations must be faster than my reaction speed. Hover effects must signify interactivity. Design must convey information. Otherwise it's just noise.
"Well code should follow this long set of standards because it's more readable, more maintainable, more accessible, more scalable etc."
The article talks a lot about visual identity and consistent design and whatnot. I couldn't care less about that. What I care about, though, is if I can distinguish the icon from other stuff. Does it convey information? Does it serve a purpose? I see the purpose of coding conventions: readability, maintainability, accessibility, scalability, etc. What purpose does "liquid glass" serve?
This is true function over form where design serves utility first and finds its flare in there.
Now for the ending argument of making "apps" squircles. Yes, it does check my boxes of utility. But, was there a problem in the first place? On a phone everything is an app, so everything is a squircle? Why does mac need to follow this? Was there really confusion between files and executables? To me this smells like flare. Why should I care if the steam icon is in a squircle box or is a plain logo?
The last point made in the blog post makes sense. Applications now have a specific shape.
I don't really interact with apple stuff, but I can somewhat agree to the last part too. There should be an indicator for the type of thing I'm looking at.
For me app is a mobile concept, I don't work with apps on desktop. On desktop "apps" range from shell scripts to java binaries with GUI. I have no problem with current situation, since files and folders have their icons and everything else is an "app". Author adds whatever icon they think is good or I add my own.
All this to say, I don't encounter the problem squircle solves. On mobile everything is an app; on desktop I want my executable files to have an indicator so I know what I'm looking at. Articles arguments about design consistency don't really matter to me. Granted that this might be somewhat specific to mac os.
This really only applies to macos since there is a distinction between an application, a folder, and a file.
I believe applications on macos are actually just folders that have a specific structure, so having them be visually distinct from regular folders and files is kinda important.
You can still execute files directly, so an executable file and an "application" are two distinct concepts in that sense.
On Apple's side, it would definitely be possible for someone to set their application icon to look like the folder icon, then run arbitrary code without the user knowing they weren't opening a folder. So there's a bit of a security reason for this too.
And that makes sense then. It being a squircle is a design choice and I can understand it's purpose.
Again, something visual to distinguish an application from other interactive elements makes sense. I just don't subscribe to the whole esthetic aspect of the article.