> I like a lot of what they're saying, but I actually find all of their redesigns to look worse than the original. I don't prefer the typeface they've selected, and their boxy buttons look two decades old.

The actual design was not the point of this piece, if anything, it’s an invitation to re-explore the design of the button. By being hung up on the implementation details, you have missed the forest for the trees.

Back in the early 2010s when I was doing freelance web development, I learned very quickly to stop gathering feedback from the client on specific steps because, for example, if I showed them a greyscale wireframe for page to solicit feedback on the layout, they would say, “the text organization looks good, but I wanted it to be these different colors, also I don’t like the Latin text in there, where is the content that we agreed would be in there? Also the logo is missing, also none of the links in the footer work, I don’t like the font, etc etc.” I thought at this point (and especially on this forum) we were past this sort of ill-informed feedback.

There's the classic "when someone tells you there's a problem here, they're usually right. When they propose a fix, it's usually wrong"

To me, this post falls squarely in that bucket. It correctly identifies issues and does not find the correct solution. Unfortunately, that undermines my confidence in the author, and that makes me suspicious of their comments on the photos page or regarding the typeface.

The author says "Apple used a bad font" but I missed it if they explained why, and their replacement didn't feel better to me. That's not convincing! I don't think it's unfair for me to say "yes, you've identified a problem but not the solution" and I don't think that's a meaningless comment.

I like buttons, and since I'm not a designer, I often use obvious affordances or make simple product decisions (this is to my detriment: too many modals or toasts). This includes buttons. But without hearing from Apple's designers (or from any designer defending their decisions), I leave this post feeling unconvinced. Their argument wasn't good enough for me to think it would beat an argument in favor of the designs Apple employees made.

I was actually thinking of writing a piece about the legibility of typefaces in the context of UI. It would have gone far beyond for this post though. In the meantime, go to the website of Monotype and write the word “Iliad”, once in Neue Haas Unica (similar to the Apple font) and once in FF Unit. Notice how you can tell apart the capital “I” from the lowercase “l” and “i” much better. It’s things like this that make typefaces like FF Unit much better for UIs and also signage (in hospitals for example).

I would love to read your (future) piece about legibility of typefaces!

You're correctly describing facts (eg the font apple uses doesn't let me tell the difference between llama and Ilama), but that's mostly not needed when reading their blob of legalese text.

In the extremely subjective world, I find the monotype hard to read in that narrow format because it implies a verticality - like looking at an art deco building. Somehow my eyes are able to scan the font they've selected more easily. This is, of course, possibly because apple has made me read a lot of their typefaces.

The context matters a lot, and so you want the stop sign (or possibly even the simple marketing sign) to be unambiguous. You want good kerning that won't make words bleed together or break at incorrect points.

I tend to like the fonts that are trendy on the web these days though - I find them fairly easy to read (and I read them a lot!)

One thing that surprised me is that comic sans can be easier for someone who is dyslexic to read because b and d are not mirrors. So I would be sympathetic to a lot of typeface choices if I understand why.

You understood the point I was trying to make in that piece, congratulations!

Yeah, the apple ghost buttons are a dialog with the user. They say "you have seen this situation 1000s of times, and are tired and bored". They slip into the background as your finger autopilots to the same spot it always goes. When the action becomes rote, the button becomes tacky.

On, say, a kitchen stove, I find the same minimal design frustrating, because I don't use it enough to be familiar, and I want 100% certainty.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but not everybody has the same sense of aesthetics as you do, and the whole point of the article is to prioritize usability over any one person's opinion about what looks pretty.

Exactly. I thought I was rather explicit in my afterword that a redesign doesn’t have to look like my redesign.

I actually have the opposite opinion. I think the Apple version looks 10 years old (which is about the age it actually is. IOS 7 came out around 2013 iirc.) The rounded rectangles looks 20 years old. But is more usable so is superior in my opinion. I agree that the font the author chose is less aesthetic but it is much easier for someone with dyslexia or adhd to read, making it more functional as well.

> If a user regularly does something or uses something you can strip it down like the back button.

No.

Yes! My counterargument will reference the rust language ergonomics initiative post (which imo is seminal)

In particular, they say

> One final point. "Implicitness" is often relative to where the language is today, something that seems radical at first—like type inference!—but then quickly disappears into the background, to the point that it no longer feels implicit at all (see Stroustrup's rule).

https://blog.rust-lang.org/2017/03/02/lang-ergonomics.html