The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW)

A bit offtopic:
You know the sound "sosumi" included in mac os X?
It has now appeared on the iPhone-site, in some html-code: "This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained." XD

And by the way, I want a clean iPhone-site, so when the site is loaded enter this in the adress-bar and press enter:
javascript: ['tabs', 'contentfooter', 'breadcrumb', 'globalfooter'].each(function(a) { Effect.toggle(a, 'blind'); });

Reply

↓↑report

Errr, ok, one more try:
(replace [ with "less than sign" and ] with "more than sign")
[p class="sosumi"]This device has not been authorized as required by the rules of the Federal Communications Commission. This device is not, and may not be, offered for sale or lease, or sold or leased, until authorization is obtained.[/p]

Reply

↓↑report

i really never use apple's support site. i go to the discussion boards on apple.com though. they are always helpful there.

http://twibe.com

Reply

↓↑report

The sosumi CSS class is used around the Apple site for most legal smallprint and footnotes - check the main page for instance.

You can read the story behind the sound at Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi

Reply

↓↑report

The new design looks confusing, with the navigation on the top, on the left and also in the middle, poor alignments of different blocks, plus it's too wide for the usual 800-900 pixel wide page, which the rest of Apple.com fits in. The new page is at least 1000 pixel wide. This trend is concerning (think iTunes 7), what happened to the good old Apple design?!

Reply

↓↑report

I'm fairly certain all of their web design is done in-house.

Reply

↓↑report

The entire apple.com website could, in my opinion, need an update. I want it to become unified and simple. Right now it´s just bloated and ugly.

Reply

↓↑report

A couple of points. According to the W3C, over 80% of computers have resolutions at or above 1024x768. ( http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp ) If you resize your browser to 1024x768, you'll find the apple support site fits rather nicely. Therefore, Apple saw an opportunity to maximize the tools they were able to display "above the fold." It is highly likely that anyone seeking support for Apple products will been equipped with a monitor of the above resolution or higher; I believe this explains Apple's choice in width pretty well.

Next, the Apple website is not bloated. If one compares the organization of the Apple website to that of Dell, or the ever-evolving Gateway, one will find that that Apple website is quite a lean machine. We take it for granted that Apple never forces the user to declare themselves a "home," "small-business," or "enterprise" user ... you are simply shown what's newest at Apple (thoughts on music/new shuffles/the forthcoming iPhone/Apple TV, etc. ad nauseum :) ). True, it seems that Apple's confidence in their tabbed navigation design is so high that they place search at the bottom instead of the top of the window, but how many times does the average person use the search _from Apple's front page_? While my own behavior may not be representative, I think I have used that search box twice in a couple of years. If the bloat you are referring to is the different styles used to showcase different products, it is important to recognize that each product has different qualities that need to be illustrated. (I'd like to point out that the design of the Final Cut Studio site is tremendous, though explaining that would take another post) ... anyhow, these diverse features from different products don't fit into a set website mold. However, all these different designs share a common stylistic thread, which brings me to the next point.

Finally, and this is much less justifiable by fact, the Apple website is not ugly. True, the Cheetah/Puma era tabs at the top could be considered dated, but I don't see any smooth metal, which historically has been considered the most fad'ish of the Apple (user interface) design styles. ( http://daringfireball.net/2006/01/brushed_metal ) If a person examines the Apple product roll-outs (specifically their corresponding presences on the web), one will find styles mimicking that of the evolving style of OS X itself (typified across operating systems by iTunes 7). Since the newest portions of the website have been designed to match that OS X look and feel (sorry, that's a loaded phrase: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp. ) so closely, I would have a hard time believing anyone who argues that OS X is attractive, while at the same time saying the Apple website is ugly. Though, you may think that OS X is ugly. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Reply

↓↑report

Archive.org has versions of the support page from April 1998 through August 2006:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.apple.com/support/

Reply

↓↑report

Also, just a note, a new automated system with voice recognition has been implemented for the Canadian AppleCare 1-800 number.

Reply

↓↑report

Did you design the site Alexander?

To be honest apple sells more small screen computers than larger screen ones...iBooks vs Powerbook, using the website on my iBook, is just a tad ridiculous for a support site, the Aperture or Final Cut sites are fine for the wide layout due to content but a support site? The user should never have to run a site in full screen with a modern computer and scrolling in 2 different directions is also unnecessary.

Guess its just Apples way of telling me to buy a new computer because my 4:3 layout screen is outdated.

Also it does seem more cluttered...the last support seemed to flow a bit better.

Reply

↓↑report

It has one big stupid problem (at least with firefox): if you click anywhere on the left of the Apple Suport vertical menu, it will select all items of the page...
I wonder how they didn't notice that.

Reply

↓↑report

Though he can't tell you so, it looks like the work of designer Wilson Miner who works at Apple.

I like the new support site and find it to be enjoyable to look at and navigate.

Reply

↓↑report

Jonathan Wilson:

"To be honest apple sells more small screen computers than larger screen ones...iBooks vs Powerbook,"

Well, not in the last year (ibooks) or 18 months (powerbooks)

"using the website on my iBook, is just a tad ridiculous for a support site, the Aperture or Final Cut sites are fine for the wide layout due to content but a support site? The user should never have to run a site in full screen with a modern computer and scrolling in 2 different directions is also unnecessary."

Honestly, I don't know how you deal normally if you're complaining about this. Most sites - including TUAW - are designed for full-screen 1024 resolution (900px +/- 100px viewable content area). 1024x768 is the new default resolution for website design. Sorry, you'll just have to resize your browser.

Reply

↓↑report

I understand the resolution of most computer sold are wider than 1000 pixel, and it is understandable that Apple takes advantage of this.

My point, it may be specific to my habbit, is that most of the sites, TUAW for example, are fully functional at 900 pixel width, even though it might be designed for 1024. On my display I can typically have two browser window around 850/900 pixel wide side by side, which is how I normally work. With the new support site I can't, need to resize the window, this in itself is a bit trouble especially since the site is supposed to be a support site. Even if the whole Apple.com is designed for high-res, for support they should've be more considerate.

The other problem is that everything else on Apple.com works will within 900 (with exception of newer pages like iPhone, Pro and Mac@Work), it's not consistent.

Reply

↓↑report

support site or sales site ?

The AppleTV seems a little over represented in terms of screen real estate, unless there are seriously major issues with it?

Reply

↓↑report

In the meanwile of waiting for a MBP, I am using an old, 13" 4:3 screen Windows Laptop, and all works perfectly. 1024px is the most used width of the internet.

If you can't use 2 browsers windows on 1 screen, get a second if it is so important to you. Luxury problems can have luxury sollutions.

Reply

↓↑report

So much code bloat. I enjoy the cleaner look, but they've aggressively traded tables for divitis without semantics. It makes little sense when they have so much talent over there to ouput so much HTML/XHTML trash... it's been this way for some of their desktop apps too (Aperture 1 was XHTML 1.1 strict and it put out uppercase XHTML tags, first rule to break!). Clean, professional design with disgusting code isn't doing anything to push new developers forward.

Reply

↓↑report