Intuition
lmnt.me
lmnt.me
Most of the issues described in the article are not the result of unintuitive designs per se, but the result of inconsistent designs within the same context. Inconsistency makes it difficult to extrapolate patterns out of particular experiences that can be applied elsewhere. But resolving this is just a matter of reconciling interfaces to consistent design patterns.
The idea that the concept of a disk image is somehow inherently unintuitive is not really valid; and, in fact, the process of using a disk image and using a zip file to install applications are really two variations of the same thing.
"Disk image" is just a particular type of file archive in the Mac world. It's misnamed, but that's not a problem for novice users who don't otherwise know what a disk image is; it's a problem for experienced users who know what "disk image" means everywhere else.
There is a long MacOS history and evolution here starting with “you run the app from the floppy disk it lives on”. The disk image with the handy Applications alias makes perfect sense as the end result of that evolution, if you just know what a disk image, an alias, and the Applications folder are. I mean, the arrow even literally tells you what to do. Unpack a ZIP file and it just sits there.
There was a discontinuity in this history when the App Store was imported from sandboxed iOS device world where none of these mechanisms are present (well, now there’s Files, but that’s hardly the same). It tries to hide the entire mechanism from you and does a pretty good job — just press “Get” and run the app from the Launcher, just like iOS.
None of this is “intuitive” but some of it may be more or less familiar and/or make “obvious” use of mechanisms you are expected to understand (like folders, disk images, ZIP files, and the App Store).
The message here may be that the prevalence of iOS means Mac users shouldn’t be expected to understand folders and aliases. Maybe so, but there has to be some baseline knowledge of what the direct manipulation is manipulating, or the whole GUI exercise is pointless.
(BTW, totally agree with Windows users being gun-shy, particularly if they’ve experienced the fragmentation-grenade style Windows installers that are still around after multiple decades of Microsoft trying to rein developers in…)
1. Click download on website
2. App appears in your Downloads folder (automatically unzipped and with the original zip file removed).
For new users, that's definitely more intuitive than a disk image because you never have to interact with an intermediate format. You just download the app.
You do probably still have to understand the concept that apps are like files and can be located in folders. Alternatively, you can launch the app via Spotlight. But if you try to launch the app from the downloads list, it will work, only to stop working in the future once the downloads list clears. Or if you try to use Mission Control, the app just won't show up there unless you move it to /Applications.
This is more complicated than the App Store. But it's still simpler than disk images, where you still have to understand all of that, but also have to understand the idea of disk images being mounted and ejected. Sure, Mac users who once used software distributed on physical disks may have an easier time with disk images, but most software has not been distributed that way for a very long time.
Other browsers and operating systems make zip files more complicated.
In Chrome on macOS, you have to double-click the zip file to unzip it. At that point you have the app in your Downloads folder, but the original zip file is also still there, so you have to manually discard it or leave it as clutter.
In Windows, double-clicking a zip file makes Windows Explorer enter into the zip file, similar to disk images on macOS but without the mounting aspect. If you then try to double-click an exe file, you'll get a dialog that prompts you to "Extract all" or "Run", and recommends that you extract all. "Run" will extract just the selected file to a temporary directory and run it, which will often not work, explaining the recommendation. It works well enough, but the fact that a zip file acts like a folder in some ways but not others, and the existence of the semi-useless "Run" option, arguably creates a confusing mental model.
Don’t forget the Installer message that asks if you want it to put the package in the Trash for you, and will automatically eject the disk image and put that in the Trash as well, without mentioning it. Yet another well-intentioned band-aid. (I actually find this “help” to be counter-intuitive because I do understand disk images, and I know read-only images can’t have a Trash, so how could this actually do what it’s saying?)
BTW, speaking of hidden realities, remember the real reason apps have to be in ZIP files or disk images isn’t the compression (HTTP is likely already compressing it), it’s that Mac apps are, in reality, folders not files, so you can’t actually download them!
Apple's drag and drop is nonsense. Give it to a 7-year-old who's never interacted with the computer (or phone, etc) and watch them probably struggle.
As a kid one of the most intuitive experiences I had was installing software on a Mac. It involved inserting a disc, having the disk contents appear in the UI, and then running some kind of install program named "Installer" or similar.
That was one of the first times I used a computer, and in hindsight it was awesome.
The concept of "Installation" is a great analogy to many tangible real life acts. Installing a new sink, window, or other appliance. With basic vocabulary skills it just clicks in.
Admittedly, I don't understand half the comments in this thread.. How can this be controversial? :)
The next question is: can we execute an application directly from a zip file? Or do we need to invent something that allows for a folder structure, but is also downloaded in a single file?
Once upon a time, upon seeing a disk image open with an app icon, a certain quantity of people would choose to run the app straight off the disk image, likely not understanding the prompt to copy the app to the Applications folder.
Then, sometime later, the disk image would be unmounted (e.g., system reboot) and suddenly the app they had “installed” disappeared.
Rather than force everyone into mandatorily copying apps to the Applications folder, they added a dialog to suggest to the user where the app should go. I will say, though, I didn’t realize it applied to _everything_ outside of the Applications folder. I thought it was only for apps run off of disk images.
I think that's the individual applications themselves: as far as I know osx itself doesn't care where you run the app from (or maybe this was only added after 10.10?). You can even run the app directly from the disk image, which I often do to "try out" an app.
"Intuitive" and "easy to use" is 90% familiarity.