[srvmshr]

Not sure why the fixation on "kids pick it up just fine". The OS caters to a wide variety of people. If kids start with these design elements, by observing what parents do, they will do just fine. A similar argument can exist for why CLI when most devs can simply use graphical apps with same functionality. There is a subjective choice to what tool is most comfortable to use.

The reason this MBP was running 10.7 is because my elderly relative found it jarring with the new iconography and context menus (hamburger icon, share icon etc). This MBP was hard reset to its initial OS. For many people, including my relative, the glass effects and flatter icons were simply too high of cognitive confusion to get mundane stuff working.

[chrisseaton]

> Not sure why the fixation on "kids pick it up just fine".

Well that was the original claim in the thread.

> by observing what parents do

My daughter seems to pick things up by experimentation rather than by observation, and material design works for this.

[srvmshr]

The spirit of the comment was to demonstrate usability among absolute beginners. It is well established that people connect with visuals which are descriptive of inanimate objects in the real world. Some people find it comfortable, while some - simply don't and want futuristic interface. There are people who swear by Metro UI till today. This was not an argument for the sake of an argument.

I grew up with a 386 which was locally available. Then Windows 95 & 98. I shifted to Mac OSX around 10.4. I still feel the skeumorphic iconography was simply beautiful. And by saying that I am saying it as a subjective opinion. And an aggregate opinion which I observe, specially among elderly, is that the icons and UI layout is hard to navigate.

[chrisseaton]

> It is well established that people connect with visuals which are descriptive of inanimate objects in the real world.

Is it really? Or is it just assumed that they do?