Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Apple

The Sketchbook of Susan Kare 173

theodp writes "The Mac wasn't the first computer to present the user with a virtual desktop of files and folders instead of a command line and a blinking cursor, but it was the sketchbook of Susan Kare that gave computing a human face to the masses. After graduating from NYU with a Ph.D. in fine arts, Kare was working on a commission from an Arkansas museum to sculpt a razorback hog out of steel when she got a call from high-school friend Andy Hertzfeld offering her a job to work on the Mac. The rest, as they say, is UI history. Armed with a $2.50 sketchbook, Kare crafted the casual prototypes of a new, radically user-friendly face of computing. BTW, just in time for holiday gift-giving, Kare has self-published her first book, Susan Kare Icons. So, could computing could use a few more artists, and a few less MBAs?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Sketchbook of Susan Kare

Comments Filter:
  • wrong (Score:2, Informative)

    by khipu ( 2511498 ) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @06:24PM (#38161312)

    Shortly thereafter, Xerox doomed its chances to own the icon-driven future by pouring its resources into the Xerox Star, a product aimed strictly at the corporate market. Each Star purchase required an initial $75,000 installation and a network of external file servers, plus another $16,000 for each additional workstation (twice the price of a new car at the time). A digital revolution for the masses, it wasn’t.

    No, Xerox didn't "doom the future", they just started with an expensive first product and then were driving the cost down. Apple saw this and started cloning it. Their first attempt also cost about $10000 per workstation. Then Apple cut a lot of corners and drove the price down further to about $2500 (about $5000 in today's dollars). Corner cutting involved getting rid of pretty much all the software infrastructure of the Xerox devices, stripping them down to a mere shell, a shell that looked nice but was hell to program.

  • by dak664 ( 1992350 ) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @06:39PM (#38161358) Journal

    The Plato IV protoypes used a plasma panel with touch screen in the late '60s, and had downloadable characters you could point to to activate different functions. Not a far reach to make those program and folder icons.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLATO_(computer_system) [wikipedia.org]

  • Re:Aha (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2011 @06:50PM (#38161400)

    So now I know who made the Mac so insufferably ugly. For me it was a retch at first sight. I think I may be the only one in the world but I have consistently hated every single artistic and stylistic choice Apple ever made with their GUI (their hardware designs sometimes look OK, e.g. iPhone 4)

    That comes from being a heterosexual. You're clearly not their target demographic.

  • by Animats ( 122034 ) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @06:58PM (#38161440) Homepage

    Susan Kare is very well known in the visual design world. She is the world's leading icon designer. Not only did she do the icons for the Mac, she did some of the icons for Windows. And Autodesk products. And PayPal. And Facebook.

    (If the Linux crowd had someone that good, Linux on the desktop would probably be a success by now.)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2011 @07:11PM (#38161520)

    She did the icons for Nautilus too.

  • Re:wrong (Score:4, Informative)

    by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @08:50PM (#38162140)

    getting rid of pretty much all the software infrastructure of the Xerox devices, stripping them down to a mere shell

    Yeah, right. "Stripping". By adding things like pull down menus and drag and drop. Things that didn't exist on the Xerox system. Things that didn't exist at all till Apple invented them.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 24, 2011 @08:59PM (#38162218)

    "The percentage of top 100 CEOs who earned an M.B.A. decreased from 37% in 2003 to 36% in 2004, to 35% this year [2005]. The percentage of all S&P 500 CEOs who have an M.B.A. has increased from 37% to 39% over the past two years."

    content.spencerstuart.com/sswebsite/pdf/lib/2005_CEO_Study_JS.pdf

    There are a lot of MBAs who successfully run large corporations, but I realize that its fun to hate on them here.

  • by Keen Anthony ( 762006 ) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @09:11PM (#38162312)

    Seriously? The point isn't that people who hold Masters in Business Administration know best per se, it is that successful technology businesses are not the result of good engineering, but the result of a mix of engineering, good business management, and marketing expertise. This is traditionally the area of the MBA, but this doesn't imply that a computer scientist can never ever under any circumstances understand things like SWOT. It means that understanding how to make a business successful is separate from knowing how to make cool technology. You have identified four companies out of an entire industry populated by many successful tech companies operated by businessmen. And incidentally, Steve Jobs is not an engineer or a computer scientist. Nor are Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg. None of these guys fits the profile of the typical software engineer. And Sergy Brin and Larry Page worked with Eric Schmidt who possessed executive experience, realizing the need for someone who understood how to run a business.

  • Re:wrong (Score:4, Informative)

    by BasilBrush ( 643681 ) on Thursday November 24, 2011 @11:06PM (#38162834)

    Bullshit. Pulldown menus existed in many software products.

    Name a single one that preceded the Lisa. You can't because Apple did indeed invent the pull down menu.

    Wikipedia even mentions it. Though they erroneously call them drop-down menus (which was a Microsoft variant) rather than pull down menus as Apple called them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_graphical_user_interface [wikipedia.org]

    I recognise your user name as someone who is very often wrong. I suggest you should do a little research before posting in future.

  • Re:wrong (Score:5, Informative)

    by GrahamCox ( 741991 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @12:51AM (#38163286) Homepage
    No. You cannot compare it with anything that "was just around the corner" - it didn't exist yet. I don't recall AmigaOS being much ahead of the Mac (not "Mac OS", it wasn't called an OS for another 10 years), though it did have some nice features and eventually, some nice tools. Apart from Smalltalk, on which you might have a point, none of those other things would have been usable on a 68000 processor. It's questionable whether any sort of OOP runtime could have run on it. You could argue that the CPU was too small for the job, but the software was well tailored to the architecture they chose, for better or worse. The point is, it was a very productive way to program for a while. I'm not saying it was anywhere near perfect, but calling it a piece of shit is to judge it by the standards of today, not 1984.
  • by Bluecobra ( 906623 ) on Friday November 25, 2011 @03:29AM (#38163776)

    For all you computer history geeks out there, here is a clip from Computer Chronicles of Susan Kare demonstrating the Mac back in 1984:

    http://www.archive.org/details/Computer1984_3?start=772 [archive.org]

All seems condemned in the long run to approximate a state akin to Gaussian noise. -- James Martin

Working...