1) Does it look native at a pixel level? In other words, does it use a standard Mac window and title bar and buttons and widgets and all the rest?
2) Is it organized according to Mac UX conventions? Does it put commands in the menu bar rather than inside of windows? Are menu items where you'd expect? Is the "Settings..." command where you'd expect, and is the Settings dialog laid out in standard tabs or icons across the top, rather than something else (like a list box on the left)?
3) Does it respect all standard gestures and shortcuts and animations? If I press opt+left in a textbox, will the cursor jump to the previous word? If I press cmd+right, will it jump to the end of the text? If I scroll down, will it bounce at the bottom?
That's what it means. And it's desirable for 1) aesthetics, 2) understandability, and 3) usability directly corresponding to those three points. Aesthetics is less important but it's still nice. Understandability is important because I don't want to hunt for a command when it's not where I'd expect. And usability is critical because when I cmd+right in a text box and it doesn't work, it's incredibly frustrating.
Obviously, "native" is not a binary but is rather a continuum. And yes, even Apple's own apps are not always 100% at the "native" end, especially with stuff they've designed in conjunction with iOS. Which I think a lot of Mac users find frustrating.
Greatly put, thank you so much. We should put this up somewhere as the Mac-assed manifesto.
But I would actually add, on a more fundamental level:
0) Does it actually run on my metal? I.e. not in a VM, not any sort of "thin client", and CERTAINLY not Electron… but rather an actual solid piece of software compiled for the computer it's running on?
You say "native is not a binary" but actually, in my opinion yes, it is also very much the binary!
"is the Settings dialog laid out in standard tabs or icons across the top, rather than something else (like a list box on the left)?"
Or worse, a huge plain old JSON with tons of multi line comments explaining what one particular key does.
Like, I get it, its l33t and haxx0r to use a text file for settings, and yeah, you can easily transfer it to other platforms unlike an XML Plist file, but I despise apps that don't even bother providing a basic UI for changing settings. Ctrl+F "autocomplete" (30 results) is a *terrible* experience vs a natively drawn "Autocomplete" tab in a settings modal.
For me, it has three parts:
1) Does it look native at a pixel level? In other words, does it use a standard Mac window and title bar and buttons and widgets and all the rest?
2) Is it organized according to Mac UX conventions? Does it put commands in the menu bar rather than inside of windows? Are menu items where you'd expect? Is the "Settings..." command where you'd expect, and is the Settings dialog laid out in standard tabs or icons across the top, rather than something else (like a list box on the left)?
3) Does it respect all standard gestures and shortcuts and animations? If I press opt+left in a textbox, will the cursor jump to the previous word? If I press cmd+right, will it jump to the end of the text? If I scroll down, will it bounce at the bottom?
That's what it means. And it's desirable for 1) aesthetics, 2) understandability, and 3) usability directly corresponding to those three points. Aesthetics is less important but it's still nice. Understandability is important because I don't want to hunt for a command when it's not where I'd expect. And usability is critical because when I cmd+right in a text box and it doesn't work, it's incredibly frustrating.
Obviously, "native" is not a binary but is rather a continuum. And yes, even Apple's own apps are not always 100% at the "native" end, especially with stuff they've designed in conjunction with iOS. Which I think a lot of Mac users find frustrating.