Are the Settings window controls and no animation intentional?

I wanted to know if the Bear Settings window providing close and minimise buttons was intentional or not.

I haven’t seen a standard pattern across macOS apps. Some apps like Safari and Finder don’t provide the minimise button and also animate when switching from one Settings pane to another. While some like Mail do provide a minimise button and do not animate when switching from one pane to another just like Bear.

Yes, it’s intentional and I don’t think there is a real standard here. With macOS 13, Apple suggests making use of the system preferences for app preferences too but we can’t adopt this because we support older macOS releases.

Do you mean the window height? If this is the case, is a design choice.

Can you tell me the reason why to make the window minimisable and not animate the window height? Also, why does the Settings window only display Settings as the window title and not the name of the Settings tab? I’m interested to know.

I can’t go too much into the macOS window system history but minimizing a window has different advantages depending on how you work with windows. Regarding the window’s height, I don’t remember who said this but animations are very short movies that get annoying pretty quickly. There are exceptions for example when the animation is functional to the UI/UX or if is played very few times but this is not the case. We think at some point users don’t want to wait an extra 200ms to access a tab.

I guess this comes from the old days when Windows had a title that doesn’t change with the tab content. I’m not against Safari’s way tbh.


@trix180 thank you so much for the explanation. It’s great to know more about the attention to detail in Bear. Makes me love the app even more.