As far as the look goes, a brief preamble: I don't think we will se a dramatic return to v.5 aesthetics. This is not something we need to fear, or a reasonable request to make (depending on which side of the fence you sit on). Evernote clearly listens to all of our ideas but only acts on those which it can effectively integrate into the broader vision for the application as instructed from "above" (e.g., libin/execs, etc). As users, we see only very poor and non-representative snapshots of what "users want". App store reviews are not likely representative of all users. Forum users are not representative of all users (though perhaps we could represent a microcosm, at least a bit better than the app store). Your buddy isn't representative of the general user.Number three needs some elaboration. One thing to remember is that there are 100 million users of Evernote. These users span all ages and several continents and languages. They represent an enormous number of possible use cases. They come along with a large variety of hardware-body combinations, deficiencies, and advantages. So, what does it mean to say that something is "representative of users" or that they are or are not "listening to users". Which users? The "average" user? What is the "average" user? And what about the large proportion of users that exist outside of the "average"? I'd say no such "average" or "typical" user exists. We, as users and as people who have no data except our own anecdotes, are in the worst position to make inferences about what the "average/majority/typical user" wants (if such a user could be said to exist). Evernote is, by far, in a better position to make such inferences (where it is appropriate to do so). They have the usage data, they have the forums, they have support data, they have survey data, they have social media data. While I'm sure their picture of users is pretty blurry (as all things based on stats invariably are), it is a lot better than what any one of us has. Of course, this blurry picture is then processed through the broader Evernote agenda which is dictated from above, so the amount of that picture that actually makes it into the product is.... well... hard to determine, and impossible for us, as users, to determine. What I'm ultimately trying to say here is that it isn't terribly productive for us to try and make claims about what "everyone" wants, what the "average user" wants. Those are not things we can speak to. We can speak to what we like and don't like, and why. We are able to speak with 100% accuracy about our personal, subjective experience using the new Evernote. Articulating those ideas should be the priority here. I'm not defending specific decisions made by Evernote here. You all know I don't hesitate to criticize Evernote. I'm just saying that we should do what we can do best, which is talk about our experiences with the application. We aren't in a position to evaluate what the "average user" wants (no such user exists), nor are we in a position to evaluate how closely Evernote's application resembles the desires of that user (since we don't know those desires). So, long story short: We can't infer what others want, we can't infer how much of what others want is in Evernote's application. So lets just talk about what we want! ---- Onto what I want: In general following Apple's general user interface guidelines seems sensible to me. I know Apple encourages that, and I can understand the desire to make an application that generally fits with the design language of the operating system and with other applications that have taken up that design language. Whether I like or dislike the Yosemite aesthetic isn't terribly relevant here (though I lean towards liking it, though it has a way to go I think, before it is fully baked), not the least because I do not think Evernote will be turning back on that design language. I think the iTunes and Finder comparisons make some good points. (Ok, while nobody spends 90% of their time in Finder, I think the point JMichael was making is that it is possible to use the Yosemite design language in a way that results in higher contrast and readability compared to EN 6.0.2). There are small tweaks that can generally improve the visibility of currently selected interface objects and delineate between interface elements, without deviating from the Yosemite aesthetic. Wunderlist is another great example. I think they have really found that sweet spot between flash and dazzle, and the minimalism of Yosemite's design language (early Wunderlist, for those who were in the beta testing days several years ago, might remember that it was originally way too heavy-handed with the flash and dazzle even in the pre-Yosemite days). In general as of 6.0.2, I think Evernote has done a pretty good job with improving text contrast all around. I just took a little tour around to try and find any pain points and didn't find anything too troubling. I'm sure someone here can dig out a sore spot for text that I've overlooked (or cannot detect). As others have pointed out, text contrast isn't necessarily the main contrast issue (At least, not as of 6.0.2). I definitely think differentiating major section of the application could be improved. On my Retina MacBook Pro, I don't have a big problem with the left sidebar. It's both transparent and a slightly darker shade of grey then the rest of the application, and this contrast, while subtle, is well reproduced by my Retina display. Testing it out on a non-retina external display suggests it isn't too bad there either. As it stands it appears to be almost identical to Mail.app which I find to be clear enough for me. Perhaps there is the possibility of increasing the weight of the separators between sidebar elements and between the sidebar and main window. This might even be made contingent on the display so that non-retina devices will have a heavier separator than retina devices. The same could be said for differentiating list view from the note below, or perhaps attempting to ensure that the alternating dark rows in list view have a different shade of grey than the note editor that appears below it so they do not bleed into each other. Screenshot: https://www.evernote.com/l/ABmY1QLDWBhH0ryhCWgzbl8nFc7AsVnWp4E A dark-highlighted row is adjacent to the note editor and while there is a separator, the colours of the dark row and note editor are the same (modulating slightly due to transparency and the desktop background bleeding through). Looking at this screenshot, actually, it doesn't look like such a big deal.... The other element that needs some work, and I have complained about this elsewhere, is between the note title and the note body. Adding a divider between the title and the body could help orient users so they know where they are within the note, and distinguish between body text and title text. I understand that the absence of a divider is likely motivated by an attempt to visually unify the title and contents, but I find that it is disorienting. In particular, if there is no note content, or the content starts several lines from the top, such as with a brand new note or a note preceded by several line breaks, it is impossible to know how much padding is between the title and the body. This makes entering the note body a bit clumsy if done with the cursor (not so bad when using the keyboard to navigate from the title to the body). Another case is if there is text in the note body that is similar in size to the note title. If the note happens to be scrolled up so that this text is near the top, it can be potentially mistaken for title text. Altogether I think a horizontal line under the title (or some other visual means of differentiating these elements) would be a subtle way to improve the clarity and define the structure of the note window. Some slightly less critical design suggestions: There needs to be a visual indicator for local notebooks. Currently there is no way to distinguish between synced and local notebooks, except by mousing over them. This could be easily resolved by some small, persistent icon on local notebooks, or some other means of making this attribute easily known, at a glance. Shared notebooks have a persistent trio of people, I'm sure something similar could be implemented for local notebooks. Disclosure arrow needed for stacks in notebook view. While it is visually clear that a stack is a stack, it might not be self-evident that stacks can be disclosed or concealed by double-clicking when in notebook view. A small disclosure arrow or some other indicator that the user can expand this stack, might aid navigation. The contextual menu for notebooks is a complete disaster. In both the Notebook View and the Sidebar, the context menu (right-click) is totally incoherent: https://www.evernote.com/l/ABkEPZi9BN9JaqX17eaI0gbKd4CupDJr_2k In the first example we have: Share Notebook(Modify Sharing) - Not present in an un-shared notebookPublish NotebookNotebook SettingsDelete NotebookThe first three (or four) items in this list could all potentially contain identical controls. It is not clear how a user can infer which tasks can be performed by which menu items. If I want to share a notebook, do I click on Share Notebook, Notebook Settings, or Publish Notebook? Is not sharing part of the notebook settings? Is publishing the same as sharing or different from sharing? The context menu in the Notebook view (Second screenshot linked to above) is worse. Share Notebook(Manage Sharing) - Only present in shared notebooksPublish NotebookNotebook SettingsRename NotebookDelete Notebook......In addition to the issues with the non-mutually-exclusive sharing-related menu items described immediately above, why does it say "manage sharing" instead of "Modify sharing". Is this the same as "modify sharing" in the other context menu? Why are these different? Resolve the share/modify sharing menu disjuncture. If a user wants to see who a notebook is shared with, they must click on "modify/manage sharing". This information cannot be obtained from the "share note" menu item. However a user cannot actually share from the "manage sharing" pane. To do so, they have to exit that pane and click "share notebook". From share notebook they can share with new users, but they cannot determine who the notebook has already been shared with. To do this the user must then return to the "manage/modify sharing" pane. To make things worse, the Publish Notebook and Modify/Manage Sharing menu items actually lead to the same screen. Why do two different menu items lead to the same screen? Does this not also conflate the concepts of "publish" and "share", which Evernote seems to want to actually differentiate? (As I see it, Evernote wants "sharing" to be understood as giving access to specific users, while "publishing" is to provide public access. Certainly an acceptable distinction to make, but Evernote should avoid subsequently conflating these concepts themselves!). You could put all of the sharing and publishing stuff into the notebook settings pane. This would keep contextual menus small and tidy and provide a single dashboard where all attributes of a notebook could be modified including sharing and publishing, which may or may not be the same concept. Rather than having sharing and publishing confusingly spread across three different menu items, place sharing and publishing all here. Conceptually it is likely easier for users to know where to go to modify these settings. A user would no longer have to try and decide whether publishing and sharing are different, and attempt to reconcile the fact that if you click "share notebook" you can't see who the notebook is already shared with, you have to click on "Modify Sharing" (or, vexingly, "Manage sharing" in Notebook view) to actually see who it is shared with. Ok I think that's it for now.