262
Why is UI design backsliding?
(lemmy.zip)
Why did UI's turn from practical to form over function?
E.g. Office 2003 vs Microsoft 365
It's easy to remember where everything is with a toolbar and menu bar, which allows access to any option in one click and hold move.
Seriously? Big ribbon and massive padding wasting space, as well as the ribbon being clunky to use.
Why did this happen?
You are among the first people I've seen online who hasn't circlejerked about literally any level of padding/spacing being too much padding.
People on Reddit/Lemmy always talk about how unusably shit any modern design is, and how UX/UI from 20+ years ago was so much better.
Yet do people use ancient copies of the software that broadly still performs the tasks people need of them? No.
Do they theme their system to look like the oh-so-superior Win98? No.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes I see a design change I dislike. But as a general rule, UI has definitely got better over the years.
And don't get me wrong, part of me feels great nostalgia at seeing old UX's, because it reminds me of the "good old days" when I bought my first computer in 1999. It's fun to Go back and use systems from back then. And at first you think AAAAA this is so cool, I remember all this, this looks neat, but after that nostalgia wears off you think *"thank god modern UIs aren't inconsistent, cramped and cluttered like this"
Nostalgia goggles are a powerful thing.
Yes, actually—I have a VM reserved mostly for 16-bit software.
Yes, actually—the Windows machine I'm forced to use for work restores as much of that aesthetic as practical, sometimes with the help of third-party software. My main home machine features a Linux DE whose appearance is largely the same as it was circa 2005 and whose development team is dedicated to keeping that look and feel.
Some of us do put our money where our mouths are, although I admit that isn't universal.
It's true that some level of padding is necessary in a UI, but the amount present in contemporary design is way too large for a system using a traditional mouse or laptop touchpad, which are capable of small, precise movements. Touchscreen-friendly design is best saved for touchscreens, but people don't want to do the work involved to create multiple styles of UI for different hardware. I've never encountered anything touted as "one size fits all", whether it be a UI or a piece of clothing, that actually does fit everyone. At best, it's "one size fits most", and I'm usually outside the range of "most" the designers had in mind. At worst, it's "lowest common denominator", and that seems to be the best description for contemporary UI design.
That be TDE or Mate?.. I can't get rid of anxiety without using FVWM with small simple panel and very minimal look. But I am nostalgic.
TDE. Mate would work too, I suppose, but I imprinted on KDE3 early.
Do you think that's normal? I made very clear in my comment I was referring to the vast majority of people, not a tiny majority of 80s/early 90s software enthusiasts.
As above, do you think that's normal? I never said literally nobody, anywhere, on planet Earth does this.
Exactly. And that's fine.
But the vast majority of people prefer UI now over what we had in the 90s.
In your opinion, sure. But that's not the prevailing opinion. People prefer modern designs.
If people liked it, that's what we'd have. Surely this is a simple concept?
It's bullshit. Most people choose from among the handful of things the corporations offer them. You have to be exceptionally blockheaded to stay with an OS that no longer receives security patches, even if you prefer its interface paradigm, and if you're not the one controlling the machine you may not even have the option. The type of retrofitting I've done on my work machine is just that—work—and I understand why people may not want to do it, or may not be able to do it if they'd have to fight a draconian IT department for permission.
Furthermore, most people aren't designers or even terribly compute-literate. They don't necessarily understand which design elements are causing them to be so inefficient when they move to a different OS version, or how to revert them in cases where that's possible. They're stuck with Microsoft-Apple-Google's poor design decisions, until the same corp hands them another set of poor design decisions. The corporations don't want to decouple the UI from the OS the way Linux and other Unixoids do and let people choose, because the shiny new UIs are an advertising opportunity and impress certain types of reviewers.
I never said using an OS from the 90s/early 2000s, I said theming current OSes as if they are.
But tbh, most people are that block-headed with tech (as you alluded to later in your comment). There will be plenty of people still on Win10 when support ends.
Ah someone who never had to deal with handicap or accessibility issues who think since he can do it no one else needs it.
Do you complain about ramps because staircase are just fine since legs can easily climb them too?
You might as well criticize someone that uses a mirror in spite of blind people existing.
Oh, for the love of . . . If you need, or even just want, accessibility options, including larger pointer targets, they should be available to you, but as options, since not everyone needs the same ones, and things that help one person's issues can actually make another's worse.
The killer combination is to have both ramps for those who need them and stairs for those who can use them, coequal and well-maintained. Sometimes space may dictate that you can only fit one in, in which case you should choose the ramp, but a dozen different Windows skins would take up less space on the install media than one flop "feature" like Paint 3D, and I assume it's the same for a Mac. Part of the reason for the currest state of affairs is that corporations are horrified at the thought of giving people actual choice and letting them find what works best for their level of ability as well as their preferences. They might make $0.01 less per unit that way, you see.
People spend lots of money to buy big screens, only for apps/websites to use a fraction of it.
I cannot control how every application or website I have to use looks, but where I can, I try to find solutions.
When I am occasionally on reddit, I use old.reddit. I use addons for youtube, to remove unecessary stuff, or open videos directly in mpv.
I use reader mode to make many sites easier to navigate.
Mastodon and Lemmy have a much better design than Twitter or new Reddit.
On the one windows machine I still have, I use the classic shell, to replace the start menu with something more usable.
I use Libreoffice, and many other Software with sane functional UI.
I don't want to use old software, because the older software gets, the more hostile the environment becomes for it.
A lot of UI decisions on the Internet seem driven by the need to create empty spaces to put advertising into, and with adblocker it looks just bad.
The bulk of these aren't issues with modern design, IMO, it's about enshittification of the services we use.
Having huge spaces for ads, for example, isn't a "this is how UX should be" thing, it's a "lets shove ads everywhere to make money" thing. If you put the same amount of ads in older software/on sites that look like they're from 2002, it would also look terrible.
The Windows start menu isn't bad because it has some padding and easier click targets, it's bad because the search doesn't work, it's full of ads, and pushes Bing searches on you.
Etc.
Yes they are, UX designers are not asked to make more efficient or usable designs, they are asked to make designs that "look good" in marketing, support ad integration, hook people into others services provided by that same company, make it more difficult to incorporate with workflows that include third-party applications, etc.
This is deliberate UX design, which is part of the enshittification process.
You are thinking of an entirely different thing.
If you put the same amount of ads in software that looks like it's from the 90s, do you still think you'd like that 90s software? Of course you wouldn't.
This just means that functionality and interoperability criteria are more important than usability. They are - you can't just exchange docs with a person using a modern office suite, while you are using WordPerfect 8 for Linux.
This is the opposite of confirming your argument about UI\UX, because this means that UI\UX are order of magnitude less important in making the decision.
And it's obvious, I swear, some people haven't been taught that arguments are not intended to support their group or hierarchy, you can't do that with cheating in arguments anyway. They are intended to find out truth, make both participants richer than before.
That's simply because they "theme their system" to look as they wish and they don't have to stop with Win98 or Win2K.
But in a "one size to fit all" situation those are still obviously superior.
Ergonomics is not a matter of opinions, there's plenty of research since the fscking world war two. Different controls should have different colors, shapes and textures. It's a scientifically proven statement. Proven with human error stats and time to do a task stats.
Padding controls and indicators with space can be a good thing, but no modern designer is doing it right as far as I'm concerned. Because it's not about making panels half the screen, it's about different groups of controls being clearly separated by that space and padded for focus, and space being used proportionally to importance.
They've all heard something of it, but haven't learned the actual thing.
Older UIs were usually (often, but not always) made with respect to ergonomics.
Our ideas of all three things seem to be diametrically opposite. For me older UIs seem ordered, compact and correctly accented. In general, it's not always true - say, I like the appearance of old KDE (2-3), but not sure if I'd use it daily, for example (neither I would modern KDE).
Sometimes yes. Usually no, for most people. If you make a word document in an older version of office, it'll still work fine. If you use LibreOffice with the oldest-looking UI, it'll still work. 99% of people don't use the extremely niche features that have been added in recent years.
But people by and large don't do that. They typically use the newest version.
No it isn't.
How is using software with modern interfaces actually a confirmation that people actually prefer older UX?
Exactly. And almost nobody themes their system to look like the supposedly superior in UI/UX Win95/98/2000. Indicating that maybe people don't actually want a UI from that era, despite Reddit and Lemmy insisting that everybody does.
Exactly. And that research has lead to where we are now.
Is a good thing.
No, they've generally improved it, and listened to actual UX usability studies.
They almost never were. Seriously. Go back and try some 90s software. Most of it was a cluttered mess, ugly, really weirdly laid out, and had zero considering for anybody with disabilities.
And that's fine. You can think differently. But most would disagree with you, outside the Redditor/Lemmy bubble.
You are immune to logic sadly, but I'll answer two things, which can be extrapolated to all you've said.
No, it all won't work fine at your work where you send documents and spreadsheets and stuff with complex functionality to your colleagues and clients. And they send their documents to you. And versions edited in your old version or LO break.
That aside, WordPerfect 8 doesn't support MSW document formats, IIRC, and MSW doesn't support WP8 document formats.
This is factually incorrect and I have already said it's incorrect. That research has mostly been exhausted, and the conclusions one can make from it are more or less the same as in 40s, 60s and 80s. And 90s' interfaces were more usable because by habit people tried to follow industrial ergonomics, even though computer displays allow one to cheaply shoot their user in the foot, in the way some device's panel with switches, buttons and knobs doesn't.
Some of it. But IBM and Apple had human interface guidelines based on actual research about ergonomics, which hasn't become obsolete despite what you say, because humans did not change as a race in 30 years. UI\UX following those is still good.
Judging by the first quote, you simply haven't done work requiring heavy usage of productivity software yet.
Also you are arguing like a schoolboy. Exactly in the way schoolboys consider to not look like it. I could give advice, but that usually only results in resistance.
If you can't engage with someone like an adult, don't bother talking to them at all.
yOu aRE a ScHoOlBoY iMmUnE tO LoGiC. Grow up.
I'll be here if you wish to further this without huffy remarks and silly playground insults.
These people have no idea what constitutes a good user interface. Just because they’ve taught themselves how to use the one from 1998, does not mean that grandma of 78 would find it as intuitive. Applications like this have to accommodate so many different types of people and somehow the neckbeards seem to forget that. Can’t imagine why.
2k is the new 800×600... :-/
It's probably even worse for Windows users with all those stupid unresizeable windows.
How are laptop screens useless? I'm using a laptop right now. Doesn't seem useless to me.
I have more than enough room.
Laptops wouldn't be the main form factor for doing PC work if they were useless.
Unless you've got scaling set super high for some reason, that's very doubtful.
No wait, let me go with your example ….
You believe a laptop window is useful because you can run a browser with 11 headlines visible
My first work “computer” was a vt100 terminal: black and white, 80 characters wide (on the newer models), by 24 rows. I could and did have a reader that could display as many as 20 headlines on a single screen, and I could scroll and drill down much faster. Sure the UI was shit, but it had the functionality to do the task.
Don’t get me wrong, I fully appreciate the usability and power of a modern graphical UI and would never go back. However the point is designers focus too much on eye candy and “doing it because they can” over actual functionality. Can you understand my frustration that a modern 1900x1200 screen with millions of colors is really no more functional than a 40 year old black and white character based terminal. I get that designers want to show off their UI, but I want the UI to get out of my way and let me do more stuff. I want there to be more focus on compactness and efficiency. I want at least some attention paid to using resources wisely
*12 headlines, on a window that doesn't even take up my whole screen, at 125% scaling, with a bookmark bar taking up space, and on a site rich with thumbnails.
And fine. I'll set it to standard 100% scaling, at a size where I can still comfortably work:
19 headlines, and some nice related thumbnails, a site header with plenty of links, 2 small file manager windows open, and a terminal window open.
None of this is even taking into consideration things in modern UX design like virtual desktops you can instantly switch between - something non-existent long ago.
Please do continue to tell me about how "unusable" laptops are.
So you accept that you were mistaken, yeah? Clearly they're usable.
Is that a Framework Laptop?
Damn I wish, I've been eyeing those up for ages.
It's some Huawei laptop I found refurbished for a price I couldn't turn down
Wow, you can fit one whole browser window on it .. with headlines.
Even back in the CRT days, I could have a couple windows, such as email, text, and IDE
Laptops are great for portability: I used to carry them to work from any loaation. It was great while it lasted. Now I carry it from docking station to docking station, and I’m back to the bad old days of dpneeding an office set up, so I can have usable monitors
I easily fit my browser on it (displaying a reasonably-sized page without content being cut off) with a file manager at the side, which is what I had open at the time.
I don't know what you wanted me to show you. 4 windows in a quadrant layout? That would be doable too, for most programs.
I was refuting your point that laptops are unusable because of modern UX - clearly they aren't.
I thought we were talking about laptops! Now you're talking about a monitor on a desk?
As I just showed you, you can have multiple windows open on a laptop. My laptop isn't even large, it's just a usual 14.something" laptop.
You should go into your display settings and turn your scaling down, because it seems to me you've got scaling set at 200% or something lol