4 ms·

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. As an example of what I am talking about - one of the internal apps at my workplace recently got a visual over

I'm not sure we are talking about the same thing. As an example of what I am talking about - one of the internal apps at my workplace recently got a visual overhaul. The functionality is exactly the same. The previous version also had a designer working on it and he too tried to make the thing beautiful (according to what was fashionable then). But because the new version is made according to the current fashion so much less information fits on the screen. I suspect the same thing will happen if someone tries to fit the application into current UX paradigm of dumbing down the interaction.

petewailes 11y ago
Then the designer hasn't done his/her job. It should start with an understanding of what the user should be able to do. The story of the user interaction for every screen is vital. Without it, you end up with what you've described - something that may well be beautiful, but is deeply annoying to use.
- karmelapple 11y ago
  And although the design doesn't display as much information, what are the needs for thi tool? Could some of the previously displayed information simply not truly be useful anymore? Was it adding visual noise and distracting from the main purpose of the visualization?