6 ms·

Is it wrong that I really like the look of some of these? Some are garish, sure, but others like http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kde2b

by rossy 10y ago

Is it wrong that I really like the look of some of these? Some are garish, sure, but others like http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kde2b3_6.jpg http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kd... and http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kde2final_4.jpg http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kd... have a professional feel that is missing in modern desktop environments. Even http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kde_jp_3.jpg http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kd... has a certain appeal to it. I miss the days when UI toolkits drew everything as grey boxes with a 3D edge. I miss Windows 9x/2000 and Mac OS 8/9 too. I think one of the best things about early 2000-era desktop environments was that it was hard for programs to look out-of-place. In a modern desktop environment, you can easily tell the difference between programs written with different toolkits, like GTK+ and Qt. Even though each toolkit can imitate the other (there's a Adwaita theme for Qt and a Breeze theme for GTK3,) due to the complexity of modern UI themes, it's impossible to get things right and the lack of drop-shadows or animations or hover effects will leave some programs looking sub-standard. On the other hand, every developer can draw a 3D-bevelled grey box. Both GTK+ and Qt apps were made of grey boxes and they both represented each kind of widget in a pretty similar way.

flukus 10y ago
People cared about consistent look and feel back then, everyone was hating on java because it got it wrong. Now everything seems to have it's own style and behavior.
- rossy 10y ago
  True that. Of the three programs I can see on my desktop right now (Chrome, WebStorm and Outlook,) none of them are even remotely trying to look consistent with the rest of the operating system. On the other hand, Office 2000 looks right at home on Windows 2000. Even though some controls were technically non-native, they still fit in because the 3D bevel was universal.
  - svckr 10y ago
    I secretly enjoy the ridicule I get from other web developers for refusing to use Chrome (except for late stage cross browser testing) because it does not even try to fit in.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > People cared about consistent look and feel back then, everyone was hating on java because it got it wrong That does not jive with my memories - and I remember WinAmp, MusicMatch Jukebox and Nero Burning ROM vividly.
  - flukus 10y ago
    I remember that too, I never said people were consistent. Get the order of menus wrong and you were the devil incarnate, write your own gui toolkit and everyone fondly remember you twenty years on (in the case of winamp, music match and nero were reviled).
    - sangnoir 10y ago
      > in the case of winamp, music match and nero were reviled Heresy! WinAmp was much-loved. This is the first time I'm hearing anything but love for WinAmp - it was the best music player/organizer at the time, and they added Milkdrop as bonus
      - theonemind 10y ago
        I think he's actually saying that it got winamp loved, but music match and nero reviled.
- distantsounds 10y ago
  You should probably mention that the vendors at least make an attempt at a 'standard' for their platforms. Whether or not developers follow it, is up for debate. https://developer.apple.com/design/ https://developer.apple.com/design/ https://material.google.com/ https://material.google.com/ https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/design https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/design
- thwarted 10y ago
  There was a period where there was major demand for form widgets in the browser to have a "native look and feel" to decrease the learning curb for people coming from native apps (while meaningful at the time, is less of an issue when most things are web-deployed), and then like the next month there were demands for CSS styling of form widgets and browsers were being shat on because they only supported it in a limited fashion, only color changes, and not actual shape and text styling. Now you can make text on a button bold italic, but who knows what that means when you see it in relation to a button that isn't bold italic or is just bold or just italic (other than that the designer has bad taste). I once worked with a designer who wanted control over the focus-caret styling (the dotted line in Firefox/highlighting in Chrome that indicates where keyboard input is destined, which changing has potentially huge impacts for accessibility). Having a UI/UX that grossly visually distinct negatively impacts usability, discoverability, and accessibility, IMO, for very little gain in branding (unless your branding is purposely meant to be "confusingly different from everyone else").
jhanschoo 10y ago
I agree with you in that. They look functional and utilitarian. The icons have dark, bold colors. The 3D depth is clear and meaningful. There is no platform-wide 'theme' that makes the icons similar to each other, instead allowing the symbol to speak its intention more loudly, and designers to create their own vocabulary within the app. Instead, most icons are outlined in black, making them clear and easily distinguishable.
notalaser 10y ago
If you're wrong, we're in it together. I very strongly dislike the modern trend towards flat, unrecognizable widgets and non-descript icons. I keep hoping it's just a phase, but the economical advantages this trend is bringing looks like something that's going to make it stay with us for a while.
pawadu 10y ago
The images you linked to feel very much BeOS to me. But maybe its just the color palette...
- simondelacourt 10y ago
  Not that strange, the linked image (http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kde2b3_6.jpg http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kd...) does indeed show something like a BeOS theme (https://regmedia.co.uk/2007/01/30/beos_1.jpg https://regmedia.co.uk/2007/01/30/beos_1.jpg). Really miss BeOS. Loved the way the desktop worked.
  - pawadu 10y ago
    Yeah. On second thought, i think they _are_ using KDE with a BeOS theme
snksnk 10y ago
This was before the UX people took over the web and desktop. I blame the introduction of smartphones, which was when the public at large finally came online. To appeal to this group, a lot of interfaces and websites got redesigned, losing a lot of functionality and efficiency. KDE is thankfully still rather usable.
- sangnoir 10y ago
  > This was before the UX people took over the web and desktop. I blame the introduction of smartphones, which was when the public at large finally came online. I doubt the plausibility of that timeline - the original iPhone was announced in January 2007, KDE 4.0Alpha1 was released in May 2007[1]. KDE 4.0 was a terrible release (missing functionality, lots of regressions). IMO, they should have kept it as a develop branch and only released 4.1 as 4.0. 1. https://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.0-alpha1.php https://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.0-alpha1.php
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    No, they should have kept it a development branch until 4.3 or 4.4. It wasn't until then that it was really usable. What's really funny and sad is that the GNOME team made the exact same mistake with Gnome3.
    - digi_owl 10y ago
      With the additional issue of too much Gnome-isms creeping into GTK3. The one benefit Qt has is that it is being maintained by a independent entity from KDE. One that intends for Qt to be its own product, and properly cross platform.
    - flukus 10y ago
      4.0 was meant to be a development branch, various distros pushed it out anyway.
- notalaser 10y ago
  (Actual) HCI experts didn't join the computer industry when smartphones popped up. They did when GUIs became a serious research subject for the industry, back in the 1980s, and a lot of their expertise and effort went into computer interaction throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Frankly, I cynically suspect that the flat, semi-functional design became widespread when the revenue model of many computer and phone vendors started overwhelmingly relying on super-revolutionary "apps" being churned out on minimal budgets. Today, you can get a complete design for the kind of money (and time) that got you a really good icon for an OS X application back in 2005. It's a major step back in terms of interaction model, not only looks, but the consumer industry runs on money, not quality.
agumonkey 10y ago
I feel similar. I still can't say if it's nostalgia, these were the things that equated technology, and newness for a computer / visual fan. At the time I hated the distinction UI / content, and was quickly fascinated by CSS like technology, almost lispish through DHTML. Todays interfaces are either boring, tiring or useless to my eyes today. Even though I applauded every steps. Maybe it's a questoin of age, maybe it is useless. I tend to think that too much energy is directed at aesthetics rather than function, and even when it's aiming at function, it's at the cost of simplicity. I feel very happy in text mode with emacs, or in GUI mode with 90s day UIs (be it Mac, Windows 3 - NT5, or mid Gnome / KDE), special mention to the UX of SGI OS, and some multimedia tools such as Discreet compositing tools, Houdini, Maya, Lightwave, Modo who had a bit of both: cute and blocky.

by rossy 10y ago

flukus 10y ago

People cared about consistent look and feel back then, everyone was hating on java because it got it wrong. Now everything seems to have it's own style and behavior.

rossy 10y ago
True that. Of the three programs I can see on my desktop right now (Chrome, WebStorm and Outlook,) none of them are even remotely trying to look consistent with the rest of the operating system. On the other hand, Office 2000 looks right at home on Windows 2000. Even though some controls were technically non-native, they still fit in because the 3D bevel was universal.
- svckr 10y ago
  I secretly enjoy the ridicule I get from other web developers for refusing to use Chrome (except for late stage cross browser testing) because it does not even try to fit in.
sangnoir 10y ago
> People cared about consistent look and feel back then, everyone was hating on java because it got it wrong That does not jive with my memories - and I remember WinAmp, MusicMatch Jukebox and Nero Burning ROM vividly.
- flukus 10y ago
  I remember that too, I never said people were consistent. Get the order of menus wrong and you were the devil incarnate, write your own gui toolkit and everyone fondly remember you twenty years on (in the case of winamp, music match and nero were reviled).
  - sangnoir 10y ago
    > in the case of winamp, music match and nero were reviled Heresy! WinAmp was much-loved. This is the first time I'm hearing anything but love for WinAmp - it was the best music player/organizer at the time, and they added Milkdrop as bonus
    - theonemind 10y ago
      I think he's actually saying that it got winamp loved, but music match and nero reviled.
distantsounds 10y ago
You should probably mention that the vendors at least make an attempt at a 'standard' for their platforms. Whether or not developers follow it, is up for debate. https://developer.apple.com/design/ https://developer.apple.com/design/ https://material.google.com/ https://material.google.com/ https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/design https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/design
thwarted 10y ago
There was a period where there was major demand for form widgets in the browser to have a "native look and feel" to decrease the learning curb for people coming from native apps (while meaningful at the time, is less of an issue when most things are web-deployed), and then like the next month there were demands for CSS styling of form widgets and browsers were being shat on because they only supported it in a limited fashion, only color changes, and not actual shape and text styling. Now you can make text on a button bold italic, but who knows what that means when you see it in relation to a button that isn't bold italic or is just bold or just italic (other than that the designer has bad taste). I once worked with a designer who wanted control over the focus-caret styling (the dotted line in Firefox/highlighting in Chrome that indicates where keyboard input is destined, which changing has potentially huge impacts for accessibility). Having a UI/UX that grossly visually distinct negatively impacts usability, discoverability, and accessibility, IMO, for very little gain in branding (unless your branding is purposely meant to be "confusingly different from everyone else").

jhanschoo 10y ago

I agree with you in that. They look functional and utilitarian. The icons have dark, bold colors. The 3D depth is clear and meaningful. There is no platform-wide 'theme' that makes the icons similar to each other, instead allowing the symbol to speak its intention more loudly, and designers to create their own vocabulary within the app. Instead, most icons are outlined in black, making them clear and easily distinguishable.

notalaser 10y ago

If you're wrong, we're in it together. I very strongly dislike the modern trend towards flat, unrecognizable widgets and non-descript icons. I keep hoping it's just a phase, but the economical advantages this trend is bringing looks like something that's going to make it stay with us for a while.

pawadu 10y ago

The images you linked to feel very much BeOS to me. But maybe its just the color palette...

simondelacourt 10y ago
Not that strange, the linked image (http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kde2b3_6.jpg http://www.digibarn.com/collections/screenshots/KDE%202-x/kd...) does indeed show something like a BeOS theme (https://regmedia.co.uk/2007/01/30/beos_1.jpg https://regmedia.co.uk/2007/01/30/beos_1.jpg). Really miss BeOS. Loved the way the desktop worked.
- pawadu 10y ago
  Yeah. On second thought, i think they _are_ using KDE with a BeOS theme

snksnk 10y ago

This was before the UX people took over the web and desktop. I blame the introduction of smartphones, which was when the public at large finally came online. To appeal to this group, a lot of interfaces and websites got redesigned, losing a lot of functionality and efficiency. KDE is thankfully still rather usable.

sangnoir 10y ago
> This was before the UX people took over the web and desktop. I blame the introduction of smartphones, which was when the public at large finally came online. I doubt the plausibility of that timeline - the original iPhone was announced in January 2007, KDE 4.0Alpha1 was released in May 2007[1]. KDE 4.0 was a terrible release (missing functionality, lots of regressions). IMO, they should have kept it as a develop branch and only released 4.1 as 4.0. 1. https://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.0-alpha1.php https://www.kde.org/announcements/announce-4.0-alpha1.php
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  No, they should have kept it a development branch until 4.3 or 4.4. It wasn't until then that it was really usable. What's really funny and sad is that the GNOME team made the exact same mistake with Gnome3.
  - digi_owl 10y ago
    With the additional issue of too much Gnome-isms creeping into GTK3. The one benefit Qt has is that it is being maintained by a independent entity from KDE. One that intends for Qt to be its own product, and properly cross platform.
  - flukus 10y ago
    4.0 was meant to be a development branch, various distros pushed it out anyway.
notalaser 10y ago
(Actual) HCI experts didn't join the computer industry when smartphones popped up. They did when GUIs became a serious research subject for the industry, back in the 1980s, and a lot of their expertise and effort went into computer interaction throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Frankly, I cynically suspect that the flat, semi-functional design became widespread when the revenue model of many computer and phone vendors started overwhelmingly relying on super-revolutionary "apps" being churned out on minimal budgets. Today, you can get a complete design for the kind of money (and time) that got you a really good icon for an OS X application back in 2005. It's a major step back in terms of interaction model, not only looks, but the consumer industry runs on money, not quality.

agumonkey 10y ago

I feel similar. I still can't say if it's nostalgia, these were the things that equated technology, and newness for a computer / visual fan. At the time I hated the distinction UI / content, and was quickly fascinated by CSS like technology, almost lispish through DHTML. Todays interfaces are either boring, tiring or useless to my eyes today. Even though I applauded every steps. Maybe it's a questoin of age, maybe it is useless. I tend to think that too much energy is directed at aesthetics rather than function, and even when it's aiming at function, it's at the cost of simplicity. I feel very happy in text mode with emacs, or in GUI mode with 90s day UIs (be it Mac, Windows 3 - NT5, or mid Gnome / KDE), special mention to the UX of SGI OS, and some multimedia tools such as Discreet compositing tools, Houdini, Maya, Lightwave, Modo who had a bit of both: cute and blocky.