4 ms·

> It really should go away. It will. Designers will come up with a new thing pretty quickly. In that respect I guess they are probably no different than devel

by rdtsc 9y ago

> It really should go away. It will. Designers will come up with a new thing pretty quickly. In that respect I guess they are probably no different than developers. Nobody likes to end the year with "yeah I just maintained this piece of code last year", instead it has to be "yeah the code the last team wrote was crap, so we tore it all out, replaced with a fancier later framework, added some features on top, etc". Presumably people in charge of design at these big companies get paid decently, so there is some internal pressure to deliver something. So no matter how good, fast, clean the current interface, is there will be an unveiling of a "cooler / newer / fresher" interface. But I think the fundamental reason reason is most likely because of a need to create work to justify salaries. This happens in software, in design, and probably many other fields. Managers, department heads, directors, CEOs they all play this game. Sometimes everyone in the game realizes what's happening but they just go along because it works out for them (well sometimes it doesn't work out, but then they blame the customers ;-) )

stephengillie 9y ago
The Interface itself is a type of artwork. Like all art, it must grow and change to stay relevant, or stagnate and be left behind on the Island of Irrelevant Toys. Like many things, it's a conversation between designers, and sometimes happy accidents do get made and dark avenues are explored. Architecture[0] is one example of a design (basically a cave) growing and changing to stay relevant and reflect current use and needs. Recent trends have been moving away from the "monolithic" styles of the Cold War Era and specifically including blocks that stick out and have a very different color. Also, some fire codes allow the upper few floors of an apartment structure to be made from wood[1], so long as all the floors below the first few are concrete. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_architectural_styles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_architectural_styl... [1] http://marks-thomas.com/2015/03/exploring-a-shift-to-five-story-wood-frame-construction/ http://marks-thomas.com/2015/03/exploring-a-shift-to-five-st...
- DougWebb 9y ago
  A user interface is a tool to connect the computer and a human user in order to allow a task to be performed. Unless these three components change, the only reason for the interface to change is to make it do its job more efficiently. It's no different from the many other tools used by people to do their jobs. Once they reach an optimal form, they stop changing unless some drastic technological change occurs. Hand-tools for woodworking hadn't changed for centuries, until electricity was introduced. Electric hand-tools have only had small gradual improvements since then.
  - tripzilch 9y ago
    Well, something did change, otherwise it would not have gotten as big as it did. What changed was the role of the user in the eyes of whatever entity controlled the computer/cloud. If the uncertainty was actually a bad thing in the eyes of the big cloud companies that pushed these designs, it would not have nearly gotten as far as it did. It's a way to control how the tool is used, given that it's powerful, making it too usable is not profitable.
- Angostura 9y ago
  > Like all art, it must grow and change to stay relevant, No, it really doesn't. It can change, if change is necessary, however most change in UI design is driven by fashion.
  - stephengillie 9y ago
    And fashion is a conversation, much like software language development is a conversation - a free exchange of ideas. The same concepts are not normally repeated verbatim, but iterated around, in a specific direction, if there is an obvious direction to go - otherwise in a random walk, like a lost hiker. Circumideation.
- blub 9y ago
  Interface design is nothing like art. It must serve a purpose and be useable at least.
  - jaclaz 9y ago
    Whether it is an art or not (which is debatable) the point is that it needs to be ergonomic and usable, possibly in an intuitive way. The article measures what would otherwise be obvious, more visible whatevers are seen by users easier and faster.
    - bfu 9y ago
      The only intuitive user interface is nipple. Everything else has to be learned!
      - flushandforget 9y ago
        And that can be stuffed up with prior bottle use, so not so sure if that's even true.
tripzilch 9y ago
Not sure if this is what you're trying to say but it sounds like this is just a thing that designers will hop on a new trend every few years or so. Except that I remember a few changes in design trends and many of them were for the better, others were a matter of taste that didn't really matter. But "Flat UI" was a step down in almost every aspect (or whatever name Google called pretty much the same thing, and so did Microsoft have a name for their particular flavour of low-poly coloured squares). It doesn't even look good (personal opinion). Indeed it was confusing, after a while we got used to it, so it didn't hurt usability quite as much, but it was never good. Just an excuse to not learn about actual usability guidelines. And with that, excuses to hide your anti-patterns under, which the tech giants all happily do. Tiny links function sometimes as buttons but all buttons are coloured squares so basically any layout element could do something but usually not, and with a touch-interface this adds even more stress because you can never tell where you can comfortably rest your finger to scroll or zoom, if even possible, which is not indicated because the cute flat scrollbars tend to fade away if they're not in use etc etc. Nonsense! If most of the normal interface is already uncertain in functionality, then users (or consumers, eyes, or products) will not complain as much when they make a certain action harder to perform on purpose. We got suckered into hostile UX. So maybe we can stop doing that now.

by rdtsc 9y ago

stephengillie 9y ago

The Interface itself is a type of artwork. Like all art, it must grow and change to stay relevant, or stagnate and be left behind on the Island of Irrelevant Toys. Like many things, it's a conversation between designers, and sometimes happy accidents do get made and dark avenues are explored. Architecture[0] is one example of a design (basically a cave) growing and changing to stay relevant and reflect current use and needs. Recent trends have been moving away from the "monolithic" styles of the Cold War Era and specifically including blocks that stick out and have a very different color. Also, some fire codes allow the upper few floors of an apartment structure to be made from wood[1], so long as all the floors below the first few are concrete. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_architectural_styles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_architectural_styl... [1] http://marks-thomas.com/2015/03/exploring-a-shift-to-five-story-wood-frame-construction/ http://marks-thomas.com/2015/03/exploring-a-shift-to-five-st...

DougWebb 9y ago
A user interface is a tool to connect the computer and a human user in order to allow a task to be performed. Unless these three components change, the only reason for the interface to change is to make it do its job more efficiently. It's no different from the many other tools used by people to do their jobs. Once they reach an optimal form, they stop changing unless some drastic technological change occurs. Hand-tools for woodworking hadn't changed for centuries, until electricity was introduced. Electric hand-tools have only had small gradual improvements since then.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  Well, something did change, otherwise it would not have gotten as big as it did. What changed was the role of the user in the eyes of whatever entity controlled the computer/cloud. If the uncertainty was actually a bad thing in the eyes of the big cloud companies that pushed these designs, it would not have nearly gotten as far as it did. It's a way to control how the tool is used, given that it's powerful, making it too usable is not profitable.
Angostura 9y ago
> Like all art, it must grow and change to stay relevant, No, it really doesn't. It can change, if change is necessary, however most change in UI design is driven by fashion.
- stephengillie 9y ago
  And fashion is a conversation, much like software language development is a conversation - a free exchange of ideas. The same concepts are not normally repeated verbatim, but iterated around, in a specific direction, if there is an obvious direction to go - otherwise in a random walk, like a lost hiker. Circumideation.
blub 9y ago
Interface design is nothing like art. It must serve a purpose and be useable at least.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  Whether it is an art or not (which is debatable) the point is that it needs to be ergonomic and usable, possibly in an intuitive way. The article measures what would otherwise be obvious, more visible whatevers are seen by users easier and faster.
  - bfu 9y ago
    The only intuitive user interface is nipple. Everything else has to be learned!
    - flushandforget 9y ago
      And that can be stuffed up with prior bottle use, so not so sure if that's even true.

tripzilch 9y ago

Not sure if this is what you're trying to say but it sounds like this is just a thing that designers will hop on a new trend every few years or so. Except that I remember a few changes in design trends and many of them were for the better, others were a matter of taste that didn't really matter. But "Flat UI" was a step down in almost every aspect (or whatever name Google called pretty much the same thing, and so did Microsoft have a name for their particular flavour of low-poly coloured squares). It doesn't even look good (personal opinion). Indeed it was confusing, after a while we got used to it, so it didn't hurt usability quite as much, but it was never good. Just an excuse to not learn about actual usability guidelines. And with that, excuses to hide your anti-patterns under, which the tech giants all happily do. Tiny links function sometimes as buttons but all buttons are coloured squares so basically any layout element could do something but usually not, and with a touch-interface this adds even more stress because you can never tell where you can comfortably rest your finger to scroll or zoom, if even possible, which is not indicated because the cute flat scrollbars tend to fade away if they're not in use etc etc. Nonsense! If most of the normal interface is already uncertain in functionality, then users (or consumers, eyes, or products) will not complain as much when they make a certain action harder to perform on purpose. We got suckered into hostile UX. So maybe we can stop doing that now.