6 ms·

Actually, it's not that consistent. Some clickable things have a 3D-shape, some are just text (top menu), and some are a picture of a folder with some text. Fr

Actually, it's not that consistent. Some clickable things have a 3D-shape, some are just text (top menu), and some are a picture of a folder with some text. Frankly, I don't think modern UIs are much worse than old ones. Yes, you could add visual indicators to what is clickable and what is not (3D-effect), but it's not like that was a universal rule back then either. Perhaps it's just that people find most intuitive what they learned first and don't like adopting new paradigms.

nerdponx 8y ago
Icon and menu design are definitely improved. But there is something to be said for the simple colors and low-res detailing of Win 95 and Mac OS 9.
quietbritishjim 8y ago
The menus are grey to indicate that they're button-like. In particular, there's nothing you can do as a user to edit them. Admittedly they're not that different from static labels, which would also be grey but not have the button shadow. The middle area is white and depressed because that's the content area. It's a bit like a text document or text edit control: it's normal to be able to click in it and select stuff and edit it. It's a bit unusual in that double clicking opens a new window, but that's also true if you double click a linked embedded image in a Word document. Overall it's pretty consistent.
- rayiner 8y ago
  Also, the menu is in the same place in every app and does more or less the same thing. And it’s all text and visible at all times. Think how far we’ve fallen. There was a time when as a result of human interface research, Apple put the menu bar across the top of the screen because it created an infinitely tall click target. Today, even in apps not designed primarily for touch use (e.g. Slack), we’ve buried the menu behind a randomly placed inscrutable hamburger icon.
  - pcwalton 8y ago
    > Today, even in apps not designed primarily for touch use (e.g. Slack), we’ve buried the menu behind a randomly placed inscrutable hamburger icon. Windows 95 buried everything under the Start menu, which was hardly a paragon of usability. There was a "Documents" menu that was pretty useless, a "Programs" menu that required several small click targets to launch anything (and regularly overflowed with applications), a "Run" button that popped up a completely inscrutable dialog box, and a "Shut Down" button that made users decide whether to restart normally or to restart in DOS mode. I think you're giving the '90s too much of a pass. Modern mobile OS's in particular are much more usable than anything back then.
    - ptx 8y ago
      > a "Run" button that popped up a completely inscrutable dialog box I've relied on that dialog box throughout the years, as Microsoft keeps moving things around and hiding functionality. Hitting Win+R and typing "control userpasswords2" works identically in Windows XP, 7, 8 and 10 and is far less inscrutable than divining where they've decided to hide the settings in any particular Windows version.
    - rayiner 8y ago
      > I think you're giving the '90s too much of a pass. Modern mobile OS's in particular are much more usable than anything back then I disagree. At least Win 95 was largely discoverable to people who can read. Today’s mobile OSes are completely undiscoverable, with functionality hidden behind inconsistant gestures and iconography. E.g. Apple Maps. How do I get directions from point A to point B? No obvious widget. Maybe search for point A. A, “directions.” But it looks like it is directions from wherever Apple thinks I am to point A. Not what I wanted. Maybe search for point B. Still directions from wherever Apple thinks I am. Maybe click it anyway. Okay, now routes. But no obvious button or text field to change the starting and ending point. Oh, I see, the “here” is blue. Maybe I can click on it. It’s hot garbage. Would it kill you to have a menu across the top with a comprehensive enumeration of functions your app supports? And apps like Edge and Chrome are even worse for importing this lunacy into the desktop, where the screen space limitations of mobile don’t apply.
- kilper 8y ago
  The menu text is also has underlining. I think this was a learnable indicator of clickability, since you'd often see clickable things with an underline (e.g. form buttons), especially once the old web took off with underlined links. Compared to now when you literally just guess what's clicable. "Oh, is this thing where it says 'on: What Was the Microsoft Network' a link back to the main article? No idea, but I'll hover over it and see." Thankfully at least desktop web browsers change the pointer to indicate clickability - on my phone or in desktop apps I just have to try to activate everything to find out. Not to say there's been no improvements in design - there's now a consistent symbol to say "there's a menu behind this" which is not exactly learnable but at least it's redeployable on multiple systems. And toolbar buttons have got more pixels in them now then before (are they larger? i don't think so but maybe), and usually a bit more spacing, so misclicks are less likely.

nerdponx 8y ago

Icon and menu design are definitely improved. But there is something to be said for the simple colors and low-res detailing of Win 95 and Mac OS 9.

quietbritishjim 8y ago

The menus are grey to indicate that they're button-like. In particular, there's nothing you can do as a user to edit them. Admittedly they're not that different from static labels, which would also be grey but not have the button shadow. The middle area is white and depressed because that's the content area. It's a bit like a text document or text edit control: it's normal to be able to click in it and select stuff and edit it. It's a bit unusual in that double clicking opens a new window, but that's also true if you double click a linked embedded image in a Word document. Overall it's pretty consistent.

rayiner 8y ago
Also, the menu is in the same place in every app and does more or less the same thing. And it’s all text and visible at all times. Think how far we’ve fallen. There was a time when as a result of human interface research, Apple put the menu bar across the top of the screen because it created an infinitely tall click target. Today, even in apps not designed primarily for touch use (e.g. Slack), we’ve buried the menu behind a randomly placed inscrutable hamburger icon.
- pcwalton 8y ago
  > Today, even in apps not designed primarily for touch use (e.g. Slack), we’ve buried the menu behind a randomly placed inscrutable hamburger icon. Windows 95 buried everything under the Start menu, which was hardly a paragon of usability. There was a "Documents" menu that was pretty useless, a "Programs" menu that required several small click targets to launch anything (and regularly overflowed with applications), a "Run" button that popped up a completely inscrutable dialog box, and a "Shut Down" button that made users decide whether to restart normally or to restart in DOS mode. I think you're giving the '90s too much of a pass. Modern mobile OS's in particular are much more usable than anything back then.
  - ptx 8y ago
    > a "Run" button that popped up a completely inscrutable dialog box I've relied on that dialog box throughout the years, as Microsoft keeps moving things around and hiding functionality. Hitting Win+R and typing "control userpasswords2" works identically in Windows XP, 7, 8 and 10 and is far less inscrutable than divining where they've decided to hide the settings in any particular Windows version.
  - rayiner 8y ago
    > I think you're giving the '90s too much of a pass. Modern mobile OS's in particular are much more usable than anything back then I disagree. At least Win 95 was largely discoverable to people who can read. Today’s mobile OSes are completely undiscoverable, with functionality hidden behind inconsistant gestures and iconography. E.g. Apple Maps. How do I get directions from point A to point B? No obvious widget. Maybe search for point A. A, “directions.” But it looks like it is directions from wherever Apple thinks I am to point A. Not what I wanted. Maybe search for point B. Still directions from wherever Apple thinks I am. Maybe click it anyway. Okay, now routes. But no obvious button or text field to change the starting and ending point. Oh, I see, the “here” is blue. Maybe I can click on it. It’s hot garbage. Would it kill you to have a menu across the top with a comprehensive enumeration of functions your app supports? And apps like Edge and Chrome are even worse for importing this lunacy into the desktop, where the screen space limitations of mobile don’t apply.
kilper 8y ago
The menu text is also has underlining. I think this was a learnable indicator of clickability, since you'd often see clickable things with an underline (e.g. form buttons), especially once the old web took off with underlined links. Compared to now when you literally just guess what's clicable. "Oh, is this thing where it says 'on: What Was the Microsoft Network' a link back to the main article? No idea, but I'll hover over it and see." Thankfully at least desktop web browsers change the pointer to indicate clickability - on my phone or in desktop apps I just have to try to activate everything to find out. Not to say there's been no improvements in design - there's now a consistent symbol to say "there's a menu behind this" which is not exactly learnable but at least it's redeployable on multiple systems. And toolbar buttons have got more pixels in them now then before (are they larger? i don't think so but maybe), and usually a bit more spacing, so misclicks are less likely.