4 ms·

Can't tell if the irony is lost that both GitHub UI mocks are by the same designer, Nikita Prokopov.[1][2] [1] Windows UI satire https://twitter.com/nikitonsky

Can't tell if the irony is lost that both GitHub UI mocks are by the same designer, Nikita Prokopov.[1][2] [1] Windows UI satire https://twitter.com/nikitonsky/status/1003593821723267072?s=21 https://twitter.com/nikitonsky/status/1003593821723267072?s=... [2] Honest redesign http://tonsky.me/blog/github-redesign/ http://tonsky.me/blog/github-redesign/

fxfan 8y ago
Can some UI expert chime in what it is about the windows style redesign that makes everything so absolutely clear and easy to find? I can find everything literally at a glance? It's not sexy, quite the opposite but god does it run electricity through my fingers. I feel like i would use the shit out of it. Is it association and familiarity with the old windows UI or does it follow human nature better?
- yuchi 8y ago
  This is most probably the result of the UI making you resurface good memories of your past. Anyway the old Win UI was extremely clear in creating visual hierarchies, when not too many layers were on the screen — modern UI tends to be optimized for a way larger amount of layers, or the opposite, a hyper reduced hierarchy complexity (not the ergonomic / perceived complexity)
  - fxfan 8y ago
    Thanks. I'd love to see a breakdown of what creates this clarity, like how the OP has for every element type. I know it might seem like an exaggeration but I was physically invigorated by it.
- pembrook 8y ago
  It's called nostalgia. It's emotional, not rational. Ask any 16 year old (like my son), who came of age having no context for what the windows 95 UI even looked like. Shocker, he vastly prefers flat interfaces, ie. like the design of Notion. The problem I see in this github redesign has nothing to do with the fact that it's flat. It's tougher to use because it's just bad design. The three columns make it insanely dense in terms of information (eliminates any hierarchy) and adds in weird red underlines (which typically mean "error") for no reason. Also the button styles are all inconsistent in the final version. The first part of the article was great, the second part he started going off the reservation. I think he's strong in terms of a UX thinking but lacks the skills of visual designer who would better implement his thinking visually.
  - vanderZwan 8y ago
    No, it's not nostalgia, goddammit. It's because it contains good visual affordances. Skeumorphism isn't pretty, but it works because our eyes are naturally trained to perceive the visual hints. Our eyes are trained to subconsciously perceive depth via shadows. To perceive clear edges and group things by them. I really, really hate that 99% of all UX designers are basically graphic designers who are good with visual flourish but without the tiniest bit of interest into half a century worth of HCI research into what makes interfaces visually easy to read. So they end up with whatever graphical look is hip without understanding the usability consequences. That may make a page look good as a whole in the "conforms to current graphic design trends", but it destroys the ability to organize the individual elements. EDIT: Also, skeuomorphism when done right can be pretty, and if you really want you can still combine it "flat" design by using hints of shadows and depth for better readability - look at games like Snake Bird for examples of that. In general I agree with Bret Victor that the best place to look for good interface design these days is successful computer games, because if it doesn't feel right to play (that is: interact) with, the designers tend to throw it out, and it is the most likely place to see experimental interface design.
    - atoav 8y ago
      Skeumorphism produced good and bad UI designs alike, just like the new flat style. As an example what can work in terms of the newer style is google’s material design. I am a designer and one of my favourite websites uses the browsers default theme. Designers can run into the danger of rationalizing changes to fit the visual goal they want to reach instead of the other way around. Form surely should follow function — but it should also follow social convention and usage. This guy is right that to a non-git person the commit mrssages make no sense. I remember when I started using it and asked myself why the discriptions of the directories are so weird. Now that I use git I’d rather have them. Our designer here is rather quick in judging it’s usefullnes. These messages describe the state of your remote repository. I am mostly fine with the proposed menu changes, but again throwing out useful things like the edit button or the fork numbers is not a good idea. This is exactly the class of things you wanna see when you open the main page of a repo and there is not much elsewhere where it would make sense. If I had to redesign github, I’d first spend a fair time assessing what works and what doesn’t, then reorganize the thing and only in the end decide on how to redesign it. Removing existing functionality is always a thing that should be very well considered.
- alexandercrohde 8y ago
  Not a UI expert professionally but here's what it is: Windows has standardized and reused GUI elements across every application. So it's immediately clear what's a button, tabs, a subwindow, and how tab hierarchies work (notice they have a bounding box on the tab contents they will change). Modern web-design disregards all of this because it prioritizes being visually pretty over being easily-recognizable.
  - fxfan 8y ago
    I bet the last two aren't mutually exclusive... (i'm not a UI expert either)
Hoasi 8y ago
Indeed... if it ain't broke, don't fix it. http://tonsky.me/blog/github-redesign/210_compare.png http://tonsky.me/blog/github-redesign/210_compare.png

fxfan 8y ago

Can some UI expert chime in what it is about the windows style redesign that makes everything so absolutely clear and easy to find? I can find everything literally at a glance? It's not sexy, quite the opposite but god does it run electricity through my fingers. I feel like i would use the shit out of it. Is it association and familiarity with the old windows UI or does it follow human nature better?

yuchi 8y ago
This is most probably the result of the UI making you resurface good memories of your past. Anyway the old Win UI was extremely clear in creating visual hierarchies, when not too many layers were on the screen — modern UI tends to be optimized for a way larger amount of layers, or the opposite, a hyper reduced hierarchy complexity (not the ergonomic / perceived complexity)
- fxfan 8y ago
  Thanks. I'd love to see a breakdown of what creates this clarity, like how the OP has for every element type. I know it might seem like an exaggeration but I was physically invigorated by it.
pembrook 8y ago
It's called nostalgia. It's emotional, not rational. Ask any 16 year old (like my son), who came of age having no context for what the windows 95 UI even looked like. Shocker, he vastly prefers flat interfaces, ie. like the design of Notion. The problem I see in this github redesign has nothing to do with the fact that it's flat. It's tougher to use because it's just bad design. The three columns make it insanely dense in terms of information (eliminates any hierarchy) and adds in weird red underlines (which typically mean "error") for no reason. Also the button styles are all inconsistent in the final version. The first part of the article was great, the second part he started going off the reservation. I think he's strong in terms of a UX thinking but lacks the skills of visual designer who would better implement his thinking visually.
- vanderZwan 8y ago
  No, it's not nostalgia, goddammit. It's because it contains good visual affordances. Skeumorphism isn't pretty, but it works because our eyes are naturally trained to perceive the visual hints. Our eyes are trained to subconsciously perceive depth via shadows. To perceive clear edges and group things by them. I really, really hate that 99% of all UX designers are basically graphic designers who are good with visual flourish but without the tiniest bit of interest into half a century worth of HCI research into what makes interfaces visually easy to read. So they end up with whatever graphical look is hip without understanding the usability consequences. That may make a page look good as a whole in the "conforms to current graphic design trends", but it destroys the ability to organize the individual elements. EDIT: Also, skeuomorphism when done right can be pretty, and if you really want you can still combine it "flat" design by using hints of shadows and depth for better readability - look at games like Snake Bird for examples of that. In general I agree with Bret Victor that the best place to look for good interface design these days is successful computer games, because if it doesn't feel right to play (that is: interact) with, the designers tend to throw it out, and it is the most likely place to see experimental interface design.
  - atoav 8y ago
    Skeumorphism produced good and bad UI designs alike, just like the new flat style. As an example what can work in terms of the newer style is google’s material design. I am a designer and one of my favourite websites uses the browsers default theme. Designers can run into the danger of rationalizing changes to fit the visual goal they want to reach instead of the other way around. Form surely should follow function — but it should also follow social convention and usage. This guy is right that to a non-git person the commit mrssages make no sense. I remember when I started using it and asked myself why the discriptions of the directories are so weird. Now that I use git I’d rather have them. Our designer here is rather quick in judging it’s usefullnes. These messages describe the state of your remote repository. I am mostly fine with the proposed menu changes, but again throwing out useful things like the edit button or the fork numbers is not a good idea. This is exactly the class of things you wanna see when you open the main page of a repo and there is not much elsewhere where it would make sense. If I had to redesign github, I’d first spend a fair time assessing what works and what doesn’t, then reorganize the thing and only in the end decide on how to redesign it. Removing existing functionality is always a thing that should be very well considered.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
Not a UI expert professionally but here's what it is: Windows has standardized and reused GUI elements across every application. So it's immediately clear what's a button, tabs, a subwindow, and how tab hierarchies work (notice they have a bounding box on the tab contents they will change). Modern web-design disregards all of this because it prioritizes being visually pretty over being easily-recognizable.
- fxfan 8y ago
  I bet the last two aren't mutually exclusive... (i'm not a UI expert either)

Hoasi 8y ago

Indeed... if it ain't broke, don't fix it. http://tonsky.me/blog/github-redesign/210_compare.png http://tonsky.me/blog/github-redesign/210_compare.png