4 ms·

All the UI and UX in general looks like it's from 2007. I know that it's volunteer work and I don't want to downplay the generosity of those who contributed to

All the UI and UX in general looks like it's from 2007. I know that it's volunteer work and I don't want to downplay the generosity of those who contributed to it, but I do wonder what's causing the delay in catching up to modern aesthetics. Is it a technical issue? Is there too much bureaucracy to overcome? Is there a shortage of UI and UX developers?

Narishma 7y ago
To each his own, I guess. I find modern aesthetics to be a downgrade for the most part from what we had at the turn of the century.
- sdegutis 7y ago
  Personally I prefer Windows 95-98 era UI/UX, it was the right balance between pretty and useful. Too bad those days are over.
orbifold 7y ago
Basically creative people by and large never subscribed to the idea that they should give away their creativity for free. So all the talented designers are employed and happily working on paid projects, especially less established ones get approached with ridiculous low offers all the time. In short outside of the bizarre software/tech world very few subscribe to the idea that intellectual property should be shared and used freely.
- oblio 7y ago
  You don't really debug a painting. That's why Open Source is big and Open Art isn't (to my knowledge)
  - jancsika 7y ago
    I'd bet that isn't true and that plenty of artists can and do peruse places like deviantart and quickly improve upon someone else's images. But design for a GUI is more like industrial design. Getting a designer to help improve KDE's look-and-feel would be like squatters in a dilapidated hotel convincing an interior decorator to spruce the place up for fun. Actually, that sounds like it would be a blast. Perhaps open source people are simply terrible at marketing.
arendtio 7y ago
Actually, there are many things I like a lot better about the 2007ish KDE/Oxygen/Breeze style than about more modern approaches like for example Windows 10. I am not saying it is perfect, it is not, but especially in design terms, 'newer' isn't always better. And in general, I like KDE look very much.
- bscphil 7y ago
  I agree with you that newer interfaces (Windows 10 in particular) are mostly not very good. But I wouldn't say personally that KDE is a good example of 2000s era design. I think Gnome 2 was the absolute pinnacle of PC GUI design, actually. Having instantaneous access to Applications / Places / System (with text labels!) makes so much sense; it's one of the few desktop environments that pretty much any competent computer user could sit down at and immediately use. Actually, I have my KDE set up to be an approximation of Gnome 2 with a few tweaks that work better for me, but I'm not under any impression that it approaches the immediate usability of Gnome 2. It even looked nice! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Ubuntu_8.04_Live_CD.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Ubuntu_8...
  - mort96 7y ago
    > Having instantaneous access to Applications / Places / System (with text labels!) makes so much sense I don't really get that. I suppose I've just never gotten used to it, but I just find that typing the name of the application is so much easier and faster. If I know I want to e.g launch Nautilus, why would I first spend time thinking about whether it's a "place" or an "application" or a part of the "system"? Is my text editor an "educational" program or an "office" program or an "accessory"? Or maybe _that_ is a "system" tool? I'm actually genuinely curious about this; how is it better to mouse through hierarchical categories and look for an application, instead of just hitting super and typing the first couple of characters? Especially something like KDE's start menu, where you can hit super and start typing, or hit super (or click the icon) and mouse through similar categories to not lose the discoverability benefits of categories.
    - 7y ago
marcosdumay 7y ago
> All the UI and UX in general looks like it's from 2007. Yeah. That probably KDE's most compelling feature.

Narishma 7y ago

To each his own, I guess. I find modern aesthetics to be a downgrade for the most part from what we had at the turn of the century.

sdegutis 7y ago
Personally I prefer Windows 95-98 era UI/UX, it was the right balance between pretty and useful. Too bad those days are over.

orbifold 7y ago

Basically creative people by and large never subscribed to the idea that they should give away their creativity for free. So all the talented designers are employed and happily working on paid projects, especially less established ones get approached with ridiculous low offers all the time. In short outside of the bizarre software/tech world very few subscribe to the idea that intellectual property should be shared and used freely.

oblio 7y ago
You don't really debug a painting. That's why Open Source is big and Open Art isn't (to my knowledge)
- jancsika 7y ago
  I'd bet that isn't true and that plenty of artists can and do peruse places like deviantart and quickly improve upon someone else's images. But design for a GUI is more like industrial design. Getting a designer to help improve KDE's look-and-feel would be like squatters in a dilapidated hotel convincing an interior decorator to spruce the place up for fun. Actually, that sounds like it would be a blast. Perhaps open source people are simply terrible at marketing.

arendtio 7y ago

Actually, there are many things I like a lot better about the 2007ish KDE/Oxygen/Breeze style than about more modern approaches like for example Windows 10. I am not saying it is perfect, it is not, but especially in design terms, 'newer' isn't always better. And in general, I like KDE look very much.

bscphil 7y ago
I agree with you that newer interfaces (Windows 10 in particular) are mostly not very good. But I wouldn't say personally that KDE is a good example of 2000s era design. I think Gnome 2 was the absolute pinnacle of PC GUI design, actually. Having instantaneous access to Applications / Places / System (with text labels!) makes so much sense; it's one of the few desktop environments that pretty much any competent computer user could sit down at and immediately use. Actually, I have my KDE set up to be an approximation of Gnome 2 with a few tweaks that work better for me, but I'm not under any impression that it approaches the immediate usability of Gnome 2. It even looked nice! https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Ubuntu_8.04_Live_CD.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f7/Ubuntu_8...
- mort96 7y ago
  > Having instantaneous access to Applications / Places / System (with text labels!) makes so much sense I don't really get that. I suppose I've just never gotten used to it, but I just find that typing the name of the application is so much easier and faster. If I know I want to e.g launch Nautilus, why would I first spend time thinking about whether it's a "place" or an "application" or a part of the "system"? Is my text editor an "educational" program or an "office" program or an "accessory"? Or maybe _that_ is a "system" tool? I'm actually genuinely curious about this; how is it better to mouse through hierarchical categories and look for an application, instead of just hitting super and typing the first couple of characters? Especially something like KDE's start menu, where you can hit super and start typing, or hit super (or click the icon) and mouse through similar categories to not lose the discoverability benefits of categories.
  - 7y ago

marcosdumay 7y ago

> All the UI and UX in general looks like it's from 2007. Yeah. That probably KDE's most compelling feature.