11 ms·

The 90s were definitely a time when people thought deeply about how to make computer applications more usable. Apple also had excellent guidelines. Problem was

The 90s were definitely a time when people thought deeply about how to make computer applications more usable. Apple also had excellent guidelines. Problem was that back then the hardware and the operating systems sucked. Now it’s the opposite. Hardware and OS are very stable now but applications are getting worse.

brosinante 7y ago
It was also a time when most people's experience with using a new operating system (nevermind different software) was their first, ui guidelines had different requirements because the use case was different.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Today most people's experience with using any single app or webpage is also their first, UI-wise, because nothing is consistent with each other anymore. So I'm not sure what this is an argument for.
bluedino 7y ago
There has to be some gallery of horrible 90's windows program interfaces... It was an experimental time, that's for sure.
- davidpolberger 7y ago
  http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/shame.htm http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/shame.htm
- peterkelly 7y ago
  http://toastytech.com/guis/ http://toastytech.com/guis/
virgil_disgr4ce 7y ago
> applications are getting worse Citation needed
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  You can cite me.
  - vntok 7y ago
    How are you notable?
    - Ididntdothis 7y ago
      Very
- jjkaczor 7y ago
  "Anecdata" Today's rush to simplified, web interfaces means typically that common keyboard scenarios have been completely forgotten about. A market leader in a niche sector, re-built their UI in Electron, it's primary purpose is to selectively migrate items from one technology to another. While it does provide a treeview hierarchical structure, with a checkbox next to each item, selecting that via say "spacebar" or selecting multiple items using CTRL+SHIFT does not function. As well, it's non-native scrollbar does not accurately reflect your position and does not allow finely-grained re-positioning. This is $5,000/seat software that has glowing reviews and has essentially captured the market for what it does - yes a small market, with approximately 6-8 competitors - almost all of whom have copied their user-interface and even Electron implementation.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- anthk 7y ago
  - Atrocious input lag - Lagging menus and widgets - You misclick in Google Maps? Better if you start over the route - 30x more resources for something done under 80MB, such as Discord vs Kopete. The later had inline LaTeX. And video previews. In 2007. - Invisible scrollbars with no intuitive use - Flat design not being able to distinguish a button for the background layer. Compare it with Motif, W9x, BeOS, KDE3 with Keramik.
crazygringo 7y ago
> but applications are getting worse So many people say this but I fundamentally disagree. Applications are so much more complex today, supporting more combinations of OS and input method and data storage and accessibility and display modes and whatnot. Applications are harder to use, yes, but because they do so much more. Your interface has to work and be responsive whether your file sits on a local disk or in the cloud, or maybe has to be synced. It needs to work with mouse and touch and a screenreader. And so on ad finitum. Relative to their complexity, applications are doing just fine today I think. (Also don't forget there were so many terribly designed applications in the 90's. It's not like everybody was even remotely following established UX guidelines.) The same kind of clear UX standards just don't exist anymore because there are so many different apps that do so many different things, and there's no obvious best answer. But the good news is that applications do slowly converge on best practices. Think of how things like hamburger menus or swipe-to-refresh or pinch-to-zoom have become expected standards.
- dmitrygr 7y ago
  > Applications are harder to use, yes, but because they do so much more I use Microsoft office 2000, because since then, no new features have been added to word or Excel that I care about. In fact, I couldn't even name a single feature added since then. What they did add, is the ribbon instead of the toolbar, which makes it impossible to find things you need, and a whole lot of bloat. On modern machines, office 2000 opens faster than I can release my mouse button from clicking its icon. That is to say, I entirely disagree with your statement.
  - crazygringo 7y ago
    > that I care about Well there's the rub. There are tons of users who do require critical new features like cloud integration. And the ribbon was designed because specifically more people find it easier to use, as Microsoft's user research showed. Office 2000 may very well be better for you. But it certainly isn't for everybody.
    - SQueeeeeL 7y ago
usrusr 7y ago
> a time when people thought deeply As opposed to "completely succumbed to metrics". Conventions like shift to range-multiselect/ctrl to toggle-multiselect cannot evolve from a series of a/b tests. It's not as if people never tested UI ideas back then, but it was a tool, not the entire process.

brosinante 7y ago

It was also a time when most people's experience with using a new operating system (nevermind different software) was their first, ui guidelines had different requirements because the use case was different.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Today most people's experience with using any single app or webpage is also their first, UI-wise, because nothing is consistent with each other anymore. So I'm not sure what this is an argument for.

bluedino 7y ago

There has to be some gallery of horrible 90's windows program interfaces... It was an experimental time, that's for sure.

davidpolberger 7y ago
http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/shame.htm http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/shame.htm
peterkelly 7y ago
http://toastytech.com/guis/ http://toastytech.com/guis/

virgil_disgr4ce 7y ago

> applications are getting worse Citation needed

Ididntdothis 7y ago
You can cite me.
- vntok 7y ago
  How are you notable?
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    Very
jjkaczor 7y ago
"Anecdata" Today's rush to simplified, web interfaces means typically that common keyboard scenarios have been completely forgotten about. A market leader in a niche sector, re-built their UI in Electron, it's primary purpose is to selectively migrate items from one technology to another. While it does provide a treeview hierarchical structure, with a checkbox next to each item, selecting that via say "spacebar" or selecting multiple items using CTRL+SHIFT does not function. As well, it's non-native scrollbar does not accurately reflect your position and does not allow finely-grained re-positioning. This is $5,000/seat software that has glowing reviews and has essentially captured the market for what it does - yes a small market, with approximately 6-8 competitors - almost all of whom have copied their user-interface and even Electron implementation.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
anthk 7y ago
- Atrocious input lag - Lagging menus and widgets - You misclick in Google Maps? Better if you start over the route - 30x more resources for something done under 80MB, such as Discord vs Kopete. The later had inline LaTeX. And video previews. In 2007. - Invisible scrollbars with no intuitive use - Flat design not being able to distinguish a button for the background layer. Compare it with Motif, W9x, BeOS, KDE3 with Keramik.

crazygringo 7y ago

> but applications are getting worse So many people say this but I fundamentally disagree. Applications are so much more complex today, supporting more combinations of OS and input method and data storage and accessibility and display modes and whatnot. Applications are harder to use, yes, but because they do so much more. Your interface has to work and be responsive whether your file sits on a local disk or in the cloud, or maybe has to be synced. It needs to work with mouse and touch and a screenreader. And so on ad finitum. Relative to their complexity, applications are doing just fine today I think. (Also don't forget there were so many terribly designed applications in the 90's. It's not like everybody was even remotely following established UX guidelines.) The same kind of clear UX standards just don't exist anymore because there are so many different apps that do so many different things, and there's no obvious best answer. But the good news is that applications do slowly converge on best practices. Think of how things like hamburger menus or swipe-to-refresh or pinch-to-zoom have become expected standards.

dmitrygr 7y ago
> Applications are harder to use, yes, but because they do so much more I use Microsoft office 2000, because since then, no new features have been added to word or Excel that I care about. In fact, I couldn't even name a single feature added since then. What they did add, is the ribbon instead of the toolbar, which makes it impossible to find things you need, and a whole lot of bloat. On modern machines, office 2000 opens faster than I can release my mouse button from clicking its icon. That is to say, I entirely disagree with your statement.
- crazygringo 7y ago
  > that I care about Well there's the rub. There are tons of users who do require critical new features like cloud integration. And the ribbon was designed because specifically more people find it easier to use, as Microsoft's user research showed. Office 2000 may very well be better for you. But it certainly isn't for everybody.
  - SQueeeeeL 7y ago

usrusr 7y ago

> a time when people thought deeply As opposed to "completely succumbed to metrics". Conventions like shift to range-multiselect/ctrl to toggle-multiselect cannot evolve from a series of a/b tests. It's not as if people never tested UI ideas back then, but it was a tool, not the entire process.