3 ms·

This is really interesting and shows us the long way from a DOS prompt to the Apple OS or Windows 95 GUIs which seem so self-evident, traditional and self-expla

by ktpsns 7y ago

This is really interesting and shows us the long way from a DOS prompt to the Apple OS or Windows 95 GUIs which seem so self-evident, traditional and self-explanatory to many of us. Actually, these GUIs were quite radical and well-done, compared to the Amstrad shell which looks quite crowdy from a today's perspective. When I look at that Amstrad shell, I also feel some nostalgia for 1990s and 2000s web sites which had similar issues: They did form a GUI in the void, without having any template. Today, you start with some CSS toolkit and immediately craft a website which looks like 10 million others.

userbinator 7y ago
Interestingly, one thing all these GUIs have in common is that buttons still look like buttons...
- Jaruzel 7y ago
  > buttons still look like buttons Ahh I miss those days. Why were raised buttons considered so offensive? Now we have to tap/click everywhere in the hope that something might happen.
  - WWLink 7y ago
    Not sure. I thought raised buttons rock!
- Lio 7y ago
  Raised buttons fit better with the "affordance, visibility and feedback" paradigm. I'm used to flat UI now but I liked the ideas behind the 3D buttons. I guess one reason to go flat is that almost everything in a web page is now clickable so having it all 3D gets a bit "noisy". 3D is better for people that have never used a computer but I guess we're all trained to use GUIs and no one can remember the time before that any more.
  - ferzul 7y ago
    > I guess one reason to go flat is that almost everything in a web page is now clickable so having it all 3D gets a bit "noisy". that isn't true tho. how many things in this hn comment page are clickable? certainly not your comment. and even when they are clickable how can i tell which are part of the same link and which are separate? (e.g. is your name and the date following one link or two? or only part is a link?)
    - quietbritishjim 7y ago
      Even in a comment with no links there are at least 5 clickable elements: * Upvote button (and downvote if you have enough rep) * User name to take you to their profile page * Time, which zooms to the comment * [-] to collapse it (the square brackets here actually seem to be trying to simulate something a bit button-like) * Reply at the bottom Granted these are around the edge of the comment, but five separate buttons is potentially quite a bit of clutter. Also (now I'm digressing a bit...), most don't satisfy the convention from that era that the text on a button should be fixed while all variable "content" goes in edit boxes (and combo boxes etc.). "Reply" satisfies that but the user name, for example doesn't; in the older convention it would be split as User: [ferzul________] [ Show user page ]
makapuf 7y ago
Note that this computer was out in 1991, when Windows 3.0 was 1 year old. In fact I had an Amstrad 2086 (a 8086 with VGA) that included windows 2.0 whereas pc1512 and1640 included gem plus. I think this interface was not meant to replace those but more of a light alternative shell to run dos programs.
- ferzul 7y ago
  yes as i read it, it reminded me of a launcher we had on our 486/Windows 3.11 machine. can't remember its name - quick something - but it was much simpler, no windows, just full screen categories. more like a modern webapp design, just 3d
  - badsectoracula 7y ago
    QuickMenu? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEiKhJ5Co8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEiKhJ5Co8

by ktpsns 7y ago

userbinator 7y ago

Interestingly, one thing all these GUIs have in common is that buttons still look like buttons...

Jaruzel 7y ago
> buttons still look like buttons Ahh I miss those days. Why were raised buttons considered so offensive? Now we have to tap/click everywhere in the hope that something might happen.
- WWLink 7y ago
  Not sure. I thought raised buttons rock!
Lio 7y ago
Raised buttons fit better with the "affordance, visibility and feedback" paradigm. I'm used to flat UI now but I liked the ideas behind the 3D buttons. I guess one reason to go flat is that almost everything in a web page is now clickable so having it all 3D gets a bit "noisy". 3D is better for people that have never used a computer but I guess we're all trained to use GUIs and no one can remember the time before that any more.
- ferzul 7y ago
  > I guess one reason to go flat is that almost everything in a web page is now clickable so having it all 3D gets a bit "noisy". that isn't true tho. how many things in this hn comment page are clickable? certainly not your comment. and even when they are clickable how can i tell which are part of the same link and which are separate? (e.g. is your name and the date following one link or two? or only part is a link?)
  - quietbritishjim 7y ago
    Even in a comment with no links there are at least 5 clickable elements: * Upvote button (and downvote if you have enough rep) * User name to take you to their profile page * Time, which zooms to the comment * [-] to collapse it (the square brackets here actually seem to be trying to simulate something a bit button-like) * Reply at the bottom Granted these are around the edge of the comment, but five separate buttons is potentially quite a bit of clutter. Also (now I'm digressing a bit...), most don't satisfy the convention from that era that the text on a button should be fixed while all variable "content" goes in edit boxes (and combo boxes etc.). "Reply" satisfies that but the user name, for example doesn't; in the older convention it would be split as User: [ferzul________] [ Show user page ]

makapuf 7y ago

Note that this computer was out in 1991, when Windows 3.0 was 1 year old. In fact I had an Amstrad 2086 (a 8086 with VGA) that included windows 2.0 whereas pc1512 and1640 included gem plus. I think this interface was not meant to replace those but more of a light alternative shell to run dos programs.

ferzul 7y ago
yes as i read it, it reminded me of a launcher we had on our 486/Windows 3.11 machine. can't remember its name - quick something - but it was much simpler, no windows, just full screen categories. more like a modern webapp design, just 3d
- badsectoracula 7y ago
  QuickMenu? - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEiKhJ5Co8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNEiKhJ5Co8