> New entrants to computers understand these new paradigms innately because they are already surrounded by the new context. Much of the argument is based on th

> New entrants to computers understand these new paradigms innately because they are already surrounded by the new context. Much of the argument is based on the idea that the paradigm is very weak. You have things like menus, where no one really agrees upon the form (traditional menu bar, hamburger menu, ribbon). When a menu is offered by a program, there is very little agreement upon where it goes (menu bar in the title bar, or below it; hamburger menu in the top right, or top left). When menus are categorized there is even less agreement about what belongs where. That is looking at just one UI element. These muddled user interfaces wouldn't be so bad if it was a transition period that would carry us forward another 10 or 20 years. It would simply be a new design language that we communicate through. Yet there is no real evidence that is happening. The article's author pointed out that it would be easy to confuse the pictured stack of six title bars as belonging to three applications, I can one-up that by thinking that there were only two applications after a quick glance. Part of the problem is that they are mixing too many paradigms when overloading title bars. (The four title bars looked like the title bar, menu bar, tab bar, web page head for a single window while the last two title bars looked like a title bar and tab bar for a single window to my eyes.) The ability to create this artificial situation is an amusing outcome, it hides a more serious problem: there is no agreement upon what these overloaded title bars should look like. I doubt that there will ever be agreement simply because many of the design decisions these days are about branding.