3 ms·

Redesigns should never, ever happen unless absolutely necessary. They're basically never worth it and almost always worse than before.

jacobolus 6y ago
In particular, the people doing the redesign often seem to not understand what made the first design successful/effective, and senselessly wreck parts without even realizing. I’m not sure if this is because they understand the problem less than the original designers, the institutional incentives are set up poorly to encourage high quality work, increased system complexity / technical debt is harder to work around, institutional complexity makes it harder for competent people to be in position to make the decisions, the original successes were partly down to luck and reversion to the mean dooms follow-ups to mediocrity, recent UI fashions are generically user hostile, or what... but whatever it is, it’s very frustrating. And that’s not even mentioning the inevitable bugs and glitches. There’s probably some selection bias involved too. Those products and redesigns which are amazing and wonderful get used, but nobody thinks too hard about all the ways in which they are better. On the other hand when redesigns negatively affect customers, the bad experience is unpleasantly memorable.
- will_pseudonym 6y ago
  It's like rewriting a codebase. There's so much tacit understanding of the actual problem inherent in a living design/codebase. All that nuance gets obliterated because someone got a bee in their bonnet about better code/cleaner design.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
hbarka 6y ago
Add Google Finance to this list. What a tragedy and Google still has not realized it.
- IgniteTheSun 6y ago
  Given so much discussion over the years and the fact that there were probably a lot of searches for alternatives, one has to think they probably know about it but just don't care. Why wouldn't they care? Their goals must have shifted away from those that led to the creation of the initial site - and as a result, I moved on to sites that more closely aligned with my goals.
yreg 6y ago
There are many good reasons for a redesign. New features, change of scope, new UX paradigms, or the ability to do better (be it thanks to new ideas, or just having better skill set in the team than during the previous design. Or possessing new knowledge about the shortcomings of your current design). Most computer interfaces can and should improve when the time is right.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  Yes, but some key words that you've mentioned here: "ability to do better", "improve". The kind of redesign people are complaining about involves primarily changing how things look with neutral or negative impact on overall usability. People aren't complaining when suddenly you can do more with software, or do the same things but faster. They complain when features disappear, things slow down, or buttons get moved around the UI for no apparent reasons (that last one alone is enough to confuse the elderly and people without much patience for technology).
  - yreg 6y ago
    Sure, I replied to this statement >Redesigns should never, ever happen unless absolutely necessary There is a place for redesign, but it has to be done properly. It's not something intrinsically bad.
specialist 6y ago
Jensen Harris' The Story of the Ribbon is a brilliant post mortem for how all the right decisions still led to a terrible outcome: https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/MIX/MIX08/UX09 https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/MIX/MIX08/UX09 I had to watch it twice. Frankly, it kind of blew me away, back when I cared about UI design. I generally agree with "no major rewrites" for both code and user interfaces. It's better to evolve, iterate. There are two exceptions. "Do overs", when you can start from scratch because of a new platform, plateau, biz model. While technically possible to iterate an architecture from sendmail (monolith) to postfix (collection of simple services), for example, it's easier (for a motivated expert) to just start over. New metaphors. A new idea, paradigm, algorithm is so disruptive, you can just replace the prior solution. I once replaced a complicated CAD/Illustrator style production planner with a wizardy parametric designer. I once replaced a complicated BizTalk style "workflow" thing with a postfix inspired group of utilities. Source: Recovering user interface designer, before the kids rebranded it "UX".

jacobolus 6y ago

In particular, the people doing the redesign often seem to not understand what made the first design successful/effective, and senselessly wreck parts without even realizing. I’m not sure if this is because they understand the problem less than the original designers, the institutional incentives are set up poorly to encourage high quality work, increased system complexity / technical debt is harder to work around, institutional complexity makes it harder for competent people to be in position to make the decisions, the original successes were partly down to luck and reversion to the mean dooms follow-ups to mediocrity, recent UI fashions are generically user hostile, or what... but whatever it is, it’s very frustrating. And that’s not even mentioning the inevitable bugs and glitches. There’s probably some selection bias involved too. Those products and redesigns which are amazing and wonderful get used, but nobody thinks too hard about all the ways in which they are better. On the other hand when redesigns negatively affect customers, the bad experience is unpleasantly memorable.

will_pseudonym 6y ago
It's like rewriting a codebase. There's so much tacit understanding of the actual problem inherent in a living design/codebase. All that nuance gets obliterated because someone got a bee in their bonnet about better code/cleaner design.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

hbarka 6y ago

Add Google Finance to this list. What a tragedy and Google still has not realized it.

IgniteTheSun 6y ago
Given so much discussion over the years and the fact that there were probably a lot of searches for alternatives, one has to think they probably know about it but just don't care. Why wouldn't they care? Their goals must have shifted away from those that led to the creation of the initial site - and as a result, I moved on to sites that more closely aligned with my goals.

yreg 6y ago

There are many good reasons for a redesign. New features, change of scope, new UX paradigms, or the ability to do better (be it thanks to new ideas, or just having better skill set in the team than during the previous design. Or possessing new knowledge about the shortcomings of your current design). Most computer interfaces can and should improve when the time is right.

TeMPOraL 6y ago
Yes, but some key words that you've mentioned here: "ability to do better", "improve". The kind of redesign people are complaining about involves primarily changing how things look with neutral or negative impact on overall usability. People aren't complaining when suddenly you can do more with software, or do the same things but faster. They complain when features disappear, things slow down, or buttons get moved around the UI for no apparent reasons (that last one alone is enough to confuse the elderly and people without much patience for technology).
- yreg 6y ago
  Sure, I replied to this statement >Redesigns should never, ever happen unless absolutely necessary There is a place for redesign, but it has to be done properly. It's not something intrinsically bad.

specialist 6y ago

Jensen Harris' The Story of the Ribbon is a brilliant post mortem for how all the right decisions still led to a terrible outcome: https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/MIX/MIX08/UX09 https://channel9.msdn.com/Events/MIX/MIX08/UX09 I had to watch it twice. Frankly, it kind of blew me away, back when I cared about UI design. I generally agree with "no major rewrites" for both code and user interfaces. It's better to evolve, iterate. There are two exceptions. "Do overs", when you can start from scratch because of a new platform, plateau, biz model. While technically possible to iterate an architecture from sendmail (monolith) to postfix (collection of simple services), for example, it's easier (for a motivated expert) to just start over. New metaphors. A new idea, paradigm, algorithm is so disruptive, you can just replace the prior solution. I once replaced a complicated CAD/Illustrator style production planner with a wizardy parametric designer. I once replaced a complicated BizTalk style "workflow" thing with a postfix inspired group of utilities. Source: Recovering user interface designer, before the kids rebranded it "UX".