5 ms·

No... the problem with desktop software is that creating a good UI/UX is a hard software problem typically solved by software developers instead of designers.

No... the problem with desktop software is that creating a good UI/UX is a hard software problem typically solved by software developers instead of designers. Whereas, the accessibility and power of web technologies show that making UI/UX an easier software problem (HTML, CSS, JS) automatically attracts more designers yielding better UX/UI.

bluGill 6y ago
Your first point is correct, but as a ux designer (not what I do, but it is in my background), most web ui is terrible. It is done by designers, but they obviously have a background in art not user machine interaction and it shows. Once the page loads (takes too long Turing off users) it looks nice, but try getting anything done.
ubercow13 6y ago
>making UI/UX an easier software problem (HTML, CSS, JS) automatically attracts more designers yielding better UX/UI I find this a bit questionable. What are some examples of this good UX and UI? Many HTML-ish UIs I can think of are not good. Slack, Discord, modern Windows apps such as the new settings app for example. They tend to suffer from poor reimplementations of native widget functionality, poor implementations of scrollable elements especially infinitely scrollable ones, low information density and too much whitespace often exacerbated by flat design, janky responsiveness often with high latency.
- unglaublich 6y ago
  Apart from the remarks about flat design, whitespace and information-density, which are very personal imho, I would say Google Drive, Google Docs, Microsoft Office Online, GitHub source code editor, Visual Studio code, Atom, all do a good job.
  - jiggunjer 6y ago
    Good job? Maybe on a beefy first-world computer. The UX goes down the drain if you try to run a few of those apps at once.
    - catalogia 6y ago
      Doubtlessly the programmers who work on those products use computers with dozens of gigabytes of ram and half a dozen cores or more. They're out of touch with the sort of computers a TON of casual computer owners are using daily.
- tester34 6y ago
  Github Desktop I'd say
- IAmEveryone 6y ago
  The products you mention are all hugely successful, often against the backdrop of existing OSS with similar features (IRC, for example). Maybe there's some abstract notion of "good UI" that is distinct from "people like to use it". Or maybe people are stupid. But on a purely empirical basis there is absolutely no evidence for the supremacy of the old UI paradigms you champion.
  - ubercow13 6y ago
    Many of the things I'm talking about aren't even debatable they are simply bugs. For example infinite scrolling areas jumping around as they load content and the interface having variable and high latency in response to user input. 'Poor reimplementations' could be stuff like copy and paste being bugged out in a text box. In any case you're right, I think there isn't enough study into these things.
andrepd 6y ago
> the accessibility and power of web technologies show that making UI/UX an easier software problem (HTML, CSS, JS) automatically attracts more designers yielding better UX/UI "Modern" UIs are often atrocious, and I'm not the only person who thinks so.
AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago
"better UX" is not a thing I [This comment uses cookies to enhance the user experience. Click :HERE: to accept] would ever say about websites over desktop software.
mattbee 6y ago
Whoa. I much prefer finding my way around any "badly designed" UI that can respond in 20-100ms a "well designed" UI that responds in 500-5000ms. Most web software providers don't (can't!) deal with server latency or the client-side processing of the JS/CSS etc. that they use. That's why I use a lot of "well designed" UIs that respond slower than equivalent systems from the 1980s.
robertoandred 6y ago
UI/UX isn't a software problem at all. It's a design problem, and designers solve it no matter the platform.

bluGill 6y ago

Your first point is correct, but as a ux designer (not what I do, but it is in my background), most web ui is terrible. It is done by designers, but they obviously have a background in art not user machine interaction and it shows. Once the page loads (takes too long Turing off users) it looks nice, but try getting anything done.

ubercow13 6y ago

>making UI/UX an easier software problem (HTML, CSS, JS) automatically attracts more designers yielding better UX/UI I find this a bit questionable. What are some examples of this good UX and UI? Many HTML-ish UIs I can think of are not good. Slack, Discord, modern Windows apps such as the new settings app for example. They tend to suffer from poor reimplementations of native widget functionality, poor implementations of scrollable elements especially infinitely scrollable ones, low information density and too much whitespace often exacerbated by flat design, janky responsiveness often with high latency.

unglaublich 6y ago
Apart from the remarks about flat design, whitespace and information-density, which are very personal imho, I would say Google Drive, Google Docs, Microsoft Office Online, GitHub source code editor, Visual Studio code, Atom, all do a good job.
- jiggunjer 6y ago
  Good job? Maybe on a beefy first-world computer. The UX goes down the drain if you try to run a few of those apps at once.
  - catalogia 6y ago
    Doubtlessly the programmers who work on those products use computers with dozens of gigabytes of ram and half a dozen cores or more. They're out of touch with the sort of computers a TON of casual computer owners are using daily.
tester34 6y ago
Github Desktop I'd say
IAmEveryone 6y ago
The products you mention are all hugely successful, often against the backdrop of existing OSS with similar features (IRC, for example). Maybe there's some abstract notion of "good UI" that is distinct from "people like to use it". Or maybe people are stupid. But on a purely empirical basis there is absolutely no evidence for the supremacy of the old UI paradigms you champion.
- ubercow13 6y ago
  Many of the things I'm talking about aren't even debatable they are simply bugs. For example infinite scrolling areas jumping around as they load content and the interface having variable and high latency in response to user input. 'Poor reimplementations' could be stuff like copy and paste being bugged out in a text box. In any case you're right, I think there isn't enough study into these things.

andrepd 6y ago

> the accessibility and power of web technologies show that making UI/UX an easier software problem (HTML, CSS, JS) automatically attracts more designers yielding better UX/UI "Modern" UIs are often atrocious, and I'm not the only person who thinks so.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 6y ago

"better UX" is not a thing I [This comment uses cookies to enhance the user experience. Click :HERE: to accept] would ever say about websites over desktop software.

mattbee 6y ago

Whoa. I much prefer finding my way around any "badly designed" UI that can respond in 20-100ms a "well designed" UI that responds in 500-5000ms. Most web software providers don't (can't!) deal with server latency or the client-side processing of the JS/CSS etc. that they use. That's why I use a lot of "well designed" UIs that respond slower than equivalent systems from the 1980s.

robertoandred 6y ago

UI/UX isn't a software problem at all. It's a design problem, and designers solve it no matter the platform.