3 ms·
It's even simpler than that. Who wants to work on changing a UI that they themselves are comfortable with? It's work with - best case - no benefit in the eyes
by Beldin 5y ago
It's even simpler than that. Who wants to work on changing a UI that they themselves are comfortable with?
It's work with - best case - no benefit in the eyes of the developer. Worse, you likely will break workflows - including your own.
Sexyness doesn't need to factor in at all.
And do note the nice uncanny valley of no change: in order to improve the UI, you need to understand the program well. In order for that to happen, you need to be proficient with it. In which case, you know how to use the UI and are more likely blind to its downsides.
- hasmanean 5y agoOne more thing: some people have no eye for aesthetics. I’ve seen (smart) people defend a piece of code, and when I show them a refactored version, they say “that’s literally the exact same thing I wrote.” No it’s not, and yes it is, in the sense that’s a^2 + 2ab + c^2 is not the same thing as (a+b)^2, but they (should and ideally must) evaluate to the same thing. I say ideally because only in the case of using infinite precision arithmetic can you guarantee this for all values of a,b,c. People blind to these patterns cannot see how to simplify things, whether math or code or UIs.
- BeFlatXIII 5y agoWas the use of c^2 intentional?
- hasmanean 5y agoLol no.