10 ms·

Linked article refers to the changes in Safari as "thoughtless UI", which is a fairly common argument used against changes that people don't like. Against Apple

Linked article refers to the changes in Safari as "thoughtless UI", which is a fairly common argument used against changes that people don't like. Against Apple, Microsoft, WinAmp, Reddit, etc. But let's be fair and note that there quite certainly a lot of very proud, considerate, intentional designers and developers who are behind this change. People who probably put thousands (millions?) multiples of "thought" in considering the changes, versus someone saying "Whoa...this is different and I don't like different." The whine about site colors bleeding into the chrome seem particularly subjective, yet they're presented as if they're objective truths. I use a macOS beta 15 device beside a 14 device, all day every day. At first install it was jarring, but then I became acclimated to it and it's fine. Tab groups are fantastic. I appreciate the aesthetics of chrome bleed, but that's just my subjective opinion. My only complaint about the browser is that it's crash-prone right now.

laurent123456 5y ago
> People who probably put thousands (millions?) multiples of "thought" in considering the changes Thoughts maybe, but did they ask users what they wanted? Did they run usability studies to verify that these changes make sense? I can't imagine that they did. Certain UI changes in macOS, Windows, etc. are so obviously bad (and are eventually changed) that no matter how much they thought about it, they didn't care to check what users thought.
- defaultname 5y ago
  Every user thinks they're the aggregate "users", though. That their personal opinion and take is universal. For instance the address bar on here is a canonical truth and is the linchpin of the experience. See how every time a browser touches it (e.g. Chrome truncating the address) is met with mobs of the angry. Many users -- including even "power" users -- seldom interact with the address bar. Nor is it verification of anything much. It simply isn't that important anymore. Another comment mentions that the reload button is two clicks away, which is a fair point but that everyone who actually uses reload (generally developers -- zero web apps should ever require the user to hit reload) use a keyboard shortcut. Eh. "Certain UI changes in macOS, Windows, etc. are so obviously bad (and are eventually changed)" True. At the same time, every UI change of anything ever has yielded a firestorm of criticism and pushback. And more times than not the new design was better and people acclimate to it and eventually prefer it. I judge nothing on initial reception.
  - spockz 5y ago
    > Many users -- including even "power" users -- seldom interact with the address bar. Nor is it verification of anything much. It simply isn't that important anymore. I interact with the address bar every time I go to page or site. It is my single most interfaces with the browser after the sites themselves. And that it isn’t much use for verification is exactly the reason why people advocate that it should display all information!
  - jorvi 5y ago
    One of the clearest examples of this for me is having the address bar at the bottom on mobile devices. There is pretty much no disadvantage to placing it there yet whenever a browser does that, people get inevitably angry. I hope Apple sticks with it and the other iOS browsers like Brave adopt it. Edit: point proven
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - DangitBobby 5y ago
      Was this an optional setting? Was it suddenly turned on with the option to turn it off buried in a settings menu than normal users are scared of? I actually didn't know iOS had this, I only know about FireFox on Android and it asked me if I wanted to opt in before thrusting it upon me. That's a good way to make major UI changes.
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    > Every user thinks they're the aggregate "users", though. That their personal opinion and take is universal. Because it is. Ultimately, your comfort is the only thing that matters when you're using a computer (particularly Macs). If something doesn't operate in the way that you want it to, why is that not a valid argument for replacing it?
    - mavhc 5y ago
      It's not a valid argument that everyone should bend to your whim, it's possible a valid argument that (a) there should be a load of config options and/or (b) you should be able to edit the source code to make it work how you want.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  > did they ask users what they wanted? This is Apple we're talking about, the last time they asked users about something is when they failed to litigate Corellium for virtualizing their software.
tambourine_man 5y ago
> …yet they're presented as if they're objective truths. Readability is objective. It can be measured. They keep bending themselves backwards to get out of a problem they inflicted upon themselves. A web browser should be readable first.
- defaultname 5y ago
  Someone's casual opinion about "readability" is not objective. It is the very definition of subjective. I mean, if you've been on HN at all you've seen massive debates about fonts, colors, contrast, and so on, where people have profoundly different opinions about readability. Run a study and then talk. Otherwise it's just subjective observations. Further, we're talking about page theme spreading to the chrome of the browser. It makes the chrome less important than the page contents. It seems they're putting "readability" focus exactly where it should be.
  - willyt 5y ago
    Off topic. By the way I think you meant ‘throw away’ not ‘tosser’ which is British slang insult meaning masturbator. It’s basically interchangeable with ‘wanker’.
  - 1_player 5y ago
    > Run a study and then talk Have they? The base of your argument is a classic appeal to authority. They're "very proud, considerate, intentional" designers so they must be right and everybody else wrong. Where's the data? Aren't unhappy users valid enough data to demonstrate a downgrade in user experience?
    - defaultname 5y ago
      > They're "very proud, considerate, intentional" designers so they must be right and everybody else wrong. Contriving a straw man to argue a position does no good. I specifically took issue with claims that it's thoughtless. That in no way says it's right or wrong [1], but I'm extraordinarily certain that a lot of people thought long about every detail of this, they probably argued and different people had different takes, and we can see the results of that process. Trying to casually dismiss all of that as thoughtless is gross. > Aren't unhappy users valid enough data to demonstrate a downgrade in user experience? Unhappy users aren't proof of much at all but that people really dislike change, and that you can't please all of the people all of the time. The eventual net result is an entirely different thing. And again, the net might be positive and it might be negative. I've made zero assessment of that. I happen to be a pretty malleable user and I just flow with whatever, adapting to whatever various platforms demand I use. [1] Although notions of right and wrong depend upon the inputs to your assessment. e.g. often we'll some users feel that a certain function or trait is a first class, primary element, while it isn't to others. What is right for one can be wrong for another. Seldom is it universal. Every design of any complexity is wrong for some subset of users.
dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago
It's fairly common because it's commonly true; people don't like the changes for good reasons. Actual innovations in design are fine, but too often changes to user interfaces are arbitrary or are a response to the latest fad or some bright idea marketing or management cooked up. There is a strong argument for user interface stability. People don't just learn user interfaces, they seep into people's unconscious and muscle memory. It can take a while to learn the idiosyncrasies of a user interface and making changes should have a string justification. It should be noted that people who are paid to design user interfaces are not paid to use them. Their incentives are to create and tinker. This is a disincentive to do what is often needed: nothing or very slow change.
- oivey 5y ago
  I think the role of the aesthetic of a product is a bit under appreciated. If Safari was exactly as functional but still looked like Netscape navigator, it would negatively impact people’s opinion of the browser. It’s just like the idea that you first eat with your eyes. For example, eggs with yellow yolks and orange yolks taste the same in blinded tests, but when people can see the eggs they usually go for the orange ones. Periodic UI design updates are needed so that people don’t associate a dated GUI with a dated product.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- irrational 5y ago
  This. I work on a website where a new ui was rolled out every 2 years? Why? We (the developers) finally figured out it was because it gave the business people work to do that was more interesting than what they were really supposed to be doing. They got to go to all these catered meetings with 3rd party design consultants. They got to report to their higher ups that they were doing all this very important work. And every 2 years they could roll out the new ui to great fanfare while patting each other on the backs. It had absolutely nothing to do with improving the experience for our customers. The worst part was, often functionality that was well loved was scraped because there wasn’t time to work it into this redesign. It turned out they would do that on purpose so people would complain so they could go to their higher ups with complaints in hand to justify budget money for a new round of ui design work. Rinse repeat.
capex 5y ago
Did you even read the article? The whole article is about why the UI changes are thoughtless.
- defaultname 5y ago
  Yes, I read the article. And I completely disagree with a lot of the claims made in it. Claiming that these changes are "thoughtless" is grossly unprofessional foolishness to pejoratively stomp one's feet to "get their way". It's embarrassing. You can disagree with the changes. You can make arguments (understand that other people also have arguments -- for instance on the importance of the address bar, or how a browser should work with 35 tabs, which fwiw they all are trash at that level), but if you need to demand that anyone with a different opinion is "thoughtless", you have no position at all.
  - capex 5y ago
    I have no affiliation with the author, but he's provided reasoning as to why he thinks the design doesn't work for him. You can window-dress the wording, but that's essentially what the article is about. What are your reasons for 'trashing' the importance of the address bar and the need for 35 tabs?
paulryanrogers 5y ago
Colors bleeding into chrome could make the line of death less clear, and therefore put users at risk.
- egypturnash 5y ago
  "the line of death"?
  - lloeki 5y ago
    the clear separation between trusted outer chrome and untrusted content, so that content cannot fake chrome to malevolent ends (e.g faking a dialog, a SSL lock icon, a URL...)
    - gjsman-1000 5y ago
      Honestly, I don't think that almost anyone in real life cares about this "line of death" than yourself.
      - Rebelgecko 5y ago
        FWIW, while watching my mom use her MacBook I've noticed that sometimes she can't tell the difference between a website with a back button and the browser's own back button. For less tech savvy users, the delineation isn't always clear. Especially if the browser's chrome changes frequently
rangoon626 5y ago
Yes, but who ever called Classic Mac OS a thoughtless user interface? Even when they redid it with Platinum. It had far more affordances and consideration than even modern Mac OS, and it showed by (lack of) this commentary against it.
rapind 5y ago
“People who probably put thousands (millions?) multiples of "thought" in considering the changes” In my experience it’s usually one person’s vision behind major design changes (good or bad). It may be “discussed” so long as the discussion doesn’t deviate from boss’s vision (or you’re not a fit for the project).
- sho 5y ago
  One I've learned from grim experience is that most of the time, 1 person with a strong vision and the willingness to fight for it is better than 10 or more people just kinda doing their own thing in their own sandbox. Sure, the former might turn out bad. The latter is almost guaranteed to.
  - ncann 5y ago
    This is kinda like the argument between an authoritative government and a democratic one, the former works great until it doesn't. When it works, the former is more efficient and can get things done much more quickly but when things go wrong it can go horribly more wrong as well because the checks and balances aren't there.
    - rapind 5y ago
      I think it's a matter of stakes. In UI design, while the risk to the business will vary case by case it's almost never as costly as the risk in governing. Committees just aren't great at moving fast, and in UI design moving slow might be more expensive than moving in the wrong direction and learning something.
orangegreen 5y ago
Reminds me of how almost any corporate logo redesign works. Company makes a new logo, everyone is outraged by how awful and horrible it is, then we get used to it. The Discord logo redesign was one of those logos that elicited a very odd amount of outrage for what it was. Multiple video essays were made about just how terrible the logo is [0]. It's really not a bad logo at all. It's a minor change. But once you get used to something, any change seems to be perceived as a threat. After a few months, I bet most people will get used to the new Safari UI and forget what they were even mad out. [0] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=discord+new+logo https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=discord+new+log...
- egypturnash 5y ago
  And the new one appeals to a different market - personally I thought the old one was pretty ugly, especially with how it would shatter into a ton of spinning fragments when it was loading. It said "hello this is a safe space for Gamerz", and I am very much not a Gamerz. Now it doesn't say that. And now I'm less inactive on the various discord chats I've been invited to. Most of which are not really full of Gamerz anyway - but staring at that very Gamerz logo for a few seconds every time I opened the thing made me not want to open it.
  - mavhc 5y ago
    Interesting, I don't think I've ever cared what a logo meant, just that it was easy to distinguish from all the other apps on my taskbar. It's currently a light purple circle with a white blob in the middle, I often can't find it
- GlitchMr 5y ago
  I don't think the logo is bad myself, it is a tiny change overall. However, it's worth noting it was shown alongside wordmark, and the font used by that wordmark (a modified version of Ginto Nord Black) is... not great, in particular I think the letter "i" looks somewhat off in relation to other characters in word "Discord" - I don't know what's wrong with it, I'm not a typographer. That said, because the wordmark is not seen often (pretty much the main page and the page announcing new logo), in practice it's fine. After logging in to Discord there is no real reason to go back to the main page. Also, out of curiosity, I checked the videos you linked to, pretty much all consider the logo to be fine, but they all criticize the font or the letter "i" specifically (even the video called "discord's new logo is alright").
flohofwoe 5y ago
UI changes are only good if they improve usability. By far most UI changes these days are only done for the sake of looking different and "fresh", UI design has become purely fashion driven. Where's the scientific research and white papers going along with the Safari UI changes which clearly justify point by point why every single change makes sense, all backed by user studies? All I usually see is "emotional bullshit", not rational facts when UI designers talk about their work. This used to be different during the 80's and 90's and I'm convinced that this change (turning UI design from science/engineering into fashion) is why we are deep in a UX crisis.
- jhelphenstine 5y ago
  S/UI/clothing; your argument suggests the move to add color to fabric doesn’t make sense because it is simply fashion and has aught to do with the interface presented by a shirt. I think the parent comment nails it on subjectivity; the form of a thing is as much a part as its function. The luxury goods industry attests as much.
  - flohofwoe 5y ago
    A functional tool can still look nice, but the function is still more important than the looks, otherwise it's just useless bling (the fashion industry is the perfect example though, they need to sell new stuff each year without actually changing anything important, all they can really do is change pointless details).
    - Closi 5y ago
      A functional tool can look nice, but a tool designed with a “function only” mentality is very unlikely to look nice. Good design is a balance of many factors.
  - sqqqqrly 5y ago
    Poor analogy. A better one for clothing would be to remove the button and zipper from pants for a cleaner look.
grishka 5y ago
A simple question. Why change something that already works for everyone? To solve which problem exactly? I understand redesigning UIs when that redesign affords you some new capabilities for new features you want to add. I don't, however, understand redesigns that just move things around without adding anything new. Android 12 is the prime example of this right now. Android 11, which I currently have on my phone, works fine. Its UI is well thought out. It's mature enough. The best thing you could do to it is leave it alone. But then someone at Google wanted a promotion, which meant redesigning an existing product, and now everything is opaque and has huge paddings for no good reason. And when they say "material you is customizable", I really hope it's so customizable I could just make it look like it did before they released this mess.
- snowwrestler 5y ago
  I have the opposite question: why do people let themselves get upset over UI changes? Why don’t people seem to take pride in their ability to adapt to change? Change is inevitable. Even if we stipulate that change sometimes happens for bad reasons, like someone wanting a promotion, it’s not like bad reasons are suddenly going to disappear. People are still going to want promotions a year from now, or 10 years from now. So designs are going to change. Why not take the approach of “let’s see how I can adapt to this”?
  - aniforprez 5y ago
    If changes are going to actively hamper use, why wouldn't people get worked up? This very article is a prime example of bad design affecting usability. Same with what I've seen of Android 12. Huge quick shortcut buttons that take up half the screen in the notification shade. 2 toggles where now I have 5. This is terrible. "live with it"? No
  - grishka 5y ago
    > why do people let themselves get upset over UI changes? Because a UI is a tool I use to get something done. I don't like when the thing I've been using intuitively gets changed so I have to learn to use it again. It's a tool. It's not an art piece. > Why don’t people seem to take pride in their ability to adapt to change? Because this adaptation doesn't make their lives any better. It's change for the sake of change. It's like weather, except weather isn't quite controllable, but these changes are deliberately introduced by other people to mess with you for no good reason. > Change is inevitable. Progress is inevitable. Moving things around isn't progress. Progress implies adding something. > Even if we stipulate that change sometimes happens for bad reasons, like someone wanting a promotion The incentive structure in most IT companies is wildly wrong, I'll say that. No one at Google got promoted for maintaining an existing product because afaik promotion requires completing a "big project". So the easiest "big project" is a UI redesign. The second easiest is apparently an instant messaging app. > Why not take the approach of “let’s see how I can adapt to this”? Let's see. I adapted to this by avoiding installing any major updates unless absolutely necessary. Security patches are fine tho.
AbrahamParangi 5y ago
Apple has increasingly delivered “looks good, feels bad” design since the Jobs era, and I suspect this is organizationally endemic.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  I think it was more specific to a small group of powerful people, because it seems to be reversing. Slowly, but I can see that progress is being made.
- setpatchaddress 5y ago
  This sort of thing is absolutely not new since the “Jobs era.” Early Mac OS X had exactly these criticisms leveled at it, for years. Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushed_metal_(interface) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushed_metal_(interface)
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    Isn't Mac OS X solidly in the Jobs era?
    - luffapi 5y ago
      Yes, it’s basically NeXT and is 100% a Jobs thing. The parent is correct that it’s had major ux issues since day 1 though. Interestingly they also mixed in terrible OS 9 ux (cough Finder, cough .DS_STORE).
- luffapi 5y ago
  Apple has always been like that with the exception of the Apple IIe. Lately things have been taking even more of a nose dive though. Have you ever used Apple Music? There is no excuse for that product to be as bad as it is. It’s probably the worst mainstream consumer app in the market.
badsectoracula 5y ago
> Linked article refers to the changes in Safari as "thoughtless UI", which is a fairly common argument used against changes that people don't like. Against Apple, Microsoft, WinAmp, Reddit, etc. [...] someone saying "Whoa...this is different and I don't like different." Back in the 90s Microsoft did put some research effort into Windows 95 and i do not really remember much of a blowback to the new UI despite being radically different from Windows 3.1. There were a lot of people complaining for the higher system requirements, how Win95 felt slower and even how "infantilized" DOS by forcing a GUI on them, but as far as the Windows UI itself goes pretty much everyone agreed was a big improvement to the point that other UIs started copying it to a functional level (ie. not just the window theme). There were even projects that recreated it on Windows 3.1 (Calmira). To this day a lot of people consider Windows 95 to be one of the best and most well thought UIs. (and honestly even though i think that overall Win2K is peak Windows, i do believe that ever since Win98 Microsoft started taking a form-over-function approach - see the toolbar buttons losing their relief and becoming shapeless elements indistinguishable from any other icon despite having different interaction with the user) Sure, some reactions in UI changes tend to be "i do not like different" but that doesn't make all reactions so. And even then, do not dismiss the pure "i do not like different" reactions either: people spent time and energy to learn the UI they use, unless a change is a radical improvement (e.g. Win3.1 -> Win95) they are very justified to be pissed off at how the designers of the new UI wasted all that effort and nullified their knowledge for marginal gain (assuming there is any at all... or even worse, becoming harder to use like many overpadded mobile-first UIs look on desktops). (the same applies to changes programmers often dislike too, like languages, APIs, frameworks, etc - for many users UI changes are the equivalent of Python2 to Python3, except as users are often powerless to do anything about UI changes, they happen way more often)
ryanSrich 5y ago
Well when you objectively make a product not only worse to use, but worse to look at, where’s the benefit? Also, why does it matter how much time, money, brain power they spent on the changes? The only thing that matters is the outcome.
coliveira 5y ago
Multiple people putting several hours of though behind a feature is what we call design by committee. It doesn't matter how much time was spent if the committee is not capable of finding a unified direction to the proposed changes.
RulerOf 5y ago
>I appreciate the aesthetics of chrome bleed This one is a particularly bad idea. Regular people don't always understand the difference between the browser and the contents of a web page. This blurs that line even more for people who already have trouble seeing it in the first place.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
EricE 5y ago
There is zero reason to eliminate the tab bar and combine it with the address bar. It's idiotic and there should at least be an option to undo it. I have accidentally close more tabs than ever before - and that's with me actively being aware of it and trying to be careful. It's a HORRIBLE user design.
racl101 5y ago
Um, you don't need to waste copious amounts of dollars on designers and developers to know that it is a terrible idea to mix the address bar with the tabs. It's a mess, and the vertical space you save is nominal compare to the increased frustration you will create for users when they have a tougher time being able to read their URL (something that's already an issue for everyone) and relegating the tabs to about half the horizontal space they could have had. This is utterly pointless. It's not about being an old person resistant to change, it's about "fixing" something that was not broken and not even doing a lateral move, but totally regressing the utility it served.
defaultname 5y ago
Way too late to edit this, but please note that I erroneously referred to macOS 14 and 15...not sure how I didn't notice that before, but it should be macOS 11(.4?) and 12. My mind was thinking of iOS 14 and 15. Alas, don't want anyone perpetuating that mistake. Cheers!

laurent123456 5y ago

> People who probably put thousands (millions?) multiples of "thought" in considering the changes Thoughts maybe, but did they ask users what they wanted? Did they run usability studies to verify that these changes make sense? I can't imagine that they did. Certain UI changes in macOS, Windows, etc. are so obviously bad (and are eventually changed) that no matter how much they thought about it, they didn't care to check what users thought.

defaultname 5y ago
Every user thinks they're the aggregate "users", though. That their personal opinion and take is universal. For instance the address bar on here is a canonical truth and is the linchpin of the experience. See how every time a browser touches it (e.g. Chrome truncating the address) is met with mobs of the angry. Many users -- including even "power" users -- seldom interact with the address bar. Nor is it verification of anything much. It simply isn't that important anymore. Another comment mentions that the reload button is two clicks away, which is a fair point but that everyone who actually uses reload (generally developers -- zero web apps should ever require the user to hit reload) use a keyboard shortcut. Eh. "Certain UI changes in macOS, Windows, etc. are so obviously bad (and are eventually changed)" True. At the same time, every UI change of anything ever has yielded a firestorm of criticism and pushback. And more times than not the new design was better and people acclimate to it and eventually prefer it. I judge nothing on initial reception.
- spockz 5y ago
  > Many users -- including even "power" users -- seldom interact with the address bar. Nor is it verification of anything much. It simply isn't that important anymore. I interact with the address bar every time I go to page or site. It is my single most interfaces with the browser after the sites themselves. And that it isn’t much use for verification is exactly the reason why people advocate that it should display all information!
- jorvi 5y ago
  One of the clearest examples of this for me is having the address bar at the bottom on mobile devices. There is pretty much no disadvantage to placing it there yet whenever a browser does that, people get inevitably angry. I hope Apple sticks with it and the other iOS browsers like Brave adopt it. Edit: point proven
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - DangitBobby 5y ago
    Was this an optional setting? Was it suddenly turned on with the option to turn it off buried in a settings menu than normal users are scared of? I actually didn't know iOS had this, I only know about FireFox on Android and it asked me if I wanted to opt in before thrusting it upon me. That's a good way to make major UI changes.
- smoldesu 5y ago
  > Every user thinks they're the aggregate "users", though. That their personal opinion and take is universal. Because it is. Ultimately, your comfort is the only thing that matters when you're using a computer (particularly Macs). If something doesn't operate in the way that you want it to, why is that not a valid argument for replacing it?
  - mavhc 5y ago
    It's not a valid argument that everyone should bend to your whim, it's possible a valid argument that (a) there should be a load of config options and/or (b) you should be able to edit the source code to make it work how you want.
smoldesu 5y ago
> did they ask users what they wanted? This is Apple we're talking about, the last time they asked users about something is when they failed to litigate Corellium for virtualizing their software.

tambourine_man 5y ago

> …yet they're presented as if they're objective truths. Readability is objective. It can be measured. They keep bending themselves backwards to get out of a problem they inflicted upon themselves. A web browser should be readable first.

defaultname 5y ago
Someone's casual opinion about "readability" is not objective. It is the very definition of subjective. I mean, if you've been on HN at all you've seen massive debates about fonts, colors, contrast, and so on, where people have profoundly different opinions about readability. Run a study and then talk. Otherwise it's just subjective observations. Further, we're talking about page theme spreading to the chrome of the browser. It makes the chrome less important than the page contents. It seems they're putting "readability" focus exactly where it should be.
- willyt 5y ago
  Off topic. By the way I think you meant ‘throw away’ not ‘tosser’ which is British slang insult meaning masturbator. It’s basically interchangeable with ‘wanker’.
- 1_player 5y ago
  > Run a study and then talk Have they? The base of your argument is a classic appeal to authority. They're "very proud, considerate, intentional" designers so they must be right and everybody else wrong. Where's the data? Aren't unhappy users valid enough data to demonstrate a downgrade in user experience?
  - defaultname 5y ago
    > They're "very proud, considerate, intentional" designers so they must be right and everybody else wrong. Contriving a straw man to argue a position does no good. I specifically took issue with claims that it's thoughtless. That in no way says it's right or wrong [1], but I'm extraordinarily certain that a lot of people thought long about every detail of this, they probably argued and different people had different takes, and we can see the results of that process. Trying to casually dismiss all of that as thoughtless is gross. > Aren't unhappy users valid enough data to demonstrate a downgrade in user experience? Unhappy users aren't proof of much at all but that people really dislike change, and that you can't please all of the people all of the time. The eventual net result is an entirely different thing. And again, the net might be positive and it might be negative. I've made zero assessment of that. I happen to be a pretty malleable user and I just flow with whatever, adapting to whatever various platforms demand I use. [1] Although notions of right and wrong depend upon the inputs to your assessment. e.g. often we'll some users feel that a certain function or trait is a first class, primary element, while it isn't to others. What is right for one can be wrong for another. Seldom is it universal. Every design of any complexity is wrong for some subset of users.

dkjaudyeqooe 5y ago

It's fairly common because it's commonly true; people don't like the changes for good reasons. Actual innovations in design are fine, but too often changes to user interfaces are arbitrary or are a response to the latest fad or some bright idea marketing or management cooked up. There is a strong argument for user interface stability. People don't just learn user interfaces, they seep into people's unconscious and muscle memory. It can take a while to learn the idiosyncrasies of a user interface and making changes should have a string justification. It should be noted that people who are paid to design user interfaces are not paid to use them. Their incentives are to create and tinker. This is a disincentive to do what is often needed: nothing or very slow change.

oivey 5y ago
I think the role of the aesthetic of a product is a bit under appreciated. If Safari was exactly as functional but still looked like Netscape navigator, it would negatively impact people’s opinion of the browser. It’s just like the idea that you first eat with your eyes. For example, eggs with yellow yolks and orange yolks taste the same in blinded tests, but when people can see the eggs they usually go for the orange ones. Periodic UI design updates are needed so that people don’t associate a dated GUI with a dated product.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
irrational 5y ago
This. I work on a website where a new ui was rolled out every 2 years? Why? We (the developers) finally figured out it was because it gave the business people work to do that was more interesting than what they were really supposed to be doing. They got to go to all these catered meetings with 3rd party design consultants. They got to report to their higher ups that they were doing all this very important work. And every 2 years they could roll out the new ui to great fanfare while patting each other on the backs. It had absolutely nothing to do with improving the experience for our customers. The worst part was, often functionality that was well loved was scraped because there wasn’t time to work it into this redesign. It turned out they would do that on purpose so people would complain so they could go to their higher ups with complaints in hand to justify budget money for a new round of ui design work. Rinse repeat.

capex 5y ago

Did you even read the article? The whole article is about why the UI changes are thoughtless.

defaultname 5y ago
Yes, I read the article. And I completely disagree with a lot of the claims made in it. Claiming that these changes are "thoughtless" is grossly unprofessional foolishness to pejoratively stomp one's feet to "get their way". It's embarrassing. You can disagree with the changes. You can make arguments (understand that other people also have arguments -- for instance on the importance of the address bar, or how a browser should work with 35 tabs, which fwiw they all are trash at that level), but if you need to demand that anyone with a different opinion is "thoughtless", you have no position at all.
- capex 5y ago
  I have no affiliation with the author, but he's provided reasoning as to why he thinks the design doesn't work for him. You can window-dress the wording, but that's essentially what the article is about. What are your reasons for 'trashing' the importance of the address bar and the need for 35 tabs?

paulryanrogers 5y ago

Colors bleeding into chrome could make the line of death less clear, and therefore put users at risk.

egypturnash 5y ago
"the line of death"?
- lloeki 5y ago
  the clear separation between trusted outer chrome and untrusted content, so that content cannot fake chrome to malevolent ends (e.g faking a dialog, a SSL lock icon, a URL...)
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Honestly, I don't think that almost anyone in real life cares about this "line of death" than yourself.
    - Rebelgecko 5y ago
      FWIW, while watching my mom use her MacBook I've noticed that sometimes she can't tell the difference between a website with a back button and the browser's own back button. For less tech savvy users, the delineation isn't always clear. Especially if the browser's chrome changes frequently

rangoon626 5y ago

Yes, but who ever called Classic Mac OS a thoughtless user interface? Even when they redid it with Platinum. It had far more affordances and consideration than even modern Mac OS, and it showed by (lack of) this commentary against it.

rapind 5y ago

“People who probably put thousands (millions?) multiples of "thought" in considering the changes” In my experience it’s usually one person’s vision behind major design changes (good or bad). It may be “discussed” so long as the discussion doesn’t deviate from boss’s vision (or you’re not a fit for the project).

sho 5y ago
One I've learned from grim experience is that most of the time, 1 person with a strong vision and the willingness to fight for it is better than 10 or more people just kinda doing their own thing in their own sandbox. Sure, the former might turn out bad. The latter is almost guaranteed to.
- ncann 5y ago
  This is kinda like the argument between an authoritative government and a democratic one, the former works great until it doesn't. When it works, the former is more efficient and can get things done much more quickly but when things go wrong it can go horribly more wrong as well because the checks and balances aren't there.
  - rapind 5y ago
    I think it's a matter of stakes. In UI design, while the risk to the business will vary case by case it's almost never as costly as the risk in governing. Committees just aren't great at moving fast, and in UI design moving slow might be more expensive than moving in the wrong direction and learning something.

orangegreen 5y ago

Reminds me of how almost any corporate logo redesign works. Company makes a new logo, everyone is outraged by how awful and horrible it is, then we get used to it. The Discord logo redesign was one of those logos that elicited a very odd amount of outrage for what it was. Multiple video essays were made about just how terrible the logo is [0]. It's really not a bad logo at all. It's a minor change. But once you get used to something, any change seems to be perceived as a threat. After a few months, I bet most people will get used to the new Safari UI and forget what they were even mad out. [0] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=discord+new+logo https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=discord+new+log...

egypturnash 5y ago
And the new one appeals to a different market - personally I thought the old one was pretty ugly, especially with how it would shatter into a ton of spinning fragments when it was loading. It said "hello this is a safe space for Gamerz", and I am very much not a Gamerz. Now it doesn't say that. And now I'm less inactive on the various discord chats I've been invited to. Most of which are not really full of Gamerz anyway - but staring at that very Gamerz logo for a few seconds every time I opened the thing made me not want to open it.
- mavhc 5y ago
  Interesting, I don't think I've ever cared what a logo meant, just that it was easy to distinguish from all the other apps on my taskbar. It's currently a light purple circle with a white blob in the middle, I often can't find it
GlitchMr 5y ago
I don't think the logo is bad myself, it is a tiny change overall. However, it's worth noting it was shown alongside wordmark, and the font used by that wordmark (a modified version of Ginto Nord Black) is... not great, in particular I think the letter "i" looks somewhat off in relation to other characters in word "Discord" - I don't know what's wrong with it, I'm not a typographer. That said, because the wordmark is not seen often (pretty much the main page and the page announcing new logo), in practice it's fine. After logging in to Discord there is no real reason to go back to the main page. Also, out of curiosity, I checked the videos you linked to, pretty much all consider the logo to be fine, but they all criticize the font or the letter "i" specifically (even the video called "discord's new logo is alright").

flohofwoe 5y ago

UI changes are only good if they improve usability. By far most UI changes these days are only done for the sake of looking different and "fresh", UI design has become purely fashion driven. Where's the scientific research and white papers going along with the Safari UI changes which clearly justify point by point why every single change makes sense, all backed by user studies? All I usually see is "emotional bullshit", not rational facts when UI designers talk about their work. This used to be different during the 80's and 90's and I'm convinced that this change (turning UI design from science/engineering into fashion) is why we are deep in a UX crisis.

jhelphenstine 5y ago
S/UI/clothing; your argument suggests the move to add color to fabric doesn’t make sense because it is simply fashion and has aught to do with the interface presented by a shirt. I think the parent comment nails it on subjectivity; the form of a thing is as much a part as its function. The luxury goods industry attests as much.
- flohofwoe 5y ago
  A functional tool can still look nice, but the function is still more important than the looks, otherwise it's just useless bling (the fashion industry is the perfect example though, they need to sell new stuff each year without actually changing anything important, all they can really do is change pointless details).
  - Closi 5y ago
    A functional tool can look nice, but a tool designed with a “function only” mentality is very unlikely to look nice. Good design is a balance of many factors.
- sqqqqrly 5y ago
  Poor analogy. A better one for clothing would be to remove the button and zipper from pants for a cleaner look.

grishka 5y ago

A simple question. Why change something that already works for everyone? To solve which problem exactly? I understand redesigning UIs when that redesign affords you some new capabilities for new features you want to add. I don't, however, understand redesigns that just move things around without adding anything new. Android 12 is the prime example of this right now. Android 11, which I currently have on my phone, works fine. Its UI is well thought out. It's mature enough. The best thing you could do to it is leave it alone. But then someone at Google wanted a promotion, which meant redesigning an existing product, and now everything is opaque and has huge paddings for no good reason. And when they say "material you is customizable", I really hope it's so customizable I could just make it look like it did before they released this mess.

snowwrestler 5y ago
I have the opposite question: why do people let themselves get upset over UI changes? Why don’t people seem to take pride in their ability to adapt to change? Change is inevitable. Even if we stipulate that change sometimes happens for bad reasons, like someone wanting a promotion, it’s not like bad reasons are suddenly going to disappear. People are still going to want promotions a year from now, or 10 years from now. So designs are going to change. Why not take the approach of “let’s see how I can adapt to this”?
- aniforprez 5y ago
  If changes are going to actively hamper use, why wouldn't people get worked up? This very article is a prime example of bad design affecting usability. Same with what I've seen of Android 12. Huge quick shortcut buttons that take up half the screen in the notification shade. 2 toggles where now I have 5. This is terrible. "live with it"? No
- grishka 5y ago
  > why do people let themselves get upset over UI changes? Because a UI is a tool I use to get something done. I don't like when the thing I've been using intuitively gets changed so I have to learn to use it again. It's a tool. It's not an art piece. > Why don’t people seem to take pride in their ability to adapt to change? Because this adaptation doesn't make their lives any better. It's change for the sake of change. It's like weather, except weather isn't quite controllable, but these changes are deliberately introduced by other people to mess with you for no good reason. > Change is inevitable. Progress is inevitable. Moving things around isn't progress. Progress implies adding something. > Even if we stipulate that change sometimes happens for bad reasons, like someone wanting a promotion The incentive structure in most IT companies is wildly wrong, I'll say that. No one at Google got promoted for maintaining an existing product because afaik promotion requires completing a "big project". So the easiest "big project" is a UI redesign. The second easiest is apparently an instant messaging app. > Why not take the approach of “let’s see how I can adapt to this”? Let's see. I adapted to this by avoiding installing any major updates unless absolutely necessary. Security patches are fine tho.

AbrahamParangi 5y ago

Apple has increasingly delivered “looks good, feels bad” design since the Jobs era, and I suspect this is organizationally endemic.

reaperducer 5y ago
I think it was more specific to a small group of powerful people, because it seems to be reversing. Slowly, but I can see that progress is being made.
setpatchaddress 5y ago
This sort of thing is absolutely not new since the “Jobs era.” Early Mac OS X had exactly these criticisms leveled at it, for years. Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushed_metal_(interface) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushed_metal_(interface)
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  Isn't Mac OS X solidly in the Jobs era?
  - luffapi 5y ago
    Yes, it’s basically NeXT and is 100% a Jobs thing. The parent is correct that it’s had major ux issues since day 1 though. Interestingly they also mixed in terrible OS 9 ux (cough Finder, cough .DS_STORE).
luffapi 5y ago
Apple has always been like that with the exception of the Apple IIe. Lately things have been taking even more of a nose dive though. Have you ever used Apple Music? There is no excuse for that product to be as bad as it is. It’s probably the worst mainstream consumer app in the market.

badsectoracula 5y ago

> Linked article refers to the changes in Safari as "thoughtless UI", which is a fairly common argument used against changes that people don't like. Against Apple, Microsoft, WinAmp, Reddit, etc. [...] someone saying "Whoa...this is different and I don't like different." Back in the 90s Microsoft did put some research effort into Windows 95 and i do not really remember much of a blowback to the new UI despite being radically different from Windows 3.1. There were a lot of people complaining for the higher system requirements, how Win95 felt slower and even how "infantilized" DOS by forcing a GUI on them, but as far as the Windows UI itself goes pretty much everyone agreed was a big improvement to the point that other UIs started copying it to a functional level (ie. not just the window theme). There were even projects that recreated it on Windows 3.1 (Calmira). To this day a lot of people consider Windows 95 to be one of the best and most well thought UIs. (and honestly even though i think that overall Win2K is peak Windows, i do believe that ever since Win98 Microsoft started taking a form-over-function approach - see the toolbar buttons losing their relief and becoming shapeless elements indistinguishable from any other icon despite having different interaction with the user) Sure, some reactions in UI changes tend to be "i do not like different" but that doesn't make all reactions so. And even then, do not dismiss the pure "i do not like different" reactions either: people spent time and energy to learn the UI they use, unless a change is a radical improvement (e.g. Win3.1 -> Win95) they are very justified to be pissed off at how the designers of the new UI wasted all that effort and nullified their knowledge for marginal gain (assuming there is any at all... or even worse, becoming harder to use like many overpadded mobile-first UIs look on desktops). (the same applies to changes programmers often dislike too, like languages, APIs, frameworks, etc - for many users UI changes are the equivalent of Python2 to Python3, except as users are often powerless to do anything about UI changes, they happen way more often)

ryanSrich 5y ago

Well when you objectively make a product not only worse to use, but worse to look at, where’s the benefit? Also, why does it matter how much time, money, brain power they spent on the changes? The only thing that matters is the outcome.

coliveira 5y ago

Multiple people putting several hours of though behind a feature is what we call design by committee. It doesn't matter how much time was spent if the committee is not capable of finding a unified direction to the proposed changes.

RulerOf 5y ago

>I appreciate the aesthetics of chrome bleed This one is a particularly bad idea. Regular people don't always understand the difference between the browser and the contents of a web page. This blurs that line even more for people who already have trouble seeing it in the first place.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

EricE 5y ago

There is zero reason to eliminate the tab bar and combine it with the address bar. It's idiotic and there should at least be an option to undo it. I have accidentally close more tabs than ever before - and that's with me actively being aware of it and trying to be careful. It's a HORRIBLE user design.

racl101 5y ago

Um, you don't need to waste copious amounts of dollars on designers and developers to know that it is a terrible idea to mix the address bar with the tabs. It's a mess, and the vertical space you save is nominal compare to the increased frustration you will create for users when they have a tougher time being able to read their URL (something that's already an issue for everyone) and relegating the tabs to about half the horizontal space they could have had. This is utterly pointless. It's not about being an old person resistant to change, it's about "fixing" something that was not broken and not even doing a lateral move, but totally regressing the utility it served.

defaultname 5y ago

Way too late to edit this, but please note that I erroneously referred to macOS 14 and 15...not sure how I didn't notice that before, but it should be macOS 11(.4?) and 12. My mind was thinking of iOS 14 and 15. Alas, don't want anyone perpetuating that mistake. Cheers!