> A few people can complain loudly for 24 hours, and then everyone's practically forgotten what the old UX was even like. How do you know how many have forgott

> A few people can complain loudly for 24 hours, and then everyone's practically forgotten what the old UX was even like. How do you know how many have forgotten the old UX vs. simply given up after being dismissed or ignored? How do you distinguish between someone who has learned to like the change, and someone who is quietly enduring it or has left the conversation to migrate away from the problematic software? I don't know a way to measure those two groups better than simply talking to them, but I can say with certainty that the latter exists. I have felt the impact of short-sighted, change-happy, dismissive UI development more than a few times. This bit from the article resonates with me: > What matters to [most regular people] is continuity and reliability. Again, this isn’t being change-averse. Regular users typically welcome change if it brings something interesting to the table and, most of all, if it improves functionality in meaningful ways. I like continual improvement as much as the next creative mind, but I also have great respect for the users of my software and understand that disruption is frustrating and costly to them. I therefore avoid releasing workflow-breaking changes until I am fairly sure they make things objectively better and I can also provide backward compatibility and/or a smooth migration path to folks who need it. If I can't, then I seriously consider redesigning or discarding the change I had in mind. To put it a different way: Once I have encouraged people to use my software, I feel a responsibility to them. It no longer belongs exclusively to me, and I am not necessarily the most qualified judge of what is "better".