4 ms·

This trend to flatness needs to stop. I hate it so much. It makes it unclear what elements are interactive. It doesn't even look good. It doesn't even look

This trend to flatness needs to stop. I hate it so much. It makes it unclear what elements are interactive. It doesn't even look good. It doesn't even look "clean" or "sleek". It's just sterile. Dead. Non-functional. I use Windows Blinds to make my Win10 look like Win98, and certainly I don't expect anyone to go that far, but some time between then and now, we've lost the plot.

krater23 5y ago
The look of the UI is now fewer functional than before DOS.
- wackget 5y ago
  That should be "less functional".
- StuffMaster 5y ago
  Windows 3.1 at least didn't hide buttons and tabs from your eyes...
- stavros 5y ago
  I don't know if that's just nostalgia speaking, but I think Windows 95 was the peak of UX. Everything interactable was clearly a button, everything had keyboard "accelerators", and all UIs were consistent (no Electron apps).
  - orangepurple 5y ago
    This trend lasted until just after Windows 7 when aesthetics went downhill.
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    Windows 2000 was arguably better. But yeah.
    - stavros 5y ago
      Hmm, I disagree, Windows 2000 had the "flat" IE4 toolbars which were less obvious (but looked slicker).
      - ComputerGuru 5y ago
        I think that's actually (partially) a more pedantically correct rendering. The scrollbar isn't depressable, although the buttons on either end are. Clicking the "current location" widget portion of the scrollbar doesn't do anything, so flat isn't wrong there - it's clicking in the non-inhabited zone that jumps ~a page up or down but that's not really captured by either the Windows 95 or the Windows 2000 aesthetic, if memory serves. Windows 95 got the depressable buttons at the top and bottom of the page right, though.
        stavros 5y ago
        Yes, but I was talking about the toolbars. Well, everything really (including the depressable buttons on the scroll bar).
    - kitsunesoba 5y ago
      Agree, Win2K’s lightened grays are a lot less depressing than the darker tones used in 95/98. I much prefer its blue accent color over the old teal too.
  - asddubs 5y ago
    you might like the serenityos project then, if you hadn't heard of it (although it's not ready for being a daily driver yet)
    - stavros 5y ago
      That does look really good, thanks!
    - ComputerGuru 5y ago
      It's really cool although I must confess I don't see the point in reimplementing the core OS if the goal is "a love letter to '90s user interfaces" - wouldn't have been able to more effectively address its goal as a DE for a more popular OS like Linux? Even if it needed to break X compatibility altogether (and I don't see why it would), it would still be more compatible and easier to deliver. Of course, if it's just for fun then we shouldn't be asking why!
      - asddubs 5y ago
        I think "just for fun" is probably a large part of it, but a stated reason is also that it makes tighter vertical integrations and consistency across all layers easier.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    Not all UIs were consistent then.[1] [1] http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/shame.htm http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/shame.htm
vadfa 5y ago
The trend of flatness ended a few years ago. It's just that Mozilla didn't get the memo. Probably because Firefox is the slowest browser, he he he
systemvoltage 5y ago
Thanks to Big Tech, web design has become a monoculture feeding off of each other, regressing at an ever increasing pace away from functionalism. Future looks very very dark.
- worker767424 5y ago
  I work for Big Tech. It has its faults, but blaming a design monoculture on it isn't fair. Design trends are bigger than a single company, and while there are definitely enough companies to see some amount of variation in UI and style, they tend to look similar because of tech's ubiquity. You don't want to be the company big or small that goes off in a different direction and can't get traction because you're using design patterns users aren't familiar with. It's like the metronome synchronization experiment: even a fully democratized space can trend towards monoculture.
  - systemvoltage 5y ago
    I disagree, it is completely and utterly deranged and appalling: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24965293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24965293 It starts at Big Tech (Material Design for example). I think we should teach designers history of UX/UI and how things used to be. From 1950's typewriter UX to the latest AR tech. This education can put perspective and curate a better understanding of the user. A more empathetic approach. Not fashion trends, rounded corners and huge purple typography. Big Tech operates like a horse-eyed A/B tests driven UX/UI machine and doesn't understand anything but. There is no Steve Jobs to overrule.
  - 0des 5y ago
    I think a lot of big corps try to emulate each other aesthetically, to an extent. It's not because they're in love with themselves or collude in the way we'd imagine, I think it's because they are afraid to risk making a dud doing something different, like the Microsoft Kin or Digg v3. Here's a good example: Check out all of the small SUV's you see now, they're all elaborations on the same shape and form. I think this is by design, in that deviating from the norm right now is not something that is rewarded, but giving something visually 'safe' that hits most of the needs of their customer is acceptable. [0] - https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*RCyvppE9R3x85bCAmnFjbA.jpeg https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*RCyvppE9R3x85bCAmn... [1] - https://5thcolor.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/all-cars-look-alike-nu.jpg https://5thcolor.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/all-cars-look-a...
makeitdouble 5y ago
In this specific case, what element is active is made clearer (active tab is completely set off from the others), and I don't think there is any confusion on wether you can click one of the inactive tab name to make it active. The change is only on the delimiter line between inactive tabs, and you still have space and each favicons between them, it's not like they all magically blended together. I actually didn't even realize the line disappeared until seeing this post. All in all, new design can look good or bad, but this specific one has sensible trade-offs and functional advantages, which is to me far from just following a random trend.
raynr 5y ago
I feel you. The illegibility of UI elements are a pet peeve of mine. I don't mind the aesthetics of a modern design so much as the illegibility it usually brings. I wonder why this is happening, and am constantly surprised at how readily the world seems to accept these changes. Perhaps I am getting old.

krater23 5y ago

The look of the UI is now fewer functional than before DOS.

wackget 5y ago
That should be "less functional".
StuffMaster 5y ago
Windows 3.1 at least didn't hide buttons and tabs from your eyes...
stavros 5y ago
I don't know if that's just nostalgia speaking, but I think Windows 95 was the peak of UX. Everything interactable was clearly a button, everything had keyboard "accelerators", and all UIs were consistent (no Electron apps).
- orangepurple 5y ago
  This trend lasted until just after Windows 7 when aesthetics went downhill.
- ComputerGuru 5y ago
  Windows 2000 was arguably better. But yeah.
  - stavros 5y ago
    Hmm, I disagree, Windows 2000 had the "flat" IE4 toolbars which were less obvious (but looked slicker).
    - ComputerGuru 5y ago
      I think that's actually (partially) a more pedantically correct rendering. The scrollbar isn't depressable, although the buttons on either end are. Clicking the "current location" widget portion of the scrollbar doesn't do anything, so flat isn't wrong there - it's clicking in the non-inhabited zone that jumps ~a page up or down but that's not really captured by either the Windows 95 or the Windows 2000 aesthetic, if memory serves. Windows 95 got the depressable buttons at the top and bottom of the page right, though.
      - stavros 5y ago
        Yes, but I was talking about the toolbars. Well, everything really (including the depressable buttons on the scroll bar).
  - kitsunesoba 5y ago
    Agree, Win2K’s lightened grays are a lot less depressing than the darker tones used in 95/98. I much prefer its blue accent color over the old teal too.
- asddubs 5y ago
  you might like the serenityos project then, if you hadn't heard of it (although it's not ready for being a daily driver yet)
  - stavros 5y ago
    That does look really good, thanks!
  - ComputerGuru 5y ago
    It's really cool although I must confess I don't see the point in reimplementing the core OS if the goal is "a love letter to '90s user interfaces" - wouldn't have been able to more effectively address its goal as a DE for a more popular OS like Linux? Even if it needed to break X compatibility altogether (and I don't see why it would), it would still be more compatible and easier to deliver. Of course, if it's just for fun then we shouldn't be asking why!
    - asddubs 5y ago
      I think "just for fun" is probably a large part of it, but a stated reason is also that it makes tighter vertical integrations and consistency across all layers easier.
- pseudalopex 5y ago
  Not all UIs were consistent then.[1] [1] http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/shame.htm http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/shame.htm

vadfa 5y ago

The trend of flatness ended a few years ago. It's just that Mozilla didn't get the memo. Probably because Firefox is the slowest browser, he he he

systemvoltage 5y ago

Thanks to Big Tech, web design has become a monoculture feeding off of each other, regressing at an ever increasing pace away from functionalism. Future looks very very dark.

worker767424 5y ago
I work for Big Tech. It has its faults, but blaming a design monoculture on it isn't fair. Design trends are bigger than a single company, and while there are definitely enough companies to see some amount of variation in UI and style, they tend to look similar because of tech's ubiquity. You don't want to be the company big or small that goes off in a different direction and can't get traction because you're using design patterns users aren't familiar with. It's like the metronome synchronization experiment: even a fully democratized space can trend towards monoculture.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  I disagree, it is completely and utterly deranged and appalling: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24965293 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24965293 It starts at Big Tech (Material Design for example). I think we should teach designers history of UX/UI and how things used to be. From 1950's typewriter UX to the latest AR tech. This education can put perspective and curate a better understanding of the user. A more empathetic approach. Not fashion trends, rounded corners and huge purple typography. Big Tech operates like a horse-eyed A/B tests driven UX/UI machine and doesn't understand anything but. There is no Steve Jobs to overrule.
- 0des 5y ago
  I think a lot of big corps try to emulate each other aesthetically, to an extent. It's not because they're in love with themselves or collude in the way we'd imagine, I think it's because they are afraid to risk making a dud doing something different, like the Microsoft Kin or Digg v3. Here's a good example: Check out all of the small SUV's you see now, they're all elaborations on the same shape and form. I think this is by design, in that deviating from the norm right now is not something that is rewarded, but giving something visually 'safe' that hits most of the needs of their customer is acceptable. [0] - https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*RCyvppE9R3x85bCAmnFjbA.jpeg https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*RCyvppE9R3x85bCAmn... [1] - https://5thcolor.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/all-cars-look-alike-nu.jpg https://5thcolor.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/all-cars-look-a...

makeitdouble 5y ago

In this specific case, what element is active is made clearer (active tab is completely set off from the others), and I don't think there is any confusion on wether you can click one of the inactive tab name to make it active. The change is only on the delimiter line between inactive tabs, and you still have space and each favicons between them, it's not like they all magically blended together. I actually didn't even realize the line disappeared until seeing this post. All in all, new design can look good or bad, but this specific one has sensible trade-offs and functional advantages, which is to me far from just following a random trend.

raynr 5y ago

I feel you. The illegibility of UI elements are a pet peeve of mine. I don't mind the aesthetics of a modern design so much as the illegibility it usually brings. I wonder why this is happening, and am constantly surprised at how readily the world seems to accept these changes. Perhaps I am getting old.