4 ms·

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

by krater23 5y ago

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

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