7 ms·

> I also want to add that one of the arguments on moving everything to the web (applications I mean) was that the web interface was intuitive and didn't require

by edanm 5y ago

> I also want to add that one of the arguments on moving everything to the web (applications I mean) was that the web interface was intuitive and didn't require documentation. I strongly disagree with this. The reason most apps (or rather, most software) moved to the web is because of a few factors: 1. No installer necessary - this made getting people running much faster and more reliable. 2. You could monetize in a way you simply couldn't with offline software. Instead of selling it once, on the web you have myriad ways to finance software, e.g. SaaS, other forms of selling continued access, advertising, etc. Note that point reason 2 is exactly my point - companies moved to the web in large part because it was far more profitable. (And I say this as someone who's been a developer during most of the time this shift was happening, and was part of companies making the business-model transition to subscription software.) > When apps were local, you could always hit F1 and get context sensitive documentation on the particular form you were on and it would (try) to explain what the app was looking for. Apps also had a conformity being all Windows apps using the Windows SDK. It certainly wasn't perfect, but at least it was something. And again I have to chime in here as a long-time computer veteran - if you think what most people do with computers today is harder than it was in the past, you are just plain wrong. Being able to hit F1 to get help was something that was done by maybe .1% of the population. Yes, desktop software supposedly enforcing UX conformity was an advantage, but not as crazy an advantage as you would think. As someone who has been helping users out for years, I have no doubt at all that the average UX has gotten way better. (Though side note, I don't think this is just the influence of the web... we've also just gotten better as an industry on making software, IMO)

Clubber 5y ago
I was mainly referring to intranet web apps created by businesses. Most of the big players in the 90s didn't port to web apps until fairly recently and I can only think of Microsoft Office, which I still prefer the app over the web experience. >if you think what most people do with computers today is harder than it was in the past, you are just plain wrong. Depends on what you mean by harder. Software certainly is more complex than in the 80s and 90s. >Being able to hit F1 to get help was something that was done by maybe .1% of the population. You just made that up. I wrote software in the 90s and still do. Context sensitive help was invaluable. >we've also just gotten better as an industry on making software Software certainly is more complex than it used to be. Sometimes it is necessarily so, most times it just seems like devs like to use the latest whiz-bang framework to pad their resume. I'm not sure I would call that better. In the 90s, we'd develop software expecting it to last at least 20 years. Today, it's "move fast and break things."

by edanm 5y ago

Clubber 5y ago

I was mainly referring to intranet web apps created by businesses. Most of the big players in the 90s didn't port to web apps until fairly recently and I can only think of Microsoft Office, which I still prefer the app over the web experience. >if you think what most people do with computers today is harder than it was in the past, you are just plain wrong. Depends on what you mean by harder. Software certainly is more complex than in the 80s and 90s. >Being able to hit F1 to get help was something that was done by maybe .1% of the population. You just made that up. I wrote software in the 90s and still do. Context sensitive help was invaluable. >we've also just gotten better as an industry on making software Software certainly is more complex than it used to be. Sometimes it is necessarily so, most times it just seems like devs like to use the latest whiz-bang framework to pad their resume. I'm not sure I would call that better. In the 90s, we'd develop software expecting it to last at least 20 years. Today, it's "move fast and break things."