3 ms·

I'm think it's a combination of nostalgia and familiarity. Those were the kinds of UI's I used when I took classes about computer programs and spent a lot of ti

I'm think it's a combination of nostalgia and familiarity. Those were the kinds of UI's I used when I took classes about computer programs and spent a lot of time independently learning programs. All those hours spent makes it feel more comfortable though it may not actually be better.

jrm4 4y ago
I think ""preferred familiarity" over time is literally the only meaningful definition of "better." I'm growing quite tired of the deeply stupid idea that these UX/UI people understand how I work better than I do.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  "Preferred familiarity" is a subjective thing, and since you've developed your preferences there have been a billion new computer users who are more familiar with the modern designs. That's why the designs change, things like Thunderbird aren't the trend setters. Ideally both UI gets maintained, but that's not always feasible.
  - jrm4 4y ago
    Sure, but lets keep clear what you're saying: "Despite the existence of working preferences, so called modern-designers spend their days changing things for potentially no reason -- but even if there is a good reason -- they're also breaking backward compatibility." In other words, let's not pretend how design-fashion is executed is always good or even neutral in operation in terms of helping people.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      >let's not pretend how design-fashion is executed is always good or even neutral in operation in terms of helping people. This isn't unique to modern design. Your preference is also full of bad decisions that don't always help people. You've spent decades using them and are now accustomed to the way they work and don't even see them as flaws. It's largely familiarity, and is another form of "things were better back in my days."
      - jrm4 4y ago
        Come on. Please don't pretend that there aren't severe institutional defects now in how design-fashion is executed that go beyond "sometimes old is better, sometimes new is better." Large centralized purveyors of software with monopolistic-type power and no liability are generally (perhaps subconsciously) are frequently incentivized to push design into negative directions, e.g. dark patterns.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        I understand why you think these things, but at the end of the day many of these new designs are quite popular. For example, every time I even momentarily end up on the new Reddit, I think "how could the designers have approved this cosmic mess?" Yet presumably people like it, or at least it's profitable as I doubt they'd stubbornly hold onto something for four years if it were driving users away. Remember the old "utility first" brought us things like Clippy too. And the generation before mine also sees all that GUI nonsense as cruft too. Richard Stallman talks about how he still does basically everything in emacs.
        jrm4 4y ago
        You're implying that they're popular because they were chosen by users. Often times, they weren't. They were effectively forced on people.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        I'm implying their popular because they're familiar, that was how my first post started. People get comfortable with things forced upon them too.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    > since you've developed your preferences there have been a billion new computer users who are more familiar with the modern designs. That's why the designs change That is logically impossible; the designs cannot change due to the emergence of users who are more familiar with future designs than they are with present designs. No such users can ever exist.
    - boomboomsubban 4y ago
      It's only impossible if there's no other software. The users at Thunderbird's release were familiar with Netscape and Outlook so the design emulated them. Any new user is familiar with Chrome and Gmail, so Thunderbird moves towards designs the new users would be familiar with.
      - thaumasiotes 4y ago
        Then you're arguing that Thunderbird is trying to emulate Chrome. But you haven't even attempted to argue why the design changed. Chrome was not facing a population that was familiar with designs from the future. > The users at Thunderbird's release were familiar with Netscape and Outlook so the design emulated them. If this were true, then Chrome's designs wouldn't have changed. You can't have this both ways.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        Outside possibly contradictory influences are a thing. Like much of modern software is influenced by the rise of mobile, where the different limitations necessitated different designs.

jrm4 4y ago

I think ""preferred familiarity" over time is literally the only meaningful definition of "better." I'm growing quite tired of the deeply stupid idea that these UX/UI people understand how I work better than I do.

boomboomsubban 4y ago
"Preferred familiarity" is a subjective thing, and since you've developed your preferences there have been a billion new computer users who are more familiar with the modern designs. That's why the designs change, things like Thunderbird aren't the trend setters. Ideally both UI gets maintained, but that's not always feasible.
- jrm4 4y ago
  Sure, but lets keep clear what you're saying: "Despite the existence of working preferences, so called modern-designers spend their days changing things for potentially no reason -- but even if there is a good reason -- they're also breaking backward compatibility." In other words, let's not pretend how design-fashion is executed is always good or even neutral in operation in terms of helping people.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    >let's not pretend how design-fashion is executed is always good or even neutral in operation in terms of helping people. This isn't unique to modern design. Your preference is also full of bad decisions that don't always help people. You've spent decades using them and are now accustomed to the way they work and don't even see them as flaws. It's largely familiarity, and is another form of "things were better back in my days."
    - jrm4 4y ago
      Come on. Please don't pretend that there aren't severe institutional defects now in how design-fashion is executed that go beyond "sometimes old is better, sometimes new is better." Large centralized purveyors of software with monopolistic-type power and no liability are generally (perhaps subconsciously) are frequently incentivized to push design into negative directions, e.g. dark patterns.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        I understand why you think these things, but at the end of the day many of these new designs are quite popular. For example, every time I even momentarily end up on the new Reddit, I think "how could the designers have approved this cosmic mess?" Yet presumably people like it, or at least it's profitable as I doubt they'd stubbornly hold onto something for four years if it were driving users away. Remember the old "utility first" brought us things like Clippy too. And the generation before mine also sees all that GUI nonsense as cruft too. Richard Stallman talks about how he still does basically everything in emacs.
        jrm4 4y ago
        You're implying that they're popular because they were chosen by users. Often times, they weren't. They were effectively forced on people.
        boomboomsubban 4y ago
        I'm implying their popular because they're familiar, that was how my first post started. People get comfortable with things forced upon them too.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > since you've developed your preferences there have been a billion new computer users who are more familiar with the modern designs. That's why the designs change That is logically impossible; the designs cannot change due to the emergence of users who are more familiar with future designs than they are with present designs. No such users can ever exist.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    It's only impossible if there's no other software. The users at Thunderbird's release were familiar with Netscape and Outlook so the design emulated them. Any new user is familiar with Chrome and Gmail, so Thunderbird moves towards designs the new users would be familiar with.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      Then you're arguing that Thunderbird is trying to emulate Chrome. But you haven't even attempted to argue why the design changed. Chrome was not facing a population that was familiar with designs from the future. > The users at Thunderbird's release were familiar with Netscape and Outlook so the design emulated them. If this were true, then Chrome's designs wouldn't have changed. You can't have this both ways.
      - boomboomsubban 4y ago
        Outside possibly contradictory influences are a thing. Like much of modern software is influenced by the rise of mobile, where the different limitations necessitated different designs.