4 ms·

I think the big key in your comment is "As a kid,..". Maybe you think this is the easiest to learn/discover UI because it is the UI that you used to learn and d

I think the big key in your comment is "As a kid,..". Maybe you think this is the easiest to learn/discover UI because it is the UI that you used to learn and discover. I see "kids these days" navigating around flat, touch-based interfaces with ease, in the same way that I found the desktop paradigm of the late-90s to be incredibly natural. I think a lot of us came of age during that time, and as such see it as the ultimate UI.

yamtaddle 4y ago
Some of the stuff's purely a step back. The "flat" craze was and remains obviously a bad over-correction (it's not clear to me that any correction was called for at all, really) and UIs auto-updating out from under people then constantly splashing "helpful" modals and such over the UI to tell you a bunch of stuff you don't want or need to know is all straight-up UI poison. [EDIT] The move away from native toolkits and to very-custom UI for everything is also plainly bad. Java and Flash got the ball rolling on that (and both rightly caught shit for it) but Webtech junk is what really made that awful pattern take off. "Corporate really wants to make sure our checkbox elements are on-brand" OH MY GOD what an incredible waste of money, when you consider the total cost to the industry as a whole, in order to make UIs worse.
robinsonb5 4y ago
Very true - I'm a little bit older, so I view the Amiga user interface as superior (at least in some ways - I describe it as "the feeling that you have the computer's full attention". Windows doesn't give me that even today.) - and also recognise how much Windows 95 borrowed from other systems. (RiscOS in particular) It came as quite an eye-opener to me recently to realise younger people now entering the workforce view the mouse as an archaic input device.
- 13of40 4y ago
  > mouse I was looking at Reddit the other day, on one of those r/flippingamazing type subs, and someone posted a picture of a disassembled mechanical mouse, to show off the wonders of 1900s engineering. I tell you I nearly spat out my false teeth. Had to take a Geritol to calm myself down.
  - Aeolun 4y ago
    What are we talking about when we say mechanical mouse? One with one of them balls in?
    - robinsonb5 4y ago
      Yes indeed* - I still use and prefer those to this day: I like the extra weight and slight inertia that comes from the rolling ball. (It's OK, I know I'm a dinosaur!) (* They're more correctly called opto-mechanical since the movement sensing is done by way of a slotted disc interrupting light beams.)
LarryDarrell 4y ago
But I don't touch Windows, I use a mouse & keyboard and a 38 inch/3840x1600 monitor. Why is MS designing Windows based on how some kid is using his thumbs on an iPhone/iPad? I'm half-joking. I know what you mean, but I think a larger picture is that touch-interfaces have their own problems/solutions that the traditional Desktop doesn't have, and vice versa. I think that the desire to have One-Interface-To-Rule-Them-All leaves a lot of people (and possibilities) behind. It would be a lot of work, but I think Microsoft needs two entirely separate Desktop Environments. One for touch-based devices, one for Desktop. I'm not holding my breath, we've been debating this since Windows 8. And I'm fully aware that as a middle-aged Windows Application developer that my opinion matters less with every year that passes... but I can't help but feel that maybe we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
badsectoracula 4y ago
I used Win3.1 and DOS before that for a long time - i was already comfortable programming my PC before i first used Win95. If it was a case of "As a kid", i'd consider Win3.1 as the actual good GUI but actually i consider Win95 to be the the good one despite being introduced to it after i already was comfortable with PCs and had technical knowledge about them. While some people might see Win95 as a good GUI because that is what they first learned, that doesn't mean that applies to everyone. And if nothing else it also works the other way around - "kids these days" may not mind navigating around flat touch-based interfaces because they've spent the time to learn them, not because of any inherent superiority of said interfaces. This is why IMO using how easy kids can use/learn something (in computers at least), be it UIs, languages or whatever isn't very helpful - kids have a ton of time and if they like something they can spend ages on it regardless of any inherent properties of that something. I mean, consider the downright atrocious UX the overwhelming majority of games had in home computers from the 80s and PCs until early 90s - and yet kids at the time spent hours deciphering and playing them. That didn't mean the games actually had good UIs, it meant kids had enough time and motivation to work around these UIs so they can enjoy the games.

yamtaddle 4y ago

Some of the stuff's purely a step back. The "flat" craze was and remains obviously a bad over-correction (it's not clear to me that any correction was called for at all, really) and UIs auto-updating out from under people then constantly splashing "helpful" modals and such over the UI to tell you a bunch of stuff you don't want or need to know is all straight-up UI poison. [EDIT] The move away from native toolkits and to very-custom UI for everything is also plainly bad. Java and Flash got the ball rolling on that (and both rightly caught shit for it) but Webtech junk is what really made that awful pattern take off. "Corporate really wants to make sure our checkbox elements are on-brand" OH MY GOD what an incredible waste of money, when you consider the total cost to the industry as a whole, in order to make UIs worse.

robinsonb5 4y ago

Very true - I'm a little bit older, so I view the Amiga user interface as superior (at least in some ways - I describe it as "the feeling that you have the computer's full attention". Windows doesn't give me that even today.) - and also recognise how much Windows 95 borrowed from other systems. (RiscOS in particular) It came as quite an eye-opener to me recently to realise younger people now entering the workforce view the mouse as an archaic input device.

13of40 4y ago
> mouse I was looking at Reddit the other day, on one of those r/flippingamazing type subs, and someone posted a picture of a disassembled mechanical mouse, to show off the wonders of 1900s engineering. I tell you I nearly spat out my false teeth. Had to take a Geritol to calm myself down.
- Aeolun 4y ago
  What are we talking about when we say mechanical mouse? One with one of them balls in?
  - robinsonb5 4y ago
    Yes indeed* - I still use and prefer those to this day: I like the extra weight and slight inertia that comes from the rolling ball. (It's OK, I know I'm a dinosaur!) (* They're more correctly called opto-mechanical since the movement sensing is done by way of a slotted disc interrupting light beams.)

LarryDarrell 4y ago

But I don't touch Windows, I use a mouse & keyboard and a 38 inch/3840x1600 monitor. Why is MS designing Windows based on how some kid is using his thumbs on an iPhone/iPad? I'm half-joking. I know what you mean, but I think a larger picture is that touch-interfaces have their own problems/solutions that the traditional Desktop doesn't have, and vice versa. I think that the desire to have One-Interface-To-Rule-Them-All leaves a lot of people (and possibilities) behind. It would be a lot of work, but I think Microsoft needs two entirely separate Desktop Environments. One for touch-based devices, one for Desktop. I'm not holding my breath, we've been debating this since Windows 8. And I'm fully aware that as a middle-aged Windows Application developer that my opinion matters less with every year that passes... but I can't help but feel that maybe we've thrown the baby out with the bathwater.

badsectoracula 4y ago

I used Win3.1 and DOS before that for a long time - i was already comfortable programming my PC before i first used Win95. If it was a case of "As a kid", i'd consider Win3.1 as the actual good GUI but actually i consider Win95 to be the the good one despite being introduced to it after i already was comfortable with PCs and had technical knowledge about them. While some people might see Win95 as a good GUI because that is what they first learned, that doesn't mean that applies to everyone. And if nothing else it also works the other way around - "kids these days" may not mind navigating around flat touch-based interfaces because they've spent the time to learn them, not because of any inherent superiority of said interfaces. This is why IMO using how easy kids can use/learn something (in computers at least), be it UIs, languages or whatever isn't very helpful - kids have a ton of time and if they like something they can spend ages on it regardless of any inherent properties of that something. I mean, consider the downright atrocious UX the overwhelming majority of games had in home computers from the 80s and PCs until early 90s - and yet kids at the time spent hours deciphering and playing them. That didn't mean the games actually had good UIs, it meant kids had enough time and motivation to work around these UIs so they can enjoy the games.