4 ms·

Forcing UI changes for existing tools is immoral. It is ok to add new UI options. It is ok to make new tools that work differently. Such creative endeavors are

by xbar 4y ago

Forcing UI changes for existing tools is immoral. It is ok to add new UI options. It is ok to make new tools that work differently. Such creative endeavors are the right of the software developer. It is a form of theft to spend someone else's cognitive load on a UI change without consent. It does not matter if some people like the change. It does not matter if the UI Product Manager knows that it will lead to a better universe. It is wrong, but you will hear a lot of reasons why software folks tell you it is the right of the software developer and that the consumers do not have the right to retain the UI to which they have become familiar.

andix 4y ago
Life ist constant change. Without change there would be no improvement.
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  More relevant, without change there would be no deterioration.
- dijit 4y ago
  Yet toilets, sinks and cookers still operate almost exactly the same. Hell, even the dial pad on your phone screen or the QWERTY keyboard are there for historic reasons more than anything else. It might sound snarky, but it does make you wonder if people think changing their UI is ok because they're much less used, or alternatively if they think the developer is more important than things like sinks, phones, cookers and keyboards..
  - mynameisvlad 4y ago
    If by "toilet" you mean "a seat with a hole in it" then, yeah, sure, toilets "still operate almost exactly the same". The way they collect and dispose of the waste has changed dramatically over time. And even in modern day, there's a huge range of toilets out there in the world: from basic outhouses and primitive developed toilets, to portable toilets, to composting toilets, to squat toilets. All of which operate in slightly different ways. Many might have bidets, seat warmers, deodorizers, etc included. Some bidets might be in the form of an integrated nozzle, or a hose, or a separate bowl. There's a lot of variations in toilets, most of which improve on a basic idea. But they all still are improvements or changes, the equivalent of UX changes discussed here.
    - dijit 4y ago
      > The way they collect and dispose of the waste has changed dramatically over time And? The user interface of every toilet on the planet (except perhaps Japan) is similar enough that anyone from any other country could use one and this has been the case for the better part of 100 years. Despite what public bathrooms might tell you about peoples abilities to use a toilet. The UX is at least the same.
      - mynameisvlad 4y ago
        Composting toilets most definitely are completely different. You are explicitly not supposed to mix liquid and solid waste. Bidets are different and work differently. Squat toilets almost always result in issues because people don't know how to stand above them. Pit toilet lids are almost always kept open, resulting in smells lingering. I gave those examples for a reason. They all have specific quirks and differences in use. Only the most basic of user interaction is there, and in the case of squat toilets even that isn't there. Just admit you chose a shit example.
        dijit 4y ago
        > Just admit you chose a shit example. This might have been intended to be a pun, but it just comes across as absurdly rude and not at all in-keeping with your "DE&I" background. That there are new and different toilets in existence (which are notable in the fact they differ from traditional toilets, btw) doesn't remove the fact that the vast majority of toilets in use have not changed their interface design in many decades. You can think of it as: "We developed notepad.exe, and someone else developed vscode.exe", as in they didn't change notepad.exe to become vscode.exe, which seems to be what you're implying by the fact that composting toilets exist. Toilets are a poor example for another reason: they're just about as basic as it gets, crap in a hole and dump water on it with a chamber hanging above. The UX, is of course the same. And, please don't shit into a bidet, I hope you're referring to the optional additional thing that some people have added to their toilets as an extension, which doesn't change the core functionality at all of the toilet.
brabel 4y ago
Jetbrains is not forcing anything on anyone.
graypegg 4y ago
I’m not sure it’s “immoral”. The UI for things will have to change as products have features added, and older UI concepts might not work as well with new features. I believe JetBrains is trying to solve a problem that actually exists here: any flavour of IntelliJ is VERY confusing since there’s many different places where actions are kept. They’re running into a wall where anything new ends up adding more icons in various spots where there’s room (eg. the Jetbrains space plug-in that adds a little space icon into the top bar, a side panel, some context options, and extensions into the app menus. Seems like it’d need a top down rewrite at somepoint, and they’re open about taking feedback. But “don’t change anything” isn’t really feedback.

by xbar 4y ago

andix 4y ago

Life ist constant change. Without change there would be no improvement.

sebzim4500 4y ago
More relevant, without change there would be no deterioration.
dijit 4y ago
Yet toilets, sinks and cookers still operate almost exactly the same. Hell, even the dial pad on your phone screen or the QWERTY keyboard are there for historic reasons more than anything else. It might sound snarky, but it does make you wonder if people think changing their UI is ok because they're much less used, or alternatively if they think the developer is more important than things like sinks, phones, cookers and keyboards..
- mynameisvlad 4y ago
  If by "toilet" you mean "a seat with a hole in it" then, yeah, sure, toilets "still operate almost exactly the same". The way they collect and dispose of the waste has changed dramatically over time. And even in modern day, there's a huge range of toilets out there in the world: from basic outhouses and primitive developed toilets, to portable toilets, to composting toilets, to squat toilets. All of which operate in slightly different ways. Many might have bidets, seat warmers, deodorizers, etc included. Some bidets might be in the form of an integrated nozzle, or a hose, or a separate bowl. There's a lot of variations in toilets, most of which improve on a basic idea. But they all still are improvements or changes, the equivalent of UX changes discussed here.
  - dijit 4y ago
    > The way they collect and dispose of the waste has changed dramatically over time And? The user interface of every toilet on the planet (except perhaps Japan) is similar enough that anyone from any other country could use one and this has been the case for the better part of 100 years. Despite what public bathrooms might tell you about peoples abilities to use a toilet. The UX is at least the same.
    - mynameisvlad 4y ago
      Composting toilets most definitely are completely different. You are explicitly not supposed to mix liquid and solid waste. Bidets are different and work differently. Squat toilets almost always result in issues because people don't know how to stand above them. Pit toilet lids are almost always kept open, resulting in smells lingering. I gave those examples for a reason. They all have specific quirks and differences in use. Only the most basic of user interaction is there, and in the case of squat toilets even that isn't there. Just admit you chose a shit example.
      - dijit 4y ago
        > Just admit you chose a shit example. This might have been intended to be a pun, but it just comes across as absurdly rude and not at all in-keeping with your "DE&I" background. That there are new and different toilets in existence (which are notable in the fact they differ from traditional toilets, btw) doesn't remove the fact that the vast majority of toilets in use have not changed their interface design in many decades. You can think of it as: "We developed notepad.exe, and someone else developed vscode.exe", as in they didn't change notepad.exe to become vscode.exe, which seems to be what you're implying by the fact that composting toilets exist. Toilets are a poor example for another reason: they're just about as basic as it gets, crap in a hole and dump water on it with a chamber hanging above. The UX, is of course the same. And, please don't shit into a bidet, I hope you're referring to the optional additional thing that some people have added to their toilets as an extension, which doesn't change the core functionality at all of the toilet.

brabel 4y ago

Jetbrains is not forcing anything on anyone.

graypegg 4y ago

I’m not sure it’s “immoral”. The UI for things will have to change as products have features added, and older UI concepts might not work as well with new features. I believe JetBrains is trying to solve a problem that actually exists here: any flavour of IntelliJ is VERY confusing since there’s many different places where actions are kept. They’re running into a wall where anything new ends up adding more icons in various spots where there’s room (eg. the Jetbrains space plug-in that adds a little space icon into the top bar, a side panel, some context options, and extensions into the app menus. Seems like it’d need a top down rewrite at somepoint, and they’re open about taking feedback. But “don’t change anything” isn’t really feedback.