A good UI/UX is one that the user is familiar with. A bad UI/UX is one that requires the user to put in extra work to relearn how to get their work done. Redoin

A good UI/UX is one that the user is familiar with. A bad UI/UX is one that requires the user to put in extra work to relearn how to get their work done. Redoing UI/UX is also a major accessibility problem because it gets harder for people to relearn how to use a program as they get older (anybody who's ever seen elderly users try to figure out how to use a "new and improved" UI/UX knows this). If you insist on redoing the UI/UX because you think a different design is "better", then you should keep the old UI/UX as an option. But you're almost always better off not redoing it. For software that doesn't have an existing UI/UX, the best UI/UX is one that your potential users are already familiar with. Specifically, one that resembles whatever other programs on your target platform do. The reason for this is because your users are already using those other programs and are familiar with how they work so doing something different for the sake of being different will confuse them (this is why its good that gaming controllers and control schemes in games are largely standardized these days). If you're emacs or vim, it makes sense to stick with your archaic shortcuts because your users expect them and would be confused if you changed them but new programs should stick to ctrl+s for save, ctrl+x for cut, ctrl+c for copy, ctrl+v for paste, etc.