3 ms·

I've been in development for 24 years and now I have issues with some very strange UIs. Where do I click to post? Old UIs are consistent. Buttons are buttons,

I've been in development for 24 years and now I have issues with some very strange UIs. Where do I click to post? Old UIs are consistent. Buttons are buttons, labels are labels, and so on. New UIs are inconsistent. In the facebook interface, the post button is not a button, it's a label. It may have changed since I last used it. It also occurs in native programs. In older UIs, button size makes sense. Today every app recreates the buttons, with absurd sizes. Contrast. Designers love low contrast in the new UIs. Here in HN it is sometimes very difficult to read the text. As a developer, I participated in several meetings about new UIs. "Beauty" is the keyword. The beauty seems to be in the rounded corners and the use of labels instead of buttons. Yes, I created a bunch of shitty UIs. But most importantly, dark patterns don't exist in old UIs. Dark patterns are the worst thing about the new UIs.

bentcorner 3y ago
Even with old UIs there were definitely mis-use of UI elements. Clickable labels that opened things, buttons made of images. Apps that were basically an imagemap that you clicked on. Think early media apps like Realplayer. Although I don't know if you'd really classify these as "old UIs" - they were definitely old, and had a UI. You probably mean "use native platform widgets were possible and any new widgets look as native as possible". But then some apps bridged this gap nicely. Winamp was very "non native" but the default skin was consistent, clean, and fast.
- zac23or 3y ago
  > Even with old UIs there were definitely mis-use of UI elements Yes, but they were exceptions. Interface Hall of Shame has some examples http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/ http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/ > Winamp was very "non native" but the default skin was consistent, clean, and fast. Visual aside, Winamp follows certain standards. Buttons are buttons, for example.
echelon 3y ago
In the 90's, the concern was teaching new users how to compute. Personal computers for the home were still relatively new, and many people were using them for the very first time. Everyone was concerned with usability. In the 20's, the concern is onboarding users that already have devices and pay money to use software. We don't think as much about familiarity, teaching, etc.
- zac23or 3y ago
  That's it, perfect. Perhaps the most important thing is to keep the user on the platform, avoiding his departure as much as possible. Thus, a "unique" interface helps with this.
  - int_19h 3y ago
    That would make sense if those unique UIs didn't themselves change fairly drastically every few years. I loved the older iOS devices because of the physical home button - I could give it to my grandma and say, "if you ever get lost, press this and you'll be back to home screen" - and it worked wonderfully... until they removed the physical button. On the latest iPad, you have to swipe from below the edge of the screen instead, and do it fast enough (if you do it slow you get the task switcher instead of home). Needless to say, this requires relearning.
    - zac23or 3y ago
      At one of my jobs I worked on change for the sake of change... there was no real meaning to the change, just the boss wanted change. I don't have a good theory about it, but it's now very common. Apple, facebook, to it all the time. Is it to create a "fresh product" feeling? I don't know.

bentcorner 3y ago

Even with old UIs there were definitely mis-use of UI elements. Clickable labels that opened things, buttons made of images. Apps that were basically an imagemap that you clicked on. Think early media apps like Realplayer. Although I don't know if you'd really classify these as "old UIs" - they were definitely old, and had a UI. You probably mean "use native platform widgets were possible and any new widgets look as native as possible". But then some apps bridged this gap nicely. Winamp was very "non native" but the default skin was consistent, clean, and fast.

zac23or 3y ago
> Even with old UIs there were definitely mis-use of UI elements Yes, but they were exceptions. Interface Hall of Shame has some examples http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/ http://hallofshame.gp.co.at/ > Winamp was very "non native" but the default skin was consistent, clean, and fast. Visual aside, Winamp follows certain standards. Buttons are buttons, for example.

echelon 3y ago

In the 90's, the concern was teaching new users how to compute. Personal computers for the home were still relatively new, and many people were using them for the very first time. Everyone was concerned with usability. In the 20's, the concern is onboarding users that already have devices and pay money to use software. We don't think as much about familiarity, teaching, etc.

zac23or 3y ago
That's it, perfect. Perhaps the most important thing is to keep the user on the platform, avoiding his departure as much as possible. Thus, a "unique" interface helps with this.
- int_19h 3y ago
  That would make sense if those unique UIs didn't themselves change fairly drastically every few years. I loved the older iOS devices because of the physical home button - I could give it to my grandma and say, "if you ever get lost, press this and you'll be back to home screen" - and it worked wonderfully... until they removed the physical button. On the latest iPad, you have to swipe from below the edge of the screen instead, and do it fast enough (if you do it slow you get the task switcher instead of home). Needless to say, this requires relearning.
  - zac23or 3y ago
    At one of my jobs I worked on change for the sake of change... there was no real meaning to the change, just the boss wanted change. I don't have a good theory about it, but it's now very common. Apple, facebook, to it all the time. Is it to create a "fresh product" feeling? I don't know.