3 ms·
On one hand, yes; but on the other: people underestimate the value of consistency. Not changing is a feature for so many people who are already content with the
by toyg 3y ago
On one hand, yes; but on the other: people underestimate the value of consistency. Not changing is a feature for so many people who are already content with the existing program. Change for change's sake is not always good.
- tombert 3y agoI'm not suggesting that they just add a million new features every release, but I feel like adding transparent backgrounds, even in 2002 or so, would not have interrupted any existing workflows or anything. I feel like there was a lot of low hanging fruit that they could have added that left the interface largely untouched; they could also have had a "basic" and "advanced" layout, where the "basic" keeps things more or less how they were in Windows 95, and advanced is for integrating new features.