3 ms·
You mean the era when UIs actually looked good, before the hardware was up to the task, only to regress to a style more primitive than the 90s[1] not a second l
by mike_hock 3y ago
You mean the era when UIs actually looked good, before the hardware was up to the task, only to regress to a style more primitive than the 90s[1] not a second later than the hardware had become capable enough.
[1] The era you speak of was the early 00s.
- oneeyedpigeon 3y agoI don't know what you mean by "looked good"; there's obviously a trade-off here between beauty and utility. To me, a UI "looks good" if I can immediately understand how it works, and if it presents the information in a meaningful way. To a layperson, that may look "not good"; they may prefer something with more color and detailed imagery that looks more like a real-world object, even if (possibly unbeknownst to them) it's harder to use. Of course, being able to understand how to use an interface is partly affected by what you're familiar with and, in turn, what you were exposed to in your formative years. For me, Windows 95 – early-OSX-era interfaces have 'the best' look.
- rerdavies 3y agoWhy must there be a tradeoff between beauty and utility? (Particularly when Kai's UIs are a perfect example of exceptional beauty and exceptional utility. All that while being extraordinarily intuitive!).