4 ms·

> Yes, people should try and understand the products they use. If they refuse to do so, then the obvious solution are simplified products, which, granted, are e

> Yes, people should try and understand the products they use. If they refuse to do so, then the obvious solution are simplified products, which, granted, are easier to understand, with the tradeoff of lacking functionality. I was talking about being forced to read a manual because the UI wasn't obvious enough when it could have been made obvious without making the UI worse e.g. making features more discoverable by taking them out of right-click menus, preferring single click to double click, removing _unnecessary_ jargon, optimising the UI for common workflows, informative tooltips, better onboarding on the first-run, allowing undoing mistakes (vs warning modals or no undo at all), avoiding modals, auto saving/restoring state so you can continue where you left off. I really think people take for granted how much better UIs do this stuff now because best practices have improved. "Read the manual" and (as another comment suggests) "no one questions the need to take driving lessons before being able to operate a car" were common sentiments at the time that blamed the user and excused software for being better. > Because yes, things like a massive WYSIWYG editor is complex. There is no way around that complexity Obviously I'm not saying to dumb down complex professional software and stick all menu options in hamburger menus. I'm talking about software that casual non-techy people would often use. Complex software is a whole other design challenge. I would argue that e.g. VS Code has a lot of UI improvements over Visual Studio though. It would make more sense if you considered some of the better UIs of today, rather than the worst.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> really think people take for granted how much better UIs do this stuff now because best practices have improved. We had these things figured out in the late 90s already. - Menus were single click, and hierarchially organised - The hierarchy was similar between programs - Everything was text, no one had to guess what "tiny arrow inside a box" means - Everything looked the same, because everything used the same widgets - Common functions were placed in menus that were labeled the same across applications - Menu-Items were directly labeled with their shortcuts if they had any - Hover-Tooltips have been a basic widget of GUI libs for ages Sure, they didn't win any design awards, but they worked. In all their boring, obvious blandness, they worked, and they were easy to use. And that's the most important thing. > removing _unnecessary_ jargon Please tell me what is "_unnecessary_ jargon" in things like "File", "Edit", "New", "Preferences", "Save As...", "Tools", "Layout" or "Help"? > I'm talking about software that casual non-techy people would often use. As am I. These problems plague many many popular apps as well. Where is the account setting? Behind my profile picture? In a sub-hamburger? In the App-Settings? Where is the sub hamburger? Topright, mid-bottom, only visible when the display is in landscape mode? Do I have to swipe the menu in? If so, from which direction and with how many fingers? That professional complex software is plagued by this as well is a personal gripe for me as a tech person, but these problems are universal.
- seanwilson 3y ago
  I gave examples of specific best practice trends that are more common now compared to before. I didn't say everything is better so I'm not sure where your rant is targeted and it would help if you could interpret more charitably. I agree menus, predictable locations for features, and keyboard shortcuts are great. You're again comparing the best of then to the worst of now though. Standards for things like this will likely settle in over time. When apps now need to have support for touch + trackpads + mouse + keyboard, mobile/tablet/desktop screens, and multi-platform (Mac, Windows, iOS, Android, Linux), it's really shaken things up and made it much harder to agree and standardise on common patterns.
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    > You're again comparing the best of then to the worst of now though. No, I am comparing what was common then to what's common now. Granted, the menu structure of apps back then was in large part common, because there was only the desktop, and GUI programming was still in its infancy, so everyone used the same widgets. And no, I am not saying that everything back then was great. There absolutely were apps with shite interfaces. Only it was a lot harder to justify them. > Standards for things like this will likely settle in over time. Some will, but since we made the transition from building interfaces to designing them, agreeing on standards became much much harder. Because now interfaces are the playground of marketing, brand recognition, product identity and design fads. Even explaining how an app works can be hard, because the person asking me could be in another group in some godamn A/B test and have a different one, even though we use the same App. > When apps now need to have support for touch + trackpads + mouse + keyboard, mobile/tablet/desktop screens, and multi-platform That certainly makes it more difficult, and requires careful consideration for different platforms. So riddle me this: Why was common the reaction of all these different requirements to suddenly pretend everyone is using a phone for everything all the time? Because that's how many apps and websites now look: Like something designed for a small phone screen and navigation by thumb. I open a website on a 4K monitor with a laser-precision pointing device, and I get an information density comparable to the intergalactic void.
    - 3y ago

usrbinbash 3y ago

> really think people take for granted how much better UIs do this stuff now because best practices have improved. We had these things figured out in the late 90s already. - Menus were single click, and hierarchially organised - The hierarchy was similar between programs - Everything was text, no one had to guess what "tiny arrow inside a box" means - Everything looked the same, because everything used the same widgets - Common functions were placed in menus that were labeled the same across applications - Menu-Items were directly labeled with their shortcuts if they had any - Hover-Tooltips have been a basic widget of GUI libs for ages Sure, they didn't win any design awards, but they worked. In all their boring, obvious blandness, they worked, and they were easy to use. And that's the most important thing. > removing _unnecessary_ jargon Please tell me what is "_unnecessary_ jargon" in things like "File", "Edit", "New", "Preferences", "Save As...", "Tools", "Layout" or "Help"? > I'm talking about software that casual non-techy people would often use. As am I. These problems plague many many popular apps as well. Where is the account setting? Behind my profile picture? In a sub-hamburger? In the App-Settings? Where is the sub hamburger? Topright, mid-bottom, only visible when the display is in landscape mode? Do I have to swipe the menu in? If so, from which direction and with how many fingers? That professional complex software is plagued by this as well is a personal gripe for me as a tech person, but these problems are universal.

seanwilson 3y ago
I gave examples of specific best practice trends that are more common now compared to before. I didn't say everything is better so I'm not sure where your rant is targeted and it would help if you could interpret more charitably. I agree menus, predictable locations for features, and keyboard shortcuts are great. You're again comparing the best of then to the worst of now though. Standards for things like this will likely settle in over time. When apps now need to have support for touch + trackpads + mouse + keyboard, mobile/tablet/desktop screens, and multi-platform (Mac, Windows, iOS, Android, Linux), it's really shaken things up and made it much harder to agree and standardise on common patterns.
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > You're again comparing the best of then to the worst of now though. No, I am comparing what was common then to what's common now. Granted, the menu structure of apps back then was in large part common, because there was only the desktop, and GUI programming was still in its infancy, so everyone used the same widgets. And no, I am not saying that everything back then was great. There absolutely were apps with shite interfaces. Only it was a lot harder to justify them. > Standards for things like this will likely settle in over time. Some will, but since we made the transition from building interfaces to designing them, agreeing on standards became much much harder. Because now interfaces are the playground of marketing, brand recognition, product identity and design fads. Even explaining how an app works can be hard, because the person asking me could be in another group in some godamn A/B test and have a different one, even though we use the same App. > When apps now need to have support for touch + trackpads + mouse + keyboard, mobile/tablet/desktop screens, and multi-platform That certainly makes it more difficult, and requires careful consideration for different platforms. So riddle me this: Why was common the reaction of all these different requirements to suddenly pretend everyone is using a phone for everything all the time? Because that's how many apps and websites now look: Like something designed for a small phone screen and navigation by thumb. I open a website on a 4K monitor with a laser-precision pointing device, and I get an information density comparable to the intergalactic void.
  - 3y ago