> It's very resource intensive and challenging to design multiple interfaces Sure is. Wanna know why? Because there is no unversal standard on how to do it. A

> It's very resource intensive and challenging to design multiple interfaces Sure is. Wanna know why? Because there is no unversal standard on how to do it. And arriving at such a standard is really really difficult, in no small part because of all the "amazing" design ideas I mentioned before, which are not only fast-and-ever-changing, but also don't work well together. In ye'olde days, the problem was approached from the technical side: Technically, designing graphical interfaces is hard, so here is a constrained system that gives you these well defined methods for doing so. That's what design gets to play with, so that's the standard. It didn't look cool, and didn't lend itself easily to branding etc. but it worked. In fact it worked so well, that we STILL have ALL the UX elements from these days in active use today, and they STILL WORK. Nowadays, we are in a situation where we try and approach the problem from the other side: Technical limitations basically went away, so everyone is free to design his own stuff, leading to a cambrian explosion of conflicting principles and ideas, including ideas how to standardize and categorize all of it. If we were able to get this under control and design universal widgets that can automatically adapt to whatever device they are used on, that would be wonderful. And there are amazingly intelligent people who are trying to do that. But all that effort flies out the window the very next time some design studio or company want a nice juicy piece of personal brand recognition and "design" the next-shiny-thing.