4 ms·

> I can't think of the last time I encountered a UX change I thought was actually worth it I mean, I am terribly glad we're done with Windows 95 and Android 4

> I can't think of the last time I encountered a UX change I thought was actually worth it I mean, I am terribly glad we're done with Windows 95 and Android 4 style UX; aren't you?

throwaway98797 3y ago
the jump from windows xp to windows 7 was amazing (yes i know there was something in between, but let’s not talk about that)
sumuyuda 3y ago
I think 90s desktop UIs are probably the peek of usability. Once the UI trends went flat and minimal, usability has taken a huge hit. I’d agree with the quote, every big UI rework has been controversial, see Windows Vista, Windows 8, and iOS 7. Even at an app level, developers will frequently refresh their UI, usually dropping features and making the software less useful.
- mech422 3y ago
  I've gotta agree - the flat monotone crap ("material design" ??) makes it harder to figure out whats what, and (IMHO) looks worse (even though I love dark themes, I like dark themes with 3D) Also, trying to minimize chrome to the point there's no place to grab a window to drag/position it and having windows snap/resize if you get too close to some magic point on the screen bug me!
- whoknowsidont 3y ago
  > usability has taken a huge hit. Based on what? What are you basing this claim off of? It's often touted, but I've never seen any actual evidence for it.
fragmede 3y ago
Can you be more specific? Win98 se sp2 was a golden age of computing for some.
- Arainach 3y ago
  Unless you needed large fonts, or high contrast, or screen readers, or resizing windows without tearing, or start menu search, or file explorer search, or taskbar thumbnail previews, or window snapping, or......seriously, the list goes on for a long time.
  - fragmede 3y ago
    large fonts and high contrast were available themes, your start menu wasn't that big in those days, file explorer search still doesn't work right, you didn't have so many apps that you needed taskbar thumbnails (You had maaaybe 32 megabytes of ram back then) , monitors weren't big enough to need snapping (seriously, remember trying to use a 14" CRT?). Yeah, technology has advanced significantly since the 90's and we've needed innovations to keep pace, but Windows' UI changes haven't all been good. In Windows 8 Microsoft went for a touch based UI and it just didn't work right.
jcgrillo 3y ago
To be honest I think mostly nothing has substantially changed. Windows 95 isn't substantially different from Mac OSX 14 or Gnome or whatever. They're all the same clunky pointy clicky distracting paradigm where you have to memorize a bunch of visual rituals. The problem is that they change not which changes are "better" or "worse". By contrast, emacs has improved dramatically from v26, to v27, 28, and now 29. It's gotten faster with things like tree-sitter and native compilation. LSP has been completely revolutionary. You know what hasn't changed? The UX. Same thing with Android/iOS. The new features don't change the fact that the device is a terrible compromise. It's pretty bad at being a telephone compared to the actual phones which preceded it--for example, try making a phone call without looking at the device. With a physical number pad I used to be able to dial numbers with one thumb while driving, without looking at my phone. Try doing that with your "smart" phone. It's also terrible at being a computer because it lacks a keyboard and any way to run normal computer programs--everything is these nerfed "apps". Why can't I have a shell, emacs, gcc, etc? So, I guess no. I'm not glad, really. Neither Windows nor Android made anything fundamentally better for me. And incrementally polishing these turds doesn't either.
- nadagast 3y ago
  I use and love emacs, but pointing to it as an example of how to evolve UX over time is indicative of your perspective. iOS/Windows/Android are used by the majority of people on the planet, emacs is not. Which UX do you think young people today and in the future will most understand? iOS/Android or emacs? Why is that?
  - jcgrillo 3y ago
    It depends what these people are using a computer for. If they're writing software, then a shell, a text editor, and a language toolchain are what they'll be using. Bash/zsh/fish, emacs/vi(m)/whatever, gcc/llvm/cargo/babel/etc. These are all tools with UX. But these tools--the ones programmers use--don't change willy-nilly. Doing so would hurt us, so we don't do it. Why do we treat "non-technical" users differently?
    - 3y ago
tekla 3y ago
What what, Android 4 Holo was the pinnacle of Android design, it was beautiful. Material design is so much worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_KitKat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_KitKat

> I can't think of the last time I encountered a UX change I thought was actually worth it I mean, I am terribly glad we're done with Windows 95 and Android 4 style UX; aren't you?

throwaway98797 3y ago

the jump from windows xp to windows 7 was amazing (yes i know there was something in between, but let’s not talk about that)

sumuyuda 3y ago

I think 90s desktop UIs are probably the peek of usability. Once the UI trends went flat and minimal, usability has taken a huge hit. I’d agree with the quote, every big UI rework has been controversial, see Windows Vista, Windows 8, and iOS 7. Even at an app level, developers will frequently refresh their UI, usually dropping features and making the software less useful.

mech422 3y ago
I've gotta agree - the flat monotone crap ("material design" ??) makes it harder to figure out whats what, and (IMHO) looks worse (even though I love dark themes, I like dark themes with 3D) Also, trying to minimize chrome to the point there's no place to grab a window to drag/position it and having windows snap/resize if you get too close to some magic point on the screen bug me!
whoknowsidont 3y ago
> usability has taken a huge hit. Based on what? What are you basing this claim off of? It's often touted, but I've never seen any actual evidence for it.

fragmede 3y ago

Can you be more specific? Win98 se sp2 was a golden age of computing for some.

Arainach 3y ago
Unless you needed large fonts, or high contrast, or screen readers, or resizing windows without tearing, or start menu search, or file explorer search, or taskbar thumbnail previews, or window snapping, or......seriously, the list goes on for a long time.
- fragmede 3y ago
  large fonts and high contrast were available themes, your start menu wasn't that big in those days, file explorer search still doesn't work right, you didn't have so many apps that you needed taskbar thumbnails (You had maaaybe 32 megabytes of ram back then) , monitors weren't big enough to need snapping (seriously, remember trying to use a 14" CRT?). Yeah, technology has advanced significantly since the 90's and we've needed innovations to keep pace, but Windows' UI changes haven't all been good. In Windows 8 Microsoft went for a touch based UI and it just didn't work right.

jcgrillo 3y ago

To be honest I think mostly nothing has substantially changed. Windows 95 isn't substantially different from Mac OSX 14 or Gnome or whatever. They're all the same clunky pointy clicky distracting paradigm where you have to memorize a bunch of visual rituals. The problem is that they change not which changes are "better" or "worse". By contrast, emacs has improved dramatically from v26, to v27, 28, and now 29. It's gotten faster with things like tree-sitter and native compilation. LSP has been completely revolutionary. You know what hasn't changed? The UX. Same thing with Android/iOS. The new features don't change the fact that the device is a terrible compromise. It's pretty bad at being a telephone compared to the actual phones which preceded it--for example, try making a phone call without looking at the device. With a physical number pad I used to be able to dial numbers with one thumb while driving, without looking at my phone. Try doing that with your "smart" phone. It's also terrible at being a computer because it lacks a keyboard and any way to run normal computer programs--everything is these nerfed "apps". Why can't I have a shell, emacs, gcc, etc? So, I guess no. I'm not glad, really. Neither Windows nor Android made anything fundamentally better for me. And incrementally polishing these turds doesn't either.

nadagast 3y ago
I use and love emacs, but pointing to it as an example of how to evolve UX over time is indicative of your perspective. iOS/Windows/Android are used by the majority of people on the planet, emacs is not. Which UX do you think young people today and in the future will most understand? iOS/Android or emacs? Why is that?
- jcgrillo 3y ago
  It depends what these people are using a computer for. If they're writing software, then a shell, a text editor, and a language toolchain are what they'll be using. Bash/zsh/fish, emacs/vi(m)/whatever, gcc/llvm/cargo/babel/etc. These are all tools with UX. But these tools--the ones programmers use--don't change willy-nilly. Doing so would hurt us, so we don't do it. Why do we treat "non-technical" users differently?
  - 3y ago

tekla 3y ago

What what, Android 4 Holo was the pinnacle of Android design, it was beautiful. Material design is so much worse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_KitKat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_KitKat