3 ms·

As a counterpoint, when you change the insides, no one notices: https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20040525-00/?p=39193 https://devblogs.microsoft.com/o

• JohnFen 3y ago
  If nobody notices massive technical internal improvements, that tells me that what was improved wasn't of great importance to the user in the first place. Perhaps those technical improvements were a waste of time, but perhaps those technical improvements benefited development without adversely impacting users. That would be an enormous "win" in my book. > Anyway, my point is that—whether you like it or not—if you don’t change the UI, nobody notices. That’s why so much effort is spent on new UI. I think this is wrong on two counts. First, if the change you made to the business logic really improved the things that users value, they'll absolutely notice even if the UI doesn't change. Second, that comment implies that one way or another, a user-noticeable change must happen. It could very well be that the software is ideal for its user base as-is and no change at all is preferable to change for change's sake.
  • Arainach 3y ago
    "Second, that comment implies that one way or another, a user-noticeable change must happen. It could very well be that the software is ideal for its user base as-is and no change at all is preferable to change for change's sake." To quote the users: "but why should I pay for bug fixes?" User-noticeable change is essential.