4 ms·

Came to say almost exactly that. It’s interesting how much nostalgia there is for peak 90s UI, but not even Linux distros can escape the flat, uncontrasting, la

Came to say almost exactly that. It’s interesting how much nostalgia there is for peak 90s UI, but not even Linux distros can escape the flat, uncontrasting, large padding interfaces.

voxadam 3y ago
I don't know about anyone else but in my mind the best UIs of the 90s were all pretty much created by or heavily influenced by Kai Krause.[0][1] The interfaces for Kai's Power Tools[2] and and Bryce[3] are pure 90s nostalgia for me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Krause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Krause [1] http://kai.sub.blue/ http://kai.sub.blue/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai%27s_Power_Tools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai%27s_Power_Tools [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_(software)
- colordrops 3y ago
  I love when people activate regions of my brain that have been dormant for 30 years.
logicprog 3y ago
Probably because most people actually prefer them, now that the vast majority of people are past the point of needing skeumorphic metaphors to understand user interfaces, because we grew up with computers. I would certainly throw my computer out and go live in the woods if I had to deal with beveled, gradiented garbage with dense, tiny interfaces cluttered with stuff with no proper spacing to let it breathe. When I upgraded mg family computer from Vista to 8 as a kid, or when iOS went from skeumorphic to flat a bit later, I was so relieved, it was like getting a cold glass of water.
marginalia_nu 3y ago
I've gone full Chicago '95[1] mostly because I struggle so much with parsing flat GUIs. Having the UI be a carbon copy of Windows 95 is mostly a side-effect, it's simply the easiest way I've found to get a user interface where I'm not constantly confused as to whether UI elements are interactible or not, which elements are resizable, and where icons have easily distinguishable colors and details instead of being elder futhark line-art. I've gotten it to do a surprisingly good job of applying this theme, not just to GTK widgets but also Qt widgets (although they pull a bit more toward Windows XP). Only apps that refuse to comply with native styling is web-browsers and IntelliJ. Although I've found an old qtwebkit based browser called Falkon that, despite running an outdated engine, does a decent job of rendering most websites I visit, while having a working native scroll bar and mostly not fucking up the native controls with CSS crap. It's what I daily drive for most of my surfing. My eyesight is kinda garbage and this theming is mostly an accessibility accomodation, not so much a nostalgia thing. For all the attention accessibility gets in UI/UX circles, it's kind of ridiculous how Windows 95 absolutely takes most modern UIs to school in that regard. 100% of the software I struggle to use is born out of state of the art design sensibilities. [1] https://www.marginalia.nu/uses/screenie.png https://www.marginalia.nu/uses/screenie.png
- zozbot234 3y ago
  You may want to supplement Chicago95 with an experimental GTK4 theme from the b00merang project https://github.com/B00merang-Project/Windows-95 https://github.com/B00merang-Project/Windows-95 You will have to install it manually by overwriting your user-level GTK4 config, but then it will give you proper styling with the latest apps, including full support for mobile UX 'convergence'. (Since it seems that the b00merang repo has gone mostly unmaintained, it would be nice if it got imported to Chicago95 itself.)
- lenerdenator 3y ago
  It really is kind of amazing that we have spent so much time and effort on the "UI problem" for desktops when really, whether we want to admit it or not, Microsoft nailed it with Windows 95. By the end of the year we'll probably have another new desktop environment project going somewhere in Linuxland by someone who just swears that they've picked up on something everyone else, through 30 years of daily use, missed.
  - panick21_ 3y ago
    Its not that amazing. The reality is that this is simply your personal taste that the waste majority of humanity wouldn't agree with you on. Frankly, almost nobody in the world uses that type of Desktop Environment anymore. So if its so great and perfect and superior, you would think it would be more popular.
    - marginalia_nu 3y ago
      Hard to base an argument on popularity when there isn't a choice. You have to fight hard to get access to this type of desktop environment. With the singular exception of SerenityOS, no operating system offers an easily accessible paradigm that isn't 14 shades of flat, low density and low contrast.
titzer 3y ago
All the padding is because of touchscreens. It's ruined the web and now ruining desktop. Low information density, superfluous animations, icon-ese everywhere, losing tooltips, it all sucks.
- zozbot234 3y ago
  Touchscreens don't really need that much padding, anyway. You need some padding around active areas for touch actions, but a touch target can still be pretty small, e.g. consider your on-screen keyboard, where each key counts as a separate target. Areas of the screen that simply display information or content should be totally unaffected.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

Came to say almost exactly that. It’s interesting how much nostalgia there is for peak 90s UI, but not even Linux distros can escape the flat, uncontrasting, large padding interfaces.

voxadam 3y ago

I don't know about anyone else but in my mind the best UIs of the 90s were all pretty much created by or heavily influenced by Kai Krause.[0][1] The interfaces for Kai's Power Tools[2] and and Bryce[3] are pure 90s nostalgia for me. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Krause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai_Krause [1] http://kai.sub.blue/ http://kai.sub.blue/ [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai%27s_Power_Tools https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kai%27s_Power_Tools [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bryce_(software)

colordrops 3y ago
I love when people activate regions of my brain that have been dormant for 30 years.

logicprog 3y ago

Probably because most people actually prefer them, now that the vast majority of people are past the point of needing skeumorphic metaphors to understand user interfaces, because we grew up with computers. I would certainly throw my computer out and go live in the woods if I had to deal with beveled, gradiented garbage with dense, tiny interfaces cluttered with stuff with no proper spacing to let it breathe. When I upgraded mg family computer from Vista to 8 as a kid, or when iOS went from skeumorphic to flat a bit later, I was so relieved, it was like getting a cold glass of water.

marginalia_nu 3y ago

I've gone full Chicago '95[1] mostly because I struggle so much with parsing flat GUIs. Having the UI be a carbon copy of Windows 95 is mostly a side-effect, it's simply the easiest way I've found to get a user interface where I'm not constantly confused as to whether UI elements are interactible or not, which elements are resizable, and where icons have easily distinguishable colors and details instead of being elder futhark line-art. I've gotten it to do a surprisingly good job of applying this theme, not just to GTK widgets but also Qt widgets (although they pull a bit more toward Windows XP). Only apps that refuse to comply with native styling is web-browsers and IntelliJ. Although I've found an old qtwebkit based browser called Falkon that, despite running an outdated engine, does a decent job of rendering most websites I visit, while having a working native scroll bar and mostly not fucking up the native controls with CSS crap. It's what I daily drive for most of my surfing. My eyesight is kinda garbage and this theming is mostly an accessibility accomodation, not so much a nostalgia thing. For all the attention accessibility gets in UI/UX circles, it's kind of ridiculous how Windows 95 absolutely takes most modern UIs to school in that regard. 100% of the software I struggle to use is born out of state of the art design sensibilities. [1] https://www.marginalia.nu/uses/screenie.png https://www.marginalia.nu/uses/screenie.png

zozbot234 3y ago
You may want to supplement Chicago95 with an experimental GTK4 theme from the b00merang project https://github.com/B00merang-Project/Windows-95 https://github.com/B00merang-Project/Windows-95 You will have to install it manually by overwriting your user-level GTK4 config, but then it will give you proper styling with the latest apps, including full support for mobile UX 'convergence'. (Since it seems that the b00merang repo has gone mostly unmaintained, it would be nice if it got imported to Chicago95 itself.)
lenerdenator 3y ago
It really is kind of amazing that we have spent so much time and effort on the "UI problem" for desktops when really, whether we want to admit it or not, Microsoft nailed it with Windows 95. By the end of the year we'll probably have another new desktop environment project going somewhere in Linuxland by someone who just swears that they've picked up on something everyone else, through 30 years of daily use, missed.
- panick21_ 3y ago
  Its not that amazing. The reality is that this is simply your personal taste that the waste majority of humanity wouldn't agree with you on. Frankly, almost nobody in the world uses that type of Desktop Environment anymore. So if its so great and perfect and superior, you would think it would be more popular.
  - marginalia_nu 3y ago
    Hard to base an argument on popularity when there isn't a choice. You have to fight hard to get access to this type of desktop environment. With the singular exception of SerenityOS, no operating system offers an easily accessible paradigm that isn't 14 shades of flat, low density and low contrast.

titzer 3y ago

All the padding is because of touchscreens. It's ruined the web and now ruining desktop. Low information density, superfluous animations, icon-ese everywhere, losing tooltips, it all sucks.

zozbot234 3y ago
Touchscreens don't really need that much padding, anyway. You need some padding around active areas for touch actions, but a touch target can still be pretty small, e.g. consider your on-screen keyboard, where each key counts as a separate target. Areas of the screen that simply display information or content should be totally unaffected.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]