4 ms·

Anyone who has been in the software industry for a while now will have noticed the recent influx of people who I will refer to as "the Creatives". Most of them

Anyone who has been in the software industry for a while now will have noticed the recent influx of people who I will refer to as "the Creatives". Most of them are decent people, and I'll go for a beer with them any time. But what they bring to the software they're working on usually isn't beneficial. Put bluntly, they care more about the look and aesthetics of software, rather than its usability and practicality. As these people have become more and more involved with software development over the past 5 to 7 years, we've started to see more and more problems arise. Long-time Phoenix/Firebird/Firefox users will know what I mean. Each round of "improvements" to the UI by these creative types has in fact made it much worse. The usability has suffered greatly. Unfortunately, these people also apparently have great influence at Google and Apple, so alternate browsers like Chrome and Safari have UIs that are just as bad, if not worse in some ways. My suspicion is that the same thing has happened at Microsoft, and Windows 8 and Metro are just this problem becoming extremely obvious on a wide scale. If Windows 8 and Metro are huge failures, as they very well may be, it will probably become clear that we need to ditch these UIs that focus on being pretty above all else. The industry as a whole will need to return to simpler UIs and that are usable, functional and practical. We'll need to leave this dark period behind us, but hopefully we can learn from these mistakes to ensure future applications do not fall victim to the problems we are witnessing today.

kiba 14y ago
The industry as a whole will need to return to simpler UIs and that are usable, functional and practical. We'll need to leave this dark period behind us, but hopefully we can learn from these mistakes to ensure future applications do not fall victim to the problems we are witnessing today. Well, you have to qualify why Chrome's UI sucks, otherwise it's just an opinion. As far as I am concerned, it is useful plenty.
- jaems33 14y ago
  Indeed. Years ago, they took a bold choice to use one input box for both searching and url's and now it's one major reason why I use Chrome over Firefox and Safari.
  - cdr 14y ago
    Firefox's bar works exactly the same as Chrome's now. And even long before FF started letting you search from the address bar without search keywords, you could use search keywords. I prefer the in-bar history searching in FF too.
    - Silhouette 14y ago
      Firefox's bar works exactly the same as Chrome's now. Is it exactly the same? In Firefox, AFAIK you don't get every URL you type sent off to Google for logging as part of the instant search system; that only happens with things you type in the separate search box. In Chrome, I'm not sure whether it's the default for a new installation at the moment, but that capability is definitely there for anything you type in the (only) box.
      - bgilroy26 14y ago
        It's the same almost all of the time, but some searches with colons will be run through the URL path instead because it thinks you meant http:// http://
      - cdr 14y ago
        I meant exactly the same as far as an average user is concerned - you never have to use the search box (I remove it), you can just put search terms in the main box and it'll use the configured provider. I will admit FF is a little worse at confusing search terms for a URL on occasion, but that's a minor annoyance at best.
        Silhouette 14y ago
        It wasn't the annoyance I was commenting on, but rather the privacy implications of combining the two bars when what you would type in one of them is typically sent off to some search engine somewhere in real time.
  - Wilya 14y ago
    Fun fact: In 1999, Mozilla (around its M11 release) introduced a "Search" button to the location field [0] which meant a unified input box. Firefox and its two-field setup is, absurdly enough, a later move. I can't point out when it happened, or if it was already there in the earliest days.. The single box is still there in Seamonkey, though, iirc. [0] http://www.andrewturnbull.net/mozilla/history.html http://www.andrewturnbull.net/mozilla/history.html
- ams6110 14y ago
  Indeed, it's hard to knock Chrome's UI, it barely has one.
pinaceae 14y ago
see, and I for one am glad that this happened and that the classic nerds with no visual taste whatsoever have been driven back to where they belong - the backend. Using Chrome as an example is really, really funny. How about GIMP? Every Linux distro before Ubuntu? Lotus Notes? Yes, one thing has been lost though - that smug feeling of eliteness, being able to do something with a computer no normal user could. Like attaching a printer and having it print right away. Or being able to setup a photo album, import them from a bunch of devices and upload it to a safe off-site location. Now grandma can do it and it sucks, right? She doesn't it even know how it works! Unfair!
- tomjen3 14y ago
  With that kind of attitude, why are you here?
- RivieraKid 14y ago
  I like UIs that have wow effect and shallow learning curve. But this fades off quickly - after you get used to it, you don't take any pleasure from the looks of the UI. What matters in the long term is efficiency and features.
FreshCode 14y ago
If anything, Apple has shown us that design does matter and I feel like software (especially websites) is getting more usable over time. Your discontent over changing UIs seem like those of a long-time user upset by someone moving their cheese. I didn't like Chrome's spartan UI at first, but it won me over.
- RivieraKid 14y ago
  Apple set a trend of prioritizing learning curve and aesthetics over long term efficiency and features. I understand why some poeple don't like that.
  - gurkendoktor 14y ago
    How so - what exactly are you missing? You have the basic Cocoa interface with accessibility features. You have OS X' default helpers, mostly the "Help" menu that allows you to search for menu items. You have AppleScriptability for lots of apps, even some third-party apps written by "designer" folks like Things. Then there is Automator. And below all that, you are free to do whatever you want from the Terminal.
    - RivieraKid 14y ago
      OS X has several problems: * I can't multitask as efficiently as in Linux or Windows (it has several reasons). * Most windows can't be maximized (perhaps there's an app for this). * Select text to copy and paste with middle click doesn't work. * Full font hinting can't be set. Linux has better font rendering than OS X / Windows (if configured properly). * The whole system feels too closed and constrained. In Linux, I know that if there's something I don't like, I can usually fix it.
  - superuser2 14y ago
    I hear this argument all the time, but I don't get it. Besides software that 3rd parties choose not to write for OSX, what functionality is possible on Windows but impossible on OSX?
rahoulb 14y ago
Usability and practicality is down for the likes of us. But for the vast majority of people, who used to despise computers, a whole new world has opened up. We are the minority here.
- PommeDeTerre 14y ago
  I'm not certain that's true. What I think has happened is that more people are living in ignorance of what their software could be doing. Instead of the traditional rule of 80% of people using 20% of an application's functionality, we now have 95% of people using 3%. They aren't even aware that the other 97% exists, even if that functionality would be very useful to them. Take Chrome, for instance. Much of the functionality is hidden away under a single menu, far on the right, that isn't even obviously a menu. I've worked directly with a number of "average" people now who moved to Chrome because it was recommended to them by somebody else, but they didn't even know about its main menu. You wouldn't believe their surprise when they see that Chrome allows them to open multiple tabs or windows, or that they can zoom the page, or that they can print. These aren't stupid people, either. They're accountants, lawyers, doctors, nurses, and other non-technical, but well-educated and intelligent, people. Some of them have been using computers for decades. But Chrome's poor UI design hid useful functionality from them, rather than making it obvious like traditional menus under a permanently-visible menu bar used to do. Being unaware of Chrome's main menu, the users were also never aware of the keyboard shortcuts. Along with a highly-simplified toolbar, these prevented them from even realizing that Chrome could do anything beyond browsing a single web page at a time. So while software today may be easier to use for typical people, I suspect that's only because it's giving them an experience that's extremely basic. These people will be very happy that Chrome's a fast web browser, but they'll silently be disappointed when they mistakenly think it isn't capable of printing a page, merely because the UI mislead them.
  - rahoulb 14y ago
    But the point is people are using the computer - previously they wouldn't touch it unless they absolutely have to. Facebook has played its part in that - but in the main computers were "those bastard machines I have to use for work" and only used under duress.
RivieraKid 14y ago
There's some truth to what you're saying. Gnome 3, Unity and Metro are simply worse desktop environments than their previous versions. They are aiming for touch-friendliness and for some reason trying to radically change what was working fine. Both of these are massive mistakes. BTW Chrome's UI is almost perfect (including OS and mobile browser). The people behid it must be one of the best in the industry.

kiba 14y ago

The industry as a whole will need to return to simpler UIs and that are usable, functional and practical. We'll need to leave this dark period behind us, but hopefully we can learn from these mistakes to ensure future applications do not fall victim to the problems we are witnessing today. Well, you have to qualify why Chrome's UI sucks, otherwise it's just an opinion. As far as I am concerned, it is useful plenty.

jaems33 14y ago
Indeed. Years ago, they took a bold choice to use one input box for both searching and url's and now it's one major reason why I use Chrome over Firefox and Safari.
- cdr 14y ago
  Firefox's bar works exactly the same as Chrome's now. And even long before FF started letting you search from the address bar without search keywords, you could use search keywords. I prefer the in-bar history searching in FF too.
  - Silhouette 14y ago
    Firefox's bar works exactly the same as Chrome's now. Is it exactly the same? In Firefox, AFAIK you don't get every URL you type sent off to Google for logging as part of the instant search system; that only happens with things you type in the separate search box. In Chrome, I'm not sure whether it's the default for a new installation at the moment, but that capability is definitely there for anything you type in the (only) box.
    - bgilroy26 14y ago
      It's the same almost all of the time, but some searches with colons will be run through the URL path instead because it thinks you meant http:// http://
    - cdr 14y ago
      I meant exactly the same as far as an average user is concerned - you never have to use the search box (I remove it), you can just put search terms in the main box and it'll use the configured provider. I will admit FF is a little worse at confusing search terms for a URL on occasion, but that's a minor annoyance at best.
      - Silhouette 14y ago
        It wasn't the annoyance I was commenting on, but rather the privacy implications of combining the two bars when what you would type in one of them is typically sent off to some search engine somewhere in real time.
- Wilya 14y ago
  Fun fact: In 1999, Mozilla (around its M11 release) introduced a "Search" button to the location field [0] which meant a unified input box. Firefox and its two-field setup is, absurdly enough, a later move. I can't point out when it happened, or if it was already there in the earliest days.. The single box is still there in Seamonkey, though, iirc. [0] http://www.andrewturnbull.net/mozilla/history.html http://www.andrewturnbull.net/mozilla/history.html
ams6110 14y ago
Indeed, it's hard to knock Chrome's UI, it barely has one.

pinaceae 14y ago

see, and I for one am glad that this happened and that the classic nerds with no visual taste whatsoever have been driven back to where they belong - the backend. Using Chrome as an example is really, really funny. How about GIMP? Every Linux distro before Ubuntu? Lotus Notes? Yes, one thing has been lost though - that smug feeling of eliteness, being able to do something with a computer no normal user could. Like attaching a printer and having it print right away. Or being able to setup a photo album, import them from a bunch of devices and upload it to a safe off-site location. Now grandma can do it and it sucks, right? She doesn't it even know how it works! Unfair!

tomjen3 14y ago
With that kind of attitude, why are you here?
RivieraKid 14y ago
I like UIs that have wow effect and shallow learning curve. But this fades off quickly - after you get used to it, you don't take any pleasure from the looks of the UI. What matters in the long term is efficiency and features.

FreshCode 14y ago

If anything, Apple has shown us that design does matter and I feel like software (especially websites) is getting more usable over time. Your discontent over changing UIs seem like those of a long-time user upset by someone moving their cheese. I didn't like Chrome's spartan UI at first, but it won me over.

RivieraKid 14y ago
Apple set a trend of prioritizing learning curve and aesthetics over long term efficiency and features. I understand why some poeple don't like that.
- gurkendoktor 14y ago
  How so - what exactly are you missing? You have the basic Cocoa interface with accessibility features. You have OS X' default helpers, mostly the "Help" menu that allows you to search for menu items. You have AppleScriptability for lots of apps, even some third-party apps written by "designer" folks like Things. Then there is Automator. And below all that, you are free to do whatever you want from the Terminal.
  - RivieraKid 14y ago
    OS X has several problems: * I can't multitask as efficiently as in Linux or Windows (it has several reasons). * Most windows can't be maximized (perhaps there's an app for this). * Select text to copy and paste with middle click doesn't work. * Full font hinting can't be set. Linux has better font rendering than OS X / Windows (if configured properly). * The whole system feels too closed and constrained. In Linux, I know that if there's something I don't like, I can usually fix it.
- superuser2 14y ago
  I hear this argument all the time, but I don't get it. Besides software that 3rd parties choose not to write for OSX, what functionality is possible on Windows but impossible on OSX?

rahoulb 14y ago

Usability and practicality is down for the likes of us. But for the vast majority of people, who used to despise computers, a whole new world has opened up. We are the minority here.

PommeDeTerre 14y ago
I'm not certain that's true. What I think has happened is that more people are living in ignorance of what their software could be doing. Instead of the traditional rule of 80% of people using 20% of an application's functionality, we now have 95% of people using 3%. They aren't even aware that the other 97% exists, even if that functionality would be very useful to them. Take Chrome, for instance. Much of the functionality is hidden away under a single menu, far on the right, that isn't even obviously a menu. I've worked directly with a number of "average" people now who moved to Chrome because it was recommended to them by somebody else, but they didn't even know about its main menu. You wouldn't believe their surprise when they see that Chrome allows them to open multiple tabs or windows, or that they can zoom the page, or that they can print. These aren't stupid people, either. They're accountants, lawyers, doctors, nurses, and other non-technical, but well-educated and intelligent, people. Some of them have been using computers for decades. But Chrome's poor UI design hid useful functionality from them, rather than making it obvious like traditional menus under a permanently-visible menu bar used to do. Being unaware of Chrome's main menu, the users were also never aware of the keyboard shortcuts. Along with a highly-simplified toolbar, these prevented them from even realizing that Chrome could do anything beyond browsing a single web page at a time. So while software today may be easier to use for typical people, I suspect that's only because it's giving them an experience that's extremely basic. These people will be very happy that Chrome's a fast web browser, but they'll silently be disappointed when they mistakenly think it isn't capable of printing a page, merely because the UI mislead them.
- rahoulb 14y ago
  But the point is people are using the computer - previously they wouldn't touch it unless they absolutely have to. Facebook has played its part in that - but in the main computers were "those bastard machines I have to use for work" and only used under duress.

RivieraKid 14y ago

There's some truth to what you're saying. Gnome 3, Unity and Metro are simply worse desktop environments than their previous versions. They are aiming for touch-friendliness and for some reason trying to radically change what was working fine. Both of these are massive mistakes. BTW Chrome's UI is almost perfect (including OS and mobile browser). The people behid it must be one of the best in the industry.