5 ms·

Horrible accessibility. I couldn't make out jack without my glasses on those UIs, unlike current interfaces and fonts.

• zozbot234 2y ago
  The original 1990s version could be scaled by just picking different pixel sizes for the UI elements. And the tiny 16px icons and labels would actually look quite nice in a basic 640x480 resolution.
  • cesarb 2y ago
    > And the tiny 16px icons and labels would actually look quite nice in a basic 640x480 resolution. For those who didn't live through these days: the physical size of common computer monitors wasn't very different from what we have now (other than being more square, bulky, and really heavy), but the resolution was much lower; 640x480 was not just a "basic resolution", it was the standard display resolution everybody used (a higher 800x600 resolution became common later). Icons, labels, fonts, etc, were designed to be readable and look good on a typical-sized CRT monitor at 640x480 resolution. The whole user interface was designed to work well at 640x480 resolution.
    • int_19h 2y ago
      > the physical size of common computer monitors wasn't very different from what we have now At the time when 640x480 was a common resolution, the most common computer monitor was a 15" CRT, and 21" was for rich designers.
• mixmastamyk 2y ago
  “Large fonts” was a setting back then.