3 ms·

The author addresses this. Humans are the same in 2026 as 1992. Besides, that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1

by vehemenz 10mo ago

The author addresses this. Humans are the same in 2026 as 1992. Besides, that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face.

paulcole 10mo ago
Why is it highly implausible on its face other than the fact it makes arguing against him harder?
- jollyllama 10mo ago
  Why would UX be getting worse across the board if there is greater understanding now?
  - paulcole 10mo ago
    Did you mean to reply to me? The person I replied to said, "that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face" Think of computer users at the ages of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 in 1992. For each group, estimate their computer knowledge when they sat down at a computer in 1992. Now do the same exercise for the year 2026. How is it highly implausible on its face that the average computer user in 2026 understands less than the average computer user in 1992?
    - jollyllama 10mo ago
      > Did you mean to reply to me? I think so. > The person I replied to said, "that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face" Yes, I agree with this person. >How is it highly implausible on its face that the average computer user in 2026 understands less than the average computer user in 1992? I don't think it is. Particularly with the average user, the bar of understanding is lower now.
      - paulcole 10mo ago
        > Particularly with the average user, the bar of understanding is lower now. Can you explain how this is true given that everyone using a computer today has had a lifetime of computer use whereas in 1992 many people were encountering computers for the first time?
        jollyllama 10mo ago
        > Can you explain how this is true given that everyone using a computer today has had a lifetime of computer use whereas in 1992 many people were encountering computers for the first time? The userbase has been watered down with a larger proportion of individuals who are not highly technical.
        FarmerPotato 10mo ago
        Oh that statement is so 1992. Millions of people getting a Dell or a Gateway and annoying their techie friend “So now what do I do with this?” Or 1982. Users are always non-technical.
        vehemenz 10mo ago
        Here are a few perfectly acceptable explanations. 1. Computer users were generally well-educated, unlike today. 2. UX designers didn’t inherit any mess and could operate from first principles. 3. The “experience” of modern users—phones, tablets, and software that does everything for you—doesn’t translate the way you think. And it explains why Gen Z seems to have regressed in terms of tech knowledge.
mxfh 10mo ago
Humans are definitely not the same as in 1992 when it comes to their everyday knowledge of computer interactions. And even if human cognition itself were unchanged, our understanding of HCI has evolved significantly since then, well beyond what merely “feels right.” Most UX researchers today can back up their claims with empirical data. The article goes on at great length about consistency, yet then insists that text transformations require special treatment, with the HIG example looking outright unreadable. Menu text should remain stable and not mirror or preview what’s happening to the selected text IMHO. Also, some redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing in UI design, and not all users, for various reasons, can read with a vocabulary that covers the full breadth of what a system provides.
- iainmerrick 10mo ago
  Most UX researchers today can back up their claims with empirical data. HCI work in 1992 was very heavily based on user research, famously so at Apple. They definitely had the data. I find myself questioning that today (like, have these horrible Tahoe icons really been tested properly?) although maybe unfairly, as I'm not an HCI expert. It does feel like there are more bad UIs around today, but that doesn't necessarily mean techniques have regressed. Computers just do a hell of a lot more stuff these days, so maybe it's just impossible to avoid additional complexity. One thing that has definitely changed is the use of automated A/B testing -- is that the "empirical data" you're thinking of? I do wonder if that mostly provides short-term gains while gradually messing up the overall coherency of the UI. Also, micro-optimizing via A/B testing can lead to frequent UI churn, which is something that I and many others find very annoying and confusing.
  - mxfh 10mo ago
    I there not any user testing as we know it today, mostly top down application of priciples. This was all experts driven in that time to my knowledge. Empirical validiton did not really take off until the late 00s. https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/4p-guidelines.html https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/4p-guidelines.html Don had the explicit expert knowledge first stance in 2006 and 2011, nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's defenitly no research driven. "Always be researching. Always be acting." https://jnd.org/act-first-do-the-research-later/ https://jnd.org/act-first-do-the-research-later/ Tognazzini and Norman already criticized Appple about this a decade ago, while the have many good points, I cannot shake the feeling that they simply feel like the were used to just brand Apple as user friendly in the 90s and that Apple never actually adopted their principles and just used it as it fit the company's marketing. https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-desi... there are a bunch of discussions on this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10559387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10559387 [2015] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19887519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19887519 [2019]

The author addresses this. Humans are the same in 2026 as 1992. Besides, that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face.

paulcole 10mo ago

Why is it highly implausible on its face other than the fact it makes arguing against him harder?

jollyllama 10mo ago
Why would UX be getting worse across the board if there is greater understanding now?
- paulcole 10mo ago
  Did you mean to reply to me? The person I replied to said, "that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face" Think of computer users at the ages of 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, and 80 in 1992. For each group, estimate their computer knowledge when they sat down at a computer in 1992. Now do the same exercise for the year 2026. How is it highly implausible on its face that the average computer user in 2026 understands less than the average computer user in 1992?
  - jollyllama 10mo ago
    > Did you mean to reply to me? I think so. > The person I replied to said, "that interface designers or even the average computer user understands more than in 1992 is highly implausible on its face" Yes, I agree with this person. >How is it highly implausible on its face that the average computer user in 2026 understands less than the average computer user in 1992? I don't think it is. Particularly with the average user, the bar of understanding is lower now.
    - paulcole 10mo ago
      > Particularly with the average user, the bar of understanding is lower now. Can you explain how this is true given that everyone using a computer today has had a lifetime of computer use whereas in 1992 many people were encountering computers for the first time?
      - jollyllama 10mo ago
        > Can you explain how this is true given that everyone using a computer today has had a lifetime of computer use whereas in 1992 many people were encountering computers for the first time? The userbase has been watered down with a larger proportion of individuals who are not highly technical.
        FarmerPotato 10mo ago
        Oh that statement is so 1992. Millions of people getting a Dell or a Gateway and annoying their techie friend “So now what do I do with this?” Or 1982. Users are always non-technical.
      - vehemenz 10mo ago
        Here are a few perfectly acceptable explanations. 1. Computer users were generally well-educated, unlike today. 2. UX designers didn’t inherit any mess and could operate from first principles. 3. The “experience” of modern users—phones, tablets, and software that does everything for you—doesn’t translate the way you think. And it explains why Gen Z seems to have regressed in terms of tech knowledge.

mxfh 10mo ago

Humans are definitely not the same as in 1992 when it comes to their everyday knowledge of computer interactions. And even if human cognition itself were unchanged, our understanding of HCI has evolved significantly since then, well beyond what merely “feels right.” Most UX researchers today can back up their claims with empirical data. The article goes on at great length about consistency, yet then insists that text transformations require special treatment, with the HIG example looking outright unreadable. Menu text should remain stable and not mirror or preview what’s happening to the selected text IMHO. Also, some redundancy is not necessarily a bad thing in UI design, and not all users, for various reasons, can read with a vocabulary that covers the full breadth of what a system provides.

iainmerrick 10mo ago
Most UX researchers today can back up their claims with empirical data. HCI work in 1992 was very heavily based on user research, famously so at Apple. They definitely had the data. I find myself questioning that today (like, have these horrible Tahoe icons really been tested properly?) although maybe unfairly, as I'm not an HCI expert. It does feel like there are more bad UIs around today, but that doesn't necessarily mean techniques have regressed. Computers just do a hell of a lot more stuff these days, so maybe it's just impossible to avoid additional complexity. One thing that has definitely changed is the use of automated A/B testing -- is that the "empirical data" you're thinking of? I do wonder if that mostly provides short-term gains while gradually messing up the overall coherency of the UI. Also, micro-optimizing via A/B testing can lead to frequent UI churn, which is something that I and many others find very annoying and confusing.
- mxfh 10mo ago
  I there not any user testing as we know it today, mostly top down application of priciples. This was all experts driven in that time to my knowledge. Empirical validiton did not really take off until the late 00s. https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/4p-guidelines.html https://hci.stanford.edu/publications/bds/4p-guidelines.html Don had the explicit expert knowledge first stance in 2006 and 2011, nothing inherently wrong with that, but it's defenitly no research driven. "Always be researching. Always be acting." https://jnd.org/act-first-do-the-research-later/ https://jnd.org/act-first-do-the-research-later/ Tognazzini and Norman already criticized Appple about this a decade ago, while the have many good points, I cannot shake the feeling that they simply feel like the were used to just brand Apple as user friendly in the 90s and that Apple never actually adopted their principles and just used it as it fit the company's marketing. https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-design-a-bad-name https://www.fastcompany.com/3053406/how-apple-is-giving-desi... there are a bunch of discussions on this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10559387 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10559387 [2015] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19887519 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19887519 [2019]