4 ms·

Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system. Subsequent ones were designed by UI design

by pjc50 6mo ago

Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system. Subsequent ones were designed by UI designers, and opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them, and took out usability features to make them "look nicer". This sort of worked when the opinionated manager was Steve Jobs. Most managers are not Steve Jobs. > in some applications they seem to have taken extra steps to make it difficult to find the line to grab Pet peeve of mine in Windows where the line is at most one pixel now. They also took away the coloured distinction between title bars for the active window, so you don't know where keystrokes are going to go.

andai 6mo ago
Chesterton's fence! Don't delete something unless you know why it's there in the first place.
abanana 6mo ago
> Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research Too many developers nowadays don't know this. On any HN discussion of UIs, I've been noticing a growing number of younger devs insisting that usability is entirely subjective (their words, not mine). It's not just that they don't know about cleverly thought-out things such as safe triangles in nested menus or all the affordances/signifiers espoused by Don Norman et al. The bigger problem is that they don't know what they don't know, and they come across as being unwilling to learn. It does make UX discussions frustrating and meaningless when they could, and should, be interesting and a learning experience for us all.
- exe34 6mo ago
  > safe triangles in nested menus I did not know about this, but I did notice my own menu-rage every time a submenu disappears!
  - jonhohle 6mo ago
    I was trying to use Orca Slicer (which itself is intractable) and it had a combo button whose menu was disconnected from the button. The menu would disappear as soon as the cursor left the button boundary, but because it was disconnected, there was no way to get to the menu without leaving the button boundary, traveling a void, and then getting to the menu. I’m unsure what incantation allowed me to finally choose the right command, but forget how it looks, it was if no one even tried to see if it works.
    - embedding-shape 6mo ago
      Most fun is when the menu opens both on button hover and on button press, but if the menu already opened, clicking the button closes it instead, so the first 2-3 you use it, you end up opening the panel and closing it immediately. Not sure how stuff like this gets deployed in the first place, guess we're just a few people left who test things we develop before we push them to the public, I'd rather believe that than that people just don't care anymore...
      - exe34 6mo ago
        I feel like the modern web/app ecosystems have forced developers onto a red queen type treadmill, so software never really matures. They often build up to 70% of the features they want, the codebase gets intractable because of all the crap they have to deal with and they start over. I love software like Gimp, Blender, Inkscape, etc, that matured over decades and kept their soul.
    - exe34 6mo ago
      Potentially keyboard arrows?
- gf000 6mo ago
  There are still UX research. It's just that the collective "we" has changed and we can/may build on some existing design decisions. You are always designing something with a target audience in mind, and the next, e.g. mobile phone will very likely be used by someone who has interacted briefly with a similar device, so you may re-use some already learnt patterns. The very early UXs built heavily on desktop metaphors (like folders), but at this point many (and an increasing number of) people are more familiar with OS UI n-1 than a typical office setting. So I don't think jumping to this conclusion is correct - there are well-designed software, it has just become much much cheaper to create new ones, so the average quality has necessarily went down.
- washingupliquid 6mo ago
  > Too many developers nowadays don't know this. Guess they've never been on the phone with an elderly relative in tears because she can't figure out basic tasks on an iPad anymore after years of learning how. That's when you realize you, as a highly-skilled technical person, can't either, because they've moved, hidden, or otherwise obfuscated them. Yesterday I learned there are two icons in the Files app called "..." Yes, two. Incidentally I was looking for how to delete a file, which is now deliberately missing from the object's context menu, and intentionally hidden under one of these.
  - bombcar 6mo ago
    Even with screen sharing, I've said "click the three dots" and then "no, not those, not that one, wait there's another one, no that's the wrong one ..."
    - xp84 6mo ago
      But if we didn’t use ••• menus everywhere then some parts of the UI might be cLuTtErEd!!! The worst sin of computing. To think that we used to trust mere mortals - without even a signing certificate or developer membership - with the power to customize every toolbar in a Microsoft application, and to set every font and color for the whole UI of the system. People made their computer environments ugly in some cases. And it was fine, because they owned those freaking computers, so who the heck has any business telling them not to? Sorry, clearly it bugs me a lot how much we’ve lost.
      - bombcar 6mo ago
        It's not just what we've lost, it's an incredible disservice to "non-nerds" - old DOS programs may have been annoying and cluttered, but everything was right there and more importantly, it didn't change so you could learn what you needed and just work with it. We could go back and forth on things like "the ribbon" being better or worse, but the fact that it changes depending on window size is an incredible sin. Hello, everyone! Learn how to click a tiny 5x5 pixel arrow or lose your menu items forever!
AlienRobot 6mo ago
For the brief time I used Windows 11 the amount of times I placed a window over another and then clicked on the wrong window because I couldn't tell at first glance where one started and the other ended was absolutely ridiculous. I'm afraid that the core of the problem is something far more simple and fundamental. The people designing desktop apps today simply never learned the conventions that make desktop applications good. They grew up with smartphone apps, web apps, electron apps, games, etc. In fact, you can observe from things like JavaFX, Flutter, WPF, etc., that the trend has long been about the ability of easily creating custom widgets like you could with Javascript (or Flash), rather than the convenience of having a library of widgets that look and feel exactly the same as every other widget in the system.
- doubled112 6mo ago
  > couldn't tell at first glance where one started and the other ended This was even worse in an RDP session. No drop shadows. I'm not sure who thought "everything should be flat and white" was a good idea.
  - zozbot234 6mo ago
    > I'm not sure who thought "everything should be flat and white" was a good idea. It's just the old Windows 2.0 look.
    - dspillett 6mo ago
      Windows 2 had plainly visible borders, with decent contrast depending on your colour settings, so you could see what ended where.
      - hulitu 6mo ago
        The UX designers copied the look, minus the colors, and without functionality. Whoever thinks, that an 1px border for a resizable element on a 4k display is ok, is insane.
skydhash 6mo ago
My pet peeve is spacing. My usual resolution is 1920x1080 (scaled or not) and it feels I could cram more information in an old 1024x768 desktop. You have to maximize most windows to get it to show enough information.
- hecifato 6mo ago
  This drives me crazy. Even looking at these old screenshots you just know that these systems we outputting a display resolution lower than 1024x768. When I was checking out the MacBook Neo a while back I was disappointed that the resolution is not natively x2 scaled. It uses fractional scaling when macOS handles fractional scaling quite poorly. I've set the resolution on my M1 MBP to 1280x800 so it was x2 scaled and clarity improved significantly. But I also sacrificed usable space because apps don't adjust, everything is just made larger.
  - otherme123 6mo ago
    [dead]
  - deleted 6mo ago
    [deleted]
  - tom_ 6mo ago
    Over 75% (well... just...) of the screenshots are 1024x768 or greater - though admittedly typically not by much. Over half (well, again: just!) are 1152x864 or larger.
    - hecifato 6mo ago
      I meant more that those systems at the time would have likely been paired with lower resolution displays.
- phkahler 6mo ago
  >> You have to maximize most windows to get it to show enough information. At work I use 1 or 2 monitors plus the laptop screen (on Windows). At home I just use a single 55" 4K TV for my monitor and place apps center, left, right, and up top for rarely used stuff (on Linux). The desktop metaphor always wanted a big display but you're right - most Windows apps expect a full 1920x1080 for themselves.
hecifato 6mo ago
> Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system. I have a lot of thoughts on things like PC usability today. You're right that UX research would have heavily contributed to the design on these older systems. As computers moved from the warehouse to the living room they had to be easier to use and understand for people without CS degrees. I think it is fair to assume *some* things about what people these days are familiar with when it comes to the desktop GUI, but usability should receive more focus now even if it slightly hinders aesthetic. A friend of mine has been teaching a college program for video editing and she has students who needed her to explain what files and folders are. This is not the first time I've heard of things like this. Smartphones and tablets have obfuscated so many basic functions and features that it is actively harming people's understanding of how to use a computer. Things like window sizing, executables, how apps know where things are, and how programs are installed. Android does allow users to peek behind the curtain more than iOS but Google has been going down the path of locking down Android. I haven't been in an elementary school classroom for like 17 years but I remember having computer lab time where we would learn how to use Windows 95/98. I think what has benefited my friends and others my age (~30) is that we grew up when computers were in the home and were usable enough for us to log in and intuit our way around but there was enough friction that made it so we would have to figure things out on our own.
kps 6mo ago
‘Took out usability features to make them "look nicer"’ is exactly how Steve Jobs gave us the double-click, undiscoverable and timing-sensitive.
- dspillett 6mo ago
  Double-click came out of Xerox's research park. Apply might have been the first to put that into a popular desktop PC solution, but it wasn't their design any more than the rest of the system they copied. There are arguments that a second button was a much better idea, but that would still not be immediately discoverable and even with many buttons in modern solutions we _still_ have double-clicking.
  - graemep 6mo ago
    Everything I have read about this suggests it was Apple. e.g. https://www.folklore.org/Busy_Being_Born.html https://www.folklore.org/Busy_Being_Born.html
  - rahoulb 6mo ago
    Minor correction - Xerox knew they could not commercialise their invention so they wanted someone to take it off their hands. So Apple didn't copy - they paid for it (in stock, not cash) - and if you've ever used a Smalltalk environment you'll know that what Apple actually shipped (in the Lisa and then the Mac) is a _lot_ of work done over the top of what Xerox had.
  - kps 6mo ago
    It may have been Tajo (XDE) though a quick search doesn't find any documentation of multi-click _older_ than Apple's. Star definitely didn't have multi-click.
  - abanana 6mo ago
    I've always heard it came from Xerox PARC, but even if it originated at Apple, it would have been one of their OS devs. It's nuts how the cult of Steve Jobs leads some to label him as the inventor of everything.
- 6mo ago
deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
tom_ 6mo ago
If you haven't tried it already, I've found it useful to get Windows to use the accent colour in the title bar and window borders: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/personalize-your-colors-in-windows-3290d30f-d064-5cfe-6470-2fe9c6533e37 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/personalize-your...
- roelschroeven 6mo ago
  Absolutely, but there are many programs that don't use that accent color, making it less useful than it should be.
- chiph 6mo ago
  Thank you for posting this. I have enabled them at home and work. I am really tired of having to look for a window's shadow to resize it. Which is problematic when you run a black desktop. Having to resize a window by grabbing it just outside the visible border is so wrong.
vjvjvjvjghv 6mo ago
"Subsequent ones were designed by UI designers, and opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them, and took out usability features to make them "look nicer"." With desktop OS I feel a lot of designers don't know how to use them. They grew up with phones and never use a desktop OS outside of work.
washingupliquid 6mo ago
> This sort of worked when the opinionated manager was Steve Jobs. Steve indirectly had a hand in this, by emphasizing the humanities. That, unfortunately, backfired as a sort of positive feedback loop. Someone hired a few underemployed artists onto the team, and the artists invited all their friends and soon took over the department. People that in an alternate timeline would be smoking weed whilst sculpting wood in a derelict loft somewhere are now the lead designers, using our software as the canvas of a perpetual avant-garde art piece. They also need to look productive to justify their jobs, so the need to change things is constant. That's why in 2026 you could have a PhD in CS and still need to watch a YouTube video to learn how to change the volume. Can anyone name a single substantive UI improvement in the last 20 years? They're simply hiding or moving stuff around at this point while no one has even touched accessibility.
- xp84 6mo ago
  You are so very spot on with this. All of it. Literally nothing is better in the UI world in the past 20 years. Zero. We already had multitouch scrolling on laptops back then. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most of the problem can be traced back to the transition to Mobile first design. The motivations were arguably pretty innocent in general. If there were no downsides, it’s nice that there isn’t a separate code base and an entirely separate set of capabilities for desktop and little 5-inch phone screens. However, the way that we have achieved that - nearly across the board - is by lobotomizing the experience everywhere. And because of fashion (those artists who control the UX can’t resist it), even in places where that doesn’t even make any sense because there is no mobile version (say, B2B SaaS products that only get used on a desktop), they still feel the need to cosplay as a mobile app by using all the same stupid design elements (the ••• and “hamburger” menus, the giant grids of “tiles” that should have been a table, etc.
  - liendolucas 6mo ago
    > And because of fashion... That's basically the curse. Fucking fashion. If that human concept wouldn't exist, UIs today would be way way better. But no, we have to keep changing it forever and with each iteration worse and worse. UI enshittification at its pinnacle.
titzer 6mo ago
> based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system. It's worthwhile to note that this was not just research in a vacuum, but a lot of user studies where they literally watched and studied people using the software and how they were confused, found or didn't find functionality, etc. Lots of interviews, talking to people, boiling things down to how actual people struggled with the software.
xnx 6mo ago
> opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them The latest design of interfaces is designed by people who have barely used a desktop computer and have no idea of the conventions or advanced usage. They create terrible UIs because they have no idea what a good UI is and they often don't even use the product they create.
radiator 6mo ago
One example of a UI being a result of research seems to be Windows 98. Much of the surface is gray, and a lot of the text is black. It might look boring, but that is how you get to use a little colour for things that need accent, and it will make a difference. Also in a factory, the walls are gray, but the fire extinguisher is red so that you can hardly miss it.

by pjc50 6mo ago

andai 6mo ago

Chesterton's fence! Don't delete something unless you know why it's there in the first place.

abanana 6mo ago

> Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research Too many developers nowadays don't know this. On any HN discussion of UIs, I've been noticing a growing number of younger devs insisting that usability is entirely subjective (their words, not mine). It's not just that they don't know about cleverly thought-out things such as safe triangles in nested menus or all the affordances/signifiers espoused by Don Norman et al. The bigger problem is that they don't know what they don't know, and they come across as being unwilling to learn. It does make UX discussions frustrating and meaningless when they could, and should, be interesting and a learning experience for us all.

exe34 6mo ago
> safe triangles in nested menus I did not know about this, but I did notice my own menu-rage every time a submenu disappears!
- jonhohle 6mo ago
  I was trying to use Orca Slicer (which itself is intractable) and it had a combo button whose menu was disconnected from the button. The menu would disappear as soon as the cursor left the button boundary, but because it was disconnected, there was no way to get to the menu without leaving the button boundary, traveling a void, and then getting to the menu. I’m unsure what incantation allowed me to finally choose the right command, but forget how it looks, it was if no one even tried to see if it works.
  - embedding-shape 6mo ago
    Most fun is when the menu opens both on button hover and on button press, but if the menu already opened, clicking the button closes it instead, so the first 2-3 you use it, you end up opening the panel and closing it immediately. Not sure how stuff like this gets deployed in the first place, guess we're just a few people left who test things we develop before we push them to the public, I'd rather believe that than that people just don't care anymore...
    - exe34 6mo ago
      I feel like the modern web/app ecosystems have forced developers onto a red queen type treadmill, so software never really matures. They often build up to 70% of the features they want, the codebase gets intractable because of all the crap they have to deal with and they start over. I love software like Gimp, Blender, Inkscape, etc, that matured over decades and kept their soul.
  - exe34 6mo ago
    Potentially keyboard arrows?
gf000 6mo ago
There are still UX research. It's just that the collective "we" has changed and we can/may build on some existing design decisions. You are always designing something with a target audience in mind, and the next, e.g. mobile phone will very likely be used by someone who has interacted briefly with a similar device, so you may re-use some already learnt patterns. The very early UXs built heavily on desktop metaphors (like folders), but at this point many (and an increasing number of) people are more familiar with OS UI n-1 than a typical office setting. So I don't think jumping to this conclusion is correct - there are well-designed software, it has just become much much cheaper to create new ones, so the average quality has necessarily went down.
washingupliquid 6mo ago
> Too many developers nowadays don't know this. Guess they've never been on the phone with an elderly relative in tears because she can't figure out basic tasks on an iPad anymore after years of learning how. That's when you realize you, as a highly-skilled technical person, can't either, because they've moved, hidden, or otherwise obfuscated them. Yesterday I learned there are two icons in the Files app called "..." Yes, two. Incidentally I was looking for how to delete a file, which is now deliberately missing from the object's context menu, and intentionally hidden under one of these.
- bombcar 6mo ago
  Even with screen sharing, I've said "click the three dots" and then "no, not those, not that one, wait there's another one, no that's the wrong one ..."
  - xp84 6mo ago
    But if we didn’t use ••• menus everywhere then some parts of the UI might be cLuTtErEd!!! The worst sin of computing. To think that we used to trust mere mortals - without even a signing certificate or developer membership - with the power to customize every toolbar in a Microsoft application, and to set every font and color for the whole UI of the system. People made their computer environments ugly in some cases. And it was fine, because they owned those freaking computers, so who the heck has any business telling them not to? Sorry, clearly it bugs me a lot how much we’ve lost.
    - bombcar 6mo ago
      It's not just what we've lost, it's an incredible disservice to "non-nerds" - old DOS programs may have been annoying and cluttered, but everything was right there and more importantly, it didn't change so you could learn what you needed and just work with it. We could go back and forth on things like "the ribbon" being better or worse, but the fact that it changes depending on window size is an incredible sin. Hello, everyone! Learn how to click a tiny 5x5 pixel arrow or lose your menu items forever!

AlienRobot 6mo ago

For the brief time I used Windows 11 the amount of times I placed a window over another and then clicked on the wrong window because I couldn't tell at first glance where one started and the other ended was absolutely ridiculous. I'm afraid that the core of the problem is something far more simple and fundamental. The people designing desktop apps today simply never learned the conventions that make desktop applications good. They grew up with smartphone apps, web apps, electron apps, games, etc. In fact, you can observe from things like JavaFX, Flutter, WPF, etc., that the trend has long been about the ability of easily creating custom widgets like you could with Javascript (or Flash), rather than the convenience of having a library of widgets that look and feel exactly the same as every other widget in the system.

doubled112 6mo ago
> couldn't tell at first glance where one started and the other ended This was even worse in an RDP session. No drop shadows. I'm not sure who thought "everything should be flat and white" was a good idea.
- zozbot234 6mo ago
  > I'm not sure who thought "everything should be flat and white" was a good idea. It's just the old Windows 2.0 look.
  - dspillett 6mo ago
    Windows 2 had plainly visible borders, with decent contrast depending on your colour settings, so you could see what ended where.
    - hulitu 6mo ago
      The UX designers copied the look, minus the colors, and without functionality. Whoever thinks, that an 1px border for a resizable element on a 4k display is ok, is insane.

skydhash 6mo ago

My pet peeve is spacing. My usual resolution is 1920x1080 (scaled or not) and it feels I could cram more information in an old 1024x768 desktop. You have to maximize most windows to get it to show enough information.

hecifato 6mo ago
This drives me crazy. Even looking at these old screenshots you just know that these systems we outputting a display resolution lower than 1024x768. When I was checking out the MacBook Neo a while back I was disappointed that the resolution is not natively x2 scaled. It uses fractional scaling when macOS handles fractional scaling quite poorly. I've set the resolution on my M1 MBP to 1280x800 so it was x2 scaled and clarity improved significantly. But I also sacrificed usable space because apps don't adjust, everything is just made larger.
- otherme123 6mo ago
  [dead]
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- tom_ 6mo ago
  Over 75% (well... just...) of the screenshots are 1024x768 or greater - though admittedly typically not by much. Over half (well, again: just!) are 1152x864 or larger.
  - hecifato 6mo ago
    I meant more that those systems at the time would have likely been paired with lower resolution displays.
phkahler 6mo ago
>> You have to maximize most windows to get it to show enough information. At work I use 1 or 2 monitors plus the laptop screen (on Windows). At home I just use a single 55" 4K TV for my monitor and place apps center, left, right, and up top for rarely used stuff (on Linux). The desktop metaphor always wanted a big display but you're right - most Windows apps expect a full 1920x1080 for themselves.

hecifato 6mo ago

> Operating systems of that era were designed based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system. I have a lot of thoughts on things like PC usability today. You're right that UX research would have heavily contributed to the design on these older systems. As computers moved from the warehouse to the living room they had to be easier to use and understand for people without CS degrees. I think it is fair to assume *some* things about what people these days are familiar with when it comes to the desktop GUI, but usability should receive more focus now even if it slightly hinders aesthetic. A friend of mine has been teaching a college program for video editing and she has students who needed her to explain what files and folders are. This is not the first time I've heard of things like this. Smartphones and tablets have obfuscated so many basic functions and features that it is actively harming people's understanding of how to use a computer. Things like window sizing, executables, how apps know where things are, and how programs are installed. Android does allow users to peek behind the curtain more than iOS but Google has been going down the path of locking down Android. I haven't been in an elementary school classroom for like 17 years but I remember having computer lab time where we would learn how to use Windows 95/98. I think what has benefited my friends and others my age (~30) is that we grew up when computers were in the home and were usable enough for us to log in and intuit our way around but there was enough friction that made it so we would have to figure things out on our own.

kps 6mo ago

‘Took out usability features to make them "look nicer"’ is exactly how Steve Jobs gave us the double-click, undiscoverable and timing-sensitive.

dspillett 6mo ago
Double-click came out of Xerox's research park. Apply might have been the first to put that into a popular desktop PC solution, but it wasn't their design any more than the rest of the system they copied. There are arguments that a second button was a much better idea, but that would still not be immediately discoverable and even with many buttons in modern solutions we _still_ have double-clicking.
- graemep 6mo ago
  Everything I have read about this suggests it was Apple. e.g. https://www.folklore.org/Busy_Being_Born.html https://www.folklore.org/Busy_Being_Born.html
- rahoulb 6mo ago
  Minor correction - Xerox knew they could not commercialise their invention so they wanted someone to take it off their hands. So Apple didn't copy - they paid for it (in stock, not cash) - and if you've ever used a Smalltalk environment you'll know that what Apple actually shipped (in the Lisa and then the Mac) is a _lot_ of work done over the top of what Xerox had.
- kps 6mo ago
  It may have been Tajo (XDE) though a quick search doesn't find any documentation of multi-click _older_ than Apple's. Star definitely didn't have multi-click.
- abanana 6mo ago
  I've always heard it came from Xerox PARC, but even if it originated at Apple, it would have been one of their OS devs. It's nuts how the cult of Steve Jobs leads some to label him as the inventor of everything.
6mo ago

deleted 6mo ago

[deleted]

tom_ 6mo ago

If you haven't tried it already, I've found it useful to get Windows to use the accent colour in the title bar and window borders: https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/personalize-your-colors-in-windows-3290d30f-d064-5cfe-6470-2fe9c6533e37 https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/personalize-your...

roelschroeven 6mo ago
Absolutely, but there are many programs that don't use that accent color, making it less useful than it should be.
chiph 6mo ago
Thank you for posting this. I have enabled them at home and work. I am really tired of having to look for a window's shadow to resize it. Which is problematic when you run a black desktop. Having to resize a window by grabbing it just outside the visible border is so wrong.

vjvjvjvjghv 6mo ago

"Subsequent ones were designed by UI designers, and opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them, and took out usability features to make them "look nicer"." With desktop OS I feel a lot of designers don't know how to use them. They grew up with phones and never use a desktop OS outside of work.

washingupliquid 6mo ago

> This sort of worked when the opinionated manager was Steve Jobs. Steve indirectly had a hand in this, by emphasizing the humanities. That, unfortunately, backfired as a sort of positive feedback loop. Someone hired a few underemployed artists onto the team, and the artists invited all their friends and soon took over the department. People that in an alternate timeline would be smoking weed whilst sculpting wood in a derelict loft somewhere are now the lead designers, using our software as the canvas of a perpetual avant-garde art piece. They also need to look productive to justify their jobs, so the need to change things is constant. That's why in 2026 you could have a PhD in CS and still need to watch a YouTube video to learn how to change the volume. Can anyone name a single substantive UI improvement in the last 20 years? They're simply hiding or moving stuff around at this point while no one has even touched accessibility.

xp84 6mo ago
You are so very spot on with this. All of it. Literally nothing is better in the UI world in the past 20 years. Zero. We already had multitouch scrolling on laptops back then. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that most of the problem can be traced back to the transition to Mobile first design. The motivations were arguably pretty innocent in general. If there were no downsides, it’s nice that there isn’t a separate code base and an entirely separate set of capabilities for desktop and little 5-inch phone screens. However, the way that we have achieved that - nearly across the board - is by lobotomizing the experience everywhere. And because of fashion (those artists who control the UX can’t resist it), even in places where that doesn’t even make any sense because there is no mobile version (say, B2B SaaS products that only get used on a desktop), they still feel the need to cosplay as a mobile app by using all the same stupid design elements (the ••• and “hamburger” menus, the giant grids of “tiles” that should have been a table, etc.
- liendolucas 6mo ago
  > And because of fashion... That's basically the curse. Fucking fashion. If that human concept wouldn't exist, UIs today would be way way better. But no, we have to keep changing it forever and with each iteration worse and worse. UI enshittification at its pinnacle.

titzer 6mo ago

> based on UX research to help people use the unfamiliar operating system. It's worthwhile to note that this was not just research in a vacuum, but a lot of user studies where they literally watched and studied people using the software and how they were confused, found or didn't find functionality, etc. Lots of interviews, talking to people, boiling things down to how actual people struggled with the software.

xnx 6mo ago

> opinionated senior managers, who already knew how to use them The latest design of interfaces is designed by people who have barely used a desktop computer and have no idea of the conventions or advanced usage. They create terrible UIs because they have no idea what a good UI is and they often don't even use the product they create.

radiator 6mo ago

One example of a UI being a result of research seems to be Windows 98. Much of the surface is gray, and a lot of the text is black. It might look boring, but that is how you get to use a little colour for things that need accent, and it will make a difference. Also in a factory, the walls are gray, but the fire extinguisher is red so that you can hardly miss it.