3 ms·

> Everything is clear, you know what's a button and what's not. Information density is also high, which is a good thing on a computer screen. I would say infor

by pegasus 4mo ago

> Everything is clear, you know what's a button and what's not. Information density is also high, which is a good thing on a computer screen. I would say information density was too high. All those always-on indicators: 3D scrollbars, buttons, etc. create a very busy picture. Today's interfaces are much cleaner which comes at a price of less information and hence, more ambiguity, but I for would rather pay that price than go back. One problem I see is that while the UI itself has been simplified, incidental complexity has crept in other ways. Most importantly, the OSes themselves as software systems have clearly grown ponderous and unwieldy so that today they are more bugs and more of those bugs can be subtle and surprising. Also, there is less uniformity in UX across apps (and UI frameworks).

vjvjvjvjghv 4mo ago
"Today's interfaces are much cleaner which comes at a price of less information and hence, more ambiguity, but I for would rather pay that price than go back." If you take today's interfaces to an extreme, you would get a white sheet. Very clean, but unusable. I wouldn't call interfaces "clean" where users increasingly have trouble figuring out what's clickable, how to scroll, move or resize a window.
chmod775 4mo ago
> I would say information density was too high. All those always-on indicators: 3D scrollbars, buttons, etc. create a very busy picture. Have you been in nature recently? We've evolved to deal with very busy pictures and parse relevant information from them. New UIs often don't have relevant information - like what is clickable or scrollable - and that's a problem. It used to be that grandpa couldn't find a button with his poor eyesight, since everything was cramped and too tiny on the small screens we used to have. Nowadays the clickable label is hidden behind a tiny hamburger menu that you can't tell apart from a mere stylistic flourish on the massive screens we keep mostly empty. Now neither of us can find the button. That's progress? Every time I open an old application I breathe a sigh of relief because I can feel the cognitive load decreasing. Not having to put myself in the headspace of the designer to figure out what random geometric shape happens to be interactive is like taking a vacation.
- pegasus 4mo ago
  > Have you been in nature recently? We've evolved to deal with very busy pictures and parse relevant information from them. Have you ever played "spot the bird in the forest"? Let's not turn our interfaces into that. OTOH, I do grant that there are personal preferences in play as well. There is, for example, the phenomenon of Japanese web design previously discussed here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122789 > New UIs often don't have relevant information That information is usually implicit. You're supposed to know that a scrollbar will materialize once you've moved the pointer to just left of the right edge of the bounding box. We've interacted with these elements enough to be able to not be confused just because that particular element is not always in my face. Same for 3D buttons, a well-designed interface doesn't need such heavy cueing. A "Send" button shouldn't need any more than the semantics of the word already implies to make it clear it's clickable. Unless one wants to start clicking buttons before reading (and understanding!) the text. It's the UX inconsistencies, design flaws and general bugginess I've already highlighted in my comment that are making this more painful than it needs to be. Though it's not scrollbars that frustrate me on latest macOS, that part works comparatively well as far as I'm concerned.
inigyou 4mo ago
I think this is a consequence of cultural changes in the last decades. It used to be normal to be able to open a settings window, or any other window, and read it, top to bottom or in any other order, and then you'd know what was there and where it was and which parts you don't care about. I think it's much better than hidden features practically. But now we've developed this cultural aversion to complex-looking things. Probably started when the iPhone came out with just a flat screen and a button.
- hulitu 4mo ago
  > cultural changes Or the lack of it, FWIW
  - inigyou 4mo ago
    Lack of changes?
hulitu 4mo ago
> Today's interfaces are much cleaner They can do better. Eliminate any distinction between elements and between background and foreground. Cleanliness at its best. Computer are toys anyway, nobody "works" on them anymore. /s

by pegasus 4mo ago

vjvjvjvjghv 4mo ago

"Today's interfaces are much cleaner which comes at a price of less information and hence, more ambiguity, but I for would rather pay that price than go back." If you take today's interfaces to an extreme, you would get a white sheet. Very clean, but unusable. I wouldn't call interfaces "clean" where users increasingly have trouble figuring out what's clickable, how to scroll, move or resize a window.

chmod775 4mo ago

> I would say information density was too high. All those always-on indicators: 3D scrollbars, buttons, etc. create a very busy picture. Have you been in nature recently? We've evolved to deal with very busy pictures and parse relevant information from them. New UIs often don't have relevant information - like what is clickable or scrollable - and that's a problem. It used to be that grandpa couldn't find a button with his poor eyesight, since everything was cramped and too tiny on the small screens we used to have. Nowadays the clickable label is hidden behind a tiny hamburger menu that you can't tell apart from a mere stylistic flourish on the massive screens we keep mostly empty. Now neither of us can find the button. That's progress? Every time I open an old application I breathe a sigh of relief because I can feel the cognitive load decreasing. Not having to put myself in the headspace of the designer to figure out what random geometric shape happens to be interactive is like taking a vacation.

pegasus 4mo ago
> Have you been in nature recently? We've evolved to deal with very busy pictures and parse relevant information from them. Have you ever played "spot the bird in the forest"? Let's not turn our interfaces into that. OTOH, I do grant that there are personal preferences in play as well. There is, for example, the phenomenon of Japanese web design previously discussed here on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122789 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47122789 > New UIs often don't have relevant information That information is usually implicit. You're supposed to know that a scrollbar will materialize once you've moved the pointer to just left of the right edge of the bounding box. We've interacted with these elements enough to be able to not be confused just because that particular element is not always in my face. Same for 3D buttons, a well-designed interface doesn't need such heavy cueing. A "Send" button shouldn't need any more than the semantics of the word already implies to make it clear it's clickable. Unless one wants to start clicking buttons before reading (and understanding!) the text. It's the UX inconsistencies, design flaws and general bugginess I've already highlighted in my comment that are making this more painful than it needs to be. Though it's not scrollbars that frustrate me on latest macOS, that part works comparatively well as far as I'm concerned.

inigyou 4mo ago

I think this is a consequence of cultural changes in the last decades. It used to be normal to be able to open a settings window, or any other window, and read it, top to bottom or in any other order, and then you'd know what was there and where it was and which parts you don't care about. I think it's much better than hidden features practically. But now we've developed this cultural aversion to complex-looking things. Probably started when the iPhone came out with just a flat screen and a button.

hulitu 4mo ago
> cultural changes Or the lack of it, FWIW
- inigyou 4mo ago
  Lack of changes?

hulitu 4mo ago

> Today's interfaces are much cleaner They can do better. Eliminate any distinction between elements and between background and foreground. Cleanliness at its best. Computer are toys anyway, nobody "works" on them anymore. /s