5 ms·

This really wasn't an issue in the 1990s and even into the early 2000s. Back then, most applications running on Windows, Mac OS and even the various commercial

by Pacabel 13y ago

This really wasn't an issue in the 1990s and even into the early 2000s. Back then, most applications running on Windows, Mac OS and even the various commercial Unixes followed rather clear and uniform UI conventions. There were differences between applications running within the same ecosystem, of course, and not as wide of a range of device types. But because of the greater consistency, it was generally much easier to learn how to use new applications. A lot of existing knowledge carried over, and was immediately applicable when using a new application. This uniformity has unfortunately never really developed well on the various mobile platforms used today. It has deteriorated quite badly under Windows, with Microsoft themselves being somewhat responsible for this. The situation is perhaps the best under OS X. But even here we've still seen applications like Chrome and Firefox use non-standard UIs.

jacobolus 13y ago
> This really wasn't an issue in the 1990s and even into the early 2000s. Back then, most applications [..] followed rather clear and uniform UI conventions. Hah. Haha. Hahahahaha. If you pulled similar samples of UIs from the 90s and from today, I bet you’d find about the same proportion of fucked up designs in both (and that proportion would be shockingly high). Some applications (especially on Mac OS) tried to stick to Apple’s human interface guidelines, and some of those were successful, but even on the Mac there have always been heaps and heaps of horrible broken user interfaces. And don’t get me started on Windows applications from the 1990s. What a steaming pile... I think what’s changed today is that (a) with ubiquitous internet and a very easy install process, people end up interacting with more applications (at least to download, play with once or twice, and then forget about),
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  > Some applications (especially on Mac OS) tried to stick to Apple’s human interface guidelines It would have worked, too, if Apple had ever been willing to follow suit.
- Pacabel 13y ago
  The consistency of a UI is quite distinct from the quality or the usability of a UI. You're incorrectly blurring these very different concepts. I never claimed that all UIs back then were "perfect", or that there weren't "badly designed" UIs. I was very clearly talking about consistency between different applications running on the same system. When using applications from that period of time, one could expect to find a menu bar and menus that were quite similar to those of other applications. Of course there were application-specific menus and items, but there was at least a common subset shared by nearly all applications, especially any that were designed with even the minimal level of care. The same held true for toolbars, keyboard shortcuts, common dialogs, and so forth. There were also general conventions for how the application-specific parts of UIs looked and behaved. While not everyone followed these conventions, of course, most of the major and seriously-designed applications did. We have lost much of that today. It's particularly bad when it comes to mobile apps, and getting worse when it comes to desktop applications. Yes, Microsoft and Apple themselves are to blame, to some extent. But it goes much beyond that these days. Inconsistency is the norm, and that does lead to inefficiency.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
gte910h 13y ago
Bullshit. There were horrible UIs with giant software manuals, weeks of training, etc. You likely just grew up on the stuff and didn't realize how bad it was because learning was easy for you then.
- jeffgreco 13y ago
  Seriously. Look at this fucking manual: http://publicstrategist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/wp51box-251x300.jpg http://publicstrategist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/wp51b...
deathanatos 13y ago
Both GNOME and Apple had written HIG (human interface guidelines) and I thought GNOME 2's UI was especially well thought out for applications. (I'd perhaps move your date range forward a bit though.) And it's not just devices, but the web, too! Every web application must, practically by necessity, reinvent some or most of the basic UI controls.¹ Most professional websites do, and each is different. In many ways, the web makes me think that many of the concepts discussed by HIGs (simple, non-graphical stuff like, "put the 'accept action' button in the same place) have been lost. Even Chrome disobeys my system preference for UI, and rolls it's own. Then the websites it displays roll their own. Some of the comments below you remark that many applications disobeyed (or ignored) good UI principals, but nothing's changed with the web; there's still plenty of bad examples². If anything, its worse, as there is no system HIG to fall back on as "correct": it's not what a bunch of people decided was a good idea, it's not what I want, it's just whatever the designer liked. HTML is still playing catch up in UI: we just got flexbox for layouts (which you need, imho), but some things are still just plain hard. (Pinning a header row and header column on a table, for example.) This doesn't even begin to scrape the "flat UI" fad, which I think is bad because you can no longer discern actionable areas like buttons. With desktops, I could choose my UI theme. With the web, I'm again stuck with whatever some designer liked, instead of what I want. ¹HTML provides the simple stuff like checkboxes and buttons, but a tree-list-view? Good luck! ²We will have reached UI nirvana when I never see another checkbox used as a radio button.

by Pacabel 13y ago

jacobolus 13y ago

> This really wasn't an issue in the 1990s and even into the early 2000s. Back then, most applications [..] followed rather clear and uniform UI conventions. Hah. Haha. Hahahahaha. If you pulled similar samples of UIs from the 90s and from today, I bet you’d find about the same proportion of fucked up designs in both (and that proportion would be shockingly high). Some applications (especially on Mac OS) tried to stick to Apple’s human interface guidelines, and some of those were successful, but even on the Mac there have always been heaps and heaps of horrible broken user interfaces. And don’t get me started on Windows applications from the 1990s. What a steaming pile... I think what’s changed today is that (a) with ubiquitous internet and a very easy install process, people end up interacting with more applications (at least to download, play with once or twice, and then forget about),

bunderbunder 13y ago
> Some applications (especially on Mac OS) tried to stick to Apple’s human interface guidelines It would have worked, too, if Apple had ever been willing to follow suit.
Pacabel 13y ago
The consistency of a UI is quite distinct from the quality or the usability of a UI. You're incorrectly blurring these very different concepts. I never claimed that all UIs back then were "perfect", or that there weren't "badly designed" UIs. I was very clearly talking about consistency between different applications running on the same system. When using applications from that period of time, one could expect to find a menu bar and menus that were quite similar to those of other applications. Of course there were application-specific menus and items, but there was at least a common subset shared by nearly all applications, especially any that were designed with even the minimal level of care. The same held true for toolbars, keyboard shortcuts, common dialogs, and so forth. There were also general conventions for how the application-specific parts of UIs looked and behaved. While not everyone followed these conventions, of course, most of the major and seriously-designed applications did. We have lost much of that today. It's particularly bad when it comes to mobile apps, and getting worse when it comes to desktop applications. Yes, Microsoft and Apple themselves are to blame, to some extent. But it goes much beyond that these days. Inconsistency is the norm, and that does lead to inefficiency.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

gte910h 13y ago

Bullshit. There were horrible UIs with giant software manuals, weeks of training, etc. You likely just grew up on the stuff and didn't realize how bad it was because learning was easy for you then.

jeffgreco 13y ago
Seriously. Look at this fucking manual: http://publicstrategist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/wp51box-251x300.jpg http://publicstrategist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/wp51b...

deathanatos 13y ago

Both GNOME and Apple had written HIG (human interface guidelines) and I thought GNOME 2's UI was especially well thought out for applications. (I'd perhaps move your date range forward a bit though.) And it's not just devices, but the web, too! Every web application must, practically by necessity, reinvent some or most of the basic UI controls.¹ Most professional websites do, and each is different. In many ways, the web makes me think that many of the concepts discussed by HIGs (simple, non-graphical stuff like, "put the 'accept action' button in the same place) have been lost. Even Chrome disobeys my system preference for UI, and rolls it's own. Then the websites it displays roll their own. Some of the comments below you remark that many applications disobeyed (or ignored) good UI principals, but nothing's changed with the web; there's still plenty of bad examples². If anything, its worse, as there is no system HIG to fall back on as "correct": it's not what a bunch of people decided was a good idea, it's not what I want, it's just whatever the designer liked. HTML is still playing catch up in UI: we just got flexbox for layouts (which you need, imho), but some things are still just plain hard. (Pinning a header row and header column on a table, for example.) This doesn't even begin to scrape the "flat UI" fad, which I think is bad because you can no longer discern actionable areas like buttons. With desktops, I could choose my UI theme. With the web, I'm again stuck with whatever some designer liked, instead of what I want. ¹HTML provides the simple stuff like checkboxes and buttons, but a tree-list-view? Good luck! ²We will have reached UI nirvana when I never see another checkbox used as a radio button.