Consider a more descriptive word, such as: - minimal - streamlined - sleek - simple - opinionated - spatial - comprehensive
etc...
- minimal: limited features set aka either you like it in 10 seconds or you don't
- streamlined: good looking?!?
- sleek: combination of streamlined and minimal?
- simple: IMO even more overused than 'modern' and as diverse in its meaning
- opinionated: There is exactly one way of doing it right and either you like it or you don't, but it might come with an extensive feature set compared to minimal.
- spatial: no idea; Endless space? 3D? Depending on my geolocation?!?
- comprehensive: 'Oh, I have to learn something, but not too much'
Modern, on the other hand, means to me: Mainstream look & feel (kinda polished) and with considerable feature set.
Whats your definition?
This is true! But that's usually a given for projects being promoted via HN posts. Not usually a lot of Show HNs for for old, abandoned projects.
Modernism, as applied to the design of tools and other useful objects, was codified by Dieter Rams half a century ago. The recent resurgence of Modernism as applied to computer software and hardware is not the result of inevitable progress. It’s the result of Steve Jobs deliberately choosing Modernism in the early 90s (although this wasn’t apparent in products until his return).
https://ifworlddesignguide.com/design-specials/dieter-rams-1...
The metaphor is with the real world: If a put an object somewhere, it stays there. My notebook is in the front-right corner of my desk and nowhere else.
Notably, the "Finder" application in Mac OS used to be spatial. Opening a folder opened a window, and that window would be exactly where it was the last time you opened that folder. Conceptually, the window is the folder.
Here's an article about it from John Siracusa, who is a proponent of spatial interfaces: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2003/04/finder/3/
I tend to think of the words as staking a position vs its opposite, so you at least have some idea where the product lies on at least one axis.
- minimal vs maximal: "we favor fewer few design elements vs more"
- streamlined vs not streamlined: "we have intentially chosen to focus on a few specific goals"
- sleek vs rough: "we are aiming for a polished appearance"
- simple vs complex: "we prioritize ease of use over supporting lots of use cases"
- opinionated vs configurable: "we have a philosophy of the right way to do this, which this tool supports out of the box; if you have a very specific use case, it might not be for you"
etc..
On the other hand, the opposite of modern is... old fashioned? Isn't almost everything basically modern, then? And how is that necessarily any better?
«Command line» is still very much alive as well by the way, and underpins a lot of things, say ci/cd.
One of the things that all user interfaces do is marshal user attention, and newness or freshness is one tool for that. That can be used to advantage or disadvantage users, but it is a constant pressure for change in user interfaces.
The term Modern in user interfaces tends to translate as “inspired by the Functionalist school of Industrial Design, particularly as exemplified by Dieter Rams at Braun and Apple’s Industrial Design team under Jonny Ive”. There’s functional value to freshness, so the definition isn’t static, but the term Modern means something other than new or contemporary.
It isn’t a waste of time for producers and critics (in the neutral sense) of user interfaces to learn some art history, architectural history, and history of Industrial Design.
The alternatives listed as just examples, I would need to understand the program better to come up with a truly apt adjective.
so when I read modern on your description I just chuckled a bit.
in any case great work on this. looks like a ton of work
However, in practice typically means that there are hundreds of edge cases not yet solved.
Agree that it would be better to use more descriptive names.
If they called it "postmodern", would that be acceptable? BTW, do you propose renaming the Museums of Modern Art?
It's clear from GP's post that the problem with 'modern' in this context is that it lacks semantic meaning within the given sentence. As 'modern' has no domain-specific denotative definition, one must turn to its connotation — of some quality that is only available in newer products, not prior ones.
On the other hand, to simply say that something is 'new' in technology is clear: it is a recently-developed or recently-published effort, free of insinuation that there is anything better or worse than what came before it. 'Modern', on the other hand, implies some sort of quality that might not be apparent in prior art.
> If they called it "postmodern", would that be acceptable?
Why would that be acceptable? That would carry even less clear meaning.
> BTW, do you propose renaming the Museums of Modern Art?
In that context, 'modern' has a domain-specific meaning — art made past 1860.