This is such a hacker news comment. Somehow a group of people supposedly good at using computers struggle to work out what a button is while the average user seems to have no problems.
Windows 7 had the last good, properly-desktop UI before the existence of touchscreen laptops ruined everything. And then came the plague of borderless everything.
The average user assumes it’s their own inability to use technology, while the average HN commenter gets annoyed because they know it doesn’t have to be so difficult.
Laypersons wouldn't even know what the problem is in the first place.
Even if they do, they might not know the right terms to use when communicating. Thus, listening to feedback can be misleading.
Nothing beats watching people in real life using your products.
An engineer sees structural problems with buildings and bridges where people who use them everyday don't. An english major can see a problem with the language used in a newspaper where thousands of other readers don't. There is nothing unusual about this.
In any thread that mentions UI/UX something like this always comes up where someone is bemoaning current UI/UX and hearkening to the good old days of when UI/UX was good, which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing.
That isn't to say that laymen can't make arguments with regards to poor UX/UI because it's ultimately a subjective experience and what is intuitive to one person isn't necessarily going to be the same for another. I just think you're conferring expertise to undeserving recipients.
Unsurprisingly.
> which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing
On my first job I've used Windows NT 4. Yet I agree with GP Windows 7 was the peak UX.
On subjects like that, I don't believe objective arguments are even possible. UX is similar to art or politics, it's inherently subjective because it's about people and culture. Ask a caveman to compare UX of Windows 7 and 10, and they gonna tell both are equally useless.
Despite no objective arguments is possible, it might exist a consensus.
Nah. I started out with Workbench 1.3, which was flat. Because they literally hadn't the colors available to do more. I didn't use them, but Mac and Atari ST were the same. Then came Workbench 2.0, then MUI ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_User_Interface ), and I recognized and enjoyed the improvements. I love change, I just don't love regression. Why would I?
And as for experts:
https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-ui-less-attention-caus...
Ultimately, I'm still going to argue that this is a matter of subjectivity and as we age the less accepting we are to change, so those who fully embraced a particular UX paradigm will find it harder and harder to adapt to shifts in UX unless it cycles back to what they're comfortable with (just like fashion).
To quote Abe Simpson,
> "I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!"
We're not looking at a box with unknown contents that we would need to go by probabilities. We can just look at the thing.
> The article you've linked has been fairly criticized for it essentially removing controls from their methodology by things like using lower contrast buttons for the 'flatter' designs, which is not essential to the design paradigm.
I can, right now in Win 10, show you plenty examples where there is no contrast and no distinction between an overlay window and what's behind it. Not low contrast, exactly the same color.
> Ultimately, I'm still going to argue that this is a matter of subjectivity and as we age the less accepting we are to change
This is the same indirect reasoning as "people like what they used first", which in my case is provably, objectively, false.
I might as well say "as people age and grow in confidence and experience, they trust their own judgement more, and care less about just going along with whatever is pushed just to fit in" or anything like that.
It's more like someone at some point stops being open to change, which allows some breathing room, but eventually they'll prefer to stick to what they know rather than having to learn something new. This isn't a value judgement, just that when something works and feels right to someone why would they feel the need to try something else just for the sake of trying it?
I use vim. Most people don't and would argue it's bad user experience as it's not intuitive. What's intuitive for text editing is largely just based on convention, though. I think vim is a great user experience because it allows me to edit text much more efficiently. It's entirely possible the text editor Kakoune would be even better than vim at doing the whole modal editor thing, but I do not care to find out. It took me some time to learn and get comfortable with vim and I don't see much value in going with the new thing even if it potentially has real upsides.
When it comes to UX/UI design, you'll certainly find plenty of conventions that are broadly agreed upon. Most people would find it difficult to read yellow text on a white background for example so that would be considered bad UI. But in the case of GUI design like determining how much shadow there is beneath a 'button' element or what color links should be and if that color is distinguishable is pretty subjective and a part of that comes down to convention rather than an innate preference in humans.
That could justify anything that is new. Just take the people who think nuclear would be a bad idea -- "it's just because that's not how they are used to doing things".
What is there to "learn" about, say, 50 pixels of padding rather than 5 pixels of padding and 1 pixel of border? All of these "arguments" are avoiding the actual subject matter at hand to make grand generalizations.
> It's entirely possible the text editor Kakoune would be even better than vim at doing the whole modal editor thing, but I do not care to find out.
Then speak for yourself, because none of that describes me. I constantly try out new things; some things supersede what I used to that point, others fall short.
> what color links should be and if that color is distinguishable is pretty subjective
Not in the case of two colors being the exact same. There is nothing subjective about that at all.
The machine asked which payment option you wanted: cash, credit card, voucher, etc. She selected cash. That brought you to a screen with a button in the middle allowing you to switch quickly to pay with card (to pay the remaining balance after you'd part paid with cash). The button text was "pay with card". The problem is, because it wasn't obvious that it was a button, she thought she had accidentally chosen the wrong option at the previous screen. She chose the "back" button at bottom and then selected "cash" again, but had the same problem. I saw her go through this cycle several times before asking for help.
A really obvious button style could well have avoided the problem.
Edit: You could say something similar about any non-verbal cues. Why not say "error" instead of using a red error icon? Why not say "left" instead of using a left-pointing arrow? Etc. The answer is always that (if used appropriately) it lowers the user's cognitive load. Admittedly sometimes it's reasonable to use both e.g. usually you do say "error" in words too, and maybe your suggestion would also be useful for this button.
She could use windows 7 fine. Anything later, more difficult.
A friend passed me his back in 2011ish to call his wife letting her know he'd be late to pick her up. It utterly confused me. No back button. A million apps on the 'home' screen. Needing to swipe in an undocumented manner, at least undocumented via a 20 second conversation.
The last Apple product I'd owned, an iPod mini, had useful things like buttons. And despite buttons it managed to have unintuitive features such as sticking music in multiple machine-named folders that only iTunes understood and a proprietary connector. So I dropped the iPod mini and went with something no-brand that was a USB stick that went in a small cradle that had a small battery; it had buttons, it functioned as a music player, it had a sane file system, it was charged via USB, I was happy.
I still have trouble with iPhones.
The difference between tech people and people like her is that it's easier for us to notice these issues and talk about them, while - if something doesn't work for her - she'll just shrug and go tend to the garden.
With people like this who didn't grow up with tech, everything has to be intuitive and obvious. An iPhone certainly isn't. My dad never had trouble with his Nokia, because everything was laid-out in front of him in a one-dimensional way, and all he had to do was scroll down the list and everything was easy to find. I would never put a computer in front of him, but if I did it would hb a Windows 7 computer.
I guess you’ve never sat in on a usability research study? Average users have way WAY more issues than you are implying.
I have this problem right now with Firefox Proton. Since it has problems respecting my color scheme, it takes me some time to distinguish (in an inactive-colored titlebar) which is the damn currently active tab. Before, I would be able to do it almost subconsciously, without distracting me from my current goal. Now, my train of thought has to stop and search for the damn button, then I have to restart my thoughts. And we all know how that hurts.
Personally I can automate the provisioning, configuration and management of hundreds of servers, but still often have my partner show me how to personalize and customize my own desktop.
Yes, I agree with you. With smartphone sales skyrocketing the last thing you would assume is a bad user experience. Quite the opposite: how bad Windows 7 was.
This is computer history romance or different personal taste.