Hacker News Reader

Comment by cogman10 | Hacker News Reader

This is what drives me nuts. Why do they keep messing with the UI? Nobody wants that! Even Apple and Google have both figured out that screwing around with UX every release is a recipe for making your customers HATE you.

What I, and probably non-power users want out of windows is for it to be faster and use less power. I'd honestly be happy to go back to a Win95 interface with the latest kernel.

Microsoft needs to fire the idiots that keep messing around with the UX. It's not broke, stop trying to fix it.

View on HN

> Why do they keep messing with the UI?

UX folks don't get paid to leave things alone.

Nobody gets paid to leave things alone and maybe that's a big problem with the world.

Farmers can get paid to not grow crops.

Damn... the idea that maybe we should be banding together as a democracy and cutting deals to subsidize the engineering work of companies that are willing to "lay fallow" their design teams is fascinating.

Bonuses paid to design teams that are a direct function of the length between unprompted UI adjustments and redesigns?

Iteration on designs is of course permitted, but there’s more pressure on “get it right” rather than “dirty MVP”. Once launched, changes can’t go to prod-lest they lose their bonus-and emphasis is more on more in-depth and longer-term user research and refining the design.

This way design teams are still doing valuable work, and there’s no crunch to both design something and then get it out ASAP. The next time front-end teams come back to work on any kind of UI refresh everything is already sorted and ready to go.

Another one would be paying Wall Street bankers not to create innovative banking products, like synthetic CDO's

this is so true!

apple podcasts is a fine example, among others, of this conundrum. on every iteration an "improvement" makes the app less usable. on the last iteration they decided that i should now "follow" shows and not "subscribe" to them. what's worse is that some screens had the old and the new names resulting in extreme confusion. on that same iteration, someone decided that the way i was deleting episodes wasn't cool enough. so they replaced a working feature with a half-working one!

please leave the podcasts app alone.

Interesting. The Podcasts app was a disaster when it was released. I honestly can’t imagine how it could have gotten worse.

I’ve been using Podcruncher since 2010. Manual downloads, no hiding episodes, custom playlists. All in a straightforward interface. It is amazing that Apple with its resources can’t deliver anything comparable.

It's definitely a big problem with software. This "need to constantly pay developers" is part of the justification for moving towards subscription payment instead of one-time payment. The logic goes: One-time payment won't pay for future changes, and developers are always making changes, and they need to be paid for. But, what if I don't want future changes? For almost all software I've ever paid for, as a user, I just want the goddamn software exactly how it is today, forever. I'd maybe be willing to pay for security updates, but that's it.

But, noooooo, the company decides developers must perpetually change the software and designers need to perpetually change the UI, and therefore you must continue to pay for it, regardless of whether you want any of those changes.

Funny, I was just thinking to myself that maybe a paid subscription Windows could be a solution to undesired UI change. Because it would take away the lure of the upgrade sale licence. 64 bit w2k? Yeah, I'd totally pay for that.

If I were in charge of Windows product strategy I think I would create competing subdivisions that replicate the model of Linux distributions but on the NT kernel. Sworn to binary compatibility but inspired to try different monetization schemes.

Windows is not selling upgrades anymore, 8 to 10 was a free upgrade

8 too? I was going to write something about this, particularly in how that's the reason why I don't really disagree with GP despite pondering the exact opposite "what if". But the sudden appearance of an 11 that nobody asked for gives me the impression that the culture that was fostered on the paid upgrade is still very much alive.

Meanwhile my mind has taken a deeper dive into the rabbit hole fantasy of competing Windows distribution divisions. I'd expect it to seem like a total failure : the surface. E.g. with Steam users refusing to get lured into the "gamer Windows" (something with an X in the name), the "crippled version that is entirely ad-funded" (10, basically) drawing too much hate for the entire brand while still not being crippled enough to push people to paid options and the one you can get with the Office subscription being a little too incompatible for employee lockout reasons with the plethora of in-house essentials required to run at customers. But Microsoft could still come out stronger, having a well defined place for bad ideas to go to die. And who knows, one of the niche distributions might be essentially sysinternals with a kernel and a package manager.

Only for end-users with OEM licences, and only limited amount (10 licenses max? Or so).

For corporate and government, it was not free. And these are where the money is.

But aren't those usually on a subscription anyways? Could still be a factor, in theory: they might pull an Oracle pushing all their subscribers onto 11 unless they upgrade to the golden account tier that still receives updates. They actually did this, I think, with 7, but I assume not at a scale that could bring the pattern anywhere close to being a central motivation.

They are mostly on subscription; but what is the rationale for subscription? The right to upgrade, and the ability to have all machines running the same version. Remember, that in order for subscription license to be valid, it is usable only for machine that came with OEM license in the first place.

I once worked for a corp that didn't have subscription. The rationale was, that is was not important who was running which version at their computer, and the subscription was thus a cost on top of OEM license that didn't bring any value. Since the computers were refreshed every 4-5 years anyway, they always had a supported Windows version.

That is why consulting and outsourcing exist, you only pay for developers while you actually need them.

There are even companies outside software business, that pay contractors per tickets, basically a budget is assigned and the contractor does as much tickets as they are capable of for the given budget.

Now the quality of the code is not for the faint of heart.

This ignores the changing nature of consumer demand and competitive pressure. Often time, implementations should be treated as a product that needs nurturing rather than a one off project where you get to the finish line and you're done.

That is why I explicitly made the point that selling software isn't these companies main business, for them it is just a cost center.

>designers need to perpetually change the UI

That's a bit unfair. The iPhone 13 just came out and one of the memes and jokes going around is that it looks the same as the previous phone and users are just buying the same thing again. Even tech people I know are joking about it.

So the UI people are always going to be busy because even people in the industry equate looks to changes. If the looks don't change they will all be scratching their heads confused why this is Windows 11 when it looks identical to 10.

I think the main reason for memes is because Apple always markets everything they do as some kind of massive innovation despite either bringing something from the past or just copying what competitors already had long ago. They at least used to pretend they make something different with design changes, but now even this facade fell down.

> But, what if I don't want future changes? For almost all software I've ever paid for, as a user, I just want the goddamn software exactly how it is today, forever. I'd maybe be willing to pay for security updates, but that's it.

Problem is, most software doesn't exist in a vacuum; it is part of an ecosystem. Security updates that you might pay for are not enough, because the ecosystem is constantly changing around the program you bought.

I'm author of HashBackup. It uses remote object storage services so if there are incompatible changes made on the storage side, the software has to adapt. What if IP4 is no longer supported? Adapt. A library like Boto2 gets rewritten and the old version loses support. Adapt. Google Sites decides to force you to migrate to a new version that looks like shit. This just happened to me, and it's so bad I'm having to do a whole new documentation site.

Just keeping software working has become a big challenge because of ecosystem changes.

Great point! It's an ecosystem-wide problem. I'd go even further to argue it's a problem baked into the very psyches of software developers. Your remote storage service should not be changing, particularly in ways that break backward compatibility. Nobody should be dropping IPv4. Nobody should be rewriting a library in such a way the new one is incompatible unless the old one retains support. Nobody should be forcing you to migrate to some crappier version that looks like shit.

Stop changing things just to change them. But if you're actually changing for a good reason, consider the downstream effects of your changes.

I can take a bash script from 20, maybe 30 years ago, and know that it will still do what it's supposed to do, and all the standard commands it calls, like sed, awk, and grep will also do what they are supposed to do. Bits don't rot by themselves. Careless developers in the ecosystem make changes and don't consider backward compatibility, and we euphemistically call it "bit rot."

What if meaningless busy-work is qualified professionals getting paid to leave meaningful problems alone because solving them is bad for the racket?

Yeah, it is seriously worth thinking about.

I’ve been doing UI for 20+ years and most of what I’ve worked on is determined by marketing & engineering. I understand & totally sympathize with not liking the results, but in my experience the designers rarely choose what (ui) problems need to get solved. Also I have never worked in an org that shipped “the design”, it’s inevitably compromised by high level management’s personal feelings or lack of engineering attention to detail (I don’t blame eng’s for this, anytime the project schedule gets tight, they immediately cut resources to UI/UX). Anyway, I agree most updated UI’s fail to deliver improvements to end users and let me tell you how shitty it feels to take the blame for stuff you didn’t like either.

Whilst apple also have its share of this ui change (like keyboard butterfly or no hole in portable etc.), I still think their design team actually work to solve sone user problem. Not just marketing or engineering… I cannot be sure. Just that I thought.

Hence not all in the dark side.

There is plenty of other UI things to be touched.

Cough spotify

Heh. I used uBlock origin to hide all the podcast elements in Spotify web for a clean desktop web-based Spotify. Every time I open up the app on my phone, I die a little.

Spotify was pretty snappy in the early days, I guess a decade ago now. Current iteration boots up in 3 minutes and is unnavigable. Went back to Winamp and occasional usage of the web player.

There’s a solution, a client software called Psst https://github.com/jpochyla/psst

I largely believe the Spotify folks keep making changes in their apps solely to break the experiences of those who're running cracked (ad-blocked) builds.

They seem to be happy breaking everyone else’s experience too though. Even basic functionality fails quite often for me.

The absolute worst is the macOS Music app, which doesn’t seem to allow basic things such as dragging from search results to playlists.

Ux is snake oil nonsense and has no place in software design. They create change for the sake of change and dumb everything down as if complexity were a sin.

I feel like this takes it too far. Complexity may not be a sin, but it is possible to make things much more cohesive.

"Modern" UX does involve a lot of dumb antipatterns and things that break usability, but I don't think we should throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

Needless complexity is a sin. But easy/difficult is an orthogonal axis to simple/complex.

Should inherent complexity be simplified?

I'm enraged by the new UI where you can't have multiple instances of the same application side-by-side in the taskbar. It's one of the things I hate in chromebooks, which Windows decided to adopt as their only (non hidden) option.

Yeah you're not alone there, the stupid idea that windows now needs to be fully tablet capable without a keyboard to the detriment of everyone else using it normally. Literally making the interface less informative and adding clicks, waiting and gestures to achieve actions that should've been a single point and click.

I call it the "BIG BATAN" ideology, as everything needs to be a clean oversized button without any extra options or functionality. Stupid mobile OS features creeping into desktop for no good reason.

I swear if MS eventually removes the don't group fallback I'm finally ditching Win for KDE and never coming back.

This is especially ridiculous when seeing how few tablets are sold by Microsoft, despite them try harding for a decacde or so.

I have used/owned old HP Tablet PCs that ran Windows XP Tablet PC Edition, and one of the bigger Surfaces. The HP with XP was a better experience. Windows 10 on the surface closes the on-screen keyboard after every change of focus from one input field to another. It doesn't open the keyboard automatically. And the Surface's battery swelled up and popped the case open.

I'd actually like a modern pen-enabled PC, but they seem to be getting worse at software (and batteries!) over time. And when I'm at a desk with a keyboard, mouse, and large monitor, nothing else from MS beats the classic 2K/XP (7's okay too) UI.

  > I swear if MS eventually removes the don't group fallback
  > I'm finally ditching Win for KDE and never coming back.

Exactly the switch that I did - get this - in 2005. And I never went back. Even in multiple software development roles, having to interact with Word- and Excel- using colleagues, and having "UX experts" sending me Photoshop files, KDE has pulled me through.

I have been using KDE on-and-off since 2001 before switching fully in 2005, and in all that time KDE has had a single disruptive UI switch, going from KDE 3 to KDE 4. The upgrade to KDE 5 went all but unnoticed.

Yeah, I hated this too. I've been using the 7+ Taskbar Tweaker program[0] to change this behaviour and I honestly couldn't imagine using Windows without it at this point.

[0] - https://rammichael.com/7-taskbar-tweaker

I think it might be application specific behavior? Because I can for example have multiple instances of the modern calculator app and they show up side by side in the taskbar. But I cannot have multiple instances of the modern alarm app, it just focuses on the already open instance.

Yup

Taskbar can no longer be moved.

That single "improvement" will keep me away for as long as possible. It's the first thing I change when setting up a new Windows environment, and have done it for over a decade. I'm enough not alone that I've seen in mentioned in multiple articles.

MS makes all kinds of noise about "reworking the UI from the ground up for true usability" or some such. Yet I have no idea what could possibly be the benefit to removing such functionality. MS says they listen, but obviously not.

Unless a developer has a massive and utterly revolutionary improvement in the way we interact with the machine, and it yields 10X productivity improvements (or even 3X) for 90% of the user base - fkn leave it alone!!

Marginal improvements are the worst - the time spent relearning, or fumbling while using a different machine is never recovered, and it just makes people annoyed at you. Even if the improvements are "free" the price is too high.

I have the taskbar on the left on Mac, Linux, and Windows. Removing this customization makes me wonder who the hell makes these decisions. Do Windows developers not dogfood their own OS? Apparently the person making these decisions only uses the taskbar on the bottom and it must be good enough to disrupt the workstations of millions I'm sure.

> Even Apple and Google have both figured out that screwing around with UX every release is a recipe for making your customers HATE you.

...are we talking about the same Apple and Google? Big Sur? Material You?

Sure, maybe it’s not “every” release, but only because they have a faster release cadence than Windows.

I don’t know about Google but I would say that the majority of Apple’s design refreshes are iterative in such a way that someone coming from the previous release is very unlikely to get “lost” when presented with the latest UI.

And this is the key. UI refreshes are fine as long as they don’t add unnecessary friction to the user experience.

Apple’s refreshes are also generally complete, cohesive and coherent. Yes they have the odd inconsistency here and there but largely the design system feels fully thought out at a high level. (I would perhaps put built-in apps like Podcasts and Music to one side here as I have far less charitable opinions around some of those UI updates - I’m mainly talking about the core OS experience).

I’m an experienced user of macOS and Windows and I cannot remember the last time I upgraded a macOS version and couldn’t just immediately carry on with my work without any major reorientation needed. Likewise with iOS. And Apple is iterating on their UI at a much faster pace than Microsoft.

And yet I have Windows VMs and Servers that I’ve used for years now and I still cannot fathom where they have moved setting X because it’s literally all over the place. Their UI updates are mostly incoherent, incomplete and just plain baffling.

The hash they’ve made of settings is just incredible. I have no idea how normal users navigate that crap. Even if you can stay in the top-level “dumbed down” layer of the settings UI it’s completely unintuitive in many places.

I’ve not seen an improvement to the start menu that has benefited my usability in any way since Windows 2000. I’m constantly confused with the various different start menus across servers running different Windows versions. Contrast that to the dock in macOS which has basically been the same simple and usable design paradigm for over 20 years with gentle refinement over that time. The only consistent thing Microsoft seem to keep doing to the start menu is they make more space for ads. FFS.

I’m not even going to get into the aggressive, seemingly-can’t-be-stopped forced updates…

I’m bullish on Microsoft’s .NET developer ecosystem and mainly positive about their Cloud strategy - the company has made some impressive changes over the last decade, but my god, Windows is a total car crash at the moment.

Why did they rearrange everything in System Preferences on Big Sur? Years and years of the same layout and then musical chairs and can’t find anything quickly anymore.

To this day, when doing Material design based stuff you are left to your own devices, because Google UI/UX team announced it to the world, and then left to each single developer out there to customize their Android widgets to achieve their design documents.

There are a couple of Google IO sessions where the presenter goes through how to custom write Android views to match Material.

Then a couple of years of comunity complaints they released a Material custom theme for Android that still doesn't implement 1:1 their UI/UX specification.

When this framework was finally catching up with Material documentation, they release Material You.

Those have been a relatively long time ago. Both of them stopped doing that. If it's a temporary stop or a definitive one, is an open question, but they did stop (at least for a while).

Big Sur came out in 2020 and Material You was announced in May of this year.

The weird thing is they don’t redesign the old UI as much as put new “simpler” UI over it with the option to use either. I’m pretty sure there are like 3 levels of UI between Windows 10 and the classic Device Manager.

Yeah, it's part of the identity crisis that emerged after someone decided the desktop UI should feel like a tablet or mobile UI.

"It's easy. Just add a cog icon for settings!"

Then, there's the whole free/ad supported model wherein you need an MS account, etc. I don't want to be integrated into your cloud metaverse. I don't want OneNote. I don't want Teams. I don't want to go through a whole phony tablet-like experience to get to the stuff I need.

I just want to use my machine as the productivity/dev tool I purchased.

I think they fundamentally no longer understand what the product is or should be.

I think they fundamentally no longer understand what the product is or should be.

On the contrary, I think they know what the product is quite well: it's you. All the ads they're shoving into everything are evidence that even if you're paying for it, you are still the product being sold.

Well, sure. That part's pretty clear.

But, in terms of delivery, form-factor, packaging, etc., they have no idea how to pull it off with any coherence.

I wish this was at least quantified. If they want $100 for "Ad-supported Windows", what would they charge for a system without (basically LTSB but intentionally sold as a quantity of one consumer product, I guess)

I've always assumed the "let's profile and sell the data" was a either a bubble waiting to pop in the face of something GDPR-alike, or a tail-wag-the-dog scenario where they're gradually killing $100-per-sale products for 30-cents-per-user-per-month of new revenue. Would be fascinating for both consumers and investors to see what dollar figures they're using.

yeah, most things though, if you know the name you can just hit the windows key and type the name and skip all the crap in between

How do you notice new control panel elements, if not looking for damned “them appliances for interchange connectivity” or whatever bullshit they came up with this time for networking cpl?

fire the idiots that keep messing around with the UX

Don’t push on them too hard, maybe they are bound by some evil contract. Legend has it, one guy sold his soul to make the new PATH= editing dialog after 666 weeks (~13 years) of negotiations.

> new PATH= editing dialog

But that one in Win 10 at least seems like an improvement

Exactly, and a price for that was one developer soul, according to the legend mentioned above.

> It's not broke, stop trying to fix it.

There could have been better ways to keep it modern, but just leaving everything alone because “it works” isn’t really an option. First comes Unicode, then 4K/High-dpi scaling, then touch support and so on.

Once high DPI screens arrived, UIs that scaled poorly literally don’t work.

NT 3.1 (that is, the _first_ release of Windows NT in 1993) supported Unicode, at least as far as the UI elements were concerned (that it was UTF-16, well, ...)

Nope, UCS-2. Which is UTF-16, but just the BMP, so only the first 65k codepoints and all characters are fixed-length 16bits. Only later windows versions at some point learned UTF-16.

The Win32 widgets are scalable, actually. They support device-independent units out of the box, even in Windows 95.

The only people that say Win32 apps are scalable are the ones that haven't dealt with legacy code. There is jut too much legacy code that either doesn't work, or doesn't work correctly with HiDPI screens.

At a minimum, for a Win32 application to work correctly with HiDPI it needs to tell the OS it is DPI aware.

This is done by marking the application DPI aware using the settings found in the manifest file.

The manifest file is then embedded into the resource section of the application, which then lets the OS know the application will be handling it's own DPI.

So the reason many of those 'legacy apps' don't work with HiDPI is they don't have those required manifest changes in place.

That then means the OS does the DPI scaling on behalf of the application and that results in poor scaling outcomes.

How do you patch these executables? I know 7zip can open .exe but there must be a better way.

It is not a trivial change to make the application DPI ware as it is a coding exercise (starting with that manifest change).

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/d...

Marking the app DPI aware just stops Windows doing any application scaling as it leaves that scaling up to the application.

But the real issue is most legacy apps were written before DPI scaling was an issue so they don't have this built in scaling.

To fix this Windows will do a 'one size fits all' scaling on their behalf.

It is this default Windows scaling that makes these legacy apps look so bad at higher DPI settings.

So you enable it by editing the manifest file and embedding the manifest file, but with legacy applications the HiDPI scaling might not be calculated correctly, or something assumes Pixels or DIP incorrectly. It might be something in a custom control in MFC, or a library or DLL where the source is long gone and no one can update, or even worst something doing something via COM and VB6.

That is correct. You enable it with the manifest and then you handle the scaling in the application code.

> something assumes Pixels or DIP incorrectly.

These are exactly the types of problems legacy applications run into.

They will contain hard coded assumption in their code and many of those will be 'pixel based' assumptions.

Applications also have to listen for messages that indicate a dpi change (moving between screens) and recalculate and redraw everything for the new dpi. The legacy codebases which are easily retrofitted to do that are the stuff of myths and legends.

So the solution is to push a completely new UI framework as though that won't require any code to be touched?

> Applications also have to listen for messages that indicate a dpi change

That is how a well behaved 'DPI Aware' application should work.

However, even for those badly written DPI applications that don't listen for those changes, the work around is to first make the required DPI changes and then restart those badly written DPI applications, as they will then pick up those DPI changes on startup.

The UI did scale, but lots of apps were poorly coded.

> Marlett is a TrueType font that has been used in Microsoft Windows since Windows 95. The operating system uses this font to create user interface icons that are used in the menus and windows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlett

Apple managed to support high-dpi without turning the whole thing upside down.

Because they had aquired a solid foundation that had fixed this problem already 30 years ago (NextStep with Display PostScript).

Apple doesn't run 20 years old binaries. On the contrary, they break ABIs faster than Linux distros, so they can move faster.

What did they break in order to support high-dpi?

> Why do they keep messing with the UI?

The UI that remains unchanged in a few years is perceived as old and obsolete, hence the purely marketing driven need to change it even when it works. And then there are new courses and new support contracts. Governments are a significant part of MS customer base; every time MS changes something, it's new money pouring in. As someone once said, Windows is not an operating system, it's a business platform.

I think I've seen an old article by a Microsoft employee saying "if you didn't change the UI, you changed nothing".

They used the calculator as an example, saying that it saw several improvements but since it always looked the same, people thought nothing had changed. Improvements included things like better arithmetics, so that (10/3-3)*3=1.

Dream job: full time engineer on Windows Calculator team.

Developing a calculator that one could be proud of would be a pretty sweet job. By that I mean producing a product that consistently produced correct results, offered useful features, and had a user interface that is more pleasant to use than a four function calculator.

Did that at an earlier point in my career, and it absolutely was, but calculators pretty quickly reach a point where "less is more", and at that point it's just better to leave it alone.

I just use Python as my desktop calculator, it works pretty well.

I also use Python or bc as a desktop, but that really isn't the point.

People sometimes criticize the Windows calculator for perceived errors in the results even though it is a superficially simple program. What they fail to account for are the edge cases, those quirks of computation that manifest themselves for various reasons (e.g. the precision of floating point, simplifications that appear simple to a person yet are non-trivial to implement in a program). A shipping product is not the same thing as a simple calculator tutorial a novice programmer may follow.

Emacs Calc. Mind blowing in features and power. As for the UI . . . well, it's Emacs.

The Graphing Calculator Story

https://www.pacifict.com/Story/

For the non-reader:

NPR Radio Piece

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/284/should-i-stay-or-should...

Google Tech Talk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMyg5ohTsVY

> Even Apple and Google have both figured out that screwing around with UX every release is a recipe for making your customers HATE you.

No they haven't. I hate Windows and love my Mac, but being forced into an upgrade from High Sierra to Big Sur sucks... a ton of the features I used all the time got buried behind click-and-hold etc.

It is broke - badly. But because they no clue what they're doing they just keep making it worse.

There's surely a management book to be written documenting the dysfunctional processes that result in disaster after disaster.

> It's not broke, stop trying to fix it.

I completely agree.

But look on even HN, if anyone mentions a library they're using you get the inevitable comment about how there's not been a PR in 3 months so the project must be dead. Do a search of HN for the word "Modern" and look how many projects assert themselves as such.

> Nobody wants that!

Apparently, they do. It's just you and I that don't and we aren't enough.

>be happy to go back to a Win95 interface with the latest kernel.

I would be happy to be even on Win3 interface with the latest kernel: themes and colors that worked almost on every f application! bonus: thick BORDERS! look now at the pathetic 1pixel borders they have (and NO F way to change that)

The sad reality is that UX groups don't want to fix existing UIs, they want to design new ones. That's the whole issue here. MS wants to hire and retain the best UI people, but those people don't want to fix a UI that was created 20 years ago.

>> UX groups don't want to fix existing UIs, they want to design new ones.

Maybe they need to check their ego at the door and do the job they're paid to do? There's a reason it's called work and not happy-fun-time.

Or they just work for the competition where they're allowed to design new things.

So the competition would have a problem with ever-changing UI and unsatisfied users?

Any rational company would sign-up for that immediately.

> This is what drives me nuts. Why do they keep messing with the UI?

This is a general problem with corporate developed commercial software. Nobody ever got promoted by saying, "this is great, let's not change it."

Apple does not have this figured out, and if they do, they don’t care.

And SerenityOS is the proof an old Win9x GUI+OS can run smooth without taking all screen space & with little memory.

Dunno about that, at least as far as Google is concerned. I was initially put off by the changes to Android (moving from 9ish to 11) because they took away the bottom control bar, but I've used it for a week and am completely comfortable with it now. The gestures are intuitive and easy to use.

Google has not yet learned.

I mean Android 12... Some project manager wanted a promotion this desperately.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com