Is there any research that supports this claim? If I use an app for 6 years, why would I suddenly need a change?
I'm still ocassionally using a 10 y/o version of Photoshop. In fact, I'm very happy that it does not change. I wouldn't want to spend time on re-learning the UI. The same is true for many apps that I use.
Please don't overdo re-designs just for the sake of it.
Never once heard: "Man, I sure wish this thing that I've gotten used to and enjoy using for the passed 10 years would suddenly reshuffle everything so I have to relearn where everything is just so it keeps up with whatever the new trend is". To be frank, sounds more like someone in search of some job security.
Changes are necessary over time yes, but without some studies backing it up, I can't fathom that change for the sake of staying "fresh" belongs anywhere in software design and development. As an imperative from marketing/management to attract a new userbase, sure, but that's not a Design or Dev motive. If there's an opportunity to unify the standard of design or consolidating/eliminating technical debt while undergoing a significant overhaul, sure, understandable. But "It seems a little stale, we should change it"? From a User's perspective? Please don't.
I would argue that the quote generalizes to all people, just as you are generalizing your sentiment to all people.
I have a lot of 15 year old clothes in my wardrobe, I know many friends who feel the urge of buying a new outfit every few months. I am not passing judgement we are just not similar in our desire for novelty.
I value function others value form. Form valuing people will likely enjoy app redesigns, function valuing people will likely value knowing where everything is in an app rather than re-training on new designs.
Most importantly I would speculate that form valuing people are way more likely to spend money on apps and services, so these services will likely do better in catering to form over function.
If you want the source of most redesign initiatives, look at the middle management and executive levels. At the end of the day, if they want a redesign and a designer says "no" they'll just be replaced.
For most of the companies, it’s somewhere from middle management to the top that someone sees a “cool” website late at night and the next morning says “I think it’s time for a much needed re-design”
A decent design doesn't need an overhaul to extend the functionality of a program or even to keep the program being able to run on modern operating systems, whereas the code foundation absolutely needs regular maintenance - external dependencies need to be upgraded, platforms change their APIs all the time (cough Windows), and after a number of extensions it might make sense to refactor code.
The problem is as usual career/KPI related - there is no glory in maintenance or prevention. A new design will be seen, reviewed and advertised, which if done well is good for the careers of the people involved. With the backend code, unless the developers have extremely good managers and corporate culture allows valuing of maintenance, no one cares even about a complete rewrite - maybe only when it saves actual money e.g. in hosting because money is the only thing MBAs can understand.
Do designs TYPICALLY change every 5 ish years. Yes.
Is it because of a good reason, I claim no.
While designs in companies do evolve and can be significantly different, you should still be able to tell the origin. What normally happens the creative/marketing director moves on to a new company and is replaced. The new blood has a self imposed outlook that they need to change all the things significantly to prove their vision exists. You saw this with Avis and their incredibly successful, "we are the 2nd place car rental agency, so we work harder to get your business." Except a new marketing team then got brought on due to exec politics/shuffling. Obviously the new firm cant do what the old one did because they have to prove themselves... and they dropped the ball and things went to shit.
Company restructuring, politics and egos have more to do with design changes than the unicorn world of design trends.
This neobrute idea is just a lazier version of the 90s aesthetic. Like, a basic bitch reimagining with no personality. I bet designers who like this trend are vegan and like watching The Office on repeat because, "OMG, like, the office is my favorite show ev-vaaaaaa." My 2 cents.
So glad to see low-contrast, energy-consuming drop-shadows go away though. Is translucency gone now too so I can get my battery cycles back?
First one has been discussed in other comments: current users do not want to relearn the UI of the software. And I second that.
Second one: new users may turn away quick when seeing an old UI when trying an app or web site for a first time. So moving the UI from old to new, from time to time, may be a way for an app / website to just survive, otherwise the user base may be eroding.
Thoughts?
Because your designers need a reason to still exist, and redesigning an entire application is what that reason becomes.
UI changes on the other hand are always detrimental to users who have spent the time learning how to use the software.
Imagine if *nix-utils (ls, grep etc) used this method, every few years the switches/options changed !
Most people will redecorate their house, I don't think this claim requires research to support it. Why do people redecorate their house? Why do they suddenly decide they need a change?
Generally it's understood that people just get bored of looking at the same thing all day every day and that changing up the colours or style might make an old thing new.
Updating a sites style doesn't have to mean moving the ui to make it awkward to use, for example I have the latest version of Photoshop and I use the dark style because I like it over the old school grey I have used since the 90's but all the tools are still in the same place its the same software the only thing thats changed is the style.
BUT, this is a relative thing. New shiny apps and websites will appear and suddenly yours looks dated and crp and so you become under pressure to update it.
You nailed it, though: "Please don't overdo re-designs just for the sake of it.*"
obviously designers get bored with designs and want to change them, so I would guess that other people who use the apps that did not design the apps might also get tired with it, probably there are people out there who are not designers but have a heightened design sense and they get bored whereas people who have just average design sense don't care.
I'd assume the opposite in regards to bugs: My assumption would be that older software has fewer bugs since, the longer the software is used, the more likely it is for bugs to be discovered.
It's not always clear if software is actually changed. A changelog is useful in that regard, but you won't get that everywhere. Dated looks is a heuristic for: was build long ago, has had no changes since.
Heuristics aren't proofs of course, but you so rarely get proofs in real life anyway.