I guess this is true if you're doing something in a not so saturated field, but understand that if you're in a saturated space, you probably do need the design to be natural os as to set yourself apart.
That this post has 800 upvotes is just a reminder of the caliber of UI/UX experience the average HNer has, especially when you see them disparage UI development as something unworthy of their time / expertise.
Next up “how I made my ui responsive but then heroically stopped labels wrapping away from radio marks”.
There’s a reason, even if accidental, why writing custom controls was sort of a black magic in traditional ui. And that reason is, most people are clueless about how fragile ui actually will be in their hands.
Styling and customization are useful and interesting topics in ui. But instead of thinking it through, most libs today just throw a ball of wires at the developer who is clueless and often couldn’t care less even.
So companies that don't want to look like Craigslist end up either using an off-the-shelf UI controls library (not a bad decision, in my opinion), or building their own.
Along with the second option, a new set of disciplines is emerging: the design system designer and engineer. Since companies have grown so accustomed to building their own bespoke design language (instead of using the one the OS ships with), it's doubtful that a well-designed set of modern, native web controls (that ship with browsers) would be able to compete with the notion of "having a bespoke design system".
Also, white-label libraries (like Radix UI) are increasingly appearing that handle all the implementation details and leave the appearance to be defined.
Or maybe it's our collective frustration with processes and expectations that make it very difficult to be a craftsman--and that make web app UI bad in general.
I remember my boss being frustrated with how long it was taking me to build a set of filtering dropdown components from scratch (one of the most difficult to get right). I stuck with it and put in some extra hours to really get all the small details right. Later that year, he asked me to tech-lead a newly forming team of UI engineers.
A year later, everyone called it great work and no one remembered how long it took.
Having well sanded features doesn’t necessarily remove bugs directly drive conversion, but it gives the entire product an established professional “feel.
Even though your customers feel it, they won’t explicitly articulate it
I mean, it is probably very rare to have two products that have the same features, and the only difference is how nicely done they are. For example, MediaWiki is in my opinion 100x better than Confluence, but Confluence has some extra features that I don't care about but managers do (stuff like easily attaching PowerPoint presentations to web pages), so the managers decide that the company uses Confluence. And I keep silently screaming in frustration every time I lose a part of text during editing, or the links break when a typo in a page name is fixed (because there is no option to add a redirect), etc.
The extra feature often wins, when the salesman describes the product to the manager who makes the buying decision. That's why we have the "checkbox features" that most end users don't care about, but it allows the product to seem better in comparison. Feature creep is how stuff gets sold.
The situation of two featurewise identical products competing only on better UI would probably be highly unstable, even if it happened somehow. There are network effects, so if one product starts winning, most people will switch to that product because "that's what everyone else is using". The other product will be left without money to pay for development, and will go out of business. Afterwards, the winning product does not have to care about their UI anymore.
If it's not, it will lead to your users being confused and/or frustrated which will lead to them looking for an alternative tool.
If you're product is the only one in town, then they're just left to deal with it until a competitor pops up with a better (whether real or perceived) UI.
Wouldn't they be the same? If i perceive some ui as awful, it's real(ly awful). A program I've used since the 80s has progressively been 'flattened' and is now a complete pain to use - to such an extent I often prefer to fire up ye olde atari emulator. To me - the pain is real, and perceived.
Oh my god, just look at Facebook's comment system. It's a fucking mess and it's based on their fancy React steposhi soft.
Mind boggling that even their own engineers can't create a usable UI. Well, they are too big to care.