Isn't that the classic problem of software engineers also being responsible for UX? There's a reason UX is a whole field of its own.
If you've recently tried to teach a computer illiterate person to do something, you'll know what I mean. No consistency, no internal logic or rules, just pretty stuff that you just need to know.
Btw, I loathe the term UX, because 'interface' (in UI) should already be a big enough term to not just mean pretty graphics, but the whole _interface_ between user and program. But such is the euphemism treadmill.
UX is just a weaselly sales term, "Our product is not some mere (sneers) interface, no, over here it is a whole experience, you want an experience don't you?"
I found a paper that was definitely taking the perspective that the "user interface" encompasses all the ways in which the user can accomplish something via the software. It rated the effectiveness of a user interface in terms of the time taken to complete various specific tasks. (While remarking that other metrics matter to the concept too, and also measuring user satisfaction and error rates.)
But that paper also suggested how the term might have specialized - four pieces of software were studied, and they are presented in a table that gives their "interface technology", in two cases a "character-based interface" and in the other two a "graphical user interface".
Enough usage like that and you can see how "interface" might come to mean "what the user interacts with" as opposed to "how tasks are performed".
( https://www.nngroup.com/articles/iterative-design/ . It really is dated 1993, which I made a point of checking because Google assigns the "date" of a search result based on textual analysis, and it is frequently very badly wrong. I can't really slam the approach, which I assume was necessary to get the right answer here, but the implementation isn't working.)
It's just the euphemism treadmill. Just like people perennially come up with new technical terms for the not-so-smart that are meant to be just technically and inoffensive, and over time they always become offensive, so someone has to come up with new technical terms.
See eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot
> 'Idiot' was formerly a technical term in legal and psychiatric contexts for some kinds of profound intellectual disability where the mental age is two years or less, and the person cannot guard themself against common physical dangers. The term was gradually replaced by 'profound mental retardation', which has since been replaced by other terms.[1] Along with terms like moron, imbecile, retard and cretin, its use to describe people with mental disabilities is considered archaic and offensive.[2]
Yeah, just look at Windows {10,11} and Android. They simplified so much that it's unusable.
When I was at university, I attended a UI class which - although in the CS department - was taught by a senior psychologist. Here, the premise was very much on how to design interfaces in such a way that the user can intuitively operate a system with minimal error. That is, the design should enable the user to work with the system optimally.
I only heard the term UX much later, and when I first became aware of it, it seemed to be much less about designing for use and more about designing for feel. That is, the user should walk away from a system saying "that was quite enjoyable".
And these two concepts are, of course, not entirely orthogonal. For instance, you can hardly enjoy using a system when you just don't seem to get the damn thing to do what you want. But they still have different focuses.
If I had to put in a nutshell how I conceptualize the two disciplines, it would be "UI: psychology; UX: graphics design".
And of course such a simplification will create an outcry if you're conceptualization is completely different. But that just takes us back to my very first sentence: not well-defined names are open to interpretation.
> Here, the premise was very much on how to design interfaces in such a way that the user can intuitively operate a system with minimal error.
Yes, that's a good default goal for most software, but not always appropriate.
Eg for safety critical equipment to be used only by trained professionals (think airplane controls or nuclear power plant controls) you'd put a lot more emphasis on 'minimal error' than on 'intuitive'.
We can also learn a lot from how games interact with their users. Most games want their interface to be a joy to use and easy to learn. So they are good example for what you normally want to do!
But for some select few having a clunky interface is part of the point. 'Her Story' might be an interesting example of that: the game has you searching through a video database, and it's only a game, because that search feature is horribly broken.
But in the industry the focus turned to aesthetics, so a new term was invented to differentiate between focusing on the entire interface ("experience") vs just the look.
Just like "design" encompasses all of it, but we add qualifiers to ensure it's not misunderstood for "pretty".
Eg I'm colourblind, and a careful revision of a colourscheme can make my life easier. (Though I would suggest also using other attributes to differentiate like size, placement, texture, saturation, brightness etc.)
UX has become equivalent with crap. Give me back GUI.
I always found MacOS Finder's spatial file placement a good example (Non-MacOS users - Finder has this thing where it remembers windows locations and file locations in window, so one can arrange files as they please and they stick). Given that that feature is removed the UI stays the same (there are file icons, some windows, same layout), but it does remove some of the cognitive load.
UX is impacted by many non-UI things: load times, responsivity to input, reliability (hello dreaded printer dialogs that promise to print, but never will).
Anti-pattern I hate with passion is MacOS update bar. I want to do some work in the morning, I open my computer and it's friggin' updating. This sucks, but happens, we got forced into this. And then there's this progress bar that jumps: 20%, 80%, 50%, 30%, 90%. Colleague asks when I'm going to be online - "oh, 10% left, probably soon" - ding - progress bar backs to 30%.
UI is the same from observers point of view (it shows the progress, which I suppose is correct and takes into consideration multiple update phases) but UX is dropping ball here.
A window is a program window not an actual window. A folder is not the same as a folder in a filing cabinet and a save icon is a save icon not a floppy disk.they dont have to stand for or emulate physical things
The Xerox demo was definitely trying to make near-as-possible 1-to-1 correspondences because their entire approach was "discovery is easier if the UI abstractions are couched in known physical abstractions." UIs that hewed very closely to the original Xerox demo did things like pop open one window per folder (because when you open a folder and there's a folder inside, you still have the original folder).
As time went on and users became more comfortable with computerized abstractions in general, much of that fluff fell by the wayside. MacOSX system 7, for instance, would open one window per double-click by default; modern desktop MacOS opens a folder into the current window, with the option to command-double-click it to open it into its own... tab? (Thanks browsers; you made users comfortable enough with tabbed windows that this is a metaphor the file system browser can adopt!).
There are situations where I don't exactly care how far something has progressed but I want to see that it at least has not hung. Fedora's dnf doing SELinux autorelabeling for two hours without any indication of progress is one of those things I hate with passion.
But we apparently chose to make things complicated in other ways.
The timer also jumps. Once I had ~40 minutes update that was hope-feeding me with "2 minutes left" for most of the time.
My guess is that it's not worth optimizing, but nowadays I shy from updates if I don't have 2h of time buffer (not because I am afraid something will break, but because I know I'll be locked out).
Funnily, Linux (KDE) got very good at their estimations for some time now. Better behaving storage also has a role, I presume.
We can call an excellent story teller a “writer”. A good story can be described as “good writing”. A great story, let’s say a film being adapted as a book, can become a terrible book if it is “let down by the writing”.
In the context of books and storytelling, “writing” is the all-encompassing word that experts use to describe the whole thing. Just like “UI” used to mean the whole thing.
That's consistent with your timeline of the decline of UI/UX though. My sense is that the birth of the term UX marked the beginning of the decline because it meant redefining the term UI as being purely about aesthetics, implying that no one was paying attention to all of the non-aesthetic work that had previously been done in the field.
It does seem a bit weird, but I feel like this bigger picture is what a lot of today's design lacks.
Because those were (G)UI conventions.
The new "UX" is in the line of "Fuck ICCCM or Style Guide, i'll implement my own".
Now if the question was between radio buttons and a drop-down list - that is a designer's choice.
This attack on convention then paved the way for the "just make it pretty" we see today.
New users want pop ups, pretty colors, lots of white space, and stuff hidden. Experienced users want to throw the computer through a window when their tab is eaten because of a “did you know?” popup.
Enterprise, professional software is used a lot. Sometimes decades. You need dense UI with a UX that’s almost comically long-lived. Experienced users don’t want to figure out where a new button is, they’ve already optimized their workflow to the max.
Designing the UI based on how the code a filter operates is cool for where the .cpp files live is not how the users think. Then again, a user of GIMP over other apps probably does filter that user into a more techy side of user than artistic side, so I'm probably eating a bowl of crow soon.
Seems like maybe time for FOSS UIs to start a Fiverr account looking for UI/UX peeps.
https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/person...
I didn’t assume anything about you. I took your words at face value. To the degree I said anything about you it was that perhaps Gimp is not for you (because everything isn’t for everybody).
"Our Personas document says this software isn't for engineers who taught themselves to use Linux in highschool. This guy who submitted a request to add tabs to the interface looks like a nerd, we don't need to take his suggestion seriously even though he's suggesting a normal thing people who fit into other personas would also find useful."
Also maybe LLM integration so you can just explain what you want done, then it does it, instead of needing to follow some tutorial to learn the software
I like how this counts as a reasonable side remark today but would have been utterly delusional just a few years ago.
you mean diffusion-model integration?
(or invest in UX/user research)
And then there's the GEGL stuff that's leaking implementation details to the user: obviously it should be fixed, but I am certain you can find similar stuff in Adobe's products.
I, for one, having recently been pushed to online MS stuff, certainly see plenty of that in their tools (too many, really, even worse than GNOME ever was when I was active there).
It’s just not comparable and I’m sorry with the history of GIMP it’s all just indefensible, let’s not forget in the two decades it took them to implement Adjustment Layers Blender started focusing on the user not the developer and became a huge contender against non open software, hard to find 3D artists under 25 who didn’t learn via Blender and use it professionally.
An opportunity completely squandered by a poor culture.
Blender entered where there was no other good competitor in the market, with a company behind it that built a business around it, and set the standards for UI.
GIMP always kinda had to fight against the incumbents that are too ingrained into customer muscle memory to accept any change. Really, are you saying that the location for GEGL filters in the menu is what stops you from using Gimp?
So the GIMP team wisely chose not to fight, and to build their own thing that serves (hundreds of?) thousands of happy users worldwide (I am one of them: I don't do image editing professionally, but people have complimented me on what I've achieved with Gimp; similarly, moving away from Gimp shortcuts would be expensive for me and would make me really hate any big change of the sort).
This all changed within a few years of them fixing the UI and focusing on users.
>GEGL filters in the menu is what stops you from using Gimp?
It’s one example but my point is already proven by you calling them “GEGL Filters” step back from your biases for a second and really think about what you wrote and the wider implications to the rest of the application and its users.
People just feel they instinctively have to defend GIMP because it was one of the early larger real desktop Linux open source successes but to me it represents one thing, completely wasted opportunity and the importance of how culture and ideology of a team can squander something that could have been amazing.
“Oh people would never have switched from Photoshop, the workflow and keys are different” is pure cope, we know this because Figma decimated Photoshop and Illustrator as web/app design tools in about 2 years just by offering a better tool.
GIMP could have done this 20+ years ago with the right ideology.
Gimp was ever only an enthusiast developer-driven, and 1-2 engineers that it actively had working on it could not have pulled it off.
It has nothing to do with the ideology, just sheer complexity of the effort: GNOME HIG in the 2.0 times was very much focused on good, consistent UI that caters to the users (mostly driven by Sun Microsystems contributions).
But bringing individual examples of bad UI (I can do so for MacOS, the poster child of usability too) does not mean it's like that on purpose — it's mostly just that, bad instances.
A program is usable based on the whole experience with it, and the results one can achieve. Gimp is not perfect (far from it, really), but for a set of usecases, it is perfectly adequate.
The success or lack of it is not only driven by usability: there are perfectly good tools that simply bit the dust for who knows what reason.
Which is exactly how I remember it as an outsider (I wasn't interested in 3D at the time).
Problem was: the change was explained in terms of user persona and their workflows, but there was no mention of user tests...
The number of times I've wanted to save in their native XCF file format is... zero. But I always want to save in a standard image format, and I don't really consider that to be exporting, just saving.
I understand why they wanted this, but I don't think many of their actual users did.
Users would be seriously upset if they made JPEG the default and the native format a buried option. People would be losing data left and right.
Saving in the internal format is probably rare if you’re just a user, but if this is a 40 hour a week job, then the compute time savings and potential disk space saving from doing that might be worth it.
Having to cancel out of File/Save and go back to the File menu and choose File/Export, over and over and over in software that defies this convention, is incredibly irritating.
The obnoxious thing is separating "save" and "export" into different menu items. Much (most?) software lets you choose "save as" (including saving as a different format) from the regular File/Save dialog. But Affinity Photo (and apparently GIMP) forces you to cancel out of the Save dialog for the millionth time and go back to the File menu and choose "Export." It's annoying and unnecessary.