The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
dl.acm.org
dl.acm.org
Things started going downhill, in my opinion, with the Windows XP "Fisher-Price" Luna interface and the Microsoft Office 2007 ribbon.
I've always thought the Windows 3.1 to Win2K era were exactly that. The medium is pixels on a screen, the mouse and keyboard. And there is no artifice, it's just the bare essentials.
Only because they copied NeXTSTEP. Those 3D beveled controls originated in NeXTSTSP. In Windows, ctl3d.dll added raised and sunken 3D-looking buttons, beveled text boxes, group boxes with depth, a light-source illusion using highlight and shadow, all copied from NeXTSTEP.
Certainly some historic credit goes to Motif, but, there are "levels to this game" .. Motif did not jump out as "wow that looks good" IMHO. Obviously NeXT was extreme in a different way.. sort of like a symphony orchestra more than an office machine.
It is genuinely entertaining to see people defend the dull and pedestrian UI in Windows 95.
...but I'm not personally convinced: instead, consider the demonstrable fact that similar engineering teams, working on similar problems, will independently come to substantially similar solutions; my favourite example to point to is how eerily-similar the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen, and Dassault Rafale all look - even entirely indistinguishable at an air-show in-person - despite having zero shared pedigree - therefore it's possible that - given the constraints of desktop graphics hardware of the late-1980s/early-1990s - that a user-friendly desktop UI built around the concept of floating application windows - will all be similar in one way or another.
-------
My pet-theory for why that "Windows 95 1px bevel" look is so prevalent is because it suits working with premade UI graphics rasters/bitmaps using indexed-colors: for example, imagine a Windows-style Property Sheet dialog: prior to Windows 95, software would manually draw all of the elements of that dialog directly to the framebuffer (i.e. using unbuffered graphics) which was slow - ugly - and is the cmputer-equivalent of using a lavatory in a cramped bathroom actively undergoing renovations without any drywall/plastering). Even if there was enough vram for double-buffering it's still going to be slow: painting each and every button, checkbox (with the checkmark!) and tab header. So instead, many individual UI graphics elements could be prerendered (at design-time, hopefully by an actual artist), but not as single bitmaps for the entire dialog - but as an indexed color bitmap for each control type, so no slow/expensive draw/painting is required: only a simple blitbit for each checkbox, for example. Using an indexed-color bitmap based on a 4 or 8 colors palette (face, 3D light, 3D dark, transparent/BG; etc) means a single blob only a few hundred bytes in size can represent a chisel-cut bevelled checkbox - while integrating with whatever the user's preferred color scheme is.
----
....of course now we'll just build a UI in Electron, to hell with memory usage or integrating with the user's OS appearance settings. Le sigh.
https://www.operating-system.org/betriebssystem/bsgfx/apple/...
It could be coincidence of course, but...
> my favourite example to point to is how eerily-similar the Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen, and Dassault Rafale all look - even entirely indistinguishable at an air-show in-person - despite having zero shared pedigree
Considering that France/Dassault was initially part of the Eurofighter / European Fighter Aircraft (EFA) project, I'm not sure if that's the best example to make your point.
They were functionally just fine; good even compared to some modern abominations.
But the look was just plain and ugly, even compared to some alternatives at the time.
> Things started going downhill, in my opinion, with the Windows XP "Fisher-Price" Luna interface and the Microsoft Office 2007 ribbon.
Yeah I just ran it with 2000-compatible look; still ugly but at least not wasting screen space
(If it helps, I do agree with you about those years being the most… design-coordinated: when Office felt like part of Windows)
(I like to think that Visual Studio 2026 proves that the company can still do good desktop UI design; but it doesn’t help that every major first-party product is now using their own silo’d UI framework; wither MFC and CommonControls, I guess)
This was mostly because we were just starting to see computers supporting large bitmapped screen resolutions at this point; but VRAM was still tiny during this period, and so drawing to off-screen buffers, and then compositing those buffers together, wasn't really a thing computers could afford to do while running at these high resolutions.
Windows GDI + COMCTL32, incl. their control drawing routines, their damage tracking for partial redraw, etc., were collectively optimized by some real x86-assembly wizards to do the absolute minimum amount of computation and blitting possible to overdraw just what had changed each frame, right onto the screen buffer.
On the other hand, what Windows didn't yet support in this era was DirectDraw — i.e. the ability of an app to reserve a part of the screen buffer to draw on itself (or to "run fullscreen" where Windows itself releases its screen-buffer entirely.) Windows apps were windowed apps; and the only way to draw into those windows was to tell Windows GDI to draw for you.
This gave developers of this era three options, if they wanted to create a graphical app or game that did something "fancy":
1. Make it a DOS app. You could do whatever you wanted, but it'd be higher-friction for Windows users (they'd have to essentially exit Windows to run your program), and you'd have to do all that UI-drawing assembly-wizardry yourself.
2. Create your own library of controls, that ultimately draw using GDI, the same way that the Windows common controls do. Or license some other vendor's library of controls. Where that vendor, out of a desire for their controls to be as widely-applicable as possible, probably designed them to blend in with the Windows common controls.
3. Give up and just use the Windows common controls. But be creative about it.
#3 is where games like Minesweeper and Chip's Challenge came from — they're both essentially just Windows built-in grid controls, where each cell contains a Windows built-in button control, where those buttons can be clicked to interact with the game, and where those buttons' image labels are then collectively updated (with icons from the program's own icon resources, I believe?) to display the new game state.
For better or worse, this period was thus when Microsoft was a tastemaker in UI design. Before this period, early Windows just looked like any other early graphical OS; and after this period, computers had become powerful enough to support redrawing arbitrary windowed UI at 60Hz through APIs like DirectDraw. It was only in this short time where compute and memory bottlenecks, plus a hard encapsulation boundary around the ability of apps to draw to the screen, forced basically every Windows app/game to "look like" a Windows app/game.
And so, necessarily, this is the period where all the best examples of what we remember as "Windows-paradigm UI design" come from.
> This gave developers of this era three options, if they wanted to create a graphical app or game that did something "fancy":
> 1. Make it a DOS app.
This vaguely reminds me of WinG[0][1] - the precursor to DirectDraw. It existed only briefly ~ 1994-95.
My vague "understanding" of it was to make DOS games easier to port to Windows. They'd do "quick game graphics stuff" on Device Independent Bitmaps, and WinG would take care of the hardware details.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WinG
[1] https://www.gamedeveloper.com/programming/a-whirlwind-tour-o...
I talked with the programmer for the 16-bit Windows calculator app, calc.exe.
Any naive programmer with a first-reading of Charles Petzold's Programming Windows book would assume each button in the calculator app was an actual Windows button control.
Nope.
All those calculator buttons, back when Windows first shipped, used up too many resources.
So the buttons were drawn and the app did hit-testing to see if a button was mouse-clicked. see https://www.basicinputoutput.com/2017/08/windows-calculator-... for a pic of the 16-bit Windows calculator app.
Ribbon also has a similar research behind it, just like Windows 95. For what they designed it, allowing beginners to discover all the functionality that's available, it works perfectly.
I think most of the complaints from the tech circles are completely unfounded in reality. Many non-tech people and younger ones actually prefer using Ribbon. I also like it since it is very tastefully made for Office. 2010 was my favorite Office UI. It actually doesn't get rid of shortcuts either. Most of the Office 2003 ones were preserved to not break the workflow of power users.
Where Ribbon doesn't work is when you take out the contextual activation out of it. Most companies copied it in a very stupid way. They just copied how it looks. The way it is implemented in Sibelius, WinDBG or PDFXChange is very bad.
Well, yes, but that observation doesn't prove the point you think it does.
People who were highly experienced with previous non-ribbon versions of Office, disliked the ribbon, because the ribbon is essentially a "tutorial mode" for Office.
The ribbon reduces cognitive load on people unfamiliar with Office, by boiling down the use of Office apps to a set of primary user-stories (these becoming the app's ribbon's tabs), and then preferentially exposing the most-commonly-desired features one might want to engage with during each of these user stories, as bigger, friendlier, more self-describing buttons and dropdowns under each of these user-story tabs.
The Ribbon works great as a discovery mechanism for functionality. If an app's toplevel menu is like the index in a reference book, then an app Ribbon is like a set of Getting Started guides.
But a Ribbon does nothing to accelerate the usage of an app for people who've already come to grips with the app, and so already knew where things were in the app's top-level menu, maybe having memorized how to activate those menu items with keyboard accelerators, etc. These people don't need Getting Started guides being shoved in their face! To these people, a Ribbon is just a second index to some random subset of the features they use, that takes longer to navigate than the primary index they're already familiar with; and which, unlike the primary index, isn't organized into categories in a way that's common/systematic among other apps for the OS (and so doesn't respond to expected top-level-menu keyboard accelerators, etc, etc.)
I think apps like Photoshop have since figured out what people really want here: a UI layout ("workspace") selector, offering different UI layouts for new users ("Basic" layout) vs. experienced users ("Full" layout); and even different UI layouts for users with different high-level use-cases such that they have a known set of applicable user-stories. A Ribbon is perfect for the "Basic" layout; but in a "Full" layout, it can probably go away.
Really, the most efficient interfaces are the old-style pure text mode mainframe forms, where a power user can tab through fields faster than a 3270-style terminal emulator can render them.
It was different from Word 2003, but that was about all the bad you could say for it from the 'power user' perspective.
In the linked case study on Windows 95 they specifically tried this, creating a separate beginner mode for the Windows shell. Their conclusion was that it was a bad idea and scrapped it because it doesn't allow for organic learning and growth of a beginner into a power user on account of the wall between modes. Instead they centralized common tasks into the Start menu. I'm not sure how you would translate that learning to the design of Office or Photoshop though. Maybe something like Ribbon, but as a fixed "press here to do common actions" button in the app? Then next to that "start button" put the full power user index of categorized menu buttons?
It has three modes: Simple, Advanced, Expert. They are all the same UI design, all it does is hide some less common settings to not overwhelm users. Each level is also associated with a colour, and next to each setting is a small dot with that colour: this allows you to quickly scan for the more common settings even if you showed all of them at Expert. At Expert there are easily over a thousand different settings organised into a 2-level hierarchy.
Docs on this feature: https://help.prusa3d.com/article/simple-advanced-expert-mode...
I wrote a blog post that has some screenshots from the settings pages (5th image for example): https://vorpal.se/posts/2025/jun/23/3d-printing-with-unconve...
It's especially tricky because things are contextual. I use Helix as an editor which has a steeper learning curve than, say, VSCode, but is way faster once you're up and running with it.
But by contrast, I also really like LazyGit, which is a lot quicker to learn than the git CLI, but since all I do is branch, commit an push, makes my workflow a lot more efficient.
There's such a complex series of trade offs, especially if products want to balance bith. I always feel a little sad how much interfaces have skewed towards user friendliness over power. Sometimes it feels like we've ended up in a world of hurdy-gurdies with no violins.
[0] https://benrutter.codeberg.page/site/posts/learning-curves/
They would, or should, be using keyboard shortcuts anyway.
I think the best parts of it could be replicated by just combining tabs and traditional toolbars, but that’s not complex enough of a concept to need a dedicated moniker.
When it first came out, I did studies of myself using it vs. the older toolbared versions of Word and Excel, and found I was quantifiably slower. This was after spending enough time to familiarize myself with it and get over any learning curve.
EFFICIENCY
The biggest problem is it introduced more clicks to get things done - in some cases twice as many or more. Having to "tab" to the correct ribbon pane introduces an extra click for every task that used to be one click away, unless the button happens to be on the same tab. Unfortunately the grouping wasn't as well thought out as it could have been. It was designed with a strong bias for "discoverability" over efficiency, and I found with many repetitive tasks that I commonly carried out, I was constantly having to switch back and forth between tabs. That doesn't even get into the extra clicks required for fancier elements like dropdowns, etc. And certain panes they couldn't figure out where to put are clearly "bolted" on.
KEYBOARD SHORTCUTS
At the same time, Microsoft de-emphasized keyboard accelerators. So where the old toolbar used to hint you the keyboard shortcut in a tooltip every time you rested your mouse over a button, the new one doesn't - making it unlikely users will ever learn the powerful key combos that enable more rapid interaction and reduce RSI caused by mousing (repetitive strain injury). In my case this manifests as physical pain, so I'm very aware of wasteful gestures.
SCREEN REAL ESTATE
The amount of text in the button captions on the ribbon is also excessive. It really isn't a toolbar at all, more of a fancy dropdown menu that's been pivoted horizontally instead of vertical. It turned the menu bar, which used to be a nice, compact, single line, into something that now takes up ~4x as much vertical screen real estate. As most users' monitors are in landscape orientation, vertical space is scare to start with; congratulations you just wasted more of those precious pixels, robbing me of space to look at what I really care about which is the document or whatever thing I'm actually working on.
DISCOVERABILITY
You used to be able to get a good sense of most software's major functionality by strolling through all the menu options. Mastery (or at least proficiency) was straightforward. With the more dynamic paradigm Microsoft adopted along with the Ribbon, there's lots of functionality you don't even see until you're in a new situation (or that's hidden to the responsive window layout, which is ironic - instead of making the thing more compact, they made portions of it disappear if your window is too small). I grant some may argue this has benefits for not appearing as overwhelming to new users (although personally I've always found clean, uniform, well thought out menus to be less jarring than the scattered and more artistically inclined ribbon). But easing the learning curve had the trade off of making those users perceptually stuck in "beginner" mode. They can't customize the ribbon as meaningfully (I used to always tailor the toolbar by removing all the icons I already knew the keyboard shortcuts for, adding some buttons that were missing like Strikethrough, and move it to the same row as the menu bar to maximize clientarea space)
In my case, after trying out the new versions for a year, I made an intentional decision to go back to the 2003 versions of Word and Excel, and never look back (forward?). They are my daily drivers. These days, I barely touch modern versions of Word and Excel, except for the very rare instance I actually need a specific new feature (i.e. a spreadsheet with more than 65k rows). If someone asks me to use the new version, I simply refuse (which has never been a showstopper - my work quality is preeminent, and once you get past policy bureaucracy it turns out clients/employers don't care what tool I use to get it done).
The whole point of a toolbar was always to be a place you could pin commands you want instant access to, just a click away. The ribbon shredded that paradigm, and in my opinion took us a marked step backward in computing. It fails across several metrics, compared to regular toolbars. I wanted to blog about it at the time in hopes of convincing the world it was a mistake, but didn't have the free time. 20 years later, I'm curious if more people share these sentiments and acknowledge its shortcomings.
Although it is bad that it does not display the keyboard shortcuts, you can push ALT and then it will tell you which letter to push next. (I just guessed that pushing ALT might do something (possibly display a menu?), and I was correct (it did not display another menu, but it did help).) This is not quite as good as using the other keys such as CTRL, or numbered function keys, but it is possible.
(I do not use those programs on my own computer, but on some other computers I sometimes have to, and this helps, although not as well as it would to use menus and other stuff instead. However, in some cases I was able to use it because of knowledge of older versions of Microsoft Office; many of the keyboard commands are the same.)
I think the menu bar is much better, and toolbars should not be needed for most things. With the menu bar it will underline the letters to push with ALT and also will tell you what other keys to use (if any) for that command. (One thing that a toolbar is helpful for is to display status of various functions that can change, such as the current font. Due to that, you might still have a toolbar, but you do not need to put everything in the toolbar. Perhaps combine the toolbar with the status bar to make it compact.)
(Something else that would improve these word processing software would be the "reveal codes" like Word Perfect. A good implementation of reveal codes would avoid some of the problems of WYSIWYG. For spreadsheet software, arranging the grid into zones, and assigning properties (including formatting and formulas) to zones, and making references work with zones, etc, would be helpful, but I don't know that any existing software does that.)
In my own software I do try to make the display compact so that there is more room for other stuff, instead of needing to put all of the commands and other stuff taking up too much space in the screen. Good documentation is helpful to make it understandable; this would work much better than trying to design the software to not need documentation, since then the lack of doumentation makes it difficult to understand.
I got MS Office 97 working in Wine recently, and it's still shockingly capable. There are lots of formatting options, it can read my system TTF fonts, and it's since it's nearly thirty-year-old software, it runs ridiculously fast on modern computers.
I don't feel like MS has added many more features to Office that I actually care about, but I feel like the software has gotten progressively slower.
Earlier Word/CorelDraw/etc had a thin toolbar with lots of functionality. Barely occupied any space at just 800x600 resolution.
Nowadays, the ribbon and all other junk occupy a huge portion of the screen, even at 1920x1080.
It’s amazing how little screen area today actually shows the useful part of a document.
Instead of the Ribbon, a thin context sensitive toolbar would have been more useful.
Having used Office products for 30+, my most-used feature of the Ribbon is Search, because I don't have time to waste hunting through a poorly-organised heap.
Also, classic button bars were customizable. You could add/remove/group buttons in any order you like. And there were lots and lots of buttons that were not present in any of the default toolbars. The ribbon is fixed AFAIK.
You can't really blame MS that around the same time screen manufacturers started to switch to 16:9 for cost reasons and cheap laptops all only offered a 1366x786 resolution.
A wider aspect ratio means that a horizontal line takes up a larger percentage of the overall screen and is more costly.
I much prefer menus with toolbars that have only the most used functions.
How many beginners were there in 2007? Hardly any, PC and "Word" penetration was pretty close to 100%. We are still stuck with "beginners have to figure this out" interfaces in 2026.
Sure, but where are the beginners are we talking about? In 2007, Microsoft office had long reached dominance in the workplace and school such that the only beginners are students learning word prcessing for the first time.
Mine too. Office 2010 was what made me switch back to Windows after using Linux and OpenOffice for years. I found the ribbons to be perfect for my use of Office. They usually automatically focused on the task at hand. Everything else was just a click away. Advanced stuff stayed in the menu. And, at least for me, it helped discoverability of features.
To prove my point, you could try loading some of the USB drivers for DOS or one of the ISA PnP configuration utilities (such as ICU - Intel Configuration Utility), see how fast it boots then!
Also, if you left the network config untouched, it defaults to TCPIP+DHCP, and when DHCP doesn't respond (cable unplugged), it's another 30s delay. Win311 didn't have TCPIP unless you install it manually. It also asks you to configure it during installation - less likely to select DHCP if you don't have it. And then, in Win311, network is started by DOS (NET START in autoexec.bat), not by Windows.
You are probably thinking of Win98 menu where they added IE.
Win95 start menu opens instantly on any computer that can run it. You either belive me or not.
Ok man, sure. Go play with chatgpt and it will always tell you how right you are :)
It wasn't always instant on boot on my 486-SLC 33 MHz with 8 MB of memory but at most several to ten seconds for it to appear on first boot after clicking.
And on the Pentium MMX that I'm running now it's always instant on Windows 98 SE.
Not wanting spaces in file names is certainly a bold opinion! I think you'll find yourself in a very small minority there.
The is a setting in Explorer, but it does not affect all file types; some (such as .lnk) are not affected by that setting and hide the extension anyways.
eg. The 'breathing status light' that lit up the room at night due to extreme brightness which meant every macbook of the era had stickers or tape over the LED with endless Q&A's of "How do i turn the annoying light off? You can't!". This crap design was met by articles extolling the subtle sign wave and off white hue. I kid you not. https://avital.ca/notes/a-closer-look-at-apples-breathing-li...
Apple today seem to have acknowledged their mistake here and taken away status lights completely (also a crappy design hailed as amazing since they've just gone to the other extreme) which highlights the fact that no matter what they do they're hailed as being amazing at design, even when it's contradictory from their own previous 'amazing designs'.
Apple doesn't just get a pass on crappy design. It gets endless articles praising the virtues of everything they do even when, if you think about what they did for even a second you'd realize, "that's actually just plain crap design".
You tap an icon that looks like the outline of a rectangle with an arrow pointing up. Then you tap the name of the printer. Then you tap another rectangle with an up arrow and then tap the word "Print".
I may have got the precise steps wrong but it really is that abstruse to print something on a tablet. Never mind that mDNS/Bonjour has done its thing - the steps to actually indicate that you want to print is frankly weird.
What on earth is that box with an up arrow actually supposed to mean? Why does the interface switch from icons to text?
Arguably, it's a bit off that you share a document with a printer in order to print it, but I feel like printing is no longer so common as to require a dedicated button everywhere; and printing from a phone still seems like a novelty to me (but I do use it; it feels odd, but useful and I know lots of people have no computer to print from)
Macs have the problem multiple times over, because now they have the normal menu bar and toolbar, and a Share menu that just gets arbitrary stuff dumped into by App Store apps, and the Services menu that shows up in some contexts but not others, and the Quick Actions menu that shows up in some contexts but not others, and some services can just add things directly to right click menus.
I guess printing it to paper is a form of sharing so they may have the last laugh.
"Sending" a file to another disc or on the network is non-transformative. At the far end, it's still a file.
But "printing" is inherently transformative-- you're expecting to get something clearly not a file (print-to-file pseudo-printers excepted).
I can see the desire for minimalism-- having seperate rows for "share/send" and "print" is, well, two seperate rows. But if you offer adaptable and configurable interfaces, I could see suppressing one or both depending on context or user preferences. (You have no external drives or registered share-recipients? No "Send To/Share")
To me there seems to be more difference between sending and share. One is pushing something somewhere, the other implies making it available for someone/thing to pull.
I'm not particularly saying you're wrong btw. We are talking metaphors, and there's no 'correct' way to do it.
You've mangled the steps. You only press one Action icon in this sequence, then you select Print, then you need to select the printer and any other options, then you tap Print. Which of these steps do you think 'abstruse'?
Are you suggesting they should use a little icon of a printer, peripheral that takes many wildly different forms, instead of the word Print?
I may have got the steps wrong but I do recall that the Action icon was again to the left of the Print text that performed the actual print.
Again, why does the UI switch from icons to text arbitrarily? If Action is Action then label it Action and not an icon of a broken rectangle with an up arrow. That means nothing and is abstruse.
I'm an IT consultant and my step mum is not. Neither of us had any idea what the Action icon means. I do now (it's now filed along with burger menu and other UI wankery).
An icon of a printer is at least relatable. That Action thingie isn't.
But liquid glass and insane amount of bugs that arrived with it is killing me.
It was a poorly thought out design of aesthetics over ergonomics.
loved battery level indicators on old macbooks too, they kind of brought it back with led on magsafe except this new led is more annoying.
The charger emitted an annoying high pitch sound so I'd have to unplug it.
And the device turned itself on randomly at night, and the CD-ROM reader and fans would spin up and make noise.
I've now used a macbook air for work and I noticed that even when in "standby" for a week my router had a DHCP lease for it. So they still turn on for no reason, but at least the lack of fans and the fact that I can now use a decent usbc charger means they don't wake me up any more.
Feel free to downvote, this one is meant for it :)
> unless you have already used the other colours and now you need more colours
In that case you will end up with Christmas decorations. Better solution is usually placement and form.
I’m still trying to understand who came with the idea of charging the mouse from under, instead of from a position that would allow to use the mouse while charging…
At the time, I remember someone claimed that the reason was that they were afraid people could leave it plugged in for convenience. Apple thought that would lead to a worse experience because their mouse was designed to be used wirelessly. I think it was actually more related to aesthetic "icks" by the designers, because people would have disconnected the cable if it was in the way.
There are plenty of contenders for 'worst ideas they ever had' and this just isn't up there.
That's a quote from Steve Jobs about how basically all of their competition (except Google) had made the mistake of trying to ship desktop software on phones. The problem with the stylus is that it's a hardware workaround for a software problem: the sort of cost-reduced engineering you get when a company wants to "have a mobile strategy" without actually putting in the time and effort to make something good.
The Magic Mouse is the exact same kind of "we couldn't care less" cost-reduction. The charging port is on the bottom because that's the only place you can put a charging port with the existing all-glass design. Because they re-used an existing design intended for removable batteries. This is such an uncharacteristically un-Apple move, and one so obviously detrimental to the design of the device, that people (including myself) actually psyopped themselves into thinking Apple had deliberately designed the mouse to enforce wireless usage.
And, to be clear, Apple has never done that.
All their other peripherals with rechargeable batteries in them will let you use them fully wired if you plug them in. In fact, if you somehow engineered a way to move the charging port somewhere less stupid, the Magic Mouse probably would work plugged-in, too.
If you see a charging port on the bottom, they blew it.
It's still one of the worst ideas. Insult to injury.
A lot of people really will just anxiously leave the cable in the whole time if given the opportunity. I have a wired/wireless Logitech mouse and I confess that I hardly ever remove the cable. Between this, and the space and connector issues of adding a "normal" cable connection as referred to in the grandparent, we have two reasons to think that Apple's decision wasn't all that clearly bad, let alone one of their worst.
The original USB mouse (for the first iMac) was round, so you couldn't orient it in your hand without looking at it constantly.
And it came with a very short cord (because there was a port on the right side of the keyboard to plug it into). But then the laptops got updated with USB ports and they were only on the LEFT side of the case.
For at least a year or two you could not buy an Apple mouse for your Apple PowerBook and use it in your right hand, because the cord was too short to go around the case.
Eventually they shipped a "Pro" mouse with revolutionary elongated shape and longer cord. (...and optical tracking, and what looked like zero buttons, which were pretty neat)
If this were a £10 mouse then this excuse might be valid, but it isn't.
For whatever reason they won’t work when hooked up to a charger and of course the moment you need them most the batteries have gone dead so you must charge…
At this point I can’t help but think that the people who design these things really hate parents
I don't have a source for this, but I'm pretty sure I've read something like that a long time ago.
Computers are not fashion or status symbol they are a tool. Although I do have a "ice" motherboard..
Or just ship a wired version for the people who want that.
Yes it's very apple to force users to use devices how Apple wants, but that isn't a particularly good reason.
I hate myself every time I settle for yet another disposable Microsoft mouse.
Though, I would have killed for an Apple Pencil, back when I was a CAD jockey.
For me, the butterfly keyboard was Apple's mostest worstest user interface design decision.
(Doubly so because it persisted for so long. I love that Apple (and others) try new things. But I don't understand commitment to design failures.)
Source: I've been an Apple partisan since the Apple ][. Even stubbornly resisting Amiga's siren call.
I really liked the butterfly kb. It was responsive, and you could hit the key cap anywhere and it would register.*
Subsequent mac book keyboards imo are all terrible and suffer from the terrible issue of sponge-ness that means i can literally press a key cap in a slightly off centre location and it Does Not Register. Its like the key movement is separate from the actuation. I have way more mis key and missing letter using later post butterfly kbs than i ever did. The worst part is this is ‘normal’ and not a fault. You just have to press harder and in the centre.
* except when it was in for work i had 3x top case replaced on my old mbp
Who cares if you can't press a key on the very edge, as long as pressing in the proper spot _always_ works? The one that did accept blatant mis-presses was broken often enough to completely overwhelm any benefits, because it can't accept _any_ presses when it's in for repairs!
"I like the keyboard that let me be a bad typist, even though I had to get it replaced 3 times, and that lack of robustness actually interfered with my work." Are you listening to yourselves?
My powerbook was the last apple laptop I really enjoyed.
I'm glad people are finally saying it. Eat your heart out, Nilay.
Then we lost even more taste, and eventually the functionality and user friendlyness, on both sides of the isle.
With windows the crash was progressive so you have time to save and prepare.
I also have fond memories of windows 2000. It was rock steady and polished. I preferred it over system 8 and even OS X which had to many Unix conventions.
Windows 2000 was incredible. Running it after having wrestled with 98SE was like getting teleported from a garbage dump to sunny meadow with a fresh ocean breeze. I've never seen machines transform quite as radically as they did when upgrading from something earlier to 2000.
The difference for me was "taste" was the goal, look good or get things done. For me getting things done won every time.
No new OS today will ever be used by any significant number of people without 1) a working web browser and 2) hardware support for laptops, phones, wifi cards... you know... stuff people already have.
SerenityOS might get a working browser. Not very likely, but it might get it. The #2 condition will only be solved if it somehow "imports" Linux drivers or wrap Windows binary drivers in a compatibility layer (like Linux used to have for wifi).
Their policy to not use any external code or libraries is what will finally kill the project. It's simply not possible for them to rewrite any significant portion of drivers needed. Not even Linux can keep up and they have lots of contributors from the hardware industry.
They could probably make SerenityOS a VM-only OS. That could work. Run Linux as a HAL and SerenityOS as a UI on top. But then, why not write a complete Linux userspace to replace Gnu?
In the last decade+ of using GNU/Linux, I've also become very attached to bitmap fonts and simple solid colors, while I've grown to dislike curves and transparency. So sometimes I see a screenshot of some very old Mac OS version I never even used, and it just looks good, sharp, and clean to me, no real nostalgia involved.
I think SerenityOS's vision of a unix-like environment with classic Windows UI is genius. I don't follow the project that closely, but on paper it does seem like a good idea.
The company treats good design almost like a marketing expense only worth doing if it creates short term brand perception changes. Throughout its history it's had moments of great design when a particular leader creates a culture that promotes it, but inevitably someone higher up rotates out that leader and the culture resets.
That has been the pattern with Windows, Zune / Windows Phone, Xbox, Surface, and many other consumer facing products.
I think Jobs was right about Microsoft later on, but they certainly had taste during their peak.
Modern Windows doesn't feel snappy anymore, even thought we have the most powerful computers we've ever had.
Sometimes I use some old Win32 apps, and they feel so responsive and light...
Why is that though? Why does that appear to have to be the case given that neither seems anble to do annything but get worse nowadays? And why hasn’t any other player managed to step in and fill that void?
Clearly there are some broader forces and trends at play here.
Is it pressure to monetize in ever more intrusive, user-hostile, and “micro-tiresome” ways? Is it that they don’t really have to compete any more, or at least not with eachother?
What is going on here? I don’t understand. But I wish I did because then a way out might be easier to discern. Because - I still don’t think - Linux on the desktop (taking one aspect of the problem) is still necessarily ready to be the answer - certainly not outside of the technology, engineering, and scientific niches.
the liquid glass designers (and probably their managers and design vps) should be repeatedly punched in the face with that video
What a waste screen real estate, IMO. The only reason it's still around is because screens are now 2X bigger, and screen real estate has become cheaper.
It's no wonder XFCE and to lesser extent Mate are popular, XFCE4 does a nice job of being a handy tool and not in-your-face design manifest.
It is no accident that to this day Demoscene is all about Spectrum, C64, CPC, MSX, Atari, Amiga, PC and there is hardly any retrogaming/demoscene focus of Apple hardware.
Regarding Windows, I would place Windows 95, NT 4.0, 2000 and 7 as my favourite UI flavour ones.
This is a very good write-up. There's no way this level of testing and dedication could have resulted in the execrable shitshow that is Windows today.
Mac OS is going backward with accelerating speed, too. They had just started to recover from Jony Ive when they put a packaging designer in charge of UI... resulting in the "Liquid Glass" debacle, and all the other incompetent UI changes that accompanied Tahoe's rollout.
I wonder if its nearly time to say goodbye to the apple ecosystem. Those framework laptops look snazzy.
In the mid-1980s, the Apple IIc and IIGS were built to Apple's "Snow White" design language and looked slicker than most contemporaries.
The first example I remember was ~2003ish when MS Office did a big redesign and got much bigger toolbars. That they were big is a matter of taste but that's not where I'm going with this. No, the issue was that they made too easy to ACCIDENTALLY mess up the UI. They added all kinds of customization (which is fine) but then made it so just dragging a little too long an a button would let you move the button somewhere else. So, grandpa drags the button, possible off the bar, deleting it, and now for all intents and purposes the app is unusable to him. IMO, the customization options should be buried deeper where they can't happen by accident.
This "ACCIDENTAL" modification is all the rage now. On iPhone, holding on the lock screen puts the phone in "edit the lock screen mode". Several family members have asked why the image they put on the lock screen was gone. It was because they "butt edited the screen". Put the phone in their pocket and it felt a press and went into edit mode and edited the lock screen. AFAIK, almost no one needs this shortcut. It would be fine to just go into Settings->Wallpaper->Lockscreen or something like that. But, I'm just guessing (1) some UX designer needed something todo (2) someone working on lockscreen options got tired of doing the Settings->Wallpaper->Lockscreen dance and put in a shortcut that no-one but them needs.
This same issue is all over the place. The iPhone's lockscreen while charging mode has the same issue. The user (me) picks the clock face I want. And, one of 10 times I reach for the phone from the charging stand I accidently touch the screen which changes the face. I NEVER NEED THIS. Again, this should be buried in Settings->Lockscreen->Clock Face. The shortcut a net negative.
There are many more.
There are a lot of things in older UIs that I think every developer should have hands-on experience with, eg. using nested menus in classic Mac OS; using an MDI application on Windows 9x; using the file browser and dock on NeXTSTEP; using X11 with focus follows mouse; anything with pie menus. Not because those things are necessarily the right choices for today's GUIs, but because there are valuable lessons to be learned from them, and reading an article like this or studying an old HIG document doesn't have the same impact.
This is why I hate the flashlight and camera buttons on the lock screen - which you can activate without unlocking. When you have your hands in your pockets during cold weather you’ll suddenly be ”filming”… I never use the camera on my phone anyway. Thankfully at some point they added support for removing them.
But I deal with this for my parents ALL THE TIME. They manage to delete core, included iOS apps every month or two; in addition to invoking other bizarre configuration options that I've never seen in my life (and that make no sense and shouldn't exist).
Over and over I have to visit the bizarre app graveyard that exists beyond the last iOS screen... the "app library," and restore something they managed to move there. As far as I can tell, relegating an app there from the home screen is a multi-step, long-press-riddled process. How do they keep doing it accidentally? I have no idea.
And several times my mom has ended up with an idiotic keyboard stretched across the middle of her iPad's screen, with no way to fix or dismiss it. Even typing this out right now, I don't remember WTF causes it or how we fixed it.
Power users understand many different levels. Beginner/average -> professional -> advanced -> power user. But the average designers nowadays only understand two things: average, and everything beyond that. This is why professional, advanced, and obscure features are all just one long-press away - they literally have no idea which category each feature falls into, so they're all equally valid.
Unless something like https://kde.org/announcements/plasma/5/5.12.0/spectacle-noti... is what you consider to be passable looking of course.
I'll take function over for every day. (I daily drive KDE, it works fine and doesn't get in my way. Most of the time I'm either in my editor or the terminal emulator anyway.)
But I also agree. KDE is pretty close to my ideal for a desktop environment. It's pretty close to a windows 7 feel which is perfect for me.
The screenshot you posted is likely from KDE Plasma. The project don't have much funding to hire a UI/UX designer IMHO.
Well this is the point. I was countering the claim that flat UI doesn't require any design talent to look passable.
I feel like UX designers don't realize that their job should have a natural tailing off as we discover and lock in the good ideas and discard the bad. Even if the ideas aren't that great, users can at least get good at however it does work, if it stays constant. Instead, we just get more dice rolls, eyecandy, and frustration.
I for one hate the power dynamic that OS and website designers have over me. They can just sneak into my house and rearrange my furniture on a whim. Even if it sucks, I would adapt to it if it stayed constant! Instead I both hate it and can't learn it, because everything is different and keeps changing when I least expect it.
At this point my brain has given into learned helplessness and won't retain much of anything at all, but it's next-level figured out that it's useless.
Designers seem to have a bad track record, and it's getting worse.
Sorry, designers.
Eg, MacOS's new system preferences panel is worse than the old one. And its stupid putting the windows start menu in the middle of the screen, where you can't as easily click it with the mouse.
The start button is eternal!
We see it in the FOSS world too with GNOME.
Designing a programming language is mostly about usability. I'll be giving a talk about that in April at Yale. It's a fun topic!
I feel like there's a taste issue which is similar to tabs vs spaces or other coding styles. Some languages kind of solve this with auto-formatting but just because they choose a standard doesn't mean their standard is as readable as some other.
In languages one taste issue that comes to mind. Many languages have the invisible scope issue
foo = bar
Me though, I want the line to be understandable with as little external context as possible. I don't want to have to dig up 10, 50, 100 lines to see if a local foo has been defined or if it's member. So like python or typescript. I like foo has to be this.foo or self.foo if you want it assign the current object's member. Most programmers seem to agree because they end up using mFoo or foo_ or some naming convention to work around the issue but I think I'd prefer the language to enforce it.
I don't know which if any languages make all the different scopes more explicit.
So far I haven't liked Swift though which seems more explicit. Even though it's more explicit in some areas I feel like the majority of my time is typing boilerplate and fixing trivial syntax errors. I know programming requires syntax and, as an example, I include semicolons everywhere in JavaScript even though they are not required. That said, I would like to get all the time back in my life where I compiled some C++ only to be told "error: missing semicolon at end of class definition" or "error: extra semicolon at end of member function declaration". It feels like a language should fix this stuff for the dumb human rather than make the human do random tedious work. I get there might be times where it's ambiguous but I wonder if it's also a language design issue.
And fatal accidents due to poorly thought out control systems do occur.
https://www.fastcompany.com/1669720/how-lousy-cockpit-design...
Also fwiw using the word "intuitive" is an instant sign of someone not being a great designer.
The control stick movements, for example, are intuitive. (Early aircraft did not have control sticks!)
For a crazy example, airplane jargon has specific meanings. "Takeoff Power" officially means full power to take off with. Makes intuitive sense, right? Well, one day the pilot needed to abort a landing, and yelled "takeoff power". The copilot heard "take off power" (note the space), chopped the power, and the airliner crashed. The jargon was changed to "full power".
The Air Force, however, had their own jargon and stuck with "Takeoff Power", until one day they had the same accident and changed the jargon.
For another example, the levers for the flaps have a knob on them shaped like a flap. This way, the pilot has tactile feedback that his hands are on the right lever, and he doesn't need to take his eyes off his other tasks.
For a third example, cockpit designers put in a warning horn for a stall warning. It worked great, and so they put in other warning horns, each with a distinct sound. Unfortunately, the pilots would confuse them, and do the wrong thing. So the "horn" is now a voice that says "stall" (or something like that).
Using words for aural indicators still has not percolated out of the aviation industry. You don't have any for your car, for example. Just chimes, beeps, buzzes, and other primitive and hopeless sounds. Oh, lest I forget to mention, the stupid incomprehensible icons.
I love it. It really captures the seemingly endless new digital world that was emerging in the 90’s and in many ways is still evolving 30 years later.
I love the promo video they made too: https://youtu.be/KNLDLVJZx0o
I love it so much I wrote a blog post inspired by it: https://catskull.net/where-do-you-want-to-go-today.html
Where do you want to go today?
2014: Where do we want to go today?
2024: Here's where we're going today.
Not fussed. It's my information that i can't keep close to home.
> The Windows 95 user interface design team was formed in October, 1992... The number of people oscillated during the project but was approximately twelve. The software developers dedicated to implementing the user interface accounted for another twelve or so people
I still don't understand what happened starting around 2010-ish (from my observations at the time) that we went from being able to handle a company's worth of software with 30 people, to needing 30 people for every individual project. Startups with minor products had team-pages with 15 people.
Team bloat is a real issue but I don't think this case is relevant.
Of course I didnt discover anything else: I was afraid of clicking "Start", because I dindt know what that was that going to start, and the computer wasnt mine to brick.
https://asktog.com/atc/principles-of-interaction-design/
Tog was the original design engineer for the Mac, and arguably one of the first true HCI engineers.
Then read the rest of his website. He goes into where Windows tried to copy Mac and got it horribly wrong.
One of my favorite examples is menu placement. The reason the Mac menus are at the top is because the edges of the screen provide an infinite click target in one direction. So you just go to the top to find what you want. With Windows, the menu was at the top of each Window, making a tiny click target. Then when you maximized the window, the menu was at the top, but with a few pixels of unclickable border. So it looked like the Mac but was infinitely worse.
If you're making a UI, you should read all of Tog's writings.
On a 1984 Mac, you had like 512x384 pixels and a system that could barely run one program at a time. There was little to no possible uncertainty as to who owned the menu bar. (Could desk accessories even take control of the menu bar?)
But once you got larger resolutions and the ability to have multiple full-size programs running at once, the menu bar could belong to any of them. Now, theoretically, you should notice which is the currently active window and assume it owns the menu bar, but ISTR scenarios where you'd close the window but the program would still be running, owning the menu bar, or the "active" window was less visually prominent due to task switching, etc.
The Windows design-- placing the menu inside the window it controls-- avoids any ambiguity there. Clicking "File-Save" in Notepad couldn't possibly be interpreted as trying to do anything to the Paintbrush window next to it.
Under Windows, one can access the app's menubar by pressing the ALT key to move focus up to the menubar and use the cursor keys to navigate along the menubar. If you know the letter associated with the top-level menu (shown as underlined), then ALT-[letter] would access that top-level menu (typically ALT-F would get you to the File menu). So the Windows user wouldn't have to move the mouse at all, Fitt's Law to the max (or is it min? whatever, it's instant access).
For the ultrawide monitors these days (width >= 4Kpx), if you have an app window maximized (or even spanning more than half the screen), accessing the menu via mouse is just terrible ergonomics on any major OS.
"Infinitely worse"? Some people really need to cool off the hyperbole.
Having each window be a self-contained unit is the far better metaphor than making each window transform a global element when it is selected. As well as scaling better for bigger screens. An edge case like that may well be unfortunate, but it could be the price you pay to make the overall better solution.
So now you broke the infinite click target even though it looked like it should have one.
This wasn't just the menu bar either. The first Windows 95-style interfaces didn't extend the start menu click box to the lower left corner of the screen. Not only did you have to get the mouse down there, you had to back off a few pixels in either direction to open the menu. Same with the applications in the task bar.
The concept was similar to NEXTSTEP's dock (that was even licensed by Microsoft for Windows 95), but missed the infinite area aspect that putting it on the screen edge allowed.
On single monitor setups maybe: but on early OS X multi-monitor setups, you then had the farcical situation where the menu would only be shown on the "primary" display, and the secondary display didn't have any menu at all, so to use menus for windows that were on the secondary display, you had to move the cursor onto the other primary display where the menu was for all windows (or use keyboard shortcuts).
I think 10.6/7 (not sure exactly) was when they started putting the menu bar on both displays rather than just the primary.
Meanwhile gtk now puts those on opposite sides of the window title bar by default.
Decades ago, MacOS properly had the close box for windows on the opposite side from minimize etc. widgets; now the one destructive window action could be reasonably safe without confirmation. Then Windows started gaining popularity and nobody ever did it the right way by default again. A pity for the sharp minds at Xerox PARC.
In fact, putting buttons along either _side_ of the windows would be a better fit on the wider aspect screens we use nowadays.
I sincerely hope that one day we could go back to that road. If you want that achieved, please support me to join Apple/Microsoft to become the UI boss, fire all flat-design people and hire a small team to implement the older UI, then give a few passionate talks on EDX and conferences so people who supported flat UI magically support the older UI. They always follow whoever the lead is like headless flies.
LOL.
Windows 95 is a great case study because with that release, Microsoft did more for GUIs than Apple did through the entire decade of the '90s... and beyond.
All of it is now out the window (pun invited). It's a race to the bottom between Microsoft and Apple, with Microsoft having a HUGE head-start. But Apple has really stepped up to the plate with Tahoe, crippling it with big enough UI blunders to keep them in the enshittification game.
When MS gutted the theming engine with the release of Windows 8 (flat rectangles only) I was devastated.
I don’t agree that transparency is always a detractor. Judicious use can be a net positive, but it doesn’t work for all themes and there should be an option to turn it off. Personally I didn’t find the W7 variation of Aero to be bad at all.
...I'm guessing you haven't used Windows 11?
--------
By "rounded corners" are you referring to rounded-off corners in the nonclient area (such that the hWnd's rect is not clipped at all)? If so, then no: those would be rendered using a 9-grid[1] and have always been supported.
If you're referring to how so many fan/community-made msstyles for Windows 10 retain the sharp corners, I understand that's not a limitation of DWM or msstyles, just more that you need to do a lot of legwork when defining nontrivial corners in an msstyles theme; it can be done (there are plenty of examples online, e.g. look for Windows XP's style ported to Windows 10), it's just that most people don't go that far.
-----
[1] In msstyles, the 9-grid defines how a rectangular bitmap is stretched/scaled/tiled to fill a larger area; it's very similar to how CSS image borders are defined with `border-image-slice`.
Whatever the case, rounded corners on the titlebars and window chrome were common in XP/Vista/7 custom msstyles but were nowhere to be seen for 8/8.1 custom msstyles. It was one of the most frustrating aspects of that era of Windows for me.
Then Microsoft buried and ultimately removed the color-scheme editor... just in time for people to realize that inverse schemes suck.
So now Microsoft and Apple have dribbled out hard-coded "dark" themes, which every application developer has had to cobble together support for separately. Windows had this problem solved more than 30 years ago. Think about it. But then they deleted the solution from their product.
At least Apple NEVER had a proper global color palette for its UI. The fact that Microsoft did, but shitcanned it, stands testament to its complete abandonment of anything resembling good design. Hell, you can't even select multiple PNGs in Explorer and say "Open with..." anymore. The option is just totally GONE. Windows is rife with regressions like this. It's unbelievable.
Design is getting shittier and more ignorant daily. It's depressing.
Early experiments with totally new theme were rather unpleasant [2] and Watercolor was abandoned in favor of more familiar 9x looking theme as an option. W11 still comes with that old 9x widgets look - slightly flattened because of that trend but it's still there buried beneath for compatibility reasons. And I'm pretty sure they won't escape with that like Apple did with Aqua away from Platinum.
[1] - https://betawiki.net/wiki/Watercolor
[2] - https://betawiki.net/wiki/Windows_XP_build_2416#Gallery
I think they were so caught off guard by how incredible Mac OS X _looked_, that they didn't realize it wasn't just veneer, but a genuine evolution and improvement of how Mac OS _worked_. This became Apple's competitive advantage for over a decade as Microsoft chased different styles while consistently botching how it would impact usability.
Forcing users to click on graphical elements presents many challenges: what constitutes an "element"; what are its boundaries; when is it active, inactive, disabled, etc.; if it has icons, what do they mean; are interactive elements visually distinguishable from non-interactive elements; and so on.
A good example of bad UI that drives me mad today on Windows 11 is something as simple as resizing windows. Since the modern trend is to have rounded corners on everything, it's not clear where the "grab" area for resizing a window exists anymore. It seems to exist outside of the physical boundary of the window, and the actual activation point is barely a few pixels wide. Apparently this is an issue on macOS as well[1].
Like you, I do have a soft spot for the Windows 2000 GUI in particular, and consider it the pinnacle of Microsoft's designs, but it still feels outdated and inneficient by modern standards. The reason for this is because it follows the visual trends of the era, and it can't accomodate some of the UX improvements newer GUIs have (universal search, tiled/snappable windows, workspaces, etc.).
So, my point is that eschewing graphics as much as possible, and relying on keyboard input to perform operations, gets rid of the graphical ambiguities, minimizes the amount of trend following making the UI feel timeless, and makes the user feel more in command of their experience, making them more efficient and quicker.
This UI doesn't have to be some inaccessible CLI or TUI, although that's certainly an option for power users, but it should generally only serve to enable the user to do their work as easily as possible, and get out of the way the rest of the time. Unfortunately, most modern OSs have teams of designers and developers that need to justify their salary, and a UI that is invisible and rarely changes won't get anyone promoted. But it's certainly possible for power users to build out this UI themselves using some common and popular software. It takes a bit of work, but the benefits far outweigh the time and effort investment.
There are standards and common conventions for a lot of this in the Windows 9X/2000 design language, and even in basic HTML. These challenges could have been solved (for values of) by using them consistently, and I think we might have been there for a little while, at least within the Windows bubble. The fact that we threw all of those out the window with new and worse design, then did that again a few more times just to make sure all the users learned to never bother actually learning the UI, since it will just change on them anyway, doesn't entail that this is an unsolvable problem (well, it might be now, but I doubt it was back in 1995).
> Like you, I do have a soft spot for the Windows 2000 GUI in particular, and consider it the pinnacle of Microsoft's designs, but it still feels outdated and inneficient by modern standards. The reason for this is because it follows the visual trends of the era, and it can't accomodate some of the UX improvements newer GUIs have (universal search, tiled/snappable windows, workspaces, etc.).
I fail to see why any of these features couldn't be implemented within the design constraints of the Windows 9X/2000 design language. There are certainly technical constrains, but I can't see any design constrains. They were never implemented at the time, and those features didn't become relevant until we'd gone through several rounds of different designs, so we never had the opportunity to see how it would work out.
The thing is that GUIs naturally have to evolve to cater to their user base. The "office" metaphor was useful in the 1980s and 90s for making computing familiar to people who were used to "desktops", "folders", "files", etc. Some of these terms still exist today, but the vast majority of users can't relate to it, so it's meaningless to them.
This is why GUIs will always have to change and adapt to trends, which will always cause friction for existing users.
My point is that by minimizing the amount of graphical elements (note: not completely eliminate them), we minimize the amount of this friction. The difficult thing is, of course, maintaining the appropriate balance of all elements while optimizing for usability, which is ultimately very subjective.
But consider that CLIs are effectively timeless. The friction comes from their lack of discoverability, arcane I/O, every program can have a different UI, etc. And yet this interface has persisted and has largely remained the same for decades. Most programs rarely change their CLI, so the user only needs to learn a few commands to be productive.
So I think that the most usable UI is somewhere in the middle. It should avoid the constant churn of GUIs, and be more accessible than CLIs. This is possible to build for power users, but it can also be made approachable for less technical users.
> I fail to see why any of these features couldn't be implemented within the design constraints of the Windows 9X/2000 design language.
That's true. But then again, what exactly is the Windows 9x/2000 design language, and what makes it better than the modern Windows GUI? Is it the basic Start Menu? The task panel with blocks for each window instead of icons? The square instead of round windows? The lack of smooth transitions, transparency, and graphical effects? The overall brutalist theme?
We can certainly add all the features I mentioned to Windows 9x/2000, and we had some of them even back then via 3rd party tools, but isn't that essentially what modern Windows has become? There are ways to revert some Windows 11 features today with alternative shells and such, so is that the ideal UI then?
When I think of Win2k, I think of the overall simplicity. This is mostly due to nostalgia than for any practical reasons. I'm sure that I couldn't stand using its barebones UI today, as much as I would enjoy the simplicity for a brief moment.
We still 'dial' with our phones, even though phones haven't had dials in over 50 years by this point. Nobody would even explain phones using that metaphor anymore. Even just having a foundation of common terminology is helpful in teaching people new systems.
> This is why GUIs will always have to change and adapt to trends, which will always cause friction for existing users.
I fail to see the connection.
> My point is that by minimizing the amount of graphical elements (note: not completely eliminate them), we minimize the amount of this friction. The difficult thing is, of course, maintaining the appropriate balance of all elements while optimizing for usability, which is ultimately very subjective.
This is true in today's world, but not necessarily in a world where the UI language of computers is stable and users can trust their computers to not change render their understanding of the system from underneath them. If all buttons had the same hints to tell a user 'I'm a button', in the same way default HTML links tell users 'I'm a link', then we could trust users to have this understanding.
> But consider that CLIs are effectively timeless. The friction comes from their lack of discoverability, arcane I/O, every program can have a different UI, etc. And yet this interface has persisted and has largely remained the same for decades. Most programs rarely change their CLI, so the user only needs to learn a few commands to be productive.
It's remained true in a small niche of power users, while for the rest of the world, this environment might as well not exist (beyond the functionality it provides to them after it's been filtered through several layers). CLIs are irrelevant dead-end in the story of user accessible design; one that there's probably some lessons to take from, but not one to entertain in any serious manner.
> That's true. But then again, what exactly is the Windows 9x/2000 design language, and what makes it better than the modern Windows GUI? Is it the basic Start Menu? The task panel with blocks for each window instead of icons? The square instead of round windows? The lack of smooth transitions, transparency, and graphical effects? The overall brutalist theme?
Yes.
> We can certainly add all the features I mentioned to Windows 9x/2000, and we had some of them even back then via 3rd party tools, but isn't that essentially what modern Windows has become? There are ways to revert some Windows 11 features today with alternative shells and such, so is that the ideal UI then?
The classic theme survived up until Windows 7, and I'll give that a pass, since although there still are holes where the newer design language of Windows peeks through, it's stayed mostly consistent, and even managed to add new features without breaking the design language to fit them.
Then that died with Windows 8, and there's been no hope for consistency in UI language since. The dream of a casual user being able to learn a UI and stick to it is dead, since even if they do, it will just change out from underneath them. That's why they don't even bother. Heck, even I barely bother.
> I'm sure that I couldn't stand using its barebones UI today, as much as I would enjoy the simplicity for a brief moment.
I disagree. I don't use many modern UI features, and the few that I do use, like snappable windows, are things I can imagine working within the old design language. I still write documents using a copy of Word 2000 in a Win2K VM every now and then, and when I don't use that, I use LibreOffice, a program many people refuse to use because it looks ancient to them. That's a feature for me. It not changing and thus not breaking my workflow is a huge feature that nothing in Windows 11 can even hope to compare with.
Modern UIs aren't great with discoverability, either however and are not an example that should be followed.
There are still ways to help, such as having a menu bar, and having good documentation. (Documentation is more important, in my opinion; but both are helpful.)
Consider the "Command Palette" and similar features that are part of many UIs (VS Code, Obsidian, Vim, Emacs, etc.). It allows the user to search all possible actions using natural language, and see or assign key bindings to them, so that they can get to their most commonly used actions faster. This search can be global for the entire program, or contextual for the current view.
It is far easier to search for what you want to do, than to learn to what action every GUI element is associated with, or to navigate arbitrarily nested menu hierarchies. This does require the user to be familiar with the domain language somewhat in order to know what to search for, but this too can be simplified, actions can have different names, etc. It also makes the program more accessible for speech navigation, screen readers, and so on.
I agree, that the interactivity should be primarily keyboard-driven. However, mouse input is useful for many things as well; if there are many things on the screen, the mouse can be a useful way to select one, even if the keyboard can also be used (if you already know what it is, you can type it in without having to know where on the screen it is; if you do not know what it is, you can see it on the screen and select it by mouse).
> Forcing users to click on graphical elements presents many challenges: what constitutes an "element"; what are its boundaries; when is it active, inactive, disabled, etc.; if it has icons, what do they mean; are interactive elements visually distinguishable from non-interactive elements; and so on.
At least older versions of Windows had a more consistent way of indicating some of these things, although sometimes they did not work very well, often they worked OK. (The conventions for doing so might have been improved, although at least they had some that, at least partially, worked.)
> A good example of bad UI that drives me mad today on Windows 11 is something as simple as resizing windows. ... it's not clear where the "grab" area for resizing a window exists anymore
I had just used ALT+SPACE to do stuff such as resize, move, etc. I have not used Windows 11 so I don't know if it works on Windows 11, but I would hope that it does if Microsoft wants to avoid confusing people. (On other older versions of Windows, even if they moved everything I was able to use it because most of the keyboard commands still work the same as older versions of Windows, so that is helpful (for example, you can still push ALT+TAB to switch between full-screen programs, ALT+F4 to close a full-screen program, etc; I don't know whether or not there is any other way to do such things like that). However, many of the changes will cause confusion despite this, or will cause other problems, that they removed stuff that is useful in favor of less useful or more worthless stuff.)
Whatever the UI it is, being consistent is the most important. But sadly as you said, UI designers need to eat, too.
Your bad UI example of resizing windows is way less about the round corners or lack of obvious grab area (handle). It's more that the handle is way too small. It's a couple pixels (maybe just one?) wide/tall on screens that are thousands of pixels wide! It's just too easy to overshoot. I'd say it comes from the obsession with minimalism and flat design such that there is almost no visible seperate border to act as a target. Combined with trying to remove ambiguity as to which window the click should go to (if you click two pixels "outside" a window, should the click go to the window beneath or be interpreted as trying to grab the border?), the grab handles are tiny, almost matching the actual (lack of) pixels of the border, instead of being a usable target to click on.
To me it points to a lack of usability testing, or at least lack of generalized usability testing, ie: they tested their own workflows, which seem to be just always leaving windows as the OS creates them initially, or maximizing everything, not much resizing at all. Similarly, generally testing a [mostly] keyboard interface is tough to do thoroughly without providing a thorough cheat sheet. You know the commands because you made them, easy to test how you work, but others need to learn them first.
Agreed. I do wonder how much of it is personal, in that that UI hit at a certain formative time in my life. But ever since then it's been the benchmark that I evaluate all other UIs by. The lack of a "classic" mode in Win10 was one thing that motivated me to switch fully to Linux. To make the switch, I spent a good amount of time trawling the themes to find one that mimicks the look of Win95/95/2000. (The one I use is a KDE theme called "Reactionary".)
I know some of my preferences for UIs are informed by what I first really learned how to use. But I also have preferences that are informed by decades of heavy computer use.
I despise UI widgets that just look like the window background with no borders or shadows. I can't stand massive amounts of useless white space. UI widgets don't require oxygen to survive so they don't need to fucking "breath" that much. I also despise mystery meat UIs that change their arrangement because I clicked one button more often than another.
Everything that increases my cognitive load and doesn't allow me to build up muscle memory in a UI is supremely frustrating. I might like the "look" of Mac System 7, it was a great intersection of functional and whimsical in my opinion. The consistent behaviors and learnable interface go beyond subjective visual appeal however.
Modern software feels so primitive in terms of UI compared to software from twenty and thirty years ago.
The Windows 95 User Interface: A Case Study in Usability Engineering (1996) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12330899 - Aug 2016 (72 comments)
> Perhaps the best testament to our belief in iterative design is that literally no detail of the initial UI design for Windows 95 survived unchanged in the final product.
I shudder to imagine the look and feel of that initial UI design.
This could be the biggest takeaway: iterating without a goal is silly. Though, honestly, it should be the default. If you're creating a new paradigm without ever knowing the problems you're supposed to fixing, you're doing it wrong!
The need for instructions in that Search dialog is appalling from a usability perspective.
When Win95 was released, it was widely seen as Microsoft finally catching up with its rivals. They had at last added features that Mac, NeXTSTEP, Amiga, etc had had for years.
You should see my Documents folder.
How did the Windows 95 user interface code get brought to the Windows NT code base?
https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20251028-00/?p=11...
NT got new 9x shell with 4.0 release but a beta package could be installed on 3.51 as well - tho, that could render some compatibility issues.
However Win2K wasn't really marketed to consumers as there were still some minor compatibility issues: particularly the DOS emulation was not great, so getting things like older games to work often required lots of tweaking to the launch process, and some things still might never work. Those compatibility settings got more options, saner defaults, and more automatic settings, in XP and later to go along with the full commitment of NT for everyone.
So, while DOS-based WinMe was actually released after Win2K, it was just a stop-gap to bring some more internet things, directx, and media player stuff, to home users while NT 5.x got it's compatibility and driver model in order. Except it was notoriously unstable, generally hated, and mostly forgotten.
If you do want to optimize for usability you have to make sure you aren't making the system more consumptive at the same time. The prime example from the article is trading a moment where the user must take initiative with a menu. More useable less useful. Lower the floor not the ceiling etc. Windows (and iOS) did make genuine improvements to OSs but because of decisions like these most users are locked out of enjoying them.