Just because you got used to this tool, does not mean it is good UX. To me this looks really cluttered, and I would be overwhelmed, if I looked at all those options for the first time.

And I don't even see a reason that all these different modes need to be visible at the same time. It also takes up alot of space.

There are probably many ways to make this more user friendly, but if it works for you, thats great

Airplane cockpit design is also "cluttered", but the people who will be using the cockpit interface (trained pilots) want that. The cockpit is designed for the pilot, and in every case design should be catered to the needs of the user. I work in UX specifically and try to oppose designing same-y interfaces at every turn. Different apps have different users with different needs. Unfortunately, this is an uphill battle as we've established some mystical need for "branded" interfaces that all look and act the same, regardless of the function or user need.

Airplanes are driven by people who are trained specifically for this purpose, Software tools don't have this requirement.

That's not really true. Every custom built tool receives some form of training. Easily accessible designs lend themselves more for getting right into and learning by doing as a lot is self-explanatory and the user isn't overwhelmed. On the other hand, nice designs with lots of space, often also end up with slow response times and lots of scrolling of clicking, making certain work quite tedious.

As the parent comment said, software should really be built for the user and not just so everyone and their children can use it (unless that's your target group).

Financial terminals don't have the super nice designs to it, but they are highly functional, customizable and fast. A lot of cashier terminals are still running on old hardware with bad designs, yet they are highly functional.

I think there's always room for improvement and with every change you'll see a certain amount of push back, but I think it's important to consider the user and not write "simplified" software, when you have power users in front of you.

I agree with you. The UX/UI patterns should be functional first with a focus on primary userbase. In many startup scenarios, however, the users are not identified yet, so this UX pattern works only when you are well aware of the business case and user capabilities.

> Just because you got used to this tool, does not mean it is good UX. To me this looks really cluttered, and I would be overwhelmed, if I looked at all those options for the first time.

It is also true that looking cluttered at first sight does not mean it's not good UX.

The creator of that app might enjoy https://www.worldcat.org/title/microsoft-windows-user-experi...

Just sticking to some proven standards, even from a 20 year old software book, can really enhance an interface. Right off the bat I can spot a half dozen instances where a text input could easily span to align with an element above it, but it falls a few pixels short.