"Spatial" is, I think, a term of art. It refers to conceptual objects in the software having a 1:1 correspondence with a UI element with a single, stable location.

The metaphor is with the real world: If a put an object somewhere, it stays there. My notebook is in the front-right corner of my desk and nowhere else.

Notably, the "Finder" application in Mac OS used to be spatial. Opening a folder opened a window, and that window would be exactly where it was the last time you opened that folder. Conceptually, the window is the folder.

Here's an article about it from John Siracusa, who is a proponent of spatial interfaces: https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2003/04/finder/3/

Aesthetic evolution is a fact in user interfaces as much as it is in other functional objects like automobiles, furniture, and architecture. Priorities in trade-offs between things like information density and rapid visual navigation are also subject to this kind of change. Part of that evolution is influenced by technical context, such as what has become possible or practical that wasn’t before. Part of that evolution is influenced by cultural context, including both art and the aesthetics of physical objects (or software). Successful UI in Japan is strikingly different than it is elsewhere, even allowing for differences in language.

One of the things that all user interfaces do is marshal user attention, and newness or freshness is one tool for that. That can be used to advantage or disadvantage users, but it is a constant pressure for change in user interfaces.

The term Modern in user interfaces tends to translate as “inspired by the Functionalist school of Industrial Design, particularly as exemplified by Dieter Rams at Braun and Apple’s Industrial Design team under Jonny Ive”. There’s functional value to freshness, so the definition isn’t static, but the term Modern means something other than new or contemporary.

It isn’t a waste of time for producers and critics (in the neutral sense) of user interfaces to learn some art history, architectural history, and history of Industrial Design.

I think those are all valid interpretations that give some useful information about the product.

I tend to think of the words as staking a position vs its opposite, so you at least have some idea where the product lies on at least one axis.

- minimal vs maximal: "we favor fewer few design elements vs more"

- streamlined vs not streamlined: "we have intentially chosen to focus on a few specific goals"

- sleek vs rough: "we are aiming for a polished appearance"

- simple vs complex: "we prioritize ease of use over supporting lots of use cases"

- opinionated vs configurable: "we have a philosophy of the right way to do this, which this tool supports out of the box; if you have a very specific use case, it might not be for you"

etc..

On the other hand, the opposite of modern is... old fashioned? Isn't almost everything basically modern, then? And how is that necessarily any better?

Another alternative opposite of 'modern' might be 'classic'?

The opposite of modern is quaint. Modern means that it uses new technologies (Web/HTML5/React), quaint means that it uses old technologies (Win32 UI/HTML 4/command line)

You say this with authority. According to whom is web modern and everything else «quaint»? Not to be that guy again but electron-based apps feels nothing like modern, except maybe in the worst possible sense.

«Command line» is still very much alive as well by the way, and underpins a lot of things, say ci/cd.

Modern could mean technically not just stylistically. Like hackable in a contempirary language or use fancy tech like wayland. When we talk styles modern could mean anything, to some people it means minimalistic and functional, to some it means trendy

Modern is associated with your definition and has a positive connotation. However, it really just means it's new. That doesn't necessarily mean the things you listed. But it does mean that it's probably under active development, the creator has it fresh in their mind, and you can probably contact them.

The word Modern absolutely does not mean new, recent, or contemporary in the context of design (or really in reference to any visual presentation). The design of Walkman was innovative and new when it came out, but at no point in time did it qualify as Modern.

Modernism, as applied to the design of tools and other useful objects, was codified by Dieter Rams half a century ago. The recent resurgence of Modernism as applied to computer software and hardware is not the result of inevitable progress. It’s the result of Steve Jobs deliberately choosing Modernism in the early 90s (although this wasn’t apparent in products until his return).

https://ifworlddesignguide.com/design-specials/dieter-rams-1...

> But it does mean that it's probably under active development, the creator has it fresh in their mind, and you can probably contact them.

This is true! But that's usually a given for projects being promoted via HN posts. Not usually a lot of Show HNs for for old, abandoned projects.