One of the best examples of this are old POS systems, which are mostly ncurses type applications. The people that use these fly around the interface so efficiently and are very productive.

Most of those old POS systems were actually either 3270 or (more likely) 5250 applications; i.e., block mode terminals instead of character mode terminals. While the difference between block mode and character mode terminals is a fundamental technical difference, that difference impacts the UI in two major ways: 1) Most interaction is local, and therefore quick. All of the editing, jumping between fields, and even basic validation happened on the terminal itself. It was only when you submitted your changes or loaded a new screen that the server would even get involved (much like a web form without Javascript); therefore, even in an installation with a lot of active terminals, these green screen applications would be incredibly responsive. 2) Every screen and application had exactly the same user interface. Even function keys were mostly standardized (ever wonder where F1=Help came from?), so what you learned in one place in the UI would trivially generalize to everywhere else in the UI.

> Every screen and application had exactly the same user interface.

IMO this is an extremely important idea and where I think the modern GUI went off the rails. I also, think it's gotten much worse with web applications.

I agree with the Raskins' that the fundamental issue with modern HCIs are applications. A common UI context in which to run commands would be more preferable in most use cases. I'm thinking of some mashup of the normal social media timeline with Emacs M-X functionality to run commands.

Well many of these do come with their own specialty keyboards, so there's that. The display is really just a display for these: all buttons are actual physical single-purpose buttons. No mouse.

Depends, if you have people needing to do a (unpleasant) job, sure, they also care more about functionality, than form. Nobody cares about a smooth animation, if he cannot get his job done.

But given the choice, they prefer the better looking one. In consumer facing apps much more. Especially younger people, used to shiny websites/html point out quickly, how ugly something looks. And then not use it.

> In consumer facing apps much more. Especially younger people, used to shiny websites/html point out quickly, how ugly something looks. And then not use it.

As far as I can tell, this is a narrative that only exists in the heads of people who never have to use the thing they are insisting "look good". Sales people, managers, developers, etc.

I will accept that I'm wrong when I either experience it in the real world for myself or see some actual evidence.

"I will accept that I'm wrong when I either experience it in the real world"

Well, here in the real world, (because of the need of Windows) I just recently started to use Notepad++ again. It really pains me to do so. The only way to tolerate it, is by removing all UI and only keeping the text. But even then some ugly, contrast breaking window pops up, when I use search etc.

So I will likely switch to sublime text (even though I only have to work on windows sometimes). Simply because of aesthetics I choose a solution nicer for my eyes, when I have the choice, which I do.

Anecdotally, a significant number of recent criticisms towards Emacs and vim are that they’re ugly compared to VS code — that seems to be a solid counterpoint to your argument that among users, aesthetics don’t matter.

There is a certain level of professionalism your UI has to reach for people to trust it. If your product looks sketchy, people will treat it as a sketchy product. And if you lock into a look and feel that is 10 years old, people may use your product but they're going to be surprised if it behaves in the most up to date fashion.

The people who care about "looks good" are also usually decision makers and funders, so yes, it does matter - regardless of your opinion on whether it should or shouldn't.

If we're talking about appeasing the bullshit gods, sure, there might be something to that but my experience is that they talk about "looks good" a lot but when push comes to shove they'd rather have something that works.

Case in point: people still use Windows, and I've never had anyone tell me it's because it looks good.

Certainly a good counterpoint! Now that I think of it, I've never heard a single person tell me they use Windows because of good looking UI!

Unfortunately the bullshit gods usually have more influence than should be allowed. But making something 'look good' in a sprint demo where the CEO is present potentially releases a lot of pressure and gives the team more time to build something that works.