There is a strong argument for user interface stability. People don't just learn user interfaces, they seep into people's unconscious and muscle memory. It can take a while to learn the idiosyncrasies of a user interface and making changes should have a string justification.

It should be noted that people who are paid to design user interfaces are not paid to use them. Their incentives are to create and tinker. This is a disincentive to do what is often needed: nothing or very slow change.

The worst part was, often functionality that was well loved was scraped because there wasn’t time to work it into this redesign. It turned out they would do that on purpose so people would complain so they could go to their higher ups with complaints in hand to justify budget money for a new round of ui design work. Rinse repeat.

Did you get them to confirm this hypothesis? Or did you just figure it out by deduction and projection?

This is an honest question. I work on both sides - dev and design, and so am privy of the driving forces behind the projects.

Sometimes they could include personal agendas but are almost never limited to those.

And I have had cases where I had to ask questions in confidence to uncover the political forces.

Have you had the opportunity to ask such questions and confirm your suspicions?

It’s just like the idea that you first eat with your eyes. For example, eggs with yellow yolks and orange yolks taste the same in blinded tests, but when people can see the eggs they usually go for the orange ones. Periodic UI design updates are needed so that people don’t associate a dated GUI with a dated product.

This used to be different during the 80's and 90's and I'm convinced that this change (turning UI design from science/engineering into fashion) is why we are deep in a UX crisis.

Are you being hyperbolic, or is this your actual position? That’s a ridiculously high bar that most organizations could not muster (and there’s no way Apple would release that stuff publicly anyway).

“Emotional bullshit” is so needlessly negative. We’re not machines — we have emotions! If a UI designer can change an interface to please me a little more, that’s a good thing.

> If a UI designer can change an interface to please me a little more, that’s a good thing.

Without observing actual users, how do you know if you are pleasing them, or just pleasing yourself?

Edit:

> UX used to be driven by researchers like Bruce Tognazzini and Jakob Nielsen, who absolutely did studies with actual users to drive their designs.

Large [UI driven] companies still do this or hire agencies to do so (of which there are far more nowadays given the field is more mature). The fact that UX researchers haven't much visibility outside of UX -- Nielsen started blogging relentlessly at a point in time where there wasn't really anyone else doing that, and it was hoovered up by a wider audience that needed that knowledge. That doesn't mean in any way that he's unique, or that companies who can afford UX teams don't do this. Nielsen and Tognazzini -- they were popularisers, good at producing easily digestible writing for a general audience

Why are user interfaces special in this regard? Where's the research, where are the white papers which clearly demonstrate what the advantages and disadvantages of specific user interface philosophies are?

I agree that UX/UI is sometimes swayed more by fashion than empirical goals in service of the user. E.g., Jony Ive’s sad obsession with flat (featureless) design in iOS 7 is something we are still paying a price for.

However, the majority of UX research these days goes into things that are explicitly not in service of the user. Facebook doesn’t want you to be happy, they want you to keep using their product. Pay-to-play games don’t want you to have a good life, they want to squeeze micro-transactions from you at every opportunity.

Creating and propagating these manipulative dark patterns is a huge amount of leading-edge UX these days. It works. We know how to manipulate people towards goals that are antithetical to their well-being. The tech industry as a whole makes billions of dollars a day doing exactly this thing.

So yes, the research exists. UX continues to get much better. Just not in service of goals that you (or I, frankly) embrace.

This isn’t the fault of UX as a discipline or UX designers generally. Just like a coder intentionally optimizing a ratio of negative to positive stories to keep you fearful and scrolling, UX designers are driven by the same constraints — the product direction of their parent organizations.

Should UX designers individually, or as a discipline, rise up in revolt? Exactly as much, or as little, as programmers should. We’re all in the same boat. We can choose to serve the manipulators or not. Trouble is, there’s a fuckton of money in this manipulation, and you don’t have to spend much time here on HN to see how motivating that is, and the extent to which individuals will hold their noses and do what they’re told, as long as they’re motivated richly enough.

https://www.dezeen.com/2013/06/10/new-apple-ios-software-fla...

It’s an awful shame, really. The man’s very talented, but he needed an editor. For years Steve Jobs was that editor, and he was brilliant at it. It was the two of them together that made Apple’s industrial design so damn good.

I agree about animations. I remember reading (probably here :D) a story from an Apple mobile engineer. He was on an elevator and Steve Jobs got in afterwards, and asked his notorious, “What are you working on?” The engineer opened the app on his phone to show Steve, who looked at it for one floor. He said, “Not enough texture,” and handed it back.

That, specifically, is the voice that Ive needed to do truly great work.

For more practical examples of how websites can be redesigned through science, though, see https://www.nngroup.com/ and other resources online regarding scientific study of UI, user experience (UX), etc.

Could you please point to the research in support of this statement? Specifically, the "almost every" part?

> Where's the research

Do a web search for "human-computer interaction research."

I think the problem is everyone on here hates it when stuff they use changes and that’s all.

For example, in Firefox 89 the contrast between the active tab and the inactive tab is so low that they are not distinguishable when the viewing angle to the screen or the lighting isn't perfect - looks fancy, but is not even acceptable by their accessibility standards. On top of that they removed the blue bar that - as a crutch - indicated the active tab ?

I don't understand being this invested in such an obiously bad design decision - contrast is just neccessary.

All that being said, I found a bug report from 19 years ago, when Firefox was still called Phoenix, that complained about almost the exact same issue (sans the blue bar), and it got fixed.

I don't think "UX crisis" is neccessarily too strong a word.

Good design is a balance of many factors.

This is true only if usability is all you care about.

In the real world people like things with good aesthetics, and like beautiful things, and it’s important for Apple to make things that users like.

If looks didn’t matter every user interface and website would be plain and high-contrast.

In my experience it’s usually one person’s vision behind major design changes (good or bad). It may be “discussed” so long as the discussion doesn’t deviate from boss’s vision (or you’re not a fit for the project).

Back in the 90s Microsoft did put some research effort into Windows 95 and i do not really remember much of a blowback to the new UI despite being radically different from Windows 3.1. There were a lot of people complaining for the higher system requirements, how Win95 felt slower and even how "infantilized" DOS by forcing a GUI on them, but as far as the Windows UI itself goes pretty much everyone agreed was a big improvement to the point that other UIs started copying it to a functional level (ie. not just the window theme). There were even projects that recreated it on Windows 3.1 (Calmira).

To this day a lot of people consider Windows 95 to be one of the best and most well thought UIs.

(and honestly even though i think that overall Win2K is peak Windows, i do believe that ever since Win98 Microsoft started taking a form-over-function approach - see the toolbar buttons losing their relief and becoming shapeless elements indistinguishable from any other icon despite having different interaction with the user)

Sure, some reactions in UI changes tend to be "i do not like different" but that doesn't make all reactions so. And even then, do not dismiss the pure "i do not like different" reactions either: people spent time and energy to learn the UI they use, unless a change is a radical improvement (e.g. Win3.1 -> Win95) they are very justified to be pissed off at how the designers of the new UI wasted all that effort and nullified their knowledge for marginal gain (assuming there is any at all... or even worse, becoming harder to use like many overpadded mobile-first UIs look on desktops).

(the same applies to changes programmers often dislike too, like languages, APIs, frameworks, etc - for many users UI changes are the equivalent of Python2 to Python3, except as users are often powerless to do anything about UI changes, they happen way more often)

The Discord logo redesign was one of those logos that elicited a very odd amount of outrage for what it was. Multiple video essays were made about just how terrible the logo is [0].

It's really not a bad logo at all. It's a minor change. But once you get used to something, any change seems to be perceived as a threat. After a few months, I bet most people will get used to the new Safari UI and forget what they were even mad out.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=discord+new+log...

Now it doesn't say that. And now I'm less inactive on the various discord chats I've been invited to. Most of which are not really full of Gamerz anyway - but staring at that very Gamerz logo for a few seconds every time I opened the thing made me not want to open it.

It's currently a light purple circle with a white blob in the middle, I often can't find it

However, it's worth noting it was shown alongside wordmark, and the font used by that wordmark (a modified version of Ginto Nord Black) is... not great, in particular I think the letter "i" looks somewhat off in relation to other characters in word "Discord" - I don't know what's wrong with it, I'm not a typographer.

That said, because the wordmark is not seen often (pretty much the main page and the page announcing new logo), in practice it's fine. After logging in to Discord there is no real reason to go back to the main page.

Also, out of curiosity, I checked the videos you linked to, pretty much all consider the logo to be fine, but they all criticize the font or the letter "i" specifically (even the video called "discord's new logo is alright").

I understand redesigning UIs when that redesign affords you some new capabilities for new features you want to add. I don't, however, understand redesigns that just move things around without adding anything new.

Android 12 is the prime example of this right now. Android 11, which I currently have on my phone, works fine. Its UI is well thought out. It's mature enough. The best thing you could do to it is leave it alone. But then someone at Google wanted a promotion, which meant redesigning an existing product, and now everything is opaque and has huge paddings for no good reason. And when they say "material you is customizable", I really hope it's so customizable I could just make it look like it did before they released this mess.

Change is inevitable. Even if we stipulate that change sometimes happens for bad reasons, like someone wanting a promotion, it’s not like bad reasons are suddenly going to disappear. People are still going to want promotions a year from now, or 10 years from now.

So designs are going to change. Why not take the approach of “let’s see how I can adapt to this”?

Because a UI is a tool I use to get something done. I don't like when the thing I've been using intuitively gets changed so I have to learn to use it again. It's a tool. It's not an art piece.

> Why don’t people seem to take pride in their ability to adapt to change?

Because this adaptation doesn't make their lives any better. It's change for the sake of change. It's like weather, except weather isn't quite controllable, but these changes are deliberately introduced by other people to mess with you for no good reason.

> Change is inevitable.

Progress is inevitable. Moving things around isn't progress. Progress implies adding something.

> Even if we stipulate that change sometimes happens for bad reasons, like someone wanting a promotion

The incentive structure in most IT companies is wildly wrong, I'll say that. No one at Google got promoted for maintaining an existing product because afaik promotion requires completing a "big project". So the easiest "big project" is a UI redesign. The second easiest is apparently an instant messaging app.

> Why not take the approach of “let’s see how I can adapt to this”?

Let's see. I adapted to this by avoiding installing any major updates unless absolutely necessary. Security patches are fine tho.

Secondly, the complaints come because, for many of us, our computers and phones feel like an extension of our offices and homes. We're staring at these screens for the majority of waking hours. The UI is basically part of the furniture. Many people would feel resentful if their chairs, couches, and doorknobs were changed without permission every year as part of some update. They're going to have similar feelings about the electronic portions of their spaces.

Because there's huge costs for everyone involved...?

"let’s see how I can adapt to this”... Across how many devices? If a school lab updates, but I don't... I know have to learn something new when it's probably not necessary. If I update, and the school lab didn't... will my stuff be compatible? If I send a document to 'version Y', will I still be able to use it in my own local previous 'version X'?

If I'm a business, how do I support X changes across multiple customer bases? And for how long? I have support people to train to answer every stupid question from people who can't find ABC menu item any more because it's now rendered as 'abc' in a different menu area.

In MANY cases, there are compounded, massive costs to seemingly small/trivial/design changes.

Our computers (and phones) are not fashion. They are tools, they are commoditized.

Let's change everything every two years: you screws and screwdrivers, controls in your car (with everyting going touchscreen, that's exactly what we'll soon get), buttons in your elevators, plane controls, heart monitors...

See, how stupid "let's wait and adapt to this" sounds?

Thoughts maybe, but did they ask users what they wanted? Did they run usability studies to verify that these changes make sense? I can't imagine that they did. Certain UI changes in macOS, Windows, etc. are so obviously bad (and are eventually changed) that no matter how much they thought about it, they didn't care to check what users thought.

For instance the address bar on here is a canonical truth and is the linchpin of the experience. See how every time a browser touches it (e.g. Chrome truncating the address) is met with mobs of the angry. Many users -- including even "power" users -- seldom interact with the address bar. Nor is it verification of anything much. It simply isn't that important anymore.

Another comment mentions that the reload button is two clicks away, which is a fair point but that everyone who actually uses reload (generally developers -- zero web apps should ever require the user to hit reload) use a keyboard shortcut.

Eh.

"Certain UI changes in macOS, Windows, etc. are so obviously bad (and are eventually changed)"

True. At the same time, every UI change of anything ever has yielded a firestorm of criticism and pushback. And more times than not the new design was better and people acclimate to it and eventually prefer it. I judge nothing on initial reception.

I interact with the address bar every time I go to page or site. It is my single most interfaces with the browser after the sites themselves.

And that it isn’t much use for verification is exactly the reason why people advocate that it should display all information!

Because it is. Ultimately, your comfort is the only thing that matters when you're using a computer (particularly Macs). If something doesn't operate in the way that you want it to, why is that not a valid argument for replacing it?

Edit: point proven

I actually didn't know iOS had this, I only know about FireFox on Android and it asked me if I wanted to opt in before thrusting it upon me. That's a good way to make major UI changes.

This is Apple we're talking about, the last time they asked users about something is when they failed to litigate Corellium for virtualizing their software.

Readability is objective. It can be measured. They keep bending themselves backwards to get out of a problem they inflicted upon themselves.

A web browser should be readable first.

Run a study and then talk. Otherwise it's just subjective observations.

Further, we're talking about page theme spreading to the chrome of the browser. It makes the chrome less important than the page contents. It seems they're putting "readability" focus exactly where it should be.

Have they? The base of your argument is a classic appeal to authority. They're "very proud, considerate, intentional" designers so they must be right and everybody else wrong.

Where's the data? Aren't unhappy users valid enough data to demonstrate a downgrade in user experience?

Contriving a straw man to argue a position does no good.

I specifically took issue with claims that it's thoughtless. That in no way says it's right or wrong [1], but I'm extraordinarily certain that a lot of people thought long about every detail of this, they probably argued and different people had different takes, and we can see the results of that process. Trying to casually dismiss all of that as thoughtless is gross.

> Aren't unhappy users valid enough data to demonstrate a downgrade in user experience?

Unhappy users aren't proof of much at all but that people really dislike change, and that you can't please all of the people all of the time. The eventual net result is an entirely different thing.

And again, the net might be positive and it might be negative. I've made zero assessment of that. I happen to be a pretty malleable user and I just flow with whatever, adapting to whatever various platforms demand I use.

[1] Although notions of right and wrong depend upon the inputs to your assessment. e.g. often we'll some users feel that a certain function or trait is a first class, primary element, while it isn't to others. What is right for one can be wrong for another. Seldom is it universal. Every design of any complexity is wrong for some subset of users.

For the sake of conversation though, yeah, I'd argue that Safari is the most thoughtless among the mainstream browsers. Compared to Firefox, Edge, Chrome and even Brave or Vivaldi, Safari is a less compatible, less up-to-date, less secure and less cared-about experience.

It has been running for centuries. It’s called typography. Its rules are not arbitrary and legibility is the most important one.

No need for scare quotes around readability. It’s a science.

There’s a latitude of contrast ratio between which human eyes can comfortably withstand and discern tones. It varies across individuals, of course, but not as much as you might think. No human sees ultraviolet, for example. And even if you have 20/20 eyesight, you need to design for a much wider spectrum of the Bell curve if you care at all about accessibility.

You might be interested in checking the history and methods behind CIE 1931. Also, “The Elements of Typographic Style” is a deep but fascinating book.

Compare the job of this algorithm, having to deal with a crazy amount of possible color combo, to that of an experienced UX designer making just a dark and light theme, both thoroughly tested, and you can begin to grasp the trouble they’ve put themselves into.

Your opinion is objective. Opinions you don't like are subjective.

Sorry but this is how I read it. In my late years, there's little I fear more than such authoritarian claims.

Not everyone sees things the same way. And I mean that in the most literal sense possible

And this been done. There’s a minimum contrast that works for comfortable reading for most people. That’s not controversial, or at least, it shouldn’t be.

I have accidentally close more tabs than ever before - and that's with me actively being aware of it and trying to be careful. It's a HORRIBLE user design.

It's a mess, and the vertical space you save is nominal compare to the increased frustration you will create for users when they have a tougher time being able to read their URL (something that's already an issue for everyone) and relegating the tabs to about half the horizontal space they could have had.

This is utterly pointless. It's not about being an old person resistant to change, it's about "fixing" something that was not broken and not even doing a lateral move, but totally regressing the utility it served.

Early Mac OS X had exactly these criticisms leveled at it, for years.

Also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brushed_metal_(interface)

Lately things have been taking even more of a nose dive though. Have you ever used Apple Music? There is no excuse for that product to be as bad as it is. It’s probably the worst mainstream consumer app in the market.

This one is a particularly bad idea. Regular people don't always understand the difference between the browser and the contents of a web page. This blurs that line even more for people who already have trouble seeing it in the first place.

It had far more affordances and consideration than even modern Mac OS, and it showed by (lack of) this commentary against it.

Also, why does it matter how much time, money, brain power they spent on the changes? The only thing that matters is the outcome.

Alas, don't want anyone perpetuating that mistake. Cheers!

You can disagree with the changes. You can make arguments (understand that other people also have arguments -- for instance on the importance of the address bar, or how a browser should work with 35 tabs, which fwiw they all are trash at that level), but if you need to demand that anyone with a different opinion is "thoughtless", you have no position at all.

What are your reasons for 'trashing' the importance of the address bar and the need for 35 tabs?