Oh the average user does very much have problems. They just don't have a place to talk about them out loud. With modern design, people get confused all the time whether something is clickable. Seen that happen so many times I lost count.

Windows 7 had the last good, properly-desktop UI before the existence of touchscreen laptops ruined everything. And then came the plague of borderless everything.

> They just don't have a place to talk about them out loud. With modern design, people get confused all the time whether something is clickable. Seen that happen so many times I lost count.

The average user assumes it’s their own inability to use technology, while the average HN commenter gets annoyed because they know it doesn’t have to be so difficult.

>They just don't have a place to talk about them out loud

Laypersons wouldn't even know what the problem is in the first place.

Even if they do, they might not know the right terms to use when communicating. Thus, listening to feedback can be misleading.

Nothing beats watching people in real life using your products.

Interestingly, sometimes this manifests as nostalgia. Yes, they can't put their frustration into precise words like we do here, so they just say "I miss when %something% was easier/better/more respectful". Or "could they just for once stop changing stuff around". Or "I hate this redesign".

The real hacker news-ish comments are the ones like yours posting cheap "gotchas" and pointing out hypocrisies where there are none every time someone says something similiar.

An engineer sees structural problems with buildings and bridges where people who use them everyday don't. An english major can see a problem with the language used in a newspaper where thousands of other readers don't. There is nothing unusual about this.

Are programmers really UI/UX experts, though? If you said a programmer pointing out how stupid programming is shown in film you might have a point but I really don't think many of these people pointing out their perceived flaws in UI/UX are experts.

In any thread that mentions UI/UX something like this always comes up where someone is bemoaning current UI/UX and hearkening to the good old days of when UI/UX was good, which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing.

That isn't to say that laymen can't make arguments with regards to poor UX/UI because it's ultimately a subjective experience and what is intuitive to one person isn't necessarily going to be the same for another. I just think you're conferring expertise to undeserving recipients.

> something like this always comes up

Unsurprisingly.

> which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing

On my first job I've used Windows NT 4. Yet I agree with GP Windows 7 was the peak UX.

The comment about it coinciding when they started was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but surprisingly often holds true. My comment more broadly is just pointing out that most people making these arguments are doing so subjectively while framing them as objective.

> most people making these arguments are doing so subjectively while framing them as objective

On subjects like that, I don't believe objective arguments are even possible. UX is similar to art or politics, it's inherently subjective because it's about people and culture. Ask a caveman to compare UX of Windows 7 and 10, and they gonna tell both are equally useless.

Despite no objective arguments is possible, it might exist a consensus.

> hearkening to the good old days of when UI/UX was good, which just so happens to coincide with when they really started getting into computing

Nah. I started out with Workbench 1.3, which was flat. Because they literally hadn't the colors available to do more. I didn't use them, but Mac and Atari ST were the same. Then came Workbench 2.0, then MUI ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_User_Interface ), and I recognized and enjoyed the improvements. I love change, I just don't love regression. Why would I?

And as for experts:

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-ui-less-attention-caus...

https://www.nngroup.com/articles/flat-design/

Change for the sake of change isn't necessarily a good thing, but rarely is a change in UI/UX objectively bad, which includes the shift from skeuomorphism over to flat design. The article you've linked has been fairly criticized for it essentially removing controls from their methodology by things like using lower contrast buttons for the 'flatter' designs, which is not essential to the design paradigm.

Ultimately, I'm still going to argue that this is a matter of subjectivity and as we age the less accepting we are to change, so those who fully embraced a particular UX paradigm will find it harder and harder to adapt to shifts in UX unless it cycles back to what they're comfortable with (just like fashion).

To quote Abe Simpson,

> "I used to be with ‘it’, but then they changed what ‘it’ was. Now what I’m with isn’t ‘it’ anymore and what’s ‘it’ seems weird and scary. It’ll happen to you!"

> but rarely is a change in UI/UX objectively bad

We're not looking at a box with unknown contents that we would need to go by probabilities. We can just look at the thing.

> The article you've linked has been fairly criticized for it essentially removing controls from their methodology by things like using lower contrast buttons for the 'flatter' designs, which is not essential to the design paradigm.

I can, right now in Win 10, show you plenty examples where there is no contrast and no distinction between an overlay window and what's behind it. Not low contrast, exactly the same color.

> Ultimately, I'm still going to argue that this is a matter of subjectivity and as we age the less accepting we are to change

This is the same indirect reasoning as "people like what they used first", which in my case is provably, objectively, false.

I might as well say "as people age and grow in confidence and experience, they trust their own judgement more, and care less about just going along with whatever is pushed just to fit in" or anything like that.

> This is the same indirect reasoning as "people like what they used first", which in my case is provably, objectively, false.

It's more like someone at some point stops being open to change, which allows some breathing room, but eventually they'll prefer to stick to what they know rather than having to learn something new. This isn't a value judgement, just that when something works and feels right to someone why would they feel the need to try something else just for the sake of trying it?

I use vim. Most people don't and would argue it's bad user experience as it's not intuitive. What's intuitive for text editing is largely just based on convention, though. I think vim is a great user experience because it allows me to edit text much more efficiently. It's entirely possible the text editor Kakoune would be even better than vim at doing the whole modal editor thing, but I do not care to find out. It took me some time to learn and get comfortable with vim and I don't see much value in going with the new thing even if it potentially has real upsides.

When it comes to UX/UI design, you'll certainly find plenty of conventions that are broadly agreed upon. Most people would find it difficult to read yellow text on a white background for example so that would be considered bad UI. But in the case of GUI design like determining how much shadow there is beneath a 'button' element or what color links should be and if that color is distinguishable is pretty subjective and a part of that comes down to convention rather than an innate preference in humans.

> It's more like someone at some point stops being open to change, which allows some breathing room, but eventually they'll prefer to stick to what they know rather than having to learn something new.

That could justify anything that is new. Just take the people who think nuclear would be a bad idea -- "it's just because that's not how they are used to doing things".

What is there to "learn" about, say, 50 pixels of padding rather than 5 pixels of padding and 1 pixel of border? All of these "arguments" are avoiding the actual subject matter at hand to make grand generalizations.

> It's entirely possible the text editor Kakoune would be even better than vim at doing the whole modal editor thing, but I do not care to find out.

Then speak for yourself, because none of that describes me. I constantly try out new things; some things supersede what I used to that point, others fall short.

> what color links should be and if that color is distinguishable is pretty subjective

Not in the case of two colors being the exact same. There is nothing subjective about that at all.

It's the current crop of supposed UI/UX experts though that have foisted this mess of material design, hidden menus, disappearing scroll bars, text fields that don't behave like text fields (ex. browser URL bar) etc. So yes, I do believe many programmers who have to suffer years and decades of UI/UX "advancement" (much of what is actually just design churn) and use computing environments extensively, can definitely have a lot of good input.

They are called "user" interface and "user" experience, after all. Any "user" can call it bad and it can be a valid point. It can also definitely be valuable input. But an engineer identifying a design flaw in a bridge or an English major identifying errors in language use are people that have specifically studied those things and have a depth and breadth of knowledge that most "users" don't. Programmers aren't UI/UX experts just because they use applications.

At least we can agree, that it is a typical hacker new-ish discussion ;-)

The average user has the same problems, but doesn't realize it is a UI problem or even think that he could be more productive. When he does he probably thinks that he is too stupid to use a computer.

A saw a really obvious instance of this recently, with an old lady trying to use a self checkout.

The machine asked which payment option you wanted: cash, credit card, voucher, etc. She selected cash. That brought you to a screen with a button in the middle allowing you to switch quickly to pay with card (to pay the remaining balance after you'd part paid with cash). The button text was "pay with card". The problem is, because it wasn't obvious that it was a button, she thought she had accidentally chosen the wrong option at the previous screen. She chose the "back" button at bottom and then selected "cash" again, but had the same problem. I saw her go through this cycle several times before asking for help.

A really obvious button style could well have avoided the problem.

Sounds like they could have labeled it "pay with card instead".

What you've done there is add some extra text saying that this is not a current status - it's an action you could take. You could just as well have added "(this is a button)" instead. Why not just make it visually obvious that it's a button?

Edit: You could say something similar about any non-verbal cues. Why not say "error" instead of using a red error icon? Why not say "left" instead of using a left-pointing arrow? Etc. The answer is always that (if used appropriately) it lowers the user's cognitive load. Admittedly sometimes it's reasonable to use both e.g. usually you do say "error" in words too, and maybe your suggestion would also be useful for this button.

Which is by the way one main point in "The Design of Everyday Things" by Norman, the book being one core pillar of the usability field.

Yes, I read the book which is in part responsible for my previous comment. But it not only that. The older I get the less I am willing to spend energy to interpret the UI I have in front of me: even finding out which is the app I want to use in the wall of blue apps on my phone is wasted time.

Have you sat with an average user? They have no idea what they are doing with these modern UIs. My mother with an iPhone is a fine example. Has no idea what to press or slide.

She could use windows 7 fine. Anything later, more difficult.

I have trouble with an iPhone.

A friend passed me his back in 2011ish to call his wife letting her know he'd be late to pick her up. It utterly confused me. No back button. A million apps on the 'home' screen. Needing to swipe in an undocumented manner, at least undocumented via a 20 second conversation.

The last Apple product I'd owned, an iPod mini, had useful things like buttons. And despite buttons it managed to have unintuitive features such as sticking music in multiple machine-named folders that only iTunes understood and a proprietary connector. So I dropped the iPod mini and went with something no-brand that was a USB stick that went in a small cradle that had a small battery; it had buttons, it functioned as a music player, it had a sane file system, it was charged via USB, I was happy.

I still have trouble with iPhones.

"(...) Do you see this big red circle on the bottom of the window? Now next to it there is a circle with a little square in it. No, don't click it just yet! You have shared your screen with me. It is used when... You know what, it doesn't matter. Find three dots on the bottom of the window. Yes, three dots, in a line. Now click it and select 'Stop sharing'. Higher. Higher. Yes, now click it! Brilliant. Now, do you remember the red circle? Next to it, on the left side, I believe, there should be another circle with a square and a less than sign, you know like from math. It is striked out? Yes, that would be it. Click it. Yes, that should do it. Splendid! It works. It is supposed to be "a video camera". I am as lost as you are. Honey! Your dad is back. Please, don't click anywhere else. Oh, shit he froze. Maybe I'll call him from Hangouts? Oh, forget it, they shut it down lately. Why? I don't know, they just did. Can't we just call him on the phone? (...)"

Non-techies have the same problems, they just aren't aware of what's happening and what the cause is. (Someone who often coaches/tutors/handholds people here.)

The average user has no idea how to use most UIs these days. I have to explain basics of her phone to my mum every time I try to video call her.

The difference between tech people and people like her is that it's easier for us to notice these issues and talk about them, while - if something doesn't work for her - she'll just shrug and go tend to the garden.

In my experience, these kind of people are scared of experimenting because they think they might screw something up, and the user-interface doesn't help. My dad has an iPhone, and he doesn't know anything about it. I doubt he's ever closed a browser tab, rearranged his home screen, or switched a running app by double-pressing the home button, and he has problems with the most basic of things. He also has an Apple watch, and the only functions he knows how to use on it are answering calls and activating voice messages ("walkie-talkie"). He has no idea how to sync his phone to the car's radio via Bluetooth, and he still names his contacts in his address book like "AAA Wife" and "AA Home Phone" because he doesn't know there's a favourites button. And he simply doesn't care. He just continues struggling to use his phone without really trying to learn it. My 82-year-old grandmother was better with technology than he is.

With people like this who didn't grow up with tech, everything has to be intuitive and obvious. An iPhone certainly isn't. My dad never had trouble with his Nokia, because everything was laid-out in front of him in a one-dimensional way, and all he had to do was scroll down the list and everything was easy to find. I would never put a computer in front of him, but if I did it would hb a Windows 7 computer.

There's something to be said about experimenting, but I hate that iPhones have features that are literally hidden and without documentation. Learning to use my iPhone involved randomly pressing things down to see if a menu appeared or reading "10 Things You Didn't Know Your iPhone Could Do" articles. And years later I'm still learning simple things like how to quickly move my cursor when texting (press and hold the space bar).

No the average user has the exact same problems.

I'm not "struggling". I just see the pointless regression. Why defend it? What is gained by defending something worse as if it was progress? Why can't we recognize flat everything as the failure it is, and make good UI again?

Objective evidence may be hard to come by. That said, the studies Microsoft did to produce Windows 95 must have paid off, IMO. Despite its different UX it felt significantly easier than Windows 3 and DOS.

> Somehow a group of people supposedly good at using computers struggle to work out what a button is while the average user seems to have no problems.

I guess you’ve never sat in on a usability research study? Average users have way WAY more issues than you are implying.

And by the way, sure one can probably figure out whether it's a button or not after some time of careful analysis. The problem is that if instead of it taking me 10ms to figure out it's a button I have to pause and understand it and it takes me 10 seconds, I get annoyed.

I have this problem right now with Firefox Proton. Since it has problems respecting my color scheme, it takes me some time to distinguish (in an inactive-colored titlebar) which is the damn currently active tab. Before, I would be able to do it almost subconsciously, without distracting me from my current goal. Now, my train of thought has to stop and search for the damn button, then I have to restart my thoughts. And we all know how that hurts.

The average people will call one of their family/friend that knows about computers/phones most as a tech assistance. Because they obviously have no clue about how to use it them self. And it's lucky that it is not you in this case.

I imagine the average HN lurker spends less or equal time clicking around on their OS GUI than any other average person.

Personally I can automate the provisioning, configuration and management of hundreds of servers, but still often have my partner show me how to personalize and customize my own desktop.

This is synonymous with calling a writer bad at writing because they pointed out bad writing. The conclusion should be the opposite shouldn’t it?

The average user didn't find it strange to click at "Start" to shutdown Windows.

I think the "Start" was for the user as in "Start here" ^^

It's not strange. You tell the computer to "start to shutdown" and after 5 or 10 minutes of updates, it finally finishes!

Best comment for me. LOL

Yes, I agree with you. With smartphone sales skyrocketing the last thing you would assume is a bad user experience. Quite the opposite: how bad Windows 7 was.

This is computer history romance or different personal taste.