Agreed, I'd love to see some data on that claim, and for it to be in context with the friction a new design has against an existing userbase when a design change occurs. I get that as time goes on, functionality, usecases, userbases, developers, frameworks, etc all evolve over time, and it's wise to make changes to keep up with those shifts in paradigms (rise of mobile use vs desktop in the 2010's for example).

Never once heard: "Man, I sure wish this thing that I've gotten used to and enjoy using for the passed 10 years would suddenly reshuffle everything so I have to relearn where everything is just so it keeps up with whatever the new trend is". To be frank, sounds more like someone in search of some job security.

Changes are necessary over time yes, but without some studies backing it up, I can't fathom that change for the sake of staying "fresh" belongs anywhere in software design and development. As an imperative from marketing/management to attract a new userbase, sure, but that's not a Design or Dev motive. If there's an opportunity to unify the standard of design or consolidating/eliminating technical debt while undergoing a significant overhaul, sure, understandable. But "It seems a little stale, we should change it"? From a User's perspective? Please don't.

I think at least some significant portion of the constant redesign push is caused by UI/UX managers and employees justifying their continued paychecks. If you are a software company with only a few major apps then at some point not redesigning the app on a regular basis would call for a departmental reorg.

> People simply get bored with how their apps and websites look after six to seven years. They need a change.

I would argue that the quote generalizes to all people, just as you are generalizing your sentiment to all people.

I have a lot of 15 year old clothes in my wardrobe, I know many friends who feel the urge of buying a new outfit every few months. I am not passing judgement we are just not similar in our desire for novelty.

I value function others value form. Form valuing people will likely enjoy app redesigns, function valuing people will likely value knowing where everything is in an app rather than re-training on new designs.

Most importantly I would speculate that form valuing people are way more likely to spend money on apps and services, so these services will likely do better in catering to form over function.

Thanks for the helpful explanation!

Designers don't want their product to look dated. Once there's enough evidence that a new trend is taking over, they feel an urge to redesign. Like programmers feel a project need a an overhaul, even though the end user thinks everything is okay.

More like: Designers won't have jobs if web sites never need to be changed. So they create work for themselves by inventing the necessity of a redesign.

Designers mostly don't initiate these kinds of things. Some Jony Ive-like rockstar designer is fairly rare.

If you want the source of most redesign initiatives, look at the middle management and executive levels. At the end of the day, if they want a redesign and a designer says "no" they'll just be replaced.

While designers are to blame for a lot of awful things and same for developers, you are absolutely correct.

For most of the companies, it’s somewhere from middle management to the top that someone sees a “cool” website late at night and the next morning says “I think it’s time for a much needed re-design”

Seconded. It's generally management and junior talent who see things in that way.

> Like programmers feel a project need a an overhaul, even though the end user thinks everything is okay.

A decent design doesn't need an overhaul to extend the functionality of a program or even to keep the program being able to run on modern operating systems, whereas the code foundation absolutely needs regular maintenance - external dependencies need to be upgraded, platforms change their APIs all the time (cough Windows), and after a number of extensions it might make sense to refactor code.

The problem is as usual career/KPI related - there is no glory in maintenance or prevention. A new design will be seen, reviewed and advertised, which if done well is good for the careers of the people involved. With the backend code, unless the developers have extremely good managers and corporate culture allows valuing of maintenance, no one cares even about a complete rewrite - maybe only when it saves actual money e.g. in hosting because money is the only thing MBAs can understand.

However the article claims the users require change. Designers are not users, although oh so often they (and developers or...) claim to represent user wishes. And often as you said users are unhappy with the redesign but who's closer to the decision makers?

Existing users are unhappy, because they have habits. New users might consider a competitor with a "fresher" design.

I see this with buttons that have shadows/not flat. It makes me think that site is old.

I've worked in graphic design and marketing on and off for like 15 years.

Do designs TYPICALLY change every 5 ish years. Yes.

Is it because of a good reason, I claim no.

While designs in companies do evolve and can be significantly different, you should still be able to tell the origin. What normally happens the creative/marketing director moves on to a new company and is replaced. The new blood has a self imposed outlook that they need to change all the things significantly to prove their vision exists. You saw this with Avis and their incredibly successful, "we are the 2nd place car rental agency, so we work harder to get your business." Except a new marketing team then got brought on due to exec politics/shuffling. Obviously the new firm cant do what the old one did because they have to prove themselves... and they dropped the ball and things went to shit.

Company restructuring, politics and egos have more to do with design changes than the unicorn world of design trends.

This neobrute idea is just a lazier version of the 90s aesthetic. Like, a basic bitch reimagining with no personality. I bet designers who like this trend are vegan and like watching The Office on repeat because, "OMG, like, the office is my favorite show ev-vaaaaaa." My 2 cents.

Yeah, I took that to mean designers get bored with apps and websites after six to seven years.

So glad to see low-contrast, energy-consuming drop-shadows go away though. Is translucency gone now too so I can get my battery cycles back?

Maybe there are 2 faces to this: current users and acquiring new users.

First one has been discussed in other comments: current users do not want to relearn the UI of the software. And I second that.

Second one: new users may turn away quick when seeing an old UI when trying an app or web site for a first time. So moving the UI from old to new, from time to time, may be a way for an app / website to just survive, otherwise the user base may be eroding.

Thoughts?

> why would I suddenly need a change?

Because your designers need a reason to still exist, and redesigning an entire application is what that reason becomes.

It's more that it's just like programmers who feel technical debt forces them to overhaul entire projects.

The difference is that software projects are always hot garbage that barely works. So long as end user functionality doesn't change this is at worst benign.

UI changes on the other hand are always detrimental to users who have spent the time learning how to use the software.

Just like fashion... I wonder why we don't all wear the same style as 100 years ago, no? /s

You're apparently sarcastic, but fashion really does look like nonsense to me. I'm not sure what point you're making.

That human beings, or a portion of them, like to change their external look often enough. Maybe not in every society on Earth, but surely in many of them.

This reminded me of that famous scene from The Devil Wears Prada: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ja2fgquYTCg

I can understand that it is basically impossible to live separate from that sort of industry but that doesn't make it not nonsense. It's a very good scene (and a nice movie), but it doesn't change the fact that "fashion" is a moving target that exists for it's own sake. It's a signaling pathway that sprouted an enormous industry on it's back.

Which parts are nonsense?

The part where things are changed for no good reason.

I would unironically wear Taisho-era male fashion everyday if I could. Perhaps when I have my own company....

If this was true, why don't product managers just hand design tasks over to Fiverr or Upwork? Surely everyone would be happy if you only paid for design when you needed it.

Because contractor work is categorically worse than salaried work, outside of very high pay grades. Bear in mind my prejudice is entirely based on my professional experience. Perhaps a magical land exists where this is not the case, but it's not the one I live in.

> People simply get bored with how their apps and websites look after six to seven years. They need a change.

Imagine if *nix-utils (ls, grep etc) used this method, every few years the switches/options changed !

Keeps you fresh, on your toes! Relaxing means you're not maximally productive!

Maybe you're happy with your 10 y/o Photoshop specifically because it's a change from all the other modern apps and OSes and websites. I feel people want change more than newness, and that's why 80's music and 90's clothes make a come back: it's different. Same with 10y/o software

It might look like a change now, but 10 years ago it wasn't a change. Nor 9 years ago, nor 8, 7, 6, last year. It just kept on working as it was, using the same habits and reflexes for the same user productivity.

> Is there any research that supports this claim?

Most people will redecorate their house, I don't think this claim requires research to support it. Why do people redecorate their house? Why do they suddenly decide they need a change?

Generally it's understood that people just get bored of looking at the same thing all day every day and that changing up the colours or style might make an old thing new.

Updating a sites style doesn't have to mean moving the ui to make it awkward to use, for example I have the latest version of Photoshop and I use the dark style because I like it over the old school grey I have used since the 90's but all the tools are still in the same place its the same software the only thing thats changed is the style.

I don't think this is true (that people get bored and need change). People get used to the way the website looks and no longer pay attention, plus they know exactly how everything works so a change is indeed disruptive (we've all been there, moaning that they've changed the way it worked!)

BUT, this is a relative thing. New shiny apps and websites will appear and suddenly yours looks dated and crp and so you become under pressure to update it.

You nailed it, though: "Please don't overdo re-designs just for the sake of it.*"

>Is there any research that supports this claim? If I use an app for 6 years, why would I suddenly need a change?

obviously designers get bored with designs and want to change them, so I would guess that other people who use the apps that did not design the apps might also get tired with it, probably there are people out there who are not designers but have a heightened design sense and they get bored whereas people who have just average design sense don't care.

I don’t know about apps, but websites are marketing and in marketing you need to stand out. Hence the ever changing trends in design.

The correct assertion would be: each year the probability developers wanting to change UI to get bonuses increases monotonically.

If a site or app has a dated design, I usually discount it. I assume that it is going to be outdated in functionality as well. And that it will have a myriad of unsolved bugs, none of which is ever going to be fixed. New bugs have one advantage over old bugs: they have a better chance of somebody caring enough to fix it.

Ignoring the fallacy that dated design equals outdated functionality...

I'd assume the opposite in regards to bugs: My assumption would be that older software has fewer bugs since, the longer the software is used, the more likely it is for bugs to be discovered.

For bugs to be fixed, changes have to be made. If software is unchanged, by definition it will have the original bugs.

It's not always clear if software is actually changed. A changelog is useful in that regard, but you won't get that everywhere. Dated looks is a heuristic for: was build long ago, has had no changes since.

Heuristics aren't proofs of course, but you so rarely get proofs in real life anyway.

I work on internal UI libraries that we use in our products. We updated our designs maybe 4-ish years ago and we're already getting feedback from customers that our designs look dated.

The correct assertion would be: as time passes, the probability developes wanting to change UI to get bonuses increases monotonically.

I'm still annoyed at Facebook and Slack changing their designs. YouTube and Google have gone well with the times though.

I'm still using Lynx, and several services with 0 design changes. Heck, I'm using HN.

HN has had the same design for 15 years now.