Additionally, doesn't changing UIs every few years mess with older and less tech literate users? They have to relearn how to use software they've used for years

I liken it to a housesitter rearranging all of the contents of your drawers and closets without your permission.

This is what gets housesitters fired. Unfortunately we can't fire UX designers, only complain and maybe switch to another tool. The worst is when we selected a tool specifically for its UX and they eventually replace it with a different one we don't like and we wouldn't have selected that tool if it had that UX to start with (cough, K-9, cough.)

I can keep using the 2003 version of your favorite software, rather than keep updating to the new versions.

2003 maybe, but genuine advancements have been made since then that you probably want. Good luck trying to use the 2016 version of Figma/GDocs/[insert SaaS here] or even desktop software like Adobe CC or MS Office!

That’s why we now offer everything as a website so that users don’t get to choose what version they run.

I or you?

Anyway, I'm sticking to K-9 5.600 with the original UX because the new one is very wrong for my use case: 3 separate accounts that must stay separate and a quick way to move between them. Given the comments on Google Play [1] and the old discussion on K-9 forums I know that I'm not alone.

I backed up the APK and sideload it on any new device I get, or after a full reset.

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fsck.k9&hl...

Typo: u.

Yes it does. I was particularly struck by that some years ago durig the digital TV switchover. The elderly father of a friend of mine had been using a TV with a simple one-to-one mapping between the numbered buttons on the remote and the channel which would be shown on-screen. He could manage this despite not having much sensation in his fingers, and poor eyesight.

Now he suddenly had to contend with two remotes, and in order to use the set-top box he would have had to build a mental model of how the on-screen EPG worked, develop some sense of current "location" within the menu, and get to grips with selecting an option - all stuff the rest of us take for granted without a second thought. But because of his failing eyesight, his failing sense of touch in his fingers, and an inability (and yes, a non-trivial amount of unwillingness!) to learn new interface concepts, it was basically the end of his unassisted access to TV.

This, 200%. I have the same problem with my 87yo father, and no idea how to fix it. I've drawn up step by step instructions, labelled both the TV and set top box remotes and devices with icons, yet somehow he manages to press something on either that throws the whole system out of whack and results in a phone call about "the TV not working". Usually unsolvable without being there in person, which with Dad living 250km away is not doable on a daily basis.

We bought a kid's universal remote from Argos, with big colourful buttons, then I put together an Arduino-based gizmo which received button presses from the new remote, and played macros of button presses to the TV and set top box. It worked up to a point, but of course it's defeated by any buttons whose meanings are affected by state - the button which toggled between the TV's internal tuner and the AV input was a particular problem.

> Ah, this is the phrase I see most often when one UX person or team wants to justify throwing out the previous UX person or team's design in order to replace it with their own

And the funny thing is that this process never ends. Every couple of months the UI must be redesigned. They can never settle on one idea.

Thats one difficulty in UI design. Very few people care if a program uses binary trees or hash tables underneath, but everyone and their mother in law have an opinion on the color of buttons and the radius of the corners.

This happens because every 2 years (centered around promotional cycles) managerial types will demand a UX study where they ask participants something to the effect of, "On a scale of 1-10 how would you rate [product] on looking modern?" And anything less than a perfect 'modern' (an impossible goal) means the whole thing needs to adapt to whatever god awful design trend is going around.

Asking users to judge a product based on it looking "modern" carries the implication that modern is good.

IntelliJ's new UI is modern, but it's not good.