We only very briefly had that around the start of Win95, by the time 98 came around (IIRC) Explorer and definitely IE already had flat toolbar buttons that only had bevels when hovering. I remember fetishizing how clean those new style controls looked (esp IE5ish with its grey-on-grey patterned background texture!) but it definitely broke the consistent interaction idiom you mention

In the case of toolbars though, I think flat buttons were OK given that the toolbar itself can easily be identified as a toolbar and you know that toolbars always contain buttons, so there is no need to identify each individual button as a button. Of course, when other widgets start getting added to the toolbar it's not as clear anymore.

I am so bored with material design, a bit more skeuomorphic design here and there wouldn’t be so bad.

No kidding. UI design peaked with Windows 98/2000 and Mac OS 9.

I think one of the major "sins" of those interfaces (that is still pervasive today) is the inability to select text on most labels. Back then, Google did not exist, but being able to select and copy the text on e.g. an error message is something that has since become very useful, and that's still not afforded by GUIs.

Well, at least nowadays we can use ridiculous solutions such as normcap (taking a screenshot and OCRing it) to get such a basic feature.

On Windows, you can press Ctrl+C to copy the contents of native message boxes. Admittedly not very discoverable. They should have added it to the System menu as well.

A general facility to select labels should use an additional modifier key, since otherwise unsophisticated users will tend to select labels by mistake and get confused. Labels are already actionable elements, in that clicking on them focuses the associated control, or even changes its state as in the case of check boxes and radio buttons. Another example are the labels of menu items and buttons. Adding selection when you move the mouse a bit while hitting a label is too finicky IMO. If the UI is also a touch interface, it would only get worse.

Thanks! I had never heard about it.

From what this website says (https://weblogs.asp.net/chuckop/110153), this behavior started on Windows 2000, which might explain why it didn't work on my emulated Windows 98...

My solution to this is to use Emacs whenever I can. (Almost) any text in Emacs is in some buffer, so you can usually mark (select) it, kill (cut) it etc.

On that note, the css property user-select [0] may be useful to anyone trying to implement this kind of usability.

It can also be used to ensure a whole block of text is selected and copied as a unit. That is helpful for things like a an error message or an identifier like ABC-123.

[0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/user-select

you can (or could?) press ctrl-c in most windows dialogue boxes to get a nice text representation in your clipboard.

Windows 7 was still fine IMO. Things went sideways after that.

First versions of OSX were fine too.

I guess this is just a case of baby duck syndrome, which is so common in UI and UX discussions. I just don't see how word 97 is in any shape or form better than say, office 2019 in terms of UIs. Unless you're into obscure sub Sub menus in a single menu box that has no hints as what it contains or what it does. No preview, nothing.

It wasn't really consistently enforced though. Just look at the intro screenshot and notice that every button in the toolbar is essentially just an icon with a subtitle. Basically just an uglier version of today's flat UIs

Just yesterday I literally spent 20 seconds staring at the Word print dialog not sure how to actually make it print. There’s a flat image of a printer with ‘Print’ under it with a box around it but it’s at the top so I guess my brain wrote it off as a header image or something. I immediately lamented the lack of a clear ‘OK’ button, and felt almost crippling nostalgia for my first experiences of THREED.VBX back in the day.

You have Microsoft to blame for this, and then a bunch of other graphics toolkit authors who decided they need to follow them.

I was flabbergasted when I first saw the flat toolbars in MS Office, oh, whatever version that was.

And speaking of flat surfaces instead of buttons with depth: Laptop keyboards these days :-(

My plan for my next electron app is to use one of 98.css [1], XP.css [2] or 7.css [3], so I can have proper native-looking app.

[1] https://jdan.github.io/98.css/

[2] https://botoxparty.github.io/XP.css/

[3] https://khang-nd.github.io/7.css/

I love how the "Show code" buttons in 98.css and XP.css are just plain labels, with no indication that they are clickable until you hover over them, as opposed to the easily visible buttons the CSS actually provides x)

Interestingly, the 7.css fixes this by showing them as expander links instead.

For me, XP is the one I prefer. It looks more "modern" than 98 but not as "glossy" as 7. It has the right balance of better looking buttons and radios, but doesn't go too far

xp looks with 7 taskbar drag-ability would be the sweet spot for me (reckon this ends up comparable to a tame xfce panel too)

with enough effort you can get win 10 (and maybe win 11) to look and function at least a bit like win98

I always stick with whatever pc I get at work until they require me to hand it back after so many years then I spend some headache to get it looking and working like a pc of yesteryear...

I really really really agree with you.

modern uis are really bad. almost uniformly copying shit designs endlessly