Live data from Hacker News

Windows 95 UI Design

twitter.com

131–140 of 312 posts

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#131
post #29
post #22

I used to play with VB5 and VB6, the RAD process was better than any of today's separated backend/frontend antd CSS-layout scaffolding data binding frameworks bullshit. The best part of the unified UI controls is you can use tools like Spy++ to discover programs on the fly. Today's Internet there are thousands of web frameworks and you need thousands of source mapping or else it's an ocean of minified gibberish.

Serious question: if it was so much better, why is it gone now?

I guess, these application were oriented at single developers and small teams, which is also, why these found favorable access and controls in them. But this meant also that businesses had to own the technology, the know how, and the technology stack that come with it. Now, it's all about teams, favorably with interchangeable staff, who is hired on the fly, without a need to own localized know how, as anything is incorporated into the specific stack. (Owning technology is even a bit frowned on nowadays, as in the "not invented here syndrome" meme.) This is really, what facilitated the startup culture, we may observe today. On the other hand, this is also, why the stack is king and developers are to serve (insert Git, the JS framework of the day, etc).

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#132
post #61
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

25 years later, we still don't have good, standardized, robust Ui controls for browsers. Why is there no HTML tag for creating menu bar and nested dropdown menu? Instead we have to search through thousands of libraries or plugins with mixed bag of accessibility. Just that control alone will probably save companies globally billions of dollars in wasted labor searching, building, and maintaining.

> Why is there no HTML tag for creating menu bar and nested dropdown menu? because HTML was never designed to be a application interface, and I don't see a menu-bar nor dropdown as necessary for a document display. What's needed for the web is a common and standarized (i.e., browser provided) library for application UI that's distinct from the existing HTML markup. They should not mix, and if you have a document (rat…

back then, I thought XUL could be this standarized lib for GUI. Alas...

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Archive/Mozilla/XUL...

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually true for Win 95 / classic Win UI. (However, you may want to reconsider the bevels, since the graphics tend to be a bit too heavy on a flat screen.) P.S.: Many (including them myself) consider Snow Leopard (OS X 10.6.x) as the epitome of a UI, which matched usability, conceptual space and visual design next to perfection considering the visual and stylistic preferences of the time. That said, I can al…

> However, you may want to reconsider the bevels, since the graphics tend to be a bit too heavy on a flat screen. They looked "heavy" on pixelated, low-res flat screens (lacking the natural Gaussian blur that a CRT gives you) but it's not like there was an alternative back then. OTOH nowadays, with resolutions, DPIs etc. varying so much, pixel perfect design is not the sensible choice that it was back then. Flat desi…

Mind that in the mid 1990s color CRTs still tended to be quite blurry, if it wasn't a Trinitron display. (E.g., dithered colors were next to indiscernible from solid colors, especially on larger RGB displays.) Also, pixels used to be much bigger (starting at 72 dpi, eventually tending towards 96 dpi with intermediary steps on multisync displays). With this kind of resolution on a flat screen, the UIs do not look how they used to look on a CRT.

> Flat design is just a bad choice, though. You can have softened bevels/3d effects in a modern design (…)

I agree. However, I can see why we ended where we are now. Also, it's cheap (as compared to having to maintain various resources and various color definitions for various resolutions) …

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#134
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: if it was so much better, why is it gone now?

There are more or less 2 major modes of managing a product relative to the current technological zeitgeist: - expand to consume every new use case and buzzword that comes along. Survive in some form indefinitely, while the product becomes less concrete and meaningful over time. The product continues to succeed not because it is technically best in class any more, but sheer momentum of the large base of existing users…

The powerful RAD from VB continued into C# and .NET. You could in first versions of VS.NET and still today with UWP just drag out a button, double click it to perform some action, hit F5 for close to instant compile and launch and then edit the code while debugging. As others noted, the problem is not the tool, the problem is the lack of interest in desktop apps today.

Agree about the experience being unmatched. Compare it to Android Studio which is supposed to be the modern flagship from the competition, even 15 year old versions of Visual Studio provides much smoother RAD experience. No matter how good code editing in IntelliJ is, everything around it with gradle slowness and app relaunches just makes you look back and wonder what happened to technological progress.

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#135

Many people probably didn't notice that Microsoft Office at that time used custom controls and was a little off from this design. The design was very nice, but a bit over complicated. Things looked like a control panel, which maybe makes us feel like pilots, but intimidates most users. The open dialog is a good example. Drop down elements, lists, directory list, label for selected directory. Later iterations fixed th…

> Things looked like a control panel, which maybe makes us feel like pilots, but intimidates most users.

"Everyone has an individual background. Someone may come from Python, someone else may come from Perl, and they may be surprised by different aspects of the language. Then they come up to me and say, 'I was surprised by this feature of the language, so Ruby violates the principle of least surprise.' Wait. Wait. The principle of least surprise is not for you only. The principle of least surprise means principle of least my surprise. And it means the principle of least surprise after you learn Ruby very well. For example, I was a C++ programmer before I started designing Ruby. I programmed in C++ exclusively for two or three years. And after two years of C++ programming, it still surprises me."

Modern user interfaces are like C++. They still surprise me after years of using them. Even Apple's OS X and Mac OS surprise me after about two years of using the former and various years of using the latter during grade school.

The only user desktop user interface that never surprised me after years of usage was Windows 95.

But because the tech industry values newness it's never ever coming back.

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#136
post #95

If you still want this kind of UI you can have it with a Gnome or KDE linux desktop.

I'd recommend LXDE or XFCE for this kind of desktop. With this theme, you can even make XFCE look just like Windows 95. https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95

I'd like to see a KDE1/GNOME1/FVWM version of this. Something that could be packaged in a Linux distribution and be accessible out of the box.

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compounding this frustration (on iOS at least) is stuff like "force touch" and hidden toolbars. Depending on how hard you press a button you might get a totally different UI interaction. Are others good at knowing exactly how many newtons of force it takes to follow a hyperlink instead of triggering this horrid mini-preview window? Maybe that's why Jonny Ive made millions of dollars while I work like a stiff for a li…

Force touch is the best evidence we have that designers have lost their power at Apple. The best thing Steve Jobs did was hire serious designers and defend their ideas against the rest of the organization. That’s clearly not happening anymore. My guess is that “Designer at Apple” became such a desirable title that the design roles have been taken over by wannabees.

You can set the amount of force required for 3D Touch in settings. It’s a feature I liked, it behaved like a right click in many instances. Also its double action made text selection easy.

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#138
post #95

If you still want this kind of UI you can have it with a Gnome or KDE linux desktop.

I've been saying for a long time that one thing the free DEs have going for them is that they don't consist so much of separate parts, each of which needing to advertise for itself. No need for FooApp to look extra special, no need to shove the name into the user's face. Universal document readers with format plugins, such as Okular, are a nice example. Not great at most things not PDF but you can see the idea. A universal tagging and rating system kind of exists in KDE but somehow it hasn't turned out as useful as it promised initially (IMO).

There is still a lot of unrealized potential in that area.

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#139
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow - does this bring back some memories. I remember when CTL3D.dll was all the rage. Good times. To think we used to worry about VB programs needing a separate runtime to distribute them and Delphi programs, while stand-alone, took up almost 200KB for a minimal app!

Ah, THREED.VBX, good times indeed.

Hahah, yes! I was obsessed with THREED.VBX, but because I was learning C at the time ended up writing a whole library of Windows custom-drawn controls that looked exactly the same. I guess it was only later that I learned there was nothing special about VBX libraries and that you could (with some boilerplate) make them work from C.

Kids nowadays have it so easy with their Electrons and QTs...

Re: Windows 95 UI Design

#140
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But toolbars are essentially the same thing except they don't waste space, are moveable, resizable, typically customizable, and can be hidden.

Pretty sure having every toolbar open at once would use more space. Ribbon is dynamic to your current task, using a table? Table tab is available.

> Ribbon is dynamic to your current task, using a table? Table tab is available.

So were toolbars in Microsoft Office were similarly dynamic.

Post reply on HN