Users hate change

Post by opportune » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 8:51 PM UTC

shawndrost wrote: post #206

empath75 wrote: post #8

This is just curmudgeonliness backed by nothing at all. You probably shouldn't do major redesigns with no real benefit to the user (I'm looking at you, reddit), but if you're adding or improving functionality, then feel free to incrementally improve your site constantly. People will get used to constant small improvements and will miss them if they stop. Users don't hate change, they hate arbitrary change that forces…

"Users don't hate change, they hate arbitrary change that forces them to learn how to use your site again, or that removes features they enjoy." How does this square with the overwhelmingly negative early responses to facebook's news feed, or reactions? Would you characterize them as "arbitrary"? I use those as examples because they now seem widely loved, so they seem like good (non-arbitrary) design to me, but they…

Post by torstenvl » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 9:03 PM UTC

mgbmtl wrote: post #126

coupdejarnac wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not buy this. You're equating security updates with UI changes. Pointless UI changes get a lot more frustrating as you get older. What we really need is software with really long support versions that minimize bullshit churn in UI and usability.

Old version support has a cost for the company supporting it. I guess it shows to the maturity of the company when they do. It's not easy to pull off. As a dev on a mid-size project, I'd say that those UI changes often have two sides, with people who will also complain "why can't you just fix/change X, it's such a small change, but so annoying". Everyone wants their issue fixed, but not the issues of others. Our proj…

Post by noobermin » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

vbezhenar wrote: post #46

flohofwoe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a big difference between offering "end-of-life" versions for download, even if they are no longer supported, and forcing users on new versions even if they don't want to (which is fairly common for mobile/web apps and generally subscription-models like Adobe and Autodesk switched to).

That's because the world decided to adopt software as a service model, where your device is just a thin client and real work is happening on a server. And that model is incompatible with letting customers to run old versions.

Post by iguy » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

la_barba wrote: post #169

ch_sm wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It worked well for a while. […] And with App Stores basically stealing 30% of all your sales … I’ve never understood that argument. Physical media production, packaging and shelf space was way more expensive than 30%. Not trying to justify the Apple’s Premium here, just pointing out that it’s a lot cheaper than physical retail used to be. > I kept using Photoshop because its just a better software... In some ways i…

Well, I could sell it on my website and keep 100% of the sales? Modern operating systems seem to think any binary is malware these days. Windows ads a NTFS metadata tag to any file thats downloaded online and will throw up scary looking warnings when you try to run it. And the security folks spent years writing columns telling people not to download "random" binaries from the internet. So now we download "random" bin…

Post by jbverschoor » Fri, Jul 26, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC