There’s a flip side to this. If you change the UI for no reason, people get upset. For example, the latest iOS update flipped the speaker and mute buttons during a call. Why? No improvement was made, it’s just frustrating.
> If you change the UI for no reason... This appears to be not true for the OS (but only for Apps / websites). I'd say, for personal devices, folks expect a shiny new UI every OS update. For ex: iOS and Android are always in contention for who changes UI the most, from one version to another. Besides, styling changes and form changes are not the same.
I really enjoy UI changes on software. They feel a lot like redecorating/renovating your home. Suddenly your device feels fresh and exciting again, and usually more capable than before.
As long as they aren’t broken or removing large amounts of useful functionality. The only redesign I’ve ever disliked is the Reddit one, and only because it still doesn’t work properly.
This was actually not the conclusion I was expecting: > Don't bother improving your product unless it results in visible changes the user can see, find, and hopefully appreciate. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I can't think of the last time I encountered a UX change I thought was actually worth it. They're always bothersome, because now I notice the tool --it's no longer an extension of my mind and body, instead…
I really like the new IntelliJ UI. It’s a blatant rip-off of VS Code but I like VS code so I’m fine with it. Removes a bunch of lesser-used features from the main view and feels a lot cleaner.
This was actually not the conclusion I was expecting: > Don't bother improving your product unless it results in visible changes the user can see, find, and hopefully appreciate. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I can't think of the last time I encountered a UX change I thought was actually worth it. They're always bothersome, because now I notice the tool --it's no longer an extension of my mind and body, instead…
> I claim there are two reasons UX changes happen:
You're quite literally leaving zero room for things improving over time. Either whoever built the software got it exactly right on the first try, or it's an insider political move.
Never mind that products can evolve over time, or that technology can enable new features, or that users can request new things, or that we just get better at building UIs over time.
> If you change the UI for no reason... This appears to be not true for the OS (but only for Apps / websites). I'd say, for personal devices, folks expect a shiny new UI every OS update. For ex: iOS and Android are always in contention for who changes UI the most, from one version to another. Besides, styling changes and form changes are not the same.
I really enjoy UI changes on software. They feel a lot like redecorating/renovating your home. Suddenly your device feels fresh and exciting again, and usually more capable than before. As long as they aren’t broken or removing large amounts of useful functionality. The only redesign I’ve ever disliked is the Reddit one, and only because it still doesn’t work properly.
> redesign I’ve ever disliked is the Reddit one, and only because it still doesn’t work properly.
It is amazing how they aren't able to sort it out despite all the engineering hours spent on it.
And existing users, who adopted your product because it already satisfied their need, may perceive any new features as unwelcome UI changes if they interfere with their existing workflow. As as told by https://x.com/scriffey/status/1493389985579417603 : I was next to my girlfriend when Chrome updated on her computer. It popped up a page of new features and she goes "I don't need this, I will never use a feature" as s…
Every two weeks a member of the UX research team would present a report of compiled feedback and, oh boy, did we ever hear about all things people hated about any UI changes. Their complaints are typically completely valid, but there’s only so much we can do. We can’t just leave things alone because there’s always some new feature or ad product to work in. We UX designers did not choose what to work on any more than…
For new features, submenus.
It might not always be the right choice because it could add enough complexity to discourage marginal users, but that’s different from not having something ‘we can do’.
Every two weeks a member of the UX research team would present a report of compiled feedback and, oh boy, did we ever hear about all things people hated about any UI changes. Their complaints are typically completely valid, but there’s only so much we can do. We can’t just leave things alone because there’s always some new feature or ad product to work in. We UX designers did not choose what to work on any more than…
For new features, submenus. It might not always be the right choice because it could add enough complexity to discourage marginal users, but that’s different from not having something ‘we can do’.
Really just depends on the product and feature and the company culture. Submenus don't work when the feature has a powerful internal sponsor and they want it front and center.
And existing users, who adopted your product because it already satisfied their need, may perceive any new features as unwelcome UI changes if they interfere with their existing workflow. As as told by https://x.com/scriffey/status/1493389985579417603 : I was next to my girlfriend when Chrome updated on her computer. It popped up a page of new features and she goes "I don't need this, I will never use a feature" as s…
Every two weeks a member of the UX research team would present a report of compiled feedback and, oh boy, did we ever hear about all things people hated about any UI changes. Their complaints are typically completely valid, but there’s only so much we can do. We can’t just leave things alone because there’s always some new feature or ad product to work in. We UX designers did not choose what to work on any more than…
People have different layouts in toolboxes, sheds, garages, kitchens, bathrooms, etc. Whatever fits them best. They highlight main features and hide the rest in shelves. But when it comes to UX, everything must have its very fixed special pedestal for some reason. Not your fault, the whole UX thing is absurd from inventory management pov. We used customizable toolbars all the time before someone decided that we are too dumb for that. We still make bookmarks, pin apps to start menus, arrange apps on dashboards. Users aren’t dumb, the premise is.
For new features, submenus. It might not always be the right choice because it could add enough complexity to discourage marginal users, but that’s different from not having something ‘we can do’.
Really just depends on the product and feature and the company culture. Submenus don't work when the feature has a powerful internal sponsor and they want it front and center.
Then you can still put the features that have weaker ‘internal sponsors’ there.
Can you be more specific? Win98 se sp2 was a golden age of computing for some.
Unless you needed large fonts, or high contrast, or screen readers, or resizing windows without tearing, or start menu search, or file explorer search, or taskbar thumbnail previews, or window snapping, or......seriously, the list goes on for a long time.
large fonts and high contrast were available themes, your start menu wasn't that big in those days, file explorer search still doesn't work right, you didn't have so many apps that you needed taskbar thumbnails (You had maaaybe 32 megabytes of ram back then) , monitors weren't big enough to need snapping (seriously, remember trying to use a 14" CRT?). Yeah, technology has advanced significantly since the 90's and we've needed innovations to keep pace, but Windows' UI changes haven't all been good. In Windows 8 Microsoft went for a touch based UI and it just didn't work right.