• he/him

Dad; software engineer; fan of giant robots in many contexts, board games, RPGs. Queer rights are not negotiable. Halifax, NS


doodlemancy
@doodlemancy

"people always complain about UI changes at first and then they get used to it" i'm going to break into your house and put all your important stuff you use every day in random drawers and see how you like it. i'm gonna hide your phone in the towel cupboard. i'll put all your spoons in the fridge. all writing utensils are now stored under a floorboard that i've drawn a pencil on (in very light pencil so you can't actually see it)

if you want your software to be a part of users' everyday lives then it has to be reliable and predictable. you can't just change the entire shape of it on a whim no matter how much better you think it is. make small changes slowly or leave it the fuck alone. a UI overhaul is rarely a good idea because even if it really is "better" you are straining the fragile trust of your userbase by throwing them unexpectedly into HEY LEARN A NEW THING when it is fucking thursday or whatever and they are busy or maybe have an urgent message to send to someone. it's disrespectful. it's a breach of common decency. you shouldn't overhaul your entire UI on a whim any more than you should "deliver" a package by hucking it through an open window at the recipient's head. take the time to knock, or at least don't complain when they yell at you and throw stuff back.


SomeEgrets
@SomeEgrets

or at least, outside of their areas of deep understanding

Like look, most people, the vast majority of people have absolutely abysmal computer skills. I'd wager that's not you, the person reading this, by virtue of a selection bias - but it is most people.

But I've seen this pattern over and over with people who aren't enthusiastic computer touchers - they don't internalize a computer/app as a generalized system with common UI conventions and frameworks and reusable elements that always behave predictably in different contexts, etc, etc. They interact with these things through a set of memorized steps that gets them to the thing they want to do.

And this is particularly disastrous because if you just constantly change the steps out from under them, not only do you break their set of memorized steps, but their understanding of the program is often limited in ways that make it harder to explore software as a collection of common, understandable systems and what you end up teaching them is learned helplessness.

It is a system of arbitrary changes inflicted on them for seemingly no discernible gain that constantly changes the thing they're trying really hard to memorize how to use. It's a random punishment scheme!

And it's kind of a delicate balance, because yeah, you know what? Your UI as it exists now is probably not ideal. You probably made some compromises or didn't anticipate ways that it would be used, or accessibility pitfalls only became evident after it shipped! Sometimes you've gotta do the hard thing and break routines to get better!

But gosh it sucks that all of our tools that we use every day keep changing unpredictably every few months.


sarahzedig
@sarahzedig

every time this topic comes up, i'm reminded of that scene from The Social Network where good ol' zuck describes facebook as being like fashion, constantly changing and evolving. this is such an apt comparison because fashion, like social media, is a wasteful, corrupt, backwards-facing engine of classist norm-production and voracious profiteering masquerading as the enlightened development of the cutting edge of human expressivity.

it's not about the tech. it's not about the users. these changes never make sense because the function of the change is epiphenomenal to its real purpose: giving investors a reason to stick around. redesigning discord or creative cloud or the idea of pants is "stimulation in your enclosure" for venture capitalists. our economy is a series of gambling addictions stacked in a trenchcoat and unwelcome unasked for alterations to perfectly functional products is the only tool any company has left to keep the gamblers sitting at their table. the profit motive is poison to integrity and usefulness. it is antithetical to the very idea of sustainable function. this trend will never stop so long as profit is the only value that matters


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @doodlemancy's post:

I think a lot of the time it's not because developers or even the company think their new version is better, it's because they need to justify keeping large staffs of programmers and UX designers on the payroll and show their shareholders that they're "doing something."

there are so many versions of it and i don't even know how many it's been but i miss when i could swipe in two different directions from my home screen and have Left Apps and Right Apps. i had a whole system! swipe right for boring things and maintenance, swipe left for the Good Apps! and they destroyed it for absolutely no reason lol

โ€ฆthis is because they wanted to reserve swiping left for the google app, isn't it? I've only ever had screens to the right of my default screen so I didn't realize they'd removed the ability to add screens to the left at all, instead of just putting the google app crap left of the leftmost screen

now now i have had so many fucking google engineers yell at me that this was entirely justified despite it transparently being solely because they put a fucking notch and couldn't do anything better :|

"what are you gonna do bitch, make a comparably-featured version of our software/website and convince everyone to leave the one they know and that everyone else is using? good luck idiot"

in reply to @SomeEgrets's post:

It's not just software tools either. Video games do this a lot too.

There was a gacha I played a bit during a depression arc. Grinding dailies, interacting with systems, even gave them some money for rolls, etc. After I reached the end of that depression period, I had stopped playing for months. However, when I returned to it while I was between jobs, they had completely overhauled the UI. So, faced with learning about all the new features and modes on top of relearning the UI for the whole thing, I just dropped it. I had given them some money in the past and instead of being pulled back in and enticingme to spend more, a UI change pushed me out because I no longer knew how to interface with the game. This is the opposite of what a game dev wants, gacha or otherwise.

Guilty Gear Strive changed the home menu in 2.0 and there's like a fancy little quick menu that you can pin your favorite modes and stuff to and somehow just access those. You know how I choose to navigate the home menu though? The same way I did in 1.0. The menu may look different, but the options are the same and I don't have to figure out how the quick mode select menu works. Why do I need a quick menu when everything on is within 2-4 button presses? Who is this for?

Similar to your point about how sometimes a UI isn't ideal, a lot of game menus could be better. But changing them while everyone is used to 'em results in lost interest and/or confusion. Or in strive's case: complete indifferent and ignoring of the new menu features.