Why did UI’s turn from practical to form over function?

E.g. Office 2003 vs Microsoft 365

Office 2003

It’s easy to remember where everything is with a toolbar and menu bar, which allows access to any option in one click and hold move.

Microsoft 365

Seriously? Big ribbon and massive padding wasting space, as well as the ribbon being clunky to use.

Why did this happen?

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    123
    arrow-down
    14
    ·
    22 hours ago

    I’m so tired of neck beards assuming that any spacing in a design is a waste, as if a good design packs every milimeter with stuff. Proper application of negative space is common in art and throughout design.

    • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      10 hours ago

      You are among the first people I’ve seen online who hasn’t circlejerked about literally any level of padding/spacing being too much padding.

      People on Reddit/Lemmy always talk about how unusably shit any modern design is, and how UX/UI from 20+ years ago was so much better.

      Yet do they use ancient copies of the software that broadly still performs the tasks people need of them? No.

      Do they theme their system to look like the oh-so-superior Win98? No.

      Don’t get me wrong, sometimes I see a design change I dislike. But as a general rule, UI has definitely got better over the years.

      And don’t get me wrong, part of me feels great nostalgia at seeing old UX’s, because it reminds me of the “good old days” when I bought my first computer in 1999. It’s fun to Go back and use systems from back then. And at first you think AAAAA this is so cool, I remember all this, this looks neat, but after that nostalgia wears off you think *“thank god modern UIs aren’t inconsistent, cramped and cluttered like this”

      Nostalgia goggles are a powerful thing.

      • nyan@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        Yet do they use ancient copies of the software that broadly still performs the tasks people need of them? No.

        Yes, actually—I have a VM reserved mostly for 16-bit software.

        Do they theme their system to look like the oh-so-superior Win98? No.

        Yes, actually—the Windows machine I’m forced to use for work restores as much of that aesthetic as practical, sometimes with the help of third-party software. My main home machine features a Linux DE whose appearance is largely the same as it was circa 2005 and whose development team is dedicated to keeping that look and feel.

        Some of us do put our money where our mouths are, although I admit that isn’t universal.

        It’s true that some level of padding is necessary in a UI, but the amount present in contemporary design is way too large for a system using a traditional mouse or laptop touchpad, which are capable of small, precise movements. Touchscreen-friendly design is best saved for touchscreens, but people don’t want to do the work involved to create multiple styles of UI for different hardware. I’ve never encountered anything touted as “one size fits all”, whether it be a UI or a piece of clothing, that actually does fit everyone. At best, it’s “one size fits most”, and I’m usually outside the range of “most” the designers had in mind. At worst, it’s “lowest common denominator”, and that seems to be the best description for contemporary UI design.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Yes, actually—I have a VM reserved mostly for 16-bit software

          Do you think that’s normal? I made very clear in my comment I was referring to the vast majority of people, not a tiny majority of 80s/early 90s software enthusiasts.

          Yes, actually

          As above, do you think that’s normal? I never said *literally nobody, anywhere, on planet Earth does this.

          Some of us do put our money where our mouths are, although I admit that isn’t universal.

          Exactly. And that’s fine.

          But the vast majority of people prefer UI now over what we had in the 90s.

          but the amount present in contemporary design is way too large

          In your opinion, sure. But that’s not the prevailing opinion.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Yet do they use ancient copies of the software that broadly still performs the tasks people need of them? No.

        This just means that functionality and interoperability criteria are more important than usability. They are - you can’t just exchange docs with a person using a modern office suite, while you are using WordPerfect 8 for Linux.

        This is the opposite of confirming your argument about UI\UX, because this means that UI\UX are order of magnitude less important in making the decision.

        And it’s obvious, I swear, some people haven’t been taught that arguments are not intended to support their group or hierarchy, you can’t do that with cheating in arguments anyway. They are intended to find out truth, make both participants richer than before.

        Do they theme their system to look like the oh-so-superior Win98? No.

        That’s simply because they “theme their system” to look as they wish and they don’t have to stop with Win98 or Win2K.

        But in a “one size to fit all” situation those are still obviously superior.

        Ergonomics is not a matter of opinions, there’s plenty of research since the fscking world war two. Different controls should have different colors, shapes and textures. It’s a scientifically proven statement. Proven with human error stats and time to do a task stats.

        Padding controls and indicators with space can be a good thing, but no modern designer is doing it right as far as I’m concerned. Because it’s not about making panels half the screen, it’s about different groups of controls being clearly separated by that space and padded for focus, and space being used proportionally to importance.

        They’ve all heard something of it, but haven’t learned the actual thing.

        Older UIs were usually (often, but not always) made with respect to ergonomics.

        thank god modern UIs aren’t inconsistent, cramped and cluttered like this

        Our ideas of all three things seem to be diametrically opposite. For me older UIs seem ordered, compact and correctly accented. In general, it’s not always true - say, I like the appearance of old KDE (2-3), but not sure if I’d use it daily, for example (neither I would modern KDE).

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          This just means that functionality and interoperability criteria are more important than usability.

          Sometimes yes. Usually no, for most people. If you make a word document in an older version of office, it’ll still work fine. If you use LibreOffice with the oldest-looking UI, it’ll still work. 99% of people don’t use the extremely niche features that have been added in recent years.

          But people by and large don’t do that. They typically use the newest version.

          This is the opposite of confirming your argument about UI\UX, because this means that UI\UX are order of magnitude less important in making the decision.

          No it isn’t.

          How is using software with modern interfaces actually a confirmation that people actually prefer older UX?

          That’s simply because they “theme their system” to look as they wish and they don’t have to stop with Win98 or Win2K.

          Exactly. And almost nobody themes their system to look like the supposedly superior in UI/UX Win95/98/2000. Indicating that maybe people don’t actually want a UI from that era, despite Reddit and Lemmy insisting that everybody does.

          Ergonomics is not a matter of opinions, there’s plenty of research

          Exactly. And that research has lead to where we are now.

          Padding controls and indicators with space can be a good thing,

          Is a good thing.

          They’ve all heard something of it, but haven’t learned the actual thing.

          No, they’ve generally improved it, and listened to actual UX usability studies.

          Older UIs were usually (often, but not always) made with respect to ergonomics.

          They almost never were. Seriously. Go back and try some 90s software. Most of it was a cluttered mess, ugly, really weirdly laid out, and had zero considering for anybody with disabilities.

          Our ideas of all three things seem to be diametrically opposite. For me older UIs seem ordered, compact and correctly accented

          And that’s fine. You can think differently. But most would disagree with you, outside the Redditor/Lemmy bubble.

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            6 hours ago

            You are immune to logic sadly, but I’ll answer two things, which can be extrapolated to all you’ve said.

            Sometimes yes. Usually no, for most people. If you make a word document in an older version of office, it’ll still work fine. If you use LibreOffice with the oldest-looking UI, it’ll still work. 99% of people don’t use the extremely niche features that have been added in recent years.

            No, it all won’t work fine at your work where you send documents and spreadsheets and stuff with complex functionality to your colleagues and clients. And they send their documents to you. And versions edited in your old version or LO break.

            That aside, WordPerfect 8 doesn’t support MSW document formats, IIRC, and MSW doesn’t support WP8 document formats.

            Exactly. And that research has lead to where we are now.

            This is factually incorrect and I have already said it’s incorrect. That research has mostly been exhausted, and the conclusions one can make from it are more or less the same as in 40s, 60s and 80s. And 90s’ interfaces were more usable because by habit people tried to follow industrial ergonomics, even though computer displays allow one to cheaply shoot their user in the foot, in the way some device’s panel with switches, buttons and knobs doesn’t.

            They almost never were. Seriously. Go back and try some 90s software. Most of it was a cluttered mess, ugly, really weirdly laid out, and had zero considering for anybody with disabilities.

            Some of it. But IBM and Apple had human interface guidelines based on actual research about ergonomics, which hasn’t become obsolete despite what you say, because humans did not change as a race in 30 years. UI\UX following those is still good.

            Judging by the first quote, you simply haven’t done work requiring heavy usage of productivity software yet.

            Also you are arguing like a schoolboy. Exactly in the way schoolboys consider to not look like it. I could give advice, but that usually only results in resistance.

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 hours ago

              If you can’t engage with someone like an adult, don’t bother talking to them at all.

              I’ll be here if you wish to further this without huffy remarks and silly playground insults.

      • cmhe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        People spend lots of money to buy big screens, only for apps/websites to use a fraction of it.

        I cannot control how every application or website I have to use looks, but where I can, I try to find solutions.

        When I am occasionally on reddit, I use old.reddit. I use addons for youtube, to remove unecessary stuff, or open videos directly in mpv.

        I use reader mode to make many sites easier to navigate.

        Mastodon and Lemmy have a much better design than Twitter or new Reddit.

        On the one windows machine I still have, I use the classic shell, to replace the start menu with something more usable.

        I use Libreoffice, and many other Software with sane functional UI.

        I don’t want to use old software, because the older software gets, the more hostile the environment becomes for it.

        A lot of UI decisions on the Internet seem driven by the need to create empty spaces to put advertising into, and with adblocker it looks just bad.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 hours ago

          The bulk of these aren’t issues with modern design, IMO, it’s about enshittification of the services we use.

          Having huge spaces for ads, for example, isn’t a “this is how UX should be” thing, it’s a “lets shove ads everywhere to make money” thing. If you put the same amount of ads in older software/on sites that look like they’re from 2002, it would also look terrible.

          The Windows start menu isn’t bad because it has some padding and easier click targets, it’s bad because the search doesn’t work, it’s full of ads, and pushes Bing searches on you.

          Etc.

          • cmhe@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 hours ago

            Yes they are, UX designers are not asked to make more efficient or usable designs, they are asked to make designs that “look good” in marketing, support ad integration, hook people into others services provided by that same company, make it more difficult to incorporate with workflows that include third-party applications, etc.

            This is deliberate UX design, which is part of the enshittification process.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago
        • Laptop screens are now useless
        • I used to use my iPad as an additional monitor but I can no longer fit even a useable text chat window on it
        • I need my 27” monitor to fit the useable workspace that a laptop screen once had
        • AnUnusualRelic@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 hours ago

          2k is the new 800×600… :-/

          It’s probably even worse for Windows users with all those stupid unresizeable windows.

        • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 hours ago

          How are laptop screens useless? I’m using a laptop right now. Doesn’t seem useless to me.

          I have more than enough room.

          Laptops wouldn’t be the main form factor for doing PC work if they were useless.

          I need my 27” monitor to fit the useable workspace that a laptop screen once had

          Unless you’ve got scaling set super high for some reason, that’s very doubtful.

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Damn I wish, I’ve been eyeing those up for ages.

              It’s some Huawei laptop I found refurbished for a price I couldn’t turn down

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            8 hours ago

            No wait, let me go with your example ….

            You believe a laptop window is useful because you can run a browser with 11 headlines visible

            My first work “computer” was a vt100 terminal: black and white, 80 characters wide (on the newer models), by 24 rows. I could and did have a reader that could display as many as 20 headlines on a single screen, and I could scroll and drill down much faster. Sure the UI was shit, but it had the functionality to do the task.

            Don’t get me wrong, I fully appreciate the usability and power of a modern graphical UI and would never go back. However the point is designers focus too much on eye candy and “doing it because they can” over actual functionality. Can you understand my frustration that a modern 1900x1200 screen with millions of colors is really no more functional than a 40 year old black and white character based terminal. I get that designers want to show off their UI, but I want the UI to get out of my way and let me do more stuff. I want there to be more focus on compactness and efficiency. I want at least some attention paid to using resources wisely

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              6 hours ago

              *12 headlines, on a window that doesn’t even take up my whole screen, at 125% scaling, with a bookmark bar taking up space, and on a site rich with thumbnails.

              And fine. I’ll set it to standard 100% scaling, at a size where I can still comfortably work:

              19 headlines, and some nice related thumbnails, a site header with plenty of links, 2 small file manager windows open, and a terminal window open.

              None of this is even taking into consideration things in modern UX design like virtual desktops you can instantly switch between - something non-existent long ago.

              Please do continue to tell me about how “unusable” laptops are.

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            9 hours ago

            Wow, you can fit one whole browser window on it … with headlines.

            Even back in the CRT days, I could have a couple windows, such as email, text, and IDE

            • my email program now has huge wasted ui space so might take up the whole laptop screen, leaving me thing. Email is not work, but something on the side for communication that shouldn’t interfere with work
            • my text chat is no longer a tiny rectangle in the corner but has huge wasted ui space and wants to take up an entire laptop screen. Even that is sometimes not enough. Text is not work, text is somethign on the side that shouldn’t interfere with work
            • my IDE has huge waste UI space and no longer fits any useable workspace on a laptop screen

            Laptops are great for portability: I used to carry them to work from any loaation. It was great while it lasted. Now I carry it from docking station to docking station, and I’m back to the bad old days of dpneeding an office set up, so I can have usable monitors

            • TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 hours ago

              Wow, you can fit one whole browser window on it … with headlines.

              I easily fit my browser on it (displaying a reasonably-sized page without content being cut off) with a file manager at the side, which is what I had open at the time.

              I don’t know what you wanted me to show you. 4 windows in a quadrant layout? That would be doable too, for most programs.

              I was refuting your point that laptops are unusable because of modern UX - clearly they aren’t.

              Even back in the CRT days, I could have a couple windows, such as email, text, and IDE

              I thought we were talking about laptops! Now you’re talking about a monitor on a desk?

              As I just showed you, you can have multiple windows open on a laptop. My laptop isn’t even large, it’s just a usual 14.something" laptop.

              You should go into your display settings and turn your scaling down, because it seems to me you’ve got scaling set at 200% or something lol

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      19 hours ago

      Almost like Microsoft did a tremendous amount of user research aimed at improving the accessibility of the most commonly used features. I don’t use their products much, but the design has definitely improved over the years and extra padding is a big part of it.

      • AA5B@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I find it’s weird to see this article, as if they just now discovered the effing ribbon ….

        I had given up on more compact UIs and bought bigger screens: I can no longer work without at least 2. However lately I’ve been using a lot of large Excel spreadsheets, and am cursing the ribbon again. I need to use the “filter” control a lot, but it only appears on the “Home” ribbon when the Window is a certain size 😡. I don’t even know where it is the rest of the time, but it seems like whenever I want to filter a lot of data I need to start by adjusting window size until the filter controls appear.

        Yay for “usability”, instead of a compact UI where things can be found in predictable menu locations regardless of window size

        • Donut@leminal.space
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          10 hours ago

          You know you can customize the ribbon entirely, right? Make it your own and put your most used features in there

          • AA5B@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 hours ago

            Then how will I find new features? How will I use other computers? I just want the functionality organized in some predictable way and leave me some place to work in. I want my work to be the focus, not some designer on peyote’s idea of a good time. And I want to be able to do it on any computer I happen to use

            • Donut@leminal.space
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 hours ago

              I just want the functionality organized in some predictable way and leave me some place to work in

              Then customize it. If you’re using Office, it should even be transferred between devices. This is exactly why you can customize it: so you can make your type of work your focus.

              I’m not here to defend MS or anything, but I can’t help pointing out the answer right in front of you.

              • AA5B@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 hours ago

                Ah yes, the cloud dependency required to edit a local file, or the added delay of customizing every time I use a different computer

        • theherk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I hoped it was clear that I was making a purely subjective statement there. So that’s just like… my opinion man.

    • ian@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      15 hours ago

      For some, with only a small screen, wasted space means extra navigation to find hidden commands. A usability fail just so the app looks pretty. Also a symptom of “one UI fits all” just to save businesses money.

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        11 hours ago

        In my experience working with Designers for web and app design, they always had trouble with dynamic stuff at all levels, from program flow and elements which dynamically collapsed or expanded to using animation to illustrate things or call attention to something.

        Don’t get me wrong, as a programmer I was like a toddler next to them when it came to even just awareness of the concerns related to merelly visual organisation, not counting all sorts of other concerns in a visual design some of which I’m sure I’m even not aware exist. It’s just that when it came to dynamic elements their expertise was comparativelly non-existent and they have little or no tendency to use such capabilities, even in things such as apps where they’re reasonably easy to do.

        • ian@feddit.uk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 hours ago

          In this case I wouldn’t associate the poor usability with the designers, I think its down to big business not caring. Plus it costs more to make a UI good, and flexible for different user situations. They’ll also hire the cheapest designers. It’s all about saving money and more profit. Their main aim. And in the case of monopolies, people can’t go elsewhere. The problems all come down from the top.