This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Why did UI's turn from practical to form over function?
E.g. Office 2003 vs Microsoft 365
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.
Seriously? Big ribbon and massive padding wasting space, as well as the ribbon being clunky to use.
Why did this happen?
no, I'm willing to die on the hill that the ribbon UI is one of the greatest UIs period - especially how it was done in office 07 and 10. As a computer noob at the time, it was a huge improvement over the previous office 2003 UI.
The icons always gave you a good idea what something was doing, important functions were bigger and when you for example selected a table the table tab was visible and with a different color so you knew that you could do things with that table.
I think however many 3rd party programms did the ribbon UI poorly or had not enough features for it to make sense.
I will stand with you on the hill defending the Office 2010 UI, it was beautiful, clear and easy to work with.
The flat design of 2013+ was a mistake.
I think the 2013+ design was fine at time but 10+ years of doing the same flat minimalist design over and over makes me hate it now!
I always hated the ribbon context menu system. It ruins the way I learn watch involves where something is just as much as what it's called, kinda like remember where on a physical page something is even if you don't remember the page.
Static, nested menus are superior.
Yea, I agree that Office 2003 was the pinnacle of Office UI design. And I'd go so far as to say that about Windows 2000.
Having controls in predictable shapes and locations really contributed to "ease of use". One of my pet peeves is the more recent trend where clickable elements aren't obviously so. Such as a string of text that one has to hover across and see the cursor change shape to know that it's clickable.
As others have said, I think a significant part of why the UIs have changed since then is to accommodate touch screens and "webification".
'Glad to see your posting. I thought I was just being curmudgeonly :)
Not sure I follow, even in the example above there's many icons that are interactive but aren't enclosed in a button, do you have any other examples?
To me, buttons and icons provide the visual cue that "clicking here does something", without having to mouse over them to discover that they're clickable.
It's the unadorned text strings that aren't as obvious.
I bet it's capitalism.
The answer for enshittification of the entire reality seems to always be
capitalism.
Part of the problem is that people who grew up on phones and tablets are now old enough to start entering the tech industry as UI developers.
o no
I would like to see them add something like the VSCode command pallette. That way if I know the name of the tool but can't remember or don't want to go click for it, I just just type the name and fuzzy find it.
Doesn't office already have a very powerful search bar?
Eh, I don't hate the ribbon UI. It certainly looks a lot nicer than the old ones.
I think the biggest crime is that we went towards widescreens and kept all the menus and toolbars along the top.
Another issue is complexity. In a rush to sell yearly updates, more and more features are crammed in. Most of us only use a tiny fraction of them, but there they are on the screen just in case. For everyone.
You're never going to make one UI that makes everyone happy. Most people just learn where the 20 buttons or so that they use are, and blank the rest from their mind. That's the real reason the ribbon UI got hate. Their buttons moved.
Touch screen devices.
This is why I believe that they are still chasing Metro UI and reinventing every app out of control panel .
Windows phone was ahead of it's time.
But now my computer is becoming a phone.
Maybe that's the point?
I mostly use my phone now anyway.....
But it's Samsung....
Me and my friends calls this phenomenom "appification", and it is terrible.
VLC is in the process of appifying itself, just look at the screenshots of version 4.
The Ribbon is much better, and has been a part of the Office suite for over a decade, easily.
Poor examples aside, designers and engineers are rarely given a seat at the table in big tech companies. Most tech CEO's were either tech managers or sales people at some point, and are so far removed from IC work or valuing specific crafts for their user value that someone on the UX side probably doesn't get a say in how this shit is built.
Some UX designers either work to very specific business constraints, or work on stuff that has zero benefit to the end-user. Some engineers work on stuff that solely provides metrics for shareholders and leadership.
I'm tempted to set up a blog just to post about this subject, because it's everywhere, but big tech is now so top-heavy that for years many huge decisions have been made on a whim by execs. Tech has grown so large and powerful that tech execs (and those clinging to their coat-tails) put themselves outside of the echelons of what an IC can reach, and far above the user. Years of MBA double-speak and worshipping the altar of guys like Gates, Bezos, and Jobs means that it's "good" to be opinionated and ignore fact over your own judgement. This results in senior management deciding "let's put AI here" or "the colour scheme should be mostly white", despite reluctantly paying hundreds of people many thousands of dollars a year to KNOW about this stuff.
That, in essence, is why everything feels shitter nowadays. It's because some fifty-something MBA cunt believes that you need AI, or a good UI needs more buttons - stuff we've known for decades is fucking stupid. That's irrelevant though, because by being "General Manager of UI at MegaCorp" and having an assistant to arrange their Outlook calendar, they know more than you, pleb.
