Material you looks soooooo bad I hate that so many apps use it
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
20 points (88.5% liked)
Ask Lemmy
26628 readers
2700 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Linux more or less has theming controls broken out that make this normal, plus everything in Linux can be changed. My vanilla GNOME makes all of my theming the same. I tweak a few aspects, but I prefer extremely clean setups with no clutter whatsoever.
In Android, the user interface is like a single Linux application running on top of an immutable kernel. That gives a lot more control over how applications appear.
M$ is a scheme to enable monopolies. The OS is more like a set of API standards for companies to write software that is compatible. W_ is mostly static and outdated with old dependencies maintained so that proprietary software can run long term without the company hiring developers to continuously maintain the code and maximizing profit. This model has proven to be garbage and so the same proprietary companies have attempted to shift the burden of paying devs/innovation/viable existence of a business onto the end user by stealing ownership with subscription software. Every product these companies offer is available as free software now. They only continue to exist because of market share familiarity and extortion based business models. Expecting these companies to follow a unified theming further diminishes their reason for existence. The primary way most proprietary software stays around is because of how they do not follow standards and conventions for layout, nomenclature, and interfaces; trying to prevent users from migrating to free software that follows published standards. If you migrate to free and open source software, aspects like UI/UX are much more user centric.
The primary way most proprietary software stays around is because of how they do not follow standards and conventions for layout, nomenclature, and interfaces; trying to prevent users from migrating to free software that follows published standards. If you migrate to free and open source software, aspects like UI/UX are much more user centric.
Except this is nonsense. Full on dumpster fire UX is the biggest liability most OSS has. It is not user friendly, and assumes way more user knowledge to do the basics.
If FOSS actually was competitive on UX, let alone better, it would be far more popular.
I feel like this is claiming that Windows has better UI/UX which I always find hilarious.
Which 20 versions of UI are you talking about? Is it Ribbon, Metro, 9x, XP, or half of the non-native JS apps that Microsoft pushes on its own platform (especially funny to me considering they ditch their own UI API)?
Linux can be a very crummy UX too, but using Windows as some sort of standard for comparison is a joke.
Windows UX sucks. But that has nothing to do with what he's talking about, which is the programs running on Windows.
100% of the reason Photoshop dominates GIMP for market share is because GIMP is the worst designed pile of shit anyone has ever made. It doesn't matter that it's theoretically as capable, because the UX is a crime against humanity and makes the barrier to entry insurmountable. Blender is extremely powerful, and finally with 4.0 made a dent in how bad the UX is. But it's still far, far worse than the competition.
I want FOSS to be an actual choice people actually use, but it cannot possibly happen if the UX isn't actually designed for normal people to be able to figure it out. That's why proprietary software wins. They lower the mental barrier to entry to use their software, and FOSS doesn't even try to. I can't tell people "just use GIMP", or libreoffice, or whatever, because they'll open it up, realize that there hasn't even been 5 minutes of UX design cumulatively in its entire lifespan, and tell me to fuck myself for suggesting trash to them.
If FOSS doesn't actually pay attention to UX, there's no possible path to mass adoption. People want shit to make sense.
Sounds unnecessary and complex. Theming based on light/dark is definitely good but how much more beyond that is helpful or noticed?