|
| News | Profile | Code | Photography | Looking Glass | Projects | System Statistics | Uncategorized |
Blog |
I'm really sick of UIs going through constant changes. Why do new versions of operating systems feel the need to alter the user interface, when the original one works fine?
Windows 8, ICS, Mac OS X, and even Ubuntu are all forcing users to learn a new user interface. Why? The old one works fine! Sure, Windows 7 and Android 2.3 (and 3.x) may have some bugs and quirks.. but do they need a different UI? I don't think so. iOS, strangely enough, has stayed mostly the same over the years. Go Apple! Alright, I said something nice about Apple, but I'll bash them later (read on).
This isn't limited to operating systems, either. Microsoft Office 2007 radically changed the user interface for almost all of their office applications (Visio didn't see the change until 2010). As a long time Microsoft Office user (Outlook, Visio, and Word), the change cost me some time to get used to. Annoying!
Again, why?
Steve, a coworker and friend of mine, has a good answer:
So people see a "difference". "Oh, it's upgraded, it looks different"
I think he hit the nail on the head. Most consumers don't care about kernel scheduler optimizations, filesystem tweaks, API fixes, or support for the latest and greatest protocols. If the UI looks the same, they will whine that there isn't much of an upgrade. Heck, if the UI changes, most software companies can claim that they've got a new operating system, even though most of the APIs, kernel code, etc. hasn't been touched.
Alright, let's ask why.. again.
Well, I think a part of this is due to Apple. Over the last decade, people have gone from knowing a little bit about the inner workings of their computers and operating systems to not caring one bit. I hear so often "I use Apple because it just works" and "I don't care how it works." Sure, that's fine, but now because people don't know or care about such things, they don't put any thought to the changes that happen at this level. So, moving from 2.4 to 2.6 of the Linux kernel isn't seen at all by the user, if all they are basing the upgrade on is the user interface. If Apple swapped out the *BSD core of OS X and replaced it with the Linux kernel but kept the UI the same.. would most consumers care? Probably not.
Let's think about this from another perspective. If Juniper Networks decided to throw out the CLI for its flagship Junos network operating system (say, for version 12.0) and come up with something completely different, network service providers (NSPs) and enterprises would have a cow! There'd be an "Occupy Juniper" movement almost instantly. Sure, it might work out over the next year, but then if they did the same thing in 14.0, they'd probably start losing large customers.
Sure, it's comparing apples and oranges, but it's interesting to think about.
For now, I guess we're left with changing UIs every year or two for consumer electronics. Maybe it'll settle down in the future, but I don't see that happening any time soon.
What do you think? Am I off my rocker? Yes, probably..
It'd be nice if all UI designers actually made the changes to increase productivity. I think some of the changes are just to make the UI look "cool" and modern. Also, I should have talked about the performance hit taken for the addition of silly transitions and special effects..
I'm not distinguishing between mobile phone, tablet, and desktop UIs. They're all suffering from the same problem, and with the same cause, I believe. Mobile phone UI changes probably annoy people less, since the learning curve is very low.
But really, if I like the UI of my phone, even if it takes me 30 seconds to learn the new UI, why should I have to? What if I just want the new kernel and other back-end features from ICS?
As it relates to this article, I have to give Microsoft credit for not drastically changing the basic UI use of Windows for 15+ years since they released Windows 95. Although the look of it has changed, the default location of the "Start" button has stayed in the same place and mostly functions the same.
That all being said, I'm not quite sure how I'll feel about the Windows 8 "in your face" Start page. I think that's Microsoft trying to be to much like Apple and telling consumers what they want. It very well may backfire on them. Maybe in a few years we'll be talking about Windows 8 the same way we regard Windows ME and Vista.
Only time will tell...
New comments are currently disabled for this entry.
     |
This HTML for this page was generated in 0.002 seconds. |
I think that interface changes are fine if the designers sincerely believe that it will lead to an increase in productivity that outweighs the learning curve.
As for people not caring about what's under the hood. I think it's safe to say that these people are not buying computers as much as they are buying multi-purpose appliances. Appliances that have the capability of increasing productivity or solving problems, depending on what options (applications) you install.
Other people are buying computers. They want to have as near full control as they can. I don't see anything wrong with that either. A different preference for a different need.