A simple question. Why change something that already works for everyone? To solve which problem exactly?
I understand redesigning UIs when that redesign affords you some new capabilities for new features you want to add. I don't, however, understand redesigns that just move things around without adding anything new.
Android 12 is the prime example of this right now. Android 11, which I currently have on my phone, works fine. Its UI is well thought out. It's mature enough. The best thing you could do to it is leave it alone. But then someone at Google wanted a promotion, which meant redesigning an existing product, and now everything is opaque and has huge paddings for no good reason. And when they say "material you is customizable", I really hope it's so customizable I could just make it look like it did before they released this mess.
I have the opposite question: why do people let themselves get upset over UI changes? Why don’t people seem to take pride in their ability to adapt to change?
Change is inevitable. Even if we stipulate that change sometimes happens for bad reasons, like someone wanting a promotion, it’s not like bad reasons are suddenly going to disappear. People are still going to want promotions a year from now, or 10 years from now.
So designs are going to change. Why not take the approach of “let’s see how I can adapt to this”?
> why do people let themselves get upset over UI changes?
Because a UI is a tool I use to get something done. I don't like when the thing I've been using intuitively gets changed so I have to learn to use it again. It's a tool. It's not an art piece.
> Why don’t people seem to take pride in their ability to adapt to change?
Because this adaptation doesn't make their lives any better. It's change for the sake of change. It's like weather, except weather isn't quite controllable, but these changes are deliberately introduced by other people to mess with you for no good reason.
> Change is inevitable.
Progress is inevitable. Moving things around isn't progress. Progress implies adding something.
> Even if we stipulate that change sometimes happens for bad reasons, like someone wanting a promotion
The incentive structure in most IT companies is wildly wrong, I'll say that. No one at Google got promoted for maintaining an existing product because afaik promotion requires completing a "big project". So the easiest "big project" is a UI redesign. The second easiest is apparently an instant messaging app.
> Why not take the approach of “let’s see how I can adapt to this”?
Let's see. I adapted to this by avoiding installing any major updates unless absolutely necessary. Security patches are fine tho.
RE google; I can't remember who here stated otherwise but I believe that promotion policy (unspoken or otherwise) is no longer in effect and the rot has... presumably a different antecedent if we accept the premise anyways
A couple of reasons. First of all, the UI is just a means to an end. If it changes just for the sake of re-arranging, then people have to put in more effort to accomplish the same thing they were doing before. Sure, most people will eventually adapt. But, still feels like a waste of time when the updates offer no real increase to functionality, and sometimes seem to reduce it.
Secondly, the complaints come because, for many of us, our computers and phones feel like an extension of our offices and homes. We're staring at these screens for the majority of waking hours. The UI is basically part of the furniture. Many people would feel resentful if their chairs, couches, and doorknobs were changed without permission every year as part of some update. They're going to have similar feelings about the electronic portions of their spaces.
If changes are going to actively hamper use, why wouldn't people get worked up? This very article is a prime example of bad design affecting usability. Same with what I've seen of Android 12. Huge quick shortcut buttons that take up half the screen in the notification shade. 2 toggles where now I have 5. This is terrible. "live with it"? No
> So designs are going to change. Why not take the approach of “let’s see how I can adapt to this”?
Because there's huge costs for everyone involved...?
"let’s see how I can adapt to this”... Across how many devices? If a school lab updates, but I don't... I know have to learn something new when it's probably not necessary. If I update, and the school lab didn't... will my stuff be compatible? If I send a document to 'version Y', will I still be able to use it in my own local previous 'version X'?
If I'm a business, how do I support X changes across multiple customer bases? And for how long? I have support people to train to answer every stupid question from people who can't find ABC menu item any more because it's now rendered as 'abc' in a different menu area.
In MANY cases, there are compounded, massive costs to seemingly small/trivial/design changes.
> Why not take the approach of “let’s see how I can adapt to this”?
Our computers (and phones) are not fashion. They are tools, they are commoditized.
Let's change everything every two years: you screws and screwdrivers, controls in your car (with everyting going touchscreen, that's exactly what we'll soon get), buttons in your elevators, plane controls, heart monitors...
See, how stupid "let's wait and adapt to this" sounds?
I understand redesigning UIs when that redesign affords you some new capabilities for new features you want to add. I don't, however, understand redesigns that just move things around without adding anything new.
Android 12 is the prime example of this right now. Android 11, which I currently have on my phone, works fine. Its UI is well thought out. It's mature enough. The best thing you could do to it is leave it alone. But then someone at Google wanted a promotion, which meant redesigning an existing product, and now everything is opaque and has huge paddings for no good reason. And when they say "material you is customizable", I really hope it's so customizable I could just make it look like it did before they released this mess.