I couldn't disagree more. Of course there no sense in moving things around just for the sake of changing something, and implementing those design changes is always prone to making bad decisions. However I pretty much want the applications I use to move forward and if this means iterative design adjustments, then by all means, do it.

The people complaining about any kind of change are usually the ones who learn using an application by trying to exactly memorize navigation paths and word-for-word expressions in menus, which feels absolutely wrong to me. It's like learning stuff in school by memorizing the content word for word, without understanding any of them or the context in general. It may work for while, but not for long.

I know that the average person is very different from the tech-savvy crowd around here, in fact I work with non-technical people everyday, yet this helplessness once a button or a feature has been moved is still very surprising to me and I think it's a better idea to try to educate people not to hang on to memorized paths, but instead look for plausible context, really consider where you'd expect a certain feature to be located. That's exactly what the developer did for his app - well, in most cases. Avoiding change in software design is not the solution.

No, it's not a better idea to "educate users" it is rather to respect the users. Imagine when your car would change the controls on random mornings. People want the work done like you just want to drive. Don't project your untypical preferences to the others.

I'm almost sure that if you're a serious programmer you use a command line. You know, where you type in one line, the output is written in the following lines, emulating the electrically-controlled typewriter which prints the letter one after the another on the roll of the paper from the sixties. Think about that. "Carriage return" once actually caused the physical carriage to return and the line feed actually activated the paper feeder to roll the paper one line up.

A lot of changes in the UI are often driven more by the changes in the politics inside of the company (who is going to be seen for his visible contribution to the "change") than any real need. Think about that.

No, what we have to do is educate you on why you cannot expect everyone's brains to work the way you want them to.

For many people, computers are just a thing they use, whether for work or for keeping in touch with friends or whatever. They aren't something that they dedicate very much of their brain to. Computer interfaces have lots of text, lots of images -- some of which are clickable, some of which aren't -- and the rules aren't very consistent from device to device. On top of all that, there are some genuine dark UI patterns, like software from CNet that tries to trick users into downloading useless crap.

What you're basically expecting is for people to dedicate more of their attention to computers. And guess what? Mechanics wish people would dedicate more attention to their cars. Contractors wish people would dedicate more attention to their homes. Landscapers wish people would dedicate more attention to their yards. And in each of their professional forums, you'd hear some of them arguing with equal veracity that people need to be more educated about all of these things.

As a user who learns apps by concept, not memorization, it's still incredibly frustrating when the UI paradigm changes (such as the old switch from organized menus to chaotic ribbons, and from useful text to ambiguous icons). But even a conceptually well-versed user of software starts to develop a spatial/muscle memory for working significantly faster; experienced, intelligent users can still be thrown completely by minor UI changes that take them out of their working flow state.

As a front-end engineer who works on desktop Firefox for Mozilla, I think we have actually held to your "no major redesigns more than once every 2 years" request ;)

Australis was a UI change that we don't anticipate doing more than once every two years. We recognize the costs of doing so, for users, add-on devs, and Mozilla devs.

I've recently updated to 33 (on Linux and Windows) and had my startpage altered - hid a lot of the site links, added an unwanted search form. It did add a new cog, which usually means settings but in this case is a toggle for the pinned sites (completely breaking the expected standard-through-use, offering no affordance as to it's action, contradicting the use of the cog to access preferences).

Since the Firebird days I've been using FF (on and off, I had a dalliance with Opera, Chrome, some other variants) and even I had to first search what the newtab page was even called (I forget now, it doesn't tell me anywhere in the UI) then having read a few posts I noticed that some people had different size site links and tried scroll-zoom and so returned to my default of 3 x 5 sites shown.

It's tiny things like this - you open your browser and newtab has been altered (to make way for adverts in this case) and smack there you are. It's not "your" browser it's the company that offered the upgrade, it's theirs now .. until you can claw it back again. Then the next upgrade comes, some security fix and you apply it with trepidation.

Is it really 2 years since the addon bar was removed, the big orange menu button was removed and the new "burger" menu link was added, the new config for the menu link, the streamlined tabs, the removal of the menubar, tabs moved above the address bar. Time flies?¹

[Looking it seems the major Australis changes (removal of addon bar for example) came in 2013, this thread is full of rants against changing the UI and moving towards Chrome https://blog.mozilla.org/addons/2013/05/27/major-compatibili...]

¹ - I genuinely don't remember. I also used to use fixes/addons to have a compact menu with chrome removed (using KDE settings) so I'm not clear on default UI.

This is why I won't recommend Android to any friends or family. Being the most technically literate person most of them know, they all come to me for help fixing problems with their computers or phones.

The UI changes in iOS7 caused a whole bunch of questions and problems with my "support network", but with Android it would be like that every year with every OS update.

The reason I don't recommend iOS is because Apple keeps changing their policy on apps and their stuff works only with products they make. I like my friends and family to not live in Apple's world view / walled garden.

So, it's not about Apple designing great products; i recommend android because it's a better choice for freedom (which usually always ends up having to make more effort).

Non-techy people aren't good at tech. They don't grok it. Usually they operate it by learning it by rote. "Click the button there, then click/tap this". To them working a piece of tech is like learning off spells. When you change the UI, it's like someone changed the language you're trying to work in. They have to relearn from scratch.

Same here. The technical folks will immediately update, discover the UI annoyances and find means to overcome them. But I notice that non-technical family and friends become very much annoyed when they are continuously pushed to update their software and almost everything changes within the UI.

Companies have switched from introducing new features and backend improvements (what the technical folks used to care about) to what they feel everyone can see, the UI. As a result, the software has not fundamentally changed, minus a few small new features, but it looks like a brand new product.

One solution might be to keep supporting the previous two or three layouts, and provide an easy way to switch back and forward between them.