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?
Funny story, before they did the 2007 redesigns, they asked users what they wanted to be added; 95% said features that were already in Office.
The Ribbon was designed to make features more findable.
Alas.
I’ve used Office 2003, 2007, 2010 etc. all the way up to 365 not for work purposes, but just happened to have interacted with all of the versions.
I have to say, I seriously don’t know what happened, but Office 2003-2007 feels the most stable and least clunky versions of Office (at least Word) in terms of basic word processing.
I learned how to properly edit and format text in Word in university in a way that I could, without fail, reproduce almost any text design you could think of. When I was learning it on Office 2007 I believe, everything was so stable and predictable. Now when somebody asks me to format some text with 365, the styles functionality continually keeps bugging out and doing stupid shit that I basically can’t recover from unless I create a blank file.
In conclusion, Office 2007 > 365
/rant
Same, but for Excel.
Also, JFC the save menu in Office 365 is Cthulhu-level madness.
No. Microsoft 365 (previously office 365) is not a web app. They have web apps, and some licenses (the bare bones $6/mo one) only has web apps. But overall the suite of apps can’t be defined as web based.
Not to be confusing, but some of the apps are only web apps, but those are “other” apps than you’re probably thinking of. Like Planner or Power Automate. The “office” apps like outlook, word, excel and PowerPoint all have desktop and web versions included.
There’s Office online, which has a free tier and a “365” tier, whatever that means. Does it mean that you have Office available 365 days a year? Good luck on February 29th, I guess. /j
Anyway, Microsoft transitioned Office into a subscription-based model, which I abhor because I just want to have a piece of software without feature updates, just bug and security fixes. So Office 365 is just normal Office, but on a subscription basis.
I’m so tired of neck beards assuming that any spacing in a design is a waste, as if a good design packs every milimeter with stuff. Proper application of negative space is common in art and throughout design.
Almost like Microsoft did a tremendous amount of user research aimed at improving the accessibility of the most commonly used features. I don’t use their products much, but the design has definitely improved over the years and extra padding is a big part of it.
I find it’s weird to see this article, as if they just now discovered the effing ribbon ….
I had given up on more compact UIs and bought bigger screens: I can no longer work without at least 2. However lately I’ve been using a lot of large Excel spreadsheets, and am cursing the ribbon again. I need to use the “filter” control a lot, but it only appears on the “Home” ribbon when the Window is a certain size 😡. I don’t even know where it is the rest of the time, but it seems like whenever I want to filter a lot of data I need to start by adjusting window size until the filter controls appear.
Yay for “usability”, instead of a compact UI where things can be found in predictable menu locations regardless of window size
You know you can customize the ribbon entirely, right? Make it your own and put your most used features in there
The usability has been plummetting with every single redesign for quite a while, though.
Used to be everything could be found and done in two or three clicks… now it’s five minutes clicking and scrolling through the useless single windowed chaos of the configuration app looking for where the last update randomly moved it to (finding one or two options that are almost what you’re looking for, but can’t do what used to take just a couple clicks), five minutes looking it up on what’s left of the internet while avoiding ads, spam, and hallucinating LLMs, only to find out this setting you and everyone you know had been using almost daily was removed by the last update “to improve usability”, and five minutes writing eldritch incantations into the registry, group policies, or powershell to finally configure the fucking setting…
You are among the first people I’ve seen online who hasn’t circlejerked about literally any level of padding/spacing being too much padding.
People on Reddit/Lemmy always talk about how unusably shit any modern design is, and how UX/UI from 20+ years ago was so much better.
Yet do people use ancient copies of the software that broadly still performs the tasks people need of them? No.
Do they theme their system to look like the oh-so-superior Win98? No.
Don’t get me wrong, sometimes I see a design change I dislike. But as a general rule, UI has definitely got better over the years.
And don’t get me wrong, part of me feels great nostalgia at seeing old UX’s, because it reminds me of the “good old days” when I bought my first computer in 1999. It’s fun to Go back and use systems from back then. And at first you think AAAAA this is so cool, I remember all this, this looks neat, but after that nostalgia wears off you think *“thank god modern UIs aren’t inconsistent, cramped and cluttered like this”
Nostalgia goggles are a powerful thing.
Yet do they use ancient copies of the software that broadly still performs the tasks people need of them? No.
Yes, actually—I have a VM reserved mostly for 16-bit software.
Do they theme their system to look like the oh-so-superior Win98? No.
Yes, actually—the Windows machine I’m forced to use for work restores as much of that aesthetic as practical, sometimes with the help of third-party software. My main home machine features a Linux DE whose appearance is largely the same as it was circa 2005 and whose development team is dedicated to keeping that look and feel.
Some of us do put our money where our mouths are, although I admit that isn’t universal.
It’s true that some level of padding is necessary in a UI, but the amount present in contemporary design is way too large for a system using a traditional mouse or laptop touchpad, which are capable of small, precise movements. Touchscreen-friendly design is best saved for touchscreens, but people don’t want to do the work involved to create multiple styles of UI for different hardware. I’ve never encountered anything touted as “one size fits all”, whether it be a UI or a piece of clothing, that actually does fit everyone. At best, it’s “one size fits most”, and I’m usually outside the range of “most” the designers had in mind. At worst, it’s “lowest common denominator”, and that seems to be the best description for contemporary UI design.
My main home machine features a Linux DE whose appearance is largely the same as it was circa 2005 and whose development team is dedicated to keeping that look and feel.
That be TDE or Mate?.. I can’t get rid of anxiety without using FVWM with small simple panel and very minimal look. But I am nostalgic.
Yes, actually—I have a VM reserved mostly for 16-bit software
Do you think that’s normal? I made very clear in my comment I was referring to the vast majority of people, not a tiny majority of 80s/early 90s software enthusiasts.
Yes, actually
As above, do you think that’s normal? I never said literally nobody, anywhere, on planet Earth does this.
Some of us do put our money where our mouths are, although I admit that isn’t universal.
Exactly. And that’s fine.
But the vast majority of people prefer UI now over what we had in the 90s.
but the amount present in contemporary design is way too large
In your opinion, sure. But that’s not the prevailing opinion. People prefer modern designs.
If people liked it, that’s what we’d have. Surely this is a simple concept?
which are capable of small, precise movements.
Ah someone who never had to deal with handicap or accessibility issues who think since he can do it no one else needs it.
Do you complain about ramps because staircase are just fine since legs can easily climb them too?
People spend lots of money to buy big screens, only for apps/websites to use a fraction of it.
I cannot control how every application or website I have to use looks, but where I can, I try to find solutions.
When I am occasionally on reddit, I use old.reddit. I use addons for youtube, to remove unecessary stuff, or open videos directly in mpv.
I use reader mode to make many sites easier to navigate.
Mastodon and Lemmy have a much better design than Twitter or new Reddit.
On the one windows machine I still have, I use the classic shell, to replace the start menu with something more usable.
I use Libreoffice, and many other Software with sane functional UI.
I don’t want to use old software, because the older software gets, the more hostile the environment becomes for it.
A lot of UI decisions on the Internet seem driven by the need to create empty spaces to put advertising into, and with adblocker it looks just bad.
The bulk of these aren’t issues with modern design, IMO, it’s about enshittification of the services we use.
Having huge spaces for ads, for example, isn’t a “this is how UX should be” thing, it’s a “lets shove ads everywhere to make money” thing. If you put the same amount of ads in older software/on sites that look like they’re from 2002, it would also look terrible.
The Windows start menu isn’t bad because it has some padding and easier click targets, it’s bad because the search doesn’t work, it’s full of ads, and pushes Bing searches on you.
Etc.
Yet do they use ancient copies of the software that broadly still performs the tasks people need of them? No.
This just means that functionality and interoperability criteria are more important than usability. They are - you can’t just exchange docs with a person using a modern office suite, while you are using WordPerfect 8 for Linux.
This is the opposite of confirming your argument about UI\UX, because this means that UI\UX are order of magnitude less important in making the decision.
And it’s obvious, I swear, some people haven’t been taught that arguments are not intended to support their group or hierarchy, you can’t do that with cheating in arguments anyway. They are intended to find out truth, make both participants richer than before.
Do they theme their system to look like the oh-so-superior Win98? No.
That’s simply because they “theme their system” to look as they wish and they don’t have to stop with Win98 or Win2K.
But in a “one size to fit all” situation those are still obviously superior.
Ergonomics is not a matter of opinions, there’s plenty of research since the fscking world war two. Different controls should have different colors, shapes and textures. It’s a scientifically proven statement. Proven with human error stats and time to do a task stats.
Padding controls and indicators with space can be a good thing, but no modern designer is doing it right as far as I’m concerned. Because it’s not about making panels half the screen, it’s about different groups of controls being clearly separated by that space and padded for focus, and space being used proportionally to importance.
They’ve all heard something of it, but haven’t learned the actual thing.
Older UIs were usually (often, but not always) made with respect to ergonomics.
thank god modern UIs aren’t inconsistent, cramped and cluttered like this
Our ideas of all three things seem to be diametrically opposite. For me older UIs seem ordered, compact and correctly accented. In general, it’s not always true - say, I like the appearance of old KDE (2-3), but not sure if I’d use it daily, for example (neither I would modern KDE).
This just means that functionality and interoperability criteria are more important than usability.
Sometimes yes. Usually no, for most people. If you make a word document in an older version of office, it’ll still work fine. If you use LibreOffice with the oldest-looking UI, it’ll still work. 99% of people don’t use the extremely niche features that have been added in recent years.
But people by and large don’t do that. They typically use the newest version.
This is the opposite of confirming your argument about UI\UX, because this means that UI\UX are order of magnitude less important in making the decision.
No it isn’t.
How is using software with modern interfaces actually a confirmation that people actually prefer older UX?
That’s simply because they “theme their system” to look as they wish and they don’t have to stop with Win98 or Win2K.
Exactly. And almost nobody themes their system to look like the supposedly superior in UI/UX Win95/98/2000. Indicating that maybe people don’t actually want a UI from that era, despite Reddit and Lemmy insisting that everybody does.
Ergonomics is not a matter of opinions, there’s plenty of research
Exactly. And that research has lead to where we are now.
Padding controls and indicators with space can be a good thing,
Is a good thing.
They’ve all heard something of it, but haven’t learned the actual thing.
No, they’ve generally improved it, and listened to actual UX usability studies.
Older UIs were usually (often, but not always) made with respect to ergonomics.
They almost never were. Seriously. Go back and try some 90s software. Most of it was a cluttered mess, ugly, really weirdly laid out, and had zero considering for anybody with disabilities.
Our ideas of all three things seem to be diametrically opposite. For me older UIs seem ordered, compact and correctly accented
And that’s fine. You can think differently. But most would disagree with you, outside the Redditor/Lemmy bubble.
These people have no idea what constitutes a good user interface. Just because they’ve taught themselves how to use the one from 1998, does not mean that grandma of 78 would find it as intuitive. Applications like this have to accommodate so many different types of people and somehow the neckbeards seem to forget that. Can’t imagine why.
- Laptop screens are now useless
- I used to use my iPad as an additional monitor but I can no longer fit even a useable text chat window on it
- I need my 27” monitor to fit the useable workspace that a laptop screen once had
How are laptop screens useless? I’m using a laptop right now. Doesn’t seem useless to me.
I have more than enough room.
Laptops wouldn’t be the main form factor for doing PC work if they were useless.
I need my 27” monitor to fit the useable workspace that a laptop screen once had
Unless you’ve got scaling set super high for some reason, that’s very doubtful.
For some, with only a small screen, wasted space means extra navigation to find hidden commands. A usability fail just so the app looks pretty. Also a symptom of “one UI fits all” just to save businesses money.
In my experience working with Designers for web and app design, they always had trouble with dynamic stuff at all levels, from program flow and elements which dynamically collapsed or expanded to using animation to illustrate things or call attention to something.
Don’t get me wrong, as a programmer I was like a toddler next to them when it came to even just awareness of the concerns related to merelly visual organisation, not counting all sorts of other concerns in a visual design some of which I’m sure I’m even not aware exist. It’s just that when it came to dynamic elements their expertise was comparativelly non-existent and they have little or no tendency to use such capabilities, even in things such as apps where they’re reasonably easy to do.
In this case I wouldn’t associate the poor usability with the designers, I think its down to big business not caring. Plus it costs more to make a UI good, and flexible for different user situations. They’ll also hire the cheapest designers. It’s all about saving money and more profit. Their main aim. And in the case of monopolies, people can’t go elsewhere. The problems all come down from the top.
There’s a point where it’s literally TMI and it becomes hard to find what you need unless you spend a lot of time training on it
Pictured: The cockpit of a DC-6, the commercial airliner from the days before jets. “This plane has four engines!” Dramatic camera pan across the miles of instruments
Weirdly as someone who has used both styles heavily, I’d say the ribbon is more practical than the old toolbars. There’s more contextual grouping and more functional given the tabs and search, plus the modern flat design is less distracting, which is what I’d want from a productivity application. Also for me two rows of toolbars & a menu is about the same height as the ribbon anyway, and you can collapse the ribbon if you want to use the space
I remember people being upset by the ribbon back when office 2007 was released. Their complaints made sense until I sat down and used it. Found it to be a great improvement. I switched my libre office to the ribbon layout as soon as they added it. Because I don’t use it often, it’s great for finding stuff compared to looking through the menus.
The nice thing about the LO implementation is also that they added a couple of varieties of the design, like the compact one which pushes things closer together so it’s not distracting.
It’s like having a robot vacuum. You’ll catch yourself saying “Why is it ALWAYS getting in my way??!” It’s not, it’s just that you only think about where it is when it’s in your way. When it’s not around you, you are thinking about other things.
UI is the same. People complain about any UI they actually stop to notice. If you know the UI well you don’t even really think about it, you just use it. When a UI changes you have to relearn a little bit and this causes people to have to stop and think about the UI.
99.99% of the time people seem to interpret this as “This UI objectively sucks! Any UI I need to think about must be terrible!”
But it’s not that hard to understand that a little relearning will follow change, and that things will have to change over time unless they were perfect forever out of the box, which nothing is.
But no. “The new update is horrible!” Every. Time. It’s so routine to UI designers that they totally ignore this feedback. So people really shouldn’t even bother to post it.
Flat design may be less distracting to you but that also means it’s less clear, because there are fewer obvious demarcation.
I despise flat design, it’s downright awful design, and done for looks rather than functionality.
Even saying it’s “less distractive” supports this.
Microsoft also did this to obfuscate features, which is pretty apparent when you consider new users used to “discover” features via the menu system. I supported Office for MS in the early days, and this was a huge thing at the time. It was discussed heavily when training on new versions.
Flat design may be less distracting to you but that also means it’s less clear, because there are fewer obvious demarcation.
I despise flat design, it’s downright awful design, and done for looks rather than functionality.
to you
Flat design dominates for a reason—the less visually busy something is, the easier it is for users to wrap their heads around it. This gets proven again and again in user studies, the more busy and dense you make things, the more users miss stuff and get lost.
People’s opinions on the ribbon specifically are obviously all subjective, but I would say the less distracting design would be the one done less for looks, rather it’s a pretty utilitarian design if you pick it apart. This is an interface for productivity tools, and as such the interface should get out of your way until you need it—the ribbon just does that better IMO.
Microsoft also did this to obfuscate features, which is pretty apparent when you consider new users used to “discover” features via the menu system. I supported Office for MS in the early days, and this was a huge thing at the time. It was discussed heavily when training on new versions.
Why on earth would Microsoft want to obfuscate features? There’s no way that motivation would ever make sense.
IIRC one of the main reasons Microsoft introduced the ribbon was that grouping functionality contextually helped users discover features, because people kept requesting features that already existed, but they just couldn’t find. I remember there being a blog on the Microsoft developer site about the making of it that went into this.
All that usability testing that Microsoft did is a big part of the problem. Instead of the functionality of functionality being organized under menus by function ….
They made “typical” functions more accessible to “typical” users, but I’m not typical; most people don’t match that average profile. Anyone who uses Office at all frequently are not average users. Anyone who frequently needs a particular functionality are not average users
How many UI/UX usability studies have you done yourself. Links to results.
Since when is it not okay to have an opinion on how you’d like your computer to work? You’re saying it as if usability was an objective truth, not a preference of majority of users. People are different, everyone is talking about neurodiversity, and you’re saying that loving lowest common denominator UIs are the only acceptable opinion in the light of objective facts.
Why did this happen?
The cynical but probably truer than we’d like to admit answer is “middle managers who bring nothing to the table but need to ‘make big changes’ to justify that promotion they’ve been chasing.”
Source: Pretty much all corporations at this point have these people, my sister’s ex-husband is one at Google.
Change for the sake of change is so dumb. I’m tired of pointless UI changes every so many years because some middle manager and their designers need to wow some dumb exec to get a promotion and they do so just by rearranging all the existing functionality because the product itself is already a complete solution that doesn’t actually need a new version. Sadly, this mentality even creeps into FOSS spaces. Canonical and Ubuntu wanting to reinvent the wheel with Unity, Mir, Snap, etc. GNOME radically changing their UI all the time.
To be fair to the Open Source community, Canonical is a private company, and so it’s not really a shocker that they keep promoting bullshit tied to their own ecosystem. Especially with someone like Mark Shuttleworth involved, he was one of the early rich out of touch space tourists, long before Bezos looked like an idiot coming back from space. The profit motive always infects everything it touches.
Gnome does not radically change their design all the time.
The last time they did that was Gnome 3, which came out 13 years ago, and how it was going to work was showcased 16 years ago.
And you may think it was change for the sake of change, but I’d disagree. The workflow is amazing. Using anything else just feels clunky to me now.
The changes made in Gnome were based on UX usability studies, not just changing shit for the sake of changing it.
You’re mistaking your dislike of Gnome not operating like a traditional windows-like UX for it being objectively bad.
I’m of the opinion that Microsoft didn’t actually invent the perfect UX in the early 90s, and we therefore should not be bound to those UX ideas.
This is so true of so many companies nowadays. The fact of the matter is that the big leaps in profit/efficiency/effectivness have basically all happened in most of these industries and so often people are pressed to make these sweeping changes because there isn’t any real way to improve on a system like this.
Reading Ed Zitron’s coverage of the Google antitrust cases is pretty eye opening.
Mostly because it says basically what you just said: we’ve already reached pretty much peak efficiency in these forms, and since they can’t bleed out more money via “efficiency” they’re now leaning towards “How many customers can I piss off while increasing ad interactions by 1%?” As Zitron points out, they’re literally chasing tiny percentage points of growth through “how many people can we piss off and still grow?” instead of offering anything new and useful. It’s just “we’re entrenched, so why would we try anything risky at all ever?” all the way down.
I prefer the ribbon. It makes everything easier to discover and use.
It’s also entirely configurable so i was able to tailor it specifically to my needs, even include button for my macro, logically grouped and not thrown together with no heads or tail in a “macro” submenu.
It also allows widgets with much richer informational content than menus.
The ribbon is also entirely keyboard navigable with visual hints. Which means you can use anything mouse free without having to remember rarely used shortcuts.
And if the ribbon takes too much space, and you can’t afford a better screen, you can hide and show it with ctrl-F1 or a click somewhere (probably).
It’s actually a much much better UX than menus and submenus and everything hidden and zero adaptability. At least for tools like the office apps with a bazillion functions.
Most copies of the ribbon are utter shit though because the people who copied didn’t understand the strength of the office ribbon and only copied the looks superficially.
It’s funny to see people still hung up on the ribbon 17 years later.
It’s because of people like you that we still use qwerty on row staggered keyboards from the mechanical typewriter era. ;)
