SlightlyCyberpunk (@[email protected])

@[email protected] I think Sun's Project Looking Glass might have beaten them by a couple years too ;) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JXv8VlpoK_g I remember watching demos of that thing in highschool thinking it was SO COOL...now I understand why *almost* none of those ideas went anywhere, and the ones that did persist are nearly unrecognizable. Sure, you can flip through your music collection as album art, but who wants to be spinning discs like a jukebox?? Once the novelty wears out it's just an obnoxious UI. I think part of it might be that these things are really good tech demo *because* they're such shit as actual technology. I have seen *so many* iterations of the "post-it notes on your desktop!" crap and NOBODY ever wants that...because you aren't using those things because you just love writing on little yellow squares, it's entirely about the physicality of the object. So it's a fun challenge to see how much of that physicality you can replicate on the machine, but then you've built something that uses none of the strengths of the machine and is only a poor imitation of something so ubiquitous that everyone already has...but it's impressive to the tech folks so it goes in the demo, and since it's in the demo everyone expects it to be in the product too.

Spookygirl Social Club
KDE had "liquid glass" effects in like 2004/2006 and yeah they weren't quite as polished but also it was the early 2000s no computer graphics were that polished.
Aging as a software person is awful. Nobody remembers anything from 2 years ago let alone 2 decades ago so you're constantly going "WHY DID THEY MAKE THAT AGAIN IT WAS AWFUL" with ever increasing frequency.

Yes, "liquid glass" is a terrible effect for the same reason that fully transparent phones are the least desirable kind of interface you could have. Paper makers have spent hundreds of years trying to make the thing you read on as opaque as possible because it turns out EYES NEED CONTRAST TO READ
But also Apple really is the existence proof of my most favorite conclusion from a paper of all time: pretty things are better.

It was a UX study from the 80ies I wanna say that was trying to figure out what made a good user interface and what they determined after a lot of work (it was a long paper) they found that the single strongest factor in how people rate the ease of use for a UI is "is it pretty."

They literally ended the paper with "pretty things are better" if memory serves. The paper was actually kinda pretty itself, for its age.

@amy

I wonder how “is it pretty” correlates to the #DohertyThreshold.

@paninid 1982 sounds like the right time frame. Might've been the same people. I'd have to go find my copy of the paper.
@amy Every organisation making UIs should have someone whose job it is to know that SciFi holographic displays would have horrible UX and the power to use this knowledge to reject any design change that doesn’t take this into account.
@amy @jalefkowit especially aging software person eyes!
@amy
See also grey text on a slightly paler grey background.
@pthane @amy ....but... I can't see it!
@amy This but with process steam technology in industrial settings. It's literal industrial revolution 1 stuff and there has been very little that's new about it in 70 or 80 years. I recently changed an inverted bucket trap on a dripleg on a 35 year old design because it's an absolute shit application for that style steam trap.
@amy Absolutely correct. As someone in your, uh, circumstances, I say you can get on my lawn.
@amy No idea can be so bad that we can't repeat it a few years later..
@amy oh yeah, windows 11 where you can't see where the window ends (white border, no title bar) and the below window continues (white contents)

@gunstick @amy (sorry for going on a rant, but your post came at a time when I've been desperately trying to make a windows environment somewhat usable)

You can't see which window is active, because the only difference between an active and an inactive window is a slight tint difference in the title text (making it even harder to read on the inactive window)

The only way to fix it is to use the accessibility settings, but then the windows are so ugly it's painful to use. It's like MS saying: "you want to be able to see which window is active? fuck you, here you go"

@loke @amy did that, it was so ugly that I jumped through a lot of hoops to get all the company stuff working somewhat on linux. o365/teams in browser, rclone mount for onedrive. Saving all documents as opendocument on onedrive.
I notice that with time, stuff started to work better with firefox. Seems if enough people use firefox and linux with the microsoft cloud, they notice and put some work in.
Last year teams screenshare did not work.
Only thing not working is clickshare by barco
@amy
Bonus points if the person leading the UI/UX changes has no expertise in UI/UX design.
@amy
Way back I played with Compiz on Linux desktops. Semi-transparent windows that wobbled when dragged and shrunk to nothing when closed, 4 desktops on a rotating cube all that. Great fun for a few days but then I just went back to basics so I could get on with my work.
@pthane Woobly windows are actually necessary for productivity
@amy tim crook doesn't deserve success. that's why it looks like that.
@lritter who's tim crook?
@amy sorry that should have been tim cook.
@lritter @amy No, I think you had it right the first time

@amy and you better hope you don't break that screen.

A Motorola Edge 50, for instance, a phone that costs ~900 USD, if that screen breaks? You're probably going to be out about 30~50% of the cost of the phone just to replace the screen.

You're now paying the same (or higher) price to replace the screen that would usually pay to replace a non-functional main board

And let's not forget that standard screen protectors don't even work on them, as the glass now curls around the edges of the phone, requiring a specially-made screen protector, which naturally, they charge through the nose for.

@amy its the same in security. 5-7 year cycles. mass churn

@amy apple's playbook seems to be "look at what the competition is doing, wait 5 years, claim they invented it"

they did it with windows aero
they did it with eSIMs
they did it with face unlock
they did it with waterproof phones
hell they even did it with touchscreen phones with the first iphone (look up "steve jobs handspring" if you'd like to learn more)

admittedly, apple did make substantial improvements over previous versions of all of these features (with the notable exception of waterproofing which Android had already nailed), especially face unlock, android's short-lived implementation of which was HORRENDOUSLY insecure, but apple's fanbase acts like they invented them wholesale