←back to thread

838 points bennettfeely | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
atum47 ◴[] No.22942201[source]
that's really gorgeous. I find windows 95 aesthetics a master piece. I'm not gonna lie, I thought about windows 95 when I was creating FOS, my Fake Operational System "framework".

I'm thinking about refactoring it and I'll may incorporate windows color scheme to it. Here's the link if you wanna see what I am talking about.

https://github.com/victorqribeiro/fos

replies(3): >>22942674 #>>22943580 #>>22943744 #
Scapeghost ◴[] No.22943744[source]
I don't know, Windows 95 looked crude even during its day. Functional, but not pleasant. I guess Brutalist would be the term? As soon as there was the ability to skin it, people tried to veer away the default look, with Mac-like styles being a common alternative.

People probably have rose-tinted nostalgia for the 95 era because of the nightmare that followed: Windows XP :)

replies(2): >>22943937 #>>22944687 #
djsumdog ◴[] No.22943937[source]
95 and XP both had good scroll bars. XP styling was pretty good for its era. Modern day scroll bars are atrocious on a lot of toolkits.
replies(2): >>22944103 #>>22944173 #
chrisseaton ◴[] No.22944173[source]
Now that we have touch gestures we don’t really need visible scroll bars anymore do we? Just the little position indicator that pops up while scrolling.
replies(2): >>22944257 #>>22944686 #
worble ◴[] No.22944257[source]
What if you want to know the relative length of a page without scrolling first?

What if it's one of those webpages with a full height hero as the first element and no indicator you can actually scroll?

What if I want to click and drag the scroll to a specific location but have to take wild flailing guesses at where the scrollbar actually is because it keeps going invisible?

replies(1): >>22944293 #
chrisseaton ◴[] No.22944293[source]
There’s always obscure use cases like this. You could go on forever listing individual people’s wants and you’d end up with a Homer car.

We design interfaces for the many first, and keep them as simple as possible but not simpler.

replies(3): >>22944371 #>>22944426 #>>22945080 #
1. tomcooks ◴[] No.22945080{6}[source]
> We design interfaces for the many first, and keep them as simple as possible but not simpler.

The many being able bodied, literate, touch-device-carrying people? I am not sure interfaces should be designed like that.

replies(1): >>22955270 #
2. ◴[] No.22955270[source]