←back to thread

Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

(www.youtube.com)
179 points joelkesler | 1 comments | 13 Dec 25 18:39 UTC | HN request time: 0.318s | source
Show context
linguae ◴[13 Dec 25 21:11 UTC] No.46258094[source]▶
I enjoyed this talk, and I want to learn more about the concept of “learning loops” for interface design.

Personally, I wish there were a champion of desktop usability like how Apple was in the 1980s and 1990s. I feel that Microsoft, Apple, and Google lost the plot in the 2010s due to two factors: (1) the rise of mobile and Web computing, and (2) the realization that software platforms are excellent platforms for milking users for cash via pushing ads and services upon a captive audience. To elaborate on the first point, UI elements from mobile and Web computing have been applied to desktops even when they are not effective, probably to save development costs, and probably since mobile and Web UI elements are seen as “modern” compared to an “old-fashioned” desktop. The result is a degraded desktop experience in 2025 compared to 2009 when Windows 7 and Snow Leopard were released. It’s hamburger windows, title bars becoming toolbars (making it harder to identify areas to drag windows), hidden scroll bars, and memory-hungry Electron apps galore, plus pushy notifications, nag screens, and ads for services.

I don’t foresee any innovation from Microsoft, Apple, or Google in desktop computing that doesn’t have strings attached for monetization purposes.

The open-source world is better positioned to make productive desktops, but without coordinated efforts, it seems like herding cats, and it seems that one must cobble together a system instead of having a system that works as coherently as the Mac or Windows.

With that said, I won’t be too negative. KDE and GNOME are consistent when sticking to Qt/GTK applications, respectively, and there are good desktop Linux distributions out there.

replies(2): >>46258192 #>>46260122 #
gtowey ◴[13 Dec 25 21:22 UTC] No.46258192[source]▶
It's because companies are no longer run by engineers. The MBAs and accountants are in charge and they could care less about making good products.

At Microsoft, Satya Nadella has an engineering background, but it seems like he didn't spend much time as an engineer before getting an MBA and playing the management advancement game.

Our industry isn't what it used to be and I'm not sure it ever could.

replies(3): >>46258323 #>>46258781 #>>46259259 #
linguae ◴[13 Dec 25 22:25 UTC] No.46258781[source]▶
I feel a major shift happened in the 2010s. The tech industry became less about making the world a better place through technology, and more about how to best leverage power to make as much money as possible, making a world a better place be damned.

This also came at a time when tech went from being considered a nerdy obsession to tech being a prestigious career choice much like how law and medicine are viewed.

Tech went from being a sideshow to the main show. The problem is once tech became the main show, this attracts the money- and career-driven rather than the ones passionate about technology. It’s bad enough working with mercenary coworkers, but when mercenaries become managers and executives, they are now the boss, and if the passionate don’t meet their bosses’ expectations, they are fired.

I left the industry and I am now a tenure-track community college professor, though I do research during my winter and summer breaks. I think there are still niches where a deep love for computing without being overly concerned about “stock line go up” metrics can still lead to good products and sustainable, if small, businesses.

replies(1): >>46258967 #
jack_tripper ◴[13 Dec 25 22:46 UTC] No.46258967[source]▶
>The tech industry became less about making the world a better place through technology

When the hell was even that?

replies(3): >>46259285 #>>46259340 #>>46260172 #
vjvjvjvjghv ◴[13 Dec 25 23:34 UTC] No.46259285[source]▶
In the 80s and 90s there was much more idealism than now. There were also more low hanging fruit to develop software that makes people’s lives better. There was also less investor money floating around so it was more important to appeal to end users. To me it seems tech has devolved into a big money making scheme with only the minimum necessary actual technology and innovation.
replies(2): >>46259800 #>>46260330 #
andrekandre ◴[14 Dec 25 02:34 UTC] No.46260330[source]▶

  > In the 80s and 90s there was much more idealism than now.
that idealism was already fading by then, which had started much earlier in the preceding decades (see, memex/hypertext etc)

  > tech has devolved into a big money making scheme with only the minimum necessary actual technology and innovation
in the end, they are businesses, so it could be assumed that such orientation would take over in the end eventually though, no?

its the system of incentives we all live under (make more money or die)

replies(1): >>46260503 #
ryandrake ◴[14 Dec 25 03:21 UTC] No.46260503[source]▶
> make more money or die

This is not true for the vast majority of people making these things. At some point, most businesses go from “make money or die” to financial security: “make line go up forever for no reason”.

replies(2): >>46261280 #>>46263031 #
1. throwaway894345 ◴[14 Dec 25 06:55 UTC] No.46261280[source]▶
i discovered the meaning of life and its name is “increasing shareholder value”