Back in My Day: Or Not-So-Short Note About User Experience

17 Mar, 2025

The Past: When Interfaces Worked for Us

1. Interfaces were compact, densely packed with information, yet remained intuitive and easy to use.
2. Icons might have been modest—16x16px in 256 colors—but their symbolism was clear, leaving little room for misinterpretation.
3. Most complex tools accommodated diverse workflows with configurable toolbars. Drag-and-drop customization wasn't always an option, but even the simple two-list interface for rearranging buttons sufficed to fine-tune your setup.
4. Customizable keyboard shortcuts were the norm, further enhancing efficiency and enabling users to optimize their workflows.
5. Operating systems allowed extensive customization, propagating consistent tweaks across all apps using native GUI toolkits. This synergy was a joy for power users.

The Present: A Mixed Bag

1. Interface elements have grown disproportionately larger, leaving less room for content and functionality.
2. Excessive padding has taken over as a means to separate areas, replacing compact, clearly delineated lines.
3. Despite vastly higher screen resolutions, interfaces now display less data, with essential tools hidden or absent.
4. Toolbars are often static, offering little flexibility, and in some cases, you can only disable a handful of icons.
5. Many applications have replaced toolbars with ribbons—an inconsistent array of elements with varying shapes, sizes, and behaviors. This lack of consistency can leave users frustrated and confused.
6. Icons have evolved into high-resolution, true-color works of art, yet their purpose is sometimes ambiguous, detracting from usability.
7. Newer versions of software often fail to add meaningful improvements while being noticeably slower than their predecessors.

Balancing Progress and Usability It's clear that evolving user needs and modern technological constraints have led to changes—some of them inevitable. Take pre-ribbon Office: it struggled with screen scaling and filesystem access on modern systems. Transitioning to a newer GUI toolkit made sense, even if it came at the cost of speed. Yet, what remains baffling is the tendency to redesign interfaces in ways that make them harder to use. Is it all driven by aesthetics? Trends? This is something I struggle to understand.

The more complex the software, the more vital customization becomes—not as a toy or a distraction, but as a practical tool to refine workflows and adapt to evolving needs. It's not about constant tinkering for its own sake; it's about creating an environment where the software works for you, not against you. Fine-tuning toolbars, shortcuts, or settings may seem trivial at first, but these adjustments unlock a smoother, more intuitive experience tailored to your unique requirements.

Some argue, "I've outgrown tinkering; I just want software to work." But this mindset overlooks an essential truth: it’s because of customization that software can truly work for you. "Sane defaults" may be functional, but they'll never match the precision of an optimized setup that addresses your specific needs. Customization transforms good software into something exceptional and deeply personal.

IDEs remain a rare example of this philosophy in action, offering near-total control to users. Yet, ironically, many don’t take advantage of these options—a discussion for another time.

Perhaps, as we move forward, we should remember that customization isn’t a luxury or a relic; it’s a cornerstone of usability. While technology evolves, the timeless principles of clarity, simplicity, and adaptability remain as vital as ever.