To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Well, I still don't agree fully
but all I wanted to say is that a "newer" design doesn't have to be a "better" one.
I prefer the 90s GUI looks, that's why I use GNOME with a rather plain look. I don't want the GUI to get into my way, so I prefer it edgy, grey, opaque, and without animations. For me, it's more important that everything lies plain in front of me and that every dialog looks and behaves the same. Windows 7 is a complete catastrophe for me, everything is shiny, translucent, rounded, shadowed, animated, and so on, but if you want to get some work done, it's not good in my opinion. Even Office 2007 has a completely pointless shiny shine effect behind the pages! If I want to create documents, the least thing I want is a frame and background around it that is even more "designed" than the document itself.
I agree that a GUI shouldn't look "bad" or "ugly", but for me, a GUI like e.g. the one in Windows 95 is not ugly, it's just plain because it's nothing more or less than a GUI, so it doesn't really "look" at all. It would need more pointless design elements to be able to look "good" or "ugly", and those are always a matter of taste. But the more "plain" a GUI is, the less it can "look" at all.
Example of an old GUI that looks ugly in my opinion: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/desktop/full/riscos37.png
Example of Win95 GUI which is so plain that there's no room for matter of taste: http://www.guidebookgallery.org/pics/gui/settings/accessibility/win...




Member since:
2006-01-19
Hehe, I picked the example badly. :-) The BMWs really were a degeneration, though they seem to recover slowly with the most recent models, at least the 3xx line.