|
To call this rose-tinted glasses when considering how things worked in 1983 is a massive understatement. A counterexample: in 1983, enter two search terms, one of them slightly misspelled or misremembered, hit f3: "no results", spend 10 minutes trying to find the needle in the haystack, give up and physically search for the thing yourself. Enter two search terms slightly incorrectly now: no of the time it will know exactly what you want, may even autocorrect a typo locally, get your accurate search results in a second. When things were faster 30+ years ago (and they absolutely were NOT the vast majority of the time, this example cherry picked one of the few instances that they were), it was because the use case was hyperspecific, hyperlocalized to a platform, and the fussy and often counterintuitive interfaces served as guard rails. The article has absolutely valid points on ways UIs have been tuned in odd ways (often to make them usable, albeit suboptimally, for the very different inputs of touch and mouse), but the obsession about speed being worse now borders on quixotic. Software back then was, at absolute best, akin to a drag racer - if all you want to do it move 200 meters in one predetermined direction then sometimes is was fine. Want to go 300 meters, or go in a slightly different direction, or don't know how to drive a drag racer? Sorry, need to find a different car/course/detailed instruction manual. |
Want to give me fancy autocorrect? Fine. But first:
* Make a UI with instant feedback, which doesn't wait on your autocorrect
* Give me exact results instantly before your autocorrect kicks in
* Run your fancy slow stuff in the background if resources are available
* Update results when you get them... if I didn't hit "enter" and got away from you before that.
It's not that complicated. We've got the technology.
And also, there's still no fucking reason a USB keyboard/mouse should be more laggy than their counterparts back in the day.