[Barrin92]

>one of those rare examples of software where the kitchen-sink approach is absolutely warranted

I actually like this approach in general and I often wonder why there's so much animosity towards it. There's something about platform-like software like Calibre, or Emacs or WeChat where it becomes more than the sum of its parts that you just don't get with just a collection of disjointed, individual tools.

[tomc1985]

It's because it doesn't fit into the modern zeitgeist of extreme testability and pandering to computer illiterates

Every time this kind of UI comes up in discussion, I feel like there is always someone groaning about how much extra effort and cost is involved with giving the user too many options. In fact, you could say that modern software seeks to eliminate all noncritical optionality. Combine this with gobs of pointless whitespace, an inexplicable need to humanize pretty much everything, and smother the user in unnecessary feelgood emotions...

And then people wonder why modern apps suck so much...

[zapzupnz]

That chip on your shoulder against everything post-2007-ish must be pretty heavy.

Modern apps don't suck. Specific design patterns suck. Not all things modern adhere to those design patterns. Not all the patterns you mention suck.

If I were hiring you to design an interface, your aversion to "humanize pretty much everything" would kick me right off the list. It reeks of tech-saavy elitism.

[tomc1985]

I have no desire to design interfaces like the ones I described, so the feeling would be mutual.

I would, however, love to be at the forefront of an anti-design movement that rightfully crushes the monotony/monopoly of modern UX

And what is wrong with tech-savvy elitism? Are you saying I should just forfeit the lifetime I've spent obsessing over this stuff to have an edge up on life? Give in to the tyranny of walled-garden and cloud-hosted nonsense?

[neolog]

> Not all things modern adhere to those design patterns.

Could you give some examples?

[aidenn0]

I think it's because integrated tools parts are often worse than the non-integrated versions and when people are forced to use them, it means removing choice.

A half-dozen well integrated mediocre tools is better than the sum of its parts, but that doesn't mean it's better than a half-dozen not-at-all integrated excellent tools.

A half-dozen pretty good tools that are well integrated is going to be excellent, but you'll still have some greybeards saying "I have to click through 12 menus to frobnicate the widget in this thing, while my old tool I could do it with a single command"

99% of "Integrated tools" fall more into the first category than the second, which makes sense; N non-integrated tools can have N parallel teams working on them, while an integrated tool cannot. This means each tool will get only a fraction of the effort in the integrated tool; it's a special case of Conway's Law.

[tclancy]

I appreciate the thought but I think there's a sort of survivorship bias in this. You remember the apps that worked for you which did this and not the ones that overwhelmed you too, even as a savvy user. The vast majority of users are not Hacker News users (even if we adjust that bar for average).

Even as a developer (not a UX designer), whenever a client suggested, up-front, there should be a "power user mode" I would ask, "Is there such a thing as a power user or just someone with Stockholm Syndrome who hasn't found a better app yet?"

[TeMPOraL]

> there should be a "power user mode"

Well, there obviously shouldn't be. There should be one mode, and that's the power user mode :).

More seriously: power users aren't born, they're made - made through repeated exposure, if the software leaves them the space to grow in.