[apankrat]

Yes, hell, hell, I'll tell 'ya! Especially horrible the muscle memory aspect for the UI parts that are accessed once a year, if ever. And don't get me started on the situational awareness. Needing to pay attention to the contents of the screen? What an unrealistic burden.

Seriously though, feel free to offer your version of the same that would cleanly separate secondary options and sub-options so not to overwhelm the user with a laundry list of settings.

> I'm failing to see the point of that dropdown (well, dropup) menu.

The point of all that "hell" is the layering and progressive refinement of the UI.

[jbstack]

The "once a year" point goes both ways. If it's only going to be used once a year, then "juicing" (in the sense that the original article meant) is only going to give very negligible added value whichever way you look at it. The original example (mushrooms in Mario) is effective because of the frequency of the event which triggers it. If the player only heard the sound once per year, it would be irrelevant.

On the other hand, if we're talking about parts of the UI which will see regular use then I agree with the other comments about usability reduction, while also acknowledging that there are other opinions out there. The best approach with these sorts of controversial features (i.e. those which some users love and others hate) is to offer a toggle in the options with a default aimed at the non-power user.

[mananaysiempre]

> If it's only going to be used once a year, then "juicing" (in the sense that the original article meant) is only going to give very negligible added value whichever way you look at it.

Meh. The animations juice, maybe. The slightly non-standard UI, though, is probably worth it if it avoids the nested-modal-dialog hell the stock Windows UI is prone to having. Installed mouse and audio drivers on NT 4 recently and, well, I’m glad I forgot how bad it was. Making settings non-awful is important even if you only visit them once.

What’s the upside for the user of a nested sequence of modal dialogs anyway? Though I understand the technical convenience given how limited the bare Win32 toolkit is. And there definitely is a downside for the user: I can’t say how many times I’ve seen relatively sophisticated users fruitlessly smash the OK button on the wrong (not top-level) dialog, because they all look the same. (This is perhaps salvageable by more prominently shading disabled windows—something Win95 admittedly could not afford on contemporary hardware—instead of blinking the title bar, but is it worth it?)

[apankrat]

> What’s the upside for the user of a nested sequence of modal dialogs anyway?

That's it. Allowing changing things in place is exactly one of the goals.

[Rychard]

What you've basically said is "I don't agree with your opinion, therefore you are wrong". While you may have provided justifications for your beliefs, your delivery was unnecessarily aggressive and only served to further alienate yourself from the discussion. I would encourage you to try and engage in more constructive conversation in the future.

For what it's worth, I also despise this sort of needless UI fluff for essentially the same reason they do; it reduces usability.

But that's just like, my opinion, man.

[apankrat]

The GP made generic dismissive remarks on a spherical cow in vacuum and under a blanket assumption that the other person is an idiot.

That's not how one starts a "constructive conversation".

But, yeah, that's just like my opinion too, man.

[Dalewyn]

>The GP made generic dismissive remarks on a spherical cow in vacuum and under a blanket assumption that the other person is an idiot.

I neither made "generic dismissive remarks" nor assumed you're "an idiot", but hey: If you want me to flame you to high heaven I can certainly oblige.

If you can't take constructive criticism, publishing stuff is probably not your alley.

[MrGilbert]

Tbf, the initial comment already set the direction ("absolute hell"?). It provides mere rambling and no real benefit to the OP.

Not that I encourage the tone in this thread, but... There is another perspective to it.

[Dalewyn]

I did specify why it's "absolute hell": The UI moves. UI elements that move around are bad for usability because of factors I already mentioned.

The best UIs are those that keep movements and other dynamic facets to the absolute minimum. A boring UI is a good UI.

[1-more]

> UI elements that move around are bad for usability

Bit of a broad brush here. When the "next ->" button moves around of its own accord (in response to changing text content, say) and you need to click it to page through 10 screens of text, that's for sure bad. When elements move in response to a toggle the user clicked when they are nowhere close to the elements that move that's really not a big deal in my opinion. This is especially not-bad when the toggle will move everything back without the user moving their cursor.

[Dalewyn]

Consider the "Backup verification" window[1]: The whole window is overwritten with a readme upon clicking "More on this...". This is bad, I've seen more than enough people X out of such windows (because they think it's not the window they were working with) and then wonder where the window they were working on went.

Why couldn't the readme open in a separate window? It's completely different contextual information to the window they were working in, and in fact most software do produce a new window when opening help documentation so users aren't confused. Different windows for different contexts, this has been standard design for windowed environments since forever.

[1]: https://bvckup2.com/wip/r82-backup-verification-dialog-r2.gi...

--------------------------

Now consider the "Backup settings" window[2][3]: Why are the various dropdowns a button you click on which proceeds to resize and move the entire window?

Standard design for dropdowns have always been dropdown menus. Almost everyone knows how to use dropdown menus, both Windows and other programs use them. This is inconsistent design language for the environment the software operates in, and this is confusing for users.

What's more, there is no scroll bar to indicate there is information overflow in the window[2]. Can you tell there is more information above the "More options..." section in window[3]? I know I can't.

We need to take a page from Apple's playbook on this: Consistent design language is good design language. In this case, follow the design language of Win32 and Windows in general. Yes, this isn't as easy as it sounds since Microsoft themselves violate the rule of a consistent design language, but that's not an excuse for others to also violate it.

Not presenting a scroll bar to indicate information overflow is also inexcusable. A user interface exists to inform and guide a user, hiding or even lying to the user defeats the very purpose of a user interface. On that note, the window is being resized, why then isn't it being resized to show all of its contents? At least the resizing would then have a legitimate reason.

[2]: https://bvckup2.com/wip/r82-backup-settings.gif

[3]: https://bvckup2.com/wip/r82-rabbit-hole.gif

--------------------------

Now consider the "Preferences" window[4]: Why are the help texts for this window hidden behind "?" when the other windows either don't have them [1] or show the help text outright[2]?

Why is the "More..." text a hyperlink and the "Less..." button a button when they are the same interface element? This criticism also applies to the "Backup verification" window which exhibits the same problem.

This is all inconsistent design language within the software itself, let alone when compared with its operating environment. This is bad, again: Consistent design language is good design language.

[4]: https://bvckup2.com/wip/r82-preferences.gif

[carlosjobim]

This is not stuff you'll be clicking every day. The desktop has always been interactive, with windows and dialogs popping up and disappearing etc.

[Dalewyn]

>Needing to pay attention to the contents of the screen? What an unrealistic burden.

I know far too many people (read: common users) who quickly lose track of what's going on if their program keeps changing things. Hell, I find most people still can't keep track of tabs in a web browser (because each tab overwrites most of the window), let alone your stuff.

>feel free to offer your version of the same that would cleanly separate secondary options and sub-options so not to overwhelm the user with a laundry list of settings.

A singular, global button or toggle somewhere that permanently keeps the UI in either Simple or Advanced modes? Almost nobody needs to flick between the two back and forth. Common users only care for what will get their work done, power users always want (and can deal with) all the details.

>The point of all that "hell" is the layering and progressive refinement of the UI.

What you call "layering and progressive refinement" I call an unnecessary click and movement of UI elements that don't have to exist. The former is a waste of time, and the latter is a waste of screen real estate.

[martyvis]

Very frustrating for older people when web sites become adventure games with hidden doors and changing maps

[themeiguoren]

For the first link I think it’s pretty bad as-is, but would be much better if you distinguished the new “more” items in some way. Eg different colored text (and make the “more” button match that formatting). That way you don’t need to re-scan every single option to find what’s changed, and keeps the visual shape of the sections of existing text there. I am also baffled by the menu hiding. But I think the other two examples are pretty nice.