[troupo]

> Early UX design wasn't always done with as much thought and sophistication as today's software designers (are claiming to) apply.

Oh, but it was. Here's Apple HIG from 1987 listing extensive bibliography on the subject: https://x.com/andy_matuschak/status/1447409175596699652 (here's the full PDF: https://andymatuschak.org/files/papers/Apple%20Human%20Inter...)

Modern "designers" apply as much thought and care as a hungry goldfish at feeding time

[troupo]

Or here: https://x.com/andy_matuschak/status/1447710247712280578

> there's a (pre-release) 1985 HIG that's quite different. It includes e.g. case studies (useful!), and an extended discussion of Jung's theories of intuition and how they should influence your designs (!!)

The most modern "designers" read is the labels on grocery store items.

[Cockbrand]

I think the point here is

> wasn't always done with as much thought

While Apple cared a lot about perfecting UX, Microsoft had other priorities.

[troupo]

Microsoft did a lot of user and interface research. It wasn't as streamlined as Apple's, but it's incorrect to say that they didn't give it much thought.

I don't have a link to OS-level considerations, but here's a series of articles on how MS Office's original ribbon came to be: https://web.archive.org/web/20080316101025/http://blogs.msdn...

[Sakos]

What's with this myth that Microsoft never cared about UI/UX design? It's simply not true. They're especially not any better at it now than in the 90s and 00s. Modern designers don't put even a fraction of research into UI design than what Microsoft used to do.

[fortran77]

Windows 3.1 had a beautiful revolutionary design. I remember closely examining all the buttons and icons when I first saw it.

[wongarsu]

Making things intuitive and easily usable was absolutely a priority of Microsoft back then, and they put a lot more thought in that than most modern "UX" design.

Making things pretty wasn't a priority for Microsoft the same way it was for Apple. But I wouldn't call that UX.