[thirdsun]

I couldn't disagree more. Of course there no sense in moving things around just for the sake of changing something, and implementing those design changes is always prone to making bad decisions. However I pretty much want the applications I use to move forward and if this means iterative design adjustments, then by all means, do it.

The people complaining about any kind of change are usually the ones who learn using an application by trying to exactly memorize navigation paths and word-for-word expressions in menus, which feels absolutely wrong to me. It's like learning stuff in school by memorizing the content word for word, without understanding any of them or the context in general. It may work for while, but not for long.

I know that the average person is very different from the tech-savvy crowd around here, in fact I work with non-technical people everyday, yet this helplessness once a button or a feature has been moved is still very surprising to me and I think it's a better idea to try to educate people not to hang on to memorized paths, but instead look for plausible context, really consider where you'd expect a certain feature to be located. That's exactly what the developer did for his app - well, in most cases. Avoiding change in software design is not the solution.

[acqq]

No, it's not a better idea to "educate users" it is rather to respect the users. Imagine when your car would change the controls on random mornings. People want the work done like you just want to drive. Don't project your untypical preferences to the others.

I'm almost sure that if you're a serious programmer you use a command line. You know, where you type in one line, the output is written in the following lines, emulating the electrically-controlled typewriter which prints the letter one after the another on the roll of the paper from the sixties. Think about that. "Carriage return" once actually caused the physical carriage to return and the line feed actually activated the paper feeder to roll the paper one line up.

A lot of changes in the UI are often driven more by the changes in the politics inside of the company (who is going to be seen for his visible contribution to the "change") than any real need. Think about that.

[thaumaturgy]

No, what we have to do is educate you on why you cannot expect everyone's brains to work the way you want them to.

For many people, computers are just a thing they use, whether for work or for keeping in touch with friends or whatever. They aren't something that they dedicate very much of their brain to. Computer interfaces have lots of text, lots of images -- some of which are clickable, some of which aren't -- and the rules aren't very consistent from device to device. On top of all that, there are some genuine dark UI patterns, like software from CNet that tries to trick users into downloading useless crap.

What you're basically expecting is for people to dedicate more of their attention to computers. And guess what? Mechanics wish people would dedicate more attention to their cars. Contractors wish people would dedicate more attention to their homes. Landscapers wish people would dedicate more attention to their yards. And in each of their professional forums, you'd hear some of them arguing with equal veracity that people need to be more educated about all of these things.

[nitrogen]

As a user who learns apps by concept, not memorization, it's still incredibly frustrating when the UI paradigm changes (such as the old switch from organized menus to chaotic ribbons, and from useful text to ambiguous icons). But even a conceptually well-versed user of software starts to develop a spatial/muscle memory for working significantly faster; experienced, intelligent users can still be thrown completely by minor UI changes that take them out of their working flow state.