Evolving backwards would be returning to ergonomic UIs with clear HIG being followed, having a scriptable variant for every class of applications, and any piece of software, OS UI included, not acting as an advert. Contrasts and colors and bright pictures are not what I need to see while working. It’s as if your screwdriver was built in the form of an alien fish dildo, and had a chain of ringing bells. Why is this bullshit considered normal and usual with computer interfaces, I dunno.
And a company’s website is its interface to the world, for the user. Not its advert. They’ve already seen the advert or don’t need it if they are on that website! They want to actually use it.
I’m not clicking on what looks like an AI slop YouTube video just to find out why a guy making a video about AI needed to use AI to make the video. Beyond seeing clippy for nostalgia, seeing that it’s likely a video about MS I care even less.
If you actually thought it was a video of value, you could have written (or just copy/pasta) a description of the video and why it might be of interest.
That would make sense if evolution had a direction. But evolution can favor less complexity just as well as more: it depends on the selective pressures it’s under. “Fittest” is not necessarily “best.”
This applies metaphorically to marketed products as well as literally to biologiccal systems. It’s not inevitable that the marketplace will deliver progress. You might never get that invisible handjob.
The word you’re looking for is “devolving”.
I prefer “enshitification”
Evolving backwards would be returning to ergonomic UIs with clear HIG being followed, having a scriptable variant for every class of applications, and any piece of software, OS UI included, not acting as an advert. Contrasts and colors and bright pictures are not what I need to see while working. It’s as if your screwdriver was built in the form of an alien fish dildo, and had a chain of ringing bells. Why is this bullshit considered normal and usual with computer interfaces, I dunno.
And a company’s website is its interface to the world, for the user. Not its advert. They’ve already seen the advert or don’t need it if they are on that website! They want to actually use it.
That sounds intriguing.
Don’t forget the spikes.
I think you’ll find that, sadly, nobody is worse for HIG than software engineers, especially Linux aficionados.
They like their design as unpalatable and shit-lookalike as possible.
I won’t. I see what designers do that looks nice if you only look at it like at a nice pic. Software engineers at least intend to use what they make.
Yeah… That explains the user experience Windows offers versus Mac.
Anybody who’s being honest will say Mac is nicer to use, especially non-tech people. Only nerds prefer the Windows design language over Windows.
Let’s face it: if Macs could run game as well as windows, Microsoft would go bankrupt tomorrow.
My experience with Macs was that they are bloody unusable, so can’t help you. They cause me anxiety, kill my eyes and irritate without end.
Can’t say it’s worse than Windows, of course.
I, too, am a Linux user.
the irony is that title was probably AI generated.
He admitted that he had to use AI a little bit after a somewhat broken finger.
What? He kinda broke a finger and then suddenly needed to use AI? His one bad finger prevented him using the other 9? He couldn’t speech-to-text it?
Or did AI break his finger to get him to make the video?!
There is a video for you to watch and get the context.
I’m not clicking on what looks like an AI slop YouTube video just to find out why a guy making a video about AI needed to use AI to make the video. Beyond seeing clippy for nostalgia, seeing that it’s likely a video about MS I care even less.
If you actually thought it was a video of value, you could have written (or just copy/pasta) a description of the video and why it might be of interest.
I’m not your AI assistant.
Doubt. If I can type with one hand while chatting with those hot women in my area, this guy can type with nine fingers.
That would make sense if evolution had a direction. But evolution can favor less complexity just as well as more: it depends on the selective pressures it’s under. “Fittest” is not necessarily “best.”
This applies metaphorically to marketed products as well as literally to biologiccal systems. It’s not inevitable that the marketplace will deliver progress. You might never get that invisible handjob.
No devolving makes sense. The natural pressures are causing the user interface to be worse.
It’s a reference to “it is evolving, just backwards”