h a l f b a k e r y"Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
Computer systems of whatever description get improved.
Improvement gets distributed by developers or companies
Not updating is advised against because of security holes
Vacuous fashion victim bimbos enjoy everything looking different as a marker of trendy brainlessness
Sensible people just
want everything to stay the same
Therefore make a legal mandate that any update has to incorporate a "classic mode" which preserves the previous style, typography, and colours.
Only one major jurisdiction (e.g. USA, or EU) has to mandate this and the others will reap the benefits.
Fashion victim bimbos can ignore the classic mode and continue as before.
[link]
|
| |
You're not meant to like it |
|
| |
//If you don’t like how a piece of software works or looks, buy or use something else.// |
|
| |
That's all very well, but what about if - as pocmloc says - you buy something you like and then they change the interface?
It's not unusual for this to happen without your consent, nowadays. The antivirus software I pay for has changed its interface multiple times, for example. |
|
| |
Antivirus software is typically available with two options for payment: a lump sum annual payment, or a monthly subscription. If they make a change you don't like, don't renew your subscription and buy from a competitor. When you cancel your subscription, they usually prompt you to explain why you're leaving. That's when you tell them you hate the new design and are switching to a competitor's product. |
|
| |
To be clear, I'm not overly concerned about the look of my antivirus. It was merely an example.
I'm more concerned about loss of functionality, which also sometimes happens. For example it happened fairly recently with Photoshop. |
|
| |
//Petition the vendor for a classic mode, pick a different product, or learn to use the new interface. These are all better options than enacting laws against progress.// |
|
| |
If you read the idea carefully, you will see that pocmloc isn't attempting to block progress, but to prevent loss of utility. There is no block on changing anything, merely the requirement to give an option not to change.
I think that's a worthy goal - all decent countries have laws protecting their citizens against unreasonable business practices.
Also, the hard-core libertarian approach works less well when there is a monopoly. |
|
| |
I'm on the fence over this - if the 'forced update' model becomes predominant, it will become harder to rely on things, and this will be much more of an issue for some of the more vulnerable members of society. But on the other hand, if such a law were applied too zealously, it might have a chilling effect on long-term maintenance and development of useful programs. |
|
| |
The problem is that, while you may perceive a change as a loss of utility, the company may have valid reasons for the change. Maybe they got sued over patent infringement for a specific feature and were given the choice to pay someone royalties to continue using it, or stop using it. Maybe it was a feature most people don't use and the thought it would make a better user experience to streamline the UI by removing things no one uses. There are all sorts of potential reasons for such a change. |
|
| |
Death to anything beyond Windows 7 made by Microsloth. And 7 I'll just maim to within an inch of its life. |
|
| |
//Sensible people just want everything to stay the same// |
|
| |
No, this is not the case. Sensible people want some things to stay the same and other things to change. And not always the same things. |
|
| |
When I'm walking, I like to keep one foot on the ground while the other foot moves. Then I switch to the other foot on the ground. Otherwise, I fall over. |
|
| |
I'm actually a huge fan of Windows 10 *and* 11. 8 was fucking atrocious though! |
|
| |
// What Photoshop functionality did you recently lose? Something necessary and irreplaceable, or just requiring a change in your workflow?// |
|
| |
I don't use photoshop, it's just an example. They removed Pantone colours, which are vitally essential to professional printing. |
|
| |
// Maybe they got sued over patent infringement for a specific feature and were given the choice to pay someone royalties to continue using it, or stop using it.//
Yeah, but it's pretty dumb. Pantone are shooting themselves in the foot I think, because people who use it in earnest pay them thousands of pounds for physical samples of the colours every year, so they could just bump the price of that. Maybe (hopefully) a company will take this as an 'in' to the market, and make a much cheaper version for the casuals. |
|
| |
<edit - example retracted> |
|
| |
I am talking about boring surface-level stuff like fonts and User Interface colour schemes. Obviously functionality will change over time, otherwise we can all carry on using Psion handheld computers with an IR link to a 56k dial up modem to update our MySpace account. |
|
| |
I think I am thinking that I think this annual or biennial change in the typography etc. is basically fashion churn. If the typography was done in an elegant and classic way to begin with i.e. if the user interface was well designed, then there would be no need to change it every year or two. For example, the HalfBakery occasionally gets functional improvements (e.g. the https server, and the extra categories listed in the menu top right, and indeed the creation of new categories) but the typography and look doesn't change. Because any change would be for the worse. |
|
| |
For lower-grade systems, yes the fashion victims could get their annual "new look" but people who appreciate good design would not want the look to be "new", merely good. And good design is timeless. |
|
| |
Eventually everything sold becomes a commodity. Fashion and interface is just there to sell it. |
|
| |
Change to (actually) upgrade & make things better/easier/more useable, I have no problem with.
Change for the sake of change; THAT annoys me (especially removing useful functions).
<anecdote> One years "upgrade" of SolidWorks (I forget which... maybe 2018?) made the interface so crap, I refused to use it. All blues & grays; very hard to identify icons etc. I suspect I wasn't the only one who hated it; the next release was much better. </a> |
|
| |
//Not precisely. Adobe removed FREE support for Pantone colors but they’re still available at an additional fee for people who need them. And Adobe is doing this because Pantone charges THEM for the licenses. Professional users (y’know, folks who get paid for their work) chalk it up to the cost of doing business. There are work arounds for anyone who doesn't want to pay, and as you say it might present a market opportunity for others to offer a better/cheaper alternative.// |
|
| |
I'm aware of the details, you can tell this by reading as the end of the comment above.
The Pantone colors support was not FREE, people were paying for the feature through their photoshop subscription. (From what I've heard, the colour support wasn't even that good; the colour list hadn't been updated in years.)
But no, the problem I have is with the removal of the feature from software people had already paid for (paid for the subscription for; whatever). If you e.g. rent a house, the landlord can't later come back, mid-contract, and lock off some of the rooms you were allowed to use as part of the lease.
If Adobe /didn't/ have the rights to include the feature in the first place, that's their problem. If they /did/, then an appropriate response to Pantone asking for money is to say that they already have permission to include the (legacy) colour specification, but that Pantone can charge for updates to the list and Adobe will facilitate that. |
|
| |
//But to relate the Adobe/Pantone spat back to [pocmloc]’s idea … What would happen if software companies were required by law to maintain every feature a product ever had? And if they couldn’t charge for them even if it ultimately cost the more to support?// |
|
| |
Software would mature and users would be happy? |
|
| |
I don't have a problem with software suppliers ending support after a specified amount of time. And if they're not happy with the software, they are free to make a different product and sell that instead.
I don't even mind if it's got the same name but a different version number, as long as they don't force it on people, and are clear about any downgrades up-front. |
|
| |
// // Since you keep assuming I’m affected by examples // //
// Only because you presented that example. // |
|
| |
Well, fair enough, I didn't realise that was a reasonable assumption. |
|
| |
So I hear you're looking for a Clone-a-willy app, so you can create artistically enhanced and enlarged copies of penises? |
|
| |
Instead of a law I'd rather an invention which makes anything look "classic" when viewed through it, with selectable era. |
|
| |
No legal wrangling and restless designers could then continue to constantly revise and degrade interfaces to their hearts content. |
|
| |