As far as I can tell, there is a significant gap in modern software: there is a large catalogue of software that is intended to be easy to use but is inflexible, and a decent selection of software that is flexible yet is incredibly complex to use. A lot of software of the 1990's was both flexible yet not overwhelming to use.
I kind of agree with that. I think the UX field got lost in the way of being mixed with marketing for conversion and keeping engagement instead of real usage. Everything ends up with a dumbed down inefficient eye pleasing UI. I find it hard to find UX designers that want to invest in taking the time to really learn and understand expert usage instead of just seeing everything as websites to be optimised.
Comments
Pretty much everything.
As far as I can tell, there is a significant gap in modern software: there is a large catalogue of software that is intended to be easy to use but is inflexible, and a decent selection of software that is flexible yet is incredibly complex to use. A lot of software of the 1990's was both flexible yet not overwhelming to use.
I kind of agree with that. I think the UX field got lost in the way of being mixed with marketing for conversion and keeping engagement instead of real usage. Everything ends up with a dumbed down inefficient eye pleasing UI. I find it hard to find UX designers that want to invest in taking the time to really learn and understand expert usage instead of just seeing everything as websites to be optimised.
In the 90's there was a huge amount of software. I can count zillions of multimedia CD-ROMs even in Spanish.
Now that work it's better done from a web for a lot of culture/hobbies/information related software.