> Don't pretend that the downsides of messing with an existing UI aren't real.
Wow, you are barking at the wrong tree.
In my comment, I didn't say that the UI style changes were good or bad for usability. The comment thread had two postures: either these design changes have a business reason, or they are there to justify the designer's salary.
I wanted to highlight a third plausible reason: people crave experiencing something new, which is why businesses reflect that. For example, I love the classic Mac OS B&W style, but if Apple maintains the same style from 1984 to the present, many people will perceive it as outdated. (In fact, I remember reading MacOS 9 reviews pre-Aqua, that many comments highlighted how MacOS looked legacy compared to Windows 95.)
I'm not defending poor style changes or implying that they don't affect usability.
You seem to be saying that chasing fashion could be a sufficient justification for UI churn, instead of acknowledging that it will only ever be a very weak factor at best in favor of redesign, and never enough on its own to overcome the usability downsides of changing an established UI. UI overhauls need a more substantial justification than mere fashion.
What I'm saying is that "mere fashion" is not something minor.
If you consider the model proposed by Donald Norman in Emotional Design, the experience occurs on three levels: visceral, behavioral, and reflective.
The behavioral level is crucial. I'm not minimizing its importance.
But all three levels contribute to the user experience.
Companies like Apple, Google, and Microsoft redesign their UI because they want to maintain the perception that their products are modern, which justifies their UI updates.
> UI overhauls need a more substantial justification than mere fashion.
In the evolution of most UIs, many of the UI changes were driven by "fashion".
Most differences in behavior between Windows 3.1 and Windows 11 could have been achieved using the same visual elements of Windows 3.1. For example, Windows 95 moved the "Close" button outside the window control menu to make it easier to click; however, the same change could have been made while keeping the style of Windows 3.1. The switch from the "Program Manager" to the "Start" menu and taskbar could have been implemented with the Windows 3.1 style, without modifying its behavior.
When Apple launched OSX, its core was based on NeXT Step, and the goal was to replace Mac OS 9. They could have chosen to keep the Mac OS 9 style (which they initially did in the beta versions) to avoid disrupting the experience for existing users. The shift to Aqua was a fashion statement, conveying not only that Apple was modern but also highlighting the integration of their hardware and software, as the Aqua style matched the design of the iMac at the time.
I agree with you that disrupting the behavior and usability is not good. Many "fashion" changes could be incremental, allowing users to choose whether to retain their old version. But, you like it or not, the "visceral" perception in the user experience plays an important role.
Wow, you are barking at the wrong tree.
In my comment, I didn't say that the UI style changes were good or bad for usability. The comment thread had two postures: either these design changes have a business reason, or they are there to justify the designer's salary.
I wanted to highlight a third plausible reason: people crave experiencing something new, which is why businesses reflect that. For example, I love the classic Mac OS B&W style, but if Apple maintains the same style from 1984 to the present, many people will perceive it as outdated. (In fact, I remember reading MacOS 9 reviews pre-Aqua, that many comments highlighted how MacOS looked legacy compared to Windows 95.)
I'm not defending poor style changes or implying that they don't affect usability.