Me too, agree with you and GP. And I can't keep wondering why this opinion is so unpopular. Today's UIs are bloated with unnecessary animations (which adds latency). But worse than animations is that UIs are horribly inconsistent; took me a while to figure out those toggles should be clicked, not dragged; or: what is even clickable, how do I scroll, ...? I could go on forever, and probably so can you.
Why do only old nerds complain about this, when today's UIs are so "easy" that every toddler can use the smartphone? Are we just living in the past, getting old; are we the problem, why is our opinion unpopular?
I think other people do feel a vague sense of anxiety using modern software from not quite knowing what all the interaction patterns are. When you click that hamburger menu on the website, what will it do, exactly? But most people from outside the software world just blame themselves for “not being very good with computers”.
The problem is that it’s not fashionable any more amongst designers to use built in controls. Everyone wants to think of themselves like Apple, and build their own beautiful design language. Even if it’s just for their own website or app. And it sort of makes sense given modern apps end up needing to be built for the web, iphone, iPad, Android, and the desktop. It makes sense to tie all of those pieces of software together with a cohesive visual language and style.
I'm old now, and I won't dismiss that the new stuff is aesthetically nice. It's also not that hard to use. But I just don't like the visual polish more than I like the clarity and responsiveness of the old UI elements.
I just don't care if my computing experience is beautiful. I care if it's snappy, productive, and reliable.
I mostly find the way the opinion presented in this thread by many people exhausting.
You're doing it there too: You're throwing every bad point of every bad UI you ever encountered into a bucket and throw all of that at this article by concluding "Animations in UI are terrible and just bloat everywhere". That's very close to a strawman.
I have worked and AB-tested in UIs for games and such dealing with just that and I would much rather say: Bad UIs are bad, yes. And animations don't help bad UI not being bad. But if you have a good, understandable UI, adding animations smartly - without impeding the user and in subtle fashion - on top of that UI... that can increase the overall aesthetics of the UI a lot and make the UI much more pleasing to use.
I agree with that; animations can be OK, but when I have a configuration setting, I usually disable them because input latency drives me crazy.
My post replied to "checkboxes vs UI toggles", and replying to that aspect was my main point. That's slightly off-topic, of course. It has to do with animations only because checkboxes wouldn't really benefit from animation, whereas toggles are an obscure visual representation for the same control, and adding animation is a feeble attempt to make it somewhat less obscure, even though it doesn't even try to address the main problem: what does toggle "left" and "right" really mean?
I believe checkbox not benefting from animation is a good thing: it's so clear and obvious that you don't need to animate it.
> what does toggle "left" and "right" really mean?
Nothing, because that's not the point of the article.
It's weird to me that this is such a big point here.
In an actual UI, you will have labels or indicators telling you what the toggle means and what the options are - "Safety door unlatched" vs "Control motors engaged". That's a toggle between two choices and having it a toggle like that would be safer than checkboxes.
Otherwise your checkbox without labels is equally bad UX because what does "on" and "off" mean for an unlabeled checkbox? I could give enough examples from work how vaguely labeled checkboxes like "remote authentication" are terrible UX.
For toggling between mutually exclusive choices please use radio buttons. Checkboxes, and less obvious variants, are for enabling/disabling clearly labeled options that are not mutually exclusive.
That used to be Interaction Design 101 back in the olden days, ie. 1990s.
I’m quietly obsessed with the idea of rebuilding a lot of modern user interfaces just using classic controls that we’ve had since the 90s. Checkboxes, radio buttons, labels and text input elements. I don’t know if it would be as good as what we have now, but there would be something so relaxing about all of my applications looking like they’re part of the same world.
Back in the days, you had a UI toolkit, and everybody would use those native controls; they looked and felt the same in all application, and you had a central place where you could customize the look. Now every application/website has customized controls for everything; everything looks and works differently.
(And don't even get me started with websites implementing their own scrollbars with JavaScript. Uh!)
Custom list control: do Home/End buttons work? How to select multiple items, does Shift-Cursorkeys work? Does Ctrl-Click work? Of course not.
Custom text control: does Ctrl-Left/Right for word jumping work? Does Ctrl-Up/Down for paragraph jumping work? Can I select everything with Ctrl-A or does it select the whole website? Can I select everything from cursor until the end with Ctrl-Shift-End work? Does Copy/Paste work at all?
(I have never figured out why Copy/Paste in Teams simply doesn't work. Apparently
I'm the only one with this problem.)
Custom dropdown control: does Alt-Down work? Can I scroll the list with the usual keys?
If (web) developers would just use standard controls, everything would work the same, and they wouldn't have to reimplement all the basic things from scratch (or not at all). Web devs could write forms that work without megabytes of JavaScript.
Hamburger menus. Those horrible things didn't need to exist even in old times with small monitors and 640x480 (or less) - but now they exist everywhere on my 32" 4K monitor for no reason.
This is a rationalization after the fact. Checkboxes used to be used in contexts where they are effective immediately too, and nobody was confused by that. The real reason switches were introduced was to be able to line them up on the right side in iPhone OS Settings, whereas checkboxes would have to be on the left side, costing too much extra margin space on the then-small iPhone screen.
Did you read the linked article? I think toggle switches are a superior metaphor for controls that move a system between two states. Checkboxes are superior for opt-in items that can be skipped over.
