Jump to content

THE GUI SHOULD BE BETTER

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

EDIT-- Okay, I drafted this a bit last night, so I'm gonna make a small edit. If I understand correctly from Ross's most recent posts, it is *indeed*, as I originally surmised from the video, that the act of switching between the keyboard and the mouse for a control scheme is the fundamental problem? In other words, it's not that everything must be done with the mouse, it's just that using the full keyboard slows things down.

I'd say video modern game designers generally agree. Hence why my proposal was to take a page from video games and make a hybrid using only hotkeys that are within easy reach of the w-a-s-d gaming position (though I realize I kinda buried that info in the design document, so it may have looked like I was advocating any old hotkeys, full stop). After all, it's not like you ever end up using two mice at a time, so otherwise your left hand is just kinda hanging out? And I figure most people who play games should be pretty comfortable with the layout, though-- that may admittedly not include the kind of games Ross tends to play. :P

In terms of maximizing the power of the mouse, and certainly if anyone was seriously entertaining driving only with the mouse-- I mean, optimally, to be honest, I actually WOULD like to use a mouse with more buttons on it. I know that was a bit of a joke in the video, but IRL my mouse is an MMO mouse with 12 re-mappable side-buttons explicitly so I can do more things with my mouse. I think the radial menu idea has merit, but I think that stacking of nodes becomes a problem (I have something like it in my own mock up and it's honestly the part of it I like least). The first thing I ever saw with a radial menu almost exactly like the one Ross mocked up was actually "The Sims", and even in that context, it could get overwhelming with a mere 12 options in practice. You could alleviate that by having the first tier of options act like "folders" with a second tier of objects below that being more "file" level options that fit inside them, and come up when you mouse over a "folder".

On some level there's almost an information-theory problem underlying trying to get too much from too little with the mouse-- you have to be able to match the level of information provided by the mouse's actions to the number of things you want to be able to specify with it (Eh-- roughly. I could complicate that but let's not). Basic stuff, but I think framing it that way kinda clarifies the challenge? You can make the target much softer by manually creating a subgroup-- EG, from the example above, CONSTRUCTING a folder that you put specific files or programs in to invoke. Put another way, it's easier to use a mouse to specify one of 12 hand-picked things, rather than find that same item among a file-system of thousands of things organized in varying ways. But the hand-crafting solution seems like it would be inherently impossible to take to scale, and probably couldn't allow full control of a system in its own right. I feel like gestures or fighting-game-esque combinations of buttons are really your best bet at approximating full control, from a purely theoretical perspective (A multi-button mouse truly COULD unite a lot of this control on the mouse. Because maximum number of unique invocable files or programs is predicted by X^N where X is the number of buttons on the mouse and N is the number of keys pressed in a combination. My mouse has a total of 16 buttons not counting the dpi and mode switches. Get 3 or 4 buttons deep and that's a serious amount of options.). That is, I can imagine those generating the most bang-for-the-buck in terms of simple solutions that can specify one item among hundreds or 1000s in relatively short time-scales.

Not to let air out of the balloon on gestures, but in practice I really dislike them. I do have a small proposed fix for them, but I'll start with my gripes. As an early adopter of gestures, and tried, I believe, both the old-school opera gestures with the pop-up guide, and some kind of gesture plugin for Firefox, and used both for quite some time (I was/am a bit of a browser enthusiast). For simple things they were alright, for more complex things I just found myself preferring to do it the old way. In part it was that there was a not-insubstantial error rate. It can be harder than it looks to programmatically identify even a simple shape once you get up to 3 strokes, and the problem worsens the more gestures there are because there are only so many ways to arrange 3 strokes-- certainly when all the lines have to be contiguous. Throw in curved strokes-- given that it's quite hard actually to draw a perfect line with the mouse-- and the problem becomes even harder. THAT SAID-- I do have one thought on making them more workable, which is you could bring up a phone-password-style-grid when you press the gesture hotkey. That would at least solve the problem of gestures being hard for the computer to interpret, and greatly expand the number of unique invocations possible depending on the number of pegs in the grid-- though you'd still need to memorize the symbols, of course.

Edited by Collapsar77
Reading most recent posts indicated that Ross's position had been expanded on and I was responding to what was not in fact his real position. (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Collapsar77 said:

The way I've understood the conversation so far is that Ross was looking for a mouse ONLY method?

No, it's like I said in the video.  Be able to do as much as possible with just one hand, then do even more with 2 (left hand for hotkeys, I even said in the video a custom pad could do a lot).  I actually wasn't criticizing hotkeys, just the current implementation of them.  It's when you need BOTH hands on the keyboard and / or poor ergonomics that I think they aren't a great solution.  In other words, I want to minimize the switching and I personally do too much with the mouse (sometimes where the keyboard would be a poor choice also) to make the keyboard the primary control (I think this is the case for most Windows users).  For others, the mouse is only sparingly needed, so the keyboard makes more sense to them.  Both camps don't like having to switch hands more than they have to.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, Ross Scott said:

No, it's like I said in the video.  Be able to do as much as possible with just one hand, then do even more with 2 (left hand for hotkeys, I even said in the video a custom pad could do a lot). 

Yeah, I edited my post to update so I don't spread confusion. Definitely a derp on my part. I had kinda started to draft that post a bit ago, had skimmed page 9 but not read in detail when I posted. Apologies, I know it's infuriating to explain the same thing over and over, and honestly it was entirely because I was being somewhat lazy after a long day.

I'd forgotten the bit you said about doing a lot with one hand and more with two. I might quibble a bit with the model, which is one reason I don't think it resonated-- going back to the video game control scheme analogy, I see the best scheme as one where the two work synergystically. HOWEVER-- if you wanted to realize something closer to your model than my discussion of how to extract the most data from mouse-use alone DEFINITELY applies, it's just that the left hand keyboard inputs I proposed would be de-emphasized or reworked to be less necessary at each stage.

Sorry again about introducing confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
22 hours ago, Ross Scott said:

As for "don't use them", yes, that is POSSIBLE, and it's going to be an ongoing battle for pretty much as long as you use a computer AND with no alternative provided.  Every time you install a new program, it's going to dump icons there.  Some installers give you the option not to do that, others don't.  You can never escape desktop icons permanently by default.  Additionally, there's no other alternative given if you want to rapidly access everything that WOULD go to the desktop.  Windows is designed to have desktop shortcuts.  If you NEVER want to see them AND install new software, that's just not an option under normal means.

 

I haven't tried doing this yet but presumably you could just make the desktop folder a symbolic link for somewhere else (like one of the folders in your menu). Then when a new program places its icon there it just goes right where you want it.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/15/2020 at 1:25 AM, Ross Scott said:

Well first, I've had this since 2002-ish, so I would have had to wait 13 years for Windows to give me what I wanted.  Second, I admit I could be an idiot here, but could you tell me how to enable it?  It doesn't do that by default.  I just did a test on 10 and tried copying a bunch of files, the second job started immediately, wasn't queued.  I saw the option to PAUSE a transfer, that's it.  I admit, I'm either stupid on this or Windows 10 does not support queued file transfers.

It doesn't. I use Teracopy myself for that functionality.

21 hours ago, Tom said:

One semi-personal point I think may be of interest: I find the traditional "Desktop Metaphor" GUI works best for me, switching to command prompt when necessary, but one thing that stuns me is how few people ever actually attempt to use one like a real, physical desktop, which was the whole point of the thing in the first place.  Much like my actual desk, I regard the "desktop" folder on my system as the space to put what I'm dealing with right now - work in progress (and stuff to be processed ASAP, which on a real desk might go in an "in" tray) sits on the desktop, and whenever possible I try to have the desktop totally cleared and tidied away by the end of the day or when I shut down.

Once you get back to the fundamental inspiration for designing the "Desktop" GUI in the first place, I feel a lot of design decisions for the default installed configuration, most likely to feel "natural" to the maximum number of people, immediately become pretty obvious; for example, permanent launcher icons for programs have no place on such a desktop - you wouldn't drill a hole right in the middle of your actual desk and install a button there - but temporary folders you're working on today, and mounted volumes of USB sticks and removable drives, do.  Desk tidys like "my computer" are more of a matter of taste; some people have sitting neatly on their desk, others prefer to keep everything in a drawer.

I have a great many things in the middle of my physical desk top. Since I have a computer on it, I have my monitor in the middle, with a power monitor below, (have to monitor my wattage since the entire basement is on the same 15A breaker, and I have to compete with a microwave, refrigerator, lights, and everything else plugged in down here) mouse, and keyboard. (keyboard has space front to back so I can reposition for if I'm eating/doing something at my desk besides using the PC) To the right I have a flashlight, some lens cleaning fluid, a microfiber cloth, a note pad and pen, a lighter, and a trash can. To the left, a glass for water, some headphones, a power switch for my rope light, a printer, my fingernail care kit, a sewing kit, blood pressure monitoring device, game controllers, and a book.

 

99% of what I have placed will never be moved from that location, only utilized in position. This is how the majority of people use their desks, they place things where they will use them, and then don't move them from that location. (placing them elsewhere is inefficient, as is having to move them every time you intend to use them)

Edited by BTGBullseye (see edit history)

Don't insult me. I have trained professionals to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:

"I have a great many things in the middle of my physical desk top. Since I have a computer on it, I have my monitor in the middle, with a power monitor below, (have to monitor my wattage since the entire basement is on the same 15A breaker, and I have to compete with a microwave, refrigerator, lights, and everything else plugged in down here) mouse, and keyboard. (keyboard has space front to back so I can reposition for if I'm eating/doing something at my desk besides using the PC) To the right I have a flashlight, some lens cleaning fluid, a microfiber cloth, a note pad and pen, a lighter, and a trash can. To the left, a glass for water, some headphones, a power switch for my rope light, a printer, my fingernail care kit, a sewing kit, blood pressure monitoring device, game controllers, and a book."

I'm going to go out on a limb here, since your computer sits centrally and you didn't mention a pen or pencil anywhere, and surmise that you don't write or draw things by hand or handle paper documents much, so you aren't using your desk as an actual writing desk, which is what they were originally invented for.  I was referring to how an actual "pen, paper and drawers" desk would be used, which is pretty much how I use mine.  (laptop sits charging on a shelf when not in use, gets taken out and set up when I need to use software of one sort or another, then goes away and back on charge again when I'm done)  I keep a big, central space  clear for writing and manipulating documents or any other task.  Routinely used items like pens, document trays, glass of water, etc, sit along the back edge of the desktop - analogous to an upper-screen-edge toolbar, I suppose.  Other stuff more intermittently used goes in the front desk drawer, items like my sphygmomanometer (yeah, I actually have one too - I'm not a medical professional, though, I just try to keep a close eye on my blood pressure when I'm taking my ADHD medication.  ADHD is also the reason I only physically get the computer out when I've consciously decided to use it; it's too tempting a distraction otherwise.  Nowadays I try to do as much as possible by hand on paper - I've taken to heart the philosophy of an old teacher of mine, that "a computer is just the world's most expensive pencil."  Heck, I even taught myself how to use a slide rule a few months back, although that was more for fun and curiosity!)

In short, my desk is set up probably more like an early 20th-century (maybe even late 19th century) pre-computer office desk, which I'm pretty damned sure is what the "Desktop GUI" was actually modelled on, since the earliest ones literally used depictions of cardboard folders, document drawers and loose pieces of paper for their iconography - and what the people designing the first GUIs would have been acculturated to.

 

Edited by Tom (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 6/15/2020 at 3:25 AM, Ross Scott said:

You can never escape desktop icons permanently by default. Windows is designed to have desktop shortcuts.  If you NEVER want to see them AND install new software, that's just not an option under normal means.

spacer.png

 

So I did a quick web search just out of curiosity and it turns out you've been able to permanently disable desktop icons since at least Windows XP! Meaning this has already been a feature of Windows for almost two decades at minimum and it's not even that hard to discover. In fact I'm pretty sure now I've stumbled upon this feature in the past but completely forgot about it because I just never needed it.

 

427d7137-d6b2-4190-ac8a-ed2214077cab.png.4f822df8bb365a9fe56acff92d1db8bd.png

Edited by Isaiah (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Isaiah said:

... turns out you've been able to permanently disable desktop icons since at least Windows XP! 

I actually do this. My Dad hates having his desktop cluttered, so he showed me how to do it. One other note on this subject--

It's ergonomically awful-- involves clicking a tiny thing-- but if you hide your desktop items these double-arrows will still give you access to the contents of your desktop. I mention this because there's something built into the shell to show the contents of the desktop, and for all I know people making custom GUIs and adjuncts might already make use of that/ be able to make use of that.

image.png.12f9cf4c1b9bfc6ffdda3e6b1c7b17d3.png
 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I am not sure if this goes here or not but I use two programs that one lets me hide the default taskbar and second I can add as many more "taskbars" as I want. I have a video on youtube to show you all the jank.   Desktop Video

Edited by tannermyne (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post

The industry greatest pie menu is in blender. Here is 30 seconds demonstration Interface Overview - Blender 2.80 Fundamentals. Main difference is that a hot keys not require special keys(like ctrl, alt, shift) to be held for activation while you in editing areas(not text entry). I think this makes a world of difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Isaiah said:

 

 

So I did a quick web search just out of curiosity and it turns out you've been able to permanently disable desktop icons since at least Windows XP! Meaning this has already been a feature of Windows for almost two decades at minimum and it's not even that hard to discover. In fact I'm pretty sure now I've stumbled upon this feature in the past but completely forgot about it because I just never needed it.

 

 

 

I'm a moron for forgetting about that, my bad.  Still increases the travel time and involves tiny targets (even smaller than the popup menu I have in Litestep), but you're right, it exists.

 

Edited by Ross Scott (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

@Ross Scott Well in your defense you haven't used the default desktop for years so missing that is more understandable but no less amusing to me 😄. I would like to apologize though for probably coming off a bit too derisive in most of my comments thus far. This is due to the fact that honestly your complaints are becoming less and less coherent and outright contradictory the more I read them, which makes trying to help frustrating.

 

For example, in your video you complained about small GUI elements that demand too much precision from the user and recommended a kind of runway vs helipad approach, reasoning that "the less precise you need to be the faster you our". Okay, fair enough. But here in the forums you complain about increased travel distances being inefficient, which your very own "runway" concept would actually produce. The very mouse gestures you love being the perfect example of that.

 

But for the sake of argument let's assume for a moment that greater travel distances are less efficient. Well with the alt-tab method I mentioned you instantly see all open app names at once with very helpful preview images, which is an objectively faster way to identify them than your method of moving the cursor all the way down to the bottom of the screen and across each icon to see the name of each, one at a time. And there displayed in the center of the screen closer to where the cursor most likely already is. And finally you only have to move your cursor to the exact app you want once identified. Meaning the alt-tab method is faster either way because it requires less travel distance and precision overall.

 

However, I get the impression that none this really matters because the crux of the issue for you is just having to upgrade to Windows 10. But that's just something your going to have to accept and move on with your life.. or not. So I'm just trying to help you in that regard. There is not perfect solution or GUI "enlightenment" (whatever that means) coming to save you. At least not any time soon. I also think taking more breaks away form the computer might help you 😉

Edited by Isaiah (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post

@Ross Scott I've been thinking about the dilemma of needing the latest version of Windows for certain applications and games but also wanting the customization of Linux for everything else and I've come to only one possible conclusion: you have to use both. Now the problem of course is that this requires either a VM to run one inside the other which deceases performance, or a dual boot setup which means annoying delays when switching and other possible headaches.

 

However, there is another solution that I have not seen suggested yet and think is perfect: Two machines, one monitor, keyboard and mouse connected to both using a switcher. Not only does this eliminate all the issues of using a VM or dual boot but it also improves efficiency thorough multitasking since you can now do things like use the Linux machine to render something while playing a VR game on the Windows machine and not have to worry about performance issues since they're entirely independent. Most files and apps could also be synced between machines for a seamless experience.


Now setting up two machines is more work and more expensive but I think such an investment would be more than worth it for all you'd gain. It also naturally gives you some redundancy in case of issues and having both means you will never have to worry about a forced upgrade ever again on the Linux machine and therefore not have to worry about Windows updating itself on the other machine as a consequence. It's basically the best of both worlds. This is something I plan to setup myself too since I'd like to get away from Windows.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Isaiah said:

For example, in your video you complained about small GUI elements that demand too much precision from the user and recommended a kind of runway vs helipad approach, reasoning that "the less precise you need to be the faster you our". Okay, fair enough. But here in the forums you complain about increased travel distances being inefficient, which your very own "runway" concept would actually produce. The very mouse gestures you love being the perfect example of that.

If we are considering the "runway vs helipad approach", then Fitts's law is something that is very important. It provides a fundamental model of UX interaction and states that "the time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target." It can easily be used to justify some of Ross's ideas, such as pie menus and hot corners (the browser shortcut he showed).

 

I would argue that the efficiency of mouse gestures is very dependent on their design. For one, they are able to match the user's actual motions to what they intend to motion. They also need to be considered in terms of (a) what are the most commonly used gestures and (b) what are the easiest gestures to motion. I think that where mouse gestures tend to suffer is in discoverability (like CLI commands), but demanding too much precision I think is a non-issue in a well thought-out system.

 

3 hours ago, Isaiah said:

But for the sake of argument let's assume for a moment that greater travel distances are less efficient. Well with the alt-tab method I mentioned you instantly see all open app names at once with very helpful preview images, which is an objectively faster way to identify them than your method of moving the cursor all the way down to the bottom of the screen and across each icon to see the name of each, one at a time. And there displayed in the center of the screen closer to where the cursor most likely already is. And finally you only have to move your cursor to the exact app you want once identified. Meaning the alt-tab method is faster either way because it requires less travel distance and precision overall.

An interesting result of Fitts's law is that the edges of computer monitors can be considered to have infinite width (that also goes for double with corners, where the edges effectively collide and have infinite dimensions). So effectively, the dock shortcuts are infinitely tall because they do not require a deceleration phase.  This means that one can be very efficient with orienting their mouse to the given application and opening it. The edges, along with the corners, are your most valuable real estate.

 

Anecdotally I would also like to add that I don't ever use the Alt-Tab menu in conjunction with the mouse, rather I use it one-dimensionally with the keyboard, mainly because that would require me to (a) hold down Alt-Tab and release Tab, (b) look at the previews and identify what I want, and (c) orient my mouse to the application and press the button to open it. That is much more complicated than just pressing Alt-Tab however many times until I see the application I want.

 

Recommended reading on Fitts's law:

Visualizing Fitts's Law — A good introduction

When You Shouldn’t Use Fitts's Law To Measure User Experience — Some pitfalls and possible solutions

A Quiz Designed to Give You Fitts — This article uses examples to give you a great understanding of the underlying concepts

Edited by ekket
Correct Alt-Tab usage (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, ekket said:

It can easily be used to justify some of Ross's ideas, such as pie menus and hot corners.

My issue here is not with the ideas themselves as much as Ross' contradictory positions pertaining to these ideas when criticizing the Windows GUI.  Which gives me the strong impression he's really just looking to validate existing Microsoft prejudices without attempting any kind of objective analysis here (e.g. desktop icons). For example, he complained in the video about most Windows GUI elements being too small, but here he complains that the new Windows 10 GUI elements are too big. The former because they require too much precision and are therefore inefficient, the latter because they require extra travel distance and are therefore inefficient.

 

Now from what I understand, Fitts's law demonstrates that the relationship between size AND travel distance is what determines efficiency.  So calming size OR travel distance alone is a sign of efficiency is wrong. Ironically in the case of Windows 10, Ross complained that the elements where both too big  and too far away, but according to Fitts's law such a combination is actually just as efficient or more efficient than smaller and closer elements. And being near the edge of the screen only improves things.

4 hours ago, ekket said:

An interesting result of Fitts's law is that the edges of computer monitors can be considered to have infinite width. So effectively, the dock shortcuts are infinitely tall because they do not require a deceleration phase.  This means that one can be very efficient with orienting their mouse to the given application and opening it. The edges, along with the corners, are your most valuable real estate.

But doesn't this also mean that the default Windows taskbar and start menu are "infinitely" tall and are therefore more or equally efficient to Ross' custom anywhere menu? Also, the distance to the element is an important factor and like I said before, the cursor is more likely to be closer to the center of the screen than the edges. So it seems you could argue that the dock/taskbar and alt-tab screen are efficient in different ways.

 

Also, the biggest advantage I was trying to highlight with alt-tab vs dock method was the fact you can see all open apps at the same time without even moving the cursor.

Edited by Isaiah (see edit history)

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, Isaiah said:

 

Now from what I understand, Fitts's law demonstrates that the relationship between size AND travel distance is what determines efficiency.  So calming size OR travel distance alone is a sign of efficiency is wrong. Ironically in the case of Windows 10, Ross complained that the elements where both too big  and too far away, but according to Fitts's law such a combination is actually just as efficient or more efficient than smaller and closer elements. And being near the edge of the screen only improves things.


...Hilariously I think you just accidentally strengthened Ross's argument while trying to explain why you don't like it.

image.png.094acfcafb5a3b1f4d271a46fe955ac2.png

That's basically a diagrammatic representation of the relationship of the variables in the portion of the equation that's inside the log in Fitts's law. More or less *by definition*, regardless of whether having something be small and near or far and big is roughly equivalently inefficient, you're kinda inadvertently pointing up the fact that, well, neither one is as good as having things be big and near? So, in fact, Ross's seemingly contradictory statements can also both mutually be read as true to some degree, since both approaches he's complaining about are sub-optimal, again, by definition? I'm not sure the best take-away from that realization is frustration that Ross doesn't know what he wants. He doesn't know *specifically* what he wants, I don't think he's really even saying that he does, but in general we can guess that he wants targets that are bigger and nearer, so to speak.

I feel like it's a bit much to go after him for throwing out ideas that are at cross purposes, given that his thesis was essentially: "I know this is inefficient, and I need help figuring out what a more efficient GUI would look like". It's sort of like complaining that ideas in a brainstorming session don't all fit together. Pretty sure that if he knew what he wanted exactly, he wouldn't ask.

I admit to being initially confused about what design parameters he had in mind, but I think the common thread that's emerged in this discussion is basically: A) it needs to be optimized to be efficient, and B) it needs to be friendly to mouse users, not be all about the keyboard. Lots of stuff can fall under that umbrella. And while you can certainly argue that the windows GUI is maybe a little better put together than he gives it credit for being, there's something to be said for getting into an innovator's mindset and asking how we could rethink things. I think this board has already turned up a couple of interesting things I hadn't heard of, and I hope it will continue to in the next few days.

Sometimes it's okay to sit with uncertainty for a little while. Not everything needs a clear direction right away, and pushing for one can stop all the necessary pieces of the puzzle from emerging. Hey, I struggle with it too, I won't front. Just saying, though.

Incidentally, so what if Ross *does* have a problem with Microsoft? Him and most of the computer-using world since, what, the late 1980s? Good luck presenting something on any topic without your biases sneaking in. That's life, you do your best anyway. Doesn't mean the GUI couldn't be better.

Share this post


Link to post

Regarding a possible explanation for why Microsoft keeps breaking custom GUIs:

 

Microsoft has attached telemetry to every smallest action that is done in Windows 10. And Microsoft surely uses that telemetry to profit its business in a variety of ways. When using custom UI elements, Microsoft probably can't get telemetry from them. And so, it's possible that Microsoft breaks the UI on purpose in order to force its data-harvesting on people.

 

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/850714-dutch-dpas-use-of-microsofts-data-viewer-tool-reveals-that-no-windows-10-telemetry-is-anonymous/

 

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/911470-microsoft-reshuffles-2018-speculation-not-pretty/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-11198231

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Microsoft has attached telemetry to every smallest action that is done in Windows 10. And Microsoft surely uses that telemetry to profit its business in a variety of ways. When using custom UI elements, Microsoft probably can't get telemetry from them. And so, it's possible that Microsoft breaks the UI on purpose in order to force its data-harvesting on people.

Ugh. Awful. Not surprising, but awful.

Okay, I take back what I said about this just being an interesting thought experiment. F--- those guys. How do we make literally every aspect of the UI custom?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in the community.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

This website uses cookies, as do most websites since the 90s. By using this site, you consent to cookies. We have to say this or we get in trouble. Learn more.