You are immune to logic sadly, but I’ll answer two things, which can be extrapolated to all you’ve said.

Sometimes yes. Usually no, for most people. If you make a word document in an older version of office, it’ll still work fine. If you use LibreOffice with the oldest-looking UI, it’ll still work. 99% of people don’t use the extremely niche features that have been added in recent years.

No, it all won’t work fine at your work where you send documents and spreadsheets and stuff with complex functionality to your colleagues and clients. And they send their documents to you. And versions edited in your old version or LO break.

That aside, WordPerfect 8 doesn’t support MSW document formats, IIRC, and MSW doesn’t support WP8 document formats.

Exactly. And that research has lead to where we are now.

This is factually incorrect and I have already said it’s incorrect. That research has mostly been exhausted, and the conclusions one can make from it are more or less the same as in 40s, 60s and 80s. And 90s’ interfaces were more usable because by habit people tried to follow industrial ergonomics, even though computer displays allow one to cheaply shoot their user in the foot, in the way some device’s panel with switches, buttons and knobs doesn’t.

They almost never were. Seriously. Go back and try some 90s software. Most of it was a cluttered mess, ugly, really weirdly laid out, and had zero considering for anybody with disabilities.

Some of it. But IBM and Apple had human interface guidelines based on actual research about ergonomics, which hasn’t become obsolete despite what you say, because humans did not change as a race in 30 years. UI\UX following those is still good.

Judging by the first quote, you simply haven’t done work requiring heavy usage of productivity software yet.

Also you are arguing like a schoolboy. Exactly in the way schoolboys consider to not look like it. I could give advice, but that usually only results in resistance.

It’s as confusing as those adware and spyware ridden one-purpose tools from no-name Chinese developers.

That’s very funny, of course. But if adaptive design and all that crap are so hot today, could they please limit that to touchscreen-first devices? No sane person would actually write a work document or code on a touchscreen if there’s a keyboard.

Yet do they use ancient copies of the software that broadly still performs the tasks people need of them? No.

This just means that functionality and interoperability criteria are more important than usability. They are - you can’t just exchange docs with a person using a modern office suite, while you are using WordPerfect 8 for Linux.

This is the opposite of confirming your argument about UI\UX, because this means that UI\UX are order of magnitude less important in making the decision.

And it’s obvious, I swear, some people haven’t been taught that arguments are not intended to support their group or hierarchy, you can’t do that with cheating in arguments anyway. They are intended to find out truth, make both participants richer than before.

Do they theme their system to look like the oh-so-superior Win98? No.

That’s simply because they “theme their system” to look as they wish and they don’t have to stop with Win98 or Win2K.

But in a “one size to fit all” situation those are still obviously superior.

Ergonomics is not a matter of opinions, there’s plenty of research since the fscking world war two. Different controls should have different colors, shapes and textures. It’s a scientifically proven statement. Proven with human error stats and time to do a task stats.

Padding controls and indicators with space can be a good thing, but no modern designer is doing it right as far as I’m concerned. Because it’s not about making panels half the screen, it’s about different groups of controls being clearly separated by that space and padded for focus, and space being used proportionally to importance.

They’ve all heard something of it, but haven’t learned the actual thing.

Older UIs were usually (often, but not always) made with respect to ergonomics.

thank god modern UIs aren’t inconsistent, cramped and cluttered like this

Our ideas of all three things seem to be diametrically opposite. For me older UIs seem ordered, compact and correctly accented. In general, it’s not always true - say, I like the appearance of old KDE (2-3), but not sure if I’d use it daily, for example (neither I would modern KDE).

Makes me think of people who want to cut down all trees along streets and replace all grass with concrete. So that all would be empty and similar and “in order”.

By the way! I can see how this (color blocking) may resonate with one’s ADHD and the stereotype that many designers have it.

But if any such a designer is reading this, I want them to understand that using their … creations with ADHD is harder, not easier, than using normal, traditional UIs.

For the designer this may be a distracting and irritating contrast, because they have no use for information conveyed by it. For the user it’s the opposite, they are distracted and irritated because of not being able to quickly find what they need.

There are much more Muslims living in India than just those in Kashmir. They also have regions where Muslims treat Christians that way. India is big. That said, yes, it sucks, but Kashmir is a situation where “both sides” can be used honestly. It’s just that somehow Europeans and Americans like to consider Muslims the oppressed group number one. Usually they are the oppressors.

That small proportion of situations is those where it was simply impossible to live oppressed, because there only were options to fight or die. A much larger proportion of people in this world live oppressed.

freaks

As compared to beheading them for their ethnicity, yes. So until Azerbaijan is sanctioned and put to its place, please shut up. We all care more about things closer to us, but one is worse than the other.

Drones randomly dropping anthrax are simpler.

and that they’re all terrorists.

Well, not all, but I know at least one such country

Can we just do things the conservative way and lay more wire?

And where that doesn’t help, use packet radio links?

And where that doesn’t help, use mesh networks?

Why do they have to do it all the ugly and pretentious way?

They are openly showing that they can do whatever they want.

All the rest is gaslighting so that you’d not be completely sure that that’s what they are saying, thus not so confident in yourself. Another kind of attacking other’s morale.

They don’t have to, the supply chain is friendlier to them than to Lebanese.

And they whined about a fucking bus exploding.

About some pipe rockets killing a random bloke or two.

And this

against a Lebanese political organization

appears to be wrong since their attack wasn’t at all this targeted. It’s a mass terror campaign against whole Lebanese population in order to saturate its attention and reduce morale before an invasion.

We all got complacent relying on big nations with big militaries for punishing such behavior, and they are all in bed with the criminal.

Despite this not being Hezbollah’s best moment, I think they and similar guerrillas are the exact kind of people we should learn from for solutions to Israel and the rest of the problem.

Removed by mod

You got it ass-backwards. The point of the UN as opposed to LoN was that it can enforce shit. And do that very heavily. The only problem was that the chosen group of wise and powerful to decide this now includes Russia as the heir of the USSR (why the hell) and China (which is not the China that got the place initially) and UK (which is collecting cannibals to suck off all over the globe) and USA (which just arbitrarily invaded Iraq and didn’t even apologize) and France (seems kinda normal, but CFA etc were not nice) and the situation really sucks.

or anybody else: the whole point of the place is as a diplomatic talking shop for everybody

Except Artsakh and Tigray and Rojava and … Cause UN membership has been coerced to be used as some “proof of sovereignty” while it’s not even in UN’s own founding documents. So a non-UN member state won’t get accepted to UN (cause everybody voting likes their elevated status through such a situation) and additionally can be militarily attacked, even wiped out, and everybody acts as if that were normal, while, again, even in the UN charter it’s not.

I’d argue the harm from that is bigger than the purpose you named. After all, diplomats can already talk wherever they want and they do.

Iran, if compared to most big countries except maybe India, Egypt and Latin American ones, is a paragon of humanism. They are at war with so many other countries because they behave like they are supposed to, while those others behave like Israel right now.

Of course murder, torture and rape of protesters is not something I’d sign under. It’s just that some things come down to numbers and make Iran better.

And then we can do US