What I find SO inexplicable (and maddening), is that, as their software “progresses”, the changes made to GUI elements, windows, dialog boxes, the methods of navigating said elements, et al, seem BEYOND counter-intuitive - they don’t seem progressive, well-thought-out, sensible, or even helpful. They’re consistently either confusing, randomly buried, generally limiting, completely undermining efficiency, or a combination of all.
It’s baffling to me how these kinds of interface decisions can be approved along the way (surely there are outside UX testers weighing in on these terrible bizarre ideas?). But then, I have no doubt that if any SB person ever weighed in on these gripes, they’d defend the hell out of them, and patronizingly tell me how wrong I am to find it frustrating, confounding & inefficient as hell. Instead I should now change the way I work with their software (despite that my habits, workflows and expectations of their software, and how it operates, were defined BY THEM in the first place!). Likely, they’d also tell me why the “long-standing, ubiquitous software-user interface protocols” that have been established for decades (and implemented in their own software) are “antiquated garbage”.
Or perhaps, as noted below, the design and interface “look & feel” decisions really do happen in a free-for-all, arbitrary vacuum at this point, and they’re driven by a bunch of different random designers scattered about, who’re tweaking their individual things to simply make something “different” and all a little more interesting to themselves
(sigh)
end pointless rant. (pointless only in that it won’t matter)