>With UI/Design it isn't as bad as with software development in general, but in both cases you need ongoing work or your product gets outdated. Things get deprecated. A website that worked fine many years ago might now not be fine.
What? I usually see the opposite: it's the super-hip updates that break all the interoperability and standards compliance the site had. My usability add-ons more reliably work on old sites than on the hot new framework that doesn't consistently indicate clickable links or allow you to open views in a new tab.
>Many people use phones and the UI might not fit anymore.
The designs that try to overthink whether I'm on a phone? Those end up being worse e.g. the fixed floating headers/footers that take 60% of the screen in landscape mode when the desktop version was actually usable. (With portrait not being much better.)
> What? I usually see the opposite: it's the super-hip updates that break all the interoperability and standards compliance the site had. My usability add-ons more reliably work on old sites than on the hot new framework that doesn't consistently indicate clickable links or allow you to open views in a new tab.
Not saying anything against that, nor that my example happens often. It should just illustrate a concrete and easy to undertsand example, not necessarily what happens most often.
> The designs that try to overthink whether I'm on a phone?
There were and still are websites like "optimized for IE 800x600". Those might have worked for the majority of their visitors when they were created and maybe that was good enough at the time, even though we both agree that technically it was never great. But it does not work for the majority anymore today and hence might now be considered to need improvements.
Again, maybe not what happens to the majority of websites, but everyone understands the example as a case of "was good enough before, stopped being so because the world moved on".
Either way, it sounds like you're saying sites have all these designers to keep the product from being outdated. If, in practice, they're being made worse, that would strike against claim that all these designers are a benefit and in favor of the claim that they're mostly wasted spending.
I don't think it sounds like it. I agree that many redesigns (maybe even the majority) make things worse for users. It's just that this is a totally different point that does not conflict with "websites, including design, can get outdated over time and then needs someone to fix it to retain the original value".
Omg yes! Thank you for saying this. I cannot agree more. Designs "built for mobile" are the absolute WORST to use on mobile! They break the most basic functionality.
What? I usually see the opposite: it's the super-hip updates that break all the interoperability and standards compliance the site had. My usability add-ons more reliably work on old sites than on the hot new framework that doesn't consistently indicate clickable links or allow you to open views in a new tab.
>Many people use phones and the UI might not fit anymore.
The designs that try to overthink whether I'm on a phone? Those end up being worse e.g. the fixed floating headers/footers that take 60% of the screen in landscape mode when the desktop version was actually usable. (With portrait not being much better.)