Are we stuck with the same Desktop UX forever? [video]

Overall reaction to the talk

• Many commenters found the talk “fantastic,” clear, and refreshingly focused on UX fundamentals rather than superficial UI trends.
• Several appreciated how it framed nuanced, often-overlooked problems (e.g., file dragging, text selection, learning loops).
• A minority bounced off it due to an anti‑AI/ethics mini‑rant near the end, feeling that was off‑topic or dismissive of AI’s HCI potential.

Stagnation vs “appliance maturity”

• One camp argues desktop UX is effectively “done”: like cars, washing machines, or bicycles, it has reached an “appliance” stage where only incremental tweaks make sense.
• Another camp sees this as a local maximum driven by decades‑old path dependence, not an inherent optimum; they believe there’s still huge unexplored potential in richer, more integrated desktops.
• Windows‑95/2000‑style UX (classic taskbar, clear affordances, consistent menus) is repeatedly cited as a high‑water mark; many feel modern OSs worsened basics (latency, clarity, consistency).

Form factors and failed alternatives

• Several note that the core pattern—keyboard + screen + pointing device + windows—has survived from mainframes to laptops and phones because competing form factors (VR/AR, wearables, pure voice, implants) haven’t proven broadly useful or comfortable.
• Others counter that this is a social and economic failure, not a technical inevitability: people invested early in bad, clunky desktops but never gave other paradigms the same runway.

Specific UX pain points and ideas

• Recurrent gripes: mobile text selection, browser tab overload, hamburger menus, hidden scrollbars, titlebars turning into toolbars.
• Proposals include:
  • Global incremental search/narrowing (Helm‑style) across all selections and documents.
  • System‑level clipboard/file “canvases” and integrated window+file+clipboard workflows.
  • Research‑mode browsing that forces structured notes and generates reports from tab trees.
  • Context‑aware or “endless canvas” desktops and Newton/HyperCard‑like “frames” plus LLM/RAG layers.

Configurability vs consistency

• Strong frustration that modern systems remove options; several want more power‑user configuration even at the cost of complexity.
• Others stress consistency and “convention over configuration,” arguing that most people won’t tune settings and that UX coherence matters more than maximal flexibility.

Commercial incentives and ecosystems

• Many blame current stagnation/degradation on ad‑driven, lock‑in‑oriented business models and MBAs prioritizing monetization over usability.
• There’s some optimism that open‑source desktops (notably specific Linux environments and tiling/novel shells) are pushing new ideas, though fragmentation and limited resources are seen as constraints.

Futures: AI and sci‑fi metaphors

• Debate over whether AI is the natural successor to WIMP interfaces vs a distraction with ethical and environmental downsides.
• Star Trek’s LCARS is used as a metaphor for a “steady‑state” UI that stops gratuitous churn—contrasted with today’s constant, often resume‑driven redesigns.