This reminiscence started reading a tweet that said:
Unpopular opinion: dark modes are overhyped
Windows 3.1 allowed you to change all system colors to your liking. Linux been fully themeable since the 90s. OSX came along with a draconian “all blue aqua, and maybe a hint of gray”.
People accepted it because frankly it looked better than anything else at the time (a ton of Linux themes were bad OSX replicas). But it was a very “Ford Model T is available in any color as long as it’s black” thing.
The rise of OSX (remember, when it came along Apple had a single-digit slice of the computer market) meant that people eventually got used to the idea of a life with no desktop personalization. Nowadays most people don’t even change their wallpapers anymore.
In the old days of Windows 3.1, it was common to walk into an office and see each person’s desktop colors, fonts and wallpapers tuned to their personalities, just like their physical desk, with one’s family portrait or plants.
I just showed the above screenshots to my sister, and she sighed with a happy nostalgia:
— Remember changing colors on the computer?
— Oh yes! we would spend hours having fun on that!
— Everyone’s was different, right?
— Yes! I’d even change it according to my mood.
Looking back, I feel like this trend of less aesthetic configurability has diminished the sense of user ownership from the computer experience, part of the general trend of the death of “personal computing”.
I almost wrote that a phone UI allows for more self-expression today than a Win/Mac computer. But then I realized how much I struggled to get my Android UI the way I wanted, until I installed Nova Launcher that gave me Linux-levels of tweaking. The average user does not do this.
But at least they are more likely to change wallpaper in their phones than their computers. Nowadays you walk into an office and all computers look the same.
The same thing happened to the web, as we compare the diminishing tweakability of a MySpace page to the blue conformity a Facebook page, for example.
Conformity and death of self-expression are the norm, all under the guise of “consistency”.
User avatars forced into circles.
App icons in phones forced into the same shape.
Years ago, a friend joked that the inconsistency of the various Linux UI toolkits was how he felt the system’s “freedom”. We all laughed and wished for a more consistent UI, of course. But that discourse on consistency was quickly coopted to remove users’ agency.
What begins with aesthetics and the sense of self-expression, continues to a lack of ownership of the computing experience and ends in the passive acceptance of systems we don’t control.
Changes happen, but those are independent from the users’ wishes, and it’s a lottery whether the changes are for better or for worse.
Ever notice how version changes are called “updates” and not “upgrades” anymore?
In that regard, I think Dark Mode is a welcome addition as it allows a tiny bit of control and self-expression to the user, but it’s still kinda sad to see how far we regressed overall.
The hype around it, and how excited users get when they get such crumbles of configurability handed to them, just comes to show how users are unused to getting any degree of control back in their hands.
- Again on 0-based vs. 1-based indexing
- What’s faster? Lexing Teal with Lua 5.4 or LuaJIT, by hand or with lpeg
- Parsing and preserving Teal comments
- User power, not power users: htop and its design philosophy
- Getting Amethyst up and running
- Smart tech — smart for whom?
- Talking htop at the Changelog podcast
- Protests and the space launch
- Dynamic type systems aren’t even simpler
- Remembering Windows 3.1 themes and user empowerment