<p>Presumably, most updates to system interfaces are designed to achieve some goal related to the owner of the system. Often this would be usability, but of course, it could be something else like profitability, security, etc.</p>

<p><strong>Interface changes for non-usability related goal:</strong>
So the first point is that a subset of interface updates are performed with a goal other than keeping the user happy. Take for example, news sites that split articles over multiple pages. This generally reduces usability, but increases ad impressions. Another <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/195046/why-does-stackexchange-now-show-an-empty-page-with-the-reddit-toolbar">update on stackexchange</a> meant that the stack exchange no longer works with the Reddit toolbar. This was done to prevent other websites taking advantage of stackexchange content through framing. The fact that it had collateral negative effects on usability was accepted.</p>

<p><strong>Interface changes that fail to increase usability:</strong> Sometimes a change is introduced that is notionally designed to improve the interface of a system, but it fails to do so. Sometimes this is a failure in general. Sometimes this is just a failure for some individuals. For example, when websites introduce a flash landing page in the hope of improving the site, but they actually substantially reduce the usability.</p>

<p><strong>Usability increased but disruptive:</strong> Another class of usability updates are related to the disruption caused to existing users workflows. Automaticity is an important part of skilled performance, both in terms of the speed and the low demands it places on limited attentional resources. The more time people spend with a system, the more they automate the steps required to use the system to achieve their goals. When a system changes, users are often forced to learn a new way of doing things. Even if this new way is better in a general sense, the disruption to automaticity can induce frustration and a drop in performance to existing users. </p>

<p>I remember seeing something similar when I started using OSX as my primary operating system. It was quite disruptive to my workflow, because for many activities that I'd automated on Linux and Windows systems (e.g., application switching, keyboard shortcuts, text editing, arranging windows, accessing menus, etc.) the workflow was a little bit different. I remember reading an article by a Windows user who listed <a href="http://wanderingstan.com/2009-12-11/65-reasons-mac-sucks" rel="nofollow noreferrer">65 reasons why Macs suck</a>. The user was trying to apply their Windows workflow to an OSX workflow and was feeling frustration because it didn't always work. More importantly, they hadn't grokked the new workflow required. Grokking the new workflow takes time as new strategies are discovered and automated (<a href="http://jeromyanglim.tumblr.com/post/35764132965/workarounds-for-most-of-the-65-reasons-why-macs-suck" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this was my attempt to respond to the critique</a>). It also takes time for the implicit learning processes to gradually learn the relative speed and cognitive demands of the various strategies.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-30T15:26:02.210Z
I think I was looking more for what pschological mechanism is resposible for making people feel the need to change things just for the sake of changing things. If SE implemented the "giant circle" idea, what reason would they have to do this other than simply to change the looks of the site? It would be reduced functionality as collateral damage for the sake of someone's inability to deal with "the same ole". I didn't dream-up the "giant circle" idea... I've seen it done, yet have no idea why.
Randy
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-30T03:31:52.153Z
2013-08-30T03:31:52.153Z
2017-03-20T10:29:51.560Z
Jeromy Anglim
<p><strong>Examples:</strong></p>

<ul>
<li>Imagine coming to SE tomorrow and instead of seeing "1 2 3 4 5 ... 77 next" at the bottom of the "questions" page, you see a giant circle with a triangle inside pointing to the right and you no longer have the option of going from page 1 to page 5 in one click, but you must now click the big circle incrementally instead.</li>
<li>Or imagine your favorite weather website having a 10-day forecast horizontally across the screen like a calendar would have, then one day it changes to a vertical alignment because someone decided it was time for a change.</li>
</ul>

<p><strong>Questions</strong>:</p>

<p>Why do people do this?  And is it normal to feel extremely frustrated by this?  I mean, when something works well and makes sense, leave it alone?.  Why change stuff just to change stuff?  And especially when the change is less functional or intuitive.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-04-23T16:39:06.133Z
[Every change breaks someone's workflow](https://xkcd.com/1172/)
Eoin
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-30T08:05:33.097Z
Not a complete answer, but it is quite normal to feel frustrated by the latest UI-tweak-du-jour.  Some companies (Apple, Intuit) seem to make changes for their own sake without really doing usability testing.  How would the average user feel if a "software" upgrade changed the location and function of all the controls on their stove or refrigerator.  Changing those thing is really hard in the field, but software is infinitely malleable so people think they are required to make "improvements".
Jim Garrison
CC BY-SA 3.0
2013-08-30T15:13:01.810Z
@JeromyAnglim Well, I really didn't intend to limit the scope of the question to software as my examples alluded, but it's ok I suppose, it's just that those examples were easiest to illustrate. Updates are frequent in cars, apparel, appliances, etc. People sometimes decide to update their living room by moving the couch from here to there. It just seems people can not find a good solution and stick to it. What happened to "tried and true"?
Randy
<cognitive-psychology><human-factors>
Why are websites constantly updated even when the change seemingly reduces functionality?
Randy
# Why are websites constantly updated even when the change seemingly reduces functionality?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2013-08-30)

**Examples:**

* Imagine coming to SE tomorrow and instead of seeing "1 2 3 4 5 ... 77 next" at the bottom of the "questions" page, you see a giant circle with a triangle inside pointing to the right and you no longer have the option of going from page 1 to page 5 in one click, but you must now click the big circle incrementally instead.
* Or imagine your favorite weather website having a 10-day forecast horizontally across the screen like a calendar would have, then one day it changes to a vertical alignment because someone decided it was time for a change.

**Questions**:

Why do people do this? And is it normal to feel extremely frustrated by this? I mean, when something works well and makes sense, leave it alone?. Why change stuff just to change stuff? And especially when the change is less functional or intuitive.

**Tags:** cognitive-psychology, human-factors

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: Not a complete answer, but it is quite normal to feel frustrated by the latest UI-tweak-du-jour.  Some companies (Apple, Intuit) seem to make changes for their own sake without really doing usability testing.  How would the average user feel if a "software" upgrade changed the location and function of all the controls on their stove or refrigerator.  Changing those thing is really hard in the field, but software is infinitely malleable so people think they are required to make "improvements".  
> **username_0**: @JeromyAnglim Well, I really didn't intend to limit the scope of the question to software as my examples alluded, but it's ok I suppose, it's just that those examples were easiest to illustrate. Updates are frequent in cars, apparel, appliances, etc. People sometimes decide to update their living room by moving the couch from here to there. It just seems people can not find a good solution and stick to it. What happened to "tried and true"?  
> **username_1**: [Every change breaks someone's workflow](https://xkcd.com/1172/)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2013-08-30. Score: 4

Presumably, most updates to system interfaces are designed to achieve some goal related to the owner of the system. Often this would be usability, but of course, it could be something else like profitability, security, etc.

**Interface changes for non-usability related goal:**
So the first point is that a subset of interface updates are performed with a goal other than keeping the user happy. Take for example, news sites that split articles over multiple pages. This generally reduces usability, but increases ad impressions. Another [update on stackexchange](https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/195046/why-does-stackexchange-now-show-an-empty-page-with-the-reddit-toolbar) meant that the stack exchange no longer works with the Reddit toolbar. This was done to prevent other websites taking advantage of stackexchange content through framing. The fact that it had collateral negative effects on usability was accepted.

**Interface changes that fail to increase usability:** Sometimes a change is introduced that is notionally designed to improve the interface of a system, but it fails to do so. Sometimes this is a failure in general. Sometimes this is just a failure for some individuals. For example, when websites introduce a flash landing page in the hope of improving the site, but they actually substantially reduce the usability.

**Usability increased but disruptive:** Another class of usability updates are related to the disruption caused to existing users workflows. Automaticity is an important part of skilled performance, both in terms of the speed and the low demands it places on limited attentional resources. The more time people spend with a system, the more they automate the steps required to use the system to achieve their goals. When a system changes, users are often forced to learn a new way of doing things. Even if this new way is better in a general sense, the disruption to automaticity can induce frustration and a drop in performance to existing users.

I remember seeing something similar when I started using OSX as my primary operating system. It was quite disruptive to my workflow, because for many activities that I'd automated on Linux and Windows systems (e.g., application switching, keyboard shortcuts, text editing, arranging windows, accessing menus, etc.) the workflow was a little bit different. I remember reading an article by a Windows user who listed [65 reasons why Macs suck](http://wanderingstan.com/2009-12-11/65-reasons-mac-sucks). The user was trying to apply their Windows workflow to an OSX workflow and was feeling frustration because it didn't always work. More importantly, they hadn't grokked the new workflow required. Grokking the new workflow takes time as new strategies are discovered and automated ([this was my attempt to respond to the critique](http://jeromyanglim.tumblr.com/post/35764132965/workarounds-for-most-of-the-65-reasons-why-macs-suck)). It also takes time for the implicit learning processes to gradually learn the relative speed and cognitive demands of the various strategies.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I think I was looking more for what pschological mechanism is resposible for making people feel the need to change things just for the sake of changing things. If SE implemented the "giant circle" idea, what reason would they have to do this other than simply to change the looks of the site? It would be reduced functionality as collateral damage for the sake of someone's inability to deal with "the same ole". I didn't dream-up the "giant circle" idea... I've seen it done, yet have no idea why.  

---

