On the flip side, the variety of shapes and layouts makes it easier to recognize a feature you’ve used before.
Humans need some variety to make sense of their environments. Imagine if every tool in a toolbox was the same shape and size and color, or if every room and hallway in a building had the same plan and decor. It would be a lot harder to find what you’re looking for.
Icons/graphical selectors are difficult for me personally, but I don't object to them as I understand they are helpful to most people. I'd love to see brief textual labels, always displayed in the same order and disabled when they don't apply. Make the icons optional so I don't have to take up space with them.
This puts everything in the same place, every time I want to use it. Under CUA, it was a basic tenet - don't move things around or hide them. Menus used to provide this, now nothing really does - everything wants to subtly (or not so subtly) shift the controls you are provided based on context, which means it always requires some mental processing until/unless you learn state+position.
The exception to this (for me) is the context menu, which you will assume by default only presents contextually relevant options.
I've struggled to enumerate the spectrum from one to the other as I've worked through the impact of GPT on my work over the past year. What the author describe here is a great attempt at getting to the core concepts:
* mixing and matching aspects of GUI and CLI in a single unified interface
The key, to me, is that when designs combine elements of recognition vs. recall, those designs need to link the CLI and GUI in bi-directional ways such that direct manipulation of GUI objects impact model queries with near zero latency in the CLI while query and manipulation of the models in the CLI show changes in GUI "at once". Direct manipulation matters in both directions owing to perception.
Of course, I'm probably describing ancient history in terms of Logo or Borland's early attempts at bi-directional tooling, but I think a tip of the hat and a little retro-computing software is not a bad way to approach the problem.
> the variety of shapes and layouts makes it easier to recognize a feature you’ve used before.
It has the exact opposite effect for me. It makes the whole thing harder to navigate and even more difficult to find the exact thing you're looking for. It increases the cognitive load required to do anything except the most common actions significantly.
If I'm typing in a doc then Ctrl-? and type the name/keyword for the feature I want is much easier then navigating through the zoo. The zoo is fine when I don't know what I'm looking for and I can browse the pictures for inspiration.
Humans need some variety to make sense of their environments. Imagine if every tool in a toolbox was the same shape and size and color, or if every room and hallway in a building had the same plan and decor. It would be a lot harder to find what you’re looking for.