What is /g/s favorite scrollbar design?
1998 and 2006
>>84464689Why has Windows Classic gray gone out of style? Light theme without blinding white.
I like all of them except 2012, fuck this flat shit
>>8446468998take me back
>>84464766>No arrowsAbsolute dogshit. UX disaster. KYS.
>>84464784Arrows are useless
>>84464689>2001Seems like they were trying to achieve something that didn't work. Not that I completely hate it though.>2012Flat, hate itOther ones are good.
Unity's had the perfect scrollbars.
>>8446468998 > 06 > 09 > 01 >> 88 >>> 12
>>844646891988 and 2009.
>>8446468988 or 12. Very clear demarkation of the bar and the bounds of the widget itself. No retarded shading.
most aesthetic scrollbars coming through
>>84464766why exact are the ends rounded? complete mess
>>84464784>needing an arrow to tell which direction is up or downcaptcha: MVG4Y
>>84464689The newest one, of course.
>>844646891998, or maybe 2001-2006. Function dictates form.I get the feeling that post-2000 UI designers have NO clue what they're doing.Even something as "simple" as a scrollbar has an incredible amount of design/behaviour concerns associated with it that they don't seem to understand:>High-contrast position indicator so users can see "where they are" at a glance, from the corner of an eye>Scroll-to-this-position support by clicking/holding at some point in the scrollbar>Indication that the scrollbar grip can be dragged (this is the only thing the 2001-2009 designs do better than the 1998 one)>etc.Also, flat design is retarded - if it's clickable it should look like an IRL button ffs, don't make me play "guess the clickable UI elements". And don't get me started on visual separation of controls and application areas).The 2012 design is particularly bad - quick, tell me which color is the scrollbar grip and which is the scrollbar background? Even the 1988 design does this better.>>84464867>>needing an arrow to tell which direction is up or downDragging the scrollbar won't suffice if you ever open a 200K line text file and you want to scroll down just one or two lines - you'll be glad to have those arrow buttons. Also, how about users with disabiltities that prevent them from cliking+dragging?As much as I love KDE, its current default scrollbars are utterly retarded.
>>84464689modern bar is abysmal on my screen i can barely see the color difference between the bar and the surround behind it
>>84464689You're missing the Windows 11 one
>>84464689I like overlay scrollbars personally
>>84465086>having just a scrollbar won't help when you need to go down a few lines
>>84465144Are you sure that's not KDE?
>>84464766looks like a dilator
>>84465159Ok you got me. But how about scrolling a few characters to the RIGHT on a very long line?
>>84464689The fuck is 2006 supposed to be? Vista looked like the 2009 one. 1988 and 1998 should be 1985 and 1995.And the picture is missing the windows 3.x one
>>84464828I still dont get how anyone could think that that was a good idea
>>84465214I miss metro, I feel like there isn't anything unique about Window's new UI design.
>>84464784You can enable them if you want to.
>>84465192tfw shift + scroll, also if you have a line that is 100k characters long just run a formatter and turn on line wrappingalso I agree kde scrollbars are complete dogshit and they try to give the allusion they are based overlay scrollbars but they really aren't because qt fucking sucks
>>84465181Disgusting, but at least you can easily visually distinguish between the scrollbar and the document, so it beats this one >>84465214
>>84464857>2001>Rounded corners but also has the square bits at the top and bottom>2007>Bar with rounded ends inside a bar with cornered ends>It's also not centered properly>2011>Bar with rounded corners inside bar with less rounded corners>Also still not properly centered>But not it also has shitty "shading"Ironic that Apple is considered by many the best for designers kek
>>84464689I'm not one to be nostalgic for old things, but the 1998 one here seems the best to me. It's simple and straightforward, it doesn't scream LOOK AT ME like the next 2, a scrollbar shouldn't be flashy and sparkly.The first one is too high contrast, and if you lowered the contrast then it would become harder to read. The weird lines on the middle work for a physical input, but for a digital input I think it's just unnecessary detail. Maybe it's easier to tell which block is the scrollbar and which is the background, so it might be fine though.2009 forward loses the "caps" that tell you how far away you are from the edge, in 2009 at least they show up when you hover mouse over the scrollbar, but I think it's stupid that you have to hover over things to see information, and there's always 1 pixel gap between the scrollbar and the cap.1998 one is also easy to recolor to suit any color scheme and doesn't look blindingly bright next to dark surfaces.
>>8446468998 and 01
>>844646892006-2009. The line in the center of the bar attracts the brain's attention by acting as a target and the 3d aspect highlights the interacting areas of the passive background as well as being large.Pic: bad bars, Godot and Kdenlive. Extremely small and difficult to see.
>>84465343>2009 forward loses the "caps" that tell you how far away you are from the edgeVery good point, anon!
>>84465381>difficult to seenot for me should've gotten better eyes faggot
>>84464857I guess it got memory holed, but there was a way to disable the aqua in Snow Leopard and just have gradients where all the aqua is. It was actually the best one.
>>84464828Hidden scrollbars are the worst. They should always show where you are in the document. Never hide UI!
>>84465159What if I configured the scrollbar to do something else?
any windows one before 2012 (win8)on linux maybe the gnome2 ones (aka clearlooks), and then the motif ones (and also kde3 etc, basically anything common in 90's and early 2000's)that's it maybe
>>84465474I completely disagree, UI should either be as minimal as possible or there should be an option to disable half of it.
>>84465198office 2007 has the 2006 one, vista and 7 share the "2009" labelled one
>>84464689Why do we even have the arrows on the top and bottom anymore? They're useless.
>>84465515As someone pointed out, scrollbars indicate your position in the document. Thus they should be visible at all times so the user doesn't get lost. Having to hover your mouse somewhere (bad discoverability btw) just to see how far you are into some content is ludicrous.1998 ftw
>>84464689Did time stop in 2012? We're still using the same shitty scrollbar that's hard to see.
>>84465525Nope, the one in office 2007 looks like the visa one but in blueThe 2006 one in the pic is just the silver XP theme
>>84465537And this kind of short-sighted reasoning is why things turn to shit.Not everyone a) knows you can drag scrollbars and b) has the manual dexterity for that.Yes, disabled people and idiots exist. Doesn't mean we should dumb down interfaces, but at least we can keep ourselves from making UIs needlessly difficult to use.
>>84465543they are visible all the time idiot, see the orange bar.
>>84464689We literally went back to 1988, that's impressive. I'm fine with all of them
>>84465543I don't think we should design our UI around the most imperceptive of users.And instead we should just create an option for old people likr yourself.
>>84465595The orange bar is confusing shit.
>>84465634Confusing for old people, yes, we should create an option for that.>>84465644How so?
>>84465595>orange barYou mean those two pixels on my 8K monitor?Yeah, I can totally see those when I'm scrolling through a web page.
>>84465159By that logic you don't need scroll bars at all.
Everyone liking >>84465144>>84464857>>84464766>>84465631Is a woke tranny.
>>844646892012 goes well with the rest of windows 10 so I don't really mind. If i had to say 1998, it usually comes in very helpful programs that consist of 1 3mb exe which you save and use for years
>>84464828>>84465631desu I'm not sure what I'm lookin at. Is it a floating scrollbar or just tiny?
>>84465662Yes, exactly, which is why they should be self-hiding overlays in the few instances you actually need them.
>>84465620i'd be ok with that as long as there's always a way to tell visually if there's something off-screen to scroll topic related as an example, notice how without the scroll bar, it becomes unclear there is even more to see at all
>>84464766* skrolls *
>>84465620>>84465654>bullshit about "old people"Modern UI designers:>let's hide all UI elements by default! Clean design! Who needs discoverability, anyway?Also modern UI designers:>let's waste valuable vertical screen estate with HUGE ASS RIBBONS AND SHIT
>>84465693Then what about laptops and touch panels? The scrolling on those is shit.
>>84465701and yes, sometimes you can make an educated guess, like how that file selection is using every available space, so *might* be spilling over onto another likebut i've been caught out before especially on things like phone menus where there's just no way you could possible know ahead of time that there is more items further down unless you happen to try to scrollthis is terrible ux, you should always know what you're looking at at all times
>>84465701In interfaces like that, yes I can see the need for new users to have a scrollbar.But thats an argument for when the scrollbar should be shown and when it's hidden and what that should look like.I'm not partial to the orange sliver so we might want to just display the scrollbar whenever the user opens a window where they can scroll and hide after they've scrolled for the first time.>>84465711I'm also against huge ass ribbons anon, and titlebars.>>84465730Then show them in those instances, thats the best part about overlays.
>>84465300>>Also still not properly centered>>But not it also has shitty "shading"It's a tube.
>>84464689Windows Classic is and always will be the best visual style
>>84465701>>84465787This. Hidden scrollbars are like smartphone features that are only available via Gestures: how am I supposed to know they even exist if there's no menu option or anything to let me know?
>>84465381>Pic: bad bars, Godot and Kdenlive.Flat faggotry. And not just faggotry, but also spineless trend chasing.In the past, they were as nice as any other, or at least better.
>>84464689Isn’t the 2009 one actually 2007?
>>84465881>windows 95: here's how to use the mouse>phone uis: accidentally open a menu you didn't know existed by touching the side of the screen by accident
>>84465767lol wtf is that awful font
>>84465901And the 2006 one is actually from the non-default Windows XP themes, e.g. silver
>>84465881Don't hide them when you first open the window, hell, I'm not against some users having them always displayed: I just think they should be overlays instead of being apart of the window itself.
>>84464819> >2001>Seems like they were trying to achieve something that didn't work. Not that I completely hate it though.I always thought it went well with the luna theme
>>84465913Look grandad, it's okay, we can make an option to un-hide them by default, it's okay...
2006 2009 and 12 doesnt really pop out at pages
>>84465939call me old but i preferred how windows mobile did it, and i don't even use windows nowadayssomehow we could have a persistent toolbar, menubar and scrollbar on 240-480p 3" devices in 2004, but they "take up too much space" now
The scrollbar was a mistake. The scrollwheel already exists. I have it turned off in my browser.
>>84465192Left and right arrow keys
>>84465989I'm no Windows fan, but holy fuck does that look usable compared to modern smartphone UIs!
>>84465989It might not be an issue in that instance specifically, but if you have a lot of text on screen the position of the scrollbar determines where the words wrap, any screen realestate is better in those cases.Also if that scrollbar was an overlay you could swap it to the left for left handed people.
>>84465997>The scrollbar was a mistake. The scrollwheel already existsYeah, because consumer mice with scrollwheels existed before 1996. Facepalm.And again, as I've said earlier in the thread: a scrollbar isn't just a set of buttons, it's a VISUAL INDICATOR of content position and amount of content.Does the mousewheel you worship communicate that information to you via braille or something?
>>84466041if there is a good reason to omit the scrollbar, then disable it, but only when it makes sense, not by defaultlike say, an ebook reader, you don't really need a persistent scrollbar there, since pages are always a fixed length, and you can always tell where the start and end are based on the content, so the scrollbar gives you no information you really need to know
>>84466061They have forgotten Classic macos' 1984 innovations.
Modern designers are cancer. Making things ugly turns them on and they all compete to make things uglier and uglier. Fuck them all.
>>84465558well, let's see when i find my vista and O2007 ISO's
>>84464689The one where you can actually see the damn thing. One thing about modern shit that pisses me off is the scrollbar handle is nearly the same colour as the bar background.
Remember when sites had HTML to change the scrollbar style? It was a different time
>>84466061I don't disagree that visual indication important, but most of the time the content itself is a pretty good indicator already.>>84466076Maybe, but I feel like the instances where you want a scrollbar are fewer and farther inbetween than you assume.File explorers are the main thing that "needs" them but not all the time depending on how many files are in a folder
>>84466110YESSSSSS! Thank you!
>>84465558>>84466108well, it seems like it is xp silver scrollbarnow that i am at it i could make better graphic for the scrollbars
88'. It's actually wasily visible. I don't know why GUI developers hate contrast.
>>84466153I can agree with that, to an extent.High contrast UI is really nice.
>>84464689they are all ok except from 1988 and 2012The best one (that has more hint) is 2009- slider has "grip"- there is a clear guide for the slider in which you move itthen in order199820062001
>>84466127>instances where you want a scrollbar are fewer and farther inbetween than you assumeScrollbars (should) exist fucking everywhere:- Multi-line textboxes- Single-line textboxes whose width is too small (designer didn't anticipate people with 100+ char names)- Anything list-like, for instance your e-mails in Thunderbird/Outlook/whatever- Anything document-like, to indicate document/paper size- Drop-downs- Application windows resized to below the minimum size required for their contents- Terminal windows- VNC / RDP sessions when not using scaling, to some remote machine with a high-res display
>>84466153>88'terrible. it's not clear if the position in the buffer is the white part or the dark part
>>84466227And you learn it forever in a second by scrolling it once.
>>84466213Yes, but should they always be displayed?What about people with different handedness?Or people who just want less shit on-screen when they feel like they don't need it?Do we both agree that an overlay would be better than having a scrollbar built into the window?
>>84466237No, the fact that it's even necessary to do so means something is wrong.That said, the 1988 one is still better than modern flat UIs because it DOES contain a visual hint - the clickable/grabbable controls in the picture are all white.That's better than the 2012 example.
>>844646891998 looks good, simple and easy to see
98 was perfect
>>84466206well, i have/had the following>windows 3.1/dos 6 in floppies what may or may not have data>windows 98 OEM cd (or i had before my mother threw it because i did not return it to my basement cabinet)>windows xp service pack 2 installation disk>other random 90/early 2000 abandonware that can just be pirated somewhere
>>84466206Based Vista chad.
>>844646892001, 2006 and 2009 have convenient anti slip strips.
>>84466135here is shitty one i madei add pre-95 scrollbars sometimes and also make xp scrollbars smaller too
>>84466332I disagree COMPLETELY, it is perfectly fine to have to learn how to operate something,We should be designing our UI for the people who use it, not for the people who don't and need grabbable controls to even understand how a scrollbar functions.
>>84465679ok imagine this. its a very tiny sindicator on the side of the window and when you move your mouse to it shows the little arrow indicator thing that you can click and drag.
>>84465989>>84466010The issue is that normalfags are too stupid to use a stylus.
>>84466206I hope you also have the 64bit disc
>>84466398If you want a GUI with that mentality go install olvwm or plan9
>>84466237Everything in pic can be learned in one second retard. But some of the sliders have more visual hint, that's why they are better than 1988 shit deisgn
>>844646892012 is objectively the worst. I don't have any strong opinions about the others.
>>84464857This is the most modern I can go. We careened into a hell dimension right after. Holy shit fucking compare this to 2021 MacOS and weep.
>>84466398>it is perfectly fine to have to learn how to operate something100% agree. The current trend of designing for the lowest commom denominator (i.e. dumbing down everything) is utter bullshit.I'm fine with having to read user manuals, unlike many people these days, it would seem.That said, a good GUI application:- Makes simple tasks easy, and doesn't intimidate low-skilled users,- But allows power users to perform advanced tasks,- And makes those more advanced features discoverable, for instance via the application menu, so that low-skilled users may grow into power users over time.(sorry for going a bit off topic)>>84466411>The issue is that normalfags are too stupid to use a stylus.Yeah, I guess :-(
>>84466498>I forgot the pic God I miss Aqua. Flat design is a mark of the antichrist.
>>84464689All of those windows ones suck. Apple did it better with a clickable bar that disappears.
>>84466526Compare to today.
>>844646891998 was perfection.
>>84466504There is a middle ground between the hyper minimal and perfectly functional UI languages that I like and something that is designed for the dumb and dull where every UI element is designed to scream it's purpose at you,I can see that.That being said however, I don't think overlay scrollbars fit into either of those categories, you can make a hiding scrollbar discoverable, relatively easily I'd argue.By themselves, overlay scrollbars are just a way to design a GUI so that the scrollbar can be moved, hidden and shown wherever the user desires, which is why I like them.
>>84466551Holy shit, Steve Jobs REALLY is dead.
1998. At least i know where to click. Fuck flat design.
>>84465188rent free, chud
>>84466700Perhaps his punishment for all the shit he pulled in life is watching from the afterlife as nu-Apple pozzes his baby.
>>844646892021 where they appear and disappear and you have to find the exact right pixel to click and then the "hold" event gets stuck and you have to double click to release it.
>>84464689They all look bad
>>84464689I can't remember the last time I clicked a scrollbar. 2012 because it gives length of document information.
>>84466061I dont give a shit about 1996. Dumb nigger. That has no baring on now. And as of now, they are bloat and a waste of screen real estate.>facepalm xdOk, reddit.>MUH VISUAL INDICTATORThere isnt a single worthwhile website that is so large in vertical size that you need a fucking visual indicator of your position. Get a better taste in web, faggot. The only worthwhile sites are your email inbox, work website, 4chan, and very short yet sweet neocities websites from 2006.Youre the blackest retard gorilla nigger I have ever seen.
>>84466526this looks like some super advanced technology compared to current flatshit macos I hope someday we will have enough processing power to handle realistic icons and UI elements
>>84466526>>84466551both look like shit
>>84466880>There isnt a single worthwhile website that is so large in vertical size that you need a fucking visual indicator of your position.What's with this single-minded focus on websites? Are you some kind of zoomer who doesn't know how to use anything that isn't web-based?Also, Infinite Scroll pages don't exist? Much as I loathe those, they've been trending for a while.Hell, even THIS FUCKING THREAD is long enough by now to make the scrollbar damn useful.
>>844646892006 I guess
>>84464689i grew up with 2006
>>84465989Now, this brought back some wonderful memories!
>>84464689has to be 2001
>>84467712None of my programs need a scrollbar. Emacs doesnt have one and I turned my scrollbar off on konsole because it is an eyesore and rarely necessary for my purposes because I always run my shell from emacs when I do programming. The only program I, and anyone with a brain, uses is your web browser. And I have it off in Trannyfox because I only use websites that dont require it, because I have a brain.You, nigger, lack a brain.
>>844646891998. Everything else is either too much or too little. If you disagree your opinion is shit, your taste is shit and you're objectively wrong.
>>84464689I wouldn't mind any of them if windows managed to have only one design instead of all of those scattered across the system2009 and 1998 are the best ones though
>>84465537I use them occasionally
>>84464689Clearly 1988. Nice and simple with a good contrast. 1998 is also very good. I like the simplicity of 2012 but it's too bright and the buttons are too big. 2001 looks charming the first time you see it but gets old pretty quickly and after a while it will just look cheap and like plastic. 2006 and 2009 are boring and also look like plastic.
>>84468538I agree with you, next time have pic related ready to go.