Ask Slashdot: How Do You Explain 'Don't Improve My Software Syndrome' Or DIMSS?

dryriver writes: I am someone who likes to post improvement suggestions for different software tools I use on the internet. If I see a function in a software that doesn't work well for me or could work better for everyone else, I immediately post suggestions as to how that function could be improved and made to work better for everybody. A striking phenomenon I have come across in posting such suggestions is the sheer number of "why would you want that at all" or "nobody needs that" or "the software is fine as it is" type responses from software users. What is particularly puzzling is that its not the developers of the software rejecting the suggestions -- its users of the software that often react sourly to improvement suggestions that could, if implemented well, benefit a lot of people using the software in question. I have observed this happening online for years even for really good software feature/function improvement ideas that actually wound up being implemented. My question is -- what causes this behavior of software users on the internet? Why would a software user see a suggestion that would very likely benefit many other users of the software and object loudly to that suggestion, or even pretend that "the suggestion is a bad one?"

Comments

Because modern day updates are often lobotomies...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you've been keeping an eye on things, but generally "improvements" aren't.

Examples:

• Windows 7 -> Windows 10 - forced upgrade, with the "new version" having rampant privacy violations, and crashes that happen to this day. Responses to complaints typically end up being a mixture assertions that Windows 7 is some horribly ancient operating system, a pile of reassurances that mount up to nothing and still violate privacy, deflection of the problem, a note that new hardware is not supported by other OS's (likely due in no small part to Microsoft's interference), and ultimately, boiling down to, "tough shit, what are you gonna do about it?"
• Android -> Later Android - on many occasions these updates go fairly disastrously. Case in point: Samsung Galaxy S5, update from Android 4.4.4 to 5.x, on Verizon network. Phones ended up slow battery guzzlers that got worse. Sometimes you helped it by reformatting the thing. Sometimes. If you were really lucky.
• Linux: init -> systemd - that's worth a few threads by itself, but suffice it to say nobody but Red Hat and apparently the Debian maintainers like it.
• Chrome: Standard scroll bars -> scrollbars without buttons - this is a pretty classic case of "trust us, it's an improvement," and it wasn't. This came out slowly and generally ate up everyone's buttons on their scroll bars to better match tablet and phone OS's. Thing is that desktop computers are not tablets or phones. Google told people that it was better. It wasn't, and the backlash was so great they eventually reverted it. Even if it looks less pretty, buttons on scroll bars help to make them functional (example - working on a touchpad or any other environment where a mouse's scroll wheel is unavailable, or trying to get things to line up precisely).
• Gnome 2 -> Gnome 3 : This is another few threads on its own, and a controversial one, but people liked the Gnome 2 desktop interface, and hated the Gnome 3 interface that seemed like it was more designed with tablets in mind than desktop computers. In the last few years more people have "gotten used" to this change, although I can't help but wonder if a substantial number of these people have just accepted it not unlike a long-term illness. Making this worse is the entire Gnome MO, wherein if a function seems confusing, they don't fix it, they don't offer more help, they don't offer a "simple mode" with an Advanced option, they just rip it out, and tough shit if you liked being able to customize it. This extended down to being able to customize the specific parameters on screen savers.
• Acrobat Reader: Managed to steadily corrode from a decently built application to something trying to cram a half-hearted phone OS interface on to a desktop application.

There is a reason why User Experience (UX) people are so hated - because they take a nice, big, fat dump on existing users to improve things the way that THEY want, and, again, tough shit if you liked it the other way, and tough shit if it breaks the software for many users, or even if it breaks the machine. It's not unlike an interior decorator trying to make a "statement" in many cases. Not unlike one of those shows where they have someone come in and "redecorate" the house and it turns out to be a total nightmare. This is not helped by the fact that with many situations, updates are now FORCED, so you can't throw the interior decorator out. In many cases, companies and organizations act as if you don't own the computer (and in many cases, the companies want to own the computer you paid for, and they treat the software like they do in fact own the machine). And even if you do, they usually manage to cripple you in some way (usually compatibility) until you're forced to capitulate - and things are usually even worse by then.

Note, however, that this does NOT necessarily just apply to the UI, in case I've overemphasized that - it works with any and every aspect of the software that can be changed. In short, in