Originally, software upgrades should bring convenience, but sometimes the operating logic of the new version changes, resulting in unexpected troubles for old users.
Changes to the new version startup process
After the newly launched version of the application is opened, its behavior is obviously different from the old version. In the macOS operating system environment, the habit formed by users is usually to directly choose to exit the application after entering the password for the first time, so that the program can continue to run in the background menu bar. This in itself is a working mode with simple, clear and efficient characteristics. It can achieve access to core functions without additional redundant steps.
However, the new version has changed this setting. When the user operates in the same way as before, when trying to exit, the application will be completely closed instead of going to the background. Such a seemingly minor change directly disrupted the workflow established by many people, forcing people to find new operating methods.
Invalidation of background resident
One advantage that exists in the old version of the application is that it can stay in the system menu bar in a stable state. Regardless of restarting the computer or locking the screen, application icons and data access permissions can be restored immediately, achieving a ready-to-use effect. In this way, the time for users to wait and repeat operations is reduced accordingly.
In the new version, even if you exit by closing the window, the application icon will not stay in the menu bar. Users have to perform other steps, such as reopening from the Dock, before they can use it again. Repeating this operation every time there is a need is definitely a setback in efficiency.
Additional steps for permission request
When other applications need to access data, the process in the old version is very straightforward. The system will pop up a prompt, and the user only needs to click once on the menu bar icon to authorize. The entire process is smooth and fast. This design fully takes into account the convenience of actual application scenarios.
After entering the new version, the authorization process has become complicated. Users may encounter two different prompt windows, and the meaning of some options is not clear enough. Why can't it be authorized directly as before? Each time a request is made, multiple clicks are required. When the number of clicks accumulates, it becomes a heavy usage burden.
Performance vs. Stability Tradeoff
The development team may have refactored the code out of the pursuit of modernizing the interface, or to improve the underlying performance. There are speed issues in the Beta version. This situation may be understandable. However, the trade-off of sacrificing an existing, mature and reliable interaction model for new features that are not yet perfect is worthy of discussion.
Tools that were originally stable, fast and worry-free have now become more "maintenance" and "operational" after updates. Even if the newly emerged interface appears more beautiful, if the core experience declines, it is also considered a loss for users. The increase in the number of functions should never be at the expense of sacrificing the basic experience.
Core Values of Productivity Tools
For efficiency tools, what users value most is “reliability” and “convenience.” A tool is a great tool if it does its job quietly and well, and responds instantly when needed. Redundant steps and unclear interactions directly erode this core value.
When the tool begins to require users to adapt to it and perform additional operations for it, its positioning is shaken. It changes from an assistant used to solve problems to a problem itself that needs to be dealt with. This is obviously contrary to the original idea of using it.
User choices and future expectations
When faced with an unsatisfactory upgrade situation, users actually don't have much choice. Staying on the old version may be feasible, but it may potentially run the risk of security updates being stopped or being incompatible with the new system. If you are forced to upgrade to a new version, it means you have to accept the reality of reduced efficiency.
This reflects a common problem. How to truly listen to the voices of users when updating software like this? Should we focus on pursuing a uniform interface and extremely in-depth technological innovations, or should we prioritize ensuring that the workflow that old users are already familiar with and can carry out activities efficiently is not damaged? This decision requires in-depth and detailed thinking by every team engaged in development work.
Have you ever encountered a software update like this, where you didn’t notice the new features, but instead found them worse to use than before? Welcome to share your own experiences in the comment area. If you think this article speaks to your heart, don’t forget to like and share it.
