It's no surprise, it's classic middlebrow dismissal that plagues most submissions these days, particularly design based ones. Thankfully 'flat' or 'skeuomorphic' aren't mentioned in the submission to make the comments a real warzone.

I'm not saying that it's impossible to receive some good design advice on HN as there are certainly some experienced design-based folks dotted around, but on the whole it's a bit like asking for database optimization advice on Dribbble.

Counterpoint: nothing is more middlebrow than thinking that something needs updating just because it's old or not "flashy".

If you read the article, you'd see it wasn't a post seeking advice. It was a post where a mockup was made, some pie-in-the-sky new features were recommended, and it concluded with the poster saying someone should do this.

This wasn't an invitation to join their project or even any mention that they would spend any time on it themselves. Hell, they didn't even include the source graphics to start anyone off.

So...what's the problem?

Probably for the same reason developers are negative about people coming up and saying, "Hey, I have a great idea for an app/website/..."

They want to fork the project and build a new UI? Cool. Go do it. If people like their changes they'll start using their version of Adium, and other people will contribute to their project.

>"Hey, I have a great idea for an app/website/..."

It's not just an idea. It's a considered UI for the community to critique and possibly implement. An open source project thrives on multiple people to help out. If this mockup was so simple and obvious, it would have existed already.

Unless I can print this out and rub it on my screen to create the code and associated elements needed to make this work, I don't see how this is anything other than a mockup...which is an idea.

That's like saying floor plans or a logo is just an idea.

If I draw up a floor plan for Cowboy Stadium and post it on the Internet that I think this is how the new Vikings Stadium should look, I believe that would be called an idea.

The posted concept isn't just a copy--there have been decisions made based upon functionality.

To follow the analogy, one could use the Cowboys stadium as a precedent and then adapt it to the climate of Minneapolis.

This isn't a discussion about the codebase because the code can't solve the questions being discussed. There isn't anything in the concept that is out of the realm of feasibility. Critiques happen at all phase of design and development, and you seem like someone who's uncomfortable with ideas that aren't finalized.

But if you have the contract for designing a new stadium, then it's actual work?

No, if I can't run it on my machine then it's just an idea. I didn't say it was a simple or obvious idea - I said it's just an idea.

Anybody can make something pretty in Photoshop. If he was serious about getting people to implement his mockup he should have spent a few days writing a quick and dirty implementation, with real code that could be improved upon later.

This sums up why most open source GUI's look like a widget library vomited on the screen, don't try getting involved unless you know how to code.

It's just a chat app. We all know that programming it is feasible because it has been done hundreds of times before. That part isn't interesting.

What's interesting is the interface, which is why we're discussing it. The fact that you can't run an application doesn't make the concept any more or less interesting to discuss and critique. The issues being discussed aren't solved with code.

Lol? Anybody can make something pretty in Photoshop? I dare you to try and make something similar.

You know that there's a profession called UI Designer?

Usually those people do not talent or can't execute. Oskar and Dawid have already executed a great design concept and are doing an amazing job evangelizing it in hopes of recruiting a developer to help.

If I had the time and knowledge of the Adium code base I'd be thrilled to collaborate with these two talented individuals. Hopefully there are developers out there with open enough minds, time, and passion to work with these two.

I look forward to seeing you, Oskar, and Dawid all leading the forked (or new) project soon. Please let us know when the repo is available and what you need help with!

I don't have a problem with this. I think it's great to imagine and mock up improvements to an app. But at the same time I don't have anything good to say about the result either.

The fact that something looks "early 2000s" is so far down the list of my priorities for an IM app that it's effectively a non-issue. I think a lot of the sentiment here is simply that the important issues aren't really being addressed, and implementing a radical change like this is likely to raise a whole slew of new ones.

I see more criticism toward Adium and Messages. Just because people don't agree with what was done here doesn't mean they are automatically trolls.

If Dawid and Oskar want to progress from mockup to making this a project, I wholeheartedly encourage them visit http://www.adiumxtras.com/ and learn how to reskin Adium. Their talents clearly show that if they put even a minimal amount of time into it, they would be able to accomplish most of the UI on their own.

It's not that the idea of redoing the UI is a bad one, but the execution reminds me too much of Skype. Skype went from a compact, easy-to-set-aside layout to an elephant on the desktop. It's ridiculously huge now (size-wise).

Can't agree enough. When I'm using Skype I almost have to stop everything else I'm doing thanks to it's massive window taking up a whole corner of my screen and constantly having to hide/unhide the messages pane.

Adium is fine as is, you can customise the hell out of it, it's tab implementation is solid. The only places it's lacking are more server issues, file transfer hasn't worked in years for me.

> its starting to feel a little stale

The concept of "staleness" encourages change for the sake of change, and I don't get it. Please ask non-designers if they want the look of their favourite software to be re-imagined.

The feedback to this is predictably similar to the transition from Skype 2.8 to Skype 5 (OS X), and I know people who still cling to their Skype 2.8 binary.

When something looks the same as it did years ago, while the entirety of the OS is being updated, not to mention design trends are changing, "stale" is a valid description. It's not "change for the sake of change" it's change for the sake of keeping up with the newest cool design trend.

Average consumers will choose a nicely designed app over one that looks dated, especially if they offer the same functionality.

But OS X does look the same as it did years ago, unlike Windows which went through five looks (2000, XP, Vista, 7, 8). It's not as if Adium has any design elements that could possibly age - it's a standard OS window with a customisable HTML message list.

Edit: I just realised that I have hidden the ugly message window toolbar. I'm not sure if it aged though - I already hated it on OS X 10.4 (when I disabled and then forgot about it).