zlacker

>>duckte+(OP)
where did the myth that people prefer apps that look native to the platform come from?

There are two types of apps: 1. the ones that professionals use and 2. the ones that consumers use.

for 1. they don't care if it looks native, as long as it works and is performant e.g. DAWs, Video Editing tools, Trading, etc.

2. likewise I don't think it matters that much.

my guess is the myth came from OS makers.

>>dzonga+XH7
Native look&feel makes for a consistent UX across apps. Users learn one set of conventions and UI controls that uniformly applies to all applications. In addition, all applications benefit from enhancements made to the native UI toolkit and integration with the OS (input methods, file dialogs, keyboard navigation, automations, …).

Moreover, web UIs tend to be less sophisticated and less power user friendly, due to HTML/CSS and browser API limitations. This unfortunately often carries over even to non-browser-based applications that however use a web-like UI.

>>layer8+oI7
There's a slightly deeper part to this which is that if I see a native UI toolkit in use, I can be at least relatively confident that the accessibility affordances I expect to be there haven't been half-arsed in some custom widget set implementation. That's part of the "one set of conventions" expectation you mention, but it's an important one. There's a lot of embedded knowledge in native widgets.