Well they're in for a surprise if they think modern user experience designers would fix that.
The software is pretty simple, and mistakes were almost always process problems associated with complex exemptions and classification.
The other set of problems were related to small market sample size for some corner cases. You can see this at play with Zillow.
Software is used as a boogeyman for leadership and process failure. A clipper system from 1985 is a great solution. The problem with it is that it’s highly likely that the needs of the business have changed over 30 years, and the software has not. That just reflects the lack of capital investment and process improvement typical in municipal government.
It’s easier to say “OMG, Clipper from 1980!” Because that is better than “we are a bunch of idiots”.
In the town that I grew up in, the process prior to 1980s computerization was a 100 year old paper process that was essentially the same as the computerized process — maybe better as the internal controls were better. Some of the properties in that town had deeds dating back to the Dutch colonial period, and in many ways the 1650 process was similar to the 2019 process, except they used percentage of rents and a levy of crops based on market value.
It sucked not having transactions and referential integrity, but I liked not having to second guess a query planner :-)
Systems didn’t scale past small workgroup LANs very well, though.
In my business systems consulting business, I think I have seen exactly this issue almost more than any other issue that I've encountered... across industries and business sizes.
Software gives you that convenient, opaque, ill-understood rug you can sweep any old systemic (non-technological sense) problem under. And it's probably so common because it works. Those people trying to get to the root of organizational problems more often than not don't have sufficient understanding of what role technology plays in their business as to challenge people blaming the system... so many dollars and so much time get dedicated to solving the wrong problems this way....
To be fair most, if not all, business systems are terrible, but they aren't usually the core problem when a company gets to bringing some like me in to "fix/replace" the systems. Makes my job a little harder than it should be to be honest.
Software is often used as an attempt by one group in an organization to impose control, often by imposing process, on another group. Software and software salespeople are often pawns or MacGuffins in an internal power struggle.
<Aliens Guy>User Experience</Aliens Guy>
however as you mentioned, a modern user experience isn't the end all. we even did a migration from an MS Access database application to a new platform where it was required to be 100% look a like. The whole move was done to modernize that application yet those doing the work got handcuffed on day one.
one isuse holding back the upgrades in most cities is that their IT departments tend to be a real mess with one or two SME per system/platform that isn't PC related and even then its all maintenance mode anyway because it just works.
however the real issue is likely, infrastructure maintenance which includes IT and other not sexy items like sewer and road repair fall by the way side of ribbon cutting opportunities for new buildings, roads, and bridges. then throw in the incredible debt to employee benefits and pensions most cities have and its no wonder so falls to the wayside
RPG was not my cup of tea, but the results on the screen looked much like the XBase stuff on PCs I was doing the previous half decade, so I guess people were happy to schlep their working code onto newer, cheaper machines.
Regardless, defending it as standard behavior means you're arguing it has -average- UX. The OP was in favor of it having -good- UX (well, 'clean, customizable and nothing is hidden away', and I was just pointing out that doesn't necessarily mean it's good).
People that have years of experience using the older interface are going to have a tough time making the transition.
training is usually lacking, and a newer UI does not guarantee that more mistakes will not be made in the learning curve.
I doubt most UX designers have ever even used a curses based interface. They are just disgusted by seeing so much monospace text, and are compelled to tear it down and replace it with something they are comfortable with (And usually the only thing they know how to use).
I had to clean up after some UX monkeys a few years ago, who "upgraded" a warehouse inventory system. The warehouse used 30 year old embedded MSDOS based portable Symbol terminals and a SCO UNIX server in the back end. They also used Wyse terminals in the office for the admin interface and data entry. Everything booted in seconds, and the portable terminal/scanners lasted for days, and never had a problem.
They decided to replace it with React Native on Android touch screen terminals (this was a refrigerated food warehouse). The hardware couldn't go even a whole day, and the touchscreens were not at all appropriate. The software was slow and unreliable, and had led to costly mistakes.
Speaking to the designer, he seemed far more concerned about how it looked than about adding back essential features. He kept joking about how backward things had been, and how heroic he was for helping these simpletons see the light. His only justification for several things was that it was "trending" and he didn't want his client to be "left behind".
They also started by gutting essential features, and adding them back on a rolling basis, when they got around to it.
In my opinion, a big part of the problem is the culture of UX. It seems to have amplified the stereotypical arrogance that people sometimes associate with IT people, and combined it with smug fashionistas.
And they just assume that older technology must be inferior, because it is old. They use obsolete as a synonym for old.
In the span of a year, I had UX consultants tell me that password masking is obsolete, and that there should be one field for passwords, no wait, two fields but masked again. Decisions are not really based on logic, they are based on fashion trends, and intense fear of not being hip.
Maybe in some way this makes sense in the modern app ecosystem, that is possible. But is should be relegated to crummy Listicle apps. But these types of people should be kept well away from any software that does anything important.
As for the warehouse I mentioned, Android and React Native are not the right technologies. But maybe this firm didn't want to tell the client that they should go somewhere else.
I think this is a key point. Beyond the fact that their brain is still developing[1], most people under 25 (or with only 1-3 years in tech) simply don't have the breadth and depth of experience necessary to build an appreciation for reliability, much less the ability to identify reliable components or design reliable solutions for various environments.
[1] https://mentalhealthdaily.com/2015/02/18/at-what-age-is-the-...
I've seen CEOs give the reigns of their app to some UX person, because they want to impress the hip young UX expert, and they know just enough tech to appear to a wizard.
Software is art, fashion and politics.
Or you can do '5, 3, 12, <customer number>'
Try changing the work flow of the 60 year old lady in accounts payable who's been using that for the last 25 years, she will never bring you in brownies again.
Not to mention no fat web client interacting with a server in the cloud is as fast as interacting with the server in the basement of your own building.
We couldn’t find the issue for the life of us. Eventually, we sent someone down to the shop to see what was happening. We realized that the field workers weren’t waiting for the screen to update and were tabbing through using muscle memory. I had inadvertently switched a field and the tab order around.
And then there was the time that a new user was complaining about not being able to see a field but all of the old repairmen didn’t complain. Someone hadn’t actually tested the colors on the screen outside in direct sunlight where everyone was working. The new screen was just like the old one and all of the other repairmen just did it by memory.
Im sure those technicians went through a few new-hires who just c/would not put up with not being able to see what they were inputting.
Thank you, kind sir, for fixing what actually broke.
And the effort spent making the transition may not be worth the reward.
This assumes that you're not also trying to make it a mobile app. Many of the more (in)famous public redesigns in recent years went for "open" and "spacey" UX because they erroneously tried to make their main design a mobile-first design, when that wasn't their core business need.
(Often, a second application can be built that satisfies mobile needs. Many uses of reddit or gmail, like myself, are more than happy to use a separate mobile app for consuming data.)
"You'll get used to it"
"It's the latest trend, you have to do it."
The Internet Archive redesign is a great example of this.