They do it while claiming it’s easier for the users, too.
I call bullshit. I want to see the studies. I very much doubt they exist.
One of the only sites my elderly father who can barely use a computer at all can navigate unassisted with any amount of confidence is craigslist. The “friendlier” and more “modern” the site (or app), the greater chance he’ll get lost and confused in it.
I bet the study, if there is one would be something like “some degree of white space can be helpful for delineating sections” and that conclusion has just been wrung to the ends of the earth, producing todays pointlessly sparse UI’s.
I think it's provably bullshit with a simple thought experiment - what happens when you make a site "sparse" (removing controls, more whitespace, less information density)? Things that used to take 1-2 clicks to do take many many more clicks, as menus get buried under sub-sub-sub menus now to accommodate all the space you just wasted. When I'm designing a UI for personal use, I design by how many clicks it takes me to do a common task. Any design implementation that increases that metric is a hard no to me. It's a very provable, easy metric. More clicks = less usability. Full stop. Especially when the clicks are hidden behind confusing and inconsistent icons that you usually have to guess the meaning of.
I call bullshit. I want to see the studies. I very much doubt they exist.
One of the only sites my elderly father who can barely use a computer at all can navigate unassisted with any amount of confidence is craigslist. The “friendlier” and more “modern” the site (or app), the greater chance he’ll get lost and confused in it.