That is -exactly- the issue. Unfortunately. most people here neither recall or care about the raison d'etre of the original SX.
According to Charlie:
1. To start using a new programming framework that would support 32 and 64 bit OSs and be future-proof.
2. To unify the UI in a -consistent- way. They -fully- recognised how 'balkanised' the UI had become because, as with many small companies: they let the UI for each component be designed by different people, rather than have teams work on the -guts- but then have an architect to enforce a UI standard.
The original look of SX was by Dave Nicholson and it was, IMHO, great. It was -suprisingly- 'modern'. Very -bright- and very flat. I -loved- it. And it responded to a very real problem: BUGS. The program had reached a ceiling. So they gave it the clean sweep.
But over time, as they started adding new 'stuff' it drifted, getting more and more skeuo...whatever and dark. and now it's back where it was in 2000... a dark hodgepodge. Clearly each -guy- gets to do his own UI.
Software companies have a 'personality'... and this is SB's... each guy apparently gets a lot of autonomy. Centralised 'standards' are just not that important so 'consistency' and 'documentation' are low priorities.
I don't long for the bugs of that era, but I -do- wish they had the same goals. Back then Charlie and Lars said it flat out: (paraphrase) "We are sacrificing short term 'features' for 'consistency' and 'stability. We'll add in features as we can, but those two things will always be our top priority because we're making a professional program.'"
Note that Charlie, Dave, Lars, etc. have been out of the picture for a decade.
PS: If one cares, one has to make some noise. SB people are generally very polite. Like most talented people they are arrogant and condescending and not too concerned with the rabble. Think 'House, MD' They believe what they are doing is 'right'. Their policy has always been to allow 'discussion'. They try to simply ignore grousing and LOVE it when a few 'apologists' make fun of whiners like me... saves them the trouble of policing the forum to have 'poindexters' taken down a peg or two. But when the villager pitchforks come out, they have -ALWAYS- responded. They are -not- comfortable with a lot of complaints because, like most bright people, they hate the idea that they may not be 'getting all A's.'
In short, all it would take would be 5 or 6 people getting seriously dis-chuffed to get some response on any issue. What has happened, IMHO, is that, because of the cesspool that the previous forum became, most guys here now have become -way- too 'civil'. A certain number of people will say, 'Yes, xxxxx would be nice. Please do yyyyyyy.' And that has -never- worked. SB totally ignores that---as do all software devs. Nice does not work with software devs.
Nobody wants to go back to the crappy days of the 'Sparky' forum, but if you want any serious attention to any of these 'details' you'll have to get upset. Comments like, "Boy I'm really looking forward to that new Score!" or "I would like xxxxx too but overall I have to give them credit for..." are less than useless. They are polite, decent, balanced and they only enable more bad behaviour.
What do YOU respond to from customers? Measured 'gee it would be nice if...' or I'M NOT HAPPY!
I'm a graphic designer by trade. I care!
But I think a lot of this seems to be a case on no one-in-particular in-house design team? Look at ALL the Steinberg stuff, it's a hodgepodge of graphic style, it's all piecemeal. Seems that they need to hire a presiding design director to oversee each and every UI, and require that certain navigational standards are met. A library, if you will, a master set of how elements must be defined, each time they're used.
But someone has to actually CARE about it, because it's never going to be a bottom line. You need that kinda of anal weirdo person in house that just gets jollies from having his socks match his belt.