Former Xerox PARC Researcher: Windows 8 Is a Cognitive Burden 404
New submitter LiroXIV writes "You know you've messed up big time when someone related to the development of one of the first graphical interfaces for computers thinks you've messed up. Usability expert Raluca Budiu has shared the common conclusion for many about Microsoft's upcoming Windows 8; it's definitely not as user-friendly as past versions. Quoting: 'The advantage of the overlaid menu is that it preserves context. Cognitively, there’s more of a burden when you have to switch context twice (desktop->start screen; start screen -> desktop). There are reasons to force users to switch contexts, especially in the tablet or phone environment, where screen real-estate is a lot more expensive and a menu is forced to use only part of the (already-small) screen. In that situation, a separate page makes better use of the small screen space. There are fewer reasons for a separate page on a desktop – the start menu is a cheaper interaction than the start page.'"
To paraphrase... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:5, Funny)
"You're holding it wrong!"
You're suppose to hold the desktop up to your face.
Re: (Score:3)
I suppose a workable alternative is to beat your face repeatedly on the desktop. And you may accidentally trigger the application you really wanted while facerolling the display.
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:5, Informative)
I suppose a workable alternative is to beat your face repeatedly on the desktop.
Or do what everyone sensible does:
Why I’m uninstalling Windows 8
As a cruel trick on myself, about a month ago I installed Windows 8 on my main PC to see what it was like.
The answer is: abysmal.
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that Windows 8 is the worst computing experience I’ve ever had. As a desktop operating system, it’s annoying, frustrating, irritating, and baffling to use. I’ve tried on many occasions to explain exactly why it’s so awful to use day-to-day, and most of the time, smoke starts pouring out of my ears. I thought it would be better to get down exactly what the issues are and why you should avoid it.
http://www.pcgamesn.com/article/why-i-m-uninstalling-windows-8 [pcgamesn.com]
It's astonishing how badly Microsoft has implimented this. For a long time I thought they were playing one of their "Queen's Duck" marketing tricks, and with a fanfare and a "We listen to our customers" comment, would switch to a sensible, if bland, UI at the last moment.
They didn't.
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:5, Funny)
Come on man, its the worst of both worlds! The limitations of a small screen and limited touch interface are wonderful replacements for a full rich gui and a keyboard.
Or, as my android phone came up with when I spoke that response into it because it was too much to type:
"Carnal mom, tis thrash bob wills. The lamentation of the women..."
I think I had it set to 'conan' mode.
Not a phone interface. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a mobile device interface. Still, definitely a mistake.
Here's what I think happened: MS decided (along with half the industry) that tablets will gradually replace desktop computer and decided they had to invent a new GUI paradigm that made Windows tablet-friendly. Whereupon they made the same mistake they've made many times before — they forgot that many of their users still need the old paradigm. We're still using laptops and desktops; we're even plugging keyboards and mice into our tablets and using them as desktops.
I actually own a 10-year-old Windows tablet (running Windows 7) and except for handwriting and button support, Windows is not that different from that on regular systems. Pity they didn't consult the people who designed their existing tablet support. But they've probably all left the company by now, having been marginalized by the rest of the company for many years.
Re:Not a phone interface. (Score:5, Insightful)
> Here's what I think happened: MS decided (along with half the industry) that tablets will gradually replace desktop computer and decided they had to invent a new GUI paradigm that made Windows tablet-friendly.
Which, I would argue, is true! If you've ever tried to use Windows 7 "tablet edition" on a tablet (we own one, it sucks) you can see immediately that the desktop environment is not appropriate for touch devices. Not even a little bit.
> Whereupon they made the same mistake they've made many times before — they forgot that many of their users still need the old paradigm.
Re:Not a phone interface. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also why the iPad was more successful than previous tablet PCs. Apple realized UI paradigms are different and designed a different UI for iOS, knowing you can't stack OS X on a touch-primary device and have it work well.
Of course, I think what happened is Steve Jobs got immensely successful with iOS and ended up punking the rest of industry into thinking that tablets and smartphones were the future, that Windows and such were dinosaurs, and that Apple was getting rid of OS X in favor of iOS.
End result, everyone was trying to "follow Apple" and falling over themselves to tout their tablet OS (Android, usually, but also Windows Phone) as the desktop OS of the future.
So Microsoft blindly goes forward, while all Apple does was add a few iOS touches to OS X, but otherwise keeping things the same (save the scroll bars). For the most part, the iOS bits in OS X are ignorable - other than scroll bars (and the ability to disable "natural" scrolling... though to be honest, I never actually saw what the fuss was about - it worked fine for me. Though if I plugged in a mouse and the scroll wheel went opposite, I'd be pissed, which I think happened).
Apple punk'd the whole industry.
Further example: (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple realized UI paradigms are different and designed a different UI for iOS, knowing you can't stack OS X on a touch-primary device and have it work well.
Linux is another example:
instead of trying to cram a full desktop environment (KDE, Gnome, etc) onto a tablet or smartphone, all the companies which decided to use the Linux kernel for their smartphones/tablet/internet-enable-pocketdevice/featurephone/whatever took the Linux kernel (with either the regular GNU userland, or some embed userland like busybox) but developed/reused mobile specific interfaces: Android (with its own userspace), Maemo, webOS, etc.
In case of Apple, it is due to the way Steve Jobs used to work: he didn't think in term of business opportunity, but in term of product desirability.
He didn't want a way to cram Apple products onto a new type of device.
He wanted a device which simply did what *he* needed for his day-to-day usage, as simple as possible.
He focus on his own usage pattern, and neglects everything else. That avoid feature creep, "bullet point" approches, etc.
End result: A tablet which doesn't contain OS X, but is rather simple for the browsing needs of Steve Jobs, and by extension, of lots of consumer who don't really need that much.
Although Geeks, /.ers, and other "power users" will still complain that the device is completely under-powered and rather limited, the device is "good enough for Steve's day-to-day usage", which overlaps not too badly with the needs of a big part of the population. Beside their incredible marketing that's how Apple manage to sell "inferior" products like hot cakes.
Re:Not a phone interface. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's what I think happened: MS decided (along with half the industry) that tablets will gradually replace desktop computer and decided they had to invent a new GUI paradigm that made Windows tablet-friendly. Whereupon they made the same mistake they've made many times before â" they forgot that many of their users still need the old paradigm. We're still using laptops and desktops; we're even plugging keyboards and mice into our tablets and using them as desktops.
No, Microsoft continues to suffer from their "Windows-itis" disease, where to protect their existing Windows cash cow they insist on forcing it to be everywhere. See Windows Mobile/Windows CE, Kin, et al. That's one of the hallmarks of a company so blinded by their previous success they stop changing or innovating and work to extend and protect the cash cow (often until it is too late).
This is just a symptom of that... they desperately want to get in on the tablet game but since Windows has to be everywhere (and the same as much as possible) that means pushing the tablet interface onto the desktop. They also saw how easily people can switch to the Mac because of all the "iOS-isms" Apple has brought to the Mac, so they figured it would be a huge boost to their tablet efforts to have a consistent "Windows" brand.
What they forget is most people hate or are at best ambivalent about Windows as a brand and as much as Apple can just make a change and get everyone to fall in line, not even they replaced the Desktop for some iOS-like fullscreen-only interface.
If you look at it objectively, it is obvious that Apple isn't getting into the enterprise server market anytime soon and your server products division is doing quite well. But people are buying iPads and the lack of MS Office is teaching a whole new generation that they don't need Office anymore. That's a dangerous precedent to set. If Windows is a cash cow, Office is a whole herd. The choice is obvious - instead of risking millions on competing with the iPad (and pissing off your OEMs in the process), just start releasing everything for iOS. If you assume even just the corporate business iPad users bought it, that's already over a billion dollar a year business *after* Apple's cut. For zero risk and a few developer salaries.
We know Google makes a ton of their mobile revenue from iOS - that makes Android a puzzle as well. Why are you working so hard to piss off one of your largest markets? Of course Google needs to decide whether they are going to crap or get off the toilet... they own Motorola. If Motorola starts selling #1 devices in numbers, how long will Samsung, HTC, etc keep pushing Android? At some point they'll have to go their own way. If Google hamstrings Motorola so as not to compete with their OEMs, then what are they going to do about Amazon, Baidu, et al taking Google's R&D and ripping out all the Google services then replacing them with their own? How long will they continue to be Amazon's free R&D department? And how can they justify a 12 billion purchase of Motorola just to let them spin their wheels? What will Google do when Samsung gets jealous of Google's revenue and forks Android and replaces all the Google services with Samsung-branded services? How long until the other OEMs follow Samsung's lead?
In a sense, Microsoft has now decided to adopt this same problem as their own. If Surface sells like crazy, all the OEMs will jump ship. Why compete against Microsoft when you have to pay an additional $20-50 license tax on top? If it doesn't, then why did you waste your energy and money when you could be making billions off iPad apps *and* getting license revenue from the OEMs?
Re: (Score:3)
The classification "mobile" is silly. "Tablet" is decent. Smartphone is okay. Laptop/notebook, good.
All of those devices are mobile, but each has a unique UI requirements due to screen size and input method. If you want to throw subnotebook in there as another class too (netbook is another silly name, at least for the devices it actually gets applied to) I could go for that.
It gets even sillier when you consider other devices. There are lots of things that have small screens and use UIs that follow a "
Re: (Score:3)
Thing is, tablets mostly run the same OS and use the same UI conventions as smart phones. I'm studying Android programming, and there's a big emphasis on designing the app display so that it works equally well on a 3-inch display and a 10-inch display.
You may not like the word "mobile" but the fact remains that both the widely-used tablet paradigms (Android and iOS) are scaled up smartphone interfaces, not scaled-down desktop interfaces. Perhaps the limitations of this approach will become apparent once tab
Re: (Score:3)
A mobile paradigm is the user interface paradigm for a mobile device. What's a mobile device? See above.
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:5, Insightful)
With early versions of Windows Phone, Microsoft learned - the hard way - that cramming a desktop interface on to a phone makes for an awkward phone. With Windows 8, they'll learn - the hard way - that the reverse is also true.
depends on hardware. (Score:4, Interesting)
Awhile back at my old job we started playing with windows 8 previews on various laptops. as expected using the keyboard and mouse, it sucked, but then we started playing around with it on an old touchscreen monitor, and it was actually good.
So we started experimenting with it using some students around campus. some students got the keyboard/mouse and some got the screen only. in those cases, the screen won hands down. In fact they seemed to pick it up almost instantly, where the mouse users tended to dart around the screen looking for apps.
The other interesting thing is that it seemed to be better the bigger the screen is. we put the same machine on one of our 6 foot smart boards on campus and did the same test that we used on the touchscreen. Students pretty much loved it across the board. a few even asked for win8 on all of the smartboards on campus. (which wasn't planned at the time)
Now of course none of this is scientific, and it was a small sample, (roughly 5-10 students per test) but the results are definitely trending towards touchscreen good mouse bad when it comes to Win8. Another thing that I wish we tested more was desktop interface on touchscreen. most of the people were told "this is windows 8 let us know what you think" and they could do whatever they wanted to it. They primarily stayed in the Metro interface almost exclusively. The other thing that might have skewed this result is that all of the students were about 20-25 ish years old, and almost all of them used some sort of smartphone, which might have helped win8 on the touchscreen side.
Regardless, its a hell of a gamble on MS's part. their biggest customers are enterprise hands down. Enterprise users will stay away like the plague. (unless they have a large POS or interactive rollout, it's pretty much a no brainer to put win8 there) Home users will most likely adopt it more with touchscreen hardware but the hardware is just not there desktop wise. with prices dropping on touchscreen systems daily, it might be coming soon, but I would say windows 9 will be out before it's mainstream enough to see enterprise adoption.
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:5, Informative)
The interface he's describing is moronic.
That's his point.
He obviously hasn't used Android 4.1.
I'm not sure why that's obvious. He has used Windows 8, enough to have said how awful it is. What does Android have to do with it?
It's about the "mobile" side of Windows 8 (Score:5, Insightful)
He has used Windows 8, enough to have said how awful it is. What does Android have to do with it?
It has to do with the fact that Windows 8's Metro interface has often been described as slapping a mobile interface over a desktop OS (like the poster at the top of this thread).
(Which, by itself is stupid and non adapted. Take any other OS: iOS and OSX share the same kernel, but different UI. Linux on the desktop uses KDE or GNome (and similar) whereas on the mobile it uses Android's UI, webOS's Luna, Maemo, QTopia, etc. Now why does the mobile's Metro has to be forced on desktop users too ?)
Now I think the idea which the parent poster is talking about, is that *even as a mobile UI* metro still sucks.
One of the complain of TFA is that metro forces the user to switch to a separate menu screen and then to switch back to a running application, which breaks the flow more than having the menu as an overlay above the screen (as are the "Start"-menu, the Dock, Gnome3's application start screen, and they equivalent in almost any other desktop environment). TFA concedes that it might make sense for a portable device, to sacrifice flow because of limited screen estate.
But according to the parent, even for a mobile device, it is still moronic. Android 4.1 is his example of an user interface which manage to give a menu of application without interrupting the flow. (And in my experience, same for webOS too. Although the "application menu" overlay is butt-ugly and the "search anywhere" is much more useful).
Switching to a separate launcher and then switching back to active application is a broken flow that I haven't personnaly seen since the old days of PalmOS (and a few dumb-/feature-phone menus) (and that was a technical limitation, because the OS wasn't truly multi-tasking and the launcher was actually another separate application).
So in end result, Metro isn't only a bad interface for the desktop, it's even a bad interface for a mobile device.
Re: (Score:3)
My menu isn't on a separate screen; I tap a vertical elipsis (three dots going up and down, : with an extra dot, whatever) and the menu pops up.
Does the menu take up the whole screen when it pops open? If so, I think that's the point. The Win7/XP start menu overlays a small portion of the desktop, so you maintain a cognitive connection with your work space while accessing the menu for whatever. I'm not sure I understand the benefit of this if you are opening a new program in full screen mode, but I guess the idea is that there is a difference in how our brain interprets the "work space" and the "start menu," so replacing a program in the work sp
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:4, Informative)
Um, She. And teh google results say she worked for Microsoft and PARC before moving to a tier-1 consultancy specializing in usability.
Given she started publishing around 2000, the phrase 'someone related to the development of one of the first graphical interfaces for computers thinks you've messed up' was off-the-cuff text LiroXIV penned to tie together comparatively-ancient accomplishments of PARC and Microsoft.
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:5, Informative)
I have, pretty extensively. Metro blows on a desktop, as it's a completely inappropriate interface for the form factor. I'm not sure why that's a controversial statement.
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:4, Insightful)
The sad thing is I actually like it otherwise, a lot of things are more streamlined and improved, task manager has taken a quantum leap forward in usefulness, ribbon on explorer isn't as obnoxious as I feared, and it generally boots faster and runs smoother. But the basic interface is just terrible. I gimped a "lite start menu" in by playing around with toolbar settings and using the folder that was the "All Users" start menu in Win7 just to have access to a straightforward programs list. But this is hardly ideal.
Windows 8 seems to be strictly a home-user/single-user/tablet OS. It's a nightmare for enterprises. We'll probably stick with Windows 7 unless Windows 9 or a service pack fixes a lot of the egregious flaws.
Re:To paraphrase... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just.... just stop. No one's falling for it. Whatever they're paying you people, it shouldn't be enough to buy your dignity.
Re: (Score:3)
Ok, please explain under what kind of circumstances constant switching between Metro fullscreen apps and regular windowed desktop apps makes any kind of sense. I wouldn't mind it much when Metro apps could just be started in a window like everything else, but clicking on a PDF and then being forced into fullscreen without even a way out really serves no purpose whatsoever, it's just distracting and annoying.
Someone should tell the gnome folks this (Score:3, Insightful)
Then perhaps they'd quit their jihad on users.
Re: (Score:3)
So it's the users that quit Gnome. It's telling when not only Debian switches to XFCE by default, the most popular newbie user distribution (Mint) has a thorough fork of Gnome3 (Cinnamon) and an outright rejection of it (Mate), but even the very home of Gnome (Red Hat) relents and includes Mate as an option.
It's politically uncomfortable to admit defeat, but I hope those folks will come to their senses, slap an epoch on Gnome2 and upgrade to 2.32 with Mate's improvements. Because Gnome2 was a good deal ah
Summary left out the best quote from the article (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows 8 is optimized for content consumption rather than content production and multitasking. Whereas content consumption can easily be done on other media (tablets and phones), production and multitasking are still best suited for PCs. Windows 8 appears to ignore that.
This is a very good insight, and probably the most concise explanation for why I don't like the Windows 8 UI. As a creator, I don't want all that extra crap getting in my way.
-d
Re: (Score:2)
It is like Microsoft is purposely leaving a piece of their market share open for other operating systems, which decades ago were the first choice for video and audio production; I'm of course talking about Apple's OSX and BeOS ..
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately this is where the money is. Ie, iPhones and iPads are big money makers and they are designed around consuming information and not the creation of things. They're passive devices in many way, portable entertainment, newspaper replacements, web browsers that move with you. That's nice in some sense. However what they are not are work stations. You do not do work on those devices.
Windows 8 seems to copy that model. Most of the default applications on the start screen are presentation based;
Re: (Score:3)
The majority of computer users are not creators and never will be.
To the extent that's true -- and I'm not saying it isn't -- those users will end up on tablets.
Trying to turn the desktop PC into a giant tablet isn't going to work.
Re:production and multitasking (Score:4, Insightful)
Anecdote:
At a recent family gathering, my father (who really is pretty sharp) raved about how the iPad changed his life. He talked about loading docs into the cloud so he wouldn't have to carry briefcases of papers. (And he's no PHP, he was talking about Dropbox and similar.)
I remarked, that style of usage doesn't work for me because I am heavily involved in splitting and re-splicing files, saving them, and more. At which point Father confessed to having a second Mac computer. But by then I had almost won the discussion, if you want to do hard file processing, iPads start to get seriously in the way.
The right tool for the right job. For some reason when it comes to computers or electronics people seem to forget this.
The iPad gets in the way because it is not the right tool for content creation. As you know (and your father learned) you want an actual computer for that.
Re:Summary left out the best quote from the articl (Score:5, Funny)
Look, I know you draw a MS paycheck, but give it up. It's not pinin', it's passed on! It's bleedin' demised!
Same Problem as Unity (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Same Problem as Unity (Score:5, Interesting)
The interface was so dumbed down (and blown up) that I nearly lost my mind. I had to boot into my windows partition to google how to open a damn terminal window in Ubuntu.
Maybe it was too obvious for me and i'm too old.
Re: (Score:3)
After logging in to Unity press ctrl-alt-F1
Log in to the command prompt
Run: sudo apt-get install gnome-session-fallback gnome-panel gnome-shell
Run: sudo
Reboot your computer
Re: (Score:3)
While I find Unity to be meh. I think you are being unreasonable. Power users and professionals that use linux, surely can't be your average grandma who doesn't know how to install another DE or window manager.
I install KDE the first thing after I install. Nothing, absolutely nothing, will try to stop you on that task, be it KDE or Gnome3(or forks of Gnome2/etc), XFCE, LXDE, XFCE, IceWM, whatever floats your boat, and there are tutorials and step-by-step guides for everyone else!. Your problem will only be
Nope (Score:3, Funny)
You know you've messed up big time when someone related to the development of one of the first graphical interfaces for computers thinks you've messed up.
Nah, that hardly bothers me at all. I only really know I've messed up when the screams of terror start. And then suddenly stop.
Speaking of those precious pixels on a handset (Score:2, Interesting)
Why waste a quarter of them with a stupid huge black bar running down the full length of the homescreen [pcmag.com], making it look all lop-sided and amateur?
Are we supposed, like, dig this as the trendy new way forward?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why waste a quarter of them with a stupid huge black bar running down the full length of the homescreen [pcmag.com], making it look all lop-sided and amateur? Are we supposed, like, dig this as the trendy new way forward?
Actually, Windows Phone 7.8 and 8 is supposed to get rid of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't the OS sense what kind of device it's on? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are fewer reasons for a separate page on a desktop
How about the OS being context-sensitive, and changing its behaviour as required on different hardware platforms? People would rapidly adapt to the inconsistency between hand-held and desktop devices - they already do it every day.
Microsoft, (along with the folks who created Gnome 3 and Unity), would be far better off adopting an inclusive strategy for their designs, rather than trying to shoehorn everyone's disparate needs into a 'one size fits all' GUI paradigm. And we'd all be better off if these head-up-their-own-asses devs would put aside their arrogance and deliver what people want and can use productively.
The reason for the start page (Score:5, Insightful)
Previously, users were forced to learn this stuff, but now that they know there's a simpler alternative, they won't want to, just like the command line. This benefits MS in that there will be a ton of new apps that work perfectly on their tablet. This gives an incentive to app developers; They will now have a reason to sell you the latest version. It benefits the Windows platform in general because the new users that are attracted won't be able to cope with a traditional desktop interface, and other OSes will look scary. More experienced users will know how to get around this stuff and run traditional apps, and won't be bothered too much.
Yeah, it seems really stupid to most of us, but we won't use it, but there are many business reasons for MS to force this start page and tablet interface onto users, it feeds into their new tablet strategy and throws developers a bone, and gives them a reason to focus on MS's tablet platform the way they do on iOS even without a large pre-existing userbase, simply because now average desktop users will be demanding apps in this format. So why shouldn't they do this?
Re:The reason for the start page (Score:4, Insightful)
"Business reasons" seems to be a euphemism for "forcing the user into habits that benefit us."
You know they could just make an *easier to use* OS that people want to use instead of forcing their philosophy on people for profit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe not the average user, but unless they change things in the "real release" I think this is ridiculous:
http://www.windows7hacker.com/index.php/2012/08/how-to-change-windows-8-product-key-to-complete-activation/ [windows7hacker.com]
I installed the Windows 8 Enterprise Edition, and apparently the install wizard never asked me for the activation key.
I couldn't find a UI that allows me to change or even enter my activation key. Time for a "hack" to activate Windows 8.
First, you need to go to the Start screen type "cmd" and right click. Make sure you choose run as "Administrator" from the bottom options.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it takes away choices
Right, which forces developers to build MS's tablet app ecosystem for them. And you're right, they are fucking over businesses. But are businesses going to stop buying MS software and support? Not likely. Maybe the next version of Windows will come quickly and offer the option to allow you to boot to a traditional desktops. MS will still get their upgrade money, and they will still have their tablet app ecosystem. Or maybe once enough tablet-capable apps are built, MS will release a service pack that e
bad premise (Score:5, Insightful)
"You know you've messed up big time when someone related to the development of one of the first graphical interfaces for computers thinks you've messed up"
Regardless of whether MS has screwed the pooch with Windows 8, I don't think this claim is worth a shit. being related to the development of the first instance of something makes you a defacto authority on modern incarnations? especially in the technology sector this smells like BS. would the wright brothers be expected to provide valuable input on the latest stealth bomber?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"would the wright brothers be expected to provide valuable input on the latest stealth bomber?"
Yeah, and what sort of insights would Plato have about modern systems of governance, anyway? Come to think of it, why do we care what those damned obsolete "founding father" jackasses had to say about our Constitution, either?
Re: (Score:2)
"Come to think of it, why do we care what those damned obsolete "founding father" jackasses had to say about our Constitution, either?"
I wasn't aware the modern government did care what those old guys had to say. Regardless, you miss the point. Would you really assume one of our founding fathers to have useful input on a modern scenario *simply because he was around during the creation of the government* ? So much so that a statement like "You know your proposed patent reform bill is in trouble when Jame
Re: (Score:3)
sure, if they had then of course.
however the premise says nothing of any experience beyond being "someone related to one of the first graphical interfaces for computers".
that alone does not qualify a person to be an authority on modern GUI design by any measure I can reason, yet the article seems to be asserting that it's qualification enough to have a damning opinion.
Us old folks are prejudiced (Score:3, Insightful)
The desktop is our native environment. But the coming generation is exposed to computing via smartphone first. For them, the desktop-as-smartphone will be no big deal, it will feel natural.
So I actually agree with Microsoft on the Metro UI.
To me the complaints seem like a bunch of "get off my desktop lawn" old folk fist shaking. The complaints are not about usability, but familiarity.
Re: (Score:2)
Its too easy to say that because there are legitimate concerns with regard to workflow and ui. Your point is valid but I think its wrong to think people are on the side of "its a total failure" I think its a good move, but I too am concerned with how it will function fluidly. There are a lot of great ui ideas that arent in windows like mouse gestures for example. Autodesk's marking menu is arguably far better than just a right click alone.
I think windows 8 is going to be a damn good OS technically. But the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you're not far from the truth. He's got a good point about context switching. It is mentally jarring to switch contexts, but I imagine I can get used to Metro's "annoyance" . Contrast this with the very critical flaw(s) that Vista rolled out with: driver problems leading to system failure. There's *no* chance of getting used to that kind of problem.
Re: (Score:3)
It is mentally jarring to switch contexts, but I imagine I can get used to Metro's "annoyance"
I see words like "jarring" thrown around with respect to opening the start screen, and after using Windows 8 for months I think that kind of language is vastly overstating the issue. I used to see the same kind of complaints about window animations and aero glass transparency. After a while, you largely don't notice it anymore.
For most people on this forum, accessing the start screen would be a rare event. There are only two reasons to do so: to quickly read live tiles or to launch a metro app. Members o
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. I completely disagree. The notion that the same interface is optimal for two extremely different types of input devices and screens is absurd.
The best interface for a big screen with keyboard and mouse absolutely cannot also be the most well-suited to a handheld touchscreen device.
I find it amazing how many people try to claim this is not true. Desktop computers and tablets/phone are not the same thing and do not serve the same purpose. I would much much much rather have two different and GOOD inter
Re:Us old folks are prejudiced (Score:5, Insightful)
But the coming generation is exposed to computing via smartphone first.
Correction: they've been exposed to electronic consumption via the smartphone, first.
Saying they've been 'exposed to computing' due to their smartphone is kind of like saying i've been exposed to the banking industry because I know how to operate an ATM.
What happened to "computing" equating with "able to operate more than a word processor, basic PIM, and email client"? We used to have a word for people who traditionally did that kind of 'computing' task: secretary. The people who did the 'real work' need a slightly broader toolset. Things like:
* media production tools
* software production tools
* engineering tools
* system administrator tools
* medical tools
Sure, there can be a great deal of 'dumbing down' in a lot of fields for specific things, and that's fine. But the people who do more than one or two tasks at a time (concurrently)? Yeah, we're going to need something better than what W8 has to offer.
For them, the desktop-as-smartphone will be no big deal, it will feel natural.
And, like the GUI people before them who were unable to replicate the more complex, advanced tasks of the CLI people, the DUI (Dumb User Interface) people will be unable to perform the same tasks as people performing GUI tasks.
(Meanwhile, CLI people will end up looking increasingly like gods.)
Metro != Usability (Score:5, Interesting)
Using Metro aka Modern instead of the traditional desktop was never about usability. It was entirely about transitioning users to tablet interfaces and away from the traditional interface that people have used for years. Microsoft knows damn well that people will never voluntarily never make the change which is why they removed the ability to boot directly into the desktop.
By forcing you into "Modern" they are forcing you to use the new interface which /is/ usable - but only if your on a tablet. Obviously Microsoft thinks the future of computing is tablets and smartphones and not desktops. Witness the upcoming "Surface" computers and Windows Phone 8 platforms. Microsoft is afraid that the market is going to abandon the traditional desktop and is trying to position Windows as being an Operating System of choice for the tablets and smart phones. People simply don't think of Microsoft when they think of smart phones or tablets and that is what Microsoft is trying to change, public perception.
Windows 8 is a sacrificial operating system that is being produced entirely for this reason and we will see Windows 9 come in a very short time frame behind this.
Re: they are forcing you to use the new interface (Score:2)
You might have captured the mood of the management meetings, but oh, this is at such a cost.
Power Users have really been MS's bread and butter in the Enterprise space.
This is SO risky. However MS is probably Too Big To Fail, so if they screw it up we'll hear about SP2 that gives back "abilities to go to the old way of doing things". At which point the entire exercise becomes useless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Metro != Usability (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
I think the shared core is a major reason and have to agree with you on that. After submitting that I thought of one additional reason as well. They want to transition to the Apple style marketplace where Metro Apps have to purchased through them and they get a cut of of that. It's going to make enterprise management a pain in the ass. That would has also got to be a huge incentive to push this.
I still maintain that the number one driving reason for the metro push is the one that I cited. This is coming fro
The Beast has woken (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not about a functional Desktop OS.
That is not the mouse Microsoft is currently chasing.
Microsoft is chasing the mobile-platform space and a tied application store.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But they are selling it and promoting it as a functional Desktop OS.
If Microsoft said that Win8 was only for tablets, phones, and game consoles then I don't think anyone would have a problem with it. But they're promoting it as the next evolution of their Desktop OS, even though it is terrible for most desktop PC tasks. (Nevermind what PARC researchers have to say; the gaming-oriented review of Windows 8 at Kotaku is blistering. [kotaku.com])
For tablets, phones, and game consoles Windows 8 might be a big step forward.
Don't let him near KDE (Score:2)
The two most valuable pieces of screen real estate (upper left and right corners, per Fitt's Law) are mandatorily taken by the Activities widget, which nobody supports, and the Cashew, which is the button you have to push to customize your toolbar.
Oh, and they stole the non-toolbar screen edges for 'window resize' in the latest release, even in maximized window mode (using the scrollbars now requires precision mousing instead of flick 'n click). The edges are the second most valuable bits of screen real e
Every second OS has to suck! (Score:3)
I don't have anything against Microsoft. In fact, I think that if the user is not an idiot - most of their recent products are fantastic. However, Windows 8 interface, to the extent to which I was introduced with Zune client for Windows is the most confusing, unintuitive thing I had ever had a misfortune of having to use.
But don't fear - we all know that by Microsoft's OS release pattern (...-98-Me-XP-Vista-7), every second OS has to suck in order to make the next one look better. Windows 8 is going to suck, because it's supposed to. Let it go and just wait for the next one, it will be great.
You know what's a congnitive burden? (Score:3)
You know what else is a cognitive burden? Picking up a new magazine and reading the table of contents. Yes, Windows 8 is a cognitive burden, but it ain't quantum physics. It is different though.
Re:Guess he will change his mind (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It's an exercise in frustation without a doubt. It takes about 8 times as long to do anything you'd normally do to get to the guts of anything. But if you want to do anything normal, it's about twice as fast. They got some stuff right, they got a lot of stuff wrong. I figure windows 9 will probably get it right. Much like Win7 fixed Vista.
Re:Guess he will change his mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
How do you steer?
Re:Guess he will change his mind (Score:5, Funny)
I actually use a mouse with the right hand and a magic trackpad on the left hand (with different gestures). Very efficient, at least for me.
I actually use a mouse with the left and magic fingers with my right hand (with different gestures). Very efficient, at least for me.
Oh wait, you're not talking about surfing porn, are you?
Re: (Score:2)
When we start using our desktop screens like we do with our tablets and phones, with our fingers.
I would actually love to have a desk with an inset monitor, like so:
----/----
Which would keep it in easy touch reach, allowing me to touch when it made sense, and use the keyboard (and *maybe* mouse) when not.
On the other hand, I still wouldn't want it to be using the interface formerly known as Metro.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows has had automatic window management for years. It's just not obvious how to use it.
Re: (Score:3)
You can press win+left or win+right to move+resize your window to half the screen. I can't remember how you do with mouse, and the mouse equivalent doesn't work on multiple screens afaik.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:You know what else is a cognitive burden? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know what else is a cognitive burden? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, but I am missing your entire point.
Because computers can drive cars (which does not require any GUI at all, btw.) you are complaining the fact that you operate with keyboard and mouse?
What else do you expect? Operate a computer with a gas pedal and a wheel?
Metro is made for embedded systems. Think your car navigator, where you use a touch-screen on a relatively small panel stuck to your dashboard. You click "Directions" and say your directions out loud, the speech recognition will (or should) translate the speech into text of a the street address and there you go -- you got yourself a destination.
However a precise computer operations, that functionality is extremely limited. Try typing a word document or fill out a spreadsheet on a touchscreen of your car navigator (or a smartphone). You ain't going anywhere fast.
Re: (Score:2)
And how, pray tell, would you like the software to know what you want to do with your windows? How is it supposed to know if you want a window in the top left of your screen while another window is minimized?
How is it supposed to know you want your screen one way while I want mine another? How is it supposed to determine size?
It's one thing to criticize the crapload of bad software out there, including W8, but at least use some semblance of common sense when trying to make a point.
Re:You know what else is a cognitive burden? (Score:5, Funny)
And how, pray tell, would you like the software to know what you want to do with your windows? How is it supposed to know if you want a window in the top left of your screen while another window is minimized?
Hi! I'm Clippy! It looks like you could use some help organizing your desktop!
Missing the point (Score:3)
You're completely missing the point here. I use my computer to DO THINGS, not to move windows around. A user interface is a means, not an end. If it makes me carry out a bunch of extra tasks in order to use it then it's just getting in my way.
Re:You know what else is a cognitive burden? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You know what else is a cognitive burden? (Score:5, Insightful)
why do I still have to manually move windows around, resize them
Because any complex workflow will use more than one application and the computer can't know which information from windows A and B I want to have visible while writing/coding/whatever in window C.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why tiling window managers exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but not everyone wants their windows organized in that way.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
why do I still have to manually move windows around, resize them, alt-tab between overlapping windows, accidentally screw things up due to keyboard focus, etc. etc?
Answer: Because that's the best we have so far
Look at Windows in the Real world.
Windows are held in place by frames, which prevent them from collapsing in. Windows may be opened, to allow ventilation, or closed, to exclude inclement weather. Many windows have movable window coverings such as blinds or curtains to keep out light, provide additional insulation, or ensure privacy.
You may ask yourself why do I manually have to resize the Real World window opening by grabbing the blinds/curtains because you bel
Re: (Score:2)
Because not everyone is a point-and-grunt user? Many people have complex workflows (programmers, graphic artists, video editors, etc.) that require... manually managing their workspace.
Re: (Score:3)
Right. And no part of your instrument approach ui is modular and also used for engine maintenance.
Funny thing about nigh infinitely programmable computers, you can do nigh infinitely different tasks with them. And the components used for those tasks often overlap, and don't have to be redesigned for every purpose.
Re:You know what else is a cognitive burden? (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, as far back as windows 3.1 there were options to arrange open windows. It's common to see a toolbar button or two in software that uses an MDI to arrange sub-windows in stacks or to tile them.
Why isn't it common? Well, it turns out that no one works that way. Most people work with apps in full-screen, switching between them when needed. For those rare weirdo's who do want more than one window open on the display at once, they don't want the OS deciding how to arrange their windows.
Re:You know what else is a cognitive burden? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You know what else is a cognitive burden? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, manual window management is not something that's a burden. Manual window management is there to accommodate the fact that most computer users have unique workflows that are not amenable to a one-size-fits-all GUI imposed on them. Additionally, window management takes mere seconds and is typically done only once, when an application launches. Most modern UIs will remember where the user put the window the previous time, and put it back the next time the application is launched, making this a set it and forget it task.
This is perhaps one of the most common and deeply flawed arguments that Gnome3 and Win8 defenders use - it's "time for progress." Here's the truth: Progress halts when an agreeable arrangement occurs. Drinking glasses have been the same as they are now for a very long time. Kettles for boiling water, wrenches, screwdrivers, eyeglasses, the steering wheel, the volume knob, each of these has been pretty consistent for decades or centuries. There's a reason for this - progress is NO LONGER DESIRABLE when an "interface" or utility object arrives at its ideal form.
What is counterproductive for every task, is designing a new user interface merely to distinguish your product from the competition and forcing hundreds of millions or billions of hours in lost productivity and retraining in order to teach users how to do the EXACT SAME TASKS they already knew how to do.
Look at it this way, instead of trying justify the new crop of terrible UIs that are embodied in Gnome3, Unity, and Win8, let's ask ourselves - what new tasks do they allow users to accomplish? Can you Facebook "better" or write a word processed document "better" merely because the UI has changed? No, that'd be absurd to claim. Can you program more efficiently with the new interfaces? Likely not, and in fact this automagic mind-reading UI disease that is ballooning into an epidemic is causing massive backlash among the developers.
Let's just call out these new UIs (mentioned above) for what they are - an attempt to create a one size fits all solution so that the teams creating them can claim that they run on tablets, phones, desktops, and laptops with equal ease. The problem with this is that the one size fits all solution is always going to be far from ideal for most of these devices, and it shows.
showin yer age, pops! (Score:2)
If we can put a man on the moon
REALLY?!
This is the 21st century, get used to it. [laughingsquid.com]
Re: (Score:2)
There's a reason that I don't use the Start menu to get things done, and it's not that I'm using some other part of Windows.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hence why I mentioned sampling bias. Studies that rely entirely on voluntary reporting are always skewed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
MS has already done this a number of times and failed (Win3.1 for pen devices, WinCE, XP tablet). Desktop interfaces do not translate to handheld devices. There are issues with button size. Finger occlusion and handedness that don't have to be dealt with on a desktop.
Much of the problems MS has had is the Win32 baggage they've been carrying around in the name of backward compatibility and providing a "universal" platform. Now they've seen the writing on the wall that they need to make a break with something