Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
GUI Microsoft Windows Technology

Former Xerox PARC Researcher: Windows 8 Is a Cognitive Burden 404

Posted by Soulskill
from the but-everybody-else-seems-to-like-it-so-much dept.
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.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Former Xerox PARC Researcher: Windows 8 Is a Cognitive Burden

Comments Filter:
  • To paraphrase... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by roc97007 (608802) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:18PM (#41084999) Journal

    ...Putting a phone interface on a desktop was a bad idea. We already knew that, but it's nice to get confirmation.

  • by MrEricSir (398214) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:22PM (#41085057) Homepage

    Manual window management. It's 2012, if computers can drive cars, 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?

    Yes, I know nerds hate change. But it's time for GUIs to move on, precisely because manual window management is counterproductive for almost every task. Maybe Metro isn't perfect, but you can't blame MS for trying.

  • Then perhaps they'd quit their jihad on users.

  • by MetalliQaZ (539913) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:23PM (#41085079)

    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

  • by Githaron (2462596) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:24PM (#41085099)
    Power users are not going to forgo the mouse and keyboard for non-mobile use until brain-to-computer interfaces are created.
  • by Michael_gr (1066324) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:24PM (#41085103)
    Tablets and other small devices are hot now? let's tailor our new OS to fit them, make every icon and control oversized, every window maximized, and throw customization out the window. Professionals and other people with PCs and large screens? screw them!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:26PM (#41085129)

    Windows has had automatic window management for years. It's just not obvious how to use it.

  • by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:27PM (#41085161) Journal
    Yes of course, we should move on to Windows 1.0 with single-window interface.
  • by jenningsthecat (1525947) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:27PM (#41085163)

    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.

  • by p0p0 (1841106) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:27PM (#41085167)
    What are you getting at? Moving windows is such a minimal task. It allows you to conform the desktop to your liking. Why you think removing that is a good idea is beyond me. What is you solution to windows? Driving cars in completely different to intuitively knowing what a user is going to do next. All your post amounts to is "Why can't my computer tell the future for me?"
  • by HalAtWork (926717) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:28PM (#41085173)
    The reason for the start page is to make the desktop look scary. Average users don't want to drop to the command line for any reason, the black box with cryptic commands looks scary and isn't intuitive to them. MS is introducing another layer on top of the desktop that really simplifies things. When an average user launches a traditional app, they will be dropped to the desktop, which will seem scary to them, the apps that run in that "mode" aren't as simple as they're used to, there's menus on top and tons of toolbar buttons instead of a dumbed down phone interface. This will force developers to adapt, because users will no longer want to run traditional desktop apps anymore, it'll seem too complicated.

    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?
  • by sageres (561626) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:30PM (#41085213)

    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.

  • by Georules (655379) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:30PM (#41085225)
    Have you used Windows 8 metro? I think you'll find that this does not solve the window management problem at all. It leaves me wondering half the time how I am going to get back to a window I just had open a moment ago. At least manual window management, as you call it, I always had the confidence that I wasn't going to lose windows want. Certainly, things could be much better, but this is a step backwards.
  • bad premise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LodCrappo (705968) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:34PM (#41085289) Homepage

    "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?

  • 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.

  • by Tom (822) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:35PM (#41085311) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:41PM (#41085409)

    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 believe this window management is counterproductive. Well, it isn't. Real world window design hasn't changed since much since the first real window was invented. Why? Because it's the best design we have. Same with the current desktop GUIs.

     

  • by RichMan (8097) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:46PM (#41085493)

    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.

  • by MickyTheIdiot (1032226) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:46PM (#41085509) Homepage Journal

    "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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:50PM (#41085571)

    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 interfaces. With this, you will always have at least one shitty interface.

    I would not complain about a metro-style UI on a tablet, but I would not use it on a desktop.

  • by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:51PM (#41085593) Homepage
    Maybe because we all have different needs and the best way to cater to all of them is to give something very flexible. That and you're comparing a handful of cars driven with extra car and professionals watching over it vs billions of people using computers for thousands of different tasks.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @03:52PM (#41085613)
    Pretty much since there was a version of Windows with a start menu. Sure, it got to be less and less over time, but at first, usage of the command line was prominent as Windows lacked many tools and apps when it first was poised to succeed DOS. And yes, users were scared of it. Just like when Linux was first starting to get popular on the desktop, it was mainly suited to developers and power users. The average user would balk at having to use the command line. The need for using it got to be less and less over time and it became more and more accepted for desktop use. Now MS is poising Windows users to have to go through this process in order to bring an even simpler (in good and bad ways depending on who you are) interface to the desktop.
  • by SilverJets (131916) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @04:14PM (#41085937) Homepage

    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.

  • by fm6 (162816) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @04:16PM (#41085977) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by roc97007 (608802) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @04:22PM (#41086071) Journal

    > 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.

    ...which could be paraphrased as "windows everywhere", which has demonstrably not worked in the past ("Start" on mobile devices) and still doesn't work (tiles on desktop).

  • by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @04:24PM (#41086093) Homepage Journal
    It isn't really a large step for MS in terms of development. Since NT4 (and even better since 2k), they componentized everything so that you can use Windows for an embedded headless system, or a whole desktop OS. I believe they saw this as another way to encompass everything, but made a wrong turn at Albuquerque
  • by MrNiceguy_KS (800771) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @04:38PM (#41086247)

    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.

  • by CAIMLAS (41445) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @04:38PM (#41086251) Homepage

    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.)

  • by Man On Pink Corner (1089867) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @04:54PM (#41086481)

    Just.... just stop. No one's falling for it. Whatever they're paying you people, it shouldn't be enough to buy your dignity.

  • by rabtech (223758) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @04:55PM (#41086489) Homepage

    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?

  • by RocketRabbit (830691) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @04:56PM (#41086501)

    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.

  • by tlhIngan (30335) <slashdot@wor f . n et> on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @06:16PM (#41087533)

    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.

    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.

  • by ImprovOmega (744717) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @06:53PM (#41088025)
    More to the point from a corporate perspective if I log on as Administrator (or some admin user) and install something, it shows up on my Metro interface (so far so good), but if I log out and have the user log in, it's missing from theirs. So...newly installed programs have to be searched for and pinned *by each user of the computer* in order for them to get access to it. This is outright unacceptable in an enterprise environment.

    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.
  • by DrYak (748999) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @07:00PM (#41088101) Homepage

    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.

  • Further example: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DrYak (748999) on Wednesday August 22, 2012 @07:16PM (#41088305) Homepage

    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.

Someone is unenthusiastic about your work.

Working...