Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
GUI Windows

Microsoft Tries Another Icon Theme For Windows 10 236

jones_supa writes: Back in February, users decried the new icon look in Windows 10. In response to that feedback, Microsoft has implemented a new icon pack in build 10125, which was leaked early but expected to arrive soon for Technical Preview testers. Screenshots show what the final version of the OS could look like when it goes live this summer. The new icons go all-in on a flat approach, following the same design cues as the rest of the operating system, but the "pixel art" style has been abandoned. Once again, Softpedia asked for user experiences, and this time the comments have been mostly positive.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Microsoft Tries Another Icon Theme For Windows 10

Comments Filter:
  • very iconic.
  • by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:02AM (#49767931)

    Those "screenshots" are only 600x375. They're more on the side of being huge thumbnails than actual screenshots.

    Unless of course you're still using a 640x480 display, in which case you're seeing an article from the future. Hello from the future! Buy these things called "Bitcoins", they'll be worth hundreds of dollars some day!

    • If 640x480 is the standard resolution of the time, you might want to warn them about 9/11 too. There'd still be time to avoid it.

      • by tepples ( 727027 )

        Sending warnings back in time doesn't work because top leaders just ignore the warnings [businessinsider.com]. This sort of Novikov effect [wikipedia.org] is how the timeline remains consistent despite chronomeddlers.

        And 640x480 was still the standard resolution for set-top boxes until around 2007 when HDTV sales took off.

        • And 640x480 was still the standard resolution for set-top boxes until around 2007

          Define "set top box", since both you and I know, that both the PS2 and the original Xbox were capable of putting out a 1080i signal.

          The PS3 was released in 2006, it's a set top box, when using HDMI by default it outputs the highest resolution your display supports up to 1080p.

          Now admittedly, if you're you, and you're babysitting kids in the early to mid 2000's with a SNES/PSone/ or perhaps a PS2 attached to an SDTV, you might not realize the HD revolution is passed you by. Sony was selling nice little 15

    • by TWX ( 665546 )

      Those "screenshots" are only 600x375. They're more on the side of being huge thumbnails than actual screenshots.

      Unless of course you're still using a 640x480 display, in which case you're seeing an article from the future. Hello from the future! Buy these things called "Bitcoins", they'll be worth hundreds of dollars some day!

      Heh. Given how the icons are looking more like icons did in the days of Windows 3.1, maybe having a low-res screen is next. The Hipsters will love it!

    • Hello the Future of May 2015, This is January 2014. I bought a $880 bitcoin just like you said! How's it doing, will be I be rich then?

      • Better hold them for a little longer... I only said "hundreds of dollars" so you kind of overshot there, mister optimist. Didn't you notice them going from 1200 to 880? Who buys on a down trend?

    • Those "screenshots" are only 600x375. They're more on the side of being huge thumbnails than actual screenshots.

      I like the fact that an article that talks about the recycling bin icon actually hides the recycling bin icon under some stupid overlay when you open the oversized thumbnail.

  • by tom229 ( 1640685 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:05AM (#49767941)
    Sorry, but they were. I'd rather simple and clean.
    • by Njorthbiatr ( 3776975 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:17AM (#49768021)

      Why not include both?

      • by mister_playboy ( 1474163 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @10:14AM (#49768339)

        Because the concept of "choice" is anathema to UI designers circa 2015.

        • by iampiti ( 1059688 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @12:01PM (#49769029)
          Exactly! Seems like the motto is :"One true,flat,ugly way".
          • by DocHoncho ( 1198543 ) <dochoncho&gmail,com> on Monday May 25, 2015 @05:21PM (#49770983) Homepage

            It's not ugly! It's modern and elegant!

            You know, unlike all those other UI designs that were modern and elegant. They're all old and busted now. UI design has more to do with fashion trends than any sort of objective basis in usability.

            • by chrish ( 4714 )

              Gather 'round children, and let me spin a yarn of the old days when human-computer interface guidelines existed, and were created using actual science instead of fashion trends...

          • by sootman ( 158191 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @07:32PM (#49771767) Homepage Journal

            The other motto is "hide everything, because we don't understand the difference between 'actually making something simple to use' and merely hiding complexity."

            Dear Mozilla (and everyone else), fuck you. [imgur.com] This shit is RETARDED. "Look everyone! We got rid of all those confusing menus! Now there's just one button! ... Which spawns a bunch of menus.

            Oh, and the regular menus also all still exist.

            Oh, and we have TWO buttons like that, because we are in full-on shithead mode. Why hide everything behind one button, when you can force user to FIRST choose from one of TWO buttons! Mwa ha ha ha ha! One looks like a fox, the other looks like a hamburger. NEITHER has ANYTHING to do with what lies underneath! Hey, "New Private Window" is pretty important... put it in BOTH! But only put "new tab" in one. But make "new tab" a menu, and put "new window" underneath it. Got all that? Good. I need another drink. It's almost 10am!

            Seriously -- I couldn't make this shit up. There's a special spot in hell waiting for you douchebags. You are collectively wasting YEARS of people's lives with this monkey shit.

        • Because the concept of "choice" is anathema to UI designers circa 2015.

          "Choice" --- as the geek defines it --- has never been a big part of Microsoft's success in its core markets. The same can be said, of course, for Apple.

  • Looking better (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Ol Olsoc ( 1175323 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:07AM (#49767951)
    Much better.

    I wonder if people get too hung up on system icons however - same thing happened with OSX Yosemite. I can change icons in a few seconds rather than beyatch about it.

    Now if I just don't have to go to the web to find out how to do things I've done for years, in their other Os's, we might be talking here.

    Also, I hope they've put POPmail back into the system mail program. It's not like half the world uses it or anything.

    • Re:Looking better (Score:4, Insightful)

      by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @10:23AM (#49768415)

      ...I wonder if people get too hung up on system icons...

      The icons are the first things the user sees when the desktop loads. The icons are what is shown when the notebook or PC sits on display in a store.

      .
      The icons are the visual "come hither" for the operating system. An OS with unappealing icons has to work harder to appeal to customers.

    • It's not "beyatching", it's feedback, and Microsoft is ASKING for feedback regarding Windows 10. As a beta user and long time customer, it's perfectly reasonable to let them know I think their icons look horrible. I've given feedback for more substantial improvements, but I make sure to let them know about any aesthetic issues I see as well.

      Is it really a major deal? No, not really. Part of it, though, at least for me, is the notion that all the way up the chain of command at Microsoft, there isn't one

      • No, not really. Part of it, though, at least for me, is the notion that all the way up the chain of command at Microsoft, there isn't one person who looked at those icons and said "My God, those are hideous! Someone fix those damned icons!". It just feels sort of pathetic,

        Its groupthink in action. It's the same exact thing that allowed KFC to thing that this was an appropriate commercial:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

        Whereas normal people would call that assault, The sociaopatchs that produced it, and whatever assholes at KFC that approved it never thought for a second it was wildely inappropriate.

        The craziest thing is, both processes, the awful icons and the filmed assault probably went through dozens of people to be approved. Whereas a couple people in a office

  • by etash ( 1907284 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:09AM (#49767967)
    I (genuinely) don't understand this tendency with flat buttons and interfaces, they do look slight of "90-sh revamped". Generally speaking through the years, changes in the UI have been positive and IMHO they were at their peak with Windows 7.

    What's the sudden (the last year or two) appeal with the super flat GUIs all over the place ?

    Change for the sake of .. UX experts...I apologize, for the sake of change ?
    • by ArcadeMan ( 2766669 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:12AM (#49767989)

      The problem is, it seems companies are letting designers do the job of the UI experts.

      • Well about the only thing all the "UI experts" in Redmond have managed to do in 15-odd years is the Windows snap functionality (or whatever it's called - win key + arrows).

    • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:37AM (#49768127)

      Change for the sake of change. Programmers can't grasp the fact that maybe there is an ultimate end design. A hammer made today still looks like a hammer from a century ago. There is a reason for that.

      • A hammer made today still looks like a hammer from a century ago.

        No, it doesn't.
        Hammers come in all kinds of different colors with all kinds of designs.

        Also, a UI for an inherently complex and extremely powerful and versatile thing such as an OS is not a fucking hammer. That's like comparing an industrial complex to a dog house.

        • You have maybe three kinds of hammers. Standard claw hammer for nailing, A sledgehammer with two blunt faces, and a ball peen hammer to concentrate the force. A quick check on Wikipedia shows a claw hammer design from the 16th century that looks exactly like a hammer made today. What does color have to do with it?

          • What does color have to do with it?

            Really?

            What does the pixel configuration of the recycle bin icon have to do with its functionality?
            That's right, very, very little. Even if it were just a yellow square, it'd still have 'Recycle Bin' under it and the fundamental functionality would not be different. Just like a yellow polka dot hammer.

            Also: http://stanford25blog.stanford... [stanford.edu] (reflex hammers)
            And Google 'design hammer'. There are definitely hammers out there that look as stupid as all the flat UI crap we're dealing with today.

            The big differenc

        • by mjwx ( 966435 )

          A hammer made today still looks like a hammer from a century ago.

          No, it doesn't.
          Hammers come in all kinds of different colors with all kinds of designs.

          I bet you believe in UX too.

          Why does it matter what colour a hammer is? What function does the colour have?

          A hammer is the same basic shape it has been in for millennia. A flat sided lump of metal attached to a handle. Even the claw hammer is over 500 years old and looks very similar to a modern claw hammer.

          The biggest innovation in hammers in the last 100 odd years was switching from wooden handles and leather wraps to plastics and polymers. Even then, this is a slow evolution rather than a radica

    • by jones_supa ( 887896 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:45AM (#49768161)

      What's the sudden (the last year or two) appeal with the super flat GUIs all over the place ?

      It's the move to fully scalable UIs. Cool graphics have not yet arrived at that scene. Making everything flat and simple is the easy way out.

    • My guess is that this is an invasion of "design experts" who have zero ability to make a beautiful and usable UI element at the same time. Or if you prefer, is plain incompetence in an area where the subject needs to be an artist. For example, why my Windows icons cannot be like this ones [iconarchive.com]? Everaldo Coelho (the designer of my example link) is too expensive for Microsoft?
    • by Wheely ( 2500 )

      I completely agree.

      On my ipad I have three icons next to each other that look almost exactly the same. On my Android phone I have something similar and the Dolphin browser on my phone has loads of little blobs that bear no relation to anything and the only way to find out what they do is to press them.

      With OSX I have chosen not to upgrade to the latest just in case I end up not knowing what anything does. Strangely, Apple are still producing Logic X with things that look exactly like their physical counte

    • UI trends are following marketing all around the world. It has nothing to do with UX experts. The designs are all about not wanting to be the person walking to work in a bright blue suit in the 90s after everyone has moved on.

      The entire world is changing to a flat look, not just advertising and company logos, but also physical things (tables, chairs and even whole houses have modern styles which emphasises flat colours and straight edges). The UIs are simply catching up with what the rest of the world is do

  • by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:12AM (#49767985) Homepage

    So, instead of trying focus on what kind of user experience we're going to have (which sounds like they think the tablet interface is what people actually want for everything) ... and focusing on making all of that good and usable ... why does it sound like throwing out new sets of icons means someone has lost the plot and is focused on the eye candy, and ignoring the fact that for a desktop machine Metro is a completely garbage interface?

    I like my Windows 8.1 machine. But it was really only useful once I basically removed all of the stuff that Microsoft thinks they innovated or that was valuable.

    Metro on a 23" non-touch screen monitor is a pathetic interface for Windows. If Microsoft is going to think everybody is running everything on a touch screen interface, instead of a mouse and keyboard ... they're doing a shitty job of knowing what people actually use computers for.

    But, hey, we've been working diligently on the icons. 'Cuz, that's what people really want.

    • by hey! ( 33014 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:15AM (#49768013) Homepage Journal

      I believe the metaphor you're looking for is "re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic".

    • by MyNicknameSucks ( 1952390 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @10:34AM (#49768471)

      For the record, I also don't like Metro on a desktop PC.

      That said ... Metro was optimized for touch and keyboard (but definitely not mouse). Type to search is usually faster than drilling through the Start menu with a mouse if you go more than a menu or two deep. Old-school shortcuts like alt-tab to switch windows and alt-F4 to close the current window are still there. If anyone cares, here's a list -- http://windows.microsoft.com/e... [microsoft.com] . We're going back 30 years or so, but I believe that some of those shortcuts go all the way back to WordStar (ctrl-c to copy, for instance).

      FWIW, I don't think it's Metro that MS bungled, but rather how the plain old desktop, Metro, and settings were intermingled, especially in 8.0. Metro is fine for what it is: a UI designed for single / double-tasking media consumption. The default full-screen view is slick for Netflix and YouTube, while the default Mail and Calendar apps are good enough for my mom, but horrible for work needs. My biggest gripe is that the default apps for image viewing, the calculator, user settings and so on were all Metro apps -- even when launched from the desktop. One of the absolute stupidest things I've ever seen on a PC was day 2 or 3 with 8.0. I was writing an email in Outlook and wanted to double check some math. I fired up the calculator and was presented with a 22" fullscreen 4 function calculator that completely obscured the numbers I wanted to check.

      Throw in how some OS settings were only available in Metro ... and, yeah.

      But my issues with Metro were, by and large, focused on how I kept on being punted into it even when I most definitely did not want to be.

      As for the icons? I think MS is simply going for consistency across the different flavours of device (phone, tablet, desktop). As 8.1 stands right now, it has two sets of icons, one for desktop, one for Metro. With 10's move towards windowed Metro apps, it doesn't really make much sense to maintain multiple sets of icons -- that lack of consistency, in and of itself, I believe, is poor UI design.

  • Crazy idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by itzly ( 3699663 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:24AM (#49768051)

    Why not simply let the user choose what they want ? Personally, I don't really care what they look like, but once I'm used to a set of icons, I would prefer to keep it.

    • Why not simply let the user choose what they want ?

      Because the user would choose Windows 7, and Microsoft can't allow THAT!

    • Why not simply let the user choose what they want ? Personally, I don't really care what they look like, but once I'm used to a set of icons, I would prefer to keep it.

      Because ... because ... er, we don't have enough disk space or something? Yeah, that's it ...

      What do you want? It's not like these are computers and you can configure them or anything!

  • Yuck (Score:4, Informative)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:29AM (#49768079)
    Probably one of the most unappealing set of icons that I've seen in a long while.
  • by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:38AM (#49768133)

    It still looks like flat Windows 8 icons. What am I supposed to be seeing? Looks about as good as FVWM did in the 90s.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @09:51AM (#49768183)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Microsoft spent 20 years teaching people how to use their UI then just throws that all out for no reason at all.

      There is a reason: apps for the new paradigm (Metro?) have to go through their app store and they get a cut for each app sold there. As always, it all comes down to money.

  • Comments have overwhelmingly been to the tune of "erh... yeah. ok. Whatever". But I guess MS counts anything but outright resistance to the point of making a shitstorm a "positive reaction" these days.

  • by dpbsmith ( 263124 ) on Monday May 25, 2015 @10:30AM (#49768451) Homepage

    People used to do real tests with real people, in controlled situations, measuring response time, counting errors, videotaping what they were actually doing, finding out where people are getting stuck and using that feedback to redesign and try again.

    This was common all the way back to the 1970s. People like Ben Schneiderman were doing formal research and writing textbooks in the 1980s.

    Why do I no longer hear about any of this being done? Why is it all about the visual tastes of individual designers?

    There's nothing wrong with beauty--the original edition of Inside Mac, 1983, said in so many words "objects are designed to look beautiful on the screen." But beauty and style are not the same as usability.

    All of the insane "mystery meat" UI of today, in which you cannot find an affordance unless you already know where to click to make it visible, cannot possible be usable, even if some people enjoy developing the necessary skill set.

    Without real testing, you always get the same things: the personal taste of the manager in charge, who is sure that what is natural for him is natural for everybody; or, the personal taste of the developer, who is sure that what is natural for him is natural for everybody.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by iampiti ( 1059688 )
      I read somewhere that, while developing Windows 8, it was found in internal testing that most people hated the Metro interface. They kept it anyway.
      The takeaway is that they did test and tests were negative but they went on for business reasons.
      They want you to get used to the metro UI so that you'll get used to it and you'll buy a Windows Phone phone. Also so that you buy metro apps through their store and they get a 30% cut, so that you use their services and they get your data and money , etc.
      TL;DR: T
    • Microsoft has one of the best internal test setups in the industry, complete with mirrored windows etc.

      They failed anyway.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Nothing says "modern" like that new floppy drive icon.
    Progress!

Real Programmers don't eat quiche. They eat Twinkies and Szechwan food.

Working...