Why they designed Windows 8 the way they did

[Coke Robot]

You're argument is sounding a lot like this (the shop owner): Monty Python - Dead Parrot - YouTube.

Cheers

Ray

This is true, you have to complain until you're blue in the mouth!!

 

[HippsieGypsie]

Going from last to first, people wouldn't and are not alienated by electric cars, as everything in an electric car replicates that of a traditionally powered car. Without badges etc, you couldn't even identify an electric car from any other when at a standstill and turned off. And they replicate traditionally engined cars for the very reason so as not to alienate potential buyers.

As for the first part, the car industry is huge and varied, there is room for white goods (aka Camry) and bespoke (aka Ferrari) and anything in between. The car industry provides vehicles for many an varied uses, be it utilitarian or completely impractical but enjoyable. Everyone has a choice for what they need or desire.

OK. People can’t differentiate an EV to a conventional car from the outside, but get into one to drive it and use it for awhile. They might feel "alienated". It may not have the same exceloration rate, top speed, or mileage range per charge verses a filled gas tank, just as examples. Ultimately, it’s similar, but different. So, therefore, people should be educated as to what the simularties and differences are of an EV so as to make a good choice. How it performs, how to charge it, and the maintenance factor, just as a few examples.

Same thing with 8. When using, they might feel "alienated". People should be educated as to the simularities, but at the same time the differences. Start Screen verses Start Menu. Tiles verses Icons. Charms verses Menus. I’m sure you get my gist. BTW, this is the main point of the video -> To educate people as to why MS designed 8 as they did.

F1 on the desktop still works the same. There’s a Help tile on the Start Screen. There’s a few “learning 8” apps one can install. All there to educate the user on how to use the OS.

An OS, in itself, does nothing. An OS is designed to support and provide an environment where other programs can function. When an OS doesn't provide that environment and support, but imposes its own requirements, it ignores its prime objective. To ignore or belittle the needs of the traditional user base, is fraught with folly.

The needs of the traditional user base continues to be supplied via the tradition Win32 desktop. Just because it now a portal and takes second place to the Start Screen does not qualify that it doesn’t. Also, just because the Start Screen replaces the Start Menu does not qualify that it doesn’t. Whatever application one could run in 7, one can run in 8. The Start Menu, now being the Start Screen is in a different place -> It's own screen.

Who says that an OS can’t stretch beyond “design to support and provide an environment”? To me the Start Screen verses Start Menu is one one the great inovations of 8. It’s simular to Start Menu, gadgets, and icons on the desktop of past Oss. All in different places I might add. A cluttered mess to me. Start Screen combines all. “The house made out of the Internet” was a good quote and explanation. Can one get all that at-a-glance updated information out of a Start Menu? Icons? Gadgets? -> No.

8 is similar, but different would be the positive conotation. 8 is different, but similar would be the negative conotation. I wish more people would see and use the first.

There's so much more, but I won't get into it for time's sake. Too-a-roo for now ......

 

[Ray8]

When you go to drive an electric car, the only functional difference is the lack of a normal gear box. It still also has a steering wheel, accelerator pedal and brake pedal, which all function in the same way. No one should ever use car analogies when describing Microsoft products, unless they start to build cars. Maybe teir next idea is to use Kinect to control cars.

I have never said that the traditional desktop is not available, it's currently essential for Windows 8 to function, but it's been castrated in part, so that you are not totally able to relinquish the Modern interface without resorting to third party software. No one can deny that. The Modern interface is not a portal, it's a repacement for a traditional desktop loaded with icons. It simply looks tidier (but that too can be a matter of taste). What really is the difference between this:



and this:



This is not innovation, in fact it's slightly retrograde, in that you can't open multiple programs, in multiple sessions (two appears to be the max given that the system meets the Microsoft specs). If the desktop was completely removed, how would you contemplate doing things that you do now? Everything on one screen, predominantly one program visible at a time.

These are legitimate complaints by many people. Why is it so difficult to accept genuine criticism when it's quite warranted? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a good chance that it is a duck.

 

[mdmd]

We are not yet, at the stage, where the metro can replace desktop multitasking, maybe in 5 years or so...

IMO, IMHO > If that is your wallpaper - yikes - what a disaster ! - ..... if that is what you like, then O.K.
A program like Stardock Fences would be very helpful perhaps IMO.

Your APPS screen is very nice, clean, efficient IMO, IMHO.
BTW, if you are so inclined, using Decor8, you can set your start screen to have the same wallpaper as your desktop thereby reducing the alleged jarring effect. .... and the start screen can slide your icons (tiles) to provide more available links.
If you do not like the start screen then that is no help, sorry.

From my POV, your desktop is difficult to look at IMO. Somewhat like this.



I prefer this. IMO > preference...



I am guessing you're not a fan of semantic zooming either. Oh well...

http://www.eightforums.com/general-discussion/9766-proper-desktop.html

 

[Chrono]

The difference is, the All Apps part of the Start Screen is not seen often while the desktop in 7 is seen all the time.

If the Desktop were removed, they wouldn't be stupid enough to allow the limitations Metro has right now.

 

[Ray8]

I've merely pulled examples off the net to illustrate a point, this is my Windows 7 and Windows 8 desktop (without the gadgets):



Quite frankly, for me, it's much easier and more logical to use.

And in the examples that I provided, the only reason that the Windows 8 screen looks tidier, is because it doesn't have the distracting background. That's at least one aesthetic that Microsoft has gotten right. Make the background in the first image a single colour and both would ostensibly look the same.

 

[mdmd]

Decor8 is really a great way to customize.

Start Screen.



Desktop.

 

[Chrono]

Decor8 is really a great way to customize.

Start Screen.

View attachment 12834

Desktop.

View attachment 12835

Don't like the idea of paying for 3rd party programs like this, but it's a pretty neat feature. I do like stardock's products (used their dock in Vista). May consider it sometime.

 

[Philgates]

When you go to drive an electric car, the only functional difference is the lack of a normal gear box. It still also has a steering wheel, accelerator pedal and brake pedal, which all function in the same way. No one should ever use car analogies when describing Microsoft products, unless they start to build cars. Maybe teir next idea is to use Kinect to control cars.

I have never said that the traditional desktop is not available, it's currently essential for Windows 8 to function, but it's been castrated in part, so that you are not totally able to relinquish the Modern interface without resorting to third party software. No one can deny that. The Modern interface is not a portal, it's a repacement for a traditional desktop loaded with icons. It simply looks tidier (but that too can be a matter of taste). What really is the difference between this:

View attachment 12828

and this:

View attachment 12829

This is not innovation, in fact it's slightly retrograde, in that you can't open multiple programs, in multiple sessions (two appears to be the max given that the system meets the Microsoft specs). If the desktop was completely removed, how would you contemplate doing things that you do now? Everything on one screen, predominantly one program visible at a time.

These are legitimate complaints by many people. Why is it so difficult to accept genuine criticism when it's quite warranted? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, there's a good chance that it is a duck.

Yes Windows 8 is a duck alright!...............................

 

[nick]

Touch can be successfully applied to the desktop / laptop using a multitouch pad. Apple has proved this very successfully. Applying a good touchpad to Win8 makes it much more usable on the desktop. I do think eliminating any hierarchical containment in Metro was a huge mistake. I also think the jarring transition between Metro, Desktop and Full Screen Apps is confusing and shows poor UI design.

 

[mdmd]

Touch can be successfully applied to the desktop / laptop using a multitouch pad. Apple has proved this very successfully. Applying a good touchpad to Windows 8 makes it much more usable on the desktop.

That's fine. o.k. ...but I have been using a Logitech multitouch pad for about 2 months and have currently decided to shelve it in favor of a Logitech performance mx (mouse). I find the mouse to be perhaps a little better as a device to use in any Windows OS.

I do think eliminating any hierarchical containment in Metro was a huge mistake. I also think the jarring transition between Metro, Desktop and Full Screen Apps is confusing and shows poor UI design.

Your POV is yours. That's fine. o.k. I am sooooo glad MS has eliminated the annoyance of nesting hierarchies.
Also, I find nothing jarring about metro and desktop. Not confusing. .... and it is amusing to me that thousands of engineers and hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to design Windows 8, that anyone can say it shows poor UI design. Each to their own POV.

 

[Ray8]

Touch can be successfully applied to the desktop / laptop using a multitouch pad. Apple has proved this very successfully. Applying a good touchpad to Win8 makes it much more usable on the desktop. I do think eliminating any hierarchical containment in Metro was a huge mistake. I also think the jarring transition between Metro, Desktop and Full Screen Apps is confusing and shows poor UI design.

If the touchpads work like that on laptops, they'd be completely useless for me, as they never seem to work with my fingers, too dry or something.

Actually, your last point is raises another issue that completely baffles me about the Modern interface. You have a large (or two in my case) monitor and you always have to use the applications full screen. Why on earth didn't Microsoft allow the apps to open at any (or at least selective) sizes, so that you could open a number of them at once on a single/multiple screen?

How good would it have been if you could open apps to a size to suit your needs, place them where you want them and retain that size and location every time you started Windows. Olso, once the apps are in those positions, you could use them without them filling the screen (in case anyone misunderstands what I'm suggesting). And if you wanted to open up a lesser use app, you just went to another start screen, just like you do now (or something like a start button).

There's been such a focus on touch, where one applciation is open, that there really doesn't seem to have been much focus on functionality where one wants to do things with many applications.

 

[Ray8]

.... and it is amusing to me that thousands of engineers and hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to design Windows 8, that anyone can say it shows poor UI design. Each to their own POV.

.

No product that has had thousands of engineers and hundreds of millons of dollars spent on it has ever failed in the marketplace. Oh, wait...

 

[mdmd]

.... and it is amusing to me that thousands of engineers and hundreds of millions of dollars were spent to design Windows 8, that anyone can say it shows poor UI design. Each to their own POV.

.

No product that has had thousands of engineers and hundreds of millons of dollars spent on it has ever failed in the marketplace. Oh, wait...

It might fail. 8 certainly does not have the numbers 7 had at this point. You are correct. The marketplace has shown less than enthusiastic response to 8. My POV is that, it is not poor UI design, but rather a shock to what people are used to. People are used to the Windows 95 and NT paradigm and most, it would seem, are having some difficulty with 8. They don't like the apps, the metro, the tiles, the apparent duality and hidden features. Anyone could hold the POV that 8 has a poor UI design, but that view makes no sense to me. From watching the OP video about UX week, the presentation did, IMO, lack some UI details. The MS rep should have addressed the start menu vs the apps area rather than focus on metro apps. They do have a right to be commercial in their approach to UI design but the backlash from dedicated traditionalists will probably damage their profitability. Who knows? I do not. I haven't heard of any major marketplace disaster for Windows 8 to date except for the endless hostile reviews of article writers and commentators whose job it is to create controversy. So far, millions of downloads have occurred, and millions of devices will be running Windows 8.

 

[Ray8]

I'm not so sure that people find it a shock. I certainly didn't, as it's been publicised for ages and I tried the preview releases, before I bought two licences, but it still boils down to functionality. Windows 8 Modern interface isn't completely functional. It certainly works to the extent that it was designed to work, but as I pointed out in my earlier post, it seems only half baked. There is so much more that could have been done.

Firstly, cater to the traditional users, at least in the first few iterations, by retaining the full desktop experience as an alternative to the Modern interface. People would have tried the Modern interface, if for no other reason than curiosity and the fact that there are some useful apps, like the weather one. That would have let them get used to what lay on the other side.

Secondly, as I suggested, the Modern interface should have allowed for the apps to be sized, displayed and used in a far more versatile way; that's innovation. All that has really been achieved is a desktop full of icons that do nothing more than open full screen to be able to be used. Why can't you open, size, move and use the apps any way that you want? You couldn't do that on a mobile phone screen, effectively anyway, but you could on a tablet or a PC with one, two or as many screens as you have. Why can't I select an icon and swipe it to one screen and open it (to any size) and then do the same with two or three others?

Or am I being a little too far out there with my radical ideas?

 

[SIW2]

Not far out at all.

Poor product management.

MS deserve a bloody nose.

Win8 really should fail.

 

[Ray8]

Win8 really should fail.

I personally don't want Windows 8 to fail, but Microsoft needs to be more flexible and imaginative (think outside the square). When I first saw this (and that's just about all you ever saw of Windows 8 in ads, even now) - note: this is not a screen shot of my tablet:



I actually thought that you could interract with the icons as you saw them on the screen and when you wanted to do something, you'd touch or hover over one of the icons with a mouse and it would expand something like a pop-up and you'd do whatever, or go full screen if you chose. I never envisaged that the icons would just be a button (though some show changing results etc) that took you to a full page and everything else would disappear.

My fault in some respects for not playing fully with them when I tried the pre-release versions briefly, but I also thought that the exciting and obvious features like that were going to arrive in the full version, that is, keep the really interesting stuff quiet for a time.

If this really is all that Windows 8 is going to offer, it's not going to excite the mainstream greatly at all and the complaints will keep rolling in and sales will go no where.

 

[Coke Robot]

View attachment 12828




This slapped my eyeballs. Rather busy to me... and a little distracting...

 

[Coke Robot]

I'm not so sure that people find it a shock. I certainly didn't, as it's been publicised for ages and I tried the preview releases, before I bought two licences, but it still boils down to functionality. Windows 8 Modern interface isn't completely functional. It certainly works to the extent that it was designed to work, but as I pointed out in my earlier post, it seems only half baked. There is so much more that could have been done.

Firstly, cater to the traditional users, at least in the first few iterations, by retaining the full desktop experience as an alternative to the Modern interface. People would have tried the Modern interface, if for no other reason than curiosity and the fact that there are some useful apps, like the weather one. That would have let them get used to what lay on the other side.

Secondly, as I suggested, the Modern interface should have allowed for the apps to be sized, displayed and used in a far more versatile way; that's innovation. All that has really been achieved is a desktop full of icons that do nothing more than open full screen to be able to be used. Why can't you open, size, move and use the apps any way that you want? You couldn't do that on a mobile phone screen, effectively anyway, but you could on a tablet or a PC with one, two or as many screens as you have. Why can't I select an icon and swipe it to one screen and open it (to any size) and then do the same with two or three others?

Or am I being a little too far out there with my radical ideas?

I think as you said insinuated, the Desktop and All Apps aren't too radically different, just that All Apps is neater.

The Start Screen and start menu aren't really radically different when you break it down. Yes, there may be a few useful apps to have, the rest may not be depending on who you are.

I say first, learn the new was of Windows 8. There is a full Desktop experience, NOTHING is legitimately taken away other than a few features that weren't being used too much to justify keeping them, like DVD Maker. If anything, Windows 8 makes the Windows 7 Desktop more refined and with a few better useful features, like Hybrid Boot, Defender, and Storage Spaces. I think honestly, if given the use of familiar over not really tested and used, people will default to familiar and it would take too long in the long run to fully adopt the new. The Start Screen has a neat thing, if you're on the Desktop and need Libraries easily accessed from Start, you right click on them and hit Pin to Start. A tile is made!

Having windowed apps is something I'd like to see happen, but if Windows Phone has anything to say, it's that Live Tiles are what make Windows 8 the new Windows. On Windows Phone, you can have small, medium, or large tiles, all of which are live. So effectively, a small tile is a small window to show a little bit of info, like a missed call or new email. A medium tile gives a bit larger window to peer into to show some new feeds and such. A large tile is a large window that shows more detail to content, like a new email that shows who it's from, and some lines of the email as well as how many you have. That's just a simple mundane example, Windows 8 has a new app platform that has developers that are kind of using Live Tiles. Once more apps have useful Live Tiles, having to open app and resize them won't happen too often. I'd rather open and resize app windows like OneNote or Word or IE and such over having to resize an internet browser window to check into sites every so often.

I don't think you're too radical, just not radical enough.

 

[Ray8]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. Time will tell who is closer to the mark.