Slashdot Mirror
Improving the Windows XP User Interface?
Pimpin' Up Windows asks: "Many of us are forced to live with Windows XP for our day-to-day computing needs - at work, home or school - and longingly look to the not only beautiful, but functional and efficient, Mac OS X 'Aqua' user interface. Apart from just themes, what would be Slashdot reader's suggestions for improving the user interface of XP? What changes, add-ons and other improvements could further enhance its usability?"
Clippy. Or Bonzai Buddy. Take your pick. :)
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
There are some good ones here. I like:
One of my biggest pet peeves is that if I make the Windows XP taskbar 2 rows tall instead of one, the start button only takes up the top row instead of spanning both or taking up the bottom row.
This results in a spot underneath the start button that has no use. This also breaks the shortcut of clicking on the bottom left corner of the screen to access the start menu.
I design user interfaces for a free network management application,
Switch to classic mode
Turn off menu delays
Turn off every other stupid effect
Install unix command line tools
Never use IE or Outlook
Install some decent fonts
It might not be as pretty, but it is more functional.
It would be cool if this helper would popup whenever you are doing something and show you ways to do things better. Oh and it could look like some smart guy too which would make it really cool!
Truly, if you're into function over form, the Win2K interface is far more refined than the prettier, but painfully illogical backwards step that became XP. I am amazed, yet not surprised, at the number of people who are barely competent enough to create a desktop icon, but manage to figure out how to return to the "classic" style. I hope the next Windows interface will be a return to crisp function and logical work flow.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
Make it NOT look like froofy pastel crap that makes people violently ill! That's a good first step.
One of my biggest usability changes in XP came from unlocking the taskbar and making effective use of the tabs inside it. No, I'm not just talking about Quicklaunch here. You can add different folders, including My Computer. For example, right now I have my drive letters exposed. I can right click on the C:\ drive and do a properties to get an idea of how much space I have left. I have two optical drives so at a glance I can see what discs are in there. (The name of the disc is put in place of the title.) I also have a 'shortcuts' folder I made (sort of like Quicklaunch) with a shortcut to that folder. Why is this useful? A.) it's easy to get at that folder so I can add remove stuff. B.) I'm constantly changing folders or files so I can quickly add stuff.
In short, I've made effective use of shortcuts etc using the taskbar. I don't have to do near as much folder surfing. On top of all that, the interface is pretty simple provided you know to unlock it first.
"Derp de derp."
It shouldn't be possible for a dialog box, especially one from another application, to steal keyboard focus. It's bad enough that the dialogs are usually very poorly written. I was afraid of "sheets" the first time I heard about them in OSX, but that plus the bouncing dock icons really makes it a lot easier to focus on what I'm doing. The hundreds of little icons, sliding boxes and word ckouds in the system tray need to be completely rethought.
Next I guess I would say that bitmapped icons should be dumped in favor of vector based ones for readability at higher resolution.
This site has a lot of window dressing (pun intended) to change the look and add a few items to XP to customize your interface.
Quality Hosting e3 Servers
What Microsoft has done:
Windows-D hides all your apps.
Windows-R brings up the run window.
The only things I've changed:
ctrl-alt-g puts focus in the Google Deskbar.
The Google Deskbar is a part of a side-docked not always-on-top toolbar with my quicklaunch & desktop, with large icons that I can use like a dock. So no matter where I am, ctrl-alt-g gives me access to the stuff I don't want cluttering my taskbar.
If it's always-on-top, then you can't use fitts the way that XP is designed for, which is fantastic.
I'm pretty happy with the setup. My only complaint with Windows is that the text-editing shortcuts aren't the same as MacOS, so my fingers do all the wrong things when I'm typing on either system. Both operating systems have passable text-editing key commands, I just can't learn either one since they're different. If only they both had emacs-mode, I'd just learn it the emacs way.
Anyway, here's a picture of how it works out for me on xp. That's what it looks like when I've popped up my toolbar with ctrl-alt-g.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
To be fair, not all of the annoying pop-ups come from Windows itself. Norton is really bad about popping up windows that say nothing more than "I'm here to completely interrupt your work to let you know that everything is just fine. Please click here to make me go away for a little while." However, it is a larger problem with WinXP if only because it's become an accepted practice among the software vendors.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (wait -- this is Slashdot -- someone will correct me mercilessly if I'm wrong) but doesn't the Mac have pretty well defined UI guidelines that cover things like this?
A while back there was an article in 2600 about how to "Hack the Look" of Windows. Take a look at the articles here and here.
* it seems you can't modify the big shortcut buttons on the left hand side of the dialog to point somewhere useful.
Download the TweakUI PowerToy. It let's you change those to whatever you like.
* you can't directly type in the directory you want.
Sure you can. Just put your cursor in the file name box and type away. It'll even autocomplete for you.
* there is no way of entering a custom "filter by filetype" pattern. (eg. *.py)
Ditto with this. Type *.py in the file name box, hit enter, and all your Python files will only show up.
"Each time you smile, it'll only last awhile. Life may be scary, but it's only temporary."
The two things that people love to say is Windows' advantage are actually things they do really badly.
//servername/sharename") in cygwin of all things, but not in cmd.exe?
Why can't I rename the recycle bin, when I can rename "My Computer", "Network Places" and "My Documents?"
Why don't I have a "send to" context menu on items in a zip folder?
In fact, why do zip files act nothing like regular folders at all when explorer presents them as if they are.
Why do control panel items open up in a dialogue style menu, when you've navigated to them via a web style interface?
Why does MS-Office _always_ have a totally different look and feel to any existing windows version at the time of its release?
Why can't I open from and save to WebDav and ftp from any application?
Why can I use windows networking paths (being able to "cd
I think they had to actually try to make that one not work, as fopen() in Windows will accept those paths.
Microsoft loves to introduce an idea - and then not follow through with a complete and useful implementation, but they'll still use their half arsed useless implementation as an example of how innovative they are.
Innovation is all very well, but it does you fuck all good if you have the worst implementation of your own idea.
Windows could be an absolutely excellent environment if only Microsoft finished half of what they started.
Advanced users are users too!
not only beautiful, but functional and efficient, Mac OS X 'Aqua' user interface
Excuse me? Since when was rendering metalic textures for half your windows either efficient, or functional? OK, GPU might make it less inefficient, but it's hardly the simplest thing to render to a screen. And it gets worse when you try to work out WHY the windows are metal. Why is my web browser metal, but my FTP program not?
And don't get me started on the "traffic lights" window closing buttons. Apple wrote the book on colourised user interfaces (Inside Macintosh), which they then ignored. They also had a good section in that book on Fitt's law, and how stuff in a fixed position at the edge of a screen is easiest to mouse to. So they stick the dock floating somewhere at the base of the screen, at variying positions depending on how many apps you have open. OK, expose is nice, font rendering is good, admin is less of a chore than with traditional unix, but I really wish they'd bothered reading their own guidelines from the 80s. Humans still only use 2 eyes and 1 mouse, it's not as though faster CPUs have rendered WIMP obsolete. Man, it almost makes me long for Motif.
The taskbar's default position should be on the left-hand side of the screen, not the bottom. Here's why:
1. Having the bar at the bottom uses up vertical space, esp. when it's two units high or more. Reading stuff on a screen requires much more vertical space than horizontal. Moving the bar to the side frees up vertical space and results in less scrolling.
2. You can fit WAY more quicklaunch buttons without affecting how much taskbar room you have for running programs. Quicklaunch buttons are a blessing and I can't live without em.
3. You also get way more room for the hooks for running programs that show on the taskbar (can't think of a better way to describe them). They stack vertically and you can fit dozens more than when the taskbar is horizontal.
Seriously, once you move the startbar to the side and get used to it, you'll keep it there forever. Give it a shot if you haven't tried it.
One of the first things I do when I'm on a new 2000 or XP box is add the address bar to my task bar. (Right click on task bar | toolbars | Address). From there, you can type almost any command you like. I almost never use the start menu now; I just click into the address bar and type winword (or soffice -writer). You can also just type a URL to go directly to it, type c:\ to go straight to the root of c: in explorer, cmd to get a command prompt, or lusrmgr.msc to open user manager.
I often use it while telnetting to network devices (go to address bar, type telnet 10.x.x.x). It really can't be beat, and nobody does it.
Steve
This space for rent.
Also check out the many useful tools available from SysInternals. These guys are serious Windows hackers and know how to integrate tightly with the internals. For general use, Process Explorer is a must-have replacement for task manager, and many of the others are useful if you're working in the areas they concern. And they give them away free, and a fair bit of source code too, bless them.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Despite which OS you've decided you like to use you really can't say that OS X isn't easier for a computer novice to use.
Yeah, actually I can. I know two formerly-computer-averse "regular people" who couldn't manage to get much useful done under OS X on their shiny new Macs, but who rather quickly "got it" when I brought an XP laptop to them. Both have since ditched their Macs. As a bonus, they're much happier that their PC's are so relatively inexpensive.
I'm not saying "TEH MAC SUX" or anything extreme like that, but the assumption of UI superiority has, in my opinion, never been proven with any especially compelling authority. It is my opinion that the Mac superiority thing is primarily a result of very careful MARKETING efforts.
The Mac isn't bad, but it isn't a miraculous plateau of UI wisdom, either.
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005