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?"
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,
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.
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.
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.
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.