Slashdot Mirror
Former Xerox PARC Researcher: Windows 8 Is a Cognitive Burden
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.'"
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
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
"Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
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!
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.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
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?
Twinstiq, game news
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.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Using Metro aka Modern instead of the traditional desktop was never about usability. It was entirely about transitioning users to tablet interfaces and away from the traditional interface that people have used for years. Microsoft knows damn well that people will never voluntarily never make the change which is why they removed the ability to boot directly into the desktop.
By forcing you into "Modern" they are forcing you to use the new interface which /is/ usable - but only if your on a tablet. Obviously Microsoft thinks the future of computing is tablets and smartphones and not desktops. Witness the upcoming "Surface" computers and Windows Phone 8 platforms. Microsoft is afraid that the market is going to abandon the traditional desktop and is trying to position Windows as being an Operating System of choice for the tablets and smart phones. People simply don't think of Microsoft when they think of smart phones or tablets and that is what Microsoft is trying to change, public perception.
Windows 8 is a sacrificial operating system that is being produced entirely for this reason and we will see Windows 9 come in a very short time frame behind this.
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.
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.
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.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]