I have often used animated GIFs in combination with JavaScript to make really cool animating design elements of pages.
These elements were nice looking and were often confused for being Flash. But of course, they weren't Flash. To me, that's extremely cool, because besides loading faster and being more accessable, it allowed me to use sophisticated animation without using flash for a whole page/site.
I HATE it when a whole page/site is in flash so they can add some (often-cheesy) visual effect.
Animated PNGs would makes things much easier all around for design.
It will also enable 256-bit transparent floating DHTML ads on top of content pages, which probably wouldn't suck any more than the corrent ones, but will still suck none-the-less.
Uhhhh...if it's that easy why can't the dozen or so media weather forecasters do it right?
I hung out with Rich Marriot of King 5 once and he does all of his own forecasting (apparently most of the TV people do their own work, even for the same station [meaning the morning guy does his own, as does the evening guy]).
Unfortunately, UI design doesn't work well when done in a haphazard, distributed environment.
A good UI is clean, organized, and above all CONSISTANT. When there's thousands of people inventing interfaces (and hacking dozens of existing interfaces) it makes the desktop experience just as fragmented.
Microsoft is working hard to make the next version of Windows tight and consistent. And, of course, that's always been the primary benefit of using Macs -- you can usually pick up a new piece of software and easily figure it out because of the consistency.
Which is what Microsoft should be doing! They are attacking the main weakness of the distributed (licenses aside) nature of open source projects: lack of interface consistency and standards.
I find it terrifying that someone would be Windows for usability. That's an oxymoron up there with military intelligence!
I use Windows and it works fine, but usability was definately NOT one of the reasons why I use it. It was a reason why I DIDN'T use it for about 10 years.
Given that the product is two to three years away, these screens may be accuarate as of now (they may not be) but they probably aren't that close to how Longhorn will be when it comes out.
MS has been building this UI for a couple years already, it still has a ways to go.
Searches aren't better when they have more knobs and switches. I've done lots of usability tests on them. They are ignored by the vast majority of people.
As they should be. Make it work and they will come.
Remember how freaked out you were the first time you saw google? But it worked and you kept using it.
Slashdot Mirror
I have often used animated GIFs in combination with JavaScript to make really cool animating design elements of pages.
These elements were nice looking and were often confused for being Flash. But of course, they weren't Flash. To me, that's extremely cool, because besides loading faster and being more accessable, it allowed me to use sophisticated animation without using flash for a whole page/site.
I HATE it when a whole page/site is in flash so they can add some (often-cheesy) visual effect.
Animated PNGs would makes things much easier all around for design.
It will also enable 256-bit transparent floating DHTML ads on top of content pages, which probably wouldn't suck any more than the corrent ones, but will still suck none-the-less.
Intel givith and Microsoft taketh away
Uhhhh...if it's that easy why can't the dozen or so media weather forecasters do it right?
I hung out with Rich Marriot of King 5 once and he does all of his own forecasting (apparently most of the TV people do their own work, even for the same station [meaning the morning guy does his own, as does the evening guy]).
But they still can't hit it.
Here in Seattle the weather forcasts are wrong more than they are right. They're so bad I quit checking the forecasts years ago.
If forecasters got paid based on accuracy, they'd owe me money!
Unfortunately, UI design doesn't work well when done in a haphazard, distributed environment.
A good UI is clean, organized, and above all CONSISTANT. When there's thousands of people inventing interfaces (and hacking dozens of existing interfaces) it makes the desktop experience just as fragmented.
Microsoft is working hard to make the next version of Windows tight and consistent. And, of course, that's always been the primary benefit of using Macs -- you can usually pick up a new piece of software and easily figure it out because of the consistency.
Which is what Microsoft should be doing! They are attacking the main weakness of the distributed (licenses aside) nature of open source projects: lack of interface consistency and standards.
I find it terrifying that someone would be Windows for usability. That's an oxymoron up there with military intelligence!
I use Windows and it works fine, but usability was definately NOT one of the reasons why I use it. It was a reason why I DIDN'T use it for about 10 years.
Given that the product is two to three years away, these screens may be accuarate as of now (they may not be) but they probably aren't that close to how Longhorn will be when it comes out.
MS has been building this UI for a couple years already, it still has a ways to go.
Um. No.
The beauty is: It Just Works.
Searches aren't better when they have more knobs and switches. I've done lots of usability tests on them. They are ignored by the vast majority of people.
As they should be. Make it work and they will come.
Remember how freaked out you were the first time you saw google? But it worked and you kept using it.
who wants to wade through results and rank them? I came here to search!
That's why google is king. It doesn't require you to do *anything*. It barely *allows* you to do anything.
And it still returns what you need.
That's the perfect UI.