• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Windows UI designer explains why forcing Metro on all is great for power users

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Also, another counter to my point of spaced out large tiles of the Start screen, these can be set to be as small as desktop icons (Smaller setting in PC Settings under Display) and to size the tiles of desktop shortcuts to be the smallest tile.

This sets up a nice grid of grouped tiles with the heading above each group. This also makes the Start screen more appropriate as a launcher, as any Start menu before it.

This also is more suited for those that aren't relying on a written language organization hierarchy, but in addition, visual icons, location, and colors. In short, it can give flexibility as shown before with desktop shortcuts since XP, 98, and 95 days. But somewhere along that way, we all (myself for awhile) got accustomed to the text listing of the start menu.

But since Windows 7, I rarely use the scrolling listing of "All Programs", most of the stuff is pinned to the taskbar or immediate front of the Start menu, above the frequently used programs listings. If the Start Screen had the option to put a group that showed 8 to 18 tiles of frequently used programs, it would be JUST AS THE SAME functionally as the Start menu, but with more real estate as a launcher.

And with it interrupting the display, your eyes are diverted to selecting the program to run, text to see when entering a search, etc (Start Menu or Screen otherwise). Since you only have one pointer, you can't really multi task with another window while interfacing with the Start menu anyways, also another point why one should complain about this aspect.

The quickness of switching, seems fluid for me, not jarring. If you want jarring, I can show other areas of such (namely direct X games and flickering of resolution matching and scaling). Those games also hijack full screen operations too, hence new games offer windowed modes.

Cascading windows, seems something of the past. If there is any immediate information of programs, you can guarantee I will arrange the window sizes that will display the full contents of each program, side by side. Modern apps do this without the need to size windows or layouts of each program (and yes you can call this "dumbing down" as in "automatically interface adjusting").

If the apps can be had in their own window, it is a mix of offering multiple apps to be run like normal in Windows. The problem is, is the inherent programming paradigms of the Modern side coming from Windows Phone (apps not really treated like their desktop counterparts in permissions, and physical copies). And who is to blame for this? It is a market response into Android and Apple, and to provide a immediate solution or to fall even further behind. It is a lose lose battle.

However, as much as I mostly agree with the Start Screen and Modern areas (more so on my Surface Pro 2), I would agree in providing an option for the Start menu in full. But I would also like to point out the age of some other power options and windows for devices and settings (see my long post before in this thread). This is another crux, and just the same if Linux tries to have a Surface Pro 2 competitor (for those vouching for a "free" solution but not really in terms of immediate moderate function and support (OS and finding replacement software - virtualization and emulation isn't fully ideal, nor dual booting).
 
Nothing wrong with making a simpler "tap-n-go" interface for casuals, since tap-n-go is done on Android and iOS as well. It is just that the poor execution and the high-maintenence divaness of ALL users, both pros and casuals, combined to form a mess full of bad press. In addition, I don't think that casuals could do without the desktop. Some "apps" are going be desktop apps, be it for work, secondary education, etc.

Microsoft opted to go with a very light amount of "documentation", which essentially was just "tap the corners, lets Start" and then user was left on their own. It was a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, pretty much. Either the users are going to whine about not knowing how to navigate the OS due too few instructions or the users are going to whine about an unpolished OS in which you have to read a PDF or something before you can actually use it. I think MS could have had a tutorial like they had for WinXP.

The Start Screen isn't exactly a bad idea; it has the potential to serve as a standalone interface on a tablet and it can serve as a portal to opening desktop apps just like its predecessor. It is just execution wasn't quite there. Its lack of customizability in basic things such as app size made it feel not very flexible to use. It also didn't help that users weren't informed(or guided to) of the basics of how to navigate apps, how to open and close them, that they need a Microsoft account to use Metro apps instead of desktop apps. The "All apps" screen required some initial guesswork to reach it. The "All apps" screen biggest fault, though, is that they decided to list every shortcut and app instead of keeping the folder system of the old Start Menu or implementing some other way to distinguish shortcuts for a particular group.


Oh, as an aside, it seems that sometimes, one can "shove" the mouse pointer and move the Start Screen, but it is not exactly the smoothest way to scroll.
 
dighn said:
I just switched to Linux. With the evolution of the Linux ecosystem, and the increasingly less MS-centric nature of personal computing, I'm finding Linux to be a quite viable solution now. I'm still keeping Windows for special purposes (e.g. specialized apps, games) but I'm booting less and less into it.
Click to expand...

I find Linux only suitable for simple use. Windows has superior application compatibility and less weird annoyances when one wants to push the system to its max. I don't like having to ssh into the system to save it because installing a new desktop environment on Linux Mint breaks something and only uninstalling a certain package can undo the task.

I can use Linux, but I don't prefer it.
 
Torn Mind said:
I find Linux only suitable for simple use. Windows has superior application compatibility and less weird annoyances when one wants to push the system to its max. I don't like having to ssh into the system to save it because installing a new desktop environment on Linux Mint breaks something and only uninstalling a certain package can undo the task.

I can use Linux, but I don't prefer it.
Click to expand...

Uh oh don't whack that hornet's nest you're liable to stir up a swarm of platitudes. (I agree btw. Did the Linux thing myself long enough. I like it for what it is, just don't see it as a serious alternative for productivity, though it can be for some. )

As to the subject I'm really not too surprised a Windows UI designer would justify forcing Metro on everyone. Basically "Man justifies his own job despite lackluster results. Film at 11."
 
Linux works great for software development, unless you specifically write software for Windows. Tools are literally at your finger tips, and the command line is a boon to productivity rather than a hindrance if you are used to banging out code. To call Linux suitable only for simple use is hardly a fair description.

To be honest I still need Windows for things like Visual Studio and Word, but otherwise I'm finding Linux to be much more pleasant to deal with than Windows 8. Windows 7 was great, but 8 is just going in a direction that I find distasteful and I'm not convinced that MS won't continue to push this stuff on us in 9 and beyond.
 
Zaap said:
Uh oh don't whack that hornet's nest you're liable to stir up a swarm of platitudes. (I agree btw. Did the Linux thing myself long enough. I like it for what it is, just don't see it as a serious alternative for productivity, though it can be for some. )

As to the subject I'm really not too surprised a Windows UI designer would justify forcing Metro on everyone. Basically "Man justifies his own job despite lackluster results. Film at 11."
Click to expand...

/agree on linux

I use it for my home server and tbh if it had drivers for it then it would be viable on my lappy as well but some things about it when initially trying it were absolutely infuriating when it didn't have to be.

Overall it works better than windows did as a file server though. Just took a while to get there.
 
Shock horror - Windows UI designer gets paid to defend design decisions that he was paid to make.

if it was about casual and power, why not have Windows 8 Enterprise/Professional have desktop only? If they had offered an SKU that allowed power users to use the desktop, that would have been great.

And while I maybe have a little bit of sympathy for the argument that casual users need to be forced to use the metro environment, why do power users need to be forced to use the metro environment? Why not offer a setting to turn it off, or a separate SKU as I said. Windows server 2012 has no metro interface, for example.
 
Ancalagon44 said:
And while I maybe have a little bit of sympathy for the argument that casual users need to be forced to use the metro environment, why do power users need to be forced to use the metro environment?.
Click to expand...

Me too, the very tiniest bit of sympathy. People in general aren't big fans of change. However, I think the point that companies like Microsoft miss these days is that giving users a choice is a good thing, rather than "our way or the highway". If the new interface really is better, then the users will adopt it in droves.

If it isn't, and the company is forcing it on its users, then it is simply giving them another bit of encouragement to check out the competition and/or put off upgrading for a while longer.
 
dighn said:
Linux works great for software development, unless you specifically write software for Windows. Tools are literally at your finger tips, and the command line is a boon to productivity rather than a hindrance if you are used to banging out code. To call Linux suitable only for simple use is hardly a fair description.

To be honest I still need Windows for things like Visual Studio and Word, but otherwise I'm finding Linux to be much more pleasant to deal with than Windows 8. Windows 7 was great, but 8 is just going in a direction that I find distasteful and I'm not convinced that MS won't continue to push this stuff on us in 9 and beyond.
Click to expand...
Simple might not be the best choice of words. Perhaps non-meddlesome use is a better description. One that doesn't involve installing software that is prone to requiring troubleshooting. I'm not saying software development is easy or problem-proof, but many of the problems are mostly in the code itself and not the software used; and if there is a software issue, it isn't in some conf file or something that requires dpkg-reconfigure, etc. My quip with Linux is not with its frontends, but having to deal with issues that randomly crop up that result in having to deal with its backend, at least for the Ubuntu based distros and to a lesser extent, Debian.

If "unstable" Linux rears its ugly head and the app you are trying to work with is causing issue, the solution is either google searching for command line code or investing in books to get a firm grasp of commands. I have had my fair share of issues that I did fix up. Virtualbox doesn't have its kernel drivers working properly.
I had Mint flake out twice today, one with the network module going MIA and the other with Firefox going wonky, both of which required a turn off the computer or shut down the program solution. And getting SAMBA to work for me is still a work in progress for because apparently, gadmin does TOO MUCH by filling the conf file with excessive specifications.

And for good measure, Android counts as Linux and it soft bricked my Nexus 7upon installing Android 4.3. Had to fix that up too. Now, despite pointing out the flaws of Linux, I do recognize Linux distros are useful and does confer benefits, but simply have realized that its various distros are not necessarily the kindest of OSes to deal with. Compared to my Win8 experience, I find less fault with 8 than my dabbling with Linux distros, primarily Mint.

Most of these issues with Linux are fixable, but they cause unexpected time consumption; once it happens it enough times, even though 80-90% of time, Linux runs no issue, it begins to sour the perception of the OS.
 
Torn Mind said:
More like convince folks to leave other walled gardens. Especially the apple orchard people are willingly letting themselves into.
Click to expand...
That is why Windows 8 is such a failure: it's aimed at apple and android users. And since Windows' main market is people who use Windows, Window 8 failed. Simple.
 
code65536 said:
Most casual users I've seen are afraid of the Start Menu. They like to have icons on the desktop to start a program. Windows 7 helped a lot by pinning a lot of those to the taskbar, but most of the time, I find that I need to do that pinning for them.

The Start Screen was jarring at first, yes. But in my experience, once I explained what it is, they like it, because it jives very nicely with the old flat desktop-as-the-launchpad paradigm that they're used to, except it's more polished than that.
Click to expand...

How do you explain to them that in order to close a program... Oh you can't close a program.
 
Morbus said:
That is why Windows 8 is such a failure: it's aimed at apple and android users. And since Windows' main market is people who use Windows, Window 8 failed. Simple.
Click to expand...

Not Apple users-- iOS users. Apple is smart enough to keep its desktop OS separate from its tablet/phone OS.
 
Throckmorton said:
How do you explain to them that in order to close a program... Oh you can't close a program.]
Click to expand...

When you drag Modern apps from the Modern taskbar, you drag them down to the bottom edge to close. Or end them in the Task Manager in the desktop, or if you have the Modern taskbar to be shown upon left edge swiping or left corner mouse reveal, you can right click to close.

Again, the tutorial can be better as well as having the Modern taskbar not be the initial swipe setting for task switching.
 
Imaginer said:
When you drag Modern apps from the Modern taskbar, you drag them down to the bottom edge to close. Or end them in the Task Manager in the desktop, or if you have the Modern taskbar to be shown upon left edge swiping or left corner mouse reveal, you can right click to close.

Again, the tutorial can be better as well as having the Modern taskbar not be the initial swipe setting for task switching.
Click to expand...

And those methods are somehow quicker for a mouse/touchpad user than clicking an X in the upper right.... wait a minute... its all a cunning plan to get people to use keyboard shortcuts! The triumphant return of alt-f4! Of course, it makes sense to drag it from the top down on a touchscreen but not so much otherwise.

Perhaps its a conspiracy to end all of those internet jokesters who tease noobs with the old "hit alt-f4 on your keyboard to do X dude" followed by 3-5minutes later said victim yelling in chat "you jerk!".
 
I know a few people who use Win 8, but only because it was forced on them one way or another. I don't know anyone who actually likes it. I have zero respect for those on the Internet who champion it, they're either being paid by MS or they're stupid.
 
At least they're honest about forcing people down certain paths, even if they lie through their teeth about freedom for power users. I really hope the person behind the UI doesn't force it across the entire range as I would once and for all abandon windows & go back to Linux/Unix full time.

I consider myself a power user but I am not against casual interfaces but Metro/Modern UI just really sucks the life out of Windows. I know some won't agree but it's what I think.

Part of their reasoning behind no boot to desktop in 8 was some devices reporting the touchscreen as a mouse and it would confuse some. They could have easily fixed that by blocking those devices full stop, instead they chose the hard way out.
 
so I went to the MS store to play with a win8 tablet. Metro is fine on that, actually I kind of liked it. Then I installed Win8 for a second time in a VM (tried it back at release). I originally HATED it, but after seeing how it works on a tablet, it wasn't sooo bad. I can see how it can be useful and enjoyable to use with a touchscreen, but on a desktop with a mouse, it is kind of clunky.

The real problem is that metro doesn't really fit in the business world where they make much of their money.
 
quikah said:
The real problem is that metro doesn't really fit in the business world where they make much of their money.
Click to expand...

However, the given renewal of Tablet PCs with Windows 8, these do leverage some things businesses would like. Namely mobility and collaboration on the go.

Case in point, OneNote notebooks can be shared and edited upon and synchronized (with some delay). This would also be a boon with students for collaborative, semi-immediate on demand sync.

If the notebooks can be allowed to not just use the Internet to sync, but allowed to sync over ad-hoc networks, then this would be of a greater plus.

Another, would be snapping of reference materials alongside the desktop (you can multi-window on a laptop or tablet, but it actually is a bit more nicer to manipulate the reference material with the Modern app form, and then conversely work with the desktop in a traditional sense (or both, pending devices with pen input).

If Miracast would work just as flawlessly along with WiDi options (it did well enough for me, projecting to a TV with a Netgear PTV3000) then this is also something businesses would like, without being too enclosed in one option of hardware thus enclosed in one cost option (Apple).
 
The first thing I did with my 8.1 install was get rid of the metro interface. I couldnt stand it. To me, it doesnt make any sense to have that kind of interface on a desktop. Once it's gone though, I basically have no complaints with 8.1 or 8.

I had to show my dad how to get rid of metro too for his new laptop.

My mom on the other hand... She uses tablets almost exclusively, and I think she's pretty much at home with metro.

There's a lesson there, somewhere 😀
 
quikah said:
so I went to the MS store to play with a win8 tablet. Metro is fine on that, actually I kind of liked it. Then I installed Win8 for a second time in a VM (tried it back at release). I originally HATED it, but after seeing how it works on a tablet, it wasn't sooo bad. I can see how it can be useful and enjoyable to use with a touchscreen, but on a desktop with a mouse, it is kind of clunky.

The real problem is that metro doesn't really fit in the business world where they make much of their money.
Click to expand...
Not true at all.....all the local hospitals and clinics are using windows 8........
mind you there are 4 local hospitals within a 20 mile radius and there are literally dozens if not 100+ clinics....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top