Why Have a Start Button to Shutdown Windows?(followsteph.com)
followsteph.com
Why Have a Start Button to Shutdown Windows?
http://www.followsteph.com/2008/08/03/why-have-a-start-button-to-shutdown-windows/
9 comments
Yes, this argument can be made, but when someone tries to vouch for Microsoft's choice of language by describing the fact that you can "_start_ to _shut down_" your computer.
But, if you argue for semantics, semantics are still semantics. You don't _start_ to _shut down_ your computer, and it really shouldn't be a process. You just shut it down.
But, if you argue for semantics, semantics are still semantics. You don't _start_ to _shut down_ your computer, and it really shouldn't be a process. You just shut it down.
Let's see, the usability tests showed that a lot of people stared at the windows desktop on startup and were at a loss.
Given that they were copying the macintosh what, a decade after the original mac's release, you'd think they might actually look at some user tests of people using a mac.
I'm sure they would find that given that the only obvious thing on the screen is a computer icon, they would click on it, and tada, there they are now staring at a window filled with what is IN their computer.
The metaphor is simple, and it works.
Now more than a decade later, and we are still stuck with this idiocy that the desktop is a totally useless wasteland for auto-installed shortcuts and crap, while the start menu of an average user's system has, not application names, but a mile long list of company names to play the "now who the hell made my text editor?" game.
Given that they were copying the macintosh what, a decade after the original mac's release, you'd think they might actually look at some user tests of people using a mac.
I'm sure they would find that given that the only obvious thing on the screen is a computer icon, they would click on it, and tada, there they are now staring at a window filled with what is IN their computer.
The metaphor is simple, and it works.
Now more than a decade later, and we are still stuck with this idiocy that the desktop is a totally useless wasteland for auto-installed shortcuts and crap, while the start menu of an average user's system has, not application names, but a mile long list of company names to play the "now who the hell made my text editor?" game.
Xp desktop shows "My Computer", at least it is an option to do so.
Frankly, reading this article gave me nightmarish flashbacks about the time I had to use OS X. Closing down applications was a real pain, if I remember correctly. Clicking the "X" doesn't close them, only hide them. You have to unhide them and find the "Exit" (or whatever) in the file menu to actually close them for good (not the file menu in the window, mind you, but the one in the useless "desktop transforms into application window").
So please don't refer to OS X as an usability icon, definitely not when the question is how to shut down things.
Frankly, reading this article gave me nightmarish flashbacks about the time I had to use OS X. Closing down applications was a real pain, if I remember correctly. Clicking the "X" doesn't close them, only hide them. You have to unhide them and find the "Exit" (or whatever) in the file menu to actually close them for good (not the file menu in the window, mind you, but the one in the useless "desktop transforms into application window").
So please don't refer to OS X as an usability icon, definitely not when the question is how to shut down things.
The whole intuition thing is rather questionable. You learn how things work and then you get used to them. It doesn't matter much whether it's an apple icon or a start button. Neither shouts "shutdown!".
It's much more important how much work frequently repeated actions take once you know them. No keyboard shortcut can ever be intuitive in the sense you could have suspected what it does without learning about it. But it's quick and you can remember it. That's what counts.
Are regular expressions intuitive? No, but just imagine you had to do pattern matching with a language full of very intuitive words, like SQL or COBOL say :)
It's much more important how much work frequently repeated actions take once you know them. No keyboard shortcut can ever be intuitive in the sense you could have suspected what it does without learning about it. But it's quick and you can remember it. That's what counts.
Are regular expressions intuitive? No, but just imagine you had to do pattern matching with a language full of very intuitive words, like SQL or COBOL say :)
I agree. In a lot of cases it's a mistake to cater to inexperienced users by making your GUI 'intuitive'. The bulk of your users are intermediates and power users. A user interface should cater to those people and gently nudge beginners in the same direction.
The old word interface (not the ribbon) actually did a pretty good job in this. Beginners used the menubar to do things. The options where accompanied by icons ("ooh, that's the same as the one on the iconbar.") and keyboard shortcuts ("What happens if I press Ctrl - S?"). The user interface doesn't get in the way of power users and teaches beginners and intermediate users.
The old word interface (not the ribbon) actually did a pretty good job in this. Beginners used the menubar to do things. The options where accompanied by icons ("ooh, that's the same as the one on the iconbar.") and keyboard shortcuts ("What happens if I press Ctrl - S?"). The user interface doesn't get in the way of power users and teaches beginners and intermediate users.
Yeah, this is certainly an interesting topic in UI design. When Microsoft had the problem of people not knowing what to do when their computer started up, they relabeled "system" to "start" counterintuitively rather than building a progressive disclosure system into Windows. It may have been better to put a little hovering popup bubble that pointed towards the system icon and said "Click here to start" the first few times you started up (or until user testing showed people had learned what to do).
In later versions of windows, they had a whole window with tons of options pop up at every single startup. In Vista, the window has useless computer information, like how much RAM you have. They not only confuse beginners, but they punish intermediate and advanced users until they find the little checkbox that says not to start it every time.
In later versions of windows, they had a whole window with tons of options pop up at every single startup. In Vista, the window has useless computer information, like how much RAM you have. They not only confuse beginners, but they punish intermediate and advanced users until they find the little checkbox that says not to start it every time.
In fact, Windows 95 would optionally have "<- Click here to begin" slide across the taskbar from right to left when the system started up.
The first time I sat down in front of an Xbox 360, I had to be informed that holding down the (X) button on the gamepad turned on the system. And then later on, that holding it down brought up a menu to shut it off.
The Wii remote has a Power button, in the same place as the power button on my TV remote control. No explanation required.
The Wii remote has a Power button, in the same place as the power button on my TV remote control. No explanation required.
The text underneath the button also says "Power" for the completely clueless.
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~brossen/ve/images/wiimote.jpg
http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~brossen/ve/images/wiimote.jpg
I watched the relevant minute from the clip, wtf is wrong with this guy? He made fun of the start button thing and everyone laughed, and then showed the super confusing Windows print dialog and compared it to a "747 shuttle cockpit", which actually got applause. The dialog has like 4 options on it; there are more buttons on this HN page than on that print dialog. I may watch the whole clip later, this is absurd
Having a giant K instead of a start button doesn't make much more sense, but its on the same place, so if you know what one does, you have to be pretty stupid not to figure the other one out.
I guess that's why Vista doesn't have a start button.
I guess it's because almost every windows user is familiar with the button in the lower left corner nowadays. It's been that way for almost 13 years now.
maybe to make it nicer-looking when the taskbar is on the side of the screen? http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/09/20/55055.a...
This is just more illustration of the cultural difference between the two camps of developers:
Microsoft: Yes this seems strange, but this is actually what the users want - and we have tests to prove it - so we'll do it
Linux: RTFM n00bz! Ubuntu! Ubuntu!
Microsoft: Yes this seems strange, but this is actually what the users want - and we have tests to prove it - so we'll do it
Linux: RTFM n00bz! Ubuntu! Ubuntu!
As a Windows and Ubuntu user I would find it offensive in a face to face talk.
Your statement is an overgeneralization to say the least.
Your statement is an overgeneralization to say the least.
Well here's a question for you:
1) Does Canonical operate a usability lab?
2) Would Ubuntu developers pay any attention if it did?
1) Does Canonical operate a usability lab?
2) Would Ubuntu developers pay any attention if it did?
Canonical doesn't, gnome does.
http://usability.gnome.org/
(1) Novell (the guys with more money) do.
(1a) I care about usability a _lot_ and I don't have a lab. A simple pc in a room is quite adequate for most studies. (For some of them you don't even need a pc)
(2) https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2007-...
(1a) I care about usability a _lot_ and I don't have a lab. A simple pc in a room is quite adequate for most studies. (For some of them you don't even need a pc)
(2) https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel-discuss/2007-...
Sorry, but all the larger Linux vendors -- Gnome Foundation, Novell, KDE Foundation, Canonical, Redhat, Mandriva, and more -- have spent time and money on usability studies.
The biggest usability issue Linux has these days is a holdover reputation from the '90s.
The second biggest usability issue is that it's not a Windows clone, so muscle-memory no longer applies.
That's not to say that Linux usability is perfect, but I find that for the most part it's miles ahead of Windows, it's easier to debug when things do go wrong, and Just Works out of the box to a greater degree (downloading drivers is so 1990s) if your hardware is supported.
The biggest usability issue Linux has these days is a holdover reputation from the '90s.
The second biggest usability issue is that it's not a Windows clone, so muscle-memory no longer applies.
That's not to say that Linux usability is perfect, but I find that for the most part it's miles ahead of Windows, it's easier to debug when things do go wrong, and Just Works out of the box to a greater degree (downloading drivers is so 1990s) if your hardware is supported.
If you are even thinking about debugging your OS then you are not a typical end user. In fact you could probably figure out and use almost any interface. So for the purpose of usability studies, you're not representative.
10 years later...
some people have too much free time on their hands
http://sysop073.blogspot.com/2008/03/start.html