Is Microsoft Metro Undesigned?(levifig.com)
levifig.com
Is Microsoft Metro Undesigned?
http://levifig.com/articles/is-microsoft-metro-undesigned/
10 comments
It's an opinion piece. Why does everything have to be subject to a body of evidence like in a court of law?
Because opinions are likely to be disregarded without something showing you're basing your opinion on something real. Too many wild opinion pieces and your reputation disintegrates.
My opinion is based on something real. Whether or not you agree, it is up to you. I don't pretend to be determining what is true or not but I think my informed opinion is of value to others… otherwise I wouldn't write about it.
You think my opinion is "wild". Do you have any hard evidence to back that up? ;)
You think my opinion is "wild". Do you have any hard evidence to back that up? ;)
Sometimes its hard to truly agree or disagree without knowing the thought process that went into forming the opinion. I can have a gut reaction, but oftentimes those are wrong. There's plenty of evidence that Metro has been designed, and not only designed but designed well. I could link to you some sources on this, but I find clicking through the sources on the Wikipedia page [1] to be sufficient.
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, invalid, or wild (my previous post was referring to the general importance of backing up your opinions). I honestly wasn't commenting on your specific opinion (because I haven't read it except excerpts in these comments). But those who say Metro is a design failure really seem to be running against the grain on that one. In many cases, the author's backlash against Metro was more of a thinly-veiled attack on Microsoft than an attack on Metro. If someone is saying that Metro is undesigned and made simply because Microsoft is out of ideas, that kind of lumps that author into that category for me.
I will admit I have no idea who you are/what you are. Your domain is blocked by my corporate proxy for being a spam URL.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_%28design_language%29#Re...
I'm not saying your opinion is wrong, invalid, or wild (my previous post was referring to the general importance of backing up your opinions). I honestly wasn't commenting on your specific opinion (because I haven't read it except excerpts in these comments). But those who say Metro is a design failure really seem to be running against the grain on that one. In many cases, the author's backlash against Metro was more of a thinly-veiled attack on Microsoft than an attack on Metro. If someone is saying that Metro is undesigned and made simply because Microsoft is out of ideas, that kind of lumps that author into that category for me.
I will admit I have no idea who you are/what you are. Your domain is blocked by my corporate proxy for being a spam URL.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_%28design_language%29#Re...
I never said Metro is a design failure. I'm saying Metro isn't designed and the explanation is because it can't.
As to what I am/am not, it should be pointless: you should analyze my argument and agree/disagree based solely on itself. Am I the greatest writer there is? No. Will I never change my opinion? No. Is this a rational argument based on the information given to me? Yes. And to this point, I haven't changed my opinion (but may in the future).
As to my domain being blocked, I'm sorry: I never spammed, hosted spam and it doesn't even contain any ads. I would argue against "corporate proxies" but that'd be off-topic… ;)
As to what I am/am not, it should be pointless: you should analyze my argument and agree/disagree based solely on itself. Am I the greatest writer there is? No. Will I never change my opinion? No. Is this a rational argument based on the information given to me? Yes. And to this point, I haven't changed my opinion (but may in the future).
As to my domain being blocked, I'm sorry: I never spammed, hosted spam and it doesn't even contain any ads. I would argue against "corporate proxies" but that'd be off-topic… ;)
Hey buddy, I work in information security and even I get pissed at our proxy more often than I praise it. It takes a lot of paperwork to get a site allowed through, and no paperwork to get one blocked.
Didn't mean it in a bad way… I've worked in the information security sector and I feel your pain! ;)
Metro makes no choices because it has been caught in the middle of Microsoft's "identity crisis": is it a touch/tablet interface or a desktop/mouse one? Microsoft is failing to make those hard choices and thus Metro is a reflection of it.
Furthermore, the lack of differentiation between apps is a bad decision in my opinion. It's hard to figure out which app/feature you're using without reading the titles/headers… I don't know about you but that doesn't seem like a good choice in an interface for a desktop/multi-tasking device. Again, Metro is being developed without a clear identity, hence my opinion.
But yes: it is my opinion and yes, you may disagree. Opinions are subjective. :)
Furthermore, the lack of differentiation between apps is a bad decision in my opinion. It's hard to figure out which app/feature you're using without reading the titles/headers… I don't know about you but that doesn't seem like a good choice in an interface for a desktop/multi-tasking device. Again, Metro is being developed without a clear identity, hence my opinion.
But yes: it is my opinion and yes, you may disagree. Opinions are subjective. :)
Metro does feel half-baked. Features I expect to be able to use are just not there.
It is the kind of frustration I feel trying to use Android for anything serious.
A bit like having one hand tied behind my back.
It is the kind of frustration I feel trying to use Android for anything serious.
A bit like having one hand tied behind my back.
It's a ridiculous statement. Microsoft has chosen not to make their UI look like 70's tape machines. That's a choice as much as Apple deciding that that's a good idea. There are a huge number of details and decisions in even a design that seems much simpler than others.
Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word 'no'
-Betteridge's Law of Headlines:
-Betteridge's Law of Headlines:
I do understand that it's an opinion piece, but it sounds to me like his claim is that minimalism is all the same, and by being minimal they've decided not to come up with a unique design.
But I can't pick out a piece of software or a website that looks the same as Metro except for the ones that are doing it deliberately. If Metro were "undesigned," you would think other people would have made the same "non-choices" before.
But I can't pick out a piece of software or a website that looks the same as Metro except for the ones that are doing it deliberately. If Metro were "undesigned," you would think other people would have made the same "non-choices" before.
I don't believe that the author is saying that minimal is the same as undesigned. Rather if minimal is your goal, then your design choices will be different than if you try to design toward simple. In fact you may sacrifice great design choices that would lead toward simplicity in order to remain minimal. Minimal speaks nothing to: clear or obvious, both of which take a serious complete-product focus and choice to obtain.
I'll admit that I find metro a lot more compelling on Windows Phone than on a desktop OS, but as a visual language I still thing it's an improvement over Aero. Things look less cluttered, it's higher contrast, and interface elements are obvious.
What they haven't done is reorganize how you interact with the desktop OS. And I think that's a deliberate choice not to redesign the mouse/keyboard model for using toolbars, icons, and all the stuff people are familiar with in Windows. The full metro tablet apps are perhaps more clear and obvious, but that seems like more a side effect of the "poke things with your finger" interface than any defficiency of desktop Metro. It's more intuitive.
What they haven't done is reorganize how you interact with the desktop OS. And I think that's a deliberate choice not to redesign the mouse/keyboard model for using toolbars, icons, and all the stuff people are familiar with in Windows. The full metro tablet apps are perhaps more clear and obvious, but that seems like more a side effect of the "poke things with your finger" interface than any defficiency of desktop Metro. It's more intuitive.
Metro simply defaults to text as the basis of communication between the software and the user. The advantage is that this allows for localization both in linguistic and cultural terms - "save" translates into multiple languages and is recognizable by people who have never seen a 3.5" floppy disk or who are coming to computers for the first time.
It's not that designers cannot round corners or simulate woodgrain to their heart's content. It's just that it isn't necessary for developing software which fits within the overall design aesthetic...a designer can even use serifed fonts if they wish, it will just be more work than using the standard and probably to little benefit for the user.
Where Metro excels is in allowing the use of branding to communicate with users - e.g. Twitter and Facebook applications are recognizable by their logos - and Metro's simple aesthetic favors designers who can develop similar iconography for their products.
It's not that designers cannot round corners or simulate woodgrain to their heart's content. It's just that it isn't necessary for developing software which fits within the overall design aesthetic...a designer can even use serifed fonts if they wish, it will just be more work than using the standard and probably to little benefit for the user.
Where Metro excels is in allowing the use of branding to communicate with users - e.g. Twitter and Facebook applications are recognizable by their logos - and Metro's simple aesthetic favors designers who can develop similar iconography for their products.
"save" translates into multiple languages and is recognizable by people who have never seen a 3.5" floppy disk or who are coming to computers for the first time.
Even further than that, the "Document" icon that looks like a page is becoming more and more foreign, as programs shift toward single purpose apps that handle all of their own data. It makes sense to people who are used to the paradigm of "paper" documents living in "folders" in their computer, but if you've never seen a directory or your app doesn't expose individual data files, a whole lot of other traditional icons start to turn meaningless.
Even further than that, the "Document" icon that looks like a page is becoming more and more foreign, as programs shift toward single purpose apps that handle all of their own data. It makes sense to people who are used to the paradigm of "paper" documents living in "folders" in their computer, but if you've never seen a directory or your app doesn't expose individual data files, a whole lot of other traditional icons start to turn meaningless.
You make a good argument for skeuomorphism: single purpose apps should reflect the task they're purposed for. :)
If anything, I think I make an argument against it. You can make an app look like a physical address book, but I've never seen anyone use a physical address book. You could make a YouTube player that looks like a television too, but to what end? Pretty soon, people won't have seen televisions that look like anything more than a screen with a thin black bezel.
And as we move toward more unified gadgets that a lot of people have grown up with, what do we do? Make a mail client that looks like a smartphone because that's how people read mail? An eReader app that looks like a physical Kindle?
I don't think a leather address book is any more valid than a 3.5" floppy save icon. A single purpose app for contact management should reflect that it's a database of contacts, sure. Should it reflect that it's a book? Eh.
And as we move toward more unified gadgets that a lot of people have grown up with, what do we do? Make a mail client that looks like a smartphone because that's how people read mail? An eReader app that looks like a physical Kindle?
I don't think a leather address book is any more valid than a 3.5" floppy save icon. A single purpose app for contact management should reflect that it's a database of contacts, sure. Should it reflect that it's a book? Eh.
Unfortunately, the cognitive cost of reading and understanding "save" versus a floppy disk icon is much higher. My brain has to slow down and read/comprehend the text. Icons exist for a reason. Even if I don't understand a language, I know that a stop sign is always red octogon/circle with white letters.
I think this author has some fair criticisms of the Metro desktop experience, but is sadly ill informed about the decisions that drive Metro's design. It is very far from "undesigned."
For one, remember that Metro is deeply driven by touch devices. As a general approach, Microsoft's designers made the decision to avoid skeumorphism by making _almost everything touchable_. It's a great philosophy for touch interfaces, and it works quite well on today's windows phones.
Another piece of the puzzle driving metro is Kinect. Since Microsoft uses the same design language on all its platforms, the XBox shapes the desktop. Since the Kinect has trouble reading vertical hand gestures, the designers push for most desktop screens to lay out horizontally like the XBox.
With just those two small examples, you can see why the Metro desktop experience is both flat and horizontal (in many places, not all), which this author interpreted as thoughtless.
To reiterate my point, I think the Metro language is very well considered for devices that ask users to complete one task at a time (mobile, tablet, television). It's not so great in a multitasking environment, perhaps because Microsoft is trying to make their cross-platform experience too consistent.
For one, remember that Metro is deeply driven by touch devices. As a general approach, Microsoft's designers made the decision to avoid skeumorphism by making _almost everything touchable_. It's a great philosophy for touch interfaces, and it works quite well on today's windows phones.
Another piece of the puzzle driving metro is Kinect. Since Microsoft uses the same design language on all its platforms, the XBox shapes the desktop. Since the Kinect has trouble reading vertical hand gestures, the designers push for most desktop screens to lay out horizontally like the XBox.
With just those two small examples, you can see why the Metro desktop experience is both flat and horizontal (in many places, not all), which this author interpreted as thoughtless.
To reiterate my point, I think the Metro language is very well considered for devices that ask users to complete one task at a time (mobile, tablet, television). It's not so great in a multitasking environment, perhaps because Microsoft is trying to make their cross-platform experience too consistent.
I agree completely. By "undesigned" I'm not trying to say "no thought into it"… I'm merely commenting on the failure to make the most important decision of all: is it a UI for mono-task, touch-driven devices or multitask, mouse-driven devices? That failure creates this seemingly lack of design: the feeling that each interface belongs with that feature/application. If you use Windows 8 on a desktop, you start using the built-in apps less and less and will be drawn to install third-party, standalone apps. That is almost the exact opposite of Apple, where you're driven to use Apple's built-in apps because they're "they fit"…
Again, Microsoft has great designers and Metro has some awesome design ideas but it's, in my opinion :), fundamentally undesigned because it fails to make the hard choice of defining what is its purpose and use. :)
Again, Microsoft has great designers and Metro has some awesome design ideas but it's, in my opinion :), fundamentally undesigned because it fails to make the hard choice of defining what is its purpose and use. :)
"I found that, while the architecture is changing, it wasn’t as dramatically as I had initially hoped."
What, specifically, did you hope MS would change? Say what you will about the product, but the Windows platform has been a cool piece of engineering for a while now.
"Design is about making choices and Metro makes none."
This assertion seems to be the central point of your post, but I don't think you provided the evidence to back it up. How is simplicity not a design choice? What about "be authentically digital" as a design mantra? I'm not refuting your assertion, I just wasn't swayed by your arguments. Maybe you could point to some specific examples to illustrate what you mean.
What, specifically, did you hope MS would change? Say what you will about the product, but the Windows platform has been a cool piece of engineering for a while now.
"Design is about making choices and Metro makes none."
This assertion seems to be the central point of your post, but I don't think you provided the evidence to back it up. How is simplicity not a design choice? What about "be authentically digital" as a design mantra? I'm not refuting your assertion, I just wasn't swayed by your arguments. Maybe you could point to some specific examples to illustrate what you mean.
Great points, which I obviously failed to clarify! :)
Regarding the architecture, I was thinking specifically of the mixed delivery of a whole new one (Metro/touch-driven) and the old/current one (classic Windows/mouse-driven). I've read quite a few articles about this but one I find myself agreeing with the most is Gruber's: http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/windows_8_fundamentally_fl... -- the main point is Microsoft failed to make the choice to potentially come up with two products, one designed for Touch and this new Metro architecture (ARM, HTML5 apps, etc…) and one geared for the desktop computer. They're so caught up on their perceived value of the "Windows" brand, they're failing to make the hard decisions…
As to your second question, I think my above point also covers this one in part. Microsoft is in a position to make some radical changes and improve on a product but avoids making those choices. Even the Surface will have a version with a full-blown CPU and ability to run desktop apps. Metro is caught in the middle of this "identity crisis" and, as such, fails to deliver a good experience in either camp. Furthermore, I think the core design model of "colored boxes" fails to deliver the unique experience that each app can offer: my experience with the "Music" app can't be the same as the "Control Panel". It becomes forgettable and everything blends together way too much. Yes, this particular point maybe a bit subjective but I'm sure some UX specialists could pitch in and give the hard evidence. My point is a "gut feeling" but informed by knowledge of what a good experience is… :)
Thank you for your comment! :)
Regarding the architecture, I was thinking specifically of the mixed delivery of a whole new one (Metro/touch-driven) and the old/current one (classic Windows/mouse-driven). I've read quite a few articles about this but one I find myself agreeing with the most is Gruber's: http://daringfireball.net/2011/06/windows_8_fundamentally_fl... -- the main point is Microsoft failed to make the choice to potentially come up with two products, one designed for Touch and this new Metro architecture (ARM, HTML5 apps, etc…) and one geared for the desktop computer. They're so caught up on their perceived value of the "Windows" brand, they're failing to make the hard decisions…
As to your second question, I think my above point also covers this one in part. Microsoft is in a position to make some radical changes and improve on a product but avoids making those choices. Even the Surface will have a version with a full-blown CPU and ability to run desktop apps. Metro is caught in the middle of this "identity crisis" and, as such, fails to deliver a good experience in either camp. Furthermore, I think the core design model of "colored boxes" fails to deliver the unique experience that each app can offer: my experience with the "Music" app can't be the same as the "Control Panel". It becomes forgettable and everything blends together way too much. Yes, this particular point maybe a bit subjective but I'm sure some UX specialists could pitch in and give the hard evidence. My point is a "gut feeling" but informed by knowledge of what a good experience is… :)
Thank you for your comment! :)
But they did make the hard decision-- they decided two combine two experiences on the bet that these two experiences and contexts will merge moving forward. Your device should change in context with you, and you should control it. Why would I have two machines when one will suffice? I will have a surface pro, using both metro apps as well as desktop applications. I will flip the cover over when I want to really engage with my device and hold it intimately, at an angle, etc. When I get to a desk, I can plug in my peripherals and I have a fully functioning machine that can use all of the thousands of peripherals that the ecosystem has developed.
As a side note, have you used metro apps on a desktop? They work well, and generally the simplicity and hard decisions made make the experience more visually engaging.
As a side note, have you used metro apps on a desktop? They work well, and generally the simplicity and hard decisions made make the experience more visually engaging.
A- "What do you want: a peach or a pear?"
B- "I don't know. Both?"
That's how I feel about Microsoft's decision. I've tried the metro apps and while they impress visually, they fail to help me remember them the next time I need to do something they exist for; they all look alike and lack distinction and uniqueness.
This is obviously all subjective, but I believe we'll see some major changes in the next 2-3 years to the Metro UI: Windows on the desktop users won't use much of it (not the Metro look, the native Metro apps)… Put a non-tech person using Windows 8 and you'll get "huh?" and "where's A or B?" at an alarming rate. A new user to OS X (coming from Windows) will have less trouble finding what he/she wants than coming to Windows 8 IMO, and that's not good for Microsoft.
That's how I feel about Microsoft's decision. I've tried the metro apps and while they impress visually, they fail to help me remember them the next time I need to do something they exist for; they all look alike and lack distinction and uniqueness.
This is obviously all subjective, but I believe we'll see some major changes in the next 2-3 years to the Metro UI: Windows on the desktop users won't use much of it (not the Metro look, the native Metro apps)… Put a non-tech person using Windows 8 and you'll get "huh?" and "where's A or B?" at an alarming rate. A new user to OS X (coming from Windows) will have less trouble finding what he/she wants than coming to Windows 8 IMO, and that's not good for Microsoft.
This article seems to add no value to the discussion... Did you plan to make a point rooted in any sort of argument? Where did Microsoft not make a choice?
I think you might have an interesting point to make, and as someone who has worked on the project, I am especially interested in seeing and hearing criticism, but you have not provided any information or value to the discussion.
I think you might have an interesting point to make, and as someone who has worked on the project, I am especially interested in seeing and hearing criticism, but you have not provided any information or value to the discussion.
I replied to another comment here before reading yours. Hope it clarifies "the point" a bit more: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4256853
I'm not rooting my point in a specific argument: it's my opinion based on experience and an understanding of the corporate "identity crisis" the Metro UI is being dropped into… :)
I'm not rooting my point in a specific argument: it's my opinion based on experience and an understanding of the corporate "identity crisis" the Metro UI is being dropped into… :)
I don't know if that's true about the Metro design or not, but about Windows 8 as a whole? Definitely. They tried to combine 2 OS's and 2 interfaces that are not even too consistent with each other (I've seen some concept designs that were much better), and have no place being together anyway, especially if you're forced to use the Metro interface when in desktop mode.
My point exactly. The Metro design is attempting to solve a problem but without making the choice: is it a desktop or a touch interface? While it may work well in a task-centered, touch-driven interface, it feels "soulless" in a multi-tasking, desktop-purposed one. That is the hard choice Microsoft need to make in order to allow for "true design" to happen in the platform.
>The Metro design is attempting to solve a problem but without making the choice: is it a desktop or a touch interface?
The choice they made was that we need not shoehorn interfaces into desktop or touch categories.
Why not be able to touch your laptop?
And it was a tough choice in the time that Apple separates iOS and OS X.
Android is the one that didn't make a choice and simply copied Apple in this regard.
The choice they made was that we need not shoehorn interfaces into desktop or touch categories.
Why not be able to touch your laptop?
And it was a tough choice in the time that Apple separates iOS and OS X.
Android is the one that didn't make a choice and simply copied Apple in this regard.
Agree with the comment on Android. And yes: nothing wrong with touching your laptop (NSFW?). BUT: do you touch your laptop RIGHT now? How many Windows users will touch their laptop in the next 2-3 years? How successful was Windows Tablet Edition? Or those HP iMac-clones with touch screens? :)
"The choice they made was that we need not shoehorn interfaces into desktop or touch categories."
Imposing a touch centric UI onto traditional desktops is the very definition of shoehorning.
"Why not be able to touch your laptop?"
Having a touch interface doesn't magically confer touchscreen hardware. Most laptops will not be touchscreen as this means additional cost.
"Android is the one that didn't make a choice and simply copied Apple in this regard."
Apple did not invent the grid of icons concept. At best they imitated designs that came before them and Android imitated the imitator. It made a lot of sense at the time considering the iPhone was in the middle of running away with the market compared to traditional smartphone interfaces like the Blackberry, Palm, Symbian, and Windows Mobile.
Imposing a touch centric UI onto traditional desktops is the very definition of shoehorning.
"Why not be able to touch your laptop?"
Having a touch interface doesn't magically confer touchscreen hardware. Most laptops will not be touchscreen as this means additional cost.
"Android is the one that didn't make a choice and simply copied Apple in this regard."
Apple did not invent the grid of icons concept. At best they imitated designs that came before them and Android imitated the imitator. It made a lot of sense at the time considering the iPhone was in the middle of running away with the market compared to traditional smartphone interfaces like the Blackberry, Palm, Symbian, and Windows Mobile.
[deleted]
Levi does a great job identifying the following distinction
- Simplicity vs Minimalism.
- Change vs Decisions
LATE BREAKING NEWS... Apple lover is not impressed with Windows!
Does anyone actually agree with this? There are a lack of examples and evidence in his post. It seems to me the author just doesn't like the Metro design language.
"Good design is as little design as possible" - Dieter Rams