Usability expert tears apart Windows 8(venturebeat.com)
venturebeat.com
Usability expert tears apart Windows 8
http://venturebeat.com/2012/11/19/usability-expert-windows-8/
12 comments
For the most part, I agree - I'm using Windows 8 on my personal computer, and at this point I have absolutely no desire to go back to 7. But I'm a computer guy. So despite my initial frustration at having to go through yet another round of Redmond Musical Chairs, it didn't really take me very long at all to get back up to speed with the new UI changes.
That said, I do think that is a serious issue for businesses. Half the folks I work with still aren't up to speed on Windows 7, and it has a much more discoverable UI than 8 does. Not only is 8 an even bigger widget mover than XP was, but having everything hidden offscreen so you need to be able to independently think to hover the mouse against an edge of the screen to find what you're looking for is going to be an absolute discoverability killer for these users. No, I don't know why it is that so many people have a hard time learning new UI. But they do, and it's a reality that can't be dispelled with dismissive remarks.
That said, I do think that is a serious issue for businesses. Half the folks I work with still aren't up to speed on Windows 7, and it has a much more discoverable UI than 8 does. Not only is 8 an even bigger widget mover than XP was, but having everything hidden offscreen so you need to be able to independently think to hover the mouse against an edge of the screen to find what you're looking for is going to be an absolute discoverability killer for these users. No, I don't know why it is that so many people have a hard time learning new UI. But they do, and it's a reality that can't be dispelled with dismissive remarks.
At the end, this is what matters:
I have great hopes for Windows 9 on mobile and tablets. Just as Windows 7 was “Vista Done Right,” it’s quite likely that the touchscreen version of Windows 9 will be “Windows 8 Done Right.” I’ll stay with Win7 the next few years and hope for better times with Windows 9. One great thing about Microsoft is that they do have a history of correcting their mistakes.
I have great hopes for Windows 9 on mobile and tablets. Just as Windows 7 was “Vista Done Right,” it’s quite likely that the touchscreen version of Windows 9 will be “Windows 8 Done Right.” I’ll stay with Win7 the next few years and hope for better times with Windows 9. One great thing about Microsoft is that they do have a history of correcting their mistakes.
Your post above should be in the dictionary under the title: 'Apologist.'
...there may be further references to Stockholm Syndrome (he doesn't mean to do this to me, that's just his process...)
MS has a history of just not 'getting' it with Windows. This is just the next chapter.
...there may be further references to Stockholm Syndrome (he doesn't mean to do this to me, that's just his process...)
MS has a history of just not 'getting' it with Windows. This is just the next chapter.
What did MS not get with Windows 95/2000/XP/7? I don't think the "tick-tock model" of Windows releases is reliable, after such a big and confused change as Windows 8, I find it very likely that Windows 9 will be released to better reviews.
I see your 95/XP/2000/7 and raise you ME/Vista/8... perhaps I have been a little selective, or perhaps the word 'history' is a iittle vague, I think my point is clear though and IMO well supported... by history.
Yes, exactly - that is why the original citation makes sense :) ME & Vista sucked, but the next versions were great. There is no long-term tendency towards suckiness, it's more like a rollercoaster, and that's why waiting for Windows 9 is a solid decision IMHO.
Yes, this is the freaking issue! People have to use this abberation formthe next few years!
How is the fact that it might get better any form of comfort whatsoever?
This is battered woman logic at it's finest... I really cannot understand how you could argue that it's all honky-dory brcause it's been hideous before but it got better, so just knuckle under for now and it should be ok at some uncertain point in the future.
How is the fact that it might get better any form of comfort whatsoever?
This is battered woman logic at it's finest... I really cannot understand how you could argue that it's all honky-dory brcause it's been hideous before but it got better, so just knuckle under for now and it should be ok at some uncertain point in the future.
No, because nobody has to use Windows 8 for the next 8+ years. There is absolutely no obligation to. Just like nobody ever had to use Vista or ME. From the OP-
> I’ll stay with Win7 the next few years and hope for better times with Windows 9
> I’ll stay with Win7 the next few years and hope for better times with Windows 9
MS has a history of just not 'getting' it with Windows.
-- Win 95 almost killed AAPL (ie, it was like the 4th version, not the first)
-- Win 95 almost killed AAPL (ie, it was like the 4th version, not the first)
At the same time, Windows 7 initially had an uphill battle in the market because consumers associated it with Vista. I even know a couple people who are still on XP because, in part, of their feelings about Vista.
I fear Windows 9 might experience the same thing because of Windows 8. It would have been much better if they had just delayed Windows 8 just a bit longer. Perhaps release it for tablets in the time frame they did, and then take a little bit longer to work on the desktop version. I know there was a real need to hurry and get some tablets out on the market, Windows 7 is still new enough that it could have remained the main OS for desktop PCs for another 6-12 months.
I fear Windows 9 might experience the same thing because of Windows 8. It would have been much better if they had just delayed Windows 8 just a bit longer. Perhaps release it for tablets in the time frame they did, and then take a little bit longer to work on the desktop version. I know there was a real need to hurry and get some tablets out on the market, Windows 7 is still new enough that it could have remained the main OS for desktop PCs for another 6-12 months.
"At the same time, Windows 7 initially had an uphill battle in the market because consumers associated it with Vista."
Reminds me of Server "2008 R2".
"I even know a couple people who are still on XP because, in part, of their feelings about Vista."
Not to mention organizations too where deployments takes time. Reminds me of NT4 end of support.
Reminds me of Server "2008 R2".
"I even know a couple people who are still on XP because, in part, of their feelings about Vista."
Not to mention organizations too where deployments takes time. Reminds me of NT4 end of support.
I think he's right in a way, and wrong in another way. The combination of metro and desktop programs being used together in Windows 8 is somewhat of a usability nightmare. However, only using one or the other primarily works great.
On my laptop for example, I primarily use the desktop features and regular programs. The only time I really touch the metro-styled areas is when I search for a program or file. This sort of a workflow is almost exactly like one would have on Windows 7, and isn't hard to grasp at all.
On a tablet, users would primarily use the metro-styled area (or only use it depending on their version of Windows 8 I guess). I suspect that this wouldn't be too mentally taxing, although I haven't tried it.
The problem then is that this kind of use still basically then divides Windows 8 into two different operating systems, which seems to go against Microsoft's goal of merging the UX on different devices. I don't know if there's a real answer to this - I guess we'll see in the next Windows version as the article states.
On my laptop for example, I primarily use the desktop features and regular programs. The only time I really touch the metro-styled areas is when I search for a program or file. This sort of a workflow is almost exactly like one would have on Windows 7, and isn't hard to grasp at all.
On a tablet, users would primarily use the metro-styled area (or only use it depending on their version of Windows 8 I guess). I suspect that this wouldn't be too mentally taxing, although I haven't tried it.
The problem then is that this kind of use still basically then divides Windows 8 into two different operating systems, which seems to go against Microsoft's goal of merging the UX on different devices. I don't know if there's a real answer to this - I guess we'll see in the next Windows version as the article states.
It doesn't make a lot of sense to my why Metro applications need to be fullscreen, especially if lots of applications are supposed to work on a phone form factor too. Stick them in some standard chrome at a standard size, and let them float if the user wants them to float.
Something to keep in mind is that regardless of the issues with Metro, you can easily ignore it by using software such as Start8[0], which readds a start menu and goes straight to the oldschool desktop when you log in.
Windows 8 has significant performance improvements over Windows 7, so there's no reason not to replace Windows 7 with it at this point for regular, old laptop/desktop use.
0: http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
Windows 8 has significant performance improvements over Windows 7, so there's no reason not to replace Windows 7 with it at this point for regular, old laptop/desktop use.
0: http://www.stardock.com/products/start8/
As a Gnome 3 user, I am overcome with a strange sense of schadenfreude.
This is fine for the slightly aware power user (I have Windows 8 set up with Start8 and find it miles better than Windows 7), but if you put yourself in the shoes of your technically incompetent grandmother then you can see how things could be that much harder on Windows 8, especially if they took a long time to get used to the traditional Windows desktop.
I suspect OEMs will start bundling something similar with Windows 8 laptops/desktops. Dell has bundled OS X-like docks in the past.
I've used Vista until now, but I'm planning on buying a new stationary computer soon, and I'll probably buy Windows 8, mainly for the improved security features (but also the improved speed/boot time, file copy dialog, Reset & Refresh and File History). From what I hear, it's possibly to largely ignore the Metro interface, which is what I plan to do.
Would anyone who's used Windows 8 recommend me to buy Windows 7 instead?
Would anyone who's used Windows 8 recommend me to buy Windows 7 instead?
If you simply ignore the Metro thing and use the desktop, I find Windows 8 better the Windows 7 in every way.
I've been using Windows 8 on my primary machine for about a year. I couldn't imagine going back to Windows 7. 8 is a clear upgrade once you learn to use it (which takes very little time if you actively attempt to learn the new interface).
I've used windows 8 for a few days and I would say its not THAT bad once you get accustomed to it. So far I haven't seen any reasons to switch to Windows 8 on my main computer yet.
From reading all these reviews, it seems that simply adding a way to disable "Metro" on desktops and bringing back the Start button, would please everyone. There's only one recurring complaint - one that could be easily fixed. It's not really a "Vista situation".
The problem is the bigger picture here--Microsoft wants to phase out the desktop and move us all to Metro so we have to buy all software through their app store. I would guess that in the near future we'll be talking about jailbreaking windows just to install our own stuff. It's the only explanation I can find for Microsoft completely ignoring how much everyone hates Metro.
I see a different picture. One where they're desperately trying to kick-start their mobile plaform, so they're unapologetically shoving it under the noses of as many customers as possible, and the only way they can see to do this, is by shipping it as the interface of Windows.
Once they've got app developers making enough apps for the mobile platform to have a viable evosystem, they can uncouple it from Windows desktop somewhat.
Once they've got app developers making enough apps for the mobile platform to have a viable evosystem, they can uncouple it from Windows desktop somewhat.
This is the clearest explanation I've read. Microsoft may have convinced themselves that Metro is a viable desktop UI but that is post-facto justification.
The real reason is 'developers, developers, developers'.
The real reason is 'developers, developers, developers'.
If the real reason was 'developers, developers, developers', Microsoft would not have created the walled garden, a clone of iOS App Store.
'Developers, developers, developers' want open, bazaar-style platform, like Win32, they do not want curated cathedral-style shop where Microsoft can kick out the competitors from.
'Developers, developers, developers' want open, bazaar-style platform, like Win32, they do not want curated cathedral-style shop where Microsoft can kick out the competitors from.
Is that why developers are trampling over each other in a stampede to the iOS store?
They're fearful of malware and battery-sucking-always-running services and apps like some Android apps.
This way, they start with a clean slate on WindowsRT and Metro apps and then maybe relax some rules
They're fearful of malware and battery-sucking-always-running services and apps like some Android apps.
This way, they start with a clean slate on WindowsRT and Metro apps and then maybe relax some rules
I'm not trampling over anybody in a stampede to the iOS store, and also I'm staying at Win32 and ignoring WinRT platform completely precisely for that reason: lack of developer freedom.
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft will drop entire WinRT thing someday, or there will be alternative Win32 implementation from other vendor. As for WinRT, they have invented a lot of similar toys last years, played them for some short time, and abandoned them.
In any case, Win32 code base and user base is too large, so this platform will be supported in some way for the next 50+ years.
I'm pretty sure that Microsoft will drop entire WinRT thing someday, or there will be alternative Win32 implementation from other vendor. As for WinRT, they have invented a lot of similar toys last years, played them for some short time, and abandoned them.
In any case, Win32 code base and user base is too large, so this platform will be supported in some way for the next 50+ years.
what is crazy is the complete lack of ackowledgement from MS on this. Why not give this option that would clearly please a bunch of people?
And, this is what he initially had to say about the iPad: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/ipad-1st-study.html
Keep in mind that iPad study focused on UI issues with third-party apps. In particular, noting the inconsistent behavior between those apps.
Blog post that Venturebeat links to: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/windows-8.html
And discussion: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4802332
All this bashing on Windows 8 reminds me of the first version of OS X, Cheetah. Apple proves the pundits wrong. I wish Microsoft the same.
Yea yea you like the underdog.. have you used windows 8?
have you?
Yes. And I liked it ( I was puzzled by the UI for the 3 first days.)
Besides usability and esthetical considerations, MS has done something very clever : Javascript as a first class citizen for building apps is a game changer.
I can't say I'm a huge fan, it is really undiscoverable with the charms etc... The one normal person I showed it to kept hitting escape to try to get out of where they were.
I don't think it will do overly great based on what I've seen. But we'll see if I'm wrong!
I don't think it will do overly great based on what I've seen. But we'll see if I'm wrong!
WebOS had HTML/JS apps as well and it didn't do very well. Execution, not ideas, is what wins user's loyalty and dollars. Microsoft was king of execution in the 90s. Today, not so much.
Yeah, but Apple is, despite their (myriad) flaws, pretty darn good at the "making a usable OS" game.
MS, well, not so much.
MS, well, not so much.
MS seems pretty capable of making a usable OS. Have you used Windows 7?
They learnt it the hard way. Have a look at the first Siracusa's review of OS X
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2001/04/macos-x/
But I had to admit that compared to Apple, MS might not be introspective enough to improve Windows.
But I had to admit that compared to Apple, MS might not be introspective enough to improve Windows.
One thing I actually have trouble with is not being able to exit an application. You can tell me all you want that idling in the background uses few resources, but sometimes I would rather just exit. I blame Steve Jobs for that one, damn you Steve Jobs!
Drag down from the top to 'close' an app.
One of the most annoying things about the metro interface is how they forced such a drastic change even on Server 2012. Metro may in fact turn out to be more usable some day but when we have work to do, we don't have time to play around with new toys. I recently had to get a 2012 server up and running quickly, but spent half my time learning all the secret and completely unnatural hovering places and clicks. I hate to admit it, but I actually had to Google how to restart in 2012.
[deleted]
And yet, I do not hesitate to call it the best Windows ever.
The optimization work which went into the kernel really shows on this old hardware; where I used to get 3-4 FPS under XP Pro I now get around 13. Every Windows program I have thrown at it, new or old (going back all the way to Windows 98), just works.
Don't-Call-It-Metro is just a big launcher where I can pin and group icons of programs I use a lot; I was already doing that anyway with folders on the desktop, since it's much faster than navigating the old Start menu. I was still maintaining an organized but nevertheless humongous Start menu out of old habit and as a way to remind myself of less frequently used, "might be useful in special situations" tools, but as MS noticed, I was not really using it anymore.
Basic workflow: start laptop, wait a few seconds, log in, click Desktop tile, and you are in the familiar Windows environment, just better than ever. Down in the left corner of the taskbar, a couple of icons launch a much improved File Explorer and IE 10 (which is scary fast compared to previous iterations). Hover over them and you get a "lightbox" with views of currently open windows; the same functionality extends to other application icons you pin on the taskbar.
File Explorer does most of what the old Start button did, i.e. gives you quick access to Documents, recently visited locations, Favorites, drives and groups. Move the mouse cursor down to the left and bottom of it, and up pops a small "Start" representation of the Start screen. Click that, and you are on your big customized launcher. Hit Esc and you are back on the desktop.
If that isn't sufficiently similar to the old ways for you, you can right-click the File Explorer icon to get a menu which looks even more like the old Start menu. Still not happy because Start | Programs is missing? Right-click the taskbar, check Toolbars | Desktop, and a classic menu is pinned which includes, among other things, Control Panel | Programs. I don't think I'll be using it, but I suppose somebody might. Choice is good.
As far as I can see, all the chatter about Windows 8 being oh so confusingly different is just a storm in a teacup. Do people seriously expect workers to be "retrained" to use this? Please. The new "concealed" stuff adds functionality, but you don't really need it. Put the mouse in upper left corner and you get small tiles of running apps, which you can click to restore or right-click and close. Neat, but you don't need to know it. Swipe down from the upper right corner and you get the famous charms with Search, Start and so on; again, neat, but you don't need to know it. They just add new ways to do things.
Oh, and finally... the desktop themes are gorgeous. :)