Windows 8 and the split personality Metro interface
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I think it's not just big buttons, the desktop assumes that you use a mouse and a (physical) keyboard, so I imagine it will be hard to rewire all the UI code to use fat fingers as pointers, if they would have gone for the bigger buttons approach the transition, most likely, would have required that the current apps developers modify their code to be able to use touch. I like the Modern UI interface, but I think they could have more gentler in how they feed this UI to the end users, however, given that they're (very) late to the party I believe that they could not afford to be gentle.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
I think it's not just big buttons, the desktop assumes that you use a mouse and a (physical) keyboard, so I imagine it will be hard to rewire all the UI code to use fat fingers as pointers, if they would have gone for the bigger buttons approach the transition, most likely, would have required that the current apps developers modify their code to be able to use touch. I like the Modern UI interface, but I think they could have more gentler in how they feed this UI to the end users, however, given that they're (very) late to the party I believe that they could not afford to be gentle.
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
I am not so concerned with the UI as the WinRT sandbox is so restrictive!!! The last three things I wanted to develop a store app for hit the rocks.
-
I am not so concerned with the UI as the WinRT sandbox is so restrictive!!! The last three things I wanted to develop a store app for hit the rocks.
I agree, I develop libraries for Modern UI, and I stumbled upon rock after rock, I had to port several libraries from the open source world to be able to develop my own libraries, simply because the functionality is not there in WinRT. I'm curious, what you wanted to do that you hit a big tiled rock?
CEO at: - Rafaga Systems - Para Facturas - Modern Components for the moment...
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Completely agree with you, Chris. I've been thinking the same thing. The way that Windows 8 and the Metro UI are going just don't feel right to me. One of the solutions that made the most sense to me was something that Ubuntu was trying with Android devices a little while ago. When in "mobile" mode, it used the Android UI. When you docked the computer, it would switch over to using the Ubuntu desktop UI. We have different contexts when using computers - consumer, tablet, power user, desktop, whatever you want to call it. Each context is appropriate for a given set of tasks. It seems to me that MS could really differentiate themselves by giving us something similar that sensed which context we were in (or allowed some other sort of switching) instead of jamming two unrelated contexts together and forcing us into a mobile context when we're on a desktop computer and will never use a mobile context or giving us a desktop context on a mobile computer with a screen too small to give a really good desktop experience. The current strategy seems to be a poor compromise where neither context really wins. One thing to rule them all rarely works well for everybody. Microsoft tried to put the desktop context onto mobile devices and saw that people pretty much rejected it because the desktop wasn't appropriate for mobile. The funny thing is now they're trying the reverse by putting a mobile context onto desktops and thinking that that will be better received. I think at the very least, they should go with what has always been successful for them and give users more choice, rather than following the Apple path and taking choice away.
-
button now requires a swipe over the entire height of the screen. Multiselect isn't available. Not even with touch. There's nothing wrong with introducing new technologies, but it's stupid to ignore the existance of millions of applications that are better controlled using a mouse, and then cripple mouse usability! I've used Win8 for a couple of weeks on my ultrabook, and I don't see anything that's inherently better than with Win7. But I did notice a whole lot of things that are now more difficult than they used to be. If your Win7 feels slow, how old is the machine it's running on? Mine is 2.5 years, but it doesn't feel notably slower than my brand new Win8 ultrabook.
Not sure what you are referring to with multiselect but you can right click on as many items as you want. Closing screens is either by swiping or by right-clicking in the recently opened apps i.e. left sidebar (I only figured that one our recently). With slower I didn't mean the machine was slow as both Win 7 and Win 8 was using the same machine (Core i7, 8GB RAM if that matters) but just handling things. If you're on start you can just start typing. You get a full screen of results which is amazingly quick. You can have a metro app (news, twitter, music open and pinned to one side which using desktop in the rest. This is what I mean with making may day to day life quicker. I don't own a touch screen laptop or desktop yet but I can only imagine that just making Win 8 even better.
-
Not sure what you are referring to with multiselect but you can right click on as many items as you want. Closing screens is either by swiping or by right-clicking in the recently opened apps i.e. left sidebar (I only figured that one our recently). With slower I didn't mean the machine was slow as both Win 7 and Win 8 was using the same machine (Core i7, 8GB RAM if that matters) but just handling things. If you're on start you can just start typing. You get a full screen of results which is amazingly quick. You can have a metro app (news, twitter, music open and pinned to one side which using desktop in the rest. This is what I mean with making may day to day life quicker. I don't own a touch screen laptop or desktop yet but I can only imagine that just making Win 8 even better.
Regarding multiselect, I was refering to selecting multiple objects on the desktop or within Explorer using [Shift]-LMB or [CTRL]-LMB , or by dragging a frame around the objects. Somehow it never occurred to me to just right click multiple items - In W7 any click without modifier automatically deselects the previous items. Thanks for pointing that out - that will greatly help in the future when I next install a desktop application and end up with some 15 new 'apps' on the start screen... Obviously we're using PCs very differently, and that is probably the main reason why we are of such a different opinion: I rarely use search on my PC (maybe 2-3 times a month), I don't use social networks, and only occasionally play media. I use and develop complex CAD/CAM tools and play games the require a lot of resources and high precision input. A touch screen simply doesn't work for me, nor an UI that is designed around the assumptions you are using one.
-
I refuse to install it on my desktop. Had a little play with it on my parents new laptop and the one thing that I absolutely wanted to do I can't do with it (as far as I can tell). I have 3 (24") screens on my desktop so I wanted to keep the new start menu open on one screen at all times and have the apps/programs open on one of the others. Seems that I can't do that, as soon as a program opens the start menu goes away. So not going to bother installing it as it seems it brings a lot of overhead to desktop users. Also took me a google search to find the damn shut down button, really Microsoft, I have to go into 'settings' in order to shut down my pc?? I can see the interface being usable with tough devices but with the mouse it's not that easy, although I have to admit that the 'apps' are good for people that don't know much about pc's (like my parents). My parents picked up on it pretty fast (after I set all the needed settings of course)
Tom Deketelaere wrote:
Also took me a google search to find the damn shut down button
I found it in my "Getting started with Win 8" booklet that came with my ultrabook. But yes, it's not obvious. You would think that MS would improve on their hilarious "press Start to shut down" design, but ... :doh:
Tom Deketelaere wrote:
(after I set all the needed settings of course)
Now that is another topic that deserves some bashing! Even after reading the abovementioned booklet, it took me hours to adjust the settings to a usable state. I didn't even find a lot of useful information on the internet. Eventually I did find one useful article. But even with that help some odd things happened, requiring me to trial-and-error until I found the problem. :thumbsdown: You'd think that after 20 years after Win 3.11 MS should be able to provide a clean and easy to use setup for hooking up your PC to an existing network. Instead they spread settings over half a dozen dialogs laden with network jargon, and any information available from the system doesn't help because it assumes a network of homogenous Win8 PCs. X|
-
I think I am in the minority of 1 when I say this (outside of MS at least) but I think MS have definitely made the right choice here. W.I.M.P; thirty+ years in the making has been honed and extended universally, and computing has moved from the domain of scientists, through experts, to the realm of an everyday consumer device, and now W.I.M.P has been found wanting. This is mainly due to form factor, mobility, and ease of use, and so we are left with only two choices for the next thirty+ years. Either move all of our interfaces forward to make a unified interface, or keep separate the two interfaces, and as a manufacturer of software (and now hardware) for a variety of form factors, then it seems to me that the best way forward is a single unified interface, or one which, like Metro, promotes a main interface with a secondary interface for the expert and domain specific users. This isn't a new phenomenon, as, even with W.I.M.P. the CLI has continued to exist for a variety of expert uses, and is available from most W.I.M.P. implementations. I think it is a fair assumption that we will have a touch or gesture interface with single-app full screen coverage as the primary interface for all devices in the future, with access to a mature W.I.M.P. interface supporting multiple APPs/windows for professional and workflow usage. Beneath this we will continue to have CLI access and tooling. MS then, are the only company so far to give it a go, and that's got to put them in a position to drive forwards this over the next few years, so kudos to them, even if their first implementation leaves something to be desired.
Funny you're talking about Weakly interacting massive particles[^] here, a term well coined for a company like MS ;P Seriously, (yes I know what you mean, I still find this choice of acronym stupid) I can't follow your argumentation. Yes, there is certainly potential for improvement in existing user interfaces, there always is. And yes, there's nothing inherently wrong with making a change as radical as the change from DOS to Win 1.0. (or 3.0 if you prefer). But (yes, that is a big but!), Metro is definitely not the only way to go forward, nor is designing a unified interface. I'm not convinced we really need a unified UI on all devices. I am using my smartphones in very different ways compared to my desktop. On the latter, I need the keyboard and the precision of the mouse, as well as a big screen that provides all the info I need without requiring me to swipe over the entire screen. On the phone, I don't have enough screen space to display everything, and the entire device doesn't allow for spacious input devices like keyboard and mouse. Why would I want an identical interface on both? It doesn't make sense. At all. An identical API, yes I can see how that would be useful, but considering the differences in the UI and input devices, there need to be at least some differences here as well!
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
I don't use Windows 8 and I don't use touchscreen devices, nor do I program them at present, and not because I am stuck in my ways either, I learn a new language/framework about every six months. I simply have no desire at the moment to go in the touchscreen/Windows 8 direction. I agree that a PC OS and a touchscreen OS should be kept separate, otherwise I just feel like I am being short-changed when it comes to the PC OS. To me a PC is simply not a touchscreen toy/gadget. I will probably learn to program touchscreens at some point, just out of curiosity, but it is low on my list of priorities.
-
(Not the Metro design language, but their Tile based, all-apps-full-screen, can't-close-an-app-trust-us-we-know-what-we're-doing interface) Windows is skinnable. One of the primary issues with a touch interface is clumsy thumbs and gestures. Gesture support are is fairly straightforward to add to an app (or an OS), and so I can't help but think that a "touch" skin for windows (bigger close buttons, different dropdown list UI, different resizers etc) would have taken us 90% of the way to a totally useable tablet UI on Windows without the need of a double-sided OS. I've been thinking about Surface and Ultrabooks a lot lately, and the way I use a tablet is very, very different to how I use a laptop. On a laptop I use a keyboard, trackpad or mouse, and even with a touchscreen I only ever use touch for scrolling or zooming. On an ultrabook I create content, on a tablet I consume and so have a different set of UI needs. I just wish the demarkation between the touch and keyboard based UIs had been done between PC and tablet, instead of PCs and Tablets sharing the same UI, and then Phones having the separate, dedicated UI. (and yes, I know WinRT based devices only have the "Metro" apps -which makes me wonder why they bothered having Metro apps on the desktop). I'm confused, It seems there are simpler and better solutions to this.
cheers, Chris Maunder The Code Project | Co-founder Microsoft C++ MVP
Does anyone develope on their touchscreen? Can you imagine Visual studio with a touchscreen Metro interface? I think someone summed this up pretty well already: "The Windows 8 Metro interface was designed for consuming information instead of getting serious work done."