273 posts in this topic

Posted

I would have preferred if Windows 8 came with a setting to use the mouse like a touch input device (being able to drag to scroll, keep the left button pressed for context menu, etc. in Metro). Much less annoyances especially on touchpads where every different laptop has different scrolling or multitouch methods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

The main issue with this would be: How would you offer a better or equitable version of the right-click menu, that is both customizable and offers the same level of functionality, say for individual files or folders in Explorer, and/or on a single item in a list in a non-MS application?

Eliminating the right-click context menu from the desktop alone, as your screen shot shows, might make sense. However, removing it all together, such as from Explorer or other MS and non-MS applications, would limit functionality and productivity to an extreme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Dot Matrix, stop having thoughts, its not working for you.

This would never work.

Eliminating the right-click context menu from the desktop alone, as your screen shot shows, might make sense. However, removing it all together, such as from Explorer or other MS and non-MS applications, would limit functionality and productivity to an extreme.

thats what metro and all this "modern" app BS does, and yet some people don't mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Dot Matrix, stop having thoughts, its not working for you.

This would never work.

thats what metro and all this "modern" app BS does, and yet some people don't mind.

I disagree. For me it has improved functionality and productivity in many cases. If your experience and/or use and integration of it has been poor, that's too bad.

While I could easily agree with removing the right-click menu from the desktop alone, scenarios such as in File Explorer, or VS, or Photoshop, or in many other non-MS applications would be very hindering, unless it was replaced by a method that made just as much if not more sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sometimes I don't know if you really love or really hate windows 8 Dot Matrix, of all the giant and glaring usability issues with "metro" and you want to remove that last bit of what's left that's actually usable lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I could definitely see myself using a right-click Charms Bar instead of the small context menus. They first need to work on the Charms Bar though. Reminds me of Blackberry in terms of redundant menus and things that are necessary being hidden/layered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

This would be total fail on my 30 inch 2560x1600 LCD..

Try spanning three!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

For all sanity, even Apple uses a right context menu because it is simplier, easier and more intuitive...

If you are passionate about Windows 8 then why there's substitute for Start menu in your screenshot? And no, charm bar is not intuitive and easy to invoke - I was almost unable to bring it on HP Envy 23 today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Sometimes I don't know if you really love or really hate windows 8 Dot Matrix, of all the giant and glaring usability issues with "metro" and you want to remove that last bit of what's left that's actually usable lol

I'm not the only one calling for Metro integration on the desktop. If you have better ideas as to what can be, I'd love to see them.

Actions like this would make Windows more accessible to other devices. Try using the desktop right now on a Surface, and it's still the nightmare that caused Windows 7 tablets to fail (aside from the poor hardware).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I'm not the only one calling for Metro integration on the desktop. If you have better ideas as to what can be, I'd love to see them.

Yes I have a better idea, leave windows alone.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Yes I have a better idea, leave windows alone.

You're on the loosing side of an argument on that one. No offense, but what do you think is going to happen as time rolls on? Technology is changing too much to "leave Windows alone". Even on the desktop, you're fighting an uphill battle on that.'

The habits you have now, will no longer apply in 10, 20, 30 years from now on, just like your habits from 10, 20, 30 years ago no longer apply.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're on the loosing side of an argument on that one. No offense, but what do you think is going to happen as time rolls on? Technology is changing too much to "leave Windows alone". Even on the desktop, you're fighting an uphill battle on that.

If it's not broken then don't fix it, people like you and Ballmer want to force change onto people just for the sake of change, there is no "forward" thinking with the direction that Ballmer is forcing windows, he only wants to line his pockets and bloat his colossal ego and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I didn't read the entire thread - seeing as it's mostly insults and thoughtless one-liners anyway - but the entire idea behind the Modern UI is that the Desktop is, at its core, a UI optimised for keyboard and mouse, that there is still a need for such a UI, and that there is no point trying to adapt it to be touch-friendly. What Microsoft has shown with Windows 8 is that instead of trying to change the Desktop, they want to provide a brand new UI, built from the ground up to be optimized for touch. Windows 8 thus attempts to please both interaction paradigms, not by providing a unified UI that is somehow optimized for both, but by providing two completely different and separate UIs. This makes sense as the requirements are so very different; it's impossible to optimize both for large screens + high-precision pointing devices, and for small screens + low-precision greasy touch devices. The usage contexts, patterns and typical users are also completly different. Windows 8 did the smart thing keeping touch and mouse separate.

That said, I don't think there is much value in your suggestion since it runs contrary to the design goals of Windows 8 - keep the desktop the same keyboard-and-mouse optimised design it always has been, but provide an alternative for touch users. The few places where they did introduce "Metro-like" side panels in the desktop UI - like the Networks one - are inconsistent and show poor integration with the desktop; these are mistakes.

Contextual right-click menus are a very mouse-oriented design and they work brillantly in that paradigm. Even if Microsoft somehow managed to eliminate a few of them from the Windows UI, they would still be pervasive across all desktop applications, as are tooltips, nested menus, scrollbars and such traditional controls that work superbly for a mouse but terribly for touch. What Microsoft needs to do for touch users is eliminate the need to access the Desktop as much as possible, rather than change the Desktop to fit touch users.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're on the loosing side of an argument on that one. No offense, but what do you think is going to happen as time rolls on? Technology is changing too much to "leave Windows alone". Even on the desktop, you're fighting an uphill battle on that.'

The habits you have now, will no longer apply in 10, 20, 30 years from now on, just like your habits from 10, 20, 30 years ago no longer apply.

Really? How did I shut down 10+ years ago? Start - Shut Down. How do I launch a program? Start - All Programs - Folder - Program.

These are habits of mine that has existed since Windows 95. And with Start8, these habits are still useful.

Are you really suggesting more mouse travel = a better solution?

When you right click an item that menu is RIGHT THERE. Where ever your mouse was, that is where the Right Click menu shows up. Minimal mouse travel.

More mouse travel = a slower process. It does not matter if you mouse is VERY FAST, it is still slower moving 100s of pixels vs 10s of pixels.

You are suggesting people go to control panel and play with their mouse settings every time they want to do something? No thank you.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I didn't read the entire thread - seeing as it's mostly insults and thoughtless one-liners anyway - but the entire idea behind the Modern UI is that the Desktop is, at its core, a UI optimised for keyboard and mouse, that there is still a need for such a UI, and that there is no point trying to adapt it to be touch-friendly. What Microsoft has shown with Windows 8 is that instead of trying to change the Desktop, they want to provide a brand new UI, built from the ground up to be optimized for touch. Windows 8 thus attempts to please both interaction paradigms, not by providing a unified UI that is somehow optimized for both, but by providing two completely different and separate UIs. This makes sense as the requirements are so very different; it's impossible to optimize both for large screens + high-precision pointing devices, and for small screens + low-precision greasy touch devices. The usage contexts, patterns and typical users are also completly different. Windows 8 did the smart thing keeping touch and mouse separate.

That said, I don't think there is much value in your suggestion since it runs contrary to the design goals of Windows 8 - keep the desktop the same keyboard-and-mouse optimised design it always has been, but provide an alternative for touch users. The few places where they did introduce "Metro-like" side panels in the desktop UI - like the Networks one - are inconsistent and show poor integration with the desktop; these are mistakes.

Contextual right-click menus are a very mouse-oriented design and they work brillantly in that paradigm. Even if Microsoft somehow managed to eliminate a few of them from the Windows UI, they would still be pervasive across all desktop applications, as are tooltips, nested menus, scrollbars and such traditional controls that work superbly for a mouse but terribly for touch. What Microsoft needs to do for touch users is eliminate the need to access the Desktop as much as possible, rather than change the Desktop to fit touch users.

If they intend to keep touch and keyboard/mouse paradigms separate, they should allow metro and the start screen to be turned off completely by the user. They're supposed to be independent right??

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If it's not broken then don't fix it, people like you and Ballmer want to force change onto people just for the sake of change, there is no "forward" thinking with the direction that Ballmer is forcing windows, he only wants to line his pockets and bloat his colossal ego and you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Ford Model T wasn't broken either, but, well, you know. This is nothing but Microsoft adapting to trends, and allowing Windows room to grow in the next few decades.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If they intend to keep touch and keyboard/mouse paradigms separate, they should allow metro and the start screen to be turned off completely by the user. They're supposed to be independent right??

Thank you, I agree. Leave it up to the user to decide.

If it HAS to be forced for whatever reason, at least ONLY force it when Windows 8 first detects a touch device (during install or first start up). If you have a standard monitor (especially 30"), keyboard, and mouse, give us an option.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Really? How did I shut down 10+ years ago? Start - Shut Down. How do I launch a program? Start - All Programs - Folder - Program.

These are habits of mine that has existed since Windows 95. And with Start8, these habits are still useful.

Did they apply in Windows 3.1? How did you shut down your terminal back in the 80's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Did they apply in Windows 3.1? How did you shut down your terminal back in the 80's?

I was 3, I did not use 3.1.

Ford Model T wasn't broken either, but, well, you know. This is nothing but Microsoft adapting to trends, and allowing Windows room to grow in the next few decades.

Then what is SOOOOOOOO horrible about providing options to the user? If user A wants to stick with the old style, why does that hurt you? Because you are worried nobody would move on? If the new UI is SOOOOOOOO incredible, even with a choice people will move on.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

If they intend to keep touch and keyboard/mouse paradigms separate, they should allow metro and the start screen to be turned off completely by the user. They're supposed to be independent right??

I agree, Windows 8 is often equivocal and confused. The elimination of the desktop start menu is probably its most egregious and well-known mistake; on one hand it obviously doesn't want to alter the desktop in any major way, on the other hand it annoys desktop users with metro-isms in quite a few places and not the most subtle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I agree, Windows 8 is often equivocal and confused. The elimination of the desktop start menu is probably its most egregious and well-known mistake; on one hand it obviously doesn't want to alter the desktop in any major way, on the other hand it annoys desktop users with metro-isms in quite a few places and not the most subtle.

Everybody I talk to agrees that if they do these small things, Windows 8 would be amazing.

  • Have an option to completely disable the hot corners and invisible menus (charms and app switcher)
  • Provide a start BUTTON (not a start menu, but the actual visual cue of a button).
  • Add a Shut Down option in the start screen.
  • Provide an option to boot directly to the desktop.

That is it. Those are all the complaints and what everybody I know wants for it to be a great OS. What is so hard about these things? Why are people so frustrated when we simply want options?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I was 3, I did not use 3.1.

Then what is SOOOOOOOO horrible about providing options to the user? If user A wants to stick with the old style, why does that hurt you? Because you are worried nobody would move on? If the new UI is SOOOOOOOO incredible, even with a choice people will move on.

I did. I was also the same age. I moved from 3.1 to 95 no problems. Point is, nothing stays the same forever. As technology changes, so do your habits.

Choice doesn't hurt me, but choice can only go so far before you start impacting other aspects of the release, such as overall UX (Where's WarWagon? He always mentions support - how many times has he had to ask "What color is the bottom bar of your screen? Blue/silver/green? Black? Or clear?" - Same principal applies here. "You're on Windows 8? Do you have the Start Menu or Start Screen on?" - Just hope to God, the customer knows what you mean there.). This "I must have everything my way" is one reason I'll never support Linux, because God only knows how different one distro will be from another. Not having that choice to completely alter the UI is actually keeping support costs lower than they would be otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I did. I was also the same age. I moved from 3.1 to 95 no problems. Point is, nothing stays the same forever. As technology changes, so do your habits.

Choice doesn't hurt me, but choice can only go so far before you start impacting other aspects of the release, such as overall UX (Where's WarWagon? He always mentions support - how many times has he had to ask "What color is the bottom bar of your screen? Blue? Black? Or clear?" - Same principal applies here. "You're on Windows 8? Do you have the Start Menu or Start Screen on?" - Just hope to God, the customer knows what you mean there.). This "I must have everything my way" is one reason I'll never support Linux, because God only knows how different one distro will be from another. Not having that choice to completely alter the UI is actually keeping support costs lower than they would be otherwise.

I doubt you used 3.1 long enough to develop some serious habits. Especially if you were only 3. I doubt your parents let you on there for hours and hours a day every day. Using Windows 95, 98, 2000, XP, Vista, 7 will make you develop A LOT of habits with the way things used to work vs now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Thank you, I agree. Leave it up to the user to decide.

I totally agree.

If it HAS to be forced for whatever reason, at least ONLY force it when Windows 8 first detects a touch device (during install or first start up). If you have a standard monitor (especially 30"), keyboard, and mouse, give us an option.

I can see Windows 8 on a touch device but it makes no sense in a classic desktop environment.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I did. I was also the same age. I moved from 3.1 to 95 no problems. Point is, nothing stays the same forever. As technology changes, so do your habits.

Are you arguing that mouse and keyboard, and the need for a mouse and keyboard-optimised UI, will be irrelevant in any forseeable future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.