zeke009, on 22 November 2012 - 04:56, said:
This guy just highlighted that people prefer gradual change that they don't notice, they rebel against immediate change they have to adapt to because "they don't have the time".
I have nothing to back that up, it's my own opinion from being in the corporate IT world. I'll never forget being yelled at by a woman who broke down in tears because Excel 2000 was upgraded to Excel 2003. If she could have hit me, I think she might have. Some people at work have lit me up over Windows 7 and my involvement with the project as one of the PM's because the GUI and Start Menu are different.
The more I get yelled at, the more I believe people just don't like change if they notice it right away. If it is gradual we adapt to the small changes and life goes on. Win8 is a massive visual change for some and they are not happy campers.
I do like the ideas behind Windows 8, but even Windows 95 had videos and the option to launch Program Manager. Windows 8 by comparison is shoving change down your throat in an inconsistent way - not even an intuitive way - and it doesn't have the appearance of benefiting you in any way.
People adapt to change when it has tangible benefit, even if you can't see it yet. They'll usually try it once. Just like the UX guy said on that video: "we want to get rid of the blue flash. They'll only see it once, but it'll still leave a bad impression." That's the point. If we don't "get it" on the UI changes when we first need to experience them
, you've lost us. After that point, it will simply feel painful, and just like "the customer is always right", you can't make me feel better about it, you can only educate it in. I don't see any education here, just "our way is the only way, you're holding it wrong, you never need to shut down, that large monitor is completely wasted for fullscreen metro apps, right click is useless now" etc etc ad nauseum.
I generally love changes. I really even like radical changes. I have used OS/2, Windows, Linux, MacOS, etc. as my primary desktop machine for years. But everything he says in this article is true -- Windows might be forward thinking and radical, but the more radical a departure from the norm things are, the more you have to be coddled into it, or the acceptance rate is abysmal. And it had better make sense too. This has the problem of not having either. Win8 doesnt have a cohesive strategy, is not intuitive, has no instruction (the one screen of "touch the corner" is laughable) and is a radical departure.
It is very much like Vista except instead of being a resource hog, it's a usability pain. People will not adopt it for the desktop, where it has very little perceived benefit. You can't sell me for years that multiple windows is good and then sell me an OS where windows are now removed for your new Metro interface and my 1920x1200+ displays are wasted. And just sitting back and saying "we're smarter than you" isn't going to help in this regard. It's not like Antennagate -- which was stupid too -- that particular problem was obviously hardware and obviously fixed too. This is a whole paradigm shift into non-intuitiveness.
I cannot stand surfing in fullscreen mode Metro IE. The wasted right and left side of the screen for fixed-width sites is a real eyesore. Not to mention Office 2013 follow on that model by delivering color schemes of "white" and "almost white".
Seriously, are we all supposed to go out and buy small tablets now, to suit the OS? I thought the OS was supposed to suit the device.