Windows 8 RC To Get Flatter Explorer UI, Other Changes

[Anthonyd]

most of those icons should have been gotten rid of back around vista

Ho yeah, let's delete a few MB dll and break many apps. Also some people are still using them, so why should they remove it?

[George P Global Moderator]

Icons are one thing but I really really think the best thing MS could do next is to redo all the old options windows/boxes that come up, specially in control panel and so on. Like in Win7 some options are kept in the window while clicking on "advanced options" brings up the old style window/box with tabs etc. Those all need to go IMO. And I don't mean just fixing the UI, i mean completely gone! Every single control option window should be redone and or simply placed inside the main control panel window like some parts were in Win7.

I mean, hell, we're going to be getting IE10 and it's still using the same old Internet Options window design since IE6 if not older.

[Aethec]

Icons are one thing but I really really think the best thing MS could do next is to redo all the old options windows/boxes that come up, specially in control panel and so on. Like in Win7 some options are kept in the window while clicking on "advanced options" brings up the old style window/box with tabs etc. Those all need to go IMO. And I don't mean just fixing the UI, i mean completely gone! Every single control option window should be redone and or simply placed inside the main control panel window like some parts were in Win7.

I mean, hell, we're going to be getting IE10 and it's still using the same old Internet Options window design since IE6 if not older.

Not enough resources. Icons and UI design do not fall into the "more people equals more things done" category.

[neo1911]

Hope they at least improve the Windows 9x era regedit and .reg files icon.

[Fourjays Veteran]

Looks ok but I still don't believe the ribbon is "compatible" with Metro.

I hope they retain icon colour. It may be "cool" to have everything shades of grey (been through that stage myself as a teenager) but eventually you realise it just isn't as usable (or perhaps it is just me - I've done considerable research into good UI design). For example, you can quickly glance at a red cross and deem it is a negative action (delete, cancel) because it is red. If it is monotone like every other icon then you have to analyse it more. For example imagine if the subscript/superscript icons in this WYSIWYG editor (the one on Neowin for posting) were monotone alongside a "cancel" cross - you have to look at it in more detail to determine the subtle differences, whereas in colour one is red and the other two black. The other thing is it can then provide a reference point for reaching other icons quickly and it is easier to detect in your peripheral vision.

It is also easier to make an icon look like what it should when you aren't restricted to a single colour. It may seem easy for the common ones (home, cancel, ok, back, forward) but start trying to do more obscure ones and it becomes difficult to distinguish them ("bullet points" can look very similar to "justify" or "justify left" for example). Maybe this is why they are trying to merge the ribbon with Metro - because icons alone aren't going to cut it when they are all monotone.

Put simply, we see in colour and our eyes/brain are optimized as such so why not use it?

Edit: To clarify, there are situations where I believe monotone icons are sufficient (such as in a browser where they are only 4-5 icons, each of which is very different and in a quite "natural" location), but in more complex scenarios (such as file management, editing, IDEs, etc) there are so many actions and icons that colour is quite beneficial.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I really like the flat look shown in this topic, just as I do the square edges to windows in the CP. The changes are very subtle but I think they make a considerable difference overall. There is no need for the mock-depth implied by drop shadows and gradients and in fact one of the reasons that Microsoft changed the logo for Windows 8 was specifically to move away from that.

I just wish that ribbon in Explorer would take advantage of screen space, rather than being confined to a tiny portion of the window (I've scaled it down as the original image was over 2000px wide):

It seems to me that all the options should scale to fullsize if there is enough space or find something else that could use the space. As you can see the majority of the ribbon is simply empty space. It's the same with the preview pane on the right - why does it tell you the size of the folder, the number of files and folders that it contains... just anything to fill the space? The Metro Start screen is great at taking advantage of high resolution displays, so I wish that Microsoft would put the same effort into the desktop and Explorer.

[George P Global Moderator]

I really like the flat look shown in this topic, just as I do the square edges to windows in the CP. The changes are very subtle but I think they make a considerable difference overall. There is no need for the mock-depth implied by drop shadows and gradients and in fact one of the reasons that Microsoft changed the logo for Windows 8 was specifically to move away from that.

I just wish that ribbon in Explorer would take advantage of screen space, rather than being confined to a tiny portion of the window (I've scaled it down as the original image was over 2000px wide):

It seems to me that all the options should scale to fullsize if there is enough space or find something else that could use the space. As you can see the majority of the ribbon is simply empty space. It's the same with the preview pane on the right - why does it tell you the size of the folder, the number of files and folders that it contains... just anything to fill the space? The Metro Start screen is great at taking advantage of high resolution displays, so I wish that Microsoft would put the same effort into the desktop and Explorer.

I agree, the best option would be for all of the small elements in the ribbon to become larger as the window is expanded but at the same time it could be one of those cases where it sounds simple but is probably a pain to actually code.

[George P Global Moderator]

Not enough resources. Icons and UI design do not fall into the "more people equals more things done" category.

I don't think lack of manpower or even designers that only do UI work is the problem at MS. I mean hell, we're still talking about parts of the UI that go all the way back to 9x really. If they managed to change a few in Win7 they can manage to change more for Win8, if not all of them.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I agree, the best option would be for all of the small elements in the ribbon to become larger as the window is expanded but at the same time it could be one of those cases where it sounds simple but is probably a pain to actually code.

Yeah, I had considered that but they've already coded it for Office and indeed for Explorer in Windows 8 - if you make the window small it automatically collapse the groups:

There may be other concerns, for instance it would make the experience less consistent (it would look different on each computer depending on the resolution and size of the window). But surely wasted space is just as big a concern?

[George P Global Moderator]

Interesting, I dunno, maybe they figure people don't put Windows Explorer into full screen often OR maybe it's just not really an issue? Like you said, they could just want to keep it the same regardless of size and screen res.

[LightShadow]

In regards to the ribbon style, I guess Microsoft really want to separate the Office and Windows ribbons.

Seeing as the current Office 15 ribbon looks like this. I would have preferred if they kept all the ribbon the same and unified instead of having different designs. I'd be fine with the Office 15 design on the desktop.

[Dot Matrix]

@theyarecomingforyou

I agree, but I'm assuming it's because people rarely have monitors bigger then 1920x1200 to make it worthwhile.

[theyarecomingforyou]

@theyarecomingforyou

I agree, but I'm assuming it's because people rarely have monitors bigger then 1920x1200 to make it worthwhile.

True, but there's a lot of wasted space even at 1080p. And you have to assume with prices ever falling that more and more people will being picking up 1440p/1600p monitors and beyond. Even ignoring the ribbon for now, the preview pane at the side of Explorer contains a pitiful amount of information and is barely worth using. When I read the depth of analysis Microsoft puts out on the Building Windows 8 blog I'm surprised at the amount they seem to overlook. And I hope they add create a Metro version of Explorer, as it seems bizarre that the traditional desktop is the only way to manage files in Windows 8 - not that I'd use it on the desktop but I likely would if I picked up a tablet or touch-screen laptop.

[sopharine]

Looks ok but I still don't believe the ribbon is "compatible" with Metro. I hope they retain icon colour. It may be "cool" to have everything shades of grey (been through that stage myself as a teenager) but eventually you realise it just isn't as usable (or perhaps it is just me - I've done considerable research into good UI design). For example, you can quickly glance at a red cross and deem it is a negative action (delete, cancel) because it is red. If it is monotone like every other icon then you have to analyse it more. For example imagine if the subscript/superscript icons in this WYSIWYG editor (the one on Neowin for posting) were monotone alongside a "cancel" cross - you have to look at it in more detail to determine the subtle differences, whereas in colour one is red and the other two black. The other thing is it can then provide a reference point for reaching other icons quickly and it is easier to detect in your peripheral vision. It is also easier to make an icon look like what it should when you aren't restricted to a single colour. It may seem easy for the common ones (home, cancel, ok, back, forward) but start trying to do more obscure ones and it becomes difficult to distinguish them ("bullet points" can look very similar to "justify" or "justify left" for example). Maybe this is why they are trying to merge the ribbon with Metro - because icons alone aren't going to cut it when they are all monotone. Put simply, we see in colour and our eyes/brain are optimized as such so why not use it? Edit: To clarify, there are situations where I believe monotone icons are sufficient (such as in a browser where they are only 4-5 icons, each of which is very different and in a quite "natural" location), but in more complex scenarios (such as file management, editing, IDEs, etc) there are so many actions and icons that colour is quite beneficial.

Microsoft is not exactly genius in terms of UI design. It is more than likely that they will use monochrome icons at every turns. Just look at the latest Metro version of Visual Studio.

[Active.]

There is no need for the mock-depth implied by drop shadows and gradients[...]

I disagree that there is no need for "the mock-depth implied by drop shadows". It's in fact very irritating that background windows in W8 don't retain a drop shadow of any size at all. A drop shadow is actually helpful to differentiate windows from each other and get a feeling for the configuration in which they're layered on top of each other. A windowing system without drop shadows seems less usable to me.

[migo]

In regards to the ribbon style, I guess Microsoft really want to separate the Office and Windows ribbons.

Seeing as the current Office 15 ribbon looks like this. I would have preferred if they kept all the ribbon the same and unified instead of having different designs. I'd be fine with the Office 15 design on the desktop.

I don't see how that particularly looks different? They seem to be moving in the same direction.

[BetaAddict]

I don't see how that particularly looks different? They seem to be moving in the same direction.

Layout-wise, it is essentially the same as you would expect. I don't see why anything needs to be changed in this aspect since everything is organized well as it is. But UI looks slightly more boxy metro borders with the highlighted portions having a uniform light blue color as opposed to the yellow border highlights we have in 2010. Also, the bar at the bottom is now colored to give contrast.

[Aethec]

In regards to the ribbon style, I guess Microsoft really want to separate the Office and Windows ribbons.

Seeing as the current Office 15 ribbon looks like this. I would have preferred if they kept all the ribbon the same and unified instead of having different designs. I'd be fine with the Office 15 design on the desktop.

Office has always been a "test lab" for new Windows UI stuff - including the Ribbon. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows 9 included that ribbon.

[theyarecomingforyou]

I disagree that there is no need for "the mock-depth implied by drop shadows". It's in fact very irritating that background windows in W8 don't retain a drop shadow of any size at all. A drop shadow is actually helpful to differentiate windows from each other and get a feeling for the configuration in which they're layered on top of each other. A windowing system without drop shadows seems less usable to me.

The drop shadow is designed to emphasise the current window; if you were to add a drop shadow onto every window then it would be more difficult to determine the active window. Adding a drop shadow to inactive windows would make no difference to determining the layering order of windows, which is conveyed by the visual layout (i.e. is a window obstructing the view of the window(s) behind it). I find it strange that anyone could find the lack of drop shadows on inactive windows to be "very infuriating". Afterall, the word infuriating means "to make furious", which is defined as "full of or characterized by extreme anger; raging".

Drop shadows date from an era when operating systems were just starting to take advantage of graphics hardware and it was in response to Apple including it in OSX. It was done because it could be more than it was for good design. It was one of the more popular features in WindowBlinds before it became a standard Windows feature. They don't hold the same relevance nowadays. I'd much rather see flat colours than faux-3D effects (like the illusion that a button is depressing when you hover over it). The desktop is a 2D environment and should play to its strengths. At the same time, I'm not really concerned either way - as long as it doesn't look ugly it's fine by me.

[Shokus]

Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with most of the "popular" opinions here. I very much prefer reasonable, decent looking gradients and colours. Monochrome is absolutely boring and harks back to the '80s(?) when computers are unable to produce color graphics. Flat colors are fine but decent gradients makes things look much more alive and easy on the eyes. For example, I think the gradients in Windows 7 is just about right. I've seen some visual styles that overdo it in my opinion, and some that look like someone use MSpaint and used "fill with color" over every section of the explorer panel. Some, worse still, simply used white, blacks and shades of grey. Might as well use a black-and-white monitor if you don't wish to see colors.

And personally, I think people who claims that some light gradients in the windows chrome and icons "distract from the content" certainly have attention problems.

I personally use a visual style that adds slightly more color and gradients to Windows 7 to suit my taste. Now, is this really too much gradients?

[Dot Matrix]

Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with most of the "popular" opinions here. I very much prefer reasonable, decent looking gradients and colours.

The only downside to that is that it creates a rather busy looking UI that is unpleasant for most people. The Firefox Theme you have especially creates a headache for me.

[jakem1]

Unfortunately, I would have to disagree with most of the "popular" opinions here. I very much prefer reasonable, decent looking gradients and colours. Monochrome is absolutely boring and harks back to the '80s(?) when computers are unable to produce color graphics. Flat colors are fine but decent gradients makes things look much more alive and easy on the eyes. For example, I think the gradients in Windows 7 is just about right. I've seen some visual styles that overdo it in my opinion, and some that look like someone use MSpaint and used "fill with color" over every section of the explorer panel. Some, worse still, simply used white, blacks and shades of grey. Might as well use a black-and-white monitor if you don't wish to see colors.

And personally, I think people who claims that some light gradients in the windows chrome and icons "distract from the content" certainly have attention problems.

I personally use a visual style that adds slightly more color and gradients to Windows 7 to suit my taste. Now, is this really too much gradients?

I think your screenshot is far too busy.

To be honest, gradients like the one at the top of your screenshot look really dated and it amazes me that iOS relies on them to such a great extent. They're really pretty ugly and I was pleased to see MS remove the gradient from the Taskbar with Windows 7. More work needs to be done though :p

[theyarecomingforyou]

English version.

What I find strange about that is that the shade of blue used for the Forward and Back buttons is lightly than for the tabs. It's still preferable to the pretty tacky glass-like icon from the CP but the buttons still don't really fit with the rest of the interface.Not only that but they're rounded, when virtually every other UI element is square. I hope that if they really are committing to a more 2D design - as is seen with Metro - that they change the perspective of the icons to be flat, rather than the 3D perspective used for Computer, drives and folders. It would be a good opportunity for Microsoft to migrate to vector icons which are resolution independent, though I think that's asking too much considering how late into the development process they are.

The only downside to that is that it creates a rather busy looking UI that is unpleasant for most people. The Firefox Theme you have especially creates a headache for me.

Agreed. Although the main "colour" is obviously black the gradient behind the text is actually grey, as is the text - that negatively impacts upon legibility. It's also not a smooth gradient, as there is an obvious jump from black to grey in the middle - it makes it look blurry, as there is nothing to focus on. It's certainly not going to appeal to the majority.

[~Johnny]

It would be a good opportunity for Microsoft to migrate to vector icons which are resolution independent, though I think that's asking too much considering how late into the development process they are.

Microsoft specifically reject vector icons, not only because they're more computationally expensive, but because they feel it's better to have different levels of detail at each size, rather than just a single icon that scales up and down.

[Shokus]

I appreciate the comments, that are not personal attacks nor "u r teh noobz!" kind of comments. However I do respectfully disagree.

Firstly, with regards to busy. Really?? I opened the start menu simply to show the Windows theme I was using. Else, with regards to the browser, I absolutely don't see how it is busy. There is a back button, forward button, both of which I use very regularly (when not using keyboard shortcuts. I find the drop arrow especially helpful at times). True, refresh button can be removed, no comments here (I use F5 instead). The "stop" button is a very simple button for me to see when a website has completed loading, a very subtle visual cue at the corner of my eye. The other two, one to download videos and the other to see my installed addons, are simply there for convenient sake. Then comes the usual URL and search textbox. I can use a unified box (I use IE9 somewhat regularly too), but I prefer being able to see my current URL while searching, sometimes. Menu option is simply there to let me access simple stuff like DTA manager and stuff.

Secondly, gradients look dated? Perhaps to you, but I believe this is simply personal taste. It looks way more modern to me than flat boring splotches of colors from the 8-bit color era. And it is black and grey, not some obnoxious flashing neon green and red. True, the words can be harder to read, but then again, how often do I actually need to read those words? Not too often, but often enough to not want the menu to auto-hide. After all, I have enough screen real-estate, 20+ more pixels isn't worth much (maybe 1 extra line of text?)

I have to agree that the black-grey gradient could be done a little smoother though, but it is a minor quibble. It is indeed a little abrupt as you mentioned.

As such, when Windows 8 comes, I will absolutely abhor the ugliness of the new Desktop paradigm with all the flat colors. The new functions are fine, Metro is functional but boring looking (and I don't plan to be in the Metro environment for long anyway, just use it to search and run my software), and improved boot-time and copy-function is good, but the Desktop interface is looking more and more flatter. It is not a huge major problem, but certainly a backward step in my opinion. Visual cues are important, and should be done tastefully, and simply making everything flat with hex codes of #FF0000, #00FF00 and #0000FF isn't gonna help. Thankfully, I believe someone will make nicer themes for Windows 8 as they have done for Windows 7.

On a side note, it seems that modern computing is all about removal of functions. Remove this, remove that, and people call it progress. Remove gradients! Remove start button (note I did not say start menu, but I don't understand why the start button has to go)! Remove big icons and replace it with flat tiles of one color and a tiny icon in the center (could have made tiles from pinned desktop software look much nicer than the current implementation, hopefully, by RC or RTM)! Remove all visual cues! Hot invisible corners are there to confuse everyone! Remove gradients, remove colors and go monochrome, and the black and white, and finally ALL-BLACK only!!! (guaranteed to save lots of power!) Feels pretty foolish to me.