• Sign in to Neowin Faster!

    Create an account on Neowin to contribute and support the site.

Sign in to follow this  

Windows 8 - Unintuitivity at its best

Recommended Posts

Dot Matrix    7,415

You obviously missed the point...

Which is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arceles    402

It doesn't take a scientist to figure out that computing will be moving forward in technological advancements. Sorry, but the mouse is not an end all.

This only shows that you're just probably a teenager babbling no sense about OS knowledge, I want to know your background to judge whether or not you actually know something about OSes, not just chit chat about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dot Matrix    7,415

This only shows that you're just probably a teenager babbling no sense about OS knowledge, I want to know your background to judge whether or not you actually know something about OSes, not just chit chat about it.

Haha. Try 21 and an established technician in OS/network support and repair. I've been around long enough to know nothing ever stays the same, or hangs around for very long. Touch is here to stay, and such we need tech can play nice with the input method.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
code65536    40
Windows 8 is not unintuitive, it just does thing very differently from what we're used to. But if you think about it, how is "open a browser, type your e-mail provider's URL, login, view email, repeat once a day to make sure you're not missing anything" more intuitive than "open Mail app, enter your credentials, get instant notifications whenever there's a new mail" ?

Last I checked, the equivalent of the "mail app" had existed since the 90's. Netscape Mail / Thunderbird, Outlook, Eudora, OE/WLMail, et al... it's funny how people are just now redisovering the correct and proper way to do e-mail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePitt    199

it's funny how people are just now redisovering the correct and proper way to do e-mail...

thx to w8 ( w8 = "wait"... till windows 9? :p) I guess. Its like when you cant see or hear for a period of time, the time you recover from a disability you realize how much you need it. And windows 8 makes you disabled by default

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arceles    402

Haha. Try 21 and an established technician in OS/network support and repair. I've been around long enough to know nothing ever stays the same, or hangs around for very long. Touch is here to stay, and such we need tech can play nice with the input method.

Yeah well, I'm 25 and the same as you, plus some foreign degrees (bachelor is electronics, master is mechatronics) but also I've actually worked outside my country doing the same and you're quite wrong. Mostly in companies, in fact, any manufacturer company, gosh... last time had to install a "modern" motherboard (up to core 2 duo) with ISA slots! and no, they wont be putting any Win8 in there, you surely are looking on the consumer side of things thinking that is the whole majority of persons and it isn't, but I guess... you need to get out more, otherwise you are deep into your very own bubble.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
code65536    40
Touch is here to stay, and such we need tech can play nice with the input method.

Your problem is that you seem to envision a world with just touch.

When the wheel was invented, people didn't stop walking. When flight was invented, people didn't stop traveling by land. When it mouse was invented, it didn't spell the extinction of the keyboard. Even the CLI still survives because there are inherent advantages to the CLI that make it vastly superior in certain niche applications.

Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and each will fill a niche that it is most suitable for. Touch's advantage is compactness; you need only a finger; no keyboard or mouse is needed. Its disadvantages are a lack of precision, poor context, and utter unsuitability for complex inputs.

Touch is fine for a portable device, but horrible for heavy computing, for the reasons listed above, and also because of simple ergonomics. For maximum comfort, your head should be upright and looking forward (not bent down staring at the desk); try writing with pen and paper for a few hours and tell me how that neck strain feels. And your arms should be resting on the desk, not held in the air; try writing on a chalkboard for a few hours and then explain to me how those idiotic looks-pretty-in-a-movie interfaces where your arm is always in the air is comfortable. Meaning that, for maximum comfort, you should not be staring at your hands. I.e., mouse and keyboard are optimal. Now, if you're mobile and trying to do stuff while walking around town, it makes sense to sacrifice those ergonomics for mobility, hence touch. But stop deluding yourself with this notion that touch is suitable for all use cases. You know, there's a reason we still walk even though we've had wheels for many millennia.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dashel    542

So now you can also become an established tech in only a couple of years? Sounds more like someone with basic certs that works for Geek Squad than someone coming from a professional IT background who must manage and take responsibility for their recommendations. What is your major again, you alluded that it wasn't a BS...

Sounds like you play tech on the weekends while you go to school yet are now an expert in technological advancement over professionals that just use it as a 'security blanket', that's rich. I hope you at leas understand there is a large difference between adding touch support and putting the mouse in the scrapheap as you seem confused on that point. If you were such a student of technical advancement, (from people much smarter than you or I, like Woz for example) - that posit that the mouse's lifetime will be much longer than that of touch until we truly do have a 'next-gen' input method, touch is expected to only be the control du jour for about a decade). Even your own parroted MS sources see touch as the third wheel of control on non-highly mobile systems.

I'm continually surprised as well that your vitriol is always aimed at the mouse, rather than the keyboard. I'm the first one to reassure Blackberry converts that they won't miss their silly chicklet keyboards and that a touch one is superior in that format. Yet not once have you declared the death of the keyboard as well?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xWhiplash    349

Your problem is that you seem to envision a world with just touch.

When the wheel was invented, people didn't stop walking. When flight was invented, people didn't stop traveling by land. When it mouse was invented, it didn't spell the extinction of the keyboard. Even the CLI still survives because there are inherent advantages to the CLI that make it vastly superior in certain niche applications.

Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and each will fill a niche that it is most suitable for. Touch's advantage is compactness; you need only a finger; no keyboard or mouse is needed. Its disadvantages are a lack of precision, poor context, and utter unsuitability for complex inputs.

Touch is fine for a portable device, but horrible for heavy computing, for the reasons listed above, and also because of simple ergonomics. For maximum comfort, your head should be upright and looking forward (not bent down staring at the desk); try writing with pen and paper for a few hours and tell me how that neck strain feels. And your arms should be resting on the desk, not held in the air; try writing on a chalkboard for a few hours and then explain to me how those idiotic looks-pretty-in-a-movie interfaces where your arm is always in the air is comfortable. Meaning that, for maximum comfort, you should not be staring at your hands. I.e., mouse and keyboard are optimal. Now, if you're mobile and trying to do stuff while walking around town, it makes sense to sacrifice those ergonomics for mobility, hence touch. But stop deluding yourself with this notion that touch is suitable for all use cases. You know, there's a reason we still walk even though we've had wheels for many millennia.

100% agree. Touch is fine on tablets and specific devices/tasks. But you cannot expect a graphic/motion artist or programmer to switch from keyboard/mouse to touch. I type about 10x faster on a keyboard vs a tablet. When your job is on the line, you go where you are more efficient.

So now you can also become an established tech in only a couple of years? Sounds more like someone with basic certs that works for Geek Squad than someone coming from a professional IT background who must manage and take responsibility for their recommendations. What is your major again, you alluded that it wasn't a BS...

Sounds like you play tech on the weekends while you go to school yet are now an expert in technological advancement over professionals that just use it as a 'security blanket', that's rich. I hope you at leas understand there is a large difference between adding touch support and putting the mouse in the scrapheap as you seem confused on that point. If you were such a student of technical advancement, (from people much smarter than you or I, like Woz for example) - that posit that the mouse's lifetime will be much longer than that of touch until we truly do have a 'next-gen' input method, touch is expected to only be the control du jour for about a decade). Even your own parroted MS sources see touch as the third wheel of control on non-highly mobile systems.

I'm continually surprised as well that your vitriol is always aimed at the mouse, rather than the keyboard. I'm the first one to reassure Blackberry converts that they won't miss their silly chicklet keyboards and that a touch one is superior in that format. Yet not once have you declared the death of the keyboard as well?

I also agree. I am 26 and have been a helpdesk technician for years and have a degree in Computer Science. I have had first hand experience what general users experience when they use and operating system. But I will not say I know what is here to stay and what is not. My 50 year old co workers and friends who have been doing this since THEY were 20 say touch is not the end all be all. Take a look at 3D. It has been around for A LONG time, it keeps on dying and coming back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283

Yeah well, I'm 25

Yea well, I'm 57, and I've been online almost as long as Dot has been alive. :o :woot: :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dashel    542

Thanks Rick, I almost feel young again. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andrewbares    110

And that is the case. Your intuition told you so, and you were correct. So what are you bitching about now? Intuition should tell you that you don't print something that you intentionally size to show as little information as possible, so whether or not you last interacted with the "30%" section of the screen is really irrelevant when it comes to printing.

BTW, you're not very good with percentages. It's actually closer to 20%, and it's probably even less than that. Why in the hell would you print something that small? It's like trying to print from a minimized window.

No, that's not intuitive. What if I AM interacting with the small window and want to print from it?? How is a common user supposed to know that he/she would first have to expand the window??? It's not a minimized window, so you're incorrect there. It's unintuitive to have to expand the window just so that charms will recognize it. Intuitive in this case means that the user can print what they want to print without having to do something that would require extra work.

File > Print wasn't consistent because it wasn't like that in every app. Microsoft Office, for example, from 2007 onward, didn't include that.

Huh?? I think you're wrong again here buddy. I know for a fact that in Office 2010, you print by going to File ->Print.

I do understand your preference regarding wanting that button available in such apps, with one-click accessibility. But I just don't agree with it. I feel that the Print option being under the Devices Charm is much better, and I reckon I'd feel that way even if I printed often. So this does seem to be a case where we'll have to agree to disagree, but I do appreciate you explaining and informing why you feel this way.

Yeah that can just be personal preference, agreed. But when you've got all this space on a big desktop, an extra quick-Print button wouldn't hurt. Maybe app developers could make it scalable so the number of icons that appear on the app bar depend on your screen size, and the rest go into the "More" option if you're on a smaller screen. Just like iPhone vs iPad apps, iPad apps are rewritten to take advantage of more screen size, same with Win8 Tablet vs Win8 desktop...

In fact, here's what I have been pointing out; desktop applications function *completely unchanged* despite the Start menu being gone.

The desktop itself is otherwise unchanged - not a thing about it (other than the Start menu being gone) is even remotely different.

Incorrect. The desktop has changed a LOT. When you open a picture from the file explorer, it throws you into Modern to view it. Your "common" user doesn't know how to change default programs. When you view a PDF, it automatically opens in the modern Reader. When you want to change your login password, you can only use the modern Control Panel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
phailyoor    32

File > Print wasn't consistent because it wasn't like that in every app. Microsoft Office, for example, from 2007 onward, didn't include that.

If you check your sources, Office 2007 was the only version to not include file->print. I think MS realized the mistake of not including a File menu and fixed it in later releases

oops-beaten to it by andrew

post-457571-0-30673100-1346608762_thumb.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Calum    819

Huh?? I think you're wrong again here buddy. I know for a fact that in Office 2010, you print by going to File ->Print.

Again, I'm wrong. Heh, sorry. I had Office 2007 in mind when I wrote that post. In 2007, it isn't File > Print, so there wasn't the consistency between apps that you mentioned. In 2010, it is File > Print, but the File button is on the Ribbon and it looks completely different to the File button in a menu bar, in terms of where it is positioned and the size, so I still don't think that's consistent enough, compared to what we have now (or at least, the situation Microsoft is trying to create), with the Print feature being accessed by using the Devices Charm, no matter which app one is using.

Yeah that can just be personal preference, agreed. But when you've got all this space on a big desktop, an extra quick-Print button wouldn't hurt. Maybe app developers could make it scalable so the number of icons that appear on the app bar depend on your screen size, and the rest go into the "More" option if you're on a smaller screen. Just like iPhone vs iPad apps, iPad apps are rewritten to take advantage of more screen size, same with Win8 Tablet vs Win8 desktop...

Again, I do see and understand why you'd like it like that, but I still believe that the new way of going about it (the Devices Charm being used, for a completely consistent and?in my opinion?better user experience) is a better way implementation than the option being placed on the App Bar.

EDIT:

If you check your sources, Office 2007 was the only version to not include file->print. I think MS realized the mistake of not including a File menu and fixed it in later releases

Yes, I just commented on my mistake in this post, before I saw your reply :p Thank you for the correction, though. I should have been much more clear: I was thinking of File > Print being from a File option in a menu bar, not in a UI element that isn't a menu bar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andrewbares    110

Again, I'm wrong. Heh, sorry. I had Office 2007 in mind when I wrote that post. In 2007, it isn't File > Print, so there wasn't the consistency between apps that you mentioned. In 2010, it is File > Print, but the File button is on the Ribbon and it looks completely different to the File button in a menu bar, in terms of where it is positioned and the size, so I still don't think that's consistent enough, compared to what we have now (or at least, the situation Microsoft is trying to create), with the Print feature being accessed by using the Devices Charm, no matter which app one is using.

Haha I kind of remember 2007 not actually saying "File", that's why I had to double check and open up Word 2010 and find out if it actually did say file. It doesn't look *completely* different to the original File menu bar... they're both in the top left corner, they both say File... They modernized the style of it, that's all I would say. It's a bit bigger too, so you're right that the size isn't the same... but a larger hit target doesn't make things inconsistent in my opinion.

My problems with Charms->Devices are this... (I like consistency and I support that, but there's some problems)

  • It can be vague which app the Charms is talking about with the split screen. Reminds me of Mac OS X where the top menu bar corresponds to whichever app you touched last. I believe options and commands that are specific to an app (printing, saving, etc) should be INSIDE the app, not meshed with the OS's UI. That's one reason why I prefer Windows over Mac.
  • It's not well labeled... yes, people need something that specifically says "Print". Once you click on devices, you have a list of a bunch of different things, all with the manufacturer name and model. Will a user recognize "Canon MP 460" as a printer??? It has a print icon right next to it, so that helps, but then there's also the Send to OneNote and other things with a Print icon next to it... there's no default printer selected (whereas with File->Print it already selected your default and you just click Print again)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

Habit...??

Lack of something better...??

Something...??

Or it may come down to my utter disdain for "change for change sake".

On the other hand, I got mine working exactly the way I like, and that's all that really matters to me. Most of my posting in these threads, at this point, is merely to provide counterbalance to the "pro metro at any cost" cabal..... and most should be taken with a grain of salt.

And in all three cases, it's because you are used to things being a certain way.

I don't have a problem with you being used to things being a certain way, and being against change - what I DO have a problem with is when someone feeling that way tries to blow smoke up my rear end and pretend that isn't the case.

In other words, your being anti-Modern UI isn't the problem - lying about WHY you are anti-Modern UI is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

No, that's not intuitive. What if I AM interacting with the small window and want to print from it?? How is a common user supposed to know that he/she would first have to expand the window??? It's not a minimized window, so you're incorrect there. It's unintuitive to have to expand the window just so that charms will recognize it. Intuitive in this case means that the user can print what they want to print without having to do something that would require extra work.

Huh?? I think you're wrong again here buddy. I know for a fact that in Office 2010, you print by going to File ->Print.

Yeah that can just be personal preference, agreed. But when you've got all this space on a big desktop, an extra quick-Print button wouldn't hurt. Maybe app developers could make it scalable so the number of icons that appear on the app bar depend on your screen size, and the rest go into the "More" option if you're on a smaller screen. Just like iPhone vs iPad apps, iPad apps are rewritten to take advantage of more screen size, same with Win8 Tablet vs Win8 desktop...

Incorrect. The desktop has changed a LOT. When you open a picture from the file explorer, it throws you into Modern to view it. Your "common" user doesn't know how to change default programs. When you view a PDF, it automatically opens in the modern Reader. When you want to change your login password, you can only use the modern Control Panel.

Only if you keep the default file viewers. You can change them to Win32-based viewing applications if the Modern UI equivalents don't suit you.

And there are plenty of Internet-based *cheat sheets* that walk a user through things like changing file associations. If you previously ran Windows 7 (or any previous version), changing file associations is itself no different.

The file associations ARE going to change if you upgrade Windows; even if you upgrade from XP to Vista, or Vista to 7, you don't escape that.

If you use a local account, you can change your password in Control Panel/Users - and you can runbox that. (Unchanged from Windows 7.)

Are you talking about new users, or non-power users?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
andrewbares    110

Are you talking about new users, or non-power users?

Non-power users. Of course I can change file associations, but my parents have no clue how to do that. They don't even know that it's possible to change what program opens something, thus they wouldn't even think of searching online. So yes, for all of those people, the desktop has changed greatly. And a lot of people simply aren't that bright when it comes to technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283
and being against change -

Not against change, and in fact I love to try new things.

What I am against, however, is moronic changes, and changes for change sake.... and then having someone come along praising as wonderful the moronic changes. That irritates me. There exists a certain ilk who would praise ms regardless of what they plop out.

Metro, for the desktop, IMHO, is the most moronic change I have yet to see from ms.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

Your problem is that you seem to envision a world with just touch.

When the wheel was invented, people didn't stop walking. When flight was invented, people didn't stop traveling by land. When it mouse was invented, it didn't spell the extinction of the keyboard. Even the CLI still survives because there are inherent advantages to the CLI that make it vastly superior in certain niche applications.

Each has its advantages and disadvantages, and each will fill a niche that it is most suitable for. Touch's advantage is compactness; you need only a finger; no keyboard or mouse is needed. Its disadvantages are a lack of precision, poor context, and utter unsuitability for complex inputs.

Touch is fine for a portable device, but horrible for heavy computing, for the reasons listed above, and also because of simple ergonomics. For maximum comfort, your head should be upright and looking forward (not bent down staring at the desk); try writing with pen and paper for a few hours and tell me how that neck strain feels. And your arms should be resting on the desk, not held in the air; try writing on a chalkboard for a few hours and then explain to me how those idiotic looks-pretty-in-a-movie interfaces where your arm is always in the air is comfortable. Meaning that, for maximum comfort, you should not be staring at your hands. I.e., mouse and keyboard are optimal. Now, if you're mobile and trying to do stuff while walking around town, it makes sense to sacrifice those ergonomics for mobility, hence touch. But stop deluding yourself with this notion that touch is suitable for all use cases. You know, there's a reason we still walk even though we've had wheels for many millennia.

Not *just touch* - nothing Dot has said has gone that far.

However, you seem to be thinking that touch is going to go away - or SHOULD go away.

If anything, you are more *anti-touch* than Dot (or I) am *pro-touch*.

The best argument that touch is NOT suitable for all cases is made by - surprisingly - Android 4.x (Ice Cream Sandwich and Jellybean). Android 4.x is multi-input (it supports touch AND mice AND keyboards), letting the user choose what input method to use. In some cases, the application makes the choice FOR the user (which is the same thing Windows itself does); however, just because the application is not multi-input doesn't mean that the OS isn't.

My anger with the Start menu is that it was so mouse biased that it treated keyboard use as an afterthought - in short, it had nothing to do with touch support at all. (And why should it - my desktop that I run Windows 8 Pro x64 on doesn't support touch - yet.)

Rickkins - I'm five years younger than you (51); however, unless you have a condition where keyboard use is a problem (carpal-tunnel syndrome), why are you so comfortable with such an overbias in favor of mice?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283

Rickkins - I'm five years younger than you (51); however, unless you have a condition where keyboard use is a problem (carpal-tunnel syndrome), why are you so comfortable with such an overbias in favor of mice?

???????

Nothing against a physical keyboard, not sure where you would get that.

That said, where logical, I do tend to use my mouse...

Hell...I'm using a keyboard as we speak....

Also, not anti-touch either, per se. I have a tablet & a smartphone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

Not against change, and in fact I love to try new things.

What I am against, however, is moronic changes, and changes for change sake.... and then having someone come along praising as wonderful the moronic changes. That irritates me. There exists a certain ilk who would praise ms regardless of what they plop out.

Metro, for the desktop, IMHO, is the most moronic change I have yet to see from ms.

And why is the change *moronic*?

Your entire argument seems to be that any (in fact every) change that goes away from your learned responses is moronic on its face, and cannot be defended.

I want the gist behind the implication - the why of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PGHammer    1,318

???????

Nothing against a physical keyboard, not sure where you would get that.

That said, where logical, I do tend to use my mouse...

Hell...I'm using a keyboard as we speak....

The Start menu is a decided hint that the mouse is necessary; how much of the Start menu lends itself to keyboard use?

Worse, I know of more users that have problems with mice than problems with keyboards. (If you have a mouse/pointing-device problem with a mouse-biased OS, you're basically screwed.)

Amazingly, portable users are more likely to run into this issue than desktop-PC users; however, even desktop-PC users aren't immune.

However, you practically HAVE to be a power user to navigate around pre-8 Windows with a keyboard - the mouse bias, due pretty much entirely to the Start menu, is that bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rickkins    283

And why is the change *moronic*?

Your entire argument seems to be that any (in fact every) change that goes away from your learned responses is moronic on its face, and cannot be defended.

What's yer point...??? :laugh:

Or, now yer getting it... :rofl:

However, we've had this discussion already some time ago, and at this moment I've not interest in rehashing things that have already been repeated Ad nauseam.

The Start menu is a decided hint that the mouse is necessary; how much of the Start menu lends itself to keyboard use?

Worse, I know of more users that have problems with mice than problems with keyboards. (If you have a mouse/pointing-device problem with a mouse-biased OS, you're basically screwed.)

Amazingly, portable users are more likely to run into this issue than desktop-PC users; however, even desktop-PC users aren't immune.

However, you practically HAVE to be a power user to navigate around pre-8 Windows with a keyboard - the mouse bias, due pretty much entirely to the Start menu, is that bad.

Huh...???

I'm getting a headache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.Neo    1,834

If you check your sources, Office 2007 was the only version to not include file->print. I think MS realized the mistake of not including a File menu and fixed it in later releases

Yet another example that blows away the whole "Microsoft did user experience studies so Windows 8's new interface must be intuitive" argument. Not even internally at Microsoft can different teams agree on something as basic as where to put the printing dialog. All the inconsistency is mind boggling really. Apparently it's asking for the impossible to put all teams in a single room together and make them figure out a single solution.

Why is a unified design like below so hard to achieve on Windows? (Note how Microsoft likes to screw up consistency even on other platforms)

post-128385-0-29720300-1346617719_thumb.

  • Like 1

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  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.