Dissapointed in the Windows 10 Tech preview so far

[Active.]

There is nothing about Windows 8 or Metro that is "suboptimal" for navigating with a keyboard and mouse  

That discussion is so 3 years ago. You can put a fork in Windows 8.

[libertas83]

lol - not even Microsoft are pushing that line any more.

 

They've admitted it was an unmitigated disaster on the dekstop and laptop. The fact that sales are less than Vista REALLY tells the story of its failure.

 

I didn't say it wasn't a failure, I just think half the attacks are bs while the other half are true. I will argue over semantics and call out bs when I see it. Not claiming there weren't issues, in fact I listed the biggest two that really contributed to the failure. But to say the Start Screen is suboptimal to navigate with a keyboard and mouse is an outright lie.

 

To illustrate it, what specific function in the Start Screen is hard to use with a mouse. Please enlighten me. If I click Start..... I see BIG targets for a mouse. Oh wow, that big open space is sooooo hard to quickly move a mouse across a screen and click it. Please. The Minimize, Maximize, and Close buttons are harder to hit than a Live Tile or Small Icon on the Start Screen.

 

How about scrolling across the Start Screen? How hard is that? Well use the mouse wheel up and down and you can very quickly go from the beginning to the end with precision to get to where your app is located.

 

How about keyboard? Click Windows Key, and type 2 letters then up and down to pick the app from the list. Wow so hard

 

So give me a break. It's a bs argument centered around fear and change. Finding apps in a Start Menu from Windows XP is actually much more difficult. Smaller target hits, often not in alphabetical order, cluttered, and usually not organized so you spend a lot of time reading the menu to find the app.

 

Like I said, there were real issues with the Metro apps not being compelling at all to replace a single desktop app if not on a tablet. The duality of desktop separate from Metro was an issue. The interesting new API features that did exist in WinRT could not be used by desktop apps or .NET. The fact that .NET apps were not allowed to compile to ARM at all which is silly as there is no technical reason for that like there is with Win32 apps. Tons of problems, but suboptimal to navigate was not really true.

I will add one more issue, Charms was stupid and I will grant it was harder to navigate with Mouse without some practice.

[theyarecomingforyou]

There is nothing about Windows 8 or Metro that is "suboptimal" for navigating with a keyboard and mouse and in fact, is just quite as easy as any other desktop app. I can even argue, that the Start Screen is far more usable with a keyboard and mouse then the Windows XP Start Menu especially on a trackpad where I often screw up the fly out menus and have to start over.

Windows 8 moved the shutdown options from the Start Menu to the Charm Bar, requiring more mouse clicks, greater dexterity and much more mouse travel. The Charm Bar was particularly awkward to use on multi-monitor setups, where you could easily overshoot it. The All Apps screen was a mess, due to the way it auto-expanded all folders - that meant wading through hundreds-if-not-thousands of unnecessary entries. The Start Screen required much more mouse movement and obscured the entire desktop, which was worse on high resolution monitors where it was nearly impossible to fully utilise the screen space. PC Settings, which was required for some aspects of customisation, had to run fullscreen and was less efficient for desktop use (see: Fitts' law). Windows 8 also forced users to boot to the Start Screen (until Windows 8.1 gave an option not to).

 

While Windows 8 did improve several aspects of the desktop experience?Task Manager, file transfers, multi-monitor setups, Explorer?the Metro elements were a usability nightmare. Overall I preferred Windows 8 to Windows 7 but there were substantial usability issues relating to the Metro implementation for desktop use (the Charm Bar, the Metro Task Switcher, PC Settings, Metro apps, Networks, etc). Mouse and keyboard users were treated as second class citizens due to Microsoft's obsession with cracking the tablet market, which is all the more ridiculous given how poorly the Surface has been received.

[PGHammer]

No one is interested in touch on the desktop/laptop, so thats irrelevent, other than that what hardware does w8 take better advantage of?

Nobody is interested?  Tell HP, Lenovo, and ASUS that - all three are selling touch-enabled desktops and AIOs - in HP's case, they have been doing so since Windows 7 (the TouchSmart series goes back that far).

 

Maybe you aren't interested - however, even the SALES numbers say that the interest is decidedly there, and it has BEEN there for longer than even Windows 8 has.

 

Notice that I didn't even count portables or even portable dual-function or multifunction PCs (which are replacing traditional laptops and notebooks) - how long will it take until they catch up with sales OF those selfsame traditional portables on an annual basis?

 

If you don't push the hardware envelope as an OEM, then you might as well ship your hardware in beige, for all the interest it will draw (Dell is the most obvious example of what happens when an OEM gets TOO conservative).

 

.NET is a great API - for desktops and portables with large amounts of RAM - however, it's too fat for lightweight portables, let alone tablets and smartphones.  While RT is derived from .NET, the primary targets for RT have lower RAM amounts than full-boat .NET - which is still available to developers.  The other thing about RT is that it ALSO supports desktops and portables (however, there, it is an alternative to - not necessarily a replacement for - .NET) - it doesn't, and is not meant to, throw .NET under the bus.  Until smartphones and tablets have the horsepower to run full-tilt .NET, writing those sorts of applications for it makes no sense at all.

[PGHammer]

Windows 8 moved the shutdown options from the Start Menu to the Charm Bar, requiring more mouse clicks, greater dexterity and much more mouse travel. The Charm Bar was particularly awkward to use on multi-monitor setups, where you could easily overshoot it. The All Apps screen was a mess, due to the way it auto-expanded all folders - that meant wading through hundreds-if-not-thousands of unnecessary entries. The Start Screen required much more mouse movement and obscured the entire desktop, which was worse on high resolution monitors where it was nearly impossible to fully utilise the screen space. PC Settings, which was required for some aspects of customisation, had to run fullscreen and was less efficient for desktop use (see: Fitts' law). Windows 8 also forced users to boot to the Start Screen (until Windows 8.1 gave an option not to).

 

While Windows 8 did improve several aspects of the desktop experience?Task Manager, file transfers, multi-monitor setups, Explorer?the Metro elements were a usability nightmare. Overall I preferred Windows 8 to Windows 7 but there were substantial usability issues relating to the Metro implementation for desktop use (the Charm Bar, the Metro Task Switcher, PC Settings, Metro apps, Networks, etc). Mouse and keyboard users were treated as second class citizens due to Microsoft's obsession with cracking the tablet market, which is all the more ridiculous given how poorly the Surface has been received.

If you are referring to the non-x64 Surface - RT - that is due to the non-compatibility with the overlarge variety of desktop software - which is why most of the OEMs bailed on RT  In other words, RT is good - just not good enough to stand on its own as an OS.  (This has been seen before - RISC running NT, anyone?  It didn't mean that NT was necessarily a "bad" operating system - it simply meant that folks voted for cheap.)  Even I referred to RT as a hedge-bet as a standalone OS - the nicer thing about RT is that even if the standalone OS eventually dies, the API is still usable - the API is far from being a waste.

[PGHammer]

Actually, you want some percentage of Developers to upgrade.   This for example is to see how their application reacts to an upgrade or even worse.  When I mean worse, I mean for example a product installs just fine on a vanilla install but fails if the user upgraded then tried to install the product.  I have ran into that such issue with multiple .DLL versions in the past where there were some older versions of .DLL that programs would try to use even though the system no longer used them after an upgrade.  In a perfect world everyone would do a clean install, but I have actually worked on computers that have transitioned through upgrades. 

 

I worked on a computer that started life off as XP=upgrade to VIsta=upgrade to Windows 7.  

 

To put it in a nutshell... 

You want some folks to upgrade to see how a system functions through an upgrade to see if there are either OS issues or Application issues following an upgrade.  

I have even seen some applications fail to install after an upgrade that was previously installed, because the average user is not going to do this advised method.

 

Recommendations for upgrading: (in theory this works best)

Uninstall all applications that are not part of the OS.

Get all OS updates

Upgrade

Get all updates

Re-install your applications

(in theory everything should work)

 

This is what mostly happens;

User sees upgrade- Upgrades on the spot

Applications stop working- User tries to re-install  that usually fails.. tries to remove it (sometimes this fails as to the installer references are now in the .OLD) folder- then re-install which is about a 50-50

 

So actually you want people to install using upgrades to find potential problems with the OS and also with your favorite Applications.

The notebook in the testing pool dates back to Vista (that is, in fact, what shipped on it before it went to the "sandbox" - the original owner is a veteran of Afghanistan AND Iraq) - the second owner upgraded it to 7 (which is what was shipping on the same notebook when HP EOL'd it).  When I got it, I replaced 7 with 8.1 (the Technical Preview had not even been announced yet) and then replaced it with the Technical Preview (it was my first bare-metal install of said OS, in fact). 

 

It was this SAME notebook (which goes back to Vista) which REALLY caused me to bounce off the ceiling - rather hard.  And it had nothing to do with compatibility issues.

 

It had to do with LACK of compatibility issues.

 

In all my hardware and software (applications and games) compatibility testing so far, just two games (both from the same publisher) and exactly zero applications have failed.  Also, exactly zero HARDWARE doesn't work.

 

Meanwhile, we still have some folks that are saying DO NOT ADVANCE - the new OS is too different.

 

And this after discovering a pretty good-sized hill of hard empirical data that our hardware has basically been up on jackstands at the very minimum back to 7.  (Notice I did not say "mountain" - I DID however, say that it's at least a good-sized hill; I don't have ANY modern hardware in my testing pool.)

 

And if this is the case with older hardware, how much less is more modern hardware underutilized?

[Forjo]

I can see your point but at the same time, these are all steps to remove the 'duality' for regular PC users.  To that end, they may over-react and explicitly not give the option on touch-less devices, preferring to let continuum control it.  Much like the title bar complaint, these are all items that arguably should be under the hood if it works - supporting the few users that think Metro is good with a mouse, less so.  Or maybe it will just be poetic justice for the change crowd.  Change back. ;)

 

I just don't understand from a developer perspective how they are going to be able to write one app that satisfies both.

Capture.jpg

I still maintain that it is hypocritical to cite the duality as a failing. The same people who complain ad nauseam about the duality of Windows 8 have no problem running different operating systems like Android, iOS, OSX and Windows. How is it that having something like these but on the same screen is somehow impossible to work with?

 

Not to mention how, especially on non-Metro systems (and to a lesser extent on iOS) apps can look and behave totally differently from each other.  How can these people adapt to game and desktop applications that have TOTALLY different interfaces that all run on the same computer but they can't adapt to Metro (which is VERY internally consistent) along side all the inconsistency that came before?

 

As someone who supports clients will ALL of these systems, perhaps I'm better suited to this supposed duality. But considering how inconsistent Windows has ALWAYS been, I just really don't see this as anything more than an empty complaint.

 

And when I see the productivity of my clients who have been shown the benefits of Windows 8 (as opposed to what I consider unfair negative bias), I find it even harder to find any common ground with the detractors of this OS.

 

-Forjo

[Active.]

---

[PGHammer]

I still maintain that it is hypocritical to cite the duality as a failing. The same people who complain ad nauseam about the duality of Windows 8 have no problem running different operating systems like Android, iOS, OSX and Windows. How is it that having something like these but on the same screen is somehow impossible to work with?

 

Not to mention how, especially on non-Metro systems (and to a lesser extent on iOS) apps can look and behave totally differently from each other.  How can these people adapt to game and desktop applications that have TOTALLY different interfaces that all run on the same computer but they can't adapt to Metro (which is VERY internally consistent) along side all the inconsistency that came before?

 

As someone who supports clients will ALL of these systems, perhaps I'm better suited to this supposed duality. But considering how inconsistent Windows has ALWAYS been, I just really don't see this as anything more than an empty complaint.

 

And when I see the productivity of my clients who have been shown the benefits of Windows 8 (as opposed to what I consider unfair negative bias), I find it even harder to find any common ground with the detractors of this OS.

 

-Forjo

True, Forjo.

 

They can adjust to radically different keyboard+mouse, or even mouse-only (NO keyboard support at all, or very little of it) interaction - but balk at the idea of an application supporting touch in addition to (not instead of) keyboards and mice?

Do any of them use Office 2013 - or any of the applications thereof?  Office 2013 - in fact, ALL the applications thereof - CAN leverage touch support if the underlying OS has it; however, it's just as capable if said touch support is completely NOT there.  And this is without the UI changing one bit.  (I don't recommend - or even USE - Office 2013 due to touch support - my hardware doesn't have any.  Nor is it the x64 support - Office 2010, which it replaced, had that.  Office 2013 has better performance and usable features that are easier to leverage than Office 2010 - in short, 2013 beat 2010 heads-up.  That it also has touch support is icing - however, the "cake" itself is solidly-constructed.)

[+Asmodai MVC]

Just to add to the discussion it's not really possible to make a good UI that works equally well for mouse and touch.  You'll note I left off keyboard because you can put keyboard shortcuts or any UI to make it efficient for the minority of users who actually use keyboard shortcuts extensively (excluding basic cut, copy, paste).  The problem is what makes a good design for these to things (mouse and touch) are direct opposites.

 

On a touch device you want large "hit targets" because fingers are imprecise and it doesn't matter as much where on the screen the hit target is. (it's not significantly easier to touch parts of the edge of the screen then it is the middle as long as the hit target is large.)  As a result a good touch UI typically has large, spaced out elements (like the tiles of the start screen - an excellent touch UI).  In contrast a mouse is very precise and you want each element to be as close as possible to the next one so that you have to move the mouse as little as possible to go from one thing to the next.  As such a small, dense, arrangement of elements, the EXACT OPPOSITE of touch is most efficient. 

 

On a touch device because the UI elements are large the UI tends to take up the whole screen, again like the Start Screen. (also because touch really took off on smaller mobile devices where there wasn't but so much room to put things anyway.)  In contrast on mouse UIs the elements are small and densely packed so it consumes a tiny portion of the screen.  This means the UI can either show significantly more info on one screen (although that could get out of hand) or more often the UI elements are relegated to a small portion of the screen (and may even hide) leaving the rest for content.  It's also preferred that the content in a mouse driven interface reside along the edges/corners because that's the easiest place to get a mouse to (basically throwing the mouse to that side.)  This is why Apple puts the OS UI in the titlebar across the top edge of the screen and Windows puts the Taskbar/StartMenu on the bottom edge (by default).

 

If you try and make a UI that works equally well on both then then you're just going to get something that works equally bad on both.  The more you try to make one easier the more difficult you make the other.  This was the big failing of Windows 8, it pushed too heavy to touch and made mouse use more difficult.  Windows 10 appears to take a much better approach in that it will have two UIs going forward and they can both run the same apps (instead of relegating mouse use to legacy apps).  Mouse users can thus continue to use desktop apps as they always have but also be able to use new Metro apps in a similar manner (in windows).  Touch users will be able to use the full screen Start Screen and presumably full screen Metro apps (not sure about this since the Win10 Touch UI hasn't been shown).  I think this together with the unified app API (not just similar visual style) between phones, tablets, laptops, desktops, xbox one, etc. is the right direction going forward for MS.

[Ian S.]

Btw, touch is still the future and the desktop is still going away. Mobile first cloud first. With 10, they added suit to satisfy desktop users. Modern and touch ate still the future. Touch will eventually dominate enterprise, just not as soon as Microsoft thought.

[+Zagadka Subscriber²]

Btw, touch is still the future and the desktop is still going away.

I disagree. However much we have progressed, the efficiency and precision of a physical keyboard and mouse simply can't be replaced by touch and voice command interfaces. If you want to make a document or do coding or work with a database or any such activity, it is by far easier to do with a keyboard and mouse.

Also, touch interface doesn't work well on desktop systems; holding your entire arm up to tap something is not ergonomic at all.

[DConnell Member]

I disagree. However much we have progressed, the efficiency and precision of a physical keyboard and mouse simply can't be replaced by touch and voice command interfaces. If you want to make a document or do coding or work with a database or any such activity, it is by far easier to do with a keyboard and mouse.

Also, touch interface doesn't work well on desktop systems; holding your entire arm up to tap something is not ergonomic at all.

 

I think the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. We had the same arguments against the mouse when it was first coming into common use. People said that it would never replace the keyboard, and in that, they were right. Mouse and keyboard work together, and after decades, it feels natural.

 

The same thing will probably happen with touch & voice. No, they will not replace the now traditional m/k combo. Instead, they will be added to the mix. I already work that way with my Surface. Scroll through a document with a flick of the screen (much faster than even the scroll wheel), position the cursor where it needs to be with the mouse, and then type with the keyboard. That's a basic example, of course. And when interacting with the screen, there are times when moving a cursor around makes more sense, and times when working with the screen directly is much more efficient. And if my hands are already on the keyboard and I can do what I need to without removing them, why would I take them off to use either mouse or touchscreen?

 

The people who say touch is the future are right. So are the people who say that m/k isn't going away. They will work together. And in 20 years this will all start up again as we or our kids argue over whether hologram interaction can ever replace the physical mouse/keys/touch combo. :laugh:

[Ian S.]

I disagree. However much we have progressed, the efficiency and precision of a physical keyboard and mouse simply can't be replaced by touch and voice command interfaces. If you want to make a document or do coding or work with a database or any such activity, it is by far easier to do with a keyboard and mouse.

Also, touch interface doesn't work well on desktop systems; holding your entire arm up to tap something is not ergonomic at all.

You mean to tell me in 50 years, we would still be using mouse and keyboard, which is a waste of extra components that always break down? Touch is a natural way to interact.

[DConnell Member]

You mean to tell me in 50 years, we would still be using mouse and keyboard, which is a waste of extra components that always break down? Touch is a natural way to interact.

 

You mean to tell me you plan on typing reports and papers and letters on a touchscreen? Touch is a natural way to interact, which is why I beleive it will become a standard part of computers alongside mouse nad keyboard, but it isn't going to replace them IMO.

 

Even if you dictate your writing - voice recognition will almost certainly improve - the keyboard would still be the best way to make corrections.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Even if you dictate your writing - voice recognition will almost certainly improve - the keyboard would still be the best way to make corrections.

Even if voice recognition was absolutely perfect A LOT of big business is done in "cube farms". Can you imagine the chaos if everyone in every cube was talking their computers. How about on the metro or other public transit? Voice recognition is fine when you're by yourself but it falls apart as you add more and more people. Even if each is perfect and listening only the the relevant person it would be highly annoying to have all that nonstop chatter around you.

[Dashel]

It certainly didn't allow users to 'fine-grain the user experience'.

 

I think the biggest hope, particularly for a preview environment, is to allow us to mix and match as many of the Metro elements as possible.  I'd love to be able to customize the hotcorners, Start customization is still pretty anemic etc.  Metro has lots of good concepts when viewed individually.

 

I still maintain that it is hypocritical to cite the duality as a failing. The same people who complain ad nauseam about the duality of Windows 8 have no problem running different operating systems like Android, iOS, OSX and Windows. How is it that having something like these but on the same screen is somehow impossible to work with?

 

Not to mention how, especially on non-Metro systems (and to a lesser extent on iOS) apps can look and behave totally differently from each other.  How can these people adapt to game and desktop applications that have TOTALLY different interfaces that all run on the same computer but they can't adapt to Metro (which is VERY internally consistent) along side all the inconsistency that came before?

 

As someone who supports clients will ALL of these systems, perhaps I'm better suited to this supposed duality. But considering how inconsistent Windows has ALWAYS been, I just really don't see this as anything more than an empty complaint.

 

And when I see the productivity of my clients who have been shown the benefits of Windows 8 (as opposed to what I consider unfair negative bias), I find it even harder to find any common ground with the detractors of this OS.

 

-Forjo

How is it hypocritical?  This isn't about using multiple OSs remember, but making one OS that can accommodate them all.  That's the play so you can't compare how goofy Apple or Droid does it.  It has never been about 'not' being able to grapple with app or game interfaces not being standardized.

 

What about Windows is inconsistent again?  Sounds like Mac ###### but I'll reserve judgement.

 

Lets put that old chestnut to bed and move forward, which means removing (in 8) two very different OSs mashed together with questionable connectors.

They can adjust to radically different keyboard+mouse, or even mouse-only (NO keyboard support at all, or very little of it) interaction - but balk at the idea of an application supporting touch in addition to (not instead of) keyboards and mice?

 

Do any of them use Office 2013 - or any of the applications thereof?  Office 2013 - in fact, ALL the applications thereof - CAN leverage touch support if the underlying OS has it; however, it's just as capable if said touch support is completely NOT there.  And this is without the UI changing one bit.  (I don't recommend - or even USE - Office 2013 due to touch support - my hardware doesn't have any.  Nor is it the x64 support - Office 2010, which it replaced, had that.  Office 2013 has better performance and usable features that are easier to leverage than Office 2010 - in short, 2013 beat 2010 heads-up.  That it also has touch support is icing - however, the "cake" itself is solidly-constructed.)

Oh stop.  No one but the yahoos users are 'balking' at adding support.  Its disagreement, as shown above about what 'efficient' means to good mousers vs poor ones.  Given your nonsensical ramblings of your love of the keyboard in a GUI, you are in the latter group.

 

Three years later and you still can't see the forest for the trees.

[DConnell Member]

Even if voice recognition was absolutely perfect A LOT of big business is done in "cube farms". Can you imagine the chaos if everyone in every cube was talking their computers. How about on the metro or other public transit? Voice recognition is fine when you're by yourself but it falls apart as you add more and more people. Even if each is perfect and listening only the the relevant person it would be highly annoying to have all that nonstop chatter around you.

 

Good point. But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for voice command and dictation, or for touch in computing from this point on. Not as replacements for existing interaction methods, but as additions to them.

 

In Photoshop, you could use the touchscreen to accurately zoom in on the section you need to work on, then switch to the mouse and keys to do the editing. Or there's my earlier scrolling example.

 

Just because touch hasn't been supported and used in professional computing so far, that doesn't mean there aren't practical uses, many of which we probably haven't even thought of yet.

 

So many of the arguments against touch are based on the idea that it takes something away - I still haven't seen any solid argument that explains how support for touch makes mouse and keyboard less effective.

 

All I can see is added potential.

[Stoffel]

Good point. But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for voice command and dictation, or for touch in computing from this point on. Not as replacements for existing interaction methods, but as additions to them.

 

In Photoshop, you could use the touchscreen to accurately zoom in on the section you need to work on, then switch to the mouse and keys to do the editing. Or there's my earlier scrolling example.

 

Just because touch hasn't been supported and used in professional computing so far, that doesn't mean there aren't practical uses, many of which we probably haven't even thought of yet.

 

So many of the arguments against touch are based on the idea that it takes something away - I still haven't seen any solid argument that explains how support for touch makes mouse and keyboard less effective.

 

All I can see is added potential.

 

The problem is that most people see it as an either/or.

Some people can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that when you add a touch screen to a laptop/desktop you don't loose the KB and mouse.

 

I'm fully in your camp, I own a Lenovo Yoga and love the touch screen functionality.

Just use the right tool for the job, that's all

[libertas83]

Windows 8 moved the shutdown options from the Start Menu to the Charm Bar, requiring more mouse clicks, greater dexterity and much more mouse travel. The Charm Bar was particularly awkward to use on multi-monitor setups, where you could easily overshoot it. The All Apps screen was a mess, due to the way it auto-expanded all folders - that meant wading through hundreds-if-not-thousands of unnecessary entries. The Start Screen required much more mouse movement and obscured the entire desktop, which was worse on high resolution monitors where it was nearly impossible to fully utilise the screen space. PC Settings, which was required for some aspects of customisation, had to run fullscreen and was less efficient for desktop use (see: Fitts' law). Windows 8 also forced users to boot to the Start Screen (until Windows 8.1 gave an option not to).

 

 

I did note that Charms the way it was implemented was really bad and yes mouse unfriendly so anything under that menu that was hidden would be included, Shut down for example.

 

However, the Start Screen itself was no more mouse friendly than the general use of Windows. I have two 24" monitors. I routinely have to move my mouse across the entire span of my desktop to click on dialog boxes, tabs, close buttons, and clicking items within applications. Using Start Screen never required that much effort or difficulty within the mouse than any other app. It is still far easier to browse Live Tiles and click them than to deal with fly-out menus where I have routinely had issues with starting over because I moved too fast.

 

The All Apps menu, organizationally yes it was a mess that could have been corrected by not expanding folders but that is not an issue of mouse friendliness because if you actually looked at majority of people's PCs in XP, that is how their normal Start Menu looked! The folders were an issue in XP because where is that app located, it is under Microsoft Office 2010, Office 2010, what is AP Software Systems? Oh look Paint.NET is located in AP Software Systems the publisher I never knew (made up example).

 

For every argument about mouse or not, you can find hundreds of examples where Windows really just sucks with a mouse because it takes a lot of effort to use! Why do you think high DPI mice are sought after. You have to configure your mouse with the right DPI and Mouse sensitivity settings to get your mouse to work well and fast on larger screens and that is just a plain Windows issue.

 

Now I'm arguing all of this but I'm still in agreement they screwed up with Windows 8 and I'm not advocating the changes they made to Windows 10 are not great, they are! The shutdown and log off buttons should have been done the way they did it Windows 8.1 from the beginning, hiding it was stupid. There are tons of examples of stupid UI decisions that are more about discoverability issues more than being friendly with a mouse. If you didn't know where Shut down, that is a problem for both mouse and touch users.

[Dashel]

But to extend that thought Stoffel, we all want more possible control schemes.  The breakdown occurs when you start saying that the interface shouldn't adapt to the user and the available inputs.

 

I would also want to see the 'touch' proponents more supportive of the other inputs that haven't even been implemented yet (like controller).  Pen, voice, keyboard, mouse, touch, controller; all on widely variable screen sizes must be the goal without sacrificing how people use those inputs.

[+Asmodai MVC]

Good point. But that doesn't mean there isn't a place for voice command and dictation, or for touch in computing from this point on. Not as replacements for existing interaction methods, but as additions to them.

I wasn't suggesting it does. I agree voice and touch have a place I was simply agreeing with you that they do not REPLACE keyboard/mouse.

So many of the arguments against touch are based on the idea that it takes something away - I still haven't seen any solid argument that explains how support for touch makes mouse and keyboard less effective.

In theory touch can be added to a UI to enable you to do things you couldn't do at all before or even do some things more efficient. I don't think that's the bulk of the argument though. The argument isn't based around theory but instead around the specific implementation that Microsoft chose in Windows 8. In the case of Windows 8 they DID make changes to make things easier for touch that in turn made it more difficult for mouse users without touch (who are the bulk of their existing users.) It doesn't HAVE to be that way but that's what happened in that particular case. Plus there are also anti-touch sentiment because people who use the mouse are constantly being told that "touch is the future" and will replace keyboard/mouse, so it's a defensive position.

[DConnell Member]

I wasn't suggesting it does. I agree voice and touch have a place I was simply agreeing with you that they do not REPLACE keyboard/mouse.

In theory touch can be added to a UI to enable you to do things you couldn't do at all before or even do some things more efficient. I don't think that's the bulk of the argument though. The argument isn't based around theory but instead around the specific implementation that Microsoft chose in Windows 8. In the case of Windows 8 they DID make changes to make things easier for touch that in turn made it more difficult for mouse users without touch (who are the bulk of their existing users.) It doesn't HAVE to be that way but that's what happened in that particular case. Plus there are also anti-touch sentiment because people who use the mouse are constantly being told that "touch is the future" and will replace keyboard/mouse, so it's a defensive position.

 

Even with the specific implementation Windows uses, I don't  really see how mouse & keyboard use is impeded. I formed my high opinion of 8 on a laptop with no touchscreen, after all. I never found 8 any harder to use with a mouse than 7, and in some ways it was easier. I actually miss the charms bar on my system at work!

 

Even most of the arguments against Modern with a mouse seem to be based on "it doesn't need to be like this for a mouse" rather than "its harder for a mouse".

 

Larger icons? Maybe not an improvement, but how is a larger target more difficult? Hot corners? How is hitting the corner of the screen difficult with a mouse? Drag to close? Well that is more involved, but I actually prefer the deliberate action to close rather than a single click of a close box. Harder to accidentally close a program that way!

 

And "white space" in the UI makes it easier to find your content and controls - it avoids the "needle in haystack" effect. I'm in the camp that it doesn't all have to be onscreen constantly.

 

The arguments all point, as far as I can see, to the changes not creating an improvement for mouse use, but no real loss of usability either. Which makes the objections a matter of taste. Which is a perfectly valid reason for not liking Modern, just not an argument for it being "unusable on the desktop".

[Dashel]

Its both, I'm not sure why you would conflate the two.  Larger hit sizes, a tradeoff of travel distance for accuracy, is but a component of the bigger picture issue - less information.  Modern apps, as shown in my screenshot are at least 3-4x less dense than the corresponding desktop app.  Give Desktop users the tools of Modern, but don't force how they should be used or when.

 

Your whitespace argument mirrors the same mistake as the mouse.  You can't force high accuracy and information mousers to just 'accept it', nor can you keep brazenly calling it preference.

 

Desktop users shouldn't have to make that sacrifice just to appease lower use types.  Calling it a matter of taste is a copout to the discussion and an insult to the future of Modern to boot.  It helps neither camp and reeks of android foolishness. 

[Dot Matrix]

I disagree. However much we have progressed, the efficiency and precision of a physical keyboard and mouse simply can't be replaced by touch and voice command interfaces. If you want to make a document or do coding or work with a database or any such activity, it is by far easier to do with a keyboard and mouse.

Also, touch interface doesn't work well on desktop systems; holding your entire arm up to tap something is not ergonomic at all.

Writing doesn't require a mouse. Holding your arms up for a few seconds isn't going to do you harm. The Mouse and keyboard aren't exactly ergonomic either. In fact, Carpal Tunnel, and sedentary behavior associated with most office PC setups are hostile to our health.