5 ms·

Re: usability of the Start Menu... When I used to do tech support, from Win 98 all the way through Win 7 days, I would consistently find that reasonably intell

Re: usability of the Start Menu... When I used to do tech support, from Win 98 all the way through Win 7 days, I would consistently find that reasonably intelligent human adults had difficulty understanding the Start Menu. If something wasn’t on the first menu, they weren’t going to interact with it. It seemed like such a no-brainer to me — just expand the folders! — but a staggering number of people found it alien and never adapted. Even the idea of a right-click VS left is too much for many people.

phkahler 8y ago
One huge problem with the start menu is that every company put a folder with their company name in there and you had to go inside to launch your program. Adobe->Photoshop, Microsoft->stuff. I think the desktop designers should have made a fixed set of top level menus. Only show the non-empty ones, but at least make everyone put apps in them. I'd propose a set including: games, programming, engineering, design, media, office, entertainment, audio-visual, system tools. I'd also suggest subcategories particularly for games. If there is only one category, or not that many programs total, it could omit the subcategary level when showing that menu. Put users first and stop sticking your company names in their menus. Add a little structure and some reasonable heuristics. Done. I think Linux distros could do this since they have packaging guidelines and huge software repositories.
- pstch 8y ago
  > I think Linux distros could do this since they have packaging guidelines and huge software repositories. Many already do such things (most Desktop Environments provide a shell with some kind of software category menu).
- jenscow 8y ago
  Putting your application inside your company name was (is?) part of the guidelines from Microsoft. Also applies to c:\Program Files and the registry. I can't remember the rationale, but it does make it hard to find things.
  - mamon 8y ago
    One possible rationale: companies tend to specialize in one specific software domain, so you would end up with your graphic design software under Adobe folder, your Quake games grouped under idSoftware, and your databases grouped under Oracle.
    - amyjess 8y ago
      The rationale was that on Windows 3.1, the company would put all of their stuff, not just the program executable, in the Program Group. So not only would you have the program, but you'd also have the readme and the uninstaller and anything else that goes along with the program. When Windows 95 came out, Microsoft wanted to hide all of that. The new guideline was to just put the program in the root level of the Programs menu, leave the uninstaller up to the new Add/Remove Programs control panel, and if you want the readme or whatever, go hunt for it yourself. But unfortunately most developers ignored it. They continued building Windows 3.1-style Program Groups the same way they always did. And, yes, the Programs menu used the same backend as Program Manager. What appeared in one appeared in the other.
  - amyjess 8y ago
    > Putting your application inside your company name was (is?) part of the guidelines from Microsoft. That was part of the Windows 3.1 guidelines. On Windows 95, Microsoft's guidelines specified that your applications were to appear as single icons under the Programs menu. Unfortunately, most almost all developers ignored that and continued doing things the Win3.1 way.
- amyjess 8y ago
  KDE already does this. Screenshot from my system: https://i.imgur.com/csWWl9Y.png https://i.imgur.com/csWWl9Y.png And this is on Arch, which means that almost all software is unmodified from upstream.
  - phkahler 8y ago
    That's exactly the sort of top level I want! I once suggested that GNOME games be broken down into categories but I quickly encountered a bunch of resistance. Granted, I probably wasn't addressing the right people anyway.
    - ryandrake 8y ago
      On the other hand, it requires the user to read minds and figure out how the developer might have classified the application. If I'm looking for After Effects, should I look under Graphics or Multimedia? Or maybe Utilities? I agree that using Company Name as the top level folder might be the worst option. If I'm looking for some random utility app I downloaded and installed, why should I have to first remember what the name of the company was who made it?
      - phkahler 8y ago
        First the categories need be a bit more distinct. Also, a program might be allowed in more than one category. In a commercial case I could see stupid companies stuffing their app in as many menus as possible.
  - ajnin 8y ago
    XFCE (arch also) also does this, and I find that it a great experience that whenever a program is installed I can find it immediately in the category that makes sense.
- paulryanrogers 8y ago
  > Put users first and stop sticking your company names in their menus. Add a little structure and some reasonable heuristics. Done. The concern is namespace conflicts. Users may be surprised to find a program has 'changed' when in fact another user installed a similarly named program.
- pantalaimon 8y ago
  Gnome 2 did this (and Mate still does), but I actually find it more confusing. It's sometimes not obvious which category a program belongs to, so you have to meticulously search all categories that could apply. And you'd only to that if you don't exactly remember the program name in the first place, otherwise you would have had quicker ways to launch it. Here the old windows way offers more 'breadcrumbs' to find something.
- MereInterest 8y ago
  I thought that Win7 had a good solution to that, with typing immediately doing a search within the start menu. Then, Win8 made it also search for files, destroying any utility of the search. If you want people to have muscle memory (e.g. WinKey + moz + enter to start Mozilla Firefox), then having severe lag on the search, and having the top result vary as a function of time (as more search results are found), is horrendous.
  - 43920 8y ago
    > having severe lag on the search, and having the top result vary as a function of time (as more search results are found), is horrendous. There's no reason search has to do this, though. Spotlight (the macOS version of this) is able to find results pretty much instantly, and it doesn't show any results until it's searched everything, so the top result never changes. I really don't understand why Windows hasn't been able to do the same thing (and if anything, the win10 search is worse).
    - int_19h 8y ago
      > it doesn't show any results until it's searched everything, so the top result never changes I don't see how that follows. If it also searches files, the top result can change if any indexed file changes, which would still break the app launching scenario. Or is it always showing apps on top?
      - MereInterest 8y ago
        Is this case, they are referring to consistent display of results within a single search, not the consistency of several search results using the same search terms. Progressive searches that display results as they are found have a nasty habit of changing which result is currently underneath your mouse, right when you are about to click it.
        Piskvorrr 8y ago
        Yup. Mobile Twitter is horrible in this regard. Search for something, it comes up first or second, wonderful; tap i- DAMMIT WHY DID YOU REPLACE IT WITH AN UNRELATED HASHTAG!?! Result: search, wait 10 seconds for the damn UI to stabilize, tap the result and NOPE, THERE COMES ANOTHER LATE RESPONSE MESSING IT UP AGAIN.
- fps_doug 8y ago
  > One huge problem with the start menu is that every company put a folder with their company name in there and you had to go inside to launch your program. Adobe->Photoshop, Microsoft->stuff. It was even worse than that. The app name usually was a subfolder too. It went like: 'Start -> Programs -> Adobe -> Photoshop -> Launch Photoshop' (Plus 'Open Readme' and 'Uninstall' and whatnot)

phkahler 8y ago

One huge problem with the start menu is that every company put a folder with their company name in there and you had to go inside to launch your program. Adobe->Photoshop, Microsoft->stuff. I think the desktop designers should have made a fixed set of top level menus. Only show the non-empty ones, but at least make everyone put apps in them. I'd propose a set including: games, programming, engineering, design, media, office, entertainment, audio-visual, system tools. I'd also suggest subcategories particularly for games. If there is only one category, or not that many programs total, it could omit the subcategary level when showing that menu. Put users first and stop sticking your company names in their menus. Add a little structure and some reasonable heuristics. Done. I think Linux distros could do this since they have packaging guidelines and huge software repositories.

pstch 8y ago
> I think Linux distros could do this since they have packaging guidelines and huge software repositories. Many already do such things (most Desktop Environments provide a shell with some kind of software category menu).
jenscow 8y ago
Putting your application inside your company name was (is?) part of the guidelines from Microsoft. Also applies to c:\Program Files and the registry. I can't remember the rationale, but it does make it hard to find things.
- mamon 8y ago
  One possible rationale: companies tend to specialize in one specific software domain, so you would end up with your graphic design software under Adobe folder, your Quake games grouped under idSoftware, and your databases grouped under Oracle.
  - amyjess 8y ago
    The rationale was that on Windows 3.1, the company would put all of their stuff, not just the program executable, in the Program Group. So not only would you have the program, but you'd also have the readme and the uninstaller and anything else that goes along with the program. When Windows 95 came out, Microsoft wanted to hide all of that. The new guideline was to just put the program in the root level of the Programs menu, leave the uninstaller up to the new Add/Remove Programs control panel, and if you want the readme or whatever, go hunt for it yourself. But unfortunately most developers ignored it. They continued building Windows 3.1-style Program Groups the same way they always did. And, yes, the Programs menu used the same backend as Program Manager. What appeared in one appeared in the other.
- amyjess 8y ago
  > Putting your application inside your company name was (is?) part of the guidelines from Microsoft. That was part of the Windows 3.1 guidelines. On Windows 95, Microsoft's guidelines specified that your applications were to appear as single icons under the Programs menu. Unfortunately, most almost all developers ignored that and continued doing things the Win3.1 way.
amyjess 8y ago
KDE already does this. Screenshot from my system: https://i.imgur.com/csWWl9Y.png https://i.imgur.com/csWWl9Y.png And this is on Arch, which means that almost all software is unmodified from upstream.
- phkahler 8y ago
  That's exactly the sort of top level I want! I once suggested that GNOME games be broken down into categories but I quickly encountered a bunch of resistance. Granted, I probably wasn't addressing the right people anyway.
  - ryandrake 8y ago
    On the other hand, it requires the user to read minds and figure out how the developer might have classified the application. If I'm looking for After Effects, should I look under Graphics or Multimedia? Or maybe Utilities? I agree that using Company Name as the top level folder might be the worst option. If I'm looking for some random utility app I downloaded and installed, why should I have to first remember what the name of the company was who made it?
    - phkahler 8y ago
      First the categories need be a bit more distinct. Also, a program might be allowed in more than one category. In a commercial case I could see stupid companies stuffing their app in as many menus as possible.
- ajnin 8y ago
  XFCE (arch also) also does this, and I find that it a great experience that whenever a program is installed I can find it immediately in the category that makes sense.
paulryanrogers 8y ago
> Put users first and stop sticking your company names in their menus. Add a little structure and some reasonable heuristics. Done. The concern is namespace conflicts. Users may be surprised to find a program has 'changed' when in fact another user installed a similarly named program.
pantalaimon 8y ago
Gnome 2 did this (and Mate still does), but I actually find it more confusing. It's sometimes not obvious which category a program belongs to, so you have to meticulously search all categories that could apply. And you'd only to that if you don't exactly remember the program name in the first place, otherwise you would have had quicker ways to launch it. Here the old windows way offers more 'breadcrumbs' to find something.
MereInterest 8y ago
I thought that Win7 had a good solution to that, with typing immediately doing a search within the start menu. Then, Win8 made it also search for files, destroying any utility of the search. If you want people to have muscle memory (e.g. WinKey + moz + enter to start Mozilla Firefox), then having severe lag on the search, and having the top result vary as a function of time (as more search results are found), is horrendous.
- 43920 8y ago
  > having severe lag on the search, and having the top result vary as a function of time (as more search results are found), is horrendous. There's no reason search has to do this, though. Spotlight (the macOS version of this) is able to find results pretty much instantly, and it doesn't show any results until it's searched everything, so the top result never changes. I really don't understand why Windows hasn't been able to do the same thing (and if anything, the win10 search is worse).
  - int_19h 8y ago
    > it doesn't show any results until it's searched everything, so the top result never changes I don't see how that follows. If it also searches files, the top result can change if any indexed file changes, which would still break the app launching scenario. Or is it always showing apps on top?
    - MereInterest 8y ago
      Is this case, they are referring to consistent display of results within a single search, not the consistency of several search results using the same search terms. Progressive searches that display results as they are found have a nasty habit of changing which result is currently underneath your mouse, right when you are about to click it.
      - Piskvorrr 8y ago
        Yup. Mobile Twitter is horrible in this regard. Search for something, it comes up first or second, wonderful; tap i- DAMMIT WHY DID YOU REPLACE IT WITH AN UNRELATED HASHTAG!?! Result: search, wait 10 seconds for the damn UI to stabilize, tap the result and NOPE, THERE COMES ANOTHER LATE RESPONSE MESSING IT UP AGAIN.
fps_doug 8y ago
> One huge problem with the start menu is that every company put a folder with their company name in there and you had to go inside to launch your program. Adobe->Photoshop, Microsoft->stuff. It was even worse than that. The app name usually was a subfolder too. It went like: 'Start -> Programs -> Adobe -> Photoshop -> Launch Photoshop' (Plus 'Open Readme' and 'Uninstall' and whatnot)