4 ms·

"Microsoft really could use some product/UX zealot in the driver seat for a while." I hate to say this, but I think it would just result yet another UX camp in

"Microsoft really could use some product/UX zealot in the driver seat for a while." I hate to say this, but I think it would just result yet another UX camp in the system. The weight of legacy is heavy. To clean up the UI mess, Microsoft would need to heavily deprecate supported APIs and conventions, and I don't think that's going to happen.

pulse7 5y ago
Backwards compatibility is pure gold and is worth more than any new trend...
usrusr 5y ago
Yet another camp is the most likely outcome, but it could be avoided by declaring a winner. But that's certainly the approach they always try, yet it never works. Because that declared winner always turns out to be yet another superficial subset full of broken promises. And this declared but failing winner is always the latest incarnation. What they have never tried: going back to the oldest and extending that with new additions. There are always far fewer new additions than the backlog of existing settings that would have to be ported to the latest variation, doing the reverse, properly, wouldn't be that hard.
pjmlp 5y ago
They were on the right track, but again the too many cooks part borked the whole execution, now we have lots of tiny kitchens each managed from one of those cooks trying to sell their special dish going forward.
numpad0 5y ago
That'll also legit lead to customers leaving Windows. Just last week I had to assign multiple IP addresses to a same interface, which is totally legit operation, and I firmly believe it will be too much to ask highly skilled UX designers to also be aware of every such minute details as that an interface can have multiple IPs or that PostScript is an Adobe trademark across the whole scope of Windows Control Panel.
jen20 5y ago
It would be particularly ideal if the brand of zealotry employed was “roll the look and feel of everything back to Windows 2000 but add proper scaling support”.

pulse7 5y ago

Backwards compatibility is pure gold and is worth more than any new trend...

usrusr 5y ago

Yet another camp is the most likely outcome, but it could be avoided by declaring a winner. But that's certainly the approach they always try, yet it never works. Because that declared winner always turns out to be yet another superficial subset full of broken promises. And this declared but failing winner is always the latest incarnation. What they have never tried: going back to the oldest and extending that with new additions. There are always far fewer new additions than the backlog of existing settings that would have to be ported to the latest variation, doing the reverse, properly, wouldn't be that hard.

pjmlp 5y ago

They were on the right track, but again the too many cooks part borked the whole execution, now we have lots of tiny kitchens each managed from one of those cooks trying to sell their special dish going forward.

numpad0 5y ago

That'll also legit lead to customers leaving Windows. Just last week I had to assign multiple IP addresses to a same interface, which is totally legit operation, and I firmly believe it will be too much to ask highly skilled UX designers to also be aware of every such minute details as that an interface can have multiple IPs or that PostScript is an Adobe trademark across the whole scope of Windows Control Panel.

jen20 5y ago

It would be particularly ideal if the brand of zealotry employed was “roll the look and feel of everything back to Windows 2000 but add proper scaling support”.