4 ms·

The thread is about removing the label, not the whole search box. Which is a sort of silly thing to complain about, but Windows 11 has a lot of taskbar feature

The thread is about removing the label, not the whole search box. Which is a sort of silly thing to complain about, but Windows 11 has a lot of taskbar feature regressions. You can't even pin the thing to the left or right edge anymore. So I understand why users are frustrated. This all represents a philosophical shift in Windows ("the taskbar is Microsoft's, not yours") and it will be a painful adjustment for power users.

323 4y ago
> You can't even pin the thing to the left or right edge anymore. What if only 0.05% of users do that? Is it really worth all that entropy in code and test matrix for such a low usage feature?
- somehnacct3757 4y ago
  That's not how Microsoft historically operates. Programs I wrote 20 years ago still work on Windows using ancient apis that they carry, because they care about backwards support. Whatever obscure msc or exe you ran in the 90s is still there, still runs, and still configures the OS. To this day you can check weird boxes deep in your disk config to put buggy behavior back into Windows, because it fixes a bug a single customer had decades ago. My theory is simpler: it was too hard to add new features to the taskbar (like wide search bars and now text fields) when you had to think about a tall and a wide configuration. So they cut the tall way. Now they can cram all sorts of features into your taskbar. It represents a shift in MS philosophy, closer to how Apple mandates progress in their OS.
  - 323 4y ago
    But backward compatibility it's not the same thing as OS customization. I also run software last compiled in 1997, but Windows 11 looks a whole lot different than Windows 95 where that software was compiled.
- csydas 4y ago
  It's the wrong way to Fram the question. If I have a program that emits a painful audio bit every time the user does X and only 0.05% of users disable it by going to a configuration value they need to search for through dozens of (my own) SEO'd results, that doesn't mean that only 0.05% of users want it disabled, it just means that only 0.05% of users were able to figure out how to stop my program from doing X. I work on a product where our power user base is known for requesting registry options to change/disable feature x/y, and our market research has consistently shown a registry value doesn't enter most people's minds; to further this point, our user base is specifically IT persons. Even our Linux user base (actual day to day linux users) don't consider asking if we have a config file to edit somewhere in any overwhelming way. The point I take from this data (which I know is anecdata for you) is that most users assume software "out of the box" is what you see is what you get. Making these changes and options and not including a way to remove them is not a good way of tracking interest since the sample size that is actually willing to take the time to complain and post compared to those that just look at other software entirely are far different. You're dealing with a complete unknown in the Power User space; regular users are even less inclined to see how to disable it and hiding it behind registry edits is actually a dissuasion.
  - 323 4y ago
    MIcrosoft is well known, and one of the first which did extensive user-testing of UIs, video tapped, experts analyzing through one-way mirrors, questioning, ... I doubt that they removed the side taskbar option without very extensive testing and discussions. In fact, it's a well repeated criticism of Microsoft, that they have TOO MANY options, not too few: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/11/21/choices-headaches/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/11/21/choices-headaches/
    - jdsully 4y ago
      That is 20 years and 2 CEO’s ago. Companies change.
    - thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
      >> I doubt that they removed the side taskbar option without very extensive testing and discussions. And yet Windows 11 adoption remains low. The nonsense UI changes to the taskbar are the primary reason I am still using Windows 10. The issue with having so many features is that people use those features and become reliant upon them. Removing those features means that the product is not as good as its predecessor and thus fewer people move to the new version.

323 4y ago

> You can't even pin the thing to the left or right edge anymore. What if only 0.05% of users do that? Is it really worth all that entropy in code and test matrix for such a low usage feature?

somehnacct3757 4y ago
That's not how Microsoft historically operates. Programs I wrote 20 years ago still work on Windows using ancient apis that they carry, because they care about backwards support. Whatever obscure msc or exe you ran in the 90s is still there, still runs, and still configures the OS. To this day you can check weird boxes deep in your disk config to put buggy behavior back into Windows, because it fixes a bug a single customer had decades ago. My theory is simpler: it was too hard to add new features to the taskbar (like wide search bars and now text fields) when you had to think about a tall and a wide configuration. So they cut the tall way. Now they can cram all sorts of features into your taskbar. It represents a shift in MS philosophy, closer to how Apple mandates progress in their OS.
- 323 4y ago
  But backward compatibility it's not the same thing as OS customization. I also run software last compiled in 1997, but Windows 11 looks a whole lot different than Windows 95 where that software was compiled.
csydas 4y ago
It's the wrong way to Fram the question. If I have a program that emits a painful audio bit every time the user does X and only 0.05% of users disable it by going to a configuration value they need to search for through dozens of (my own) SEO'd results, that doesn't mean that only 0.05% of users want it disabled, it just means that only 0.05% of users were able to figure out how to stop my program from doing X. I work on a product where our power user base is known for requesting registry options to change/disable feature x/y, and our market research has consistently shown a registry value doesn't enter most people's minds; to further this point, our user base is specifically IT persons. Even our Linux user base (actual day to day linux users) don't consider asking if we have a config file to edit somewhere in any overwhelming way. The point I take from this data (which I know is anecdata for you) is that most users assume software "out of the box" is what you see is what you get. Making these changes and options and not including a way to remove them is not a good way of tracking interest since the sample size that is actually willing to take the time to complain and post compared to those that just look at other software entirely are far different. You're dealing with a complete unknown in the Power User space; regular users are even less inclined to see how to disable it and hiding it behind registry edits is actually a dissuasion.
- 323 4y ago
  MIcrosoft is well known, and one of the first which did extensive user-testing of UIs, video tapped, experts analyzing through one-way mirrors, questioning, ... I doubt that they removed the side taskbar option without very extensive testing and discussions. In fact, it's a well repeated criticism of Microsoft, that they have TOO MANY options, not too few: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/11/21/choices-headaches/ https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2006/11/21/choices-headaches/
  - jdsully 4y ago
    That is 20 years and 2 CEO’s ago. Companies change.
  - thesuperbigfrog 4y ago
    >> I doubt that they removed the side taskbar option without very extensive testing and discussions. And yet Windows 11 adoption remains low. The nonsense UI changes to the taskbar are the primary reason I am still using Windows 10. The issue with having so many features is that people use those features and become reliant upon them. Removing those features means that the product is not as good as its predecessor and thus fewer people move to the new version.