5 ms·

To be honest the "edge of screen" interaction paradigm seems pretty straightforward if not simpler than the traditional way to interact with Windows. I'm sure a

by hetman 15y ago

To be honest the "edge of screen" interaction paradigm seems pretty straightforward if not simpler than the traditional way to interact with Windows. I'm sure anyone that is actually told how it works will have little trouble with it. I'm not sure why an OS has to retain a 20 year old UI paradigm if a nicer method appears to replace it. People seem to hate change, even for the better. This reminds me of a recurring theme in the Linux world where any Windows originated UI feature seems to follow the pattern: 1) Users complain loudly about not copying useless Windows features. 2) UI features get copied from Windows with a 5 year delay once they become the expected norm. 3) 10 years later the community staunchly opposes the removal of features. The ones which were once "unnecessary Windows stuff".

TeMPOraL 15y ago
> To be honest the "edge of screen" interaction paradigm seems pretty straightforward if not simpler than the traditional way to interact with Windows. It may be convenient, but the real problem here is discoverability. There's no way you can realize that screen edges are interactive unless you either knew that beforehand, stumbled upon it on accident or saw a YouTube video explaining it.
masklinn 15y ago
> To be honest the "edge of screen" interaction paradigm seems pretty straightforward if not simpler than the traditional way to interact with Windows. However it's mystery meat: it provides no clue as to what is active and what is not (in fact, it provides no activable element at all). There's a reason why WP7 mandates (if not requires) side-arrows or that a bit of next screen's content be visible on the edges of the current screen: it hints that there is something there, it's a very nice clue (even with that, the most frequent criticism of WP7 is that it's hard to know what is active and what is not). Completely hidden "edge of screen" elements are very nice but only work if you know they're there already. What do you do when you don't? You're boggled, and either you try hunting the interface for active areas (looking for pointer changes, old-school adventure games style) or you give up and go back to something you can use at a glance.
- dpark 15y ago
  > Completely hidden "edge of screen" elements are very nice but only work if you know they're there already. What do you do when you don't? You're boggled, and either you try hunting the interface for active areas (looking for pointer changes, old-school adventure games style) or you give up and go back to something you can use at a glance. Is this really how we expect to progress as an industry? Basically make no meaningful changes so that we never expect our users to learn anything new? Do we have that little faith in our users? How obvious is it to a new iOS user that they need to press an icon on the Home screen until the icons go wiggly in order to re-arrange them? I'd argue that this is pretty non-obvious, yet every iOS user has learned this action, despite there being no "active areas" that reveal this behavior. Disclaimer: Microsoft employee
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    You don't prohibit change. You make affordances. What people are complaining about isn't the new interaction paradigm, it is how hard it is to figure out that paradigm. The iOS example is valid, but not as valid as you think. You could happily use you iOS device forever without learning that (especially now that Apple put the same functionality in the settings app, probably because it wasn't discoverable). The same is not true in Windows 8. Given you have to know a gesture just to get logged in, you can't even start using it without knowing the magic incantations. I think it's great MS is experimenting. They have had he same metaphors since 1995. But you have to be very careful when you change 15 year old metaphors, and I don't think MS has been careful enough. I hope I'm wrong, because that will mean users are getting more savvy, which can only be good for making more interesting apps. But my experience has taught me to never rely on users being more savvy.
    - dpark 15y ago
      > What people are complaining about isn't the new interaction paradigm, it is how hard it is to figure out that paradigm. People always complain about change. Always. That's not to say that there couldn't be improvements to the W8 interactions, but it's good to remember that a lot of complaints are really about the fact that something has changed, and not how that thing has changed. Look at the hate Facebook gets every time they change, and then notice that despite all the complaints, everyone is still using Facebook, and that the next time Facebook makes a change, those people loudly demand that Facebook revert to the version they complained so much about last time. I am certain that the Windows team is listening to the feedback they are getting. The removal of the Start button was due to that feedback. People complained that it was confusing and misleading that the old start button did something so different. Whether that was the appropriate reaction is obviously something that not everyone agrees with. > especially now that Apple put the same functionality in the settings app, probably because it wasn't discoverable Out of curiosity, where? I looked and couldn't find it there. > Given you have to know a gesture just to get logged in, you can't even start using it without knowing the magic incantations. I feel like this is kind of a ridiculous claim. The login screen "swipe" is extremely discoverable. It's so understandable that Apple stole it (bounce and all) to use for exposing the camera functionality from the lock screen in iOS. On top of that, any key will invoke the "reveal", as will the scroll wheel. > But you have to be very careful when you change 15 year old metaphors, and I don't think MS has been careful enough. I agree. I think the Windows team realizes that they have to change, though, or they will get passed by.
sixothree 15y ago
> To be honest the "edge of screen" interaction paradigm seems pretty straightforward My Windows desktop is the middle of three computers on my desk using Synergy; at work we use MouseWithoutBorders which doesn't have corner protection. I predict serious frustration in my future.
jsz0 15y ago
I'm not sure why an OS has to retain a 20 year old UI paradigm if a nicer method appears to replace it. If Metro actually replaced Windows classic I would agree but it doesn't. It just sits there on the side and randomly throws you out of a comfortable environment. Running two entirely different GUIs in parallel is infinitely confusing to normal people. Microsoft could have probably got away with this if they did it 5 years ago when there was no competition to the PC. People would have had to just deal with the change but that's no longer the case. A lot of those PC buyers are just going to end up with iPads instead.

by hetman 15y ago

TeMPOraL 15y ago

> To be honest the "edge of screen" interaction paradigm seems pretty straightforward if not simpler than the traditional way to interact with Windows. It may be convenient, but the real problem here is discoverability. There's no way you can realize that screen edges are interactive unless you either knew that beforehand, stumbled upon it on accident or saw a YouTube video explaining it.

masklinn 15y ago

> To be honest the "edge of screen" interaction paradigm seems pretty straightforward if not simpler than the traditional way to interact with Windows. However it's mystery meat: it provides no clue as to what is active and what is not (in fact, it provides no activable element at all). There's a reason why WP7 mandates (if not requires) side-arrows or that a bit of next screen's content be visible on the edges of the current screen: it hints that there is something there, it's a very nice clue (even with that, the most frequent criticism of WP7 is that it's hard to know what is active and what is not). Completely hidden "edge of screen" elements are very nice but only work if you know they're there already. What do you do when you don't? You're boggled, and either you try hunting the interface for active areas (looking for pointer changes, old-school adventure games style) or you give up and go back to something you can use at a glance.

dpark 15y ago
> Completely hidden "edge of screen" elements are very nice but only work if you know they're there already. What do you do when you don't? You're boggled, and either you try hunting the interface for active areas (looking for pointer changes, old-school adventure games style) or you give up and go back to something you can use at a glance. Is this really how we expect to progress as an industry? Basically make no meaningful changes so that we never expect our users to learn anything new? Do we have that little faith in our users? How obvious is it to a new iOS user that they need to press an icon on the Home screen until the icons go wiggly in order to re-arrange them? I'd argue that this is pretty non-obvious, yet every iOS user has learned this action, despite there being no "active areas" that reveal this behavior. Disclaimer: Microsoft employee
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  You don't prohibit change. You make affordances. What people are complaining about isn't the new interaction paradigm, it is how hard it is to figure out that paradigm. The iOS example is valid, but not as valid as you think. You could happily use you iOS device forever without learning that (especially now that Apple put the same functionality in the settings app, probably because it wasn't discoverable). The same is not true in Windows 8. Given you have to know a gesture just to get logged in, you can't even start using it without knowing the magic incantations. I think it's great MS is experimenting. They have had he same metaphors since 1995. But you have to be very careful when you change 15 year old metaphors, and I don't think MS has been careful enough. I hope I'm wrong, because that will mean users are getting more savvy, which can only be good for making more interesting apps. But my experience has taught me to never rely on users being more savvy.
  - dpark 15y ago
    > What people are complaining about isn't the new interaction paradigm, it is how hard it is to figure out that paradigm. People always complain about change. Always. That's not to say that there couldn't be improvements to the W8 interactions, but it's good to remember that a lot of complaints are really about the fact that something has changed, and not how that thing has changed. Look at the hate Facebook gets every time they change, and then notice that despite all the complaints, everyone is still using Facebook, and that the next time Facebook makes a change, those people loudly demand that Facebook revert to the version they complained so much about last time. I am certain that the Windows team is listening to the feedback they are getting. The removal of the Start button was due to that feedback. People complained that it was confusing and misleading that the old start button did something so different. Whether that was the appropriate reaction is obviously something that not everyone agrees with. > especially now that Apple put the same functionality in the settings app, probably because it wasn't discoverable Out of curiosity, where? I looked and couldn't find it there. > Given you have to know a gesture just to get logged in, you can't even start using it without knowing the magic incantations. I feel like this is kind of a ridiculous claim. The login screen "swipe" is extremely discoverable. It's so understandable that Apple stole it (bounce and all) to use for exposing the camera functionality from the lock screen in iOS. On top of that, any key will invoke the "reveal", as will the scroll wheel. > But you have to be very careful when you change 15 year old metaphors, and I don't think MS has been careful enough. I agree. I think the Windows team realizes that they have to change, though, or they will get passed by.

sixothree 15y ago

> To be honest the "edge of screen" interaction paradigm seems pretty straightforward My Windows desktop is the middle of three computers on my desk using Synergy; at work we use MouseWithoutBorders which doesn't have corner protection. I predict serious frustration in my future.

jsz0 15y ago

I'm not sure why an OS has to retain a 20 year old UI paradigm if a nicer method appears to replace it. If Metro actually replaced Windows classic I would agree but it doesn't. It just sits there on the side and randomly throws you out of a comfortable environment. Running two entirely different GUIs in parallel is infinitely confusing to normal people. Microsoft could have probably got away with this if they did it 5 years ago when there was no competition to the PC. People would have had to just deal with the change but that's no longer the case. A lot of those PC buyers are just going to end up with iPads instead.