4 ms·

When computers transitioned from command line to GUI, it seemed odd too. Too many times you were required to type commands to start gui programs and were pretty

by barista 14y ago

When computers transitioned from command line to GUI, it seemed odd too. Too many times you were required to type commands to start gui programs and were pretty much working inside the command shell to get any real work done. But that changed in a few years as most things transitioned to UI and now there's barely any reason to use a command shell. If you see the current metro implementation, it is similar. The whole desktop is treated just as an app along with the rest of the metro apps (like command shell was in gui). This is the first version of metro and dismissing the current approach is a little premature.

Gormo 14y ago
Except people transitioned to GUI interfaces because they added additional utility: program functions became discoverable within the interface; multitasking became easy and uncomplicated; integration of workflow among multiple applications became more intuitive and easier. Metro is a step backward in all of these areas: it makes functions less discoverable, it makes multitasking more cumbersome, and it makes workflow more difficult. Full-screen applications with inconsistent UIs and limited integration with other programs make me feel like I'm using DOS. What are the benefits to ease of use, productivity, and functional sophistication offered by a desktop touch UI? I can't think of any, just more limitations: in addition to the retrograde utility specific to Metro, with any touch UI you've got the problem of slower, more burdensome text entry, and having your hands obscure the stuff you're looking at and leaving smudges on the screen. I still don't understand what problem desktop touch is meant to solve.
- MatthewPhillips 14y ago
  Metro is a very primitive tiling window manager. There are many people (developers mostly) who love tiling WMs and find them to be the most productive. Metro isn't nearly as good as dwm or xmonad yet, but if they continue in this direction it could be a good system on desktop.
- barista 14y ago
  Metro is not even out for desktop in its final form and you seem to have accumulated a lot of opinions on it already. :) It is different than what people are used to so people are bound to have polarizing views on it. If you have been following the posts on the building windows blog then you will be able to understand the reasoning behind the design. Please do it. As a software engineer, understanding the design process behind one of the most used pieces of software is very educating.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    I've seen plenty of the Metro interface that's out in the Win8 betas, and I'm expressing an opinion of what I've already seen. I doubt that the final version will likely be different. There seems to be a general trend toward a "sparse, haphazard 2D grid of elements of varying size and shape" UI paradigm, not just in Metro, but on websites and elsewhere, and apart from the more detailed criticisms of what we've seen in Metro, I think this paradigm just doesn't work - it prioritizes static aesthetics over interactive functionality - and Metro, being an instance of this, is essentially broken in concept, not just in implementation.

by barista 14y ago

Gormo 14y ago

Except people transitioned to GUI interfaces because they added additional utility: program functions became discoverable within the interface; multitasking became easy and uncomplicated; integration of workflow among multiple applications became more intuitive and easier. Metro is a step backward in all of these areas: it makes functions less discoverable, it makes multitasking more cumbersome, and it makes workflow more difficult. Full-screen applications with inconsistent UIs and limited integration with other programs make me feel like I'm using DOS. What are the benefits to ease of use, productivity, and functional sophistication offered by a desktop touch UI? I can't think of any, just more limitations: in addition to the retrograde utility specific to Metro, with any touch UI you've got the problem of slower, more burdensome text entry, and having your hands obscure the stuff you're looking at and leaving smudges on the screen. I still don't understand what problem desktop touch is meant to solve.

MatthewPhillips 14y ago
Metro is a very primitive tiling window manager. There are many people (developers mostly) who love tiling WMs and find them to be the most productive. Metro isn't nearly as good as dwm or xmonad yet, but if they continue in this direction it could be a good system on desktop.
barista 14y ago
Metro is not even out for desktop in its final form and you seem to have accumulated a lot of opinions on it already. :) It is different than what people are used to so people are bound to have polarizing views on it. If you have been following the posts on the building windows blog then you will be able to understand the reasoning behind the design. Please do it. As a software engineer, understanding the design process behind one of the most used pieces of software is very educating.
- Gormo 14y ago
  I've seen plenty of the Metro interface that's out in the Win8 betas, and I'm expressing an opinion of what I've already seen. I doubt that the final version will likely be different. There seems to be a general trend toward a "sparse, haphazard 2D grid of elements of varying size and shape" UI paradigm, not just in Metro, but on websites and elsewhere, and apart from the more detailed criticisms of what we've seen in Metro, I think this paradigm just doesn't work - it prioritizes static aesthetics over interactive functionality - and Metro, being an instance of this, is essentially broken in concept, not just in implementation.