3 ms·

The issue with Windows 8 isn't that it's unusable, obviously it can be used. The issue is that the changes to the desktop were made in service of a use case (th

The issue with Windows 8 isn't that it's unusable, obviously it can be used. The issue is that the changes to the desktop were made in service of a use case (that is: a full screen, mono-tasking, touch-based mode) that doesn't really seem to exist on a desktop computer, and so the changes do not improve anything for most people using traditional systems. Changing the way a UI functions has a cost to the user, and users expect that if they are willing to pay that cost they gain something in return. Once a user acclimates to it, perhaps Windows 8 is equally as usable as Windows 7 was, but given its relatively poor uptake I think it would be difficult to argue that many users actually find the experience better. Ultimately, paying the "learn a new interface" cost for what is effectively side-grade is a poor value. In contrast, for users of touchscreen-based Windows devices, this is a cost that is likely worth paying, since the features enhance usability for their hardware. But such devices represent a minority of Windows based PCs on the market.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> but I think it would be difficult to argue that many users actually find the experience objectively better. Well, yes, it would be difficult to argue that, starting with that what users find to be better is by definition subjective, not objective, so to argue that would be self-contradictory from the gate.
- JeremyNT 13y ago
  Thank you for your correction. I have removed the incorrect term from my comment.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> The issue is that the changes to the desktop were made in service of a use case (that is: a full screen, mono-tasking, touch-based mode) that doesn't really seem to exist on a desktop computer, and so the changes do not improve anything for people using traditional systems. I think that's not entirely true. The Metro design language isn't really about monotasking and wasn't really about mobile, and I think the idea of adopting as a unified cross-platform experience -- though its a pretty big break from the traditional windowing interface -- had some very good reasons and makes sense even on the desktop. The overlapping windows of the traditional desktop approach are, IMO, a pretty bad UI thing that we've all gotten used to, but something like Metro could do better... The particular way the implementation worked out in Win 8 originally -- and this has been mitigated somewhat in Win 8.1 -- is still way too mobile focussed, and the sharp break with traditional desktop apps in seperate environments was a horrible UX choice. But I think the problem there was trying as much about pushing vendors to produce Windows Store apps and support WinRT (and, supporting Microsoft's getting yet another cut of the application money, on top of what they get selling the essential dev tools for the platform), as optimizing the UI for mobile. I suspect that something like Metro really is the interface of the future -- even on desktop-like systems -- but it may take someone other than Microsoft to first implement it right.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> but I think it would be difficult to argue that many users actually find the experience objectively better. Well, yes, it would be difficult to argue that, starting with that what users find to be better is by definition subjective, not objective, so to argue that would be self-contradictory from the gate.

JeremyNT 13y ago
Thank you for your correction. I have removed the incorrect term from my comment.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> The issue is that the changes to the desktop were made in service of a use case (that is: a full screen, mono-tasking, touch-based mode) that doesn't really seem to exist on a desktop computer, and so the changes do not improve anything for people using traditional systems. I think that's not entirely true. The Metro design language isn't really about monotasking and wasn't really about mobile, and I think the idea of adopting as a unified cross-platform experience -- though its a pretty big break from the traditional windowing interface -- had some very good reasons and makes sense even on the desktop. The overlapping windows of the traditional desktop approach are, IMO, a pretty bad UI thing that we've all gotten used to, but something like Metro could do better... The particular way the implementation worked out in Win 8 originally -- and this has been mitigated somewhat in Win 8.1 -- is still way too mobile focussed, and the sharp break with traditional desktop apps in seperate environments was a horrible UX choice. But I think the problem there was trying as much about pushing vendors to produce Windows Store apps and support WinRT (and, supporting Microsoft's getting yet another cut of the application money, on top of what they get selling the essential dev tools for the platform), as optimizing the UI for mobile. I suspect that something like Metro really is the interface of the future -- even on desktop-like systems -- but it may take someone other than Microsoft to first implement it right.