4 ms·

Kudos to Jay Machalani for a great demonstration of the concept, but I have a couple of big problems with it, or in general any design that splits the current u

Kudos to Jay Machalani for a great demonstration of the concept, but I have a couple of big problems with it, or in general any design that splits the current unified tablet/PC design we see in Windows 8 into two strictly separated modes (of course, having two totally separate SKUs or OSs can be thought of as an even more extreme version of this): 1. It breaks useful cross-mode windowing scenarios. Having a strict modal separation between the two windowing models breaks a bunch of IMO not terribly uncommon scenarios where mixing them in some way is useful. * Can't have a different mode on each monitor - if one is touch/a tablet and the other isn't, for example. * Can't snap an app beside the desktop and have the system automatically manage the use of the remaining space. There are actually some desktop apps that have hacked a custom implementation of this - OneNote for example - so I don't think it's a contrived scenario. * Sometimes I like to use the availability of desktop and immersive windows to express a "work versus play" (or, more precisely, "continuing part of ongoing persistent task versus transient digression") distinction. That way I can use the "transient/play" apps without worrying about them cluttering the taskbar, slowing down the PC, interfering with what I'm doing, etc. Modal separation breaks that. * Some apps just work better with one or the other windowing model - e.g., part of what I really like about Tweetium is how clicking on a link will automatically shrink the Tweetium window down to a narrow strip and open a browser window in the remaining space. That of course depends on the immersive windowing APIs. Other apps such as calculators or "sticky notes" work better in desktop windows. So it would be nice to have apps like this automatically open in the right kind of window, or at least allow the user to set this per-app, rather than requiring an obnoxious global mode switch that potentially messes with everything else. 2. Desktop apps inherently clash with the immersive app model and UX. While running immersive apps in desktop windows seems like it could probably work well, I'm really leery of the reverse. There are a few potential problems with running desktop apps in immersive windows that I see: * Desktop apps can open multiple windows and draw outside of their window. Some apps (ab)use this quite a bit for dialogs, palette windows, etc. This could get pretty awkward to map to immersive windowing - do we put each in its own "strip"? Do we make each "strip" a little virtual desktop where the app can put additional windows? Do we try some mix of the two approaches, and if so, how does the OS decide which is which? * A goal of the immersive app model was that the user wouldn't have to worry about closing apps or which apps were/weren't running - indeed that the concept of "running apps" wouldn't exist for most users. The system UI was designed around that - no "X" to close, no taskbar to show what's open. But desktop apps can do anything in the background, so closing them and knowing what's running is important. And when you switch modes back into the desktop, which apps should even be kept open? Since "metro" mode blurs the lines between running and suspended apps, it's not clear. And if you can't run desktop apps in immersive windows, and in general have a 1:1 mapping of running system/app state between modes, you can't really have a pure modal separation - either the mode switch is made destructive and essentially becomes a reboot, or you're left with a bunch of hidden stuff "running in the other mode" which doesn't make any sense. Once you really start thinking through the ramifications of alternative models the current desktop-as-an-app model starts to seem pretty elegant in some ways IMO.

andrewfong 13y ago
> Desktop apps inherently clash with the immersive app model and UX. Desktop apps will almost certainly be subpar in Metro mode. The key isn't to define optimal behavior but present a usable default mode. Presumably, in time, those desktop apps would release updated versions that would adjust their UIs when used in Modern mode (or a competitor would). For apps with multiple windows, dialogs, etc., all windows belonging to the same desktop app should be drawn in the same "strip". It's basically the MDI interface present in, e.g., older versions of Excel and Powerpoint. Not ideal, but usable. The issues with desktop apps running in the background is trickier. Two possibilities: (1) Figure out a way to suspend desktop apps. which might be technically difficult, or (2) recreate the taskbar in Metro so the user knows what's running and what to close (Jay's demo includes some possible ways of doing this -- I would also add some way of conveying to the user what Window will automatically suspend and what it won't.
TechnoFou 13y ago
Great points you're bringing! To be honest I'm always up for more options. Why not offer separation or the current solution for all users, although I think that it would be hell to manage two very different ideas. As for the different modes per screen, why not? It would be nice to have a clean shortcut to say switch environment, but just for the active screen. Basically it would transfer the apps on that current screen from Desktop mode to Metro mode, so it is a workable solution. As for the app imersion problem, that one is tricky since... well Metro apps are not specifically designed for a mouse and keyboard, it works, but it's not the best. So is the Metro environment. So my point of view is you're using an app not optimized for mouse and keyboards in an environment not optimized for mouse and keyboard... so by bringing Metro apps to a window environment, you're slashing half the problem. The core idea is you have all your apps, files and stuff on your computer, now how do you want to interact with them. It may not be the most gracious idea, but it's better than trying to get the charms bar with your mouse or being stuck trying to resize windows with a touchscreen on the Desktop.
- babby 13y ago
  >Why not offer separation or the current solution for all users, although I think that it would be hell to manage two very different ideas. Don't be an apologist. This is Microsoft. They have the resources out their ass to commit to this and it still wouldn't even come close to registering the tiniest blip in their budgets. MS needs to git good and do what the post suggests, in that they need to seperate touch and desktop interfaces for Win9, or else Windows is dead to me and many power users alike.

andrewfong 13y ago

> Desktop apps inherently clash with the immersive app model and UX. Desktop apps will almost certainly be subpar in Metro mode. The key isn't to define optimal behavior but present a usable default mode. Presumably, in time, those desktop apps would release updated versions that would adjust their UIs when used in Modern mode (or a competitor would). For apps with multiple windows, dialogs, etc., all windows belonging to the same desktop app should be drawn in the same "strip". It's basically the MDI interface present in, e.g., older versions of Excel and Powerpoint. Not ideal, but usable. The issues with desktop apps running in the background is trickier. Two possibilities: (1) Figure out a way to suspend desktop apps. which might be technically difficult, or (2) recreate the taskbar in Metro so the user knows what's running and what to close (Jay's demo includes some possible ways of doing this -- I would also add some way of conveying to the user what Window will automatically suspend and what it won't.

TechnoFou 13y ago

Great points you're bringing! To be honest I'm always up for more options. Why not offer separation or the current solution for all users, although I think that it would be hell to manage two very different ideas. As for the different modes per screen, why not? It would be nice to have a clean shortcut to say switch environment, but just for the active screen. Basically it would transfer the apps on that current screen from Desktop mode to Metro mode, so it is a workable solution. As for the app imersion problem, that one is tricky since... well Metro apps are not specifically designed for a mouse and keyboard, it works, but it's not the best. So is the Metro environment. So my point of view is you're using an app not optimized for mouse and keyboards in an environment not optimized for mouse and keyboard... so by bringing Metro apps to a window environment, you're slashing half the problem. The core idea is you have all your apps, files and stuff on your computer, now how do you want to interact with them. It may not be the most gracious idea, but it's better than trying to get the charms bar with your mouse or being stuck trying to resize windows with a touchscreen on the Desktop.

babby 13y ago
>Why not offer separation or the current solution for all users, although I think that it would be hell to manage two very different ideas. Don't be an apologist. This is Microsoft. They have the resources out their ass to commit to this and it still wouldn't even come close to registering the tiniest blip in their budgets. MS needs to git good and do what the post suggests, in that they need to seperate touch and desktop interfaces for Win9, or else Windows is dead to me and many power users alike.