5 ms·

Its not so much confusing as it is useless and annoying. It's just a really inefficient and wasteful design for a desktop OS. Basically, most windows users real

Its not so much confusing as it is useless and annoying. It's just a really inefficient and wasteful design for a desktop OS. Basically, most windows users really liked the windows 7 start menu, and they replaced it with something that has no tangible upside and a lot of downsides.

adamwong246 13y ago
I think this concern could be addressed. Simply scale down the tiles, which is the greatest unused aspect of metro. Those tiles can be big and touchable in a touch device and small and efficient on a non-touch device.
- vertex-four 13y ago
  It's still full-screen and lacks any of the visual context of the desktop. Something like GNOME3's fullscreen Activities screen is better; when you open it up, it has little mini-screenshots of all your open windows, and you're not losing things like the taskbar (because it doesn't have one). You still have the top bar, which ties it into the system. Opening the Windows 8 Start screen loses all the visual context - your taskbar disappears, your windows disappear, there's nothing to tie it into the desktop, it feels like an entirely different system from the one you were using a second ago. And that's before the fact that how you interact with it is entirely different from how you interact with a desktop app, which is the final wedge.
  - adamwong246 13y ago
    But that's a failure of the split-experience, not metro itself.
    - vertex-four 13y ago
      Sure, but they can't drop support for everything built over the past couple of decades just to have a new interface, so it is the fault of introducing Metro into Windows 8. To get around the problem, they could've had plenty of integration from the start - having the taskbar throughout Metro would be a brilliant start, and something familiar. Luckily, they're integrating Metro into the desktop properly now, so the entire system will be usable.
- gagaga 13y ago
  Tiles can be resized to be small, medium, large, and x-large sizes.
gagaga 13y ago
Actually it's a terribly efficient design. The usability studies that involved eye-tracking showed that when the start menu is open, users gaze is purely focused on the start menu, not other objects on the desktop. If this is the case, then why not use the whole screen as your start menu? Now you can show many more apps, search results, and allow users to spatially group apps and folders to their liking. The backlash came from the fact that it was a change from 20+ years of ingrained behavior, not that it was an inherently poor design. However, you could argue breaking the previous mental model of users will definitely create issues and therefore is a bad design.
- nly 13y ago
  Where I'm looking and what I'm thinking are different things. I used to use the start menu out of muscle memory like a zombie, it was subconscious. A full screen experience is jarring
- derekp7 13y ago
  So with the old start menu, users were looking at the start menu when they opened it. That makes perfect sense -- why else would you open the start menu if you didn't want to look at it? However, it also took up a smaller section of the screen, so you could more readily find what you are looking at. With the Metro screen, I have to play Where's Waldo whenever I want to find an app (I have the same problem with Gnome 3 shell, trying to find an app icon in that massive wasteland). But that's just me -- I also didn't like the sliding start menu design either (Windows 7, KDE 4), where submenus open in the same space as the folder icons -- I'd rather, when clicking on a submenu, have it open into new screen real estate like any of the traditional menus.
  - gagaga 13y ago
    So your problem isn't with the small-start screen vs big screen, but with the density of information? With the Metro Start Screen you can customize apps, folders, and their sizes to your liking, or just type what application you want and hit enter to launch it.
  - sp332 13y ago

adamwong246 13y ago

I think this concern could be addressed. Simply scale down the tiles, which is the greatest unused aspect of metro. Those tiles can be big and touchable in a touch device and small and efficient on a non-touch device.

vertex-four 13y ago
It's still full-screen and lacks any of the visual context of the desktop. Something like GNOME3's fullscreen Activities screen is better; when you open it up, it has little mini-screenshots of all your open windows, and you're not losing things like the taskbar (because it doesn't have one). You still have the top bar, which ties it into the system. Opening the Windows 8 Start screen loses all the visual context - your taskbar disappears, your windows disappear, there's nothing to tie it into the desktop, it feels like an entirely different system from the one you were using a second ago. And that's before the fact that how you interact with it is entirely different from how you interact with a desktop app, which is the final wedge.
- adamwong246 13y ago
  But that's a failure of the split-experience, not metro itself.
  - vertex-four 13y ago
    Sure, but they can't drop support for everything built over the past couple of decades just to have a new interface, so it is the fault of introducing Metro into Windows 8. To get around the problem, they could've had plenty of integration from the start - having the taskbar throughout Metro would be a brilliant start, and something familiar. Luckily, they're integrating Metro into the desktop properly now, so the entire system will be usable.
gagaga 13y ago
Tiles can be resized to be small, medium, large, and x-large sizes.

gagaga 13y ago

Actually it's a terribly efficient design. The usability studies that involved eye-tracking showed that when the start menu is open, users gaze is purely focused on the start menu, not other objects on the desktop. If this is the case, then why not use the whole screen as your start menu? Now you can show many more apps, search results, and allow users to spatially group apps and folders to their liking. The backlash came from the fact that it was a change from 20+ years of ingrained behavior, not that it was an inherently poor design. However, you could argue breaking the previous mental model of users will definitely create issues and therefore is a bad design.

nly 13y ago
Where I'm looking and what I'm thinking are different things. I used to use the start menu out of muscle memory like a zombie, it was subconscious. A full screen experience is jarring
derekp7 13y ago
So with the old start menu, users were looking at the start menu when they opened it. That makes perfect sense -- why else would you open the start menu if you didn't want to look at it? However, it also took up a smaller section of the screen, so you could more readily find what you are looking at. With the Metro screen, I have to play Where's Waldo whenever I want to find an app (I have the same problem with Gnome 3 shell, trying to find an app icon in that massive wasteland). But that's just me -- I also didn't like the sliding start menu design either (Windows 7, KDE 4), where submenus open in the same space as the folder icons -- I'd rather, when clicking on a submenu, have it open into new screen real estate like any of the traditional menus.
- gagaga 13y ago
  So your problem isn't with the small-start screen vs big screen, but with the density of information? With the Metro Start Screen you can customize apps, folders, and their sizes to your liking, or just type what application you want and hit enter to launch it.
- sp332 13y ago