6 ms·

The whole bit on loss aversion (which is a tactic to undermine people's opinions by ascribing them to unproductive emotional reactions, rather than objective ev

The whole bit on loss aversion (which is a tactic to undermine people's opinions by ascribing them to unproductive emotional reactions, rather than objective evaluations that have people liking Windows 8 less than 7), and then the "I don’t really see anything positive about going back to an interaction design originally devised in 1995", undermine the piece and do make it seem more like a rant than an unbiased evaluation: Someone with a touch screen tablet likes Windows 8, and doesn't like some of the changes in Windows 10. Welcome to the party the rest of us have lived in. Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. The charm bar, the weird interactions, the gigantic click points that completely undermined the benefit of a highly precise mouse. It was a step backwards as Microsoft tried to force touch metaphors and designs on a mouse world. Now this user is complaining that they're forcing mouse metaphors on his tablet.

izacus 12y ago
I think you entirely missed the viewpoint of the author: He's trying to use Windows 10 as a tablet OS not as a desktop OS and from that perspective they threw away everything that made Windows UX on tablets good to reintroduce all the hideous cluttered desktop patterns. They just basically reinvented an ugly version of Windows 7 while throwing away what made Windows 8 a genuinely good OS on tablets - essentially instead of separating the desktop and tablet experience they went back to pushing desktop UI on tablet users.
- engendered 12y ago
  I think you entirely missed the viewpoint of the author When people say that someone missed the point on HN, most of the time that means that they want you to read it the way they read it, and ignore those annoying bits that say something different. Only this author not only undermines any disagreement with Windows 8 (just loss aversion), criticizes "old" interfaces (cars had 4 wheels in the 20s....give me my new style 3 wheel car), they specifically hold up its advantages on the desktop. Not once do they mention the obvious solution -- that Microsoft should have gone separate directions on the desktop and the tablet -- but instead hold this as a cowardly backtrack.
  - izacus 12y ago
    > When people say that someone missed the point on HN, most of the time that means that they want you to read it the way they read it, and ignore those annoying bits that say something different. Hmm, you're commenting from entirely desktop machine perspective. He's talking only about tablet use perspective. I would say those are totally different viewpoints and more importantly, usage patterns? >Only this author not only undermines any disagreement with Windows 8 (just loss aversion), criticizes "old" interfaces (cars had 4 wheels in the 20s....give me my new style 3 wheel car), they specifically hold up its advantages on the desktop. I think saying that those interface elements are objectively bad on tablets is not far from truth, so again, see my first point.
  - LukasMathis 12y ago
    I specifically point out in the article that it is not just loss aversion, but that there are valid reasons to dislike Windows 8. I also don't criticize old interfaces because they are old. I specifically point out that the desktop metaphor was created for use cases that are very different from how we use computers nowadays. Desktops are not problematic because they're old, but because what we use desktop PCs for has changed a lot.
    - ptx 12y ago
      > I specifically point out that the desktop metaphor was created for use cases that are very different from how we use computers nowadays. Desktops are not problematic because they're old, but because what we use desktop PCs for has changed a lot. Are you referring to the "launching applications and managing files are two different things" part? Another explanation for the move to applications like iTunes that manage files outside the file manager could be that Microsoft's particular file manager is just terrible and unusable. (As is Apple's modern incarnation of the Finder, in mostly the same way – see Siracusa's explanation[1] for details.) In OS/2's Workplace Shell, applications and files were just two among many of the kinds of objects you could manipulate. For instance, you could drag a document to a printer to print it, or to the shredder to delete it. You could drag template objects to create new files. You could drag colors to windows to assign that color to the window. (Some of these things are possible in Windows as well, but it's not emphasized and doesn't work as well.) In BeOS, the Tracker, thanks to its support for arbitrary file metadata, could integrate with a mail or music application and allow you to manage its object hierarchy exactly the same way you managed your other files. So, in my opinion, the old interface was just a half-assed implementation of a basically good idea. The new idea is to give up, throwing away the simplicity and flexibility of the old design, and reimplement file management in every application. [1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2003/04/finder/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2003/04/finder/
darklajid 12y ago
> Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. No, it wasn't. It isn't. (I liked the improvements in 8.1 but that blanket statement from you is false)
- engendered 12y ago
  Yes. It was. It is. This disagreement by you is false. See, we can both do that. Fun. However in my case I'm supported by this very development, where Microsoft is essentially backtracking based upon enormous customer resistance and a backlash.
  - throwawaykf05 12y ago
    >Yes. It was. It is. This disagreement by you is false. > See, we can both do that. Fun. Which immediately disproves your original assertion that the Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. That was just, like, your opinion, man.
  - darklajid 12y ago
    And the article we're looking at here is complaining about moving away from the Windows 8 direction. The author seems to consider that a mistake and likes the Windows 8 way better. So do I. This is all subjective, just like your statements are. You just claim to speak for everyone/state facts. That's still wrong, ignoring that childish retort.
- zamalek 12y ago
  > No, it wasn't. It isn't. Disclaimer: Emphasis on SUBJECTIVE before you indicate my opinion is wrong because you have a different opinion. That's pretty-much what subjective means. I thought HN was smarter than this. Agreed, it's subjective. This is change aversion, not loss aversion. Humans don't like change, even if it is good for them. People don't like Windows 8 UI because it was a change, and they don't like that they are changing it back. The Windows 8 interface was scientifically superior[1] to the old one: people just didn't like the change. The Windows 10 one is closer to the older interface, people just don't like it because it's change. The big interaction areas (including the infinite one at the bottom left for the start menu) provided good mouse control. People would have found the keyboard control far superior if they had taken the 10 minutes to learn it, instead of complaining. Something is not "objectively terrible" if at least one person like it and, including myself, I know people who like the Win8 interface. I haven't tried Win10 yet but I'll probably like the interface because Microsoft are terrific at interface design. The only thing that Microsoft get wrong is that people don't like their cheese being moved. The Windows 7 interface was good, the Windows 8 interface was good and so will be the Windows 10. The very reason that people praise Apple interface design is because they keep feeding you the same junk over and over again and you all love it, the innovation there is that innovation is avoided in order to not rile up change aversion. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law
Mikeb85 12y ago
> Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. Not a chance. IMO, not only was the the best Windows from a technical perspective, I quite liked the interface. I use Linux mostly for philosophical and technical reasons (much easier to program in Linux), but Windows 8 has great UI.
- wfunction 12y ago
  No, it was terrible, unless you installed a classic shell.
  - mSparks 12y ago
    +1 on the classic shell. Totally unusable without it.
  - arthurfm 12y ago
    I wouldn't go that far. I manage perfectly fine without it. I like the fact that the Start Screen makes full use of my 27" 2560 x 1440 LCD. With the Windows 7-style Start Menu all of your shortcuts are shoved into a tiny corner of the screen.
    - wfunction 12y ago
      Or you can look at it another way: I can comfortably fit more on my 1600x900 monitor with Classic Shell's start menu than you would on you 2560x1440 LCD with the Windows 8 start screen. In other words, it's both modal and it wastes real screen estate.
      - arthurfm 12y ago
        > In other words, it's both modal and it wastes real screen estate. The Windows 7-style Start Menu is modal too in the sense that you can't interact with the desktop at the same time you are interacting with the Start Menu. The other thing I don't particularly like about the Start Menu is that shortcuts and folders with long names get cut off due to the width of the menu itself. Screens are a bit like RAM in my opinion. There to be used.
sliverstorm 12y ago
... a tactic to undermine people's opinions by ascribing them to unproductive emotional reactions, rather than objective evaluations... Isn't "liking" Windows 8 less than Windows 7 an emotional reaction?
- divegeek 12y ago
  I like a $20 bill more than a $10 bill. Is that an emotional reaction? No, it's an objective value judgement based on the fact that the former is more useful (roughly twice as useful) as the latter. The word "like" merely expresses preference. It's neutral as to the basis of the preference, which may be emotional, rational or some combination.
LukasMathis 12y ago
I like Windows 8 on the desktop. I agree that it has issues, but I also point that out in the article. As for "undermining people's opinions": while I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who genuinely gave Windows 8 a chance, and found it severely wanting, I think it's fair to say that there are at least as many who never did, and just joined in on the bashing. Personally, I've seen a number of people who made jokes about Windows 8, but changed their opinions once they actually saw it on my Surface. It's a bit like Windows Vista, which people suddenly quite liked, once it was renamed to Windows 7 :-) The actual point of the loss aversion thing, though, was to point out how Microsoft failed when it introduced Windows 8. I write this blog for designers, and learning from other people's mistakes is one reason why I write it. Loss aversion is an important concept in design; a conclusion to draw from this is that design changes should occur gradually, and not be forced upon people with a single, sweeping change.
- chrismcb 12y ago
  Windows 8 is horrible on the desktop, I think you even mention this. But then you ignore that and talk about how great it is on the surface. You talked about loss aversion, but I don't see how you tied that in to the windows design. I thought you were going to discuss things that were removed from win 7, like the start button. But it just seems like the topic of loss aversion was another article that you included in this one. The real issue is trying to resolve both a touch screen environment with a keyboard and mouse environment. Win 8 is the former, with win 7 the latter. I don't know much about 10 but it seems to be more of a mouse and keyboard and less of a touch.
  - bjmarte 12y ago
    He ignores it because it is tangential to the point. The point is that windows 8 (or at least 8.1 imho) had a great ui for a touch interface and there is no reason to destroy that while trying to fix the desktop experience.
stcredzero 12y ago
> The whole bit on loss aversion (which is a tactic to undermine people's opinions by ascribing them to unproductive emotional reactions, rather than objective evaluations that have people liking Windows 8 less than 7) I am writing this on a recently purchased Windows 7 Lenovo x220 convertible tablet with a Wacom stylus and a multi-touch screen. (Primarily to use it as a poor man's Cintiq.) With only a few specific failings, Windows 7 seems to be a great OS for such a device. One of the big failings is requiring the user to keep precise track of window focus. The other one is rejection of finger input in contexts where everything but the stylus should be ignored except certain specific exceptions. I've used an AutoHotKey script to compensate for the latter. Other than these (very glaring) few points and others, I think Windows 7 does a very good job of capitalizing on the strengths of the input devices and form factor. I can transition between laptop/workstation, touch-tablet, and Wacom stylus type inputs to best suit the particular context I am working in with reasonable rapidity. As a workman's toolbox, this thing is pretty awesome! Comparing this to the mess that's Windows 8, it's clear that Microsoft lost a cohesive overall vision for how everything should work together. It's also clear from the glaring problems that they never quite had a cohesive overall vision firmly guiding the whole product in the first place. A consumer-oriented tablet and a kitchen-sink/swiss-army knife device for coders/creatives are two very different kinds of devices. It's just not clear thinking to try and mix the two. (OS X seems to be facing a similar dilemma.)
higherpurpose 12y ago
And he's probably right. The issue remains that Microsoft is trying to mash two radically different usage paradigms into one. So the obvious outcome (perhaps not to Microsoft) is that either the desktop mode will get worse, as it tries to get more "tablet-y" or the tablet mode gets worse as it tries to get more "desktop-y" - or both. The author does say something with which I disagree. He says something along the lines "Windows 8 was the simplest desktop OS". Not it wasn't. Windows 8 - the desktop part - was probably made worse by the removal of the Start Menu, but not better. The Metro part is not "desktop". That's for tablets. So he can't say "the simplest desktop OS", because the whole Metro paradigm was intended for tablets, and it was much worse than the desktop paradigm on the desktop.
skynetv2 12y ago
> Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. spot on and I always thought it will work well on a touch screen tablet.So I got a Windows tablet and boy! was I wrong!! Its terrible on a tablet too.

izacus 12y ago

I think you entirely missed the viewpoint of the author: He's trying to use Windows 10 as a tablet OS not as a desktop OS and from that perspective they threw away everything that made Windows UX on tablets good to reintroduce all the hideous cluttered desktop patterns. They just basically reinvented an ugly version of Windows 7 while throwing away what made Windows 8 a genuinely good OS on tablets - essentially instead of separating the desktop and tablet experience they went back to pushing desktop UI on tablet users.

engendered 12y ago
I think you entirely missed the viewpoint of the author When people say that someone missed the point on HN, most of the time that means that they want you to read it the way they read it, and ignore those annoying bits that say something different. Only this author not only undermines any disagreement with Windows 8 (just loss aversion), criticizes "old" interfaces (cars had 4 wheels in the 20s....give me my new style 3 wheel car), they specifically hold up its advantages on the desktop. Not once do they mention the obvious solution -- that Microsoft should have gone separate directions on the desktop and the tablet -- but instead hold this as a cowardly backtrack.
- izacus 12y ago
  > When people say that someone missed the point on HN, most of the time that means that they want you to read it the way they read it, and ignore those annoying bits that say something different. Hmm, you're commenting from entirely desktop machine perspective. He's talking only about tablet use perspective. I would say those are totally different viewpoints and more importantly, usage patterns? >Only this author not only undermines any disagreement with Windows 8 (just loss aversion), criticizes "old" interfaces (cars had 4 wheels in the 20s....give me my new style 3 wheel car), they specifically hold up its advantages on the desktop. I think saying that those interface elements are objectively bad on tablets is not far from truth, so again, see my first point.
- LukasMathis 12y ago
  I specifically point out in the article that it is not just loss aversion, but that there are valid reasons to dislike Windows 8. I also don't criticize old interfaces because they are old. I specifically point out that the desktop metaphor was created for use cases that are very different from how we use computers nowadays. Desktops are not problematic because they're old, but because what we use desktop PCs for has changed a lot.
  - ptx 12y ago
    > I specifically point out that the desktop metaphor was created for use cases that are very different from how we use computers nowadays. Desktops are not problematic because they're old, but because what we use desktop PCs for has changed a lot. Are you referring to the "launching applications and managing files are two different things" part? Another explanation for the move to applications like iTunes that manage files outside the file manager could be that Microsoft's particular file manager is just terrible and unusable. (As is Apple's modern incarnation of the Finder, in mostly the same way – see Siracusa's explanation[1] for details.) In OS/2's Workplace Shell, applications and files were just two among many of the kinds of objects you could manipulate. For instance, you could drag a document to a printer to print it, or to the shredder to delete it. You could drag template objects to create new files. You could drag colors to windows to assign that color to the window. (Some of these things are possible in Windows as well, but it's not emphasized and doesn't work as well.) In BeOS, the Tracker, thanks to its support for arbitrary file metadata, could integrate with a mail or music application and allow you to manage its object hierarchy exactly the same way you managed your other files. So, in my opinion, the old interface was just a half-assed implementation of a basically good idea. The new idea is to give up, throwing away the simplicity and flexibility of the old design, and reimplement file management in every application. [1] http://arstechnica.com/apple/2003/04/finder/ http://arstechnica.com/apple/2003/04/finder/

darklajid 12y ago

> Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. No, it wasn't. It isn't. (I liked the improvements in 8.1 but that blanket statement from you is false)

engendered 12y ago
Yes. It was. It is. This disagreement by you is false. See, we can both do that. Fun. However in my case I'm supported by this very development, where Microsoft is essentially backtracking based upon enormous customer resistance and a backlash.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  >Yes. It was. It is. This disagreement by you is false. > See, we can both do that. Fun. Which immediately disproves your original assertion that the Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. That was just, like, your opinion, man.
- darklajid 12y ago
  And the article we're looking at here is complaining about moving away from the Windows 8 direction. The author seems to consider that a mistake and likes the Windows 8 way better. So do I. This is all subjective, just like your statements are. You just claim to speak for everyone/state facts. That's still wrong, ignoring that childish retort.
zamalek 12y ago
> No, it wasn't. It isn't. Disclaimer: Emphasis on SUBJECTIVE before you indicate my opinion is wrong because you have a different opinion. That's pretty-much what subjective means. I thought HN was smarter than this. Agreed, it's subjective. This is change aversion, not loss aversion. Humans don't like change, even if it is good for them. People don't like Windows 8 UI because it was a change, and they don't like that they are changing it back. The Windows 8 interface was scientifically superior[1] to the old one: people just didn't like the change. The Windows 10 one is closer to the older interface, people just don't like it because it's change. The big interaction areas (including the infinite one at the bottom left for the start menu) provided good mouse control. People would have found the keyboard control far superior if they had taken the 10 minutes to learn it, instead of complaining. Something is not "objectively terrible" if at least one person like it and, including myself, I know people who like the Win8 interface. I haven't tried Win10 yet but I'll probably like the interface because Microsoft are terrific at interface design. The only thing that Microsoft get wrong is that people don't like their cheese being moved. The Windows 7 interface was good, the Windows 8 interface was good and so will be the Windows 10. The very reason that people praise Apple interface design is because they keep feeding you the same junk over and over again and you all love it, the innovation there is that innovation is avoided in order to not rile up change aversion. [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law

Mikeb85 12y ago

> Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. Not a chance. IMO, not only was the the best Windows from a technical perspective, I quite liked the interface. I use Linux mostly for philosophical and technical reasons (much easier to program in Linux), but Windows 8 has great UI.

wfunction 12y ago
No, it was terrible, unless you installed a classic shell.
- mSparks 12y ago
  +1 on the classic shell. Totally unusable without it.
- arthurfm 12y ago
  I wouldn't go that far. I manage perfectly fine without it. I like the fact that the Start Screen makes full use of my 27" 2560 x 1440 LCD. With the Windows 7-style Start Menu all of your shortcuts are shoved into a tiny corner of the screen.
  - wfunction 12y ago
    Or you can look at it another way: I can comfortably fit more on my 1600x900 monitor with Classic Shell's start menu than you would on you 2560x1440 LCD with the Windows 8 start screen. In other words, it's both modal and it wastes real screen estate.
    - arthurfm 12y ago
      > In other words, it's both modal and it wastes real screen estate. The Windows 7-style Start Menu is modal too in the sense that you can't interact with the desktop at the same time you are interacting with the Start Menu. The other thing I don't particularly like about the Start Menu is that shortcuts and folders with long names get cut off due to the width of the menu itself. Screens are a bit like RAM in my opinion. There to be used.

sliverstorm 12y ago

... a tactic to undermine people's opinions by ascribing them to unproductive emotional reactions, rather than objective evaluations... Isn't "liking" Windows 8 less than Windows 7 an emotional reaction?

divegeek 12y ago
I like a $20 bill more than a $10 bill. Is that an emotional reaction? No, it's an objective value judgement based on the fact that the former is more useful (roughly twice as useful) as the latter. The word "like" merely expresses preference. It's neutral as to the basis of the preference, which may be emotional, rational or some combination.

LukasMathis 12y ago

I like Windows 8 on the desktop. I agree that it has issues, but I also point that out in the article. As for "undermining people's opinions": while I have no doubt that there are plenty of people who genuinely gave Windows 8 a chance, and found it severely wanting, I think it's fair to say that there are at least as many who never did, and just joined in on the bashing. Personally, I've seen a number of people who made jokes about Windows 8, but changed their opinions once they actually saw it on my Surface. It's a bit like Windows Vista, which people suddenly quite liked, once it was renamed to Windows 7 :-) The actual point of the loss aversion thing, though, was to point out how Microsoft failed when it introduced Windows 8. I write this blog for designers, and learning from other people's mistakes is one reason why I write it. Loss aversion is an important concept in design; a conclusion to draw from this is that design changes should occur gradually, and not be forced upon people with a single, sweeping change.

chrismcb 12y ago
Windows 8 is horrible on the desktop, I think you even mention this. But then you ignore that and talk about how great it is on the surface. You talked about loss aversion, but I don't see how you tied that in to the windows design. I thought you were going to discuss things that were removed from win 7, like the start button. But it just seems like the topic of loss aversion was another article that you included in this one. The real issue is trying to resolve both a touch screen environment with a keyboard and mouse environment. Win 8 is the former, with win 7 the latter. I don't know much about 10 but it seems to be more of a mouse and keyboard and less of a touch.
- bjmarte 12y ago
  He ignores it because it is tangential to the point. The point is that windows 8 (or at least 8.1 imho) had a great ui for a touch interface and there is no reason to destroy that while trying to fix the desktop experience.

stcredzero 12y ago

> The whole bit on loss aversion (which is a tactic to undermine people's opinions by ascribing them to unproductive emotional reactions, rather than objective evaluations that have people liking Windows 8 less than 7) I am writing this on a recently purchased Windows 7 Lenovo x220 convertible tablet with a Wacom stylus and a multi-touch screen. (Primarily to use it as a poor man's Cintiq.) With only a few specific failings, Windows 7 seems to be a great OS for such a device. One of the big failings is requiring the user to keep precise track of window focus. The other one is rejection of finger input in contexts where everything but the stylus should be ignored except certain specific exceptions. I've used an AutoHotKey script to compensate for the latter. Other than these (very glaring) few points and others, I think Windows 7 does a very good job of capitalizing on the strengths of the input devices and form factor. I can transition between laptop/workstation, touch-tablet, and Wacom stylus type inputs to best suit the particular context I am working in with reasonable rapidity. As a workman's toolbox, this thing is pretty awesome! Comparing this to the mess that's Windows 8, it's clear that Microsoft lost a cohesive overall vision for how everything should work together. It's also clear from the glaring problems that they never quite had a cohesive overall vision firmly guiding the whole product in the first place. A consumer-oriented tablet and a kitchen-sink/swiss-army knife device for coders/creatives are two very different kinds of devices. It's just not clear thinking to try and mix the two. (OS X seems to be facing a similar dilemma.)

higherpurpose 12y ago

And he's probably right. The issue remains that Microsoft is trying to mash two radically different usage paradigms into one. So the obvious outcome (perhaps not to Microsoft) is that either the desktop mode will get worse, as it tries to get more "tablet-y" or the tablet mode gets worse as it tries to get more "desktop-y" - or both. The author does say something with which I disagree. He says something along the lines "Windows 8 was the simplest desktop OS". Not it wasn't. Windows 8 - the desktop part - was probably made worse by the removal of the Start Menu, but not better. The Metro part is not "desktop". That's for tablets. So he can't say "the simplest desktop OS", because the whole Metro paradigm was intended for tablets, and it was much worse than the desktop paradigm on the desktop.

skynetv2 12y ago

> Windows 8 on the desktop was objectively terrible. spot on and I always thought it will work well on a touch screen tablet.So I got a Windows tablet and boy! was I wrong!! Its terrible on a tablet too.