"Windows Vista will eventually sport what has been called a 'sidebar' - a kind of taskbar-like user interface element designed to sit on the right or left side of a display and offer 'heads-up' information on a customizable basis. When we last checked in on the Vista Sidebar at CES, we saw a number of widgets (or gadgets) running on the sidebar, including a small picture frame, an RSS list/interface, weather information, and more. The idea, generally speaking, is to give prominent spacing to tasks and information services that are, in theory, so frequently referenced that it makes sense to prominently display them on your desktop, alongside or on top of your other application windows."
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-11-10
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-07
I have tried sidebars but they never worked for me. Back to the days when ICQ could be transformed into sidebar it was more annoyance than helpful If you put it in the right side of the screen and use autohide (one of the features of UI-s that always annoys me most) you lose the possibility to close the windows by just moving the mouse to the right top corner and click. If you put the sidebar on the left it overlaps with the start menues. I tried to use google desktop but soon got rid of it for similar reasons. If you relocate the most resent documents and programs into sidebar it could be very useful if you have widescreen (perhaps). But if you use it for things like weather (no thanks i still have windows in my room and right now accuweather is telling me that it is snowing and the weather outside is shining and clear) or system information (again useless in most cases) it again will be of no use for me.
Member since:
2005-07-06
The real question is whether or not we need Vista.
New DRM. Less features than promised. Less control over my content. Bigger footprint and hardware requirements. A whole new universe of bugs.
I think Microsoft has a tough sell on their hands.
I would love to read that debate...
As for me, if it is truly--and I mean truly--more secure with less headaches, then I am game for an upgrade. All the other feaures are unnecessary to me. (Others will have different needs, of course.)
Member since:2006-01-06
No brainer...
MS (look I used a '$'!!!) will require all hardware "partners" to ship their systems with Vista. There will be some core issue somewhere with broken compat or something with XP which will "encourage" people to upgrade to XP. Perhaps some critical safety feature XX or YY which vista has which won't be released for XP, who knows what, they will use their under-the-table-deals stranglehold on 1st tier system builders to push through Vista. A likely candidate is that the current issues with poor 64bit compatibility on XP will be far less of a headache on Vista and MS (look I used a '$'!!!) won't try very hard to fix XP.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-07
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-21
Member since:2005-11-15
Member since:
2006-01-10
Member since:
2005-10-22
Member since:
2006-01-11
Microsoft wants to control who can write drivers for Vista (probably to keep people from poking holes in the DRM, among other things); they want the little guys and the hobbyists to go away, and they will do this by controlling who gets the keys needed to digitally sign drivers (only properly signed drivers will run).
Member since:2006-01-15
I have a hard time believing this. Microsoft is the root of all evil and all that, but would they really go as far as downright disallow unsigned device drivers, instead of, say, warning the user that the driver is not signed?
Would they really do this with all those accusations of monopolist practices weighing upon their shoulders? Would they have the balls?
Member since:2005-12-21
I have a hard time believing this. Microsoft is the root of all evil and all that, but would they really go as far as downright disallow unsigned device drivers, instead of, say, warning the user that the driver is not signed?
Would they really do this with all those accusations of monopolist practices weighing upon their shoulders? Would they have the balls?
...and exactly WHAT does this all have to do with sidebars?
Member since:
2005-07-04
Google desktop includes a sidebar like the one proposed for Vista, and it already has numerous plugins available. I find it very useful, and with auto-hide, it is still usable on my 15" LCD. It gives me a quick preview of my new Gmail messages, keeps track of all movies in my area that are playing, at what theatres they are playing and what times they are playing it. It tracks my stocks for me. It gives me up to date weather information. I use it all the time.
I find sidebars to be much cleaner than desktop widgets (like in Yahoo! Widget engine). With Google desktop sidebar, they are invisible to me until I place my cursor on the very right hand side of my screen. With Yahoo, I would bring them to the foreground with F8 (or maybe another F button, can't remember), then click on my original app, but they wouldn't go away. I don't have this problem with Google.
I find it interesting that Google is building replacements for a lot of the enhancements coming with Vista (desktop search, sidebar, etc.) Perhaps Google fears Microsoft's potential integration of Windows Live into Vista, and is building replacements to take away peoples' incentives to upgrade to Vista from XP. Smart strategy if you ask me, but who knows whether or not it will work.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-11
So, we originally had no bars in MS Windows 3.1 and before. In 1995ish we get a bar at the bottom on Windows 95. And now, 10 years after the bottom bar we get a side bar...
I notice a trend here.
A few more tens of years tied into the MS Windows OS, and we'll only have 'bars' with all applications and tools tied into them and into the MS OS, and no space for applications written by third parties.
I jest of course. 
Member since:
2005-09-04
There are design issues with vertical toolbars. Since the text is shown horizontally, at least within words (that can be long), the width of the vertical bar can be huge -- several times wider than the taskbar is tall, and yet running from top to bottom it could easily use up 25% of the total screen area (on low resolution setups). Quelle design nightmare.
And besides, the taskbar can be dragged to the side already. Just ask the nube who dragged it there by mistake and can't move it back.
The only reason this mickey mouse "feature" is being mentioned is to keep the buzz up about Vista.
So far the tagline for Vista should be "Worse in every way, but we'll ram it down your throats anyway".
Member since:
2006-01-06
One thing I like about my computer desktop is that there's nothing on it that pushes information at me. That is to say, if I want to get some information, I need to go and look, find, and pull it down from some source. I like this arrangment. I find that I'm happier and more focused when I only consume information that I'm looking for. It seems like the sidebar is an attempt to install more "push" media on the desktop; the media comes from somewhere else and is fed and displayed onto the desktop without user action.
It may be a personal issue, but I really dislike having media pushed onto me. If I want to know the weather or movie listings or whether I have new mail, I'll look and find the information myself. Otherwise, I just want to be left alone. I don't know if I'll have to use Vista, but, if I do, I hope I'll be able to remove the sidebar and the less than worthless to me clutter it will cause.
Member since:2005-07-04
One thing I like about my computer desktop is that there's nothing on it that pushes information at me. That is to say, if I want to get some information, I need to go and look, find, and pull it down from some source. I like this arrangment. I find that I'm happier and more focused when I only consume information that I'm looking for. It seems like the sidebar is an attempt to install more "push" media on the desktop; the media comes from somewhere else and is fed and displayed onto the desktop without user action.
It may be a personal issue, but I really dislike having media pushed onto me. If I want to know the weather or movie listings or whether I have new mail, I'll look and find the information myself. Otherwise, I just want to be left alone. I don't know if I'll have to use Vista, but, if I do, I hope I'll be able to remove the sidebar and the less than worthless to me clutter it will cause.
It's funny that on a technical news site, none of the posters have heard of a feature called "auto-hide". Works quite nicely for the Google Sidebar that I use. I only have a 15" monitor, but auto-hide makes the Google Sidebar completely usable.
Member since:2005-11-15
Member since:
2005-07-06
With all this push toward putting everything "a click away", I can't help but feel computing is moving in the wrong direction.
While I can admit that yes, it's important to make computers comfortable and usable, isn't is also important to try to force the user to learn SOMETHING?
The simpler computers get, the more I notice people not understanding more fundamentals about computing. For instance, if all of their news, e-mail, search, and pictures are all integrated into a sidebar...Will new users never learn to launch a browser, or check e-mail, etc?
Some will say that it's best to make things like filesystems/directory structures, internet browsers, e-mail clients, etc as seamless as possible.
I am inclined to disagree, if it only serves to drive people to further technology ignorance. People don't need a sidebar in Windows.
People need a secure and stable system. The sidebar is not gonna help if the system locks up completely, or the program (i.e. word) just crashes and they lose their data. Give them an intuitive, easy to learn system that actually helps them to UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. They may moan a bit at first. They'll likely thank you in the end.
Member since:2005-07-04
People need a secure and stable system. The sidebar is not gonna help if the system locks up completely, or the program (i.e. word) just crashes and they lose their data. Give them an intuitive, easy to learn system that actually helps them to UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. They may moan a bit at first. They'll likely thank you in the end.
No they won't. They simply don't care. I'm not sure why people on this site have such a hard time understanding that.
Member since:2005-12-21
People need a secure and stable system. The sidebar is not gonna help if the system locks up completely, or the program (i.e. word) just crashes and they lose their data. Give them an intuitive, easy to learn system that actually helps them to UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON. They may moan a bit at first. They'll likely thank you in the end.
No they won't. They simply don't care. I'm not sure why people on this site have such a hard time understanding that.
Hear, hear. Thank God someone realises it. Non-computer people don't give a sh|t about computers. They just want to get their work done. "Thank you in the end"? Dream on. They don't care and why should they?
Edited 2006-02-07 19:06
Member since:2005-07-06
Because most users are AFRAID of that box in the spare room. They fall into the same patterns, doing everything the exact same way, because they fear "breaking" the thing. No matter how many times you tell them this is rather impossible, it doesn't matter.
Ever seen a person the first time they got a blue screen? Or an "illegal operation? How about any kind of console/cli? They nearly get a heart attack!
The average new user is so paranoid and filled with disinformation, people often refuse to even USE the computer for anything useful or with any frequency.
I frankly don't care if they don't care. Like I said, things should be simple and intuitive - but why can't this help to TEACH them something. Many home users aren't getting much done on their computers, partially because they don't understand what they do, or, how to accomplish the task. Simply because the masses aren't crying for an end to their ignorance doesn't mean they won't appreciate it.
Children don't want to be potty trained most of the time. It doesn't mean there's no value in doing so.
And yes, I AM comparing new/beginning computer users to infants/toddlers...the "digital world" is just as big/scary/strange/foreign as the "real world" to a toddler/infant. I'm not saying toss them into a pool and make them learn to swim (though that's probably how most of us on OSN learned)...I AM saying at least teach them which strokes to make.
Metaphor overload!
Member since:
2006-01-11
Off-course Microsoft things we need a large part of the screen visible all the time! For weather updates? They will say that, but how long do you think it will take before the first continues streaming commercials and advertising slide-shows will appear and how difficult it will be to remove them? Spam block on browsers works to good nowadays.
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:
2005-07-12
To my way of thinking, the sidebar concept is flawed. Unlike the dashboard of a car or cockpit of an aircraft, there is no way to get the sidebar "out of your face" so that you can focus on the work at hand. That is why, for example, Google give you the option to hide its sidebar and widgets remain hidden behind the work at hand - effectively shut out and rendered useless.
We humans need a new sidebar paradigm. We can focus on the task at hand and still be aware of peripheral information in a manner that we can control and allow or deny it to be distracting. As I write this message, my peripheral vision lets me know what time it is almost without thinking, or glance at the calendar for an instant (hanging above my laptop on the wall) or the picutre of my kids, dogs and contact list on the corkboard above my head.
We need a similar technique for displaying "sidebar" peripheral information so that it can be accessed instantly and effortlessly without imposing a penalty on our task at hand - whether than penalty is a deliberate keystroke action, a mouse action/movelment or some equally intrusive action. Until then, we will debate the issue of whether the intrusion presented by sidebars and widgets really offsets the value-added affect they provide to the computing experience.
If I had a peripheral display around my lcd with widget/sidebar items, that would be acceptable, maybe a fold-out panel (or pull-out) that can serve in such a roll. Just keep those damn sidebars/sidecars and widgets off my desktop, I have work to do.
But they look so nice don't they?
Member since:2005-11-10
Member since:
2006-01-30
Member since:
2005-08-08
Member since:
2006-01-02
The taskbar is a cluttered design. With all its problems, the Apple dock beats them. XFCE has a nice compromise (except for not extending panels to edges, but...). Floating dock-like things (*step) work well once you start multitasking a lot (so there isn't a scrunched up list of tasks, for one thing).
A sidebar will just be one more thing that gets cluttered, or unhelpfully managed (hidden systray icons, desktop cleanup, etc.).
For not multitasking, something like Symphony OS' desktop is a good way to go. With a moderately sized monitor, a sidebar will still take up too much space. When 40"+ widescreen monitors get common, or multiple monitors become the norm, maybe there will be room. Until then, the desktop is going to get more cluttered, because real desktops have many more square feet to deal with (and still manage to get cluttered!).
I think I'll use Explorer as much in Vista as I do now (not at all). I bet MS will use the same crappy autohiding that they do for the standard taskbar, too...
