Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 9th Dec 2013 22:43 UTC
Windows

Two changes supposedly coming to the next version of Windows, according to veteran Paul Thurrott:

Metro apps running in windows on the desktop. As you can today with third-party utilities such as ModernMix, the next version of Windows will let users optionally run Metro apps in floating windows on the desktop.

Start menu. After bringing back the Start button in Windows 8.1, Microsoft will take the next logical step in the next Windows version and make the Start menu available as an option. It's possible this will appear only on those product versions that support the desktop.

This would be Microsoft admitting they got Windows 8 all wrong.

Thread beginning with comment 578414
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

No it's not. My user experience is no less important than anyone else's and if I have issue with the UX of something, then I have every right to explain why.


Well I am sorry it is less important. If 95% of people find the one UI paradigm easier than I am going to bet that most businesses will cater for majority, not the minority.

It kinda like why I don't bother supporting IE7 or Safari on Windows at work anymore, because nobody visits our site with that browser.

I do happen to find the ribbon completely unusable. I hate it. This obviously wont be the case for everyone, but it is the case for myself and the others who have argued with you in this thread.


No actually they stated that it was usable as a matter of fact and then they alluded to this not being logically organised.

i.e. Both quotes

The ribbons in Outlook are fantastic at hiding commonly used functionality, forcing you to poke around at different "tabs" in the ribbon toolbar. I sometimes just find it easier to use OWA


And

It's most likely grouped the same way in the ribbon interface. Only now it's a huge mess on each tab..


Both statements are saying that the layout is a mess, which means that not a lot of thought has been put into something. All I did was say this wasn't true and gave screenshots illustrate the opposite.

I have issues with people stating something as a if was matter of fact when it is their opinion.

Since experience is anecdotal, I beg to differ.


I said it was. I was mirroring you statements.

No, I'm just using the same dumb attacks you made against the other person. If you don't like it then perhaps you should stop acting like such a pathetic child whenever someone disagrees with you about your precious Microsoft - who apparently can do no wrong. Here's a news flash for you: not everyone considers every idea to come out of Redmond to be a triumph. And their opinions matter too.


When did I do a personal attack? I gave screenshots supporting my point of view. I did say that really if you haven't seen tabs in user interface (they are used not only on dialogs, browsers and website interfaces) that you shouldn't use a computer, it is a ridiculous statement to make ... which means I think what they stated was ridiculous.

I think calling someone out for being ridiculous is okay.

It not like the ribbon interface is that new anymore it is 7 years old, even the "I am used to argument" doesn't make sense any-more.

Anyway, insults aside, I can accept that some people like the ribbon, but I do not. It does look messy to me because you have a seemingly random splodge of large icons, smaller icons, some icons with labels, some without, some you click to reveal a drop down menu, others you click to execute. And then there's that silly overflow button in the bottom right corner (which took me months to find!). And you have all of that hidden under more tabs than there were top level menus in the original layout.


ANECDOTAL AGAIN.

Being dyslexic, I struggle reading through tabulated and lined data enough at the best of times, I don't need an interface that randomly places different sized objects and with different interactions. That's just nasty to use. And yes I know there is a structure to it all, but that structure isn't obvious to me. If anything it just looks like they had to fill a space of specific dimensions and then set out to try and fill that - which would have been fantastic if the aim of the exercise was to create a mosaic :p


I am dyslexic and so is my brother ... neither us have problems. So don't pull the disability card.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

As I said before, it's useless trying to have a discussion with you because you're so polarised in your opinion that you don't even bother to read other peoples posts before lecturing them about how right you are.

At least I can acknowledge and respect that other people might like the stuff I don't. You only berate them for being different.

http://xkcd.com/386/

Reply Parent Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I wasn't berating anyone Laurence.

I presenting my idea and I backed it up with screenshots to illustrate and obvious point about how things were logically grouped. I made no other claim about the usability of the system, except to dis-spell the notion that it is some sort of illogical mess, because it obviously isn't after just looking at the basic interface.

I really don't know if you have a reading comprehension problem, but anything you say is anecdotal unless without presenting hard numbers behind it (A/B testing, eye tracking analysis, heat maps or anything similar) is a waste of time discussing UX. Google do everything via data, and I will take Google's methodology over some random guy on the net.

I work in a company that has it profit in hundred of millions (no it isn't fortune 500, but they only care about cash money being gambling), and unless I back everything up with hard verifiable numbers or methodology, I won't get it past senior management.

Half the time, I comment from that mindset. If you think that is unreasonable, well I can't really do much about that.

Edited 2013-12-10 22:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2