Your Windows 8 Views

[Gorankar]

How will they ever survive that ONE click when they turn their computer on for the first time? Oh the hugemanatee.

lol, let me put it to you this way: Metro is kind of like gay porn to me, I have no interest in it, in fact it grosses me out, and I would rather not see it at all, ever, even if it only takes one click to get through it to the desktop and start menu.
You are dealing with preferences, and opinions here. I am right because I say I am, but that does not make you wrong.

Again, I have no issue with you having Metro, or gay porn, and going sans start menu if that is what you want.
Why do you think I should not have a start menu, and should be forced to look at Metro b4 I get to the desktop? What is your vested interest in Metro, that means I must use it, when it is clearly pointless to do so for me?

 

[kgoldman1]

IMHO I find windows 8 to be unappealing. It runs as if it were a mobile os with its list of "apps" and what thye did to the start menu. Seems like they took the OS from their phones made it a bit more intense and added a few things. I think I will stick with 7 for a while.

 

[Sly]

windows key
type first few letters of program name
enter

Enter key is on the right side of the keyboard. And your left hand only covers the 1/3rd of the keyboard. Didn't they teach you how to use the keyboard at school?

Easy peasy. If you're using a mouse, you should either pin your apps to the task bar or start menu. Don't get me started on your claim that "13" is a lot of apps.

Yeah, i'm pinning them to the task bar. But what does the taskbar have to do with the start menu? They made great strides with the taskbar and i'm loving how easily you can use it. But it's purpose is different from a start menu. It's also intact in Win8 so i don't see the problem with the taskbar.

You do realize that by telling me to avoid using the Start Menu that you're basically agreeing with me right? At this point, Metro is an improvement over the Win7 start menu.

For switching apps... alt tab? windows key + #? So many different, better ways to do this than using a mouse. Either way, your claim that the win xp menus were better is facially laughable.

Not when you're using multiple instances of a program. Don't tell me you actually alt-tab through 20 application instances when you can simply hover the mouse over taskbar and get a thumbnail view.

When i'm on the keyboard, i use CTRL+ALT+TAB. When i'm on the mouse i hover over the taskbar. Imagine what it would be like they didn't continue improving the interface and we still relied on just ALT-TAB for task switching.

Basically, our argument is this. Your practice is to stick to one control method and ignore the other. My practice is to maximize the use of all input devices. The goal of any UI is to make the functions accessible from both Mouse and Keyboard (That's why you have screen buttons alongside shortcut keys). Believe me, if they had removed the keyboard shortcuts in Win8, i'd be pissed as well. But they didn't, and instead expanded on the mouse aspect of the start menu that had been crippled on Win7.


You guys don't use the start menu, sure, the Win8 still has your keyboard search function. For those of us that uses both Keyboard and Mouse, replacing the start menu (which you guy repeatedly say that you DON'T USE) with a better one is an improvement.

 

[Sly]

No, seriously, we studied this stuff. Nested fly-out menus are a usability nightmare.

What's interesting there is that it actually agrees with us. Note that most of that thread is about the search function, not the menu. The ones that relate to the menu itself points out that Vistas menu is slower or harder to use than XP. And the parts about two levels deep, a two level deep application is faster to access on a WinXP style menu, than a Vista one (As one of them commented, you spend a lot of time scrolling). Heck, without letting go of the mouse, you'd have accessed them faster than you would repositioning your hand on the keyboard and typing. Windows is graphic environment, so you tend to have your hand on the mouse a lot. Being made to constantly switch between mouse and keyboard for basic functions is just bad design.

The trend in GUI design has always been to pay attention to where the hands are. Prior to the rise in popularity of the mouse, Copy and Paste was CTRL+Insert/Shift+Insert. Mainly because your right hand is usually on the num pad. When the mouse became popular, it got moved to CTRL+C/CTRL+V so it's now the left hands responsibility (CTRL+P would have required two hands). Even now essential keyboard controls are on the left hand, basically, effort is made to minimize the time you have to let go of the mouse for GUI related tasks. If the application has emphasis on keyboard use, make all function accessible from the keyboard (shortcut keys), if it's a mouse intensive task, make all functions accessible from the mouse (screen buttons/gestures).

You can type "notepad" with your left hand? Awesome. Because i can't. I'll need to look at the keyboard to do that. Any typist will tell you that looking at the keyboard, is a no-no.

 

[E^vol]

Aside from the fact that I could give a shit about tablets...The thing I hate the most about Metro is that it's SQUARE !!!!! WTF???? Microsoft....GET A CLUE!!! Lets have some nice rounded, transparent, etc. app icons etc...I hated Win7 when it came out because it still had a "square" taskbar. Now it's even worse. Why do they think people like squares? If they are trying to copy iOS, then where did they get squares from?

I don't have, nor want, any Apple products, but their OS looks MUCH nicer !!!! (their version / idea of what the taskbar is at least)

Who here likes the squares look ?

 

[RealityCrunch]

Enter key is on the right side of the keyboard. And your left hand only covers the 1/3rd of the keyboard. Didn't they teach you how to use the keyboard at school?

I don't know, I don't find myself needing touch typing for 1 to 3 letters. I can easily hit "cal+enter" in under a second with my left hand.

 

[heatlesssun]

If they are trying to copy iOS, then where did they get squares from?

I don't have, nor want, any Apple products, but their OS looks MUCH nicer !!!! (their version / idea of what the taskbar is at least)

Who here likes the squares look ?

Microsoft wasn't trying to copy iOS, indeed of one the reasons why Microsoft has invested in the Metro design language was to differentiate from others. Microsoft actually has talked at great length about the history and reasoning behind Metro, even tracing the idea of minimalistic design back to it's origins in the 1920's.

As more well designed Metro apps appear and the more developers use live tiles to their fullest I think the more people will begin to appreciate the Metro design. There are some very beautiful Metro apps out there on Windows Phone and I think there'll be a ton coming to Windows 8. It is a different approach where beauty is built into the app rather than relying on graphical effects.

 

[DeathPrincess]

You don't need to press enter. To find notepad you have to press n. Then it appears at near the top of the list (2nd for me).

Windows 7's start menu allows nested folders. It's in the options. Which is the main reason why metro is a POS. 0 options.

 

[Numan]

Who here likes the squares look ?

I like the square look. For a comparison, turn on a PS Vita. Circles aren't as cool as you'd think

 

[Tawnos]

*snip*

So you're saying you are both a touch typist and mouse-hobbled. Interesting.

For work, I find that my hands stay on the home row a majority of the time. And yes, I do alt tab through the various windows I have open, or use the win+# keyboard combination.

Even better, on my laptop the trackpoint mouse is accessed without even shifting most of my fingers off of the home row. Efficiency!

As for "notepad" - 1) that's pinned to the taskbar on two of my machines. 2) typing "no" is enough to get it to be the first entry. 3) I'm still on the home row, because I spend most of my time typing, not clicking around reddit when I'm supposed to be working

 

[Adam.C]

You don't need to press enter. To find notepad you have to press n. Then it appears at near the top of the list (2nd for me).

Windows 7's start menu allows nested folders. It's in the options. Which is the main reason why metro is a POS. 0 options.

QFT. Everyone arguing otherwise is obviously ignorant, or just old fashioned. Win7 made accessing anything easier than it has ever been within Windows OS. I pin alot to the start menu also, as I do not like much clutter on my task bar. I hated all the cascading and opening tabs in XP, because sometimes it would literally take up the whole screen.

 

[SuperSubZero]

I tried Windows 8 CP on a Lenovo W510 (touch screen) laptop yesterday. The experience did not leave me feeling satisfied. Some of the gestures seem to assume one is physically holding the panel like a tablet.

I'm left-handed. I managed to early-adopt a right-handed mouse, because it's the world we live in. However, I'm having a heck of a time consciously using my right hand to open the charm thing to get to the Start page. Swiping my right thumb to the left truly feels strange. It's a good laptop, they don't seem to have the overhanging bezel issue, but I did find myself mis-swiping frequently. Ugh.

I saw the Intel video where they basically make it sound like nobody gets a sore arm using a touch screen. I managed to last about 20 minutes before I started switching arms and feeling uncomfortable.

I came away with the distinct cynicism that Apple must have patented all the "good" gestures and MS is just using the leftovers. A few times I found myself trying to three-finger swipe across apps and.. uh.. well.. nope. I'm also curious what focus group decided the Start thing should be on the right.

 

[BlindFusion]

I think the bitching about Metro is interesting.

I initially hated it, but realized that MOST (non [H]) users would rather see the <10 apps that they use on a normal basis in front of them, not in a start menu of any kind. Think about your parents. If it's not a shortcut on the desktop, then it's not installed. What's the difference between icons on the desktop and a square of the same icon. Sure lots of people just save everything to the desktop, but isn't it better to save files to the My Documents folder and just have the Metro screen for applications?

Sure, we don't like simplification, because we like to tinker, we like to overcomplicate things that don't need to be that way. Apple has BANKED HARD on simplifying things and saying screw you to the people who wanted more. If anything, I think Microsoft should have gone further with the Metro idea and spent less time trying to appease the people who refuse change.

It'll be better. The rest of you can keep Windows 7 and theme it to look like Windows 95 if that makes you more comfortable.

 

[heatlesssun]

I tried Windows 8 CP on a Lenovo W510 (touch screen) laptop yesterday. The experience did not leave me feeling satisfied. Some of the gestures seem to assume one is physically holding the panel like a tablet.

Well actually you're correct. Microsoft has talked at some length about how they played around with cardboard models in hand and realized that thumbs are indeed very convenient for navigation while holding a tablet.

I'm left-handed. I managed to early-adopt a right-handed mouse, because it's the world we live in. However, I'm having a heck of a time consciously using my right hand to open the charm thing to get to the Start page. Swiping my right thumb to the left truly feels strange. It's a good laptop, they don't seem to have the overhanging bezel issue, but I did find myself mis-swiping frequently. Ugh.

I have Windows 8 running on a Lenovo x220t convertible tablet PC and I'm on it now using a Microsoft Touch Mouse (I don't really like track pads unless I'm on the go) and I guess I wonder why at a sitting position with a device that has a pointer and a keyboard with an upright screen you'd be using the swipe gestures. The keyboard or mouse would be easier. I do use touch on my x220t in laptop mode but usually to tap things here or there or to pinch zoom, quick things like that here and there. I don't try to use touch for everything. The great thing about Windows 8 is that you can use whatever input method you want and even in combination. I could for instance hit Win+c to bring up the charm bar and then tap the item I want.

But now lets say that I'm using a pure tablet as a tablet like the Samsung Series 7, then the edge gestures REALLY shine.

I saw the Intel video where they basically make it sound like nobody gets a sore arm using a touch screen. I managed to last about 20 minutes before I started switching arms and feeling uncomfortable.

Again, using touch all the time on an keyboard and mouse device, something I never do though I'll touch a screen frequently. Touch, mice, keyboards and even pens are not mutually exclusive and there's no need do things uncomfortably in a given situation. Use the appropriate input method, which when sitting at a computer with a keyboard and mouse, then use the keyboard and mouse. Use touch where it feels natural and useful. I guess I'm just used to using computers this way and it's just become natural and efficient for me. I think that in time as more people get exposed to the idea that they aren't constrained to any particular input method and learn that keyboards, mice and touch can be used in tandem that it will begin to make sense, it's just natural.

I came away with the distinct cynicism that Apple must have patented all the "good" gestures and MS is just using the leftovers. A few times I found myself trying to three-finger swipe across apps and.. uh.. well.. nope. I'm also curious what focus group decided the Start thing should be on the right.

I think you'd have a different opinion if you had tried to do these things on a tablet device. The edge swiping is VERY slick and quick. But that method does work best with a tablet.

 

[zero2dash]

I tried the CP and hated it.
I was happy with Vista post-SP1, I'm very happy with 7....I will be sticking with 7 for the foreseeable future.

 

[wra18th]

I don't really see a good enough reason to "upgrade" from 7. I have 8 on my laptop and I guess I don't use it enough to remember where everything is. I'm very happy with 7. But I won't call 8 a POS.

 

[skorpio]

Personally I feel Microsoft would sell more copies of new Windows versions with fixes and improvements, if they want to add a new UI it should be included as an alternate "theme". Simple fact is the OS should not be anything more than an organizational structure to launch apps which are, or at least should be the reason you have a computer in the first place. Doing radical changes to what is already an evolved UI is like introducing a car with a joystick instead of a steering wheel, it may very well be a more efficient mechanism but would create chaos in adaptation. Similarly changing a UI creates weeks if not months of reduced productivity while adapters "get used to" the new interface, and of course this cascades as followup apps try to mock the new UIs methodology, and in the end the gains are at best minimal. It's mostly change for changes sake.

Honestly everytime I see a new Microsoft product I wonder if they went down the under 5 Isle at Toys R Us for inspiration. How can we make this better?... Well we can make the icons bigger... Anything else?... We can hide things... Good, Good, is that it?... Oh, primary colors. Same story every release every product. Bigger buttons, fewer of them, and in brighter colors, Windows 12 will just be 1 big yellow button labeled with the last thing you used.

A friend of mine once joked, and I quote this often, "Computers don't save you time they simply loan it to you".

 

[Gorankar]

^^^MS will only sell fewer upgrade copies compared to WIn7. Like always, new PC sales will account for the majority of Win 8 sales.
Even many enthusiast don't upgrade the OS on their PC. When they build a new PC they just put the latest OS on there. I buy licenses as I need them. I have several for Win 7 so I may not ever buy a Win 8 one depending on how long MS goes b4 Win9.

Whether they will be able to push into the tablet market without putting out their own tablet, or subsidizing one from another maker, is the real question.

 

[Hitokiri Batohsai]

Luckily I found this thread. I was about to install W8 and give it a go.
Win8 makes a lot of sense on a tablet, though I don't really like metro, more towards android. This youtube video shows W8 metro in action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntSdfGzF60M&feature=related

For most used apps, I just pin it to the start bar. Isn't it faster than clicking the start button to get to you apps by typing? Also if you right click on the apps you can see the recently used files and can pin files you want. This is so useful.

I will still get W8 preorder as I have one of those All-in-one Dell desktop with touchscreen which my mom uses. It will be a lot easier for her to navigate to stuff immediately though I am not sure if its nice navigating on a 24" touchscreen. I myself hate to get and smudges on my monitors or smartphone for that matter.

If the retail W8 is bad, then can sell it off for profit as preorders are generally cheaper. I did read somewhere that MS will introduce a desktop only W8 for their corporate clients. The last thing MS wants are institutions running away from W8 as they need to retrain staff to use W8. Might get that version as I like the auto task priority setting in W8.

 

[darkpaw]

I've had it installed on my convertible tablet since the Sept dev preview, but I hardly use that system so it was hard to really evaluate it.

I've been running it on my main desktop for 2 weeks now as the primary OS. After getting used to the fact there was no start button icon, there really is little difference from 7 in desktop use. The differences I have seen, I actually really like such as better multimonitor support. I haven't booted into my Win 7 install in over a week, and that was only because I needed to access a program I hadn't installed in 8 yet. It took a minor bit of adjustment, mostly figuring out the new hotkeys. The only thing that I don't like currently is that it doesn't include control panel items in the search by default. I'm so used to using the Windows key then typing, but that only includes applications now without moving over to switch the box. Learning a few of the new hotkeys really took out any issues I had with using it on a desktop.

 

[MrGuvernment]

Aside from the fact that I could give a shit about tablets...The thing I hate the most about Metro is that it's SQUARE !!!!! WTF???? Microsoft....GET A CLUE!!! Lets have some nice rounded, transparent, etc. app icons etc...I hated Win7 when it came out because it still had a "square" taskbar. Now it's even worse. Why do they think people like squares? If they are trying to copy iOS, then where did they get squares from?

I don't have, nor want, any Apple products, but their OS looks MUCH nicer !!!! (their version / idea of what the taskbar is at least)

Who here likes the squares look ?

squares make better use of space.. put some circles together and look at the wasted space between them.

 

[Tawnos]

The differences I have seen, I actually really like such as better multimonitor support.

Could you elaborate on this? I'm on the team which handles monitor connectivity, and I'd like to know what you see as "better" or even what is just "different" in Win8. Thanks

 

[heatlesssun]

Could you elaborate on this? I'm on the team which handles monitor connectivity, and I'd like to know what you see as "better" or even what is just "different" in Win8. Thanks

The task bat does actually work better, its position and spanning across multiple monitors can now be controlled.

However the biggest weakness in Windows 8 is multi-monitor support. The problem as others have noted are the hot corners, they simple don't work well in the CP because on multi-monitor setups the hot corners aren't corners aren't actually corners on both sides thus breaking Fitt's Law.

 

[MrCrispy]

I have expressed my views on Metro before and anyway there is enough talk about it, lets talk about something else. I don't think Win 8 includes much that's new for desktop users apart from Metro.

Storage Spaces - reports of performance are that its severely degraded. The people who might have used this most (those of us who have file servers and use WHS etc) will never use it, it's just too slow and limiting. Normal desktop users have no use for it, its purely a server feature.

Faster startup/shutdown, lower memory usage - the only thing that will make a difference. This could be in a SP to Windows 7

Sign in and syncing with Live Id - I use this and besides letting me skip account creation, I'm not sure how much value this adds. Metro apps are not synced, only their settings, and a few desktop settings like wallpaper are synced. Now that Skydrive app lets me sync data, I don't really need this

Metro pdf support - while its nice, installing Foxit takes 10s and is much more useful

New task manager - awesome. Give it to me on Win 7!

New Explorer - some much needed improvements (fixes really) and the new file copy dialog is nice

The point is Win 8 is clearly designed to highlight and push Metro, yet MS themselves are defensive and say desktop users never have to use Metro beyond the start screen. All the other features are rather minor and could very easily be rolled into an SP for Win 7. The desktop is now a 2nd class citizen and that is a very bad direction for an OS that 99.99% people will use on a non touch device now and in the next 5 years.

MS clearly are very obstinate in defending Metro and have refused to offer any justification why its actually better for desktop users. In fact they haven't addressed it ever, all their Win 8 demos are done on a touch device which is ridiculous.

 

[thefreeaccount]

No, seriously, we studied this stuff. Nested fly-out menus are a usability nightmare.

This. If you've ever watched a user try to navigate those awful hierarchical menus, it quickly becomes obvious why they avoided the WinXP start menu like the plague and put all their icons on the desktop.

Unfortunately, users don't like the Win7 start menu either because they dislike the cognitive burden of having to remember the name of what they want. It's "easier" for them to recognize the icon on the desktop, even if it takes much longer to reach infrequently-used items that way.

WinXP start, when organized 2+ folders deep, has a much worse problem w/cognitive burden: instead of trying to remember what they actually want, users have to remember which stupid category some idiot decided it fit into. "Um, I need to edit a chart for my choir. Shouldn't that be under entertainment?"

Note to systems-obsessed/pseudoautistic IT workers: users don't organize their lives into nested hierarchies, so let's please bury that idea, or at least try to wait a good year or two before we inevitably make exactly the same mistake again.

Microsoft's introduction of the Win7/Vista "secondary mode," in which users click "all programs" and scroll through the list until they recognize an item wasn't bad. I'm actually not sure why people never use the smart menu that way, except that they definitely prefer text + icons over a long wall of text. Possibly the name of the program alone isn't a sufficient cue for most people - they need the name + the icon + its relative position on the desktop to remember what they want.

Metro is what happens if you start making the start menu larger and wider to accommodate more icons and aid positional memory. I'm not sure what the best answer is, but it it certainly isn't the hierarchical start menu, which is less efficient and harder to use than both Win7 start and Metro.

 

[Tawnos]

The task bat does actually work better, its position and spanning across multiple monitors can now be controlled.

However the biggest weakness in Windows 8 is multi-monitor support. The problem as others have noted are the hot corners, they simple don't work well in the CP because on multi-monitor setups the hot corners aren't corners aren't actually corners on both sides thus breaking Fitt's Law.

He was saying that multimon was improved over Win7. Since we added Win+P in Win7 and it hasn't been significantly changed in Win8, I was wondering what the improvements were. Start menu might be one, but that's not really "better multimonitor support" as much as "better behavior of the start menu in multimon."

 

[darkpaw]

Could you elaborate on this? I'm on the team which handles monitor connectivity, and I'd like to know what you see as "better" or even what is just "different" in Win8. Thanks

Mostly the ability to spread icons out on the taskbar they are running on, independent desktop wallpapers, better customization of the task bar in general when supporting multimonitor. I run with 3 x 32" TVs as displays, so being able to separate the icons out better is a real nice feature to me.

As someone else said, the hot corners feature is real wonky with multimon though, at least with a left most monitor as primary trying to access the right hot corners. I generally use the shortcut keys though, so that really hasn't bothered me. Win+C pretty much takes care of that issue.

 

[wonderfield]

squares make better use of space.. put some circles together and look at the wasted space between them.

Let's talk a bit about wasted space, shall we? Observe this Windows 8 tile:

This tile is 150x150 in its 'small' size, which is 22,500 pixels. The settings 'gear' icon encompasses 5,624 of those pixels. The label comes in at 720 pixels. Combined, they represent about 28% of the total space devoted to this tile. That's 72% wasted space, assuming you consider that every pixel which does not convey any information outside the rectangular boundaries of each of the two informational elements is wasted space.

You truly feel Microsoft is making good use of space with this square?

 

[chinesepiratefood]

The tiles are those sizes because of the live tile capability

 

[Tawnos]

Let's talk a bit about wasted space, shall we? Observe this Windows 8 tile:

This tile is 150x150 in its 'small' size, which is 22,500 pixels. The settings 'gear' icon encompasses 5,624 of those pixels. The label comes in at 720 pixels. Combined, they represent about 28% of the total space devoted to this tile. That's 72% wasted space, assuming you consider that every pixel which does not convey any information outside the rectangular boundaries of each of the two informational elements is wasted space.

You truly feel Microsoft is making good use of space with this square?

The minimum recommended size for win8 is 1024x768. The minimum "full metro" size is 1366x768. Even with a 10 pixel border between icons (so the icon is effectively 160x160), it uses 3.26% of the 1024x768 screen, and 2.44% of the 1366x768 screen. According to Shannon Formulation of Fitts' Law, the time to hit a target is scaled by the width of the target along the axis of movement. As a result, that "wasted space" means that as you're moving a mouse towards the target, if you don't have the "wasted space", you'd be increasing time of target acquisition non-trivially.

And, really, can you easily argue that 2.44% of the smallest screen size is a large percentage of the screen?

 

[DeathPrincess]

Has microsoft commented why not using metro at all is non optional? Seems kind of backwards to add a major change and not let users opt out, or customize it (outside of color...). All the other versions of windows has start menu options and "classic" mode and a whole heap of user optimizations to make it work the way you want. It's their way or fuck you. Thats the most disheartening thing.

Have metro and this system all you want, but make it optional for the people who think it's crap. Or at least allow some way of making it less crap.

 

[wonderfield]

My only argument is that Metro's square and rectangular-shaped UI elements are not necessarily making good use of screen space despite the square being a rather space-economical shape (in terms of how densely they can be packed in with other rectangles), as MrGuvernment suggested. 'Effective use of space' is therefore a null argument &#8212; this is a rectangular element very clearly not making good use of screen space. Bringing Fitt's law up here is pointless, I might add, as the time to hit the target will keep increasing as the size in either direction increases, which means you could use Fitts's law as a justification for elements which are many times larger, even if they contain significantly more space that serves as no aid for recognition. A 600x600 tile with the same size icon and text label? Sure, Fitts's law!

A point of interest, though: I am actually looking at this on a 1024x768 screen (a 15" display). The 150x150 tile I posted is genuinely quite unnecessarily large. On this display, its scale does not border on ridiculous: it is ridiculous. On a 10" tablet, it would appear smaller, but still unnecessarily large in my opinion for the amount of information it conveys.

And, yes, the idea of live tiles is that they can contain a good deal more information than an icon and a text label. But that is not the case here. Is this rectangular tile making effective use of space? No. Would changing the shape change that fact? Unlikely.

 

[Tawnos]

My only argument is that Metro's square and rectangular-shaped UI elements are not necessarily making good use of screen space despite the square being a rather space-economical shape (in terms of how densely they can be packed in with other rectangles), as MrGuvernment suggested. 'Effective use of space' is therefore a null argument — this is a rectangular element very clearly not making good use of screen space. Bringing Fitt's law up here is pointless, I might add, as the time to hit the target will keep increasing as the size in either direction increases, which means you could use Fitts's law as a justification for elements which are many times larger, even if they contain significantly more space that serves as no aid for recognition. A 600x600 tile with the same size icon and text label? Sure, Fitts's law!

You missed the point completely. Did you ever think estimated time to hit target may have been calculated and counter balanced against number of tiles that need to be displayed at once? I'll give you a clue: count the number of items you can see in the "all programs" of windows 7, compare to the number of items on screen in a 10x7 display with that size icon. Add to it this, which is why I brought up Fitts' Law.

A point of interest, though: I am actually looking at this on a 1024x768 screen (a 15" display). The 150x150 tile I posted is genuinely quite unnecessarily large. On this display, its scale does not border on ridiculous: it is ridiculous. On a 10" tablet, it would appear smaller, but still unnecessarily large in my opinion for the amount of information it conveys.

Can you quantitatively define "quite unnecessarily large"?

And, yes, the idea of live tiles is that they can contain a good deal more information than an icon and a text label. But that is not the case here. Is this rectangular tile making effective use of space? No. Would changing the shape change that fact? Unlikely.

So should live tiles be larger than other tiles? Should tiles be arbitrarily sized? How do you design that into a UI so that a user doesn't end up completely lost? We settled on a two-size paradigm for modern tiles, but what would you have done?

 

[wonderfield]

You missed the point completely. Did you ever think estimated time to hit target may have been calculated and counter balanced against number of tiles that need to be displayed at once?

I assume you did your job, yes.

I'll give you a clue: count the number of items you can see in the "all programs" of windows 7, compare to the number of items on screen in a 10x7 display with that size icon.

I'm assuming they're about the same number, else you wouldn't have asked. Is this truly relevant, however? Was it Microsoft's intention to present about the same number of items, and if so, why?

Can you quantitatively define "quite unnecessarily large"?

I'm a designer, not an engineer. I am, however, also a user. I define "necessarily large" in terms of how large a UI element needs to be in order to A) convey the necessary information relevant to that element's function and B) make it easily accessible to clicks or taps. Any size beyond that strays into the territory of "unnecessarily large". There's no specific number range I can give you. Remember: I'm a designer &#8212; I can't approach these things with numbers unless I truly see them within the context of everything else as a whole.

So should live tiles be larger than other tiles?

Depending on their purpose and the extent of their functionality, certainly, yeah, that's a possibility.

Should tiles be arbitrarily sized? How do you design that into a UI so that a user doesn't end up completely lost?

There are mechanisms to allow for reflowing elements with arbitrary sizes, but whether they should be arbitrarily sized is something I can't comment on. I think it's a direction I would have experimented with, but it may end up being too unwieldy in practice.

We settled on a two-size paradigm for modern tiles, but what would you have done?

It seems to me there's a possibility for an additional smaller size: 150 by ~70. Users could be able to place two tiles in the same space they could place one 150x150 tile. This would leave ample room for an icon (on the left, and adequately-proportioned), as well as two short lines of text, or up to three similar-sized icons (and so on). No good?

 

[mrtheshaggy]

I'm looking forward to giving the new UI a try. I remember when they drastically changed the office ui to the ribbon bars every bitched and is still bitching. However, they are so so so much better.

Hopefully they pulled it off again with Windows 8, slight learning curve, but in the end its better.

 

[heatlesssun]

Has microsoft commented why not using metro at all is non optional?

Well I think it's pretty obvious. Microsoft has never really been about a multiple UIs in their products. A lot of people clamored for having the classic menus in Office 2007 and making the ribbon optional.

But Metro IS the UI for Microsoft going forward, having it as an optional isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of the UI that you're betting the company on. But most importantly, for Metro apps to be written on a large scale developers need to know that Metro is their, without an option to turn it "off".

Metro and the new UI work fine on single screen devices, the problem is multi-monitor. But in a month we should see what is pretty much the final product.

No matter what Microsoft does there's going to be millions of people that won't like and Microsoft really needs to do something different with Windows and not as an option because making Metro optional would mean Microsoft has no confidence in it, and if they don't no one else would either.

 

[Tawnos]

Has microsoft commented why not using metro at all is non optional?

I think I linked this earlier, but yeah, there was a comment (back in 2009).

Same thing he said there applies to the UI. Maintaining a test matrix where you can turn on and off versions of GUI elements quickly becomes unwieldy.

 

[AndreRio]

People wanted windows Vista but it didn't work. Windows 8 works but People don't want it. I like everything about Windows 8 but the Metro UI.

 

[bAMtan2]

windows 8 sucks and will be a terrible failure, but you can modify it to act like windows 7 and that is why everyone here can happily switch

 

[DeathFromBelow]

windows key
type first few letters of program name
enter

Easy peasy. If you're using a mouse, you should either pin your apps to the task bar or start menu. Don't get me started on your claim that "13" is a lot of apps.

For switching apps... alt tab? windows key + #? So many different, better ways to do this than using a mouse. Either way, your claim that the win xp menus were better is facially laughable.

Don't be ignorant.

Sometimes I need to browse through my applications, I have a lot. There's no reason for Microsoft to not include both a decent start menu and start search. Here's how I have my start menu configured using Classic Shell:

If I know what I'm looking for I can still pull up the default start search menu by hitting the windows key. It's the best of both worlds.

I don't personally mind Metro, but my "desktop" is a 100" projection screen. I could see it getting old for people using traditional desktop monitors (ie pretty much everyone). I honestly haven't played around with the beta enough to decide how I feel yet but I'll almost certainly be upgrading once it's released. Shiny new things...

It's not like the traditional desktop is going away, it just happens to be a metro tile now. Just think of Metro as a nice looking intro screen when you login.