
Why Have a Start Button to Shutdown Windows? - nreece
http://www.followsteph.com/2008/08/03/why-have-a-start-button-to-shutdown-windows/
======
sysop073
I've never understood that confusion, it's nonsense. Start doesn't mean "start
your computer", you don't click it to start your computer, so it very
obviously means "start doing something". "Shut down" falls under "something"

<http://sysop073.blogspot.com/2008/03/start.html>

~~~
sc
Yes, this argument can be made, but when someone tries to vouch for
Microsoft's choice of language by describing the fact that you can "_start_ to
_shut down_" your computer.

But, if you argue for semantics, semantics are still semantics. You don't
_start_ to _shut down_ your computer, and it really shouldn't be a process.
You just shut it down.

------
delackner
Let's see, the usability tests showed that a lot of people stared at the
windows desktop on startup and were at a loss.

Given that they were copying the macintosh what, a decade after the original
mac's release, you'd think they might actually look at some user tests of
people using a mac.

I'm sure they would find that given that the only obvious thing on the screen
is a computer icon, they would click on it, and tada, there they are now
staring at a window filled with what is IN their computer.

The metaphor is simple, and it works.

Now more than a decade later, and we are still stuck with this idiocy that the
desktop is a totally useless wasteland for auto-installed shortcuts and crap,
while the start menu of an average user's system has, not _application_ names,
but a mile long list of _company_ names to play the "now who the hell made my
text editor?" game.

~~~
Tichy
Xp desktop shows "My Computer", at least it is an option to do so.

Frankly, reading this article gave me nightmarish flashbacks about the time I
had to use OS X. Closing down applications was a real pain, if I remember
correctly. Clicking the "X" doesn't close them, only hide them. You have to
unhide them and find the "Exit" (or whatever) in the file menu to actually
close them for good (not the file menu in the window, mind you, but the one in
the useless "desktop transforms into application window").

So please don't refer to OS X as an usability icon, definitely not when the
question is how to shut down things.

~~~
Hexstream
That's like an American saying in London they drive on the "wrong" side of the
road.

~~~
Tichy
Even if that was true, it would still mean that a comparison to OS X does not
really make sense.

------
fauigerzigerk
The whole intuition thing is rather questionable. You learn how things work
and then you get used to them. It doesn't matter much whether it's an apple
icon or a start button. Neither shouts "shutdown!".

It's much more important how much work frequently repeated actions take once
you know them. No keyboard shortcut can ever be intuitive in the sense you
could have suspected what it does without learning about it. But it's quick
and you can remember it. That's what counts.

Are regular expressions intuitive? No, but just imagine you had to do pattern
matching with a language full of very intuitive words, like SQL or COBOL say
:)

~~~
captain-m
I agree. In a lot of cases it's a mistake to cater to inexperienced users by
making your GUI 'intuitive'. The bulk of your users are intermediates and
power users. A user interface should cater to those people and gently nudge
beginners in the same direction.

The old word interface (not the ribbon) actually did a pretty good job in
this. Beginners used the menubar to do things. The options where accompanied
by icons ("ooh, that's the same as the one on the iconbar.") and keyboard
shortcuts ("What happens if I press Ctrl - S?"). The user interface doesn't
get in the way of power users and teaches beginners and intermediate users.

~~~
dcurtis
Yeah, this is certainly an interesting topic in UI design. When Microsoft had
the problem of people not knowing what to do when their computer started up,
they relabeled "system" to "start" counterintuitively rather than building a
progressive disclosure system into Windows. It may have been better to put a
little hovering popup bubble that pointed towards the system icon and said
"Click here to start" the first few times you started up (or until user
testing showed people had learned what to do).

In later versions of windows, they had a whole window with tons of options pop
up at _every single startup_. In Vista, the window has useless computer
information, like how much RAM you have. They not only confuse beginners, but
they punish intermediate and advanced users until they find the little
checkbox that says not to start it every time.

~~~
abacad
In fact, Windows 95 would optionally have "<\- Click here to begin" slide
across the taskbar from right to left when the system started up.

------
sysop073
I watched the relevant minute from the clip, wtf is wrong with this guy? He
made fun of the start button thing and everyone laughed, and then showed the
super confusing Windows print dialog and compared it to a "747 shuttle
cockpit", which actually got applause. The dialog has like 4 options on it;
there are more buttons on this HN page than on that print dialog. I may watch
the whole clip later, this is absurd

------
pavelludiq
Having a giant K instead of a start button doesn't make much more sense, but
its on the same place, so if you know what one does, you have to be pretty
stupid not to figure the other one out.

------
timcederman
I guess that's why Vista doesn't have a start button.

~~~
captain-m
I guess it's because almost every windows user is familiar with the button in
the lower left corner nowadays. It's been that way for almost 13 years now.

~~~
bvttf
maybe to make it nicer-looking when the taskbar is on the side of the screen?
[http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/09/20/55055.a...](http://blogs.msdn.com/oldnewthing/archive/2003/09/20/55055.aspx)

------
gaius
This is just more illustration of the cultural difference between the two
camps of developers:

Microsoft: Yes this seems strange, but this is actually what the users want -
and we have tests to prove it - so we'll do it

Linux: RTFM n00bz! Ubuntu! Ubuntu!

~~~
d0mine
As a Windows and Ubuntu user I would find it offensive in a face to face talk.

Your statement is an overgeneralization to say the least.

~~~
gaius
Well here's a question for you:

1) Does Canonical operate a usability lab?

2) Would Ubuntu developers pay any attention if it did?

~~~
captain-m
Canonical doesn't, gnome does. <http://usability.gnome.org/>

------
chrisbroadfoot
10 years later...

------
vaksel
some people have too much free time on their hands

