

Do people really want to look at multiple windows at once? - laurent123456
http://ux.stackexchange.com/q/31207/7235

======
PeterisP
Disregard powerusers - think about office tasks for simple non-tech people
that need multiple applications for a single logical task.

For example, a common scenario of needing reference material while doing or
creating something:

Project manager writing a budget estimate (excel or email) while repeatedly
looking at a project proposal (word or pdf).

Secretary discussing a meeting schedule (email, skype) while looking at
calendars of the involved people.

Any newbie learning a complex task or app while having a tutorial video or
book open next to it.

Journalist writing an article (CMS, etc) while viewing multiple sources and
previous articles.

In many of these cases multiple monitors would be useful as well, but modern
monitor sizes easily allow writing/editing a document on one side of monitor
while viewing the reference part on the other side. The historical way of
doing this is to print out the reference document and attach it next to the
monitor - there are tools for this in any office supply store. Now that screen
space isn't so expensive, it's more efficient to keep both of these documents
in the computer.

If you are a pure consumer of information, you may get by a single window. If
you actually do something, then it's different.

~~~
bloaf
I would argue that if there is an advantage to having more than one monitor,
then there is an advantage to having at least that many software windows. A
sufficiently large monitor could then emulate a multiple-monitor setup.

~~~
laserDinosaur
Assuming you own or have the space for a second monitor.

------
vidarh
As an old Amiga user, I find the "new" movement to full screen UI's amusing.
It's back to the future. 1985 all over again.

And I like it.

I've run most my apps full screen for years, trying to get back to simulating
something like the Amiga "screens".

Now, I _do_ need to see multiple windows at times. But I also prefer not to
_most_ of the time. On the Amiga this was well catered for:

\- You started with the Workbench screen, equivalent of sorts to a normal
desktop + explorer.

\- Applications could open private screens. On a private screen they could
open a "backdrop window" covering the whole background, and treat it as a full
screen UI. And/or they could also open floating windows on top of it.

\- Applications or a utility could open _public_ screens or place windows on
existing public screens. These acted as extra desktops. Say I wanted a shell
and a text editor in it's own workspace per project I'm working on.

Most larger applications let you choose between working in a window on the
workbench screen, "fullscreen" on a private screen, or in a window on a public
screen.

Screens can be "pulled down" to reveal the screen behind, if you for example
want to have a quick look without losing your train of thought.

I'm 95% of the way back there now, with Ubuntu with Unity (even got the global
menu bar back - yay!), but there are still annoying niggles in my workflow..

Another 10 years and maybe the rest of what I miss from AmigaOS will have made
it back into the mainstream (datatypes, more pervasive unified scripting
support of applications, user interfaces that don't grind to a halt when the
machine is under a bit of load, to mention three...)

~~~
keithpeter
" _I'm 95% of the way back there now, with Ubuntu with Unity (even got the
global menu bar back - yay!), but there are still annoying niggles in my
workflow.._ "

What you describe sounds very like the way I use dwm/dmenu (suckless tools on
Linux) on a small screen. Each application has its own 'tab' (workspace in
dwm), those are the private screens. Your 'public' screens sound like the dwm
behaviour where you can 'merge' tabs on a temporary basis, then unmerge. There
is also 'monacle' and 'floating' mode.

xfce4 can also provide 'private' screens by using the alt-F11 keyboard short
cut to remove window decorations, so the program uses the whole screen (no
panels or window decoration visible) but the program's menu bar still shows.
Recent Firefox seems to break this, but LibreOffice works fine.

All that is on 1024 by 600. On 1920 by 1080 x2 I just use a lot of stacked
windows.

Interesting.

~~~
vidarh
Yes, sounds similar. On the Amiga, all screens can have a backdrop window +
floating windows. The backdrop is _usually_ provided by the app that opens the
screen, but not always. On public screens you'd usually only use floating
windows, but there's no real reason why you couldn't ut backdrop windows there
too. No tiling support, though.

I was actually planning on installing dwm or another tiling window manager
until I had Ubuntu 12.04 installed on my new laptop and decided it was nice
enough that I'd try it for a while, and I've stayed with it because enough of
the apps I use on it handles very well to strip various chrome when maximized,
and most of them are nicely integrated with the new global menu bar.

I do use alt-F11 or equivalent for many apps sometimes, but I find it's poorly
tuneable for too many apps. E.g. sometimes I want _some_ chrome, like tabs or
location bar for a browser visible but nothing else, but the full screen modes
for many apps are more "presentation modes" (Chrome on OS-X at least
interestingly separates "full screen" and "presentation mode" - few apps do
that)

It's definitively a way of working that came about due to small screens or low
resolutions (the default Workbench screen on the Amiga was 640x256 for PAL and
640x200 for NTSC... 640x512 or 640x400 if you could stand the flicker of an
interlaced display...), and that makes more difference on small screens, but
these days I tend to use it for larger screens too.

Though on larger screens I do sometimes think I'd like a tiling WM again (I
used to use Ion way back), so I might just give it a shot. I wonder if any of
the tiling WMs would integrate ok with Dash and the global menu bar in Ubuntu,
as I actually really like those parts, though... Perhaps it's time to do some
testing again.

~~~
keithpeter
The 'hit windows key and type' in Unity reminds me of the dmenu system in a
dwm based desktop. There are links around with Unity2d (the QT based version
of Unity supported up to and including 12.04) and xmonad. I've not tried
those. Unity 3d is basically a compiz plug-in, and so compiz _is_ the window
manager.

On my bog standard cheap 1080p monitor, I quite like the dwm main left and
right stack tiling behaviour. Focus follows mouse with keyboard shortcuts for
cycling focus. Mod-m brings the currently focussed window into 'monacle' mode,
i.e. full screen. Mod-t sends the window back to its original tiled position.

Warning: trying out the dwm/dmenu repo package on 12.04 with Unity lead to
problems with incompatible .desktop files, so odd behaviour in a dwm session
with no obvious way back to log-in window. I had to stop X, use a tty to
uninstall dwm and then got back to Unity. I've not fiddled around to find what
the problem was. May have been sorted now.

Nice to have all this choice isn't it?

------
beloch
One of Murphy's laws states:

"If you build something so simple that even an idiot can use it, only idiots
will."

Nobody will use an OS that meets the needs of the most common user types and
stops there. Companies want to deploy the same OS across their entire install
base. A modern OS _must_ meet the needs of _all_ its users. That includes
power users. The question of whether or not most people really need multiple
windows is therefore moot. _Some_ do, so any OS that hopes to be more than a
toy OS _must_ support this feature. Full stop. End of discussion.

There are, of course, workarounds in Windows 8 that power users can use, so
there's no need to panic just yet. Microsoft is certainly aware of how leery
enterprise is of their tablet-desktop fusion. I'd be surprised if Windows 9
doesn't focus on being more desktop friendly.

------
eitland
From the comments :

"Imagine you were doing research and instead of spreading a number of books
across your floor all open at the correct page you had them open stacked on
top of each other and switched books when you needed to... Now tell me how
frustrated you feel. Stuart Wakefield"

Although mostly single window, multiple screens kind of person myself I know
the frustration of having to argue over the correct way for me to do my work
that my paycheck depends on..

~~~
UnoriginalGuy
> Although mostly single window, multiple screens kind of person myself

I'm the same way myself. I will say that even with multiple monitors "Metro"
(modern) apps don't really perform well.

For whatever reason many of them aren't very information dense. So even if you
move each one onto its own monitor for whatever reason much of the available
space is wasted with solid colour or nonsense.

Take a look at this for example: <http://i.imgur.com/TMSwc.png>

Note how little of that is actual information and conversely how much of it is
solid green background.

~~~
vidarh
Ouch. I find myself pulling back from the screen, and then zooming out until
it covered a small corner of the screen before I found it readable... At full
size I had to move my eyes too much. That's really awful.

------
progrock
I'm not familiar with Metro.

On small screens, space is a premium, so I can understand the motivation and
want for full screen / less chrome.

It's also useful when using the computer on a TV. Ideally you want a lower
resolution, or to increase font - sizes, windows controls etc.

On a larger monitor up close, I have no need to maximise the browser window. I
get lost in a sea of white most of the time. In fact sometimes I need to
resize the window - to make text more readable (fluid layouts - which I
ultimately have more control over). If I'm using tabs, the resizing interferes
with the other open web pages though. If I flip back to another page, I may
need to then resize again - which is awkward. In this case I'm better off
using multiple windows rather than tabs. Which I'd prefer if I had better
window management.

I think that tabs were really just a hack around crappy window managers. And
the real subject here is that of window management.

Yes you can use multiple monitors, but you can't assume that people do, or
assume the size of their monitors.

I got so annoyed with crap window management over multiple monitors - that I
prefer to use workspaces. I want to be able to use the keyboard to flip
between monitors/workspaces, and move windows between monitors/workspaces.
Launch windows on particular monitors. Turn external monitors off and on when
I want to. Not having to have one monitor devoted to a task bar etc. Not
having windows pop up where you don't expect them.

The last time I tried Gnome 3 I had trouble with multiple monitors. I can just
about use ARandR under Xfce with an external monitor, but can find multiple
workspaces don't work that well with multiple monitors.

I'd have thought that you'd actually be able to come up with something very
usable with a little thought and common sense.

Back to having multiple windows. You pretty much need them for dragging and
dropping. Which actually is a pretty awkward manoeuvre in itself. Other times
having multiple windows on screen at the same time, is useful for things
monitors/notifiers. Or when on messenger.

I personally alt-tab lots. But it can some times be jarring. And would be no
use if I was wanting to watch something while chatting on IRC.

If I had a CCTV application, and wanted to watch four cameras at the same
time. Would you leave that to the application, or the window manager? It seems
to me that it makes more sense using a window manager rather than doing it in
the application. I mentioned tabs already, and currently this UI is totally
inconsistent across web browsers, let alone other applications.

------
corporalagumbo
Wow, talk about a pointless discussion. Metro is clearly not and never has
been intended to replace desktop productivity work. Desktop mode isn't gone
anywhere. Despite the ridiculous alarmism, Microsoft has shown absolutely zero
signs of intending to get rid of or deprecate it. The worst thing you can say
about Windows 8 is that Microsoft went a little overboard getting rid of the
start menu, and the out-of-the-box workarounds require inelegant Metro-Desktop
bridging. Damn, what a catastrophe... I'm sure Microsoft won't think up
anything better for Windows 9!

------
RyanMcGreal
I've got three monitors - two at 1280x1024 and one at 1366x768 - running on my
workstation and there are times I wish they were bigger or I had a fourth.

The idea of only being able to look at one application at a time - and of not
having a dead-easy and intuitive way to switch between them - seems like an
utterly asinine way to screw up a productive workflow for the mere sake of
fashion.

~~~
maqr
I do pretty much the opposite of you. I only ever use one monitor, but have
the highest resolution display I can get. I'm that guy with the new 15" MBP
set to 2880x1800. The way I look at it, my eyes can only be on one screen at a
time, and my fingers can juggle around the windows faster than I could
physically focus on another monitor.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
Heh. As I get older, the inconvenience of having to move my head around
compares ever more favourably with the inconvenience of having to struggle to
see what I'm looking at. :)

------
UnoriginalGuy
I can see tasks where I might not need multi-windows like generic web-browsing
(e.g. reading Hacker News).

But in general I often have multiple things going on concurrently, be it
video-chat + work, debugger + IDE, responding to an e-mail (having two e-mails
open concurrently is useful), or just any task involving assembling
information (e.g. searching with one window while building a "list" in a
second).

The Metro/tablet style of interface is useful for content consumption, but as
soon as you move into the realm of content creation then it starts to get
tricky.

------
Nursie
I have 9 things open at the moment. I'm actively using about 7 of these (mail
client, eclipse, software loader for embedded device, COM port monitor, device
tech reference, source tree in explorer window, firefox for HN...). These are
spread across two screens, mostly active working programs to the left and
reference material to the right, though not all full screen.

I really don't care what the average user wants, if the system doesn't support
my usage pattern then I'm not going to use it.

~~~
keithpeter
" _I really don't care what the average user wants, if the system doesn't
support my usage pattern then I'm not going to use it._ "

We've had cheap client hardware up to now and for a few years more _because_
the standard UI will support more complex needs. I think that as the bulk of
'casual' computer use moves to smaller portable devices, and as UIs suited to
these 'casual' tasks are simplified, we might find ourselves paying extra for
more capable devices.

Sad admission: I found myself using _my phone_ to check a definition the other
day _while typing a complex paragraph in the wordprocessor on a laptop_. It
just happened.

------
dimitar
I think going back historically, overlapping windows appeared on PCs around
the same time as VGA (more powerfull platforms had them earlier). The early
apps didn't have so many features (and menus) and often had to work together
often so it made sense to have them side by side and not to bother closing
them to open them again in a few seconds.

Now, it depends on the screen (resolution). Isn't it pointless to maximize
everything on a say 23" 1920x1080? I don't. on the side of my browser I often
have chat, terminal, even spreadsheet windows. They even overlap sometimes,
which I don't mind because its convenient for switching. However, on a
1280x800, I maximise my browser, IDE, etc.

~~~
vidarh
I maximize even on large screens because I like to remove the clutter for
focus more than because I need the space. I don't _want_ to have a chat window
or terminal or anything else distracting me when I read or write something,
for example.

~~~
progrock
So if you used workspaces, you could have an active workspace, and just move
the application that you want to focus on into that workspace. Then it
wouldn't matter if it was full screen or not. It could be your distraction
free workspace.

~~~
vidarh
I do use workspaces. And I maximize the applications because when they're the
only one on the workspace I rarely have a reason not to have them fill the
screen.

~~~
progrock
I guess that's down to personal preference. I feel that some applications just
don't suit full screen.

------
interpol_p
Seeing multiple windows at once reminds you that those windows exist and can
be interacted with. It's the out of sight, out of mind thing. People like
multiple windows not because they interact with them or read them
simultaneously, but because they remind you of what you are working on and
what needs your attention.

Single-window workflows work great on tablets and phones, but when you have a
large monitor it's not always necessary to scale windows to the full
resolution. Most apps are 1-dimensional — your code scrolls vertically, your
video timeline track horizontally, and so on.

~~~
progrock
Good point about visual reminders. Probably why I end up using tabs instead of
bookmarks, and because the bookmark UI in browsers is poor.

------
jpswade
Computers have become an "everything machine", to do everything you want, you
need multiple windows.

However, things are changing. Consumers have realised that it is more
productive to use a tool to carry out a particular task and get the job done.

They are fed up of having to wait for their PC to boot, do any updates, fix
any problems and try and remember the original task they wanted to do. It's no
longer acceptable. That's even before we mention the confusion of having
multiple windows (think grandma).

People now expect things to happen instantly so they can use a device as a
tool to carry out a single task. (ie: I need check my bank account - switch on
device, open banking app, check account, turn device off).

This type of paradigm shift means that not only do people no longer need
multiple windows, they have realised they no longer want them either.

Not only that, but as we get more and more smart devices, we don't need or
want multiple windows as we'll have multiple devices instead.

------
hayksaakian
Only when switching between them requires an ounce of thought, OR they
interact in some way.

Like if you're recording your screen, you want to be able to see the controls,
the viewport, and the recorded region all at once, typically on many monitors.

------
Kiro
"For example, a web developer will be looking at 2 windows all the time - a
text editor and a browser."

I'm a web developer and I never do this. Why would I? One window is always
sufficient for me.

~~~
rartichoke
That's because you likely haven't optimized your development experience.

With both open at once and the ability to auto-reload you see instant feedback
by just moving your eyes a foot or 2 over (assuming dual monitors here)
instead of having to alt-tab cycle into the correct window or move your hands
and use the mouse.

I usually have a few things in view while developing and it's just annoying
(read: poor user experience) if I have to fumble around switching between full
sized windows.

Why would I need a full screen terminal. It's a million times more productive
to use something like tmux and have 3 or 4 terminals open which are
effectively multiple windows.

~~~
vidarh
I usually put things on a separate desktop, and only cycle between the windows
on that desktop, so I never have to press more than one key combination that
is an easy combination to make with one hand, to switch between the two. I'd
much rather do that than have to shift my head all the time.

I certainly don't want the distraction of stuff auto-reloading while I'm still
working on a change (e.g. switching to the next file I want to update).

------
hdra
YES. No doubt at all.

But, then again, the article the question are referring to are kind of wrong
anyway. The Windows 8's single window thing is meant for tablet and other
consumption that is suitable for that kind of thing. His argument about the
Windows 8 becoming less usable for power users are completely wrong, the metro
interface is meant for the things that you would do on tablet, i.e. not power
user-ish things.

~~~
laurent123456
Yet I think he has a point - Metro is the default interface not just on tablet
but also on PC. Microsoft are clearly pushing for this to become the main
Windows interface, this is clear both in their App store, where regular
applications are second class citizens, and the system itself where the
regular desktop is a kind of optional interface.

------
nicholassmith
I love multiple windows _sometimes_. Computer usage doesn't have to be a
choice of this or that, they're clever enough to be both. I use multiple
desktop spaces, one might have a web browser and terminal window, the next
will usually be a full screen editor if I'm on my Air with no monitor,
otherwise it's a mostly full screen editor with a second terminal window. Pick
whichever works for your productivity.

------
stickdick
Have people actually tried out Windows 8? On a desktop PC, once you get past
the start screen it's almost identical to Windows 7.

~~~
bloaf
I have actually recently found two differences that made me consider switching
back to windows 7:

In windows 8 the only way to create an ad-hoc network is via the command line.

In windows 8, you cannot configure a VPN to redial a dropped connection.

------
Mordor
Isn't Windows 8 a tiling window manager?

~~~
J_Darnley
I believe the answer is "Yes, but only up to two tiles in two choices of
layouts: 1/3 and 2/3 or 2/3 and 1/3"

------
antihero
Yup, I use a tiling window manager extensively.

------
dredmorbius
Is water wet?

Next.

------
mosselman
Yes

