It's always nice to see UI/UX people respond to user input and admit when they are wrong, rather than berate their users for not understanding the product. This sort of humbleness seems to be becoming increasingly rare.
In the past Microsoft has done well for themselves by listening to their business users and prioritizing their concerns about backwards compatibility. I hope this revert represents a natural continuation of that policy.
It undoubtedly helps that the key people behind the Windows 8 Ux have either left Microsoft or left the Windows org. So perhaps it's less 'we screwed up,' and more 'they screwed up.'
Except they've added all that metro crap to the already cluttered start menu. Their UI team is still a long way from acknowledging the failure of integrating metro with the desktop; and windows 8 will continue to be a mess until they do.
8.1 has the option to boot to desktop, they could enable that by default.
Personally I don't see Metro as a UI failure, my productivity actually increased with metro. I rarely need to use the mouse, which is great.
Also, hitting the windows key to switch screens is not a big deal, my grand parents complain about it a little, but the pains of having to explain finding stuff in the start menu to them and other older relatives has stopped happening.
Additionally with the docking capability of the task bar aka "pin program to task bar" had made the start menu quite redundant since win 7.
How so? What productivity enhancements exist in Win8 that do not in Win7?
This is a genuine question. I upgraded to and use Win8 daily for about 14 months now because I like running the latest stable software (from any vendor). But, with the exception of no longer being able to search without going full screen, it's exactly the same.
Edit
There is one fairly big enhancement I completely forgot about: the "power users menu" accessible via right-click in the bottom left corner or by pressing Windows-X. Of course this has nothing to do with "metro".
For one, there's two efficient axes of navigation along the Metro start menu, you can go left-right or up-down with your keyboard, which is SO much more amazing than the "hold down down key for 6 seconds. Awp go back up five. Now hit right four times. Enter" to launch an app that is actually "pinned" to your start menu. I can orient my Metro tiles how I want, and I know I can get to it within 5-6 arrow-key presses max. This is very nice and for the first time in 6 years I've actually used the Windows key to open the start menu for something other than shutting down (have been for the last 18 months of using Windows 8.x).
Going full screen really doesn't bother me one bit. I'm launching a new app, I'm losing context anyway. I find this similar to Apple's launchpad or whatever that OSX thing is that I never use because Spotlight and Terminal is all I need from that OS.
Vaguely related to improving productivity, Win8 has significantly better multi-monitor support out of the box, with all the flexibility I'd want, and with it better window management, than either of OSX or Win7.
Don't people on windows launch apps by hitting the windows key and then typing the first few letters of the program they want to run?
They changed this around windows 7 where you don't even need to hit "r" for run, It took me about two years to retrain myself on Windows 7 that when I wanted to start cmd, that I didn't have to type [WIN]+'r'+'cmd', and could just type [WIN]+'cmd'.
on Win7 I cannot remember the last time I actually navigated the start menu to launch a program. It's either on quicklaunch (pinned if you prefer) or win + search.
Every time I create a VM with 8 to try and use it, I last about a week and give up.
1. Dock/Pin primary apps to task bar (same as win 7)
2. Organized(Grouped)/stripped down metro for less-frequently used apps. Removed tiles for any apps that I do not use -> Reduces the number of apps I need to pin to the task bar -> Hit Win Key to quickly switch to Metro and select app
3. The first win 8.1 update (released 5-6 months ago) reduced the search to 25% of the screen. Hit "Win + S" for search under classic mode. Personally I just hit the Win Key and start typing, enters metro momentarily.
4. First win 8.1 release added a start button to the task bar. Hated it for 2 secs(for reducing my task-bar space). Right clicked start button and realized I could remove a couple of additional tiles/task bar pins. Keyboard shortcut is "Win + X".
4.1. Tip: Right clicking the start menu has a Quicker shutdown menu option. Tip 2: Additional shortcuts for the menu are only displayed if you use the keyboard shortcut to open the menu.
In practice, none of this comes close to compensating for the slower usage of the start screen vs. start menu, if only for the visually jarring effect it has. Additionally, normal document-oriented usage is considerably less practical since they removed the Recent files and the (implicit) recent/most used applications list from the start interface. Then there's the time lost due to unintended edge-pulls and hotcorners.
Interop between modern and classic is still terrible - no windowed modern apps (nor for that matter modern-docked classic apps), and start search is split by app type (as is so much of the UI).
The modern UI also suffers from not allowing renaming of apps, especially since so many apps+settings come in modern and classic flavors. Is that blaryscroo app in the search results the modern or classic variant? The icon looks plain, maybe that means it's modern? This is basically app-starting by trial-and error. If you try to rename the less-useful blaryscroo modern version to something like "blaryscroo (modern)"... well, you can't. Want to right-click the app for traditional options such as recently-opened files by that app - you can't do that either in the start screen.
All in all, for practical plain, boring, actually getting-things-done windows 8.1 simply hasn't made much of difference vs. windows 8, and it's made a rather negative difference vs. windows 7.
Don't get me wrong - I'm happier with boot-to-desktop than without it, but frankly, booting isn't where I spend most of my time, and then you're left with the fact that the start screen is really just a slightly larger, slower start menu - and the rest of the OS is a usability disaster for desktop usage. Despite the hype, windows 8.1 was virtually irrelevant for desktop usage.
I didn't downvote you, but I can only speak from personal experience that I haven't found the start screen to be any slower vs. the start menu.
None of the negatives you mention apply to my usecase (I don't typically rename shortcuts, nor did I ever use the recent files functionality etc.)
But what I do find is that the start screen is faster for opening the application I'm looking for: I'm either searching for a particular name as with the start menu, where the speed is about the same, or I'm browsing around looking for something whose name I can't remember, for which I find my groupings of smart tiles far easier to parse in a quick glance than I ever found navigating a directory structure in the start menu.
A directory tree to open applications still seems a bit like a holdover from the filesystem design, rather than an interface that's been designed for the purpose of finding the right application fastest.
not the downvoter, but my 2c:
> if only for the visually jarring effect it has
I don't find the effect jarring in the slightest, actually. there's a gentle fade into the background and then the tiles fade in, which I find quite easy on the eyes.
> since they removed the Recent files
I work with my apps pinned to taskbar. If I want to open my last VS solution, I right click on VS and click the top icon, which is the recent list? Maybe there was another recent list.
> Interop between modern and classic is still terrible
I agree here, in fact I would go as far as to say it's non existent, although I'm not 100% sure what sort of interaction I would expect between them. Allowing the metro apps access to more functionality would reduce the sandbox level in WinRT, so that's not going to happen. The only way I can see it happening is if MS give desktop apps access ti metro/modern app data, which is a privacy nightmare, so I don't know what the solution here is. I'd be interested in hearing one though.
> no windowed modern apps
Article says all MS universal apps will be windowed going forward, so I guess that means they're backing down on this.
> start search is split by app type
don't know what you mean here. If I type in "Evernote", I get
Evernote(desktop App)
Evernote(text file I have named evernote)
Evernote(Metro App)
> The modern UI also suffers from not allowing renaming of apps.
Rename the classic ones so?
> but frankly, booting isn't where I spend most of my time
Where do you spend most of your time? By the sounds of your criticisms, searching among the number of metro and classic apps you have installed, on the metro screen? I don't know about you, but 95% of my time is spent with FF, visual studio, spotify, sourcetree and 3DS max open, none of which are affected by the metro interface, so nothing has changed for me.
The only complaint people have is the start screen for Windows 8, which seems to more be a case of "I like the start menu", although as you state there is some missing functionality re: recent files. But what about the improvements?
My boot time was cut substantially, I'm on my desktop(including going via the start screen because I like booting to it and seeing the live update travel tile and looking forward to my next holdiay) in ~ 8 seconds.
Much better multiple monitor support, for backgrounds, multi-taskbars.
Built in reset and restore settings.
File History: this is awesome. Works like time machine for OSX and is a major upgrade over Backup and Restore.
I've also noticed my usage is snappier than it was on 7, and an increase in battery life on my MBP ( I run bootcamp).
Built in ISO mounting (bye bye wincdemu) is also cool. Overall, I'm happy, and won't be changing back.
Oh yeah, there are definitely technical advances, and they're not trivial. But they just don't compensate for the UI issues, and those are problematic.
e.g. on the interaction front, I'm not talking about technical interaction, but UI interaction - there's no reason metro apps can't run in a window nor classic apps can't run in fullscreen, even if their design won't be optimal for the non-normal UI. As is, you're forced to use two quite different UI's intermixed with one another. (Task-switching between classic+modern is problematic too).
I spend most of my time in and switching among the application I use to work/play in. I think the worst missing feature is the missing recent files/applications feature which means that ad-hoc workloads with various single-purpose tools are quite unhandy. It's not just recent files: the same thing counts for recent programs. Win7 provides taskbar (and start) pinning for your really common programs. Win8 provides start customization. But for the rest - the stuff you organically happen to use a lot for a particular task - Win8 has no alternative to the win7 recent programs.
Boot time: that's nice, but I really don't care very much - my old boot time was less than 30s, and now it's probably even less - but how often do you reboot?
I haven't noticed the multi-monitor support being better, what's the advantage?
In any case: there's no doubt that win8 has numerous technical advancements - and frankly, I like the modern interface. That makes it all the more aggravating that the UI is such a haphazard mess. The problem isn't modern - it's how they've done virtually no work in coordinating between the two UIs. If good integration is impossible, I'd even rather just have a mode-switch: render everything in classic mode, or everything in modern, regardless of what the app was really designed for.
Since 8.1, you can actually search without going fullscreen by pressing Win+S, which reveals a search sidebar on the right side without bringing up the start screen.
I have barely touched W8, but have they removed the Win+R run command? My go-to-prompt tends to be "Win+R c m d Enter" on XP and 7 (and "Cmd+Space t e r Enter" on Mac OS X).
I find the new task manager much more informative and it often saves me from starting the resource monitor. The new file transfer log is also very fancy and useful, although that doesn't really count as a productivity enhancement.
Then why not pin those to the start screen, as well, and have an even larger mouse target for getting started that isn't at the bottom of your screen? (Unless you're using Win+1-9, in which case, ignore me)
My mother recently got a new laptop and wanted that new "windows 8.1 thingy and a touch screen" I dont think she even noticed that the start menu was gone.
Metro itself wasn't the problem though, imo. It's the UX of going back and forth to do simple tasks that is the problem.
Example: how do you restart or shutdown your Windows 8.1 machine when you're on the desktop? Go to the start screen. Click your name, sign out, click the screen so it 'opens', click the power button, click restart or shutdown from the menu.
Or just go to the bottom right corner of the screen, wait for the charms bar to pop up, click the Preferences icon then shutdown. Which still doesn't make a lot of sense, but is simpler than what you described.
Yeah, and it's really f*cking annoying to try to do that on a remote desktop to a Win2012 server with the same horrible UI. On a desktop you can just drag your cursor to the bottom right.. in an RDP window, it isn't so easy.
Beyond that, Metro is horrible when you have more than one large monitor. The UI simple doesn't scale well in that environment. It looks like 8.1 update 1 will finally be much closer to how it should have been.
It reminds me of Vista, where half the control panel UI was updated, and half wasn't, and it was just a bad mix of old/new. I don't mind a new UI. For that matter, I'm really digging Ubuntu's Unity interface, ymmv on that.
I think that Windows 7 had a really nice UI, and that metro should have been an option on top of that from the beginning. Trying to make a unifying UX for interfaces from your phone to tablet to dual-monitor desktops just doesn't work that well. You really need two options, and making the UI work for those metro apps in the desktop context makes more sense.
Yeah, and it's really fcking annoying to try to do that on a remote desktop to a Win2012 server with the same horrible UI. On a desktop you can just drag your cursor to the bottom right.. in an RDP window, it isn't so easy.
And the Server 2012 R2 upgrade was not free unlike Win8.1. While at it, don't forget the lack of IE11 too.
That doesn't work if you're RDPing from another Win8 machine, the local OS swallows the keybind. What you actually need to press is Alt + Home or Alt + Delete (good luck figuring that out without doing a web search).
I'm actually really confused why this is, it seems to be such an important use case. I would not be surprised if they didn't even test WS2012.
Except that that gets you precisely one option, which isn't even normally the one I'm looking for. When pressing the power button somehow gives the the restart/sleep/shutdown option, then it will make sense.
This has been around forever, since at least Windows 2000. The power button signals the OS through ACPI to shut down correctly. It wasn't always reliable on all hardware and BIOSes, and didn't always default to that behavior until set in Control Panel - Power Options, but soft power-off is supposed to have been working for a long time and is hardly new.
> Or just press the power button, which actually does make a lot of sense.
No it doesn't. Pressing the power button implements what the PC maker wants to implement. In many cases (especially on laptops) it's for the computer to go to sleep.
I think I heard their justification once was that they thought it was a bit of an anachronism that we'd press a hardware button to turn a PC on, but would have to go through a software route in order to turn it off. Every other electrical device usually has a single on/off button, and in a world of ACPI it's entirely reasonable for that to be the same as a default "turn off" action on a PC. Initiating a manual restart or true shutdown then becomes more of a power-user thing that, yes, perhaps it does make sense as a Settings panel.
I actually had to Google "How to restart Windows 8?" - How can 'restart/shut down' be a setting. That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen about Windows in all these years.
Or even better, right-click the bottom left corner of the screen, go to Shutdown or Sign-out. Along with a ton of other stuff that power users want most of the time.
> Example: how do you restart or shutdown your Windows 8.1 machine when you're on the desktop?
I've been out of Windows for a long time, is this something that comes up much? Even with a laptop, I'd think you mostly be suspending it by closing the lid.
Can you still use the physical power button to bring up the shutdown menu?
It's something you hardly ever do. Even if there's been some kind of installation/update that requires a reboot, it tends to be able to trigger that itself (which can cause other pain, but that's for another day).
There are some people who like to shut down their machines, though. I think they haven't forgotten the days when a good reboot once a day was necessary to clear out cobwebs.
That's what I figured. I reboot my Mac when updates require it, and every once in a while if something weird is going on I might reboot it, but by and large my computer has uptime's in the weeks.
On OS X it's somewhat rare for an update for require a reboot. Often they don't actually reboot the machine but just log you out, perform the update, and then log you back in.
While these updates feel like a reboot since you lose your desktop environment state, you can tell the difference if you're paying close enough attention.
I do this all the time. Just right click the windows icon in the bottom LEFT corner. A context menu pops up with an option to shutdown, restart, log out, or sleep.
I don't see MS as humble here at all. They are backtracking because they are forced to backtrack as it is evident that their idea of an OS does not work. But do they backtrack in the right fashion? No. "As little as possible" seems to be the mission statement.
People want the old start menue back. They voice their opinions as "Where is the start button?" To anyone with half a brain it should be clear that they didn't just mean the UI element of that button but the functionality behind it. And as much as I hate Microsoft's shortcomings as of late, I doubt that they really believed "Well, if they just want that button, give them the button but once clicked it'll still do the same shift to metro it did before. That should give people what they want" I doubt anybody could be that dense.
And even this "return of the old start menue" is not what people want. As they still keep on with the Metro part of things.
A simple choice during install. Is all that is needed. "Do you want touch or desktop?" Touch meaning Metro and desktop meaning, well, desktop. Without any metro tile nonsense what-so-ever. Done. All of the issues with Win8 and I mean all of them would be gone. But that doesn't fit with Microsoft's vision of having tiles everywhere. So, by the way they are "fixing" win8 and refusing to acknowledge that metro needs to die, at least on the desktop, I really doubt that "Win9" would be any better.
We finally get off the "every other version of windows is usable" because now, every version of windows will be worse than its predecessor.
I don't know if I really mind the metro crap being there. Some of the "at a glance" stuff will be really useful (weather, mail, social, etc.) for quick views. In some ways that stuff already is useful, but having to roll out the big start menu that incompasses my entire screen to view was a bit silly, imo.
You are clearly too young to remember the rage people had back then.
WinXP was "Busy" compared to Win98. Those who wanted busier, more colorful schemes could always install a color pack or customize their windows as appropriately.
WinXP released with basically one colorpack, and removed the option of going back to the older "classier" gray look from Win98 / Win95.
I agree, however some user-loved UX paradigms hold you back from moving the product forward (Faster buggy problem) and listening to your users complain about nostalgia slowly makes you less competitive once some other company launches a better, newer UX.
That being said, nothing is an excuse for a bad or confusing UX pattern -- and Windows 8 had plenty of those on TOP of removing the start button, making people less forgiving of its removal.
makes me wonder,what kind of A/B testing they did before launching W8 at first place, or ModernUI was supposed to replce it, or was it just because some executive decided people did not need a start menu anymore.
Windows 7, Office 2010, etc. "phone home" by default, sending them usage patterns. But power user usually deactivate such intrusive annoyance.
Lessons learned the hard way: Don't rely completely on automatically gathered metrics. Do not piss off the community that develops applications for your platform.
Calling the data gathering intrusive is a bit of a stretch. Considerable efforts are made to ensure you're anonymized and personally identifiable information is not gathered. There are people to actively work to ensure you're not "tracked" in any way.
Off-Topic: I'd be interested to see the number of people who turn off the Microsoft CEIP (terrible abbreviation), yet still use a Google id and/or accept DoubleClick cookies.
As someone who has worked at Microsoft, I can tell you they spend thousands of hours on usability studies and the managers watch. Also there are countless readouts and documents summarizing the findings.
Microsoft spends an incredible amount of resources on usability studies.
Used to work at Microsoft too; the usability findings that agree with the existing strategy were kept, the ones that disagreed were ignored. They weren't taken seriously, and were slathered on after the product was 90% complete.
Those who decided whom to pay to do the studies received exactly what they wanted. The support for their managerial decisions and the proof how smart they are.
Oh, are we already jumping on the bash Microsoft band wagon so soon? You seriously think a company like Microsoft did no usability testing? That'd be quite shocking as Metro itself utilizes a ton of new research on UX and interaction design.
Oh, please. Stop denouncing all criticism as the "bash MS bandwagon." Removing the start menu was a terrible idea that anyone who cared could have predicted - MS screwed up somewhere. But this is no surprise. Their UI design has been consistently poor for decades. Sure maybe they did user studies but their dog ate them. Maybe their initial designs were all so poor that what they rolled out was the best of the bunch. Maybe they had the most amazing UI design but couldn't get it through the office politics. I don't know everything they failed at in their process but it doesn't matter. Whatever it is they are doing doesn't work.
This WAS predicted by many users and blogs prior to the release of Windows 8. Criticisms started a year prior to the official release of Windows 8, with the consumer preview version.
"This WAS predicted by many users and blogs prior to the release of Windows 8."
There will be people saying negative things about any change. Often they'll be right, whether for the right reasons or the wrong ones. I wasn't asserting that no one predicted it, I was trying to get at why the parent was asserting it was terrible.
I haven't watched the video, but at a skim the article raises quite a few points, most to all of which have nothing to do with the start menu in particular.
It's a core paradigm of windows for as long as I remember. If you removed the steering wheel from your car do you think drivers would be surprised? Upset? Confused? If you had any common sense and don't have a case of Microsoft stockholm syndrome you would.
Removing the steering wheel (which is used for continuous, delicate control) is much more akin to removing the mouse/keyboard than the Start Menu - and guess what? Lots of computing devices these days are doing that as well.
Removing the start menu is more like changing how the ignition works (hasn't stopped the sale of Priuses) or changing how you shift gears (also has happened plenty of times).
Familiarity is certainly a consideration, but it's not the only consideration, and when you elevate it too highly you get stuck unable to fix anything. Mind you, I'm not saying they didn't - in retrospect - underweight it. There is certainly evidence they did. Though I'm honestly not sure to just what degree the backlash is vocal-minority versus generally felt. In my own (few) experiences with modern Windows systems, I wasn't shocked by the lack of a Start Menu - but my computer hasn't had a start menu for the better part of a decade so I'm obviously highly unrepresentative.
> It's always nice to see UI/UX people respond to user input and admit when they are wrong, rather than berate their users for not understanding the product. This sort of humbleness seems to be becoming increasingly rare.
You must be kidding. In a big company like Microsoft I would have hoped they listen to user feedback BEFORE they release stuff, not just after. This is really the wrong way to design UI - they were clearly not humble in the first place when they pushed for the removal of the start button, but they still went on with it.
I agree, Metro on a small touch device is good, and being able to drop to the desktop to do "computer stuff" is awesome when you need it.
On a 27" desktop? Oh god, Metro is a nightmare. I've been using StartIsBack but I'm glad there'll be a properly sanctioned start menu soon. Hopefully it will lead to greater adoption of Win8, as besides that one major blunder, is not too bad at all!
In the past Microsoft has done well for themselves by listening to their business users and prioritizing their concerns about backwards compatibility. I hope this revert represents a natural continuation of that policy.