The Great Modern UI Debate Thread

[Ian S.]

Windows UI Debate Thread

 

To modernize or not to modernize, that is the question...

As per many member requests and moderator suggestions, I have created a spin-off from the debate going on here:

https://www.neowin.net/forum/topic/1229527-windows-technical-preview/page-98#entry596698968

Please keep that thread on topic for the Tech Preview news.

 

This thread is for a healthy debate, a thread specifically for this argument so it is no longer "off topic".

 

Please post as per Neowin's rules.

 

Sound off below!

[DConnell Member]

Yes, with controls to fine tune how the balance between Modern/traditional is for your machine.

 

Edit: It isn't a strict either-or choice, or a "desktop vs. tablet" issue. It's about letting the users decide how their system looks and works - letting us choose the older style or the new - or a mix thereof. It's the same problem we've had since Windows 95, when the Menu was forced on us with the option to use Progman almost completely hidden (and poorly supported).

 

Microsoft has never really given us the choice to use an older version of the UI rather than the latest thing - at best you could skin the new version to resemble the old. Which was why all the complaints about no choice seemed odd - we've never had a choice! I certainly wouldn't have used the Menu in 95 if I'd known Program Manager had been available!

 

So this kind of choice is a new, unprecedented thing, and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

I voted "yes"...with a caveat.  As long as they fine tune it so that it isn't just for the visually impaired,  In that I mean...applications such as calculator do not need to take up 1/3 of the screen.  Scalability is key.  They also need to make the applications just as powerful as the w32 programs they are replacing...not dumb down versions.

[Dot Matrix]

It's time to go all modern. The 1990's were over 20 years ago, computers have changed, and so have the user habits. It's time to face the facts, and update the pieces of Windows that have been left to sit since then to scalable, modern equivalents, and decommission what doesn't belong anymore. People aren't bound by traditional desktops anymore.

 

Start is receiving a great upgrade, along with the Control Panel being decommissioned. Now it's time to start looking at upgrading the taskbar, and the old static icons that still populate Windows to something that'll be a bit more productive.

[Luc2k]

I voted "yes"...with a caveat.  As long as they fine tune it so that it isn't just for the visually impaired,  In that I mean...applications such as calculator do not need to take up 1/3 of the screen.  Scalability is key.  They also need to make the applications just as powerful as the w32 programs they are replacing...not dumb down versions.

Have you seen Skype 7.0? They added a "compact" mode to it that barely makes a difference from normal mode. I think scalability is too much to ask of them especially since wasted space is a trademark of the Modern UI.

[Studio384]

Have you seen Skype 7.0? They added a "compact" mode to it that barely makes a difference from normal mode. I think scalability is too much to ask of them especially since wasted space is a trademark of the Modern UI.

They added a "Compact view for sidebar" mode. Not for the entire application. And it makes a huge difference, throug hit isn't realy a compact mode, just another way to show contacts like we had in Windows Live Messenger.

[Luc2k]

They added a "Compact view for sidebar" mode. Not for the entire application. And it makes a huge difference, throug hit isn't realy a compact mode, just another way to show contacts like we had in Windows Live Messenger.

No, that was there in the betas before 7.0, but Compact Chat View is new to it. The feedback thread is a nice read. So, giant buttons and wasted space are here to stay for the Modern UI in case we need to press said buttons with our foreheads.

[Dot Matrix]

No, that was there in the betas before 7.0, but Compact Chat View is new to it. The feedback thread is a nice read. So, giant buttons and wasted space are here to stay for the Modern UI in case we need to press said buttons with our foreheads.

Modern buttons are no bigger than the legacy counterparts.

[Eric Veteran]

[Pinned]

[DConnell Member]

Modern buttons are no bigger than the legacy counterparts.

 

Anything larger than 16x16 pixels is wasteful! /s

 

I don't understand why people insist on retaining icon and button sizes that made sense on 640x480 screens, but are ludicrously tiny on a modern monitor.

 

And what's wrong with white space? I don't think cramming everything together as tightly as possible is good design, or helps anyone find what they need.

[Dot Matrix]

Anything larger than 16x16 pixels is wasteful! /s

I don't understand why people insist on retaining icon and button sizes that made sense on 640x480 screens, but are ludicrously tiny on a modern monitor.

And what's wrong with white space? I don't think cramming everything together as tightly as possible is good design, or helps anyone find what they need.

Qft

[PGHammer]

Yes, with controls to fine tune how the balance between Modern/traditional is for your machine.

 

Edit: It isn't a strict either-or choice, or a "desktop vs. tablet" issue. It's about letting the users decide how their system looks and works - letting us choose the older style or the new - or a mix thereof. It's the same problem we've had since Windows 95, when the Menu was forced on us with the option to use Progman almost completely hidden (and poorly supported).

 

Microsoft has never really given us the choice to use an older version of the UI rather than the latest thing - at best you could skin the new version to resemble the old. Which was why all the complaints about no choice seemed odd - we've never had a choice! I certainly wouldn't have used the Menu in 95 if I'd known Program Manager had been available!

 

So this kind of choice is a new, unprecedented thing, and it'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

DConnell - that is something I have been arguing for from the beginning.  It's not about what you use, but how you use it.

There is too much in ModernUI - if not WinRT - that is not touch-dependent - why do you think that the Surface/RT still includes a pointing device, despite it supporting touch?

 

That was indeed a concern for Microsoft - how many WOULD have moved away from Program Manager and File Manager given an honest choice?  They stacked the deck - and they aren't the FIRST OS/distribution vendor to do it, either.  Then there is the profit issue - Microsoft, even then, was still the largest OEM of pointing devices on the planet.  (How big was Microsoft's deal with Dell for hardware in 1995 alone?)  We - as users - aren't stupid; however, we DO have our biases, and the Start menu cooperated with them - Program Manager/File Manager didn't.  (While the Windows 3.x UI (which didn't completely go away) supported pointing devices, it didn't really kiss up to them the way the Start menu/Explorer did. - I didn't point to NT 3.51/Office 95 for my health.)

 

Windows 8/8.1 - minus any sort of bringback - is the first neutral UI for Windows since 3.x; however, the mere fact that it's a WINDOWS UI is exposing just how entrenched pointing devices have gotten over the Start menu's lifetime.  (Linux distributions had the same argument over the change in direction merely with GNOME 4.x - and to an extent with KDE 4.5x; what was the screaming about - from users AND developers in both cases?)

[PGHammer]

No, that was there in the betas before 7.0, but Compact Chat View is new to it. The feedback thread is a nice read. So, giant buttons and wasted space are here to stay for the Modern UI in case we need to press said buttons with our foreheads.

No - giant buttons are needed due to pointing-device dexterity issues - it has nothing to do with touch per se at all (though touch users may have need of it, depending on the device).

Do you really think that even pointing-device-driven users are ALL expert mouse users?  Or that even all touch devices are perfect when it comes to press-detection?

There are software and/or hardware flaws inside EVERY mechanism of both sorts - I've seen them, and even experienced them.  It has nothing to do with the OS they operate, either - even iDevices aren't perfect in this regard.

Heck, look at merely the Android forum right here on Neowin; every Android device has SOME sort of flaw.

 

In fact, the dexterity issue is also one of the drivers behind screen growth - in both tablets and smartphones - as well as the increased interest in "phablets"; larger buttons are easier for the "flumbel-flingered" to deal with. (Have we forgotten one of Western Electric's rather kitchy surprise hits when they went into retail household phones - the infamous Big Button Phone?  It - and its variants - still sell, and in large numbers - and well outside the original target market (senior citizens).

[Dutchie64]

DConnell - that is something I have been arguing for from the beginning.  It's not about what you use, but how you use it.

There is too much in ModernUI - if not WinRT - that is not touch-dependent - why do you think that the Surface/RT still includes a pointing device, despite it supporting touch?

 

Actually, -only- the Surface RT/2 doesn't have a stylus. The Surface PRO has one, but with the integratedd digitizer is SUPPOSED to be used with a stylus. Ever used a wacom? Now you have that on a tablet :-D

I agree fully some UI parts are better off with a stylus, but that's growing pains.

 

Me personally like the way the UI is moving, it's clean and simple. And that's what people want/need, hence the iPhone/Pads sales.. ;-)

[PGHammer]

Actually, -only- the Surface RT/2 doesn't have a stylus. The Surface PRO has one, but with the integratedd digitizer is SUPPOSED to be used with a stylus. Ever used a wacom? Now you have that on a tablet :-D

I agree fully some UI parts are better off with a stylus, but that's growing pains.

 

Me personally like the way the UI is moving, it's clean and simple. And that's what people want/need, hence the iPhone/Pads sales.. ;-)

I have used most Wacom models - going back to (surprisingly) Windows 3.x - however, they take getting used to - even if you use one INSTEAD of a mouse.  (The same applies to trackpads, and trackballs.)

 

However, as much as folks like the clean design of iOS, even there, keyboards and even mice are showing up.  (One of the most popular add-ons for iPads - regardless of size - is a physical keyboard.)

 

It still comes down to being comfortable - I get that much.  However, not everyone works the same way - which is why I resent the either/or line of thinking.

[Ian S.]

I have used most Wacom models - going back to (surprisingly) Windows 3.x - however, they take getting used to - even if you use one INSTEAD of a mouse.  (The same applies to trackpads, and trackballs.)

 

However, as much as folks like the clean design of iOS, even there, keyboards and even mice are showing up.  (One of the most popular add-ons for iPads - regardless of size - is a physical keyboard.)

 

It still comes down to being comfortable - I get that much.  However, not everyone works the same way - which is why I resent the either/or line of thinking.

As far as I know, a physical mouse does not work with iPad right?

[PGHammer]

As far as I know, a physical mouse does not work with iPad right?

Not WIRED - instead you see wireless ones (the ones that support BT) - the same applies to the keyboards.

 

Still, the fact that they are popular doesn't exactly bolster the argument of some folks that it's "all wireless all the time" even in the world of smartphones and tablets.

 

Basically, absolutism has become a joke.

[firey]

Windows 7 works perfectly well, as long as I can use the same ui as I do in that (8.1 is getting there) and I don't have a bunch of full screen apps or windows I am good.  If they can do the perfect balance with 10.. keep the modern stuff... but I am not a touch user.  There is a big difference between "You can use a mouse and keyboard" and "Designed for a mouse and keyboard".

[PGHammer]

Windows 7 works perfectly well, as long as I can use the same ui as I do in that (8.1 is getting there) and I don't have a bunch of full screen apps or windows I am good.  If they can do the perfect balance with 10.. keep the modern stuff... but I am not a touch user.  There is a big difference between "You can use a mouse and keyboard" and "Designed for a mouse and keyboard".

The point I have been trying to make is that not every user - not even every pointing-device user - wants the "classic" Start menu to return,  Even more telling, third-parties have rushed in to fill that gap, making the entire issue one of user choice (which it hasn't been since Windows 3.x).  Choice (according to even them) is supposed to be a good thing, so why must it be either/or?.

 

I haven't criticized any of the bringbacks, because I don't have a need for any of them - the very epitomy of user-choice.  If a user DOES feel the need for them, they can have them - I don't have a problem with that.  ModernUI actually does have benefits for me - and those benefits have exactly nothing to do with touch, because my hardware (none of it) supports touch.  Cortana has benefits for all users as well - again, it is utterly irrespective of how users get around the OS.  (Google Now is, in fact, being brought to Chrome - and to Windows, where it will compete heads-up against Cortana; has Microsoft said "boo" to that?  More choice for users - and I have no beef with that, either.)

 

The benefits of Windows 8.x (and the Tech Preview) for me have exactly nothing to do with touch - otherwise I would NOT have moved, and I would have explained why.  User-choice doesn't scare or even frighten me - not in the least.  Taking choice away DOES frighten me, and especially since I have been used to having that choice.  It appears (to me at least) that the real issue is about control - a biased (in any direction) UI/UX takes choice away - a UI/UX in Windows 8.x fashion does not.

[Dot Matrix]

The best thing MS can do in Windows 10 is completely removing this Metro / tiles / Modern UI disease

Which they are not doing. So, good day.

 

You're failing to realize that Windows 10 is going to be more than just a desktop OS, and as such needs to have a universal UI - Metro/Modern.

[Eric Veteran]

Please be civil and don't bait other users or you will be removed from the discussion.

[Jim K Global Moderator]

 

The benefits of Windows 8.x (and the Tech Preview) for me have exactly nothing to do with touch - otherwise I would NOT have moved, and I would have explained why.  User-choice doesn't scare or even frighten me - not in the least.  Taking choice away DOES frighten me, and especially since I have been used to having that choice.  It appears (to me at least) that the real issue is about control - a biased (in any direction) UI/UX takes choice away - a UI/UX in Windows 8.x fashion does not.

 

Au contraire.  The UI/UX is Windows 8x took away choice.  Windows 10 is giving the choice back (start menu, start screen and I guess Cortana)...or in other words, Microsoft is now giving you the choice on how you control the operating system.  Surprised that you said the UI/UX in Windows 8x didn't take choice away when it obviously did.  Natively, Windows 8x gave you the start screen and not much else (unless you want to pin everything).  If anything, Windows 8x was extremely biased towards the Modern UI experience.  I could also go on about Metro apps, in Windows 8x, being severely limited (limited choice vs. how desktop programs can run) in the way they utilized screen space (not windowed)...but that is a topic for another day.

 

Which they are not doing. So, good day.

 

 

Which you've said...so many times.  

[Michael Scrip]

I'm still using Windows 7 on my primary machine.  All my programs are traditional Windows programs... and I obviously can't use "Modern/Metro" apps on that machine even if I wanted to.

 

But I don't feel like I'm "missing" anything by not having "Modern/Metro" apps.  I don't feel like I'm "doing it wrong" by using a UI from 20 years ago.

 

I just use what I use.

 

My secondary machine is a Windows 8.1 ultrabook...  but I use my traditional Windows programs on that as well. I haven't found any reasons to search for "Modern/Metro" replacements for all my traditional Windows programs. (I really only use that laptop when I travel... I'm on my desktop computer 99% of the time)

 

So... "Modern/Metro" might be the greatest thing since sliced bread... and might be the UI for the 21st century... but I'm indifferent on the whole situation.

[Andre S. Veteran]

What is this discussion even about? Microsoft has made it clear Windows 10 will enhance both the Desktop and the "Mobile" environments and provide more customization so everyone isn't forced into a mode unfit for the form factor or target applications. That was the main issue with Windows 8, they're fixing it, everyone will be happy. Windows 10 will be a smooth upgrade for Windows 7 users and a great mobile OS for all Microsoft devices. Are we still really discussing which side of the bad hybrid that was Windows 8 should "win"? Microsoft has moved on from that sterile debate, a long time ago. I think it's time we followed.

[Ian S.]

What is this discussion even about? Microsoft has made it clear Windows 10 will enhance both the Desktop and the "Mobile" environments and provide more customization so everyone isn't forced into a mode unfit for the form factor or target applications. That was the main issue with Windows 8, they're fixing it, everyone will be happy. Windows 10 will be a smooth upgrade for Windows 7 users and a great mobile OS for all Microsoft devices. Are we still really discussing which side of the bad hybrid that was Windows 8 should "win"? Microsoft has moved on from that sterile debate, a long time ago. I think it's time we followed.

This discussion is the same one that been going on in the threads "Windows Technical Preview" and the one about PC Settings vs. control panel.