I don't even think he's reviewing Windows 10 in its current preview form. Look at the picture he uses to show off the start menu, then compare it to the start menu in any other recent Windows 10 demonstration. Notice any differences?
Actually I think he is on the current Windows 10 build. Right now there's a button at the top-right of the start menu that switches it between full-screen and regular mode. This [1] is what it looks like on my system when full screen. It looks much worse in the article however, because the author only has three apps pinned to their start menu, and the three apps are in their 'medium' size rather than wide or large.
Not only that, but he's critiquing it from the perspective of a tablet OS. The majority of the intertial pushback Windows 8 suffered was from desktop users who absolutely did not want a mobile-esque interface on their desktop computer. His usability points are good--from a tablet user's perspective--but it completely misses the point of Windows 10, which is to regain trust from desktop and enterprise users. He further complains that this sort of cultural entrenchment is very much like the pushback Microsoft received between the DOS-to-Windows era--ignoring, of course, that user interaction with a touch UI versus mouse are substantially different. Plus, like you and the poster you replied to, I highly doubt that "tablet mode" in Windows 10 is completely finished.
I get that the author is probably upset with the changes coming in Windows 10 given his nearly exclusive use of a Surface (it's understandable--and also ironic that early on in the post, he mentions that "learning is uncomfortable"), but he's also forgetting that his favored use case is probably in the minority. How many Surface users are there versus enterprise/business/desktop users?
1. Touchscreen computers are in the minority now, but I don't think they'll remain in the minority. Kids are growing up on iPhones, Android phones, and iPads. A computer without a touchscreen will seem increasingly anachronistic to them, so designing against that trend is a backwards-looking strategy.
2. I don't see how the changes Microsoft has made in Windows 10 so far were necessary to make it a better desktop OS. Removing charms, for example, did nothing for desktop PCs. Microsoft could have made the charms features (e.g. search) accessible via the taskbar without removing charms for those who do have touchscreen computers, and can access it easily.
1. Touchscreen computers are in the minority now, but I don't think they'll remain in the minority.
I'm not completely sure I agree. But as with most things in technology, reflecting on past design changes or evolution isn't always a good marker for what's in store for the future. For one thing, I can foresee typical desk positions as a contributing factor to shoulder strain when using a touch-style monitor for prolonged periods being a problem. Would it be useful for some things? Sure, but I don't see it as completely practical when the user essentially has to reach up and press the monitor all day for various tasks (industrial use cases might be worth researching here since so many of them rely on touch interfaces or similar, particularly in high tech factories, but most of these workers are not only standing but the buttons are quite large).
Remember, the same kids you mentioned who are growing up with touch devices have also been exposed, generally, to pointing devices in parallel for much of their lives. The mouse, as a pointing device, is going to take a ground breaking technological leap to kill--touch alone isn't going to accomplish this because the precision simply isn't there.
Realistically, I don't see it as backwards: I see it as practical.
2. Removing charms, for example, did nothing for desktop PCs.
(Disclaimer: I never used Windows 8 precisely because of these decisions. Likewise, I'm a Linux user. That probably tells you everything you need to know.)
Charms annoyed the hell out of me; rather, the fullscreen application of them annoyed the hell out of me. For one, defaulting to a fullscreen UI on a desktop absolutely breaks workflow for most people (myself included), it's visually jarring, and making something scroll horizontally in a desktop environment is not only inconsistent with the default behavior of most applications (also designed for a desktop environment) but it's almost painfully awkward to use with a mouse. I commend Microsoft for trying something new, but their current decisions to make Windows 10 more like a 7-8 hybrid are suggestive of a deeper truth: There's no business sense in alienating a substantial majority of your install base by imposing a UI that's both painful and intrusive to use for most desktop users.
To say nothing of the various hotspots enabled by default that were clearly intended to be used with swipe gestures. You could argue it's annoyance bred by lack of interest in learning a new UI (it's not), but when that same UI is intended for something that primarily uses touch interaction, shoehorning it into an environment where the primary interaction is through a pointing device, you're left with a disaster. Hence Windows 10, which I don't find all that bad.
Also, I should note that while tablet mode in Windows 10 still retains some of the smaller, more difficult-to-activate-via-touch items in the start screen, we're still discussing a preview version of an OS that isn't expected to be released until October. I expect that they'll further improve tablet mode for touch users.
The difference is probably that Microsoft's Windows 10 demonstrations show a manually customized system, while my screenshot shows what it looks like by default, on a newly installed system? Other than that, I'm not sure how I could not be running the current Windows 10 preview, because, as far as I know, it's the only build that supports continuum.
Comments
I don't think he realizes that he's critiquing and reviewing a preview OS.
I don't even think he's reviewing Windows 10 in its current preview form. Look at the picture he uses to show off the start menu, then compare it to the start menu in any other recent Windows 10 demonstration. Notice any differences?
Actually I think he is on the current Windows 10 build. Right now there's a button at the top-right of the start menu that switches it between full-screen and regular mode. This [1] is what it looks like on my system when full screen. It looks much worse in the article however, because the author only has three apps pinned to their start menu, and the three apps are in their 'medium' size rather than wide or large.
[1]: http://i.imgur.com/xKCH1td.png
Thanks for the info.
Not only that, but he's critiquing it from the perspective of a tablet OS. The majority of the intertial pushback Windows 8 suffered was from desktop users who absolutely did not want a mobile-esque interface on their desktop computer. His usability points are good--from a tablet user's perspective--but it completely misses the point of Windows 10, which is to regain trust from desktop and enterprise users. He further complains that this sort of cultural entrenchment is very much like the pushback Microsoft received between the DOS-to-Windows era--ignoring, of course, that user interaction with a touch UI versus mouse are substantially different. Plus, like you and the poster you replied to, I highly doubt that "tablet mode" in Windows 10 is completely finished.
I get that the author is probably upset with the changes coming in Windows 10 given his nearly exclusive use of a Surface (it's understandable--and also ironic that early on in the post, he mentions that "learning is uncomfortable"), but he's also forgetting that his favored use case is probably in the minority. How many Surface users are there versus enterprise/business/desktop users?
Fair points, though I would say two things:
1. Touchscreen computers are in the minority now, but I don't think they'll remain in the minority. Kids are growing up on iPhones, Android phones, and iPads. A computer without a touchscreen will seem increasingly anachronistic to them, so designing against that trend is a backwards-looking strategy.
2. I don't see how the changes Microsoft has made in Windows 10 so far were necessary to make it a better desktop OS. Removing charms, for example, did nothing for desktop PCs. Microsoft could have made the charms features (e.g. search) accessible via the taskbar without removing charms for those who do have touchscreen computers, and can access it easily.
I'm not completely sure I agree. But as with most things in technology, reflecting on past design changes or evolution isn't always a good marker for what's in store for the future. For one thing, I can foresee typical desk positions as a contributing factor to shoulder strain when using a touch-style monitor for prolonged periods being a problem. Would it be useful for some things? Sure, but I don't see it as completely practical when the user essentially has to reach up and press the monitor all day for various tasks (industrial use cases might be worth researching here since so many of them rely on touch interfaces or similar, particularly in high tech factories, but most of these workers are not only standing but the buttons are quite large).
Remember, the same kids you mentioned who are growing up with touch devices have also been exposed, generally, to pointing devices in parallel for much of their lives. The mouse, as a pointing device, is going to take a ground breaking technological leap to kill--touch alone isn't going to accomplish this because the precision simply isn't there.
Realistically, I don't see it as backwards: I see it as practical.
(Disclaimer: I never used Windows 8 precisely because of these decisions. Likewise, I'm a Linux user. That probably tells you everything you need to know.)
Charms annoyed the hell out of me; rather, the fullscreen application of them annoyed the hell out of me. For one, defaulting to a fullscreen UI on a desktop absolutely breaks workflow for most people (myself included), it's visually jarring, and making something scroll horizontally in a desktop environment is not only inconsistent with the default behavior of most applications (also designed for a desktop environment) but it's almost painfully awkward to use with a mouse. I commend Microsoft for trying something new, but their current decisions to make Windows 10 more like a 7-8 hybrid are suggestive of a deeper truth: There's no business sense in alienating a substantial majority of your install base by imposing a UI that's both painful and intrusive to use for most desktop users.
To say nothing of the various hotspots enabled by default that were clearly intended to be used with swipe gestures. You could argue it's annoyance bred by lack of interest in learning a new UI (it's not), but when that same UI is intended for something that primarily uses touch interaction, shoehorning it into an environment where the primary interaction is through a pointing device, you're left with a disaster. Hence Windows 10, which I don't find all that bad.
Also, I should note that while tablet mode in Windows 10 still retains some of the smaller, more difficult-to-activate-via-touch items in the start screen, we're still discussing a preview version of an OS that isn't expected to be released until October. I expect that they'll further improve tablet mode for touch users.
The difference is probably that Microsoft's Windows 10 demonstrations show a manually customized system, while my screenshot shows what it looks like by default, on a newly installed system? Other than that, I'm not sure how I could not be running the current Windows 10 preview, because, as far as I know, it's the only build that supports continuum.
I'm pointing that out multiple times in the article :-)