"And then for a lot of the other complaints (e.g. hidden interface, icons that you don't think you can click) it is just a matter of time before people learn it. Then it will become a non-issue."

That's not how usability works.

Is pinch to zoom obvious? Is left clicking obvious? Is ctrl alt delete obvious? Is spacebar to pause/resume video/music obvious?

I'm no UEX expert but all of the above seem to be things that many people know how to do, yet would not seem immediately obvious at first.

I am quite confident that "swiping in from the right to reveal charms/commands/options" will join the ranks of the above. It'll just take a few months of mass use. It's a pretty convenient gesture IMO.

I'm no UEX expert..

Then let me enlighten you. Your ctrl-alt-delete example is poor due to the fact and this is backed up by a Bill Gates interview that that command was meant for debugging and was not supposed to ship in the final product. People started using it and they had to leave it in.

Some music players do not use space for pause/resume.

As for clicking and zooming, these things are so intuitive that children can learn on their own how to do these simple tasks. OLPC and other organizations air drop laptops into Africa and people who have never a seen a computer get them and teach themselves how to use it and how to read.

And yet OS X, the OS that is lauded by many around here to have an excellent UX, has so many hidden controls that nobody could possibly remember them all.

http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1343

I'm sorry, I don't follow.

I think I did.

The argument here was "well, if Apple can assume that users are going to learn a list of shortcuts, why can't Microsoft."

The answer is because the keyboard shortcuts on OS X are actually shortcuts, not required for using the operating system. The gestures Microsoft has incorporated in to Win8 are the only way of doing things, whereas I can do things a few different ways on OS X.

Let's stick with closing an app. Apparently the gesture is swiping from top to bottom on Win8. On OS X, I can do that by clicking the red button (arguably the most intuitive method), by going to the File menu, or the keyboard shortcut, Command-W.

OS X shortcuts are actually shortcuts, except when they're not...

How about Command-Tab? There's only one way to access that functionality. How do you capture a screen in OS X without the secret "shortcut" keys or the command-line? How about ejecting a secondary optical drive? Zooming in and out?

The Dock generally displays all running apps, you can just click on one. I agree about the screenshot one - but this is often a power-user use case.

There are a bunch of ways to eject a drive: 1. little eject button in Finder, 2. Right click on drive on desktop -> Eject, 3. Drag drive from desktop to Recycle Bin (this one is weird, but intuitive for long-time Mac users I guess). I admit I may be misinterpreting what you mean by "secondary" optical drive.

System-wide zoom is mega-situational. I'm sure it's useful for those with visual impairment, but I've never seen anyone use it nor have I had use for it myself. This is like complaining that high-contrast mode in Windows does not have an easy-to-access menu.

On my mac my keyboard has an eject button right next to f12(volume up). If I press that then the primary disk drive ejects its disk.

If I had two disk drives, I'm not sure which it would eject. I suspect that this is what WayneDB was referring to.

To chime in on the screenshot issue - the only real way around a shortcut is to have some sort of Window... And you'd have to have some sort of setting that hides the window. I think Gnome has something like that.

Screenshot: you use grab.app, which is included in the utilities folder. OS X has shortcuts, yes, but at least they all give consistent, immediate feedback, something Windows, Android and the various Linux desktops still don't get right.

How about Command-Tab? Click on the icons in the dock.

Capture a screen? Grab.app

Eject secondary drive? Drag it to the trash can.

You got me on the zoom in/out. I don't know that one. But I could make an argument that this one is not a shortcut, but the only command, as it falls under accessibility.

I see what you're getting at, but some of your examples don't help your case.

Whenever someone refers to something being "obvious" it can always boil down to a philosophical question of what obvious actually means. Nothing is truly obvious, and we've obviously conditioned from our surroundings. While we've obviously adopted conventions to interact with computers, they've offered affordances (or forced us) that hint at a function.

Gestures in general offer a challenge from a human factors perspective. Gestures can be very convenient and compelling sources of interaction that can enhance UX. Unfortunately, users are working in flatland, with very little affordances. The biggest problem here and with gestural interfaces in general is the lack of hints they give to an interaction. A physical button has a clear affordance (you can argue this is conditioned/learned) baked into the interface. There are also many issues related to the lack of universal gestures within and across applications and operating systems.

In a lot of cases, Gestures are like keyboard shortcuts. Many people discover them because they are told about them (ie. CTRL+C in the copy interface), but physically trying many different keyboard combinations just isn't something people do.

Apple has recognized the problem with gestures while pushing hard to make them standard. They still keep the home button on the iPad, even with system wide gestures that can accomplish the same thing. Overall, I agree with your sentiment that particular interactions join the ranks of some ubiquitious interactions you noted, but it will take more than a few months of use from one particular operating system and there are many challenges, no matter how convenient it is.

> physically trying many different keyboard combinations just isn't something people do.

you are so right. I did this exactly once, when I discovered that <Win>+<some other key> did special things in Windows, so at some point I decided to just try them all. I learned the <Win>+<Tab>, doing the silly 3D task switcher, that way (I already knew the useful ones like <Win>+<E>, <D> and <R>).

There's considerable risk in this approach, you don't know what the commands are going to do. I just did it because I was 1) very curious and 2) didn't have important things open and 3) kind of assumed they would not put a "really mess up your computer" command behind a single shortcut key.

Now that I think of it, I learned the <Win>+<number> commands from a blog somewhere, so I didn't even discover that tremendously useful shortcut :)

There is a LOT of people that don't even understand ctrl-c ctrl-v and go to the menu each time to do it.

I still use Ctrl+Insert, Shift+Insert =)

But you do HAVE to use it! Start computer - Metro, Open app - Metro, Search for something - Metro, Shutdown/Restart - Metro, Windows Updates - Metro, Control Panel - Metro, switch apps - Metro, and more. It's a real PITA when you get the huge goddamn Start Menu when you want to do something simple...

And even if you do reduce that to a minimum (which is possible), it's still stupid - here you are working with 4 windows open on something, completely forgetting that you're on 8, you want to do some random simple operation and BAM - METRO IN YOUR FACE! :-)

Is it a problem that the start menu is huge? The traditional start menu has always felt like a huge usability nightmare to me and I'm nothing but glad that it's been replaced.

In my opinion, yes, it's pretty annoying. I never work in full screen, but even if I did the objects are too big and you have to move the mouse a lot more, which is a drawback on a desktop/laptop...

Yes. I could accept usability updates but taking you away from all the other windows is just damn annoying.

>What bothers me about the OP though is that if you really dislike Metro so much on a desktop, you don't have to use it!

This is said over and over again, and everyone has to keep reminding them that it's not about what is currently happening, but the fact that Microsoft is GOING IN THIS DIRECTION. The "Desktop" is slated for execution - just because they have it now doesn't mean it's going to exist forever. It's obvious that MS (and other companies) believe that this "power user" feature is unnecessary going forward.

I really don't agree with this and there is no arguing that it is simply conjecture at this point.

I don't think Microsoft thinks that Metro apps or the metro environment do or ever will offer the same level of extremely high productivity that desktop apps and the desktop environment provide.

I think we will have a much better idea of Microsoft's POV on Metro if/when they release Office apps on it. Quite simply put, if Metro Office does not have 1:1 feature parity with the desktop apps then that backs my point. If I were to bet, I would say that Metro Office will be more aligned with the web apps. I would be quite surprised if they aligned more to the full desktop clients.

Why? Because the desktop is an environment suited for mouse and keyboard where you can have super high levels of productivity. Metro will not replace that as it excels in other use cases. Can you be productive with Metro? I'd argue you can. Just as productive as in the desktop? With some apps, perhaps. With others, absolutely not.

Then how do you explain the fact that the Windows App Store is metro-only? That seems to imply that either Microsoft wants to push metro-style apps in the long run, or they don't care about the app store on the desktop - I'd put my money on the former.

Well actually you can get desktop apps off of the app store. Sort of. It just redirects you to the website where you can download the software. But it is a listing nevertheless.

Yeah, but I'd argue that the major benefit of app stores are:

- Discoverability

- Easy payment processing/distribution

- Automatic updates

- Being able to easily re-download it later

- Consistent purchase, install, update experience

- Some confidence on the part of the end user that what they are downloading works on their system and isn't going to harm their computer

The simple listings for non-metro apps really only benefit from the first item, and they don't really change my argument.

Yeah I agree. Though I don't think that them pushing the app store as being metro first is equal to them shunning the desktop. Perhaps that is simply something we'll agree to disagree on?

It's very important for them to have the metro environment flourish and for that they're going to need lots of metro apps and blah blah blah. Metro IS important. It just isn't replacing the desktop any time soon.

To be clear - I don't think Microsoft is shunning or trying to destroy (at least in the short term) the non-metro desktop. I just think they are going to be pushing metro (or whatever it is called now) pretty hard, and if you don't like metro-style apps, they are going to be harder and harder to avoid as time goes by.

I just think that app stores are going to be more and more important to the ecosystems they exist in. For the reasons I mentioned above, I think more and more software is going to be procured via app stores (although, in big businesses it will probably be fairly small), and that is going to influence what developers build.

I probably wouldn't have built and sold a Mac app if there weren't an app store, and as I look at porting it to Windows, trying to replicate the infrastructure that I get for free with an app store isn't very appealing for the amount of money I'd likely make, so my choices are: make a metro-style app so I can use the Windows app store or not make the app at all.

> Perhaps that is simply something we'll agree to disagree on?

Fair enough :)

Even if your prediction proves correct, it won't be the current version of the new environment that's meant to replace the desktop, but some future version, whose suitability you can't really evaluate not being in the future.

The problem is that you cannot escape completely. A major point is that some settings are available only from the Modern UI, some are only available from the desktop, some are there on both. But the transitions are well-hidden most of the time. Not that most users (me included) need to frequently access settings (I'm on the same stance with UAC since Vista: It's not an annoyance beyond the first day of setting up a machine), but the lack of communication where something can be found is pretty annoying at times.

I understand that time and budget constraints make it hard to offer both in either mode, but that's definitely an area to improve.

"So, if you're a power user and want to stay away from all of that nonsense..."

But the people in the usability study were no power users. They were the intended audience. Besides, I don't think the performance issues OP describes would be appreciated by non-power users either.

Perhaps I used "power user" incorrectly. Basically what I'm getting at is that it seemed to me, perhaps incorrectly, that the person running the show told the people in the usability study to focus more on the new stuff and avoid the old.

Of course this isn't strictly true as the article mentions how people got confused with "double desktops" but given the rest of the article, it just seemed like people were forced to use apps that they otherwise wouldn't have used and thus gave plenty of complaints.

For example, his section on multiple windows seemed bizarre to me. Yes it is true that Metro does not support multiple windows but to say that Windows no longer supports them is simply incorrect. If a user wants to "collect, compare and choose" among multiple web pages then they can easily do that as they always have through the desktop. I think the important question here is "were they unable to find the desktop" or "were they told to only use Metro browsers"?

I think we should have faith in users to choose the correct tools for the task. Forcing them to do something the arguably "incorrect" way simply to have them struggle seems to simply be a self fulfilling prophesy.

And hey - I think a study proving that Metro on the desktop is less than ideal is perfectly okay. In fact I'd say I probably agree most of the time. But to label this study as Windows 8 as a whole as opposed to simply metro on a desktop I think is a little unfair.

I agree with you 100%. The old desktop is not gone, it still serves the purpose that it always did.

Many of the arguments I find come from people forcing new users to only use the Metro style UI, which would obviously be confusing (much as my mother would have problems switch from a PC to a Mac).

I'm sure people will praise windows 9 for being so much better than windows 8, even though windows 8 took all the risk and windows 9 simply applied some polish.

I just got a new ultrabook with W8 for my wife. First thing I had to do was download some software that W8 boots into desktop mode. Then I got another application that brings the start menu back. Now it is OK and ready to use for her. MS should have released a work version and a home version that comes either with or without Metro.

That'd would work until 6 months from now when there's a Metro app that you desperately need. Don't forget that only Metro apps can be sold in the app store, which provides a lot of infrastructure that many devs will find compelling.

Whether you like it or not, you will likely be using Metro apps on a regular basis in a year or two.

The "you can stay away from X" argument never really works. If something exists, it will sneak up on you one way or another, especially if it's the cool new thing. How long do you think until an app or OS feature you need isn't available on the old desktop?

Sure, you can use Win8 without "Metro," but the live tile display still replaces the start menu. There are lots of unnecessarily buried system interactions that require using Metro.

>>I'll repeat that even though I think we all know this

>>already: if you don't want to use Metro apps, you don't

>>have to use Metro apps. It is really that simple.

>>...then click on the "Desktop" tile...

I'm sorry, clearly you don't see it this way but the irony of the above is just... Well... My ghast is flabbered.

Why would I want a desktop where half of the thing has poor usability and loads of bugs?

Not to mention that he's complaining about the boxed-in apps and the first apps available from the Windows Store. That's like complaining about the first-generation games on a console being boring. Which is absolutely retarded. First-generation games are always a disappoinment - then a year or two passes and holy shit so many cool games. So let's just see how things shape up now that Microsoft has laid the foundation and the devs start to experiment.

Except we are talking about Microsoft, who's core competency IS building platforms and communities of developers around those platforms. That's what they do, or at least that's what they've done until now.

Is it really that hard for a company like Microsoft to find 100 software companies / developers and entice them to port 100 quality apps on their App Store, such that those apps are available when Win8 launches? Answering no to this question ignores the reality. Microsoft can do this and the fact that they didn't shows that they are losing their core competency.

And let's be honest here - Microsoft is late from all perspectives. Microsoft is late in the mobile game, being a distant fourth, behind Android, iOS and even Symbian. Microsoft is also late in delivering an App Store for the desktop. Their only "innovation" is this hybrid Windows that can run on both tablets and the desktop, except for their sad reality that consumers expectations have already been set by iOS and Android to the point that consumers don't expect their mobile devices to run the same desktop apps they've been using ... and if those apps won't be optimized for Windows 8, then it's going to be a shitty experience anyway, hence why your apologetic argument is not acceptable for Microsoft.

Many first-generation games were fantastic. Take Super Mario 64 for N64 for example, or Super Mario Sunshine for GC.

In ironic contrast, iOS games have gotten worse in the last years...unless you like social insert-coin games.