Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

socket3.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 402 posts

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#21

Post by pjc50 »

michaelmrose wrote: post #6
wiradikusuma wrote: post #4

"not understanding how folders could exist inside of other folders" -- My mom is 70 years old now, and I easily get frustrated whenever she's stuck with seemingly simple tasks with her computer. I usually scold her and yell at her, "This is so obvious, how come you don't know?" -- I always regret doing that afterwards. After I'm calm, I ask her why, trying to understand it from her perspective. Every time I do this,…

How do you manage files in windows at all without drag and drop? Do you just never reorganize anything? Further what is the chance that anyone who can't drag and drop would be able to find the setting to turn off drag and drop?

I'd like an interface without DnD too, not because I trigger it accidentally but because it's very bad for my RSI. And it's a nightmare on a trackpad.

Fortunately you can do 99% of file management in Windows with the keyboard, either through cut and paste or the Explorer menus.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#22

Post by amiga-workbench »

thanatropism wrote: post #20
Paianni wrote: post #16

I have a feeling that Windows 95's window minimisation was at heart a workaround for the fact that the architecture couldn't support workspaces and therefore they had to find a way to 'hack' Windows to hide windows at will.

Windows 3.1 had window minimization. Confusingly, programs became icons in your "desktop" (which you could only see when minimizing everything).

Amiga Workbench did the same thing, the minimize button was labeled as "iconify" instead.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#23

Post by jaclaz »

thanatropism wrote: post #20
Paianni wrote: post #16

I have a feeling that Windows 95's window minimisation was at heart a workaround for the fact that the architecture couldn't support workspaces and therefore they had to find a way to 'hack' Windows to hide windows at will.

Windows 3.1 had window minimization. Confusingly, programs became icons in your "desktop" (which you could only see when minimizing everything).

A lesser known program for Windows 3.1/3.11 was at the time the Norton Desktop, see:

http://toastytech.com/guis/ndw.html

that provided, even on Windows 3.1/3.11 roughly the same UI of the Mac OS of the time, very similar, for some aspects, to the later Windows 9x one.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#24

Post by louthy »

> Our testing data told us that the main problem was windows not being visible at all times, so users couldn’t see what they had open or access tasks quickly. This realization led us fairly quickly to the task bar design

Hmm, I wonder if that should be reworded to “and then we saw RISC OS and it had a task bar design that we really liked”. I can’t believe that they wouldn’t have known about it.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#25

Post by usrusr »

netsharc wrote: post #14
wiradikusuma wrote: post #4

"not understanding how folders could exist inside of other folders" -- My mom is 70 years old now, and I easily get frustrated whenever she's stuck with seemingly simple tasks with her computer. I usually scold her and yell at her, "This is so obvious, how come you don't know?" -- I always regret doing that afterwards. After I'm calm, I ask her why, trying to understand it from her perspective. Every time I do this,…

The term "folder" already annoys me. It's a (filesystem) directory...

I agree with the downvotes in so far as it is silly to still get upset about this (instead of silently admitting defeat), but I am 100% guilty of that folly myself.

It's highly relevant to the discussion because it illustrates just how deeply ingrained these basic UI expectations are. UI (re-)designers take note, in some cases even decades of forced retraining won't make everybody accept gratuitous change.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#26

Post by russellbeattie »

It's hard to remember, but even though Windows 3.11 was extremely dominant at the time, it was by no means assured that Windows 95 would be the success that it was. The very first version missed wildly in some big ways (MSN was a folder integrated into the desktop, for example, and no TCP/IP support [*Edit: yes there was - I misremembered.]), but the core, underlying redesign of the GUI was so profoundly good it propelled Microsoft into a new level of ubiquity. Compare it to other GUIs at the time, like CDE, IBM's Presentation Manager, or even Mac OS 8 and there's no comparison. Windows 95 solidified Microsoft's dominance, but could just as easily eroded it had they dropped the ball.

Even though I've used a Mac daily for the past decade or so, I still miss the task bar, and window-oriented GUI of Windows. I still get frustrated on OSX when I minimize a window and have to hunt around for it. I wouldn't switch back because of the underlying crap that is the Windows OS and file system, but I still miss the interface.

Edit: Found this fantastic PDF "Chicago Reviewers Guide" which goes over all the new stuff in Win95. So much stuff I had forgotten - TrueType fonts, Plug and Play, registry settings, right-click properties, long file names... Basically everything that makes Windows what it is today.

http://tech-insider.org/windows/research/acrobat/940601.pdf

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#28

Post by kobrad »

krylon wrote: post #9

The fact that the basic elements of Windows 95's GUI have survived for so long shows, I think, how well designed it was. For its time it was a great design that was intuitive to understand, relatively lightweight and did not get in my way. About the only changes I think improved things notably were the search field in the Start menu and Aero Snap.

Search got the google bug, so that it will change the results in the xx milliseconds while you are pressing enter or clicking. This is the new boundary for all interfaces, and I know it's just being stupid - sometimes it really makes me angry. But snap works just fine, yeah

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#29

Post by interfixus »

jaclaz wrote: post #23
thanatropism wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Windows 3.1 had window minimization. Confusingly, programs became icons in your "desktop" (which you could only see when minimizing everything).

A lesser known program for Windows 3.1/3.11 was at the time the Norton Desktop, see: http://toastytech.com/guis/ndw.html that provided, even on Windows 3.1/3.11 roughly the same UI of the Mac OS of the time, very similar, for some aspects, to the later Windows 9x one.

For some aspects, yes. For the over-all experience, not similar at all.

PC Tools for Windows was another lternative shell. Finicky and prone to crashes, but better UI design than the Norton Desktop.

Windows 95 obsoleted them both.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface

#30

Post by raverbashing »

netsharc wrote: post #14
wiradikusuma wrote: post #4

"not understanding how folders could exist inside of other folders" -- My mom is 70 years old now, and I easily get frustrated whenever she's stuck with seemingly simple tasks with her computer. I usually scold her and yell at her, "This is so obvious, how come you don't know?" -- I always regret doing that afterwards. After I'm calm, I ask her why, trying to understand it from her perspective. Every time I do this,…

The term "folder" already annoys me. It's a (filesystem) directory...

I suppose it's because folder sounds "less tech" maybe

However directory was also a borrowed term (and to be honest folder kinda makes more sense)

Post reply on HN