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

Designing Windows 95’s User Interface (2018)

socket3.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 176 posts

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface (2018)

#101

Post by panzi »

MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #15

I think windows 95/98 era was the peak of UI discoverability. As a kid, I and my friends could learn and explore how a program worked just by expanding all the menus and opening the various dialogs. Dialogs which were filled with fields and their descriptions! Before then, it was the world of DOS and you had to know what you were doing ahead of time. And now, UIs are dynamic, initially hiding stuff from the user and…

I somewhere heard/read someone say that gesture based interfaces are the new CLI (in terms of discoverability).

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface (2018)

#102

Post by int_19h »

russellbeattie wrote: post #70
MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #15

I think windows 95/98 era was the peak of UI discoverability. As a kid, I and my friends could learn and explore how a program worked just by expanding all the menus and opening the various dialogs. Dialogs which were filled with fields and their descriptions! Before then, it was the world of DOS and you had to know what you were doing ahead of time. And now, UIs are dynamic, initially hiding stuff from the user and…

I think it should be mentioned that during this era, the whole idea of a GUI was still a relatively new concept to most people. It had been less than a decade since the Mac popularized the idea. It's akin to how long it took for cars to standardize on the accelerator, brake and clutch configuration. It didn't happen overnight. When I went to college in the early 90s, most of my fellow students had dedicated word proc…

Interestingly, Windows 3.1 came with a 7-minute tutorial activated from the installer, about half of which is on using the mouse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXKEnYQu-oM

If I remember correctly, this part wasn't there in Windows 95, so presumably they decided that users mostly don't need it anymore.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface (2018)

#103

Post by kristopolous »

Kwpolska wrote: post #73
kristopolous wrote: post #66

I've long suspected the start menu was intended to be on the top of the screen. In all other applications when you want to shut it down, it's the last option on the list. If you move the start menu to the top, then shutdown does indeed become the last on the list and the most common option, "Programs" becomes the closest by Fitts Law standards. Even in the Program Manager in Windows 3.1, the Run and Shutdown options…

The next build after 90c had the task bar at the bottom. The start menu was redesigned a few times after that build (which is from early 1994). Why would Microsoft leave shut down in the wrong position? Why did it take them until XP to put the programs option closer to the bottom?

I have no idea. It just seems unusual that the closest mouse distance is shut down.

Fitt's Law, GOMS analysis and the human processor model were all the rage in the mid-90s.

The ordering is pretty unusual but when you push the start menu to the top, all the rules are followed again.

Again, pure speculation. I wasn't in the room and I've never been able to directly ask someone who was (although I'd go out of my way for the opportunity).

As far as how it took them so long, I'd imagine moving things around on the start menu would require the signoff of an annoyingly large number of people. This is before the modern era of Unilateral UI Designer Autocrat who's given questionably broad authority over everything.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface (2018)

#105

Post by badsectoracula »

PraetorianGourd wrote: post #29
MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #15

I think windows 95/98 era was the peak of UI discoverability. As a kid, I and my friends could learn and explore how a program worked just by expanding all the menus and opening the various dialogs. Dialogs which were filled with fields and their descriptions! Before then, it was the world of DOS and you had to know what you were doing ahead of time. And now, UIs are dynamic, initially hiding stuff from the user and…

I think the big key in your comment is "As a kid,..". Maybe you think this is the easiest to learn/discover UI because it is the UI that you used to learn and discover. I see "kids these days" navigating around flat, touch-based interfaces with ease, in the same way that I found the desktop paradigm of the late-90s to be incredibly natural. I think a lot of us came of age during that time, and as such see it as the u…

I used Win3.1 and DOS before that for a long time - i was already comfortable programming my PC before i first used Win95. If it was a case of "As a kid", i'd consider Win3.1 as the actual good GUI but actually i consider Win95 to be the the good one despite being introduced to it after i already was comfortable with PCs and had technical knowledge about them.

While some people might see Win95 as a good GUI because that is what they first learned, that doesn't mean that applies to everyone. And if nothing else it also works the other way around - "kids these days" may not mind navigating around flat touch-based interfaces because they've spent the time to learn them, not because of any inherent superiority of said interfaces.

This is why IMO using how easy kids can use/learn something (in computers at least), be it UIs, languages or whatever isn't very helpful - kids have a ton of time and if they like something they can spend ages on it regardless of any inherent properties of that something. I mean, consider the downright atrocious UX the overwhelming majority of games had in home computers from the 80s and PCs until early 90s - and yet kids at the time spent hours deciphering and playing them. That didn't mean the games actually had good UIs, it meant kids had enough time and motivation to work around these UIs so they can enjoy the games.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface (2018)

#106

Post by int_19h »

kristopolous wrote: post #66

I've long suspected the start menu was intended to be on the top of the screen. In all other applications when you want to shut it down, it's the last option on the list. If you move the start menu to the top, then shutdown does indeed become the last on the list and the most common option, "Programs" becomes the closest by Fitts Law standards. Even in the Program Manager in Windows 3.1, the Run and Shutdown options…

I always suspected that the reason why it's on the bottom is so that it doesn't blend into tab headers when a tabbed dialog is maximized.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface (2018)

#107

Post by superkuh »

Windows 95/98/2k were the peak of "Open" and "Save As" dialogs. Some linux DE's managed parity in the mid-2000s but then removed features and introduced bugs again as mobile/convergence motivations took over in 2010+. Nowdays you can't even paste into a File->Open dialog in a gtk3 based desktop environment without triggering an error.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface (2018)

#108

Post by phusion »

I think I was 11 or 12 when I first installed Win95, once I got some help, it was like a whole new world. Multimedia was finally a real possibility. Seeing Weezer in their "Buddy Holly" music video on the disc was pretty wild, and the "Start Me Up" spoof song about win95 "this windows ninety fiiiiiive, it's suckin' up my driiiive". Good times.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface (2018)

#109

Post by russellbeattie »

int_19h wrote: post #102
russellbeattie wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it should be mentioned that during this era, the whole idea of a GUI was still a relatively new concept to most people. It had been less than a decade since the Mac popularized the idea. It's akin to how long it took for cars to standardize on the accelerator, brake and clutch configuration. It didn't happen overnight. When I went to college in the early 90s, most of my fellow students had dedicated word proc…

Interestingly, Windows 3.1 came with a 7-minute tutorial activated from the installer, about half of which is on using the mouse: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XXKEnYQu-oM If I remember correctly, this part wasn't there in Windows 95, so presumably they decided that users mostly don't need it anymore.

Hah! This reminds me of an old adage when teaching people how to use the mouse. Don't ever mention the right mouse button until the absolute last moment, if ever. Because from the second you mention it, every time you say, "OK, now click the [window, button, menu, etc.]" they will instantly ask, "Right or left button?".

Every. Single. Time.

Re: Designing Windows 95’s User Interface (2018)

#110

Post by rightbyte »

butz wrote: post #64
MonkeyMalarky wrote: post #15

I think windows 95/98 era was the peak of UI discoverability. As a kid, I and my friends could learn and explore how a program worked just by expanding all the menus and opening the various dialogs. Dialogs which were filled with fields and their descriptions! Before then, it was the world of DOS and you had to know what you were doing ahead of time. And now, UIs are dynamic, initially hiding stuff from the user and…

Not to mention all "online" help included in help file and even context sensitive help available from "question mark" icon in title bar.

Those "three books" help apps were so good. It is infuriating nowadays to be forwarded to some unsearchable web mess somewhere that might or might not exist.
Post reply on HN