the loss of X to close programs is sad. I dont like the new design philosophy of clicking out the card to close things
The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
171–180 of 290 posts
Re: The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason people talk about the mouse is that it's one of the worst ideas they ever had. At the time, I remember someone claimed that the reason was that they were afraid people could leave it plugged in for convenience. Apple thought that would lead to a worse experience because their mouse was designed to be used wirelessly. I think it was actually more related to aesthetic "icks" by the designers, because people…
Honestly, as a user of the mouse, I think the main reason people talk about the mouse is bike shedding. Charging isn't a problem in actual use, but everyone sure has an opinion on it. There are plenty of contenders for 'worst ideas they ever had' and this just isn't up there.
I agree, I always found the charging port location to be a total non-issue. The battery life is long, charging is fast, and you get warned that the battery level is low long before the mouse dies.
Re: The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
#173Any user interface designer should take a good look at the controls on a commercial airliner. An awful lot of effort goes into making an intuitive, effective user interface. I have disagreements with it, but there's no denying it's very well done. Designing a programming language is mostly about usability. I'll be giving a talk about that in April at Yale. It's a fun topic!
I tend to agree, but the FMC on Boeing aircraft sure leave something to be desired.. I do not find the menu/tab system very ergonomic (and the non-QWERTY key layout)
Re: The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
#174Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll also give the opinion that Apple consistently creates some absolutely crap designs and when they do this, release something really really mind mindbogglingly stupid that it should be embarrassing they are instead met with applause on the "amazing design". It's a tiresome pattern repeated for decades now. eg. The 'breathing status light' that lit up the room at night due to extreme brightness which meant every ma…
I liked the gentle amber sleep mode breathing power button on my circa-2000 CRT iMac. It wasn’t nearly as bright as that of later models and was quite nice.
I had one from 2010 and the bright light wasn't even the main problem at night.
The charger emitted an annoying high pitch sound so I'd have to unplug it.
And the device turned itself on randomly at night, and the CD-ROM reader and fans would spin up and make noise.
I've now used a macbook air for work and I noticed that even when in "standby" for a week my router had a DHCP lease for it. So they still turn on for no reason, but at least the lack of fans and the fact that I can now use a decent usbc charger means they don't wake me up any more.
Re: The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the exact reason has never been documented, if you look at that mouse's design, you'll see that its first generation had a regular battery compartment on the bottom. When gen 2 arrived, they fully reused the same shell and only replaced that bottom part to now be an integrated battery with a charging port instead of a compartment for AAs. Moving the charging port would've required a brand new design, since ever…
The reason people talk about the mouse is that it's one of the worst ideas they ever had. At the time, I remember someone claimed that the reason was that they were afraid people could leave it plugged in for convenience. Apple thought that would lead to a worse experience because their mouse was designed to be used wirelessly. I think it was actually more related to aesthetic "icks" by the designers, because people…
Yet it is one thing I love very much about my MX anywhere 3. The wire connection is simply more performance and I get to use it when I did not charge. It is also compatible with any non-Bluetooth device.
Re: The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
#176Notice how they moved the ok & cancel buttons to the bottom right since it’s the more logical location to put them. Meanwhile gtk now puts those on opposite sides of the window title bar by default.
Separating them is good for avoiding misclicks. Decades ago, MacOS properly had the close box for windows on the opposite side from minimize etc. widgets; now the one destructive window action could be reasonably safe without confirmation. Then Windows started gaining popularity and nobody ever did it the right way by default again. A pity for the sharp minds at Xerox PARC.
Command Q and Command W are still beside each other though
Re: The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
#177Notice how they moved the ok & cancel buttons to the bottom right since it’s the more logical location to put them. Meanwhile gtk now puts those on opposite sides of the window title bar by default.
Separating them is good for avoiding misclicks. Decades ago, MacOS properly had the close box for windows on the opposite side from minimize etc. widgets; now the one destructive window action could be reasonably safe without confirmation. Then Windows started gaining popularity and nobody ever did it the right way by default again. A pity for the sharp minds at Xerox PARC.
I don't mind ok and cancel being on opposite sides. It's mainly ok not being bottom-right that bothers me.
Re: The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
#178Steve Jobs is famous for his 1996 quote about Microsoft not having taste ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiOzGI4MqSU ). I disagree; as much as I love the classic Mac OS and Jobs-era Mac OS X, and despite my feelings about Microsoft's monopolistic behavior, 1995-2000 Microsoft's user interfaces were quite tasteful, in my opinion, and this was Microsoft's most tasteful period. I have fond memories of Windows 95/NT 4/…
> Microsoft Office 2007 ribbon Ribbon also has a similar research behind it, just like Windows 95. For what they designed it, allowing beginners to discover all the functionality that's available, it works perfectly. I think most of the complaints from the tech circles are completely unfounded in reality. Many non-tech people and younger ones actually prefer using Ribbon. I also like it since it is very tastefully ma…
> 2010 was my favorite Office UI.
Mine too. Office 2010 was what made me switch back to Windows after using Linux and OpenOffice for years. I found the ribbons to be perfect for my use of Office. They usually automatically focused on the task at hand. Everything else was just a click away. Advanced stuff stayed in the menu. And, at least for me, it helped discoverability of features.
Re: The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Microsoft Office 2007 ribbon Ribbon also has a similar research behind it, just like Windows 95. For what they designed it, allowing beginners to discover all the functionality that's available, it works perfectly. I think most of the complaints from the tech circles are completely unfounded in reality. Many non-tech people and younger ones actually prefer using Ribbon. I also like it since it is very tastefully ma…
> I think most of the complaints from the tech circles are completely unfounded in reality. Many non-tech people and younger ones actually prefer using Ribbon. Well, yes, but that observation doesn't prove the point you think it does. People who were highly experienced with previous non-ribbon versions of Office, disliked the ribbon, because the ribbon is essentially a "tutorial mode" for Office. The ribbon reduces c…
> people who've already come to grips with the app
They would, or should, be using keyboard shortcuts anyway.
Re: The Windows 95 user interface: A case study in usability engineering (1996)
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Microsoft Office 2007 ribbon Ribbon also has a similar research behind it, just like Windows 95. For what they designed it, allowing beginners to discover all the functionality that's available, it works perfectly. I think most of the complaints from the tech circles are completely unfounded in reality. Many non-tech people and younger ones actually prefer using Ribbon. I also like it since it is very tastefully ma…
It’s also stupid in terms of screen real estate. Earlier Word/CorelDraw/etc had a thin toolbar with lots of functionality. Barely occupied any space at just 800x600 resolution. Nowadays, the ribbon and all other junk occupy a huge portion of the screen, even at 1920x1080. It’s amazing how little screen area today actually shows the useful part of a document. Instead of the Ribbon, a thin context sensitive toolbar wou…
> It’s also stupid in terms of screen real estate.
You can't really blame MS that around the same time screen manufacturers started to switch to 16:9 for cost reasons and cheap laptops all only offered a 1366x786 resolution.