Entries Tagged 'User Interface' ↓

Alt+Tab has been around since the dawn of Windows - or at least Windows 3.0, and probably predates that somehow on a different system.  In that time, it's hardly changed at all - probably because it hasn't needed to.  You're all probably familiar with it.  Hit Alt+Tab to switch to a different window, hit it again to switch back.  If you hit it repeatedly you'll cycle through all the open windows.

In Vista, Alt+Tab hasn't changed much, except that instead of program icons you have little thumbnails of the different programs. No big deal, something very similar has been available as a Powertoy from Microsoft for XP for a long time now.  

Vista brought about the first major addition to switching applications by a keyboard shortcut - Win+Tab.  That's the Windows key + Tab.  This sends all your open windows into a vertically stacked, 3/4 view, rainbow shaped, eye candy buffet.

It looks neat, I'm not sold on the practical aspect of it but I suppose that someone else may find it really beneficial.  I'm prefectly content with the classic Alt+Tab.  The main reason I'm content with it is because it lets me work and switch applications faster.  Alt+tab, Excel instantly pops up.  Alt+Tab, my chat window is instantly up. Alt+Tab, Excel is instantly back again.

The problem with Win+Tab is that in order for it to be cool eye candy, it has to whizz and whir and animate all the windows into position.  It's a short delay, but it's a delay, and it gets old after a while.

Here's the other problem, and this one will keep me from ever using Win+Tab again.  It does not work like Alt+Tab.  That's right, it's a different set of keyboard shortcuts.  This is like changing Alt+B so that it's not Bold anymore.

Hit Win+Tab, all the windows animate, Excel pops up.  Win+Tab, all the windows animate, chat pops up.  Win+Tab, all the windows animate, Word pops up.

Word?  What's with the different application?  Why didn't my original app come back?  This is the way it's worked for what, about 20 years now? 

See, Win+Tab just cycles through all the apps in order until you find the one you want.  You have to know one of two secrets to get it to go backwards.  You can hit Win+Tab to go into Flip 3D and then use the scroll wheel on the mouse to go scroll forwards and backwards (I thought this was a keyboard shortcut), or you can hit Win+Shift+Tab to go backwards.  Or was that Win+Ctrl+Tab?

This is like having to hit Ctrl+Shift+B on something to make it not bold anymore - pointless. 

Not only do you have to remember two key combinations now, you have the added issue of "did I go forward or backwards to get to this app?  Hmmm.  Win+Shift+Tab.  Rats, that's Word, not Excel.  Win+Tab, Win+Tab.  Even with the scroll wheel you still have the same issue, but to a lesser degree.  But why do I need a mouse for a keyboard shortcut?  If I wanted the mouse I'd just click on the app on the taskbar.

Flip 3D is dead to me.  Long live Alt+Tab. 

Another one of the features that Microsoft is really pushing is the their new "instant" search with it's alleged tight integration into the rest of the system.

The premise is pretty useful, you type what you want into a box and it magically appears so you can select it whether it be a document, program, song, whatever you wish. It's brought up by pressing the Windows key (usually between CTRL and ALT) and is the default item in the Start menu.

I'm not going into the technical details of how it works and I'll sum up how well it works by just saying "not very well". Really. It feels slow, clunky, and doesn't find everything - more on that in a moment.

Here's the biggest issue I have with it. When you search for something, say "phone number" above you can do nothing else until the search is complete and you select what you want. What? Yes, if you click off the start menu or go to anything else, it disappears and your search is gone. However long the search takes, that's how long you're sitting there.

Think a few seconds isn't long? Just sit there and stare at the period at the end of this sentence and count to five. Don't forget to say Mississippi.

This is not how I work. On Google Desktop Search, or in a browser, or wherever I search from I can enter what I want and go to something else while it does it's looking. The results sit there until I'm done with it.

Making me sit and wait for the search results is simply inexcusable.

To make matters worse, it's not a very good search engine - so the time you spend sitting there staring at the screen may not yield what you're looking for even though it does exist. Here's a small example from when I was trying to solve my "Why won't Office update?" problem.

I needed to find a specific file - mapisvc to be precise. I typed it into the box on the Start menu and got nothing. So I tried the other search on the Start menu, no idea why that's there - how many Searches do I need?

Joy. File not found. And for you technical folk, I did change the areas that Search indexes so that it looked at the whole computer. By default Search only searches Documents and a few other places. My guess is that it's so slow they didn't want to cripple it out of the gate.

But I know the file exists, because I eventually gave up and hunted it down by hand…

I've selected it for you so you can see where it is.

Brand new fangled search - 0; Searching old school by hand - 1

Confidence in new search - none.

I did eventually get search to find a copy of this file:

Here's a bonus question for all you out there.  If found the file - but where is it located? 

Vista continues the tradition of tasktray icons that "talk" to you via message dialogues.  The messages can be just about anything, from my wireless connecting to the example that you see below.

Often, these bubbles will display something that you want more information on - if you click on them they'll launch a program that it referred to.  Handy, and if you don't want to see them, they just go away - usually.

After installing a new program I was asked to reboot (glad that Microsoft kept that tradition, I don't know what I'd do if I didn't have to restart my computer every time I installed something) I was presented the message bubble seen below.

The call to action is great - "Click to view blocked programs".  Nice.  I get to see what it's not letting run that wants to run automatically. 

So I click on the bubble and do you know what happens?

Nothing.  Well, technically it just disappeared.  That's something.  But nothing else happened.  No panel showing what was blocked, just nothing.

It's like someone asking you to pull their finger, and then all they do is look at you.  There's just no fun in that, and no one has a laugh.

This is perhaps the biggest issue I have with Vista - it's painfully inconsistent.  Sometimes these bubbles stay until you close them.  Sometimes they disappear on their own.  Sometimes you get something if you click on them, other times you just get the surprise of nothing.

Vista just leaves you figuring it out for yourself.  And as we've seen from some of the messages that appear, that can often take a lot of work.

I've received a few emails regarding the clocks in Vista.  Yes, there are different ones you can select from - eight of them to be precise.  For your viewing pleasure, here they are.  These are all actual size, cropped right off my desktop.  As you can see, some are a little better regarding being able to tell the time.  Some are much worse.  Some the designer should be dragged out to the parking lot for.

Clear dialogues to the user are key element of a good experience.  It’s where you find out what’s going on and what you can do about.  Cryptic messages do nothing except make you angry, frustrated, and potentially make a bad situation worse.  On the plus side, it does help keep me employed by figuring out just how to fix something.

As Vista is supposed to deliver a great user experience, one would guess they would have really nailed the system dialogue issue.  Let’s take a look.

Here is one of the better dialogues from Vista:

The header is asking me what to do, and telling me why it’s asking.  Then I get a pair of options with the implications for each (well, one of them at least) listed.  It’s short and to the point.  I can understand this and get on with things.

I would probably switch the header and explanations around to say what’s going on first then ask me what to do.  Something like this:

There might be a problem with some files on this device or disc.

This can happen if…

Do you want to scan and fix 2GB FLASH (G:)?

  ->  Scan and fix (recommended)
         This will prevent…

  ->  Continue without scanning

However, it’s not incomprehensible.

Something like this example on the other hand:

I’m not really sure where to start with this one.  

First of all, the problem that brought about this dialogue was not that my modem or router was not available - so it was wrong to begin with.  The actual problem is that I had not yet entered the wireless encryption code for my router, but it was certainly available.

Let’s start at the bottom, the two that are options for the system – get new settings or reset the adapter.  That’s fine, I’m telling the system what to do.  The first is just a mess.   The action is an explanation, the actions are for me, or someone else, and it’s just confusing.  And none of these would have solved anything.  By making it an option am I telling myself to do something when I click it?

Turning up the confusing meter a bit, let’s see what happens when you try to copy a file to a destination that already has a file of the same name.

So we’ve moved from the gray/black copy to web link blue copy for no apparent reason.  How many designers did we have on this again?

The instructions tell me to click the file I want to keep, but my options are “Copy and Replace” or “Don’t Copy” or “Copy, but keep both files”.  Just to add some flavor, we have a “Skip” and “Cancel” button down there.

I know what I’m doing and this confuses me every time that I see it.  It hurts me just to talk about it.  I’m still not sure which file is the one I’m copying.  Is the first one listed the one that I’m copying to somewhere, or is it the one I might overwrite?  You sure?  You want to bet all the changes that you just made on that?

Be prepared to re-interpret this screen every time you see it.

Another one of my favorites:

How exactly will my audio files speed up my system with Windows ReadyBoost?  I suppose if I had some Nine Inch Nails on there it could get it going in an angry sort of way, but what if I have The Smiths on there?  Will it crawl to a stop in a depressed little heap?

There are plenty more examples, don’t think that things will be clearer for you coming from another version of Windows.

You've heard it time and time again, security is Vista's strong point. Sitting in the middle of all this security is something called UAC - User Account Control. Much has been written on the topic . How it is supposed to protect the user and the computer, how it separates tasks into regular user and administrator type activities, how it will reduce support calls and costs…

What doesn't seem to have been written on it is what it's like to live with every day, what it's like to interact with when you're renaming or deleting files, moving folders around, the basic things that one does with their computer.

Here is a simple example. Renaming a folder.

Right click on the folder and select Rename.

The folder name becomes editable, as it always has. Enter the new name.

You'll be asked to confirm that you do, in fact, want to change the folder name.

And then you'll be asked permission to do what you just confirmed you wanted to do.

This doesn't seem to bad if you just describe that the system is asking to protect itself. Now, the next folder you'll rename does the same thing. And the one after that, and after that, and after that.

Deleting a file does the same thing. Moving folders around does it. Rearranging things in the Start Menu does it. Two, three extra clicks for everything. It's tough to imagine how anything could have been intentionally designed to be so irritating.

This is not increased security, it's putting the responsibility on the user. If you install spyware, it's your fault. You told it to. If you get a virus, it's your fault, you allowed it to.

Now you get to tell Grandma' that yes, it really is her fault and she broke it.

Microsoft says they dramatically rearchitected the OS to provide this level of protection. Why bother? That's right, so you could blame the users and not the company when systems get infected.

I was working on someone's PC the other day, trying to get rid of a nasty trojan on her system. I was in the Windows folder deleting files the trojan left behind. Have you ever gone into the Windows folder? There's all sorts of stuff in there, random programs just get to write there if they feel like it's necessary.

Why? Why on earth does an OS allow anything to be written to it's system folder? Why isn't this protected, held sacred? Why not rearchitect the OS to tell programs to keep hands off the system folder? "No, you can't touch that. That's the system. Sorry." How many infections could be prevented if things were not allowed to just modify the system folder, permission or not?

A few months ago Symantec and McAfee were complaining they couldn't get kernel level, the lowest level there is, access to the system for their programs. They claimed that Microsoft was pushing them out of the market. I can't say that I would be sad to see them go if the operating system was inherently secure, if things were held sacred - like where the OS lives. But instead we have to live with terribly bloated programs drilling their way into base levels of the system to "protect" us on the most secure OS that Microsoft has ever produced and having the onus of dictating our own security.

And yes, UAC has been turned off of my system since last night. Less secure? I don't care, I'm going back to XP anyway.

Probably the most recognizable Windows program of all time (well, since 1990 and Windows 3.0 was first introduced) is the card game Solitaire.  I'm sure everyone reading this has spent way too much time playing it, and you can't explain why.  I'm sure you've all walked past countless coworkers who have inadvertently been caught playing it (only on their lunch breaks, of couse).

I myself am blameless, of course.

So one of the first things I tried to do after Vista was up and running was test out Solitaire, for the comprehensive review of course.  Cracking open the new Start menu (more on that later) I found the Games "folder".  There was only one item in it called the "Games Explorer".

We've now got Windows Explorer, Internet Explorer & Games Explorer…  Hoping it was some sort of fully inclusive games menu I launched it.

Where's my Solitaire?  Freecell? The only thing I have here is a Harry Pottesque trophy (I'm sure that's trademarked and copyrighted out the wazoo, all credit goes to those powerful wizards, er, lawyers) and a System Rating score, whatever that is.  Mine is a 4.2; I guess the Russians were not judging this one.

Now, I'm running Vista Business and many companies like to hide Solitaire (though not remove because I think it's actually essential to a fully functional Windows system) to prevent the aforementioned lunchtime transgressions.  Opening the Control Panel to look for Add/Remove programs, I was met with the yet again redesigned Control Panel.

I still don't know why Microsoft feels the need to separate the items out into groups.  Some groups only have one item in them, how useful is that?  All it does is make you read the headers for each group and prevents you from setting it up alphabetically.

More on the Control Panel in a later episode.

Here's where it get's as surreal as the "Click Start to shutdown" joke that's haunted Microsoft since Windows 95.  Add/Remove Programs has been renamed "Uninstall a program", unfortunately, this is where (after trial and error) you go to get your games turned on.

See, because once you click on "Uninstall a program" it reveals it's true identity… "Uninstall or change a program".  Tucked off to the side, is "Turn Windows features on or off".

And here is where I can get my Solitaire back.

Remove Programs to install.  Brilliant set up. 

One of the features that Microsoft hypes when it comes to Vista marketing is the Sidebar. This is the (by default) right side of your screen where "gadgets" (proper Microsoft speak) or "widgets" reside. A gadget is essentially a little program that does a unique task such as a clock, a calendar or something to tell you the stocks. Vista comes with a nice selection and I've become fairly partial to the clock gadget. Why? Because I can have four of them in the sidebar at once, each set to a different timezone and labeled appropriately - it's my world clock sidebar. I'm very pleased with the idea and one of the things I really like about Vista.

You also know that Vista is all about looking good. As a user interface guy one of the "discussions" we always had with designers was making something look gratuitously good to the detriment of something else, namely the ability to use it for it's intended purpose. Yes, I realize that people are more satisifed with the items they use if they're aesthetically pleasing. I have nothing against things looking good - as long as it doesn't completely defeat the purpose of having that thing to begin with.

Like a clock face. How is it possible to mess up a clock face? There's lots of different clock faces, and as long as you stick to a few basic principles they're really hard to mess up.

Quick, what time is it?

Really, there's only one way to mess this up, and they managed to do it. Some designer actually made the length of the hands so close to each other that you can barely tell them apart. I really can't tell what time it is with a quick glance, and I bet you can't either.

Little touches like this are all through Vista. Little things that if tweaked ever so slightly could look just as good, but be useful as well.

In Windows XP, one of the most useful features was the ability to ctrl+click on a folder.  Doing so would open the folder in a new window.  This provided incredible flexability in navigation through multiple folders.  It eliminated the need to scroll up and down in the folders pane of Windows Explorer. 

Need to get something but don't want to lose where you are?  Just ctrl+click on a folder, get a new window using that folder as the starting point, and go from there.  You never lose the place that you want to get back to.  It wasn't necessary to try and find your original folder in window again.

So, probably because it was useful, you can no longer do this in Vista.  Now I need to either open a new window and have to navigate to where I want to go, or start scrolling around in the folder pane and lose my original place.

It's crippling. Vista has just gone from a slightly irritating interface to actually slowing me down and preventing me from working efficiently.  

I'm strongly considering going back to XP just to get this ability back.

This just happened to me, and I had to share. I clicked on a folder in my documents and this message appeared.

You're not supposed to be here, but if you click this button you're on your way. So much for file security - I guess I can just go read anyone's documents that I want to. All I have to do is promise that it's OK.

This reminds me of how it works here in Egypt. For a little baksheesh (money) you can break just about any rule you want to. Need to get in after hours? Find the guy with the key and pay him. Want to see that tomb that's still being excavated? Give the really bored guard a few pounds. He'll even hold the flashlight for you. Need to access whatever you want to? Click Continue.

So what happens when I click Continue?

The screen dims, the User Account Control window appears (I had to photograph it as that screen dimming blocks anything else from happening, like screenshots):

And the UAC tells me that it helps stop unauthorized changes to my computer. OK, so I click on Continue again and it just lets me in the folder that it said I couldn't have access to.

Love it.