| |
| ▲ | raxxorraxor 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don't think it is nostalgia since I did grow up with more extroverted designs in my first OS. I don't really see clutter here, it is as minimal is it can get. Perhaps you would disable some controls on the explorer, but aside from that everything is indeed more minimal than alternatives today. Meanwhile my modern Windows start menu is more or less unusable. The search is decent and I might miss it. It is the only function the start menu provides for me. The modern explorer is cluttered with senseless shortcuts that tries to force certain behaviors. In this example I can probably disable the tool bar to have even more space. Double or single clicking is supported either way. This probably provide an alternative with a context menu. I cannot even begin to explain why the weaknesses of smartphone OS. We have a duopoly with all its negative effects and I am constantly supporting people here, far more than for Desktop PCs. That said, the use case is different. | |
| ▲ | Suppafly 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >My mom always asks me if she’s supposed to double or single click. But she can use a smartphone UI without my help. That's honestly just an old person thing to do, usually coupled with a huge helping of learned helplessness "I just don't get these newfangled computers" and refusing to learn anything new. Show them right click one time and they'll forever ask if you if something that they've always double-clicked on requires a right click. | | |
| ▲ | klabb3 16 hours ago | parent [-] | | If that were the cause it’d apply universally. But the point is that she can use her phone to a much higher degree of independence, despite fat finger issues, much smaller screen real estate, and lack of hover effects, double clicks and right clicks. I always find new apps and figuring things out, but struggling to explore and learn on the computer. To add on top of that, the double click navigation isn’t even consistent on the same platform. In the sidebar on desktop you have single click navigation even on the same type of entity (directories). Look at the younger gens who only used phones. They struggle too. |
| |
| ▲ | dijit 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | double click vs single click is interesting, seems nobody knows how to handle an object needing to be interacted with more than a single way. Maybe the right idea is to just pick one arbitrarily and stick to it consistently. I’m only mildly joking, UX guidelines are basically just this. There is no way to make people implicitly know how to do things (skeuomorphism was a solid attempt). In society it’s only things like hammers that have a universal/innate understood use. | |
| ▲ | mixmastamyk 19 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Single-click was implemented possibly by 2k but definitely by XP. Think it had to do with IE—yes, details below. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | You could single-click to open files in Windows 98 already. You could also hover your mouse pointer on a file icon and it would become selected. | | |
| ▲ | trinix912 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | It was the Internet Explorer shell integration that brought us this feature. The idea was to blend the desktop and web user interfaces. If you installed IE4 on Windows 95, you'd get that option there too. | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | no_wizard 21 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It seems sometimes the past is better than the future that came after. In my opinion, peak usability for platforms I use: - iOS 6 - Windows 7 - Snow Leopard - Windows Phone 10 (may actually have been the best mobile OS user experience I ever had) | | |
| ▲ | bee_rider 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Are those the systems you learned as a teenager/young adult? I felt the same way about XP, despite it being generally regarded as a UI abomination. I think it was just familiar. Anyway, I eventually shook lose of that nostalgia, and for me the best usability has been more recent. The wmii/i3/sway family of window managers are have been just great: simple, to the point, and automatic. I dunno. There are pretty clearly some bad trends in computing generally and mainstream UX specifically, but improvements are still bouncing around in the margins. | |
| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Snow Leopard is pretty good, but personally I’ve found that Mavericks (10.9) edges it out for the little bits of polish it has that SL doesn’t, as well as its brighter more cheery color scheme. The only big downside of Mavericks for me is that it’s missing Snow Leopard’s 2D grid of virtual desktops and instead only has the linear arrangement found in modern versions. I really miss the 2D grid. | | |
| ▲ | TheAmazingRace 21 hours ago | parent [-] | | Mavericks is also the last HiDPI release of Mac OS X that used the Leopard-era icon pack. After that, it went to these garish looking flat icons that I couldn't stand to look at. | | |
| ▲ | detectd 20 hours ago | parent [-] | | I was never a fan of the skeuomorphic icons (and design in general), personally. I think there's a place for flat design and it isn't all bad, in particular peripheral UI elements, like the top menu bar, dock icons, etc. It is interactive elements that should be the ones to stand out, not everything. If the homogeny of flat design makes the main interactive elements less salient, then everything designed to look 3D with glossy surfaces and brushed metal outlines does the same, just with noise. I think there should be a combination of both, which I think is why many find the older interfaces from the 90s and early 2000s much more usable. That's a long way of saying that I prefer the flat application icons and dock on current macOS. The dock stays in the peripheral and the icons identify the application all while not drawing my attention until I purposefully go to it. | | |
| ▲ | cosmic_cheese 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I prefer the older psuedo-photorealistic icon style that macOS used to use because it makes dock icons, sidebar items, etc much easier to quickly distinguish. The icons in modern docks all bearing the same shape and rough set of colors significantly impairs usability. | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > I think there's a place for flat design and it isn't all bad, in particular peripheral UI elements, like the top menu bar, dock icons Funnily enough, these are precisely the elements that are flat in the Windows 9x look. (Windows 9x does not have a "dock" but it does have a quick launch bar and a system tray, and these show flat icons.) |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | NoSalt 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's funny that you mentioned "Snow Leopard", as Apple moving on from that OS version was my reason for going Linux 100% of the time, and I haven't regretted the switch at all. | | |
| ▲ | dijit 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | why? Snow Leopard was widely regarded as an excellent release. Mavericks to Yosemite I would understand, but Snow Leopard felt like a strict improvement to me. What did it do wrong? | | |
| ▲ | arcanemachiner 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | Pretty sure they're agreeing with you. Apple moved on from Snow Leopard, so they moved on to Linux. | | |
|
| |
| ▲ | lurk2 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The thing that gets me about iOS is that they tanked responsiveness in exchange for such a small number of features that don’t even work well. | |
| ▲ | Zambyte 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you elaborate on what you enjoyed about the Windows Phone? I've heard people say they liked it, but I've never really dug into why before. | | |
| ▲ | mrweasel 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The UI was very good. The tiles didn't work on the desktop (Windows 8) but it make a lot of sense on the phone. Every touchable element was large enough that you'd never miss. The UI itself ensured a very consistent experience. I assume that you could do more custom apps, but most apps I used conformed to the general look an feel of the operating system. One thing I don't think enough people mentions is the messaging app. It integrated with Facebook, before Facebook Messenger. This might not be a big thing today, with people leaving Facebook, but it was absolutely brilliant back then. Basically like iMessage, but with Facebook as the non-SMS protocol. I think it may also have integrated with LinkedIn, I don't recall, but it was suppose to just merge all your contacts into one messaging app. As much as I dislike Windows on the desktop, Windows Phone made perfect sense. The UI was completely tailored to the touchscreen and was so easy it use and navigate. It's a real shame it didn't take of. In some sense Microsoft should have treated it more like Windows on the desktop and aggressively offered it to OEMs. | |
| ▲ | doubled112 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Windows Phone was really snappy even on the low end devices. Android at the time had significant lag issues. The UI was fairly consistent. There was no guessing what was a button, what an accidental drag would do, etc. The live squares on the homepage, in my opinion, are still better than anything iOS has come up with. | |
| ▲ | no_wizard 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | In my opinion it’s this: The interface was incredibly fast and intuitive. It was slick and easy to understand but felt modern at the same time. The font felt timeless, it had the best camera app for the time, which was a time where amazing mobile phone cameras were just starting to become a thing (Nokia famously made a 42 megapixel camera for their flagship windows phone and the pics were gorgeous) The first party software was really fast and stable. They were also some of the first phones I ever used with proper OLED screens If you ever get a chance to use one it’s worth it even if it’s only for a day. Really changes one’s perspective on what’s possible with mobile devices. IMO nothing has captured that magic again | | |
| ▲ | mrweasel 20 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > proper OLED screens I had the Nokia Lumia 920, which wasn't an OLED screen, but an IPS, if I recall correctly. Even that screen looked beautiful. I think part of it was the font rendering and the UI design just being perfectly suited to the platform. In any case it just looked amazing. | |
| ▲ | skydhash 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | And it really felt like a professional device. Very minimalist but on point. A tablet version of it (not Win8 mismatch) would have been great! |
| |
| ▲ | sunaookami 21 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Not OP but I also had a Windows Phone (8). It had a consistent design in every app and it just "felt" good to use. The inboxed apps were great (surprisingly!) and the phones themselves were quite cheap. Windows Phone was optimized for low RAM phones so it ran smooth there. I also miss the keyboard, I rarely mistyped which happens constantly with GBoard. Haven't found a replacement that doesn't suck yet... It's hard to put into words because you have had to use it to understand! I despise Windows 10 Mobile though - it killed the whole platform and made the OS unbearably slow. It was full of bugs and it was clear that it was the beginning of the end for Microsoft's mobile amibitions. I use Android now but it's a mess. Google can't decide on a consistent UI + UX and everything is all over the place. | |
| ▲ | nguyenkien 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Everything feel smooth, on par with iOS. Unfortunate there no quality apps for it. If you want a detox phone (like light phone) just get an old WP, it's cheaper. |
|
| |
| ▲ | dartharva 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Current interfaces are generally a lot more simpler than those ones though? Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces? | | |
| ▲ | MyPasswordSucks 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Current interfaces are generally a lot more simpler than those ones though? Unless and until you need to do something that isn't one of the three or four basic functions. > Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces? A perfectly-designed window menu is going to be simpler than a perfectly-designed iPad interface. There's only so much you can really have access to in iPad/Android-land, and any functionality that can't be encompassed with tap/long-tap/tap-and-drag is going to require a drastic break from the ordinary functionality. With window-menus, since you're already using window-menus for lots of stuff, it's not as drastic a break from the routine. Now, I was careful to say "perfectly-designed" for each, because around the edges it can absolutely be a bit of a pain (my favorite go-to example is finding a "preferences" menu, which in Windows software can be in any of File > Preferences, Edit > Preferences, Tools > Preferences, or Options > Preferences - among many other options; and sometimes there's even a separate "Settings" menu with different options buried somewhere else), but even so, more often than not, window-menus still win by virtue of flexibility. | | |
| ▲ | zozbot234 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Touch-screen interfaces today are anything but "perfectly designed". The most effective and most easily controlled UX action on a touch-screen is a swipe, so if complex interactions are a priority you should pick something like pie-menus throughout. The basic idea is that what takes multiple clicks on a mouse should ideally take only a single swipe motion (with confirmation for destructive actions) on a touchscreen. | | |
| ▲ | MyPasswordSucks 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Touch-screen interfaces today are anything but "perfectly designed". I don't disagree. However, a mouse will always be more versatile than a touchscreen. There's a finite theoretical ceiling for touchscreens that's well underneath that of mice. Even looking beyond the completely-obvious fact that there's no real way to distinguish between "point" and "drag" on a touchscreen (other than "did this start on a draggable element", which is far from ideal), two fingers and a thumb can readily control five separate buttons plus a scrollwheel, and I can add even more buttons to a mouse. I can't add more fingers for touchscreens. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gjvc 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Current interfaces are generally a lot more simpler than those ones though? Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces? "simpler" == "easier to find the feature you need", not "fewer gui items to click" Also, do you realise you attempting an apples to pears comparison? | | |
| ▲ | dartharva 19 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Also, do you realise you attempting an apples to pears comparison? Compare with current-gen GNOME then. > "simpler" == "easier to find the feature you need", not "fewer gui items to click" The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime. | | |
| ▲ | trinix912 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | > The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime. Not when the menus were 15-20 entires with occasional icons and the ribbon is 50+ icons of various sizes (and hidden functionalities - the little group corner arrows). "Easier" also implies easy visual parsing. |
|
|
|
|
