T4 & windows xp

[pough]

Sorry, but that's still mostly subjective. The "dock" in win 7 doesn't slow me down compared to the task bar in xp, no matter who wrote what after designing something. Telling me that's objective fact is just daft. I don't mind if you use xp, and prefer it, I don't. Win 7 gives me a better user experience, no matter who wrote what where.

For the record, you're responding to this:

It ignored a lot of user interface research that showed, for example, that people identify applications or documents faster, when they have both a textual description and an icon or image.

It's not really daft to point to the results of research as objective. It might, however, be daft to counter objective research with your subjective perception of your own experience. They didn't do research on a single person; the results indicate what's useful or not in general, so when they say it doesn't work as well that means that it doesn't work as well for the majority, in spite of some outliers like you.

I'm a part of the majority, it would seem. The new taskbar in Windows 7 totally slows me down. I scan text much more easily than pictures. Also, I look at the taskbar to see what's running and some things are there that aren't running. I will admit that it looks less busy. However, busy is what that part of the screen is meant to be about...

[Ivan_C]

Anyway, if you want to learn more, I suggest reading books on the subject - there's a lot to learn, and I've only scratched the surface with two examples. You could counter them, but there's not much point - it's a much broader field than that.

Do you have some good book references for example ? I'm really interested a lot by this field...

[metamorphosis]

I'm a part of the majority, it would seem. The new taskbar in Windows 7 totally slows me down. I scan text much more easily than pictures. Also, I look at the taskbar to see what's running and some things are there that aren't running. I will admit that it looks less busy. However, busy is what that part of the screen is meant to be about...

I agree (BTW I wouldn't worry about chico - he didn't spend the time to read what I wrote, so he's not interested in discussion, just bias) -
and I actually appreciate the way that the mac OS9 interface hid other open application references in a menu - made it 'less busy' and more relaxed.
I actually came up with a task-switching interface a long time ago which balanced the benefits of 'other app' hiding with faster task switching.

Unfortunately I'm not in a position to design an OS

But I think the whole point of the taskbar was having the fastest-possible task-switching mechanism - and they achieved that - or nobody's topped it yet, at least. It's a shame that they felt compelled to innovate to no effect.

Incidentally pough, if you want to show taskbar text labels in win7, here's instructions on how to do it:
http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/3815/win ... cons-only/

I think it's still not possible to get text labels on pinned items.

There's also a taskbar tweaker if you want to get finicky:
http://rammichael.com/7-taskbar-tweaker

Do you have some good book references for example ? I'm really interested a lot by this field...

I'd start with asktog.com - he's one of the original mac designers, some of what he writes is biased rant, but some of it's pretty good.
Also he has a couple of books available through his About page.

[jabe]

It can't be far off Monday afternoon on the left hand edge of Usaland, and I bet all the Tracktion elves are frantically busy right now.

[chico.co.uk]

Sorry, but that's still mostly subjective. The "dock" in win 7 doesn't slow me down compared to the task bar in xp, no matter who wrote what after designing something. Telling me that's objective fact is just daft. I don't mind if you use xp, and prefer it, I don't. Win 7 gives me a better user experience, no matter who wrote what where.

For the record, you're responding to this:

It ignored a lot of user interface research that showed, for example, that people identify applications or documents faster, when they have both a textual description and an icon or image.

It's not really daft to point to the results of research as objective. It might, however, be daft to counter objective research with your subjective perception of your own experience. They didn't do research on a single person; the results indicate what's useful or not in general, so when they say it doesn't work as well that means that it doesn't work as well for the majority, in spite of some outliers like you.

I'm a part of the majority, it would seem. The new taskbar in Windows 7 totally slows me down. I scan text much more easily than pictures. Also, I look at the taskbar to see what's running and some things are there that aren't running. I will admit that it looks less busy. However, busy is what that part of the screen is meant to be about...

Listen guys, I've genuinely no interest in arguing about this, and perhaps I'm not expressing myself very well, so we're misunderstanding each other, and perhaps I've misunderstood the slant you're putting on user interface research, but to try to explain, here's where my earlier comments came from, and what I was trying to say;

User interface research isn't objective fact. Research into how users react to different interface designs can never be objective by definition, because you're trying to determine what the majority respond to best at that point in time, taking into account their previous knowledge and experience. There's never going to be an "objective" right or wrong user interface, but I entirely accept that it's a valid thing to do, and it helps you understand what works best for most people, at that time.

But that's not the same as saying something's objectively true. An article on UX design isn't objective fact in the same sense that a chapter on how to use pointers in C++ is objective fact, and UX interface research doesn't remain objectively "true" five or ten years after it's written. Unlike (for example) a book written in 1982 that explains how Z80 processors store the screen display in memory remains objectively true thirty years later.

So all I really meant was I (personally) prefer Win7 over XP (now) and would struggle to go back to using XP. I don't personally feel I need text on the icons on the taskbar to achieve what I use computers to do, but I entirely accept that my adjustment period is past, and am happy to take your word for it that most people work faster with those kind of visual clues.

So anyway, peace, I'm not wanting a fight.

As an aside, got a new work laptop last week, which in a fit of masochism I wiped and installed Windows 8. Wow, that really is a user interface disaster zone. Admittedly I've no touch screen, and it's clearly aimed at those who do, but even if I did, it's an unintuitive nightmare. Hot corners? Full screen apps by default? Agghh. Your average gran, or my dad would give up before they got gmail open.

I'm kinda interested to hear if I've missed the point of what we're saying, but I'm not trying to piss anyone off, so if it sounds that way, sorry.

[metamorphosis]

User interface research isn't objective fact. Research into how users react to different interface designs can never be objective by definition, because you're trying to determine what the majority respond to best at that point in time, taking into account their previous knowledge and experience. There's never going to be an "objective" right or wrong user interface, but I entirely accept that it's a valid thing to do, and it helps you understand what works best for most people, at that time.

That's not actually true. Leaving 'right' or 'wrong' out of it, as they weren't mentioned earlier, there's certain things that are objectively measurable as being faster or slower ways of doing things, and more clear and less clear - for all humans with vision and functional hands, which is to say 99% of humans.
What you might be doing is confusing the term 'objective' with 'absolute'.

The whole reason I didn't want to get into an argument about specific points is that it's so much larger than that, and a layman's understanding of the subject isn't really worth working with. It's better to study up then come at me.
However, to explain the objective logic in the previous example - the more info you hide, the more difficult it is for someone to identify something.
If you blur a tiger, it's harder to identify. Every application that's hidden is a blurred tiger. If you attach an icon to the blurred tiger, somebody who knows that icon is associated with the tiger will identify it as a tiger, the rest don't know what it is. Also, people will sometimes forget what an icon is associated with.
If you attach just text to the tiger, saying 'tiger', then that's fine, but it's also slower than identifying the tiger via an icon, because the human brain is designed to process imagery faster than text (text being a secondary and learned feature).
SO best is to have both. User interface work is not subjective, it is an objective science. If you want to disagree with that, then go away, study up, come back, and argue with me. But don't say 'hey this doesn't exist because I never heard of it'.

Now I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that there are aspects of the UI in XP that are, by default, configured very badly, just as there are similar things in win7. But speaking purely on UI design terms, there are some really bad decisions in vista/7 that I believe have more to do with marketing than design.
If we're talking technical terms - then sure, for some people, win7 is going to work better - if you work with ssd's or newer hardware for example.

I'm kinda interested to hear if I've missed the point of what we're saying, but I'm not trying to piss anyone off, so if it sounds that way, sorry.

Hey, if I'm getting pissed off, that's my fault, so, no worries.
Generally it annoys me that people tend to confuse aesthetics with UI design, as one is the architecture, and one is the paint, if you want to use a house-building analogy. So if I'm taking out that frustration out on you - many apologies.

[pough]

As an aside, got a new work laptop last week, which in a fit of masochism I wiped and installed Windows 8. Wow, that really is a user interface disaster zone. Admittedly I've no touch screen, and it's clearly aimed at those who do, but even if I did, it's an unintuitive nightmare. Hot corners? Full screen apps by default? Agghh. Your average gran, or my dad would give up before they got gmail open.

I totally agree.

[pquenin]

As an aside, got a new work laptop last week, which in a fit of masochism I wiped and installed Windows 8. Wow, that really is a user interface disaster zone. Admittedly I've no touch screen, and it's clearly aimed at those who do, but even if I did, it's an unintuitive nightmare. Hot corners? Full screen apps by default? Agghh. Your average gran, or my dad would give up before they got gmail open.

I totally agree.

I totally disagree. W8 is more fun, even if I have no touch screen.
Well, most of the time I'm in the desktop view...
But for internet ,mail, news and so on, the W8 UI is fine.

[Ivan_C]

I'd start with asktog.com - he's one of the original mac designers, some of what he writes is biased rant, but some of it's pretty good.
Also he has a couple of books available through his About page.

Thanks