Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
> One thing I've observed over the years of Microsoft products is that they 
> tend to aim for "good enough" rather than "perfect".  Sadly, that's the 
> way of things in software creation - the companies that make technically 
> excellent software - and groundbreaking software - tend not to do as well 
> because they spend too much on development and not enough on marketing.

One of their biggest flaws is that they seemingly have this idea that
a new version of their OS (or other software suit) has to look&feel
different from the previous version, for the sole reason of
looking&feeling different from the previous version, even at the cost
of usability (and often even at the cost of breaking *their own*
GUI design and usability principles.)

There are many things that Windows 3 did right in terms of usability
of the GUI design. Each new version of Windows has chopped off those
design principles one by one.

Sadly, this trend has infected other companies as well (I'm looking
at you, Apple. Each new version of OS X is worse and worse in terms
of GUI design and usability.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > Microsoft is traditionally known for software of questionable quality
> > (especially on the operating system side, even though they have improved
> > in this section since the integrated their NT line into their desktop line)
> > and their dubious competitive tactics, especially in the past (eg.
> > basically extorting PC vendors to include their OS in all sold machines).

> I won't fully agree with this statement; their primary software 
> development product has been demonstrating exceptionally high quality 
> (at least by MS standards) for a decade or more (except for the 
> documentation).

You "won't fully agree", yet you are agreeing. I said: "even though they
have improved in this section since the integrated their NT line into
their desktop line."

When did this happen? A decade ago (with XP and the bunch of updates to
it that came soon after.)

XP is their first desktop OS that can *barely* be called an actual
operating system.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Am 15.12.2013 08:53, schrieb Warp:
> clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
>>> Microsoft is traditionally known for software of questionable quality
>>> (especially on the operating system side, even though they have improved
>>> in this section since the integrated their NT line into their desktop line)
>>> and their dubious competitive tactics, especially in the past (eg.
>>> basically extorting PC vendors to include their OS in all sold machines).
>
>> I won't fully agree with this statement; their primary software
>> development product has been demonstrating exceptionally high quality
>> (at least by MS standards) for a decade or more (except for the
>> documentation).
>
> You "won't fully agree", yet you are agreeing. I said: "even though they
> have improved in this section since the integrated their NT line into
> their desktop line."

... with "this section" obviously referring to "the operating system 
side". Since when does that term cover software development products?

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 02:50:33 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> One thing I've observed over the years of Microsoft products is that
>> they tend to aim for "good enough" rather than "perfect".  Sadly,
>> that's the way of things in software creation - the companies that make
>> technically excellent software - and groundbreaking software - tend not
>> to do as well because they spend too much on development and not enough
>> on marketing.
> 
> One of their biggest flaws is that they seemingly have this idea that a
> new version of their OS (or other software suit) has to look&feel
> different from the previous version, for the sole reason of
> looking&feeling different from the previous version, even at the cost of
> usability (and often even at the cost of breaking *their own*
> GUI design and usability principles.)

That's certainly true.  I do wonder how much user acceptance testing they 
did on their designs.  Most companies cut that corner when designing a 
new UI.

> There are many things that Windows 3 did right in terms of usability of
> the GUI design. Each new version of Windows has chopped off those design
> principles one by one.
> 
> Sadly, this trend has infected other companies as well (I'm looking at
> you, Apple. Each new version of OS X is worse and worse in terms of GUI
> design and usability.)

From what I've seen, I agree (but I haven't seen Mavericks yet).  I 
didn't really care for the Windows 3 design either (I was a Desqview 
person prior to Windows' dominance - and I still prefer text interfaces, 
and tend to see GUIs as a way to open more terminal windows, though 
obviously these days you have to work with a GUI to run a fair amount of 
software).

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Le 15/12/2013 17:13, Jim Henderson nous fit lire :
>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>> >> One thing I've observed over the years of Microsoft products is that
>>> >> they tend to aim for "good enough" rather than "perfect".  Sadly,
>>> >> that's the way of things in software creation - the companies that make
>>> >> technically excellent software - and groundbreaking software - tend not
>>> >> to do as well because they spend too much on development and not enough
>>> >> on marketing.
>> > 
>> > One of their biggest flaws is that they seemingly have this idea that a
>> > new version of their OS (or other software suit) has to look&feel
>> > different from the previous version, for the sole reason of
>> > looking&feeling different from the previous version, even at the cost of
>> > usability (and often even at the cost of breaking *their own*
>> > GUI design and usability principles.)
> That's certainly true.  I do wonder how much user acceptance testing they 
> did on their designs.  Most companies cut that corner when designing a 
> new UI.
> 
Back in the old days, Apple, Microsoft and even the Unix consortium
(well CDE) (no linux yet) all had rules books about their GUI
(specifying such thing as: "Quit" menu entry must be in at bottom of
first menu entry which must be named "File", and tiny details like all
the classical-to-be short-cut ). Of course the three did not used the
same rules, and it was rather recommendations than hard-coded rules.

It was a time of desktop and things were simple. Then Microsoft moved to
portable computer, then mobile phone and tablet, and then just forget
about the diversity of input devices (desktop have a mouse, portable
have a track-sensitive-device that is used to emulate a mouse, tablet
and phone have no mouse, but a full sensitive screen...), and the latest
bad move from Microsoft was: same GUI wherever you are (marketing ok:
user thinks it already know one when on the other; technically
brain-dead: I have not a 26 inches touch screen for my desktop, and
still no mouse on the mobile phone!)

For an historical evolution, look at the border of the windows: from
dead simple in 3 (at best one or two pixels), it went 3D-like/bevel in
95, and goes even further till XP. Then Vista/7 went with transparency
and other 3D round effect... to drop them dead, back to not even
decorated window in latest version (which is ok on mobile phone, as
every pixel is a rare resources, but not on desktop).

Same with the logo of the OS: b&w in 3, floating curve in 95...more 3D
in later and just ugly 4 rectangles showing a cross in latest.

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 15 Dec 2013 19:32:10 +0100, Le_Forgeron wrote:

>> That's certainly true.  I do wonder how much user acceptance testing
>> they did on their designs.  Most companies cut that corner when
>> designing a new UI.
>> 
> Back in the old days, Apple, Microsoft and even the Unix consortium
> (well CDE) (no linux yet) all had rules books about their GUI
> (specifying such thing as: "Quit" menu entry must be in at bottom of
> first menu entry which must be named "File", and tiny details like all
> the classical-to-be short-cut ). Of course the three did not used the
> same rules, and it was rather recommendations than hard-coded rules.

Well, yes, and those UI design guides still exist (I was actually 
recently doing some work and needed to know the names of certain controls 
in Safari, and ran across the Apple guidelines.

> It was a time of desktop and things were simple. Then Microsoft moved to
> portable computer, then mobile phone and tablet, and then just forget
> about the diversity of input devices (desktop have a mouse, portable
> have a track-sensitive-device that is used to emulate a mouse, tablet
> and phone have no mouse, but a full sensitive screen...), and the latest
> bad move from Microsoft was: same GUI wherever you are (marketing ok:
> user thinks it already know one when on the other; technically
> brain-dead: I have not a 26 inches touch screen for my desktop, and
> still no mouse on the mobile phone!)

Well, yes, but they do actually have guidelines laid out in the Microsoft 
Manual of Style for words used, and I know they also have a UI design 
guide.  The challenge is coming up with words for "click" when "tap" also 
is valid.

One of the rather frustrating bits of terminology has to do with multi-
select.  If you have items that are highlighted (ie, they don't have 
checkboxes next to them), if you want to describe the act of "ensuring 
all items are deselected," the MS Manual of Style says "never use 
'deselected'".  To make things worse, "unselected" is also not allowed.  
"Cleared" is the word that is *supposed* to be used, but that applies to 
checkboxes and not a multi-select list (like a file list).

"Ensure no items are selected" is what I had to phrase it as to meet the 
guidelines.  It actually isn't awkward in context, but getting there was 
weird.

> For an historical evolution, look at the border of the windows: from
> dead simple in 3 (at best one or two pixels), it went 3D-like/bevel in
> 95, and goes even further till XP. Then Vista/7 went with transparency
> and other 3D round effect... to drop them dead, back to not even
> decorated window in latest version (which is ok on mobile phone, as
> every pixel is a rare resources, but not on desktop).
> 
> Same with the logo of the OS: b&w in 3, floating curve in 95...more 3D
> in later and just ugly 4 rectangles showing a cross in latest.

Yep.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 13/12/2013 02:48 PM, Doctor John wrote:
> It's not often that I praise Microsoft (well, never actually) but their
> support team at Reading, UK deserves a pat on the back.
> A problem that looked like it would take 3 days to fix has been sorted
> within 12 hours. Well done Rajesh and the rest of his team.

Does anybody else find it kinda sad that when a customer support team 
actually DOES THEIR JOB CORRECTLY, this is remarkable enough to be 
worthy of comment?

Well done Rajesh - and to all the millions of other customer "service" 
departments out there... WTF, people?!

Post a reply to this message

On 15/12/2013 07:50 AM, Warp wrote:
> One of their biggest flaws is that they seemingly have this idea that
> a new version of their OS (or other software suit) has to look&feel
> different from the previous version, for the sole reason of
> looking&feeling different from the previous version, even at the cost
> of usability (and often even at the cost of breaking *their own*
> GUI design and usability principles.)

I think this criticism probably applies far more sharply to MS Office 
than to Windows. Remember the whole "ribbon" debacle?

You can understand why it happens. From a marketing perspective, if a 
user just paid $$$ for the new product, they expect it to "look new". If 
it looks utterly identical to the previous one, they might realise that 
actually MS hasn't added a single new feature to Office in the last 20 
years, and start wondering why they're still paying money for "new" 
versions...

PS. I'm not bitter.

Post a reply to this message

On 14/12/2013 08:33 PM, Warp wrote:
> Microsoft is traditionally known for software of questionable quality
> (especially on the operating system side, even though they have improved
> in this section since the integrated their NT line into their desktop line)
> and their dubious competitive tactics, especially in the past (eg.
> basically extorting PC vendors to include their OS in all sold machines).
>
> However, has Microsoft ever got a fame of poor-quality constumer support?
> I have not got this impression. (Sure, there are quite many individual
> examples of this, there always are, but has it been a common trend?)

Until very recently, I didn't know you could *get* customer support from 
MS. I thought they just sell you the software. I didn't realise you 
could actually get *support* for it...

(Then again, maybe that's because I don't work for a massive 
multi-national conglomerate with a huge multi-billion dollar support 
agreement...)

Post a reply to this message