8 ms·

This UI they are pushing with Metro (or whatever it's called now) is horrendous. Has nobody at Microsoft ever read a design book?

untog 14y ago
Seriously? Metro (/Modern, whatever) has been almost universally praised by designers. You're entitled to your own opinion on it, but suggesting that no-one has read a design book is a bizarre statement.
- dmix 14y ago
  I don't know... this UI would scare my mom away from using her phone: http://i.imgur.com/Sbh9x.png http://i.imgur.com/Sbh9x.png
  - vyrotek 14y ago
    That UI is exactly why I'm switching to WP8 the second they're available.
  - code_duck 14y ago
    I'd have to actually spend more time using one than a few minutes in a Verizon store to render a judgement, but I agree... To me, it appears neither usable nor attractive. Perhaps design critics like it, but such people aren't always so connected to the real world.
  - untog 14y ago
    Why? I don't see what makes it any more or less approachable than iOS, but I suppose it depends how you use skeuomorphism as a crutch. People had no problems adjusting to Windows (the Start button hardly has a real-life equivalent), I'm not sure why this would be any different.
    - dmix 14y ago
      iOS and Android have labeled icons in a predictable order. The windows phone assumes the user is familiar with common phone app functions based on icons. That assumes a lot from non-technical users. Not sure why you brought up skeuomorphism. It's poor aesthetic taste but it doesn't necessarily make the UI difficult to use.
      - freehunter 14y ago
        Thing is, the user puts those icons there, not Microsoft. It comes with a few clearly labeled icons, and when you install an app you choose to put its live tile on the start screen if you wish. With that in mind, it should be fairly obvious to the user which tile does what.
  - MSM 14y ago
    That's perfect, you just wrote their next marketing piece: "It's not your mother's phone"
    - sk5t 14y ago
      Recent Samsung Galaxy phone commercials have been mocking Apple for being parent-friendly--e.g., hipster man-child 30-something is just holding his parents' spot in line for an iPhone; they return, and mother asks "Is this the line for apps?" It's a nauseating commercial IMO... which isn't to say it isn't effective.
      - untog 14y ago
        I thought that part of the ad was an interesting counterpoint to the "I'm a (boring, businessman-like) PC, I'm a (cool, hip, trendy) Mac" ads.
  - madoublet 14y ago
    I can't tell if you are serious or trolling. If I was setting up a phone for someone who was older and did not understand technology, Windows Phone would be the first platform I started with. Why? The target areas are large and easy to hit. The iconography is simple and easy to understand. And, you can pin actually stuff to the home screen. Son, how do I call you? Just click my face and hit call. Son, how do I get directions to your house? Just click on the map that I pinned. Etc., etc.
    - clauretano 14y ago
      If the iconography was so easy to understand, apps wouldn't need that little "..." button at the bottom right to expand the icons at the bottom of the screen to show icon labels. Minimalism is wonderful, but hiding icon labels by default and forcing single color icons really kills usability.
      - madoublet 14y ago
        (1) The color (or lack of) has nothing to do with the usability. In fact, if color does aid in use then you probably have a larger accessibility problem. (2) I think you are biasing your opinion too much toward the first-use of an application. Yes, associating icons and labels does aid in learning and first-use, but has little effect on usability long term for regularly used applications. With that said, the in-app icons you are referring to are typically straight forward (add, search, remove, etc) and, in my opinion, are understandable on first use as well. There are occasionally poorly designed third party apps that do have obscure in-app icons. But, this is not typical of the platform.
        qdog 14y ago
        My wife has a win7 phone, very similar with the huge icons (part of the reason she bought it was she could see it without her glasses on). However, I hate using it. My android phone isn't what I'd call intuitive, but I do know exactly how to get where I want to go, ie: push the expanded apps button, scroll around for settings. Took about 4 times to find the right settings button for bluetooth on the win7 phone, I knew pretty much where to go immediately on my phone from the start. So...I'd say ease of use is high as long as you only want what is on your home icons, but not so much after that.
- adjwilli 14y ago
  Metro is interesting for its originality and almost complete lack of skeuomorphic flourishes. The problem with it though is that everything looks alike and nothing analogous. They've even eliminated drop shadows and depth-implying gradients from the interface. While those may be skeuomorphic in the broadest sense, because our vision expects depth, they provide the user by functional signifiers. Metro, in its deviant haste, went too far to the other aesthetic extreme.
jwoah12 14y ago
Care to elaborate? From what I've seen, the UI has gotten pretty good marks in general.
jsolson 14y ago
I'm curious what core principle of design you feel they've violated that they'd have gotten right by having "ever read a design book". What do you find so objectively appalling about Metro?
sukuriant 14y ago
What does this have to do with the SDK being available?

untog 14y ago

Seriously? Metro (/Modern, whatever) has been almost universally praised by designers. You're entitled to your own opinion on it, but suggesting that no-one has read a design book is a bizarre statement.

dmix 14y ago
I don't know... this UI would scare my mom away from using her phone: http://i.imgur.com/Sbh9x.png http://i.imgur.com/Sbh9x.png
- vyrotek 14y ago
  That UI is exactly why I'm switching to WP8 the second they're available.
- code_duck 14y ago
  I'd have to actually spend more time using one than a few minutes in a Verizon store to render a judgement, but I agree... To me, it appears neither usable nor attractive. Perhaps design critics like it, but such people aren't always so connected to the real world.
- untog 14y ago
  Why? I don't see what makes it any more or less approachable than iOS, but I suppose it depends how you use skeuomorphism as a crutch. People had no problems adjusting to Windows (the Start button hardly has a real-life equivalent), I'm not sure why this would be any different.
  - dmix 14y ago
    iOS and Android have labeled icons in a predictable order. The windows phone assumes the user is familiar with common phone app functions based on icons. That assumes a lot from non-technical users. Not sure why you brought up skeuomorphism. It's poor aesthetic taste but it doesn't necessarily make the UI difficult to use.
    - freehunter 14y ago
      Thing is, the user puts those icons there, not Microsoft. It comes with a few clearly labeled icons, and when you install an app you choose to put its live tile on the start screen if you wish. With that in mind, it should be fairly obvious to the user which tile does what.
- MSM 14y ago
  That's perfect, you just wrote their next marketing piece: "It's not your mother's phone"
  - sk5t 14y ago
    Recent Samsung Galaxy phone commercials have been mocking Apple for being parent-friendly--e.g., hipster man-child 30-something is just holding his parents' spot in line for an iPhone; they return, and mother asks "Is this the line for apps?" It's a nauseating commercial IMO... which isn't to say it isn't effective.
    - untog 14y ago
      I thought that part of the ad was an interesting counterpoint to the "I'm a (boring, businessman-like) PC, I'm a (cool, hip, trendy) Mac" ads.
- madoublet 14y ago
  I can't tell if you are serious or trolling. If I was setting up a phone for someone who was older and did not understand technology, Windows Phone would be the first platform I started with. Why? The target areas are large and easy to hit. The iconography is simple and easy to understand. And, you can pin actually stuff to the home screen. Son, how do I call you? Just click my face and hit call. Son, how do I get directions to your house? Just click on the map that I pinned. Etc., etc.
  - clauretano 14y ago
    If the iconography was so easy to understand, apps wouldn't need that little "..." button at the bottom right to expand the icons at the bottom of the screen to show icon labels. Minimalism is wonderful, but hiding icon labels by default and forcing single color icons really kills usability.
    - madoublet 14y ago
      (1) The color (or lack of) has nothing to do with the usability. In fact, if color does aid in use then you probably have a larger accessibility problem. (2) I think you are biasing your opinion too much toward the first-use of an application. Yes, associating icons and labels does aid in learning and first-use, but has little effect on usability long term for regularly used applications. With that said, the in-app icons you are referring to are typically straight forward (add, search, remove, etc) and, in my opinion, are understandable on first use as well. There are occasionally poorly designed third party apps that do have obscure in-app icons. But, this is not typical of the platform.
      - qdog 14y ago
        My wife has a win7 phone, very similar with the huge icons (part of the reason she bought it was she could see it without her glasses on). However, I hate using it. My android phone isn't what I'd call intuitive, but I do know exactly how to get where I want to go, ie: push the expanded apps button, scroll around for settings. Took about 4 times to find the right settings button for bluetooth on the win7 phone, I knew pretty much where to go immediately on my phone from the start. So...I'd say ease of use is high as long as you only want what is on your home icons, but not so much after that.
adjwilli 14y ago
Metro is interesting for its originality and almost complete lack of skeuomorphic flourishes. The problem with it though is that everything looks alike and nothing analogous. They've even eliminated drop shadows and depth-implying gradients from the interface. While those may be skeuomorphic in the broadest sense, because our vision expects depth, they provide the user by functional signifiers. Metro, in its deviant haste, went too far to the other aesthetic extreme.

jwoah12 14y ago

Care to elaborate? From what I've seen, the UI has gotten pretty good marks in general.

jsolson 14y ago

I'm curious what core principle of design you feel they've violated that they'd have gotten right by having "ever read a design book". What do you find so objectively appalling about Metro?

sukuriant 14y ago

What does this have to do with the SDK being available?