Microsoft's development of UI and usability across its teams and projects... | The Coffeehouse

toast

I have some burning questions about UI development: Does Microsoft have a dedicated UI team that guides all UI design for all new/existing projects? In order to raise the quality of the UI experience across all its products, what steps is Microsoft taking? Are they taking any real steps at all?

I believe Apple have a strict UI design guide, though I am not sure they have a core UI team that acts as both design team and consulting team for the rest of the company.

The area that Microsoft could do better in is definately a higher level of quality in UI standardisation. From what I understand, the primary goal of UI design is for the application/UI to 'by the nature of its design' impart to the user how the application should be used and re-enforce the correct or best way that things should be done with the app. To, on a fundamental level, guide the user's discovery and implimentation of the app as a tool.

So, the app allows the user to get a real and tangable feel for what the program is about, how to go about doing things and where to find the things to do it. The UI should negate the need to continually refer to user documentation and lessen the need for tooltips, etc.

Microsoft Office 12 looks to be many or all of these things. However, it is unclear if that design team will/does assist other teams with their apps/projects, and it is unclear if Microsoft actually has, or is moving in the direction of, a rigorus framework for quality assurance across all UI development. Perhaps it is not the responsibility of the Office 12 UI team to grow beyond their success with Office. So who's responsibility is it to ensure quality UI in Microsoft apps/os?

Are individual teams left to do their own UI?

Robert, it would be fantastic to see some information about this stuff on Channel9.

pikatung

toast wrote:

I believe Apple have a strict UI design guide

LOL.

toast

Pikatung, is that all you have to say? Does your comment further my questions or answer them in any way? Or are you just being a chump?

I believe my questions bring up a topic that is on every user's mind. We see brilliant UI design in some Microsoft applications, or in some parts of applications, but there are many more applications that don't exhibit that excellence.

The Vista timeframe seems to be ushering in a new era in UI design and implimentation for Microsoft, especially with the capabilities of WinFX. However, nothing has really been said about UI directly and I think that UI is as important as functional reason for the app's existence. So how about it, Channel9 guys. Can you comment on this very important subject?

z33driver

There is a whole section of MSDN dedicated to this topic:

Windows Vista User Experience

Do you have any specific examples of the "many more applications" that you think don't exhibit good usability? I'll start Smiley

I don't like the concept of a Start menu for organizing programs. I like the other things the Start menu gives me access to, but I don't find accessing programs in the XP start menu or the Vista "refined" start menu to be enjoyable. I'd like something like the Quick Tabs feature in IE7, but for navigating programs, when I click on the All Programs link. Better yet, I'd love a "carousel" type interface like Phodeo.

blowdart
Peek-a-boo

z33driver wrote:
There is a whole section of MSDN dedicated to this topic:

Windows Vista User Experience

I worry about that becoming just like the Win95 UI guide, where Microsoft are the first to ignore it (using Office) then everyone copies and it all gets messy again.

toast

z33driver, that isn't really what I was thinking of.

Cybermagellan
Live for nothing, or die for everything

toast wrote:
Does Microsoft have a dedicated UI team that guides all UI design for all new/existing projects? In order to raise the quality of the UI experience across all its products, what steps is Microsoft taking? Are they taking any real steps at all?

I can't answer for Microsoft but Yes they have a UI team and yes it applies all across the board.

toast' wrote:
I believe Apple have a strict UI design guide, though I am not sure they have a core UI team that acts as both design team and consulting team for the rest of the company.

I would tend to agree...I've seen the UI guide. For how many windows, tabs, spaces, grippers, and sliders OSX has...they are very ridged...however I'm in the same boat..I dunno if they have a UI team.

toast wrote:
The area that Microsoft could do better in is definately a higher level of quality in UI standardisation. From what I understand, the primary goal of UI design is for the application/UI to 'by the nature of its design' impart to the user how the application should be used and re-enforce the correct or best way that things should be done with the app. To, on a fundamental level, guide the user's discovery and implimentation of the app as a tool.

In theory this would naturally be correct. However I can kinda speak from knowledge...large companies have massive amounts of people come in and test 100's of UI concepts and provide feedback on them. While it is natural to assume that the application would be the dictator of how it should be used...often times it's the user dictating how they want the application to look.

toast wrote:
So, the app allows the user to get a real and tangable feel for what the program is about, how to go about doing things and where to find the things to do it. The UI should negate the need to continually refer to user documentation and lessen the need for tooltips, etc.

Again in theory this SHOULD work...however it doesn't.

toast wrote:
Microsoft Office 12 looks to be many or all of these things. However, it is unclear if that design team will/does assist other teams with their apps/projects, and it is unclear if Microsoft actually has, or is moving in the direction of, a rigorus framework for quality assurance across all UI development. Perhaps it is not the responsibility of the Office 12 UI team to grow beyond their success with Office. So who's responsibility is it to ensure quality UI in Microsoft apps/os?

Are individual teams left to do their own UI?

Again I can't speak for Microsoft but remember the Office team has a whole different set of consumers it has to appeal to. What works in Office will not work for Windows. We've had this discussion before on C9. True, styleguiding will allow for cross implementation (File, Edit, View menus) however I am not going to want to see a webpage in fullpage view. A word doc yes, but again...

I would say based on this each business (Windows, Office, Media Player, MSN) has their own UI team.

DCMonkey
Monkey see, monkey do, monkey will destroy you!

Apple had a Human Interface Group (HIG) at one time that I believe functioned much as you describe, but Jobs disbanded it almost 10 years ago when he retook Apple.

Apple still has some Human Interface Guidelines (HIG), but judging by their wanton application of brushed metal over the years, and constant revamping of other UI features with every OS version, I don't think they pay it much mind when they feel like making something look "cool".

I was under the impression that each product at MS has its own UI design team.

Bobinho

Apple Computer is Steve Jobs private psychology lab. He does as he pleases and doesn't give a sh1t about the consequences for others.

Apple's vaunted Human Interface Design group was pretty much fired by Jobs who prefers to use his 'instinct' and 'gut' to drive interface design. In fact for all intents and purposes, OSX is Nextstep, from its SDKs to its interface.

Nowadays Microsoft is far more rigorous in testing products. They test them to within an inch of their lives.

It is up to the user to decide on the results.

LarryOsterman

toast wrote:
Pikatung, is that all you have to say? Does your comment further my questions or answer them in any way? Or are you just being a chump?

I'm with pikatung, btw. Apple has a series of UX designs, but from my use of Macs, they don't seem to be followed very well.

For Vista, there's a single team of UX designers that's responsible for the overall interactions of the various pieces of the Vista UX. They're also responsible for the UX design guides listed above.

However there isn't a single team across all of Microsoft that's responsible for UX design.

andokai

It is an easy point to dismiss out of hand but Windows does give me the imprssion of a lack of attention to detail. Macs bother me for a whole other raft of reasons but you get the impression theat every aspect of the UI has been looked at and polished.

This may only bother anal people like me but nontheless take the brand new Visual Studio which as great a tool as it is doesn't even have 48x48 versions ofthe icons it gives to the different file type even though this has been the size of icons in the default view of XP since it's release.

z33driver

toast wrote:
z33driver, that isn't really what I was thinking of.

You asked if Microsoft has a UI team and UI guidelines, and I posted a link to the copious UI guideline information published by Microsoft.

Did you read the link, or are you just trolling?

Sampy
This will be the sixth time we have destroyed it and we have become exceedingly efficient at it

VS also has such a team and a set of UX guidelines in handbook form.

In Whidbey I fixed many bugs filed by our UX team that went over my UI with a fine tooth comb. I finally had to get them to come down and fiddle with it in the designer with me Smiley

TiAdiMundo

As an graphic/interface designer I am asking me this question many times.

And i can't believe that every team at MS does its own UIs. But if you look at MS products (best to start may be the Security Center in XP) you will see that it seems to be the truth.

All in all Windows XP is the OS with the best user interface and i dont mean the graphic design nor the technology behind the interface. But the whole philosophy of window management, task-based operations, task-bar and so on because you can't "lose" a window like in Mac OS X.

Then, i read the IE blog: "We will adopt the Firefox RSS icon." Great news, but then some time later they announced that the Office 12 team decided to use it too. !? So what? And if they would't?

Why there isn't one team that creates the whole designs for all MS products or just for all Windows stuff? In my opinion, this would be the best way to create the RSS feature for IE7 (as an example):

- a research team says: "IE7 must integrate an RSS reader"
- the IE team is coding the app
- a usability team says: "RSS feeds need an icon and the icon must be located there"
- and the design team says: "the RSS icon is orange and looks like that"

So then, all RSS feature in all Windows products got the same usability and the same design. You don't need ui guidlines read by all coders! but organisation!
MS has to think of design as a language. It doesn't make any sense if there isn't grammar.

BruceMorgan

TiAdiMundo wrote:
- a research team says: "IE7 must integrate an RSS reader"
- the IE team is coding the app
- a usability team says: "RSS feeds need an icon and the icon must be located there"
- and the design team says: "the RSS icon is orange and looks like that"

With all due respect, this would be a terrible way to run software development.

The research team gets to sit around and think up good thoughts about what products and features should be written. Everyone wants that job, because they don't actually have to deliver anything other than PowerPoint decks. Really making the product is someone else's job.

The usability team gets to sit around and think up good thoughts about what the most usable design is, again without having to actually deliver it - that's someone else's job. And that usability work is done with what, paper prototypes or Director-ware? That's not really going to cut it, now is it?

The design team gets to sit around and draw pretty and oh-so-consistent pictures about how everything should look. Never mind actually having to implement it, because (tah dah) that's someone else's job. I guess they get to fight with the usability team a lot, too.

Then we get to that coding team - the IE team. They apparently get stuck with making the product as determined by research, usability, and design.

Of course, they have no actual personal buy-in to creating a great app, because the feature set has been determined by the research team, the detailed functionality has been created by usability, and the appearance of the product has been set by design. There isn't a dev or PM who would want to work on the IE team, because they don't have any authority - they just have all the responsibility to actually deliver what everyone else says to deliver.

The right way to deliver software is to flip that around 180 degress and have the IE team actually have the authority to design their product as they see fit, and have the responsibility to deliver it. This makes people accountable for being right about their decisions, because authority and responsibility are connected.

These other teams - research (which we would call product planning), usability, and design - are all supporting teams. They certainly have the local expertise and act as advisors the IE team, but actually have little direct authority. The IE team gets to balance design vs. usability vs. product planning vs. implementability and all the rest, because the IE team is the sole team responsible for delivering they best product they can.

Cider
Daze-d & Confused

Bruce,

I agree that having teams enforce what various teams at Microsoft do would be stifling.

However, I wish there were, what I would call "Quality Enforcers" for all sorts of areas, be that for UI, security, web standard, interoperability, systems administrator friendly, etc.

The way I would see this as working is that they would come in at whatever point is best and consult with product teams about how to reach a certain level of quality in that specific area. Before the product is released even to beta, they would test it thoroughly, consult on any areas in which they feel it fails (as they would be experts in that certain area) and then sign off when they say it is OK. Significantly, I would say that these Enforcers have power to call Showstopper on any release.

For example, a Systems Admin Enforcer would make sure that ever released product is a 100%-validated Microsoft Installer (MSI) package, that has been tested (possibly by the "Enforcer") in deployment in every major deployment scenario from installed on an individual PC with admin rights to big enterprise-scale deployment methods such as Group Policy and SMS. The reason for taking this area is that, currently, the situation at Microsoft is embarrassing - Microsoft wrote the installer format, Microsoft wrote the validations, Microsoft wrote the validation tools and yet software from Microsoft ranges from great MSIs (such as Office) to embarrassingly bad MSIs to many products released still not in MSI format.

God (well, God, and anyone using the beta on XP) only knows what sort of installer IE 7 will come in. If the past is anything to go by, it probably wont even be an MSI. And configuration will still be done by the IE Maintenance Client Side Extension in group policy.

pikatung

toast wrote:
Pikatung, is that all you have to say? Does your comment further my questions or answer them in any way? Or are you just being a chump?

Larry got most of what I was thinking, but I guess it would be fair to explain.

Apple possess some of the slickest designs out there. I may not like everyone, but the "cool" factor is undeniable.

However, their UI guidelines are hardly strict in anyway. Just look at the evolution of OS X. Transparency to brush metal to graphite, etc. Or the modern iPod, the stopwatch app sports a brushed metal look whereas the rest of the interface uses a graphite look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqua_%28GUI%29 wrote:

Much of Aqua's original design was intended to complement the look of the original plastics of the iMac and Power Macintosh G3/G4 desktop models, but as Apple has moved to the use of brushed metal in their industrial design, Aqua itself has changed to incorporate the additional brushed metal look. This somewhat inconsistent mix of interface styles has been controversial among the Mac OS X user community.

The only "strict" UI guideline Apple follows tightly is the belief everything should be accessable with a one-button mouse. Which isn't necessarily bad or good.

brian.shapiro
things go on as always

the Windows team should collaborate with the Office team, the Office team always comes up with neat UI concepts, though they may be impractical for the base OS collaboration between teams would help the final design.

btw i like some Apple designs, i like the iPod design and the white notebooks; I hated the fruity iMacs, as did most people, and I think the OSX look is tacky in many ways. maybe you can say they have a cool factor, but i dont find them cool. the word I would use is 'chic'.

pikatung

brian.shapiro wrote:
the word I would use is 'chic'.

Yeah, that's probably is a better word for it.

BruceMorgan

Cider wrote:
However, I wish there were, what I would call "Quality Enforcers" for all sorts of areas, be that for UI, security, web standard, interoperability, systems administrator friendly, etc.

Windows Vista has a set of teams something like this, the "Basics Owners". The Basics Owners own things like deployability, performance, and a long list of things like that - horizontals across all feature areas in Windows Vista.

Cider wrote:
God (well, God, and anyone using the beta on XP) only knows what sort of installer IE 7 will come in. If the past is anything to go by, it probably wont even be an MSI. And configuration will still be done by the IE Maintenance Client Side Extension in group policy.

You don't need God, I can tell you what we use. One of my areas of responsibility (and authority, because you shouldn't separate the two) is setup for IE.

IE7 installs with update.exe, the same technology we use for IE security updates. MSI can't be used because MSI, by design, can't update system file protection protected files. Many of the IE binaries are SFP protected.

As for group policy, that's been a mess ever since GP was implemented. Our team in India owns the IT Pro feature set including GP. IE7 will have significant improvements in this area.

toast

z33driver wrote:

toast wrote: z33driver, that isn't really what I was thinking of.
You asked if Microsoft has a UI team and UI guidelines, and I posted a link to the copious UI guideline information published by Microsoft.

Did you read the link, or are you just trolling?

I was being serious. I checked the link and interpretted it to be guidlines on widgets and UI components and how they relate (the nuts and bolts of Vista's UI components) but not about the complex nature of fitting an application's UI (UX probably explains where I am coming from a little better) together and understanding the flow of use and the cognition that occurs in the user as they move through/across the application.

That link also appeared to be for external customers only.

I guess you could think about the arrangement of food products at your nearby supermarket. There are guidlines about all of the components used in the displays and shelving, but the placement, catagorising and the understanding about how the shoppers might flow through the shop most efficiently is something else altogether. I guess it is like that for anything that humans use in the world.