Coffeehouse Thread

17 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Vista UI analysis by twitchfingers

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    reinux

    http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011819

    "Menu latency is the time it takes an operating system to display a menu," said Pfeiffer. "In Windows, it's not immediate. That's not a speed or performance issue, but a design choice."


    Does it lag?? Really? I can't see it lag. Not even on my 3.5 year old machine.

    The final benchmark of mouse precision, a test crucial to design professionals and photographers, but also of interest to general users who get frustrated trying to nail submenu commands at the first click, also put Vista on the bottom. Pfeiffer's Vista "mouse precision coefficient" was 30% higher than XP's. A higher coefficient means users found it harder to precisely place the mouse.

    I don't know how this could possibly have anything to do with an OS. The only situation I found this to be frustrating was when older Apple OS' required you to hold down the mouse when you opened a menu.

    But wait, here's the best part:

    Microsoft declined to comment on Pfeiffer's Vista user interface research.

  • User profile image
    jamie

    "Pfeiffer's Vista "mouse precision coefficient" was 30% higher than XP's. A higher coefficient means users found it harder to precisely place the mouse."


    maybe Im the only one reading it this way - but I take that to mean

    -it's slower moving from one side of IE to type - to the other for refresh ...

    -its slower using the startmenu mouseovers - as the icon is floating in the sky - forcing you to look up - then back down before clicking ...

    -its slower using All Programs as before there was a large list displayed - now you must aim in a peck and choose scroll bar collapsing hidden list...

    -its slower choosing views / operating slider- than clicking 4 choices...

    -its slower copying files in general .... more reading - more waiting

    He seems to just be talking about effects... big deal turn them off. 
    But if he means what he says when he mentions PLACE the mouse - or things being slower to do than in XP - thats where things are - and what you have to do to work them

    I AGREE!   ha

  • User profile image
    Cannot​Resolve​Symbol

    reinux wrote:
    http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011819

    "Menu latency is the time it takes an operating system to display a menu," said Pfeiffer. "In Windows, it's not immediate. That's not a speed or performance issue, but a design choice."


    Does it lag?? Really? I can't see it lag. Not even on my 3.5 year old machine.


    There's no lag, just the fade-in and fade-out effect on the menu that's been there since Windows 2000.  It makes a noticable impact on percieved performance (try turning it off sometime, it makes Windows feel faster).

  • User profile image
    reinux

    CannotResolveSymbol wrote:
    
    reinux wrote: http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9011819

    "Menu latency is the time it takes an operating system to display a menu," said Pfeiffer. "In Windows, it's not immediate. That's not a speed or performance issue, but a design choice."


    Does it lag?? Really? I can't see it lag. Not even on my 3.5 year old machine.


    There's no lag, just the fade-in and fade-out effect on the menu that's been there since Windows 2000.  It makes a noticable impact on percieved performance (try turning it off sometime, it makes Windows feel faster).

    Yeah, I know. It's the same as how Apple has always kept a slower default mouse speed to make the monitor feel bigger and the motion smoother.

    Difference of philosophy. Windows wants you to like the experience (hence UX), Apple wants you to like the product.

  • User profile image
    Rowan

    When I was using OSX I noticed that the hotspot of the mouse pointer was a few pixels "off target", so I would keep missing things or clicking in the wrong place. I found that rather annoying.

    In fact I found the whole OSX UI more difficult to understand than XP or Vista, it was less consistent (especially across programs) and wasn't self explanatory.

    Vista has great attention to detail and gives the user plenty of options in how they choose to use it, in my opinion Vista is a solid step forward.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    Rowan wrote:

    In fact I found the whole OSX UI more difficult to understand than XP or Vista, it was less consistent (especially across programs) and wasn't self explanatory.


    Wow, really? I've never used OSX myself, but every time I hear somebody talk about it, I hear "the UI is s much better and logical than Windows."

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    Rowan wrote:
    
    In fact I found the whole OSX UI more difficult to understand than XP or Vista


    It is just different, not dramatically so, but enough that you can't expect it to behave exactly like Windows.  If you want your mac to behave like Windows I'd suggest you install Windows on it.  Different != Bad.  Of the people I've switched only one has complained it was too awkward to use and that was because of the placement of the menu bar - and he was the one that has been using Windows since forever.


    Rowan wrote:
    
    Vista has great attention to detail and gives the user plenty of options in how they choose to use it, in my opinion Vista is a solid step forward.


    Sorry, but I respectfully *have* to disagree.  One of the things that Vista hasn't had is attention to detail.  Still too many rough edges, and given its size and complexity it is no wonder and possibly unfair of me to keep pointing it out.

  • User profile image
    Rowan

    Bas wrote:
    
    Rowan wrote:
    In fact I found the whole OSX UI more difficult to understand than XP or Vista, it was less consistent (especially across programs) and wasn't self explanatory.


    Wow, really? I've never used OSX myself, but every time I hear somebody talk about it, I hear "the UI is s much better and logical than Windows."


    I guess it depends what you're used to. Wink

    Of course OSX has it's good bits, but when it comes down to polish and consistency, I find Vista/XP does it better (IMO).

  • User profile image
    Another_​Darren

    Bas wrote:
    
    Rowan wrote:
    In fact I found the whole OSX UI more difficult to understand than XP or Vista, it was less consistent (especially across programs) and wasn't self explanatory.


    Wow, really? I've never used OSX myself, but every time I hear somebody talk about it, I hear "the UI is s much better and logical than Windows."


    Wow so sureal... the first "one troll to another" post I've seen.

  • User profile image
    Ray6

    Bas wrote:
    
    Rowan wrote:
    In fact I found the whole OSX UI more difficult to understand than XP or Vista, it was less consistent (especially across programs) and wasn't self explanatory.


    Wow, really? I've never used OSX myself, but every time I hear somebody talk about it, I hear "the UI is s much better and logical than Windows."


    The differences between them get less pronounced with each release.

    I haven't used Vista in anger, but the Mac UI is currently made up of at least FOUR different look and feels; and that is just the applications that Apple produces. I don't call that consistent.

    And the single menu bar along the top was fine when monitors were nine inches across; now I find it a bit of a pain. I'm hoping Apple will allow one menu bar per application as an option in the future.

    I vaguely remember that the old NexT OS used a context menu that appeared under the mouse.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    Another_Darren wrote:
    Wow so sureal... the first "one troll to another" post I've seen.

    I fail to see what you mean. Please explain.

  • User profile image
    Another_​Darren

    Rowan wrote:
    When I was using OSX I noticed that the hotspot of the mouse pointer was a few pixels "off target", so I would keep missing things or clicking in the wrong place. I found that rather annoying.


    So Apple have managed to sell millions of Macs to design industry and nobody noticed this. Get real.

  • User profile image
    Rowan

    Another_Darren wrote:
    
    Rowan wrote:When I was using OSX I noticed that the hotspot of the mouse pointer was a few pixels "off target", so I would keep missing things or clicking in the wrong place. I found that rather annoying.


    So Apple have managed to sell millions of Macs to design industry and nobody noticed this. Get real.


    I figured it might be by design, the following diagram describes what I saw:



    Maybe it's intentional, maybe it's not, how would I know?

    I can't test it now to be absolutely sure as I've ditched the Mac, but the diagram describes what it felt like to me - as if the hotspot  wasn't quite at the tip.

    I probably wouldn't have noticed, had it not been for the 1024x768 res I was using.

  • User profile image
    reinux

    Has anyone looked at the methodology pdf that's linked on the site?

    I'm beginning to wonder whether they used the same users or took the average of dozens or hundreds of users. If it's the former obviously the test subjects are going to be better with the OS that they're used to; if it's the latter, they must have had quite a few people for it to be any effective.

    Also, Windows hardware is a lot more diverse than Apple hardware. So are Windows mice. That sort of explains that one.

    I haven't used OS X much, but personally I found OS X's emphasis on drag & drop sort of annoying. Like the way in IE you have to drag and drop bookmarks to a garbage bin icon in order to delete them. It requires a bit of dexterity, especially on a laptop.

    And needing to use your left hand to open context menus is pretty annoying (yeah yeah, I know you can use two buttoned mice, but it's not default).


    Rowan wrote:
    


    It looks like somewhat of a big difference when you zoom in on it, but in reality, that's still only 1.5 pixels different.

  • User profile image
    Rossj

    reinux wrote:
    And needing to use your left hand to open context menus is pretty annoying (yeah yeah, I know you can use two buttoned mice, but it's not default).


    Except two button mouse IS the default, at least on non-laptops.  The mouse might look like it has only one button but it actually has two.

    Not that I am arguing, but then I tend not to use the mouse all the time on my macs.

  • User profile image
    W3bbo

    Ray6 wrote:
    And the single menu bar along the top was fine when monitors were nine inches across; now I find it a bit of a pain. I'm hoping Apple will allow one menu bar per application as an option in the future.


    The single-menubar at the top is in line with Fitt's law, which is useful for the Macs since there wasn't really a standardised toolbar design until OSX came out: most features were accessed via the menus. Making the menus controlled by the OS also meant the Mac guys didn't get the "Office inconsistency" you get on Windows.

    By making menubars non-compliant with Fitt's Law you're going to introduce a lot of UI issues (not to mention probably breaking backwards compat)

    It's safe to say Apple isn't going away from their existing design any time soon, but to compensate they'll make the UIs larger on higher-resolution displays: y'ever read up on Leopard's resolution-independent UI? That's what it's there for.

  • User profile image
    Bas

    Bas wrote:
    

    Another_Darren wrote: Wow so sureal... the first "one troll to another" post I've seen.

    I fail to see what you mean. Please explain.




    So Darren, are you going to explain what you meant by that remark or what?

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.