THE GUI SHOULD BE BETTER

22 hours ago, Ross Scott said:

As for "don't use them", yes, that is POSSIBLE, and it's going to be an ongoing battle for pretty much as long as you use a computer AND with no alternative provided.  Every time you install a new program, it's going to dump icons there.  Some installers give you the option not to do that, others don't.  You can never escape desktop icons permanently by default.  Additionally, there's no other alternative given if you want to rapidly access everything that WOULD go to the desktop.  Windows is designed to have desktop shortcuts.  If you NEVER want to see them AND install new software, that's just not an option under normal means.

 

I haven't tried doing this yet but presumably you could just make the desktop folder a symbolic link for somewhere else (like one of the folders in your menu). Then when a new program places its icon there it just goes right where you want it.

On 6/15/2020 at 1:25 AM, Ross Scott said:

Well first, I've had this since 2002-ish, so I would have had to wait 13 years for Windows to give me what I wanted.  Second, I admit I could be an idiot here, but could you tell me how to enable it?  It doesn't do that by default.  I just did a test on 10 and tried copying a bunch of files, the second job started immediately, wasn't queued.  I saw the option to PAUSE a transfer, that's it.  I admit, I'm either stupid on this or Windows 10 does not support queued file transfers.

It doesn't. I use Teracopy myself for that functionality.

21 hours ago, Tom said:

One semi-personal point I think may be of interest: I find the traditional "Desktop Metaphor" GUI works best for me, switching to command prompt when necessary, but one thing that stuns me is how few people ever actually attempt to use one like a real, physical desktop, which was the whole point of the thing in the first place.  Much like my actual desk, I regard the "desktop" folder on my system as the space to put what I'm dealing with right now - work in progress (and stuff to be processed ASAP, which on a real desk might go in an "in" tray) sits on the desktop, and whenever possible I try to have the desktop totally cleared and tidied away by the end of the day or when I shut down.

Once you get back to the fundamental inspiration for designing the "Desktop" GUI in the first place, I feel a lot of design decisions for the default installed configuration, most likely to feel "natural" to the maximum number of people, immediately become pretty obvious; for example, permanent launcher icons for programs have no place on such a desktop - you wouldn't drill a hole right in the middle of your actual desk and install a button there - but temporary folders you're working on today, and mounted volumes of USB sticks and removable drives, do.  Desk tidys like "my computer" are more of a matter of taste; some people have sitting neatly on their desk, others prefer to keep everything in a drawer.

I have a great many things in the middle of my physical desk top. Since I have a computer on it, I have my monitor in the middle, with a power monitor below, (have to monitor my wattage since the entire basement is on the same 15A breaker, and I have to compete with a microwave, refrigerator, lights, and everything else plugged in down here) mouse, and keyboard. (keyboard has space front to back so I can reposition for if I'm eating/doing something at my desk besides using the PC) To the right I have a flashlight, some lens cleaning fluid, a microfiber cloth, a note pad and pen, a lighter, and a trash can. To the left, a glass for water, some headphones, a power switch for my rope light, a printer, my fingernail care kit, a sewing kit, blood pressure monitoring device, game controllers, and a book.

 

99% of what I have placed will never be moved from that location, only utilized in position. This is how the majority of people use their desks, they place things where they will use them, and then don't move them from that location. (placing them elsewhere is inefficient, as is having to move them every time you intend to use them)

2 hours ago, BTGBullseye said:

"I have a great many things in the middle of my physical desk top. Since I have a computer on it, I have my monitor in the middle, with a power monitor below, (have to monitor my wattage since the entire basement is on the same 15A breaker, and I have to compete with a microwave, refrigerator, lights, and everything else plugged in down here) mouse, and keyboard. (keyboard has space front to back so I can reposition for if I'm eating/doing something at my desk besides using the PC) To the right I have a flashlight, some lens cleaning fluid, a microfiber cloth, a note pad and pen, a lighter, and a trash can. To the left, a glass for water, some headphones, a power switch for my rope light, a printer, my fingernail care kit, a sewing kit, blood pressure monitoring device, game controllers, and a book."

I'm going to go out on a limb here, since your computer sits centrally and you didn't mention a pen or pencil anywhere, and surmise that you don't write or draw things by hand or handle paper documents much, so you aren't using your desk as an actual writing desk, which is what they were originally invented for.  I was referring to how an actual "pen, paper and drawers" desk would be used, which is pretty much how I use mine.  (laptop sits charging on a shelf when not in use, gets taken out and set up when I need to use software of one sort or another, then goes away and back on charge again when I'm done)  I keep a big, central space  clear for writing and manipulating documents or any other task.  Routinely used items like pens, document trays, glass of water, etc, sit along the back edge of the desktop - analogous to an upper-screen-edge toolbar, I suppose.  Other stuff more intermittently used goes in the front desk drawer, items like my sphygmomanometer (yeah, I actually have one too - I'm not a medical professional, though, I just try to keep a close eye on my blood pressure when I'm taking my ADHD medication.  ADHD is also the reason I only physically get the computer out when I've consciously decided to use it; it's too tempting a distraction otherwise.  Nowadays I try to do as much as possible by hand on paper - I've taken to heart the philosophy of an old teacher of mine, that "a computer is just the world's most expensive pencil."  Heck, I even taught myself how to use a slide rule a few months back, although that was more for fun and curiosity!)

In short, my desk is set up probably more like an early 20th-century (maybe even late 19th century) pre-computer office desk, which I'm pretty damned sure is what the "Desktop GUI" was actually modelled on, since the earliest ones literally used depictions of cardboard folders, document drawers and loose pieces of paper for their iconography - and what the people designing the first GUIs would have been acculturated to.

 

On 6/15/2020 at 3:25 AM, Ross Scott said:

You can never escape desktop icons permanently by default. Windows is designed to have desktop shortcuts.  If you NEVER want to see them AND install new software, that's just not an option under normal means.

 

So I did a quick web search just out of curiosity and it turns out you've been able to permanently disable desktop icons since at least Windows XP! Meaning this has already been a feature of Windows for almost two decades at minimum and it's not even that hard to discover. In fact I'm pretty sure now I've stumbled upon this feature in the past but completely forgot about it because I just never needed it.

 

3 hours ago, Isaiah said:

... turns out you've been able to permanently disable desktop icons since at least Windows XP! 

I actually do this. My Dad hates having his desktop cluttered, so he showed me how to do it. One other note on this subject--

It's ergonomically awful-- involves clicking a tiny thing-- but if you hide your desktop items these double-arrows will still give you access to the contents of your desktop. I mention this because there's something built into the shell to show the contents of the desktop, and for all I know people making custom GUIs and adjuncts might already make use of that/ be able to make use of that.


 

I am not sure if this goes here or not but I use two programs that one lets me hide the default taskbar and second I can add as many more "taskbars" as I want. I have a video on youtube to show you all the jank.   Desktop Video

The industry greatest pie menu is in blender. Here is 30 seconds demonstration Interface Overview - Blender 2.80 Fundamentals. Main difference is that a hot keys not require special keys(like ctrl, alt, shift) to be held for activation while you in editing areas(not text entry). I think this makes a world of difference.

21 hours ago, Isaiah said:

 

 

So I did a quick web search just out of curiosity and it turns out you've been able to permanently disable desktop icons since at least Windows XP! Meaning this has already been a feature of Windows for almost two decades at minimum and it's not even that hard to discover. In fact I'm pretty sure now I've stumbled upon this feature in the past but completely forgot about it because I just never needed it.

 

 

 

I'm a moron for forgetting about that, my bad.  Still increases the travel time and involves tiny targets (even smaller than the popup menu I have in Litestep), but you're right, it exists.

 

Windows has create GUI/UX style guide.

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/uxguide/top-violations

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/uxguide/how-to-design-desktop-ux

 

In your video you complained about small GUI elements that demand too much precision from the user and recommended a "runway" approach, reasoning that "the less precise you need to be the faster you our". Okay, fair enough. But here in the forums you complain about increased travel distances being inefficient, which your very own "runway" concept would actually produce. The very mouse gestures you love being the perfect example of that.

 

But for the sake of argument let's assume for a moment that greater travel distances are less efficient. Well with the alt-tab method I mentioned you instantly see all open app names at once with very helpful preview images, which is an objectively faster way to identify them than your method of moving the cursor all the way down to the bottom of the screen and across each icon to see the name of each, one at a time. And there displayed in the center of the screen closer to where the cursor most likely already is. And finally you only have to move your cursor to the exact app you want once identified. Meaning the alt-tab method is faster either way because it requires less travel distance and precision overall.

 

However, I get the impression that none this really matters because the crux of the issue for you is just having to upgrade to Windows 10. But that's just something your going to have to accept and move on with your life.. or not. So I'm just trying to help you in that regard. There is not perfect solution or GUI "enlightenment" (whatever that means) coming to save you. At least not any time soon.

3 hours ago, Isaiah said:

For example, in your video you complained about small GUI elements that demand too much precision from the user and recommended a kind of runway vs helipad approach, reasoning that "the less precise you need to be the faster you our". Okay, fair enough. But here in the forums you complain about increased travel distances being inefficient, which your very own "runway" concept would actually produce. The very mouse gestures you love being the perfect example of that.

If we are considering the "runway vs helipad approach", then Fitts's law is something that is very important. It provides a fundamental model of UX interaction and states that "the time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target." It can easily be used to justify some of Ross's ideas, such as pie menus and hot corners (the browser shortcut he showed).

 

I would argue that the efficiency of mouse gestures is very dependent on their design. For one, they are able to match the user's actual motions to what they intend to motion. They also need to be considered in terms of (a) what are the most commonly used gestures and (b) what are the easiest gestures to motion. I think that where mouse gestures tend to suffer is in discoverability (like CLI commands), but demanding too much precision I think is a non-issue in a well thought-out system.

 

3 hours ago, Isaiah said:

But for the sake of argument let's assume for a moment that greater travel distances are less efficient. Well with the alt-tab method I mentioned you instantly see all open app names at once with very helpful preview images, which is an objectively faster way to identify them than your method of moving the cursor all the way down to the bottom of the screen and across each icon to see the name of each, one at a time. And there displayed in the center of the screen closer to where the cursor most likely already is. And finally you only have to move your cursor to the exact app you want once identified. Meaning the alt-tab method is faster either way because it requires less travel distance and precision overall.

An interesting result of Fitts's law is that the edges of computer monitors can be considered to have infinite width (that also goes for double with corners, where the edges effectively collide and have infinite dimensions). So effectively, the dock shortcuts are infinitely tall because they do not require a deceleration phase.  This means that one can be very efficient with orienting their mouse to the given application and opening it. The edges, along with the corners, are your most valuable real estate.

 

Anecdotally I would also like to add that I don't ever use the Alt-Tab menu in conjunction with the mouse, rather I use it one-dimensionally with the keyboard, mainly because that would require me to (a) hold down Alt-Tab and release Tab, (b) look at the previews and identify what I want, and (c) orient my mouse to the application and press the button to open it. That is much more complicated than just pressing Alt-Tab however many times until I see the application I want.

 

Recommended reading on Fitts's law:

Visualizing Fitts's Law — A good introduction

When You Shouldn’t Use Fitts's Law To Measure User Experience — Some pitfalls and possible solutions

A Quiz Designed to Give You Fitts — This article uses examples to give you a great understanding of the underlying concepts

1 hour ago, ekket said:

Recommended reading on Fitts's law

Introduction to Fitts's law https://youtu.be/E3gS9tjACwU

4 hours ago, ekket said:

It can easily be used to justify some of Ross's ideas, such as pie menus and hot corners.

My issue here is not with the ideas themselves as much as Ross' contradictory positions pertaining to these ideas when criticizing the Windows GUI.  Which gives me the strong impression he's really just looking to validate existing Microsoft prejudices without attempting any kind of objective analysis here (e.g. desktop icons). For example, he complained in the video about most Windows GUI elements being too small, but here he complains that the new Windows 10 GUI elements are too big. The former because they require too much precision and are therefore inefficient, the latter because they require extra travel distance and are therefore inefficient.

 

Now from what I understand, Fitts's law demonstrates that the relationship between size AND travel distance is what determines efficiency.  So calming size OR travel distance alone is a sign of efficiency is wrong. Ironically in the case of Windows 10, Ross complained that the elements where both too big  and too far away, but according to Fitts's law such a combination is actually just as efficient or more efficient than smaller and closer elements. And being near the edge of the screen only improves things.

4 hours ago, ekket said:

An interesting result of Fitts's law is that the edges of computer monitors can be considered to have infinite width. So effectively, the dock shortcuts are infinitely tall because they do not require a deceleration phase.  This means that one can be very efficient with orienting their mouse to the given application and opening it. The edges, along with the corners, are your most valuable real estate.

But doesn't this also mean that the default Windows taskbar and start menu are "infinitely" tall and are therefore more or equally efficient to Ross' custom anywhere menu? Also, the distance to the element is an important factor and like I said before, the cursor is more likely to be closer to the center of the screen than the edges. So it seems you could argue that the dock/taskbar and alt-tab screen are efficient in different ways.

 

Also, the biggest advantage I was trying to highlight with alt-tab vs dock method was the fact you can see all open apps at the same time without even moving the cursor.

45 minutes ago, Isaiah said:

 

Now from what I understand, Fitts's law demonstrates that the relationship between size AND travel distance is what determines efficiency.  So calming size OR travel distance alone is a sign of efficiency is wrong. Ironically in the case of Windows 10, Ross complained that the elements where both too big  and too far away, but according to Fitts's law such a combination is actually just as efficient or more efficient than smaller and closer elements. And being near the edge of the screen only improves things.

...Hilariously I think you just accidentally strengthened Ross's argument while trying to explain why you don't like it.



That's basically a diagrammatic representation of the relationship of the variables in the portion of the equation that's inside the log in Fitts's law. More or less *by definition*, regardless of whether having something be small and near or far and big is roughly equivalently inefficient, you're kinda inadvertently pointing up the fact that, well, neither one is as good as having things be big and near? So, in fact, Ross's seemingly contradictory statements can also both mutually be read as true to some degree, since both approaches he's complaining about are sub-optimal, again, by definition? I'm not sure the best take-away from that realization is frustration that Ross doesn't know what he wants. He doesn't know *specifically* what he wants, I don't think he's really even saying that he does, but in general we can guess that he wants targets that are bigger and nearer, so to speak.

I feel like it's a bit much to go after him for throwing out ideas that are at cross purposes, given that his thesis was essentially: "I know this is inefficient, and I need help figuring out what a more efficient GUI would look like". It's sort of like complaining that ideas in a brainstorming session don't all fit together. Pretty sure that if he knew what he wanted exactly, he wouldn't ask.

I admit to being initially confused about what design parameters he had in mind, but I think the common thread that's emerged in this discussion is basically: A) it needs to be optimized to be efficient, and B) it needs to be friendly to mouse users, not be all about the keyboard. Lots of stuff can fall under that umbrella. And while you can certainly argue that the windows GUI is maybe a little better put together than he gives it credit for being, there's something to be said for getting into an innovator's mindset and asking how we could rethink things. I think this board has already turned up a couple of interesting things I hadn't heard of, and I hope it will continue to in the next few days.

Sometimes it's okay to sit with uncertainty for a little while. Not everything needs a clear direction right away, and pushing for one can stop all the necessary pieces of the puzzle from emerging. Hey, I struggle with it too, I won't front. Just saying, though.

Incidentally, so what if Ross *does* have a problem with Microsoft? Him and most of the computer-using world since, what, the late 1980s? Good luck presenting something on any topic without your biases sneaking in. That's life, you do your best anyway. Doesn't mean the GUI couldn't be better.

Regarding a possible explanation for why Microsoft keeps breaking custom GUIs:

 

Microsoft has attached telemetry to every smallest action that is done in Windows 10. And Microsoft surely uses that telemetry to profit its business in a variety of ways. When using custom UI elements, Microsoft probably can't get telemetry from them. And so, it's possible that Microsoft breaks the UI on purpose in order to force its data-harvesting on people.

 

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/850714-dutch-dpas-use-of-microsofts-data-viewer-tool-reveals-that-no-windows-10-telemetry-is-anonymous/

 

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/911470-microsoft-reshuffles-2018-speculation-not-pretty/page/3/?tab=comments#comment-11198231

25 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Microsoft has attached telemetry to every smallest action that is done in Windows 10. And Microsoft surely uses that telemetry to profit its business in a variety of ways. When using custom UI elements, Microsoft probably can't get telemetry from them. And so, it's possible that Microsoft breaks the UI on purpose in order to force its data-harvesting on people.

Ugh. Awful. Not surprising, but awful.

Okay, I take back what I said about this just being an interesting thought experiment. F--- those guys. How do we make literally every aspect of the UI custom?

  

On 6/11/2020 at 10:39 PM, Grey Tide said:

Haven't read the thread so I don't know if anyone has posted this yet, but I was looking into how to make my phone and PC look more like TNG era Star Trek computers. I found these:

http://lcarsx32.org/ - Looks like development ended on this one a few years ago. Features "Computer" as a voice activation line to preform different functions with the ability to add your own. Very clunky. Star date is set as the default for the clock, and that's in the negatives right now. Looks like the guy also had a youtube channel.

I was also really interested in what kind of results I could get with my phone given what I see online.

EDIT: Some people have even done this with their cars. I don't know if I would go that far on a vanity interface. It has potential but suffers from some of the same issues as modern GUIs.

 

Quoting myself as a repost with pictures.

4 hours ago, Isaiah said:

My issue here is not with the ideas themselves as much as Ross' contradictory positions pertaining to these ideas when criticizing the Windows GUI. 

 

No, I think you're misunderstanding me.  Ideally, I want accuracy to barely matter.  Take that pie menu I demonstrated.  Say I want the upper left, so I flick the mouse that direction.  Maybe I flick it 10% of the screen, maybe I flick it 60%.  Ideally, it won't matter.  It detects I moved it to the upper left, so it draws a new menu where I am (or returns me to the center automatically).  In other words, the GUI adapts to my movement and intentions, not the other way around.  I don't see what's contradictory about this.  When you press most buttons or a D-PAD in a videogame, does it matter EXACTLY how hard you pressed it, or just that you pressed it?  It's a similar concept. 

 

This is also why I got excited about mouse gestures.  It opens up a wide world of possibilities where accuracy isn't important. I think you see what I said as contradictory, because you're looking at this in terms of hitting a target of a certain size across a certain distance.  I'm talking about the potential of targets where distance and size are irrelevant.  In other words, Fitt's law doesn't even apply for that kind of manipulation.  It transcends it!  Seeing how that concept isn't even USED in most modern GUIs is why I think it's woefully underdeveloped.  I see that as a huge potential breakthrough.  I would compare to the early days of FPSs, where keyboard aiming was dominant.  The mouse rapidly displaced that because it was SO MUCH BETTER.  I see that kind of potential in where we are now with GUI concepts.  In my eyes, it's like we never left keyboard aiming, just made lots of refinements.

 

Now for more conventional GUI menus where that's simply not an option, I want what's fastest and feels best.  That's where that Fitt's law thing people are talking about come into play.  Tiny targets take longer to hit.  Targets far away take longer to hit.  You want everything semi-big and close-by, which is probably why I thought of that pie menu system.  Truth be told, the Fitt's law thing I was never even thinking of consciously (nor aware of when I made the video), it was totally a subconscious understanding on my part.

 

2 hours ago, Collapsar77 said:

I feel like it's a bit much to go after him for throwing out ideas that are at cross purposes, given that his thesis was essentially: "I know this is inefficient, and I need help figuring out what a more efficient GUI would look like". It's sort of like complaining that ideas in a brainstorming session don't all fit together. Pretty sure that if he knew what he wanted exactly, he wouldn't ask.

Yes, I think you get it.  This video is essentially:

 

"what are the answers?"

"What are better ways of doing things than we have now?"

"I can imagine MANY different possibilities, but I haven't seen much information on this to know what's best, hopefully someone out there has all kinds of ideas on this, but hasn't had much of an outlet"

 

and I tried to show a FEW efficiency shortcomings as proof that what we have now is indeed, not the penultimate in GUI design.  Instead, a bit many comments seemed focused on me not providing solutions.  From my perspective, it's a little insane that's on my shoulders to begin with, but I plan to slowly figure out something for myself in the absence of other ideas.  I'll detail what I plan to have / what I think could be better in a followup later on, but it's a little disappointing seeing how narrow the range of ideas have been.

 

"Criticizing a brainstorming session" is exactly how some of the commentary comes across, however, I was inflammatory in the video, so I expected a certain amount of that.

 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, Collapsar77 said:

...Hilariously I think you just accidentally strengthened Ross's argument while trying to explain why you don't like it.

I'm sorry but you don't seem to understand the formula or what I was saying. My whole point was that they are at best equally efficient according to Fitts's law, and your diagram only confirms that. However, Ross has claimed both ways are worse in difference situations, which is a contraction. Now I'm not claiming this was intentional deception and I may be wrong about the reason behind it, but none of this changes the fact the two criticisms are not only contradictory but untrue according to Fitts's law. At least in the way he presented them.

1 hour ago, Grey Tide said:

  

Quoting myself as a repost with pictures.

Yeah, this is a good point actually, since I was bringing up 2 different aspects of the GUI, design AND looks.  Even if things are just as inefficient as regular windows, if it LOOKS the way you want it to, you're simply going to be happier using a computer longer (or I would be if it was a design I liked).  It's definitely a form AND function problem, more power to you if you can nail down the "form" part for yourself.