Windows 7 and the beast: the user experience extreme makeover

Assuming you had the right hardware, properly loaded software drivers, and the gods of fortune were smiling favorably upon you, Windows Vista brought what was arguably one of the biggest changes to the Windows User Interface since Windows 95. XP really warmed over what had already been accomplished, then wrapped it in some plasticy looking windows (Fisher Price toys for toddlers seem to have been the main product inspiration). By contrast, all versions of Mac OS X have delivered serious updates to the user interface, though we will have to wait to see what, if anything, Snow Leopard presents us. The Windows User Experience articles over on MSDN have been updated, and they contain some interesting articles that might point to the future of the Windows user experience.

Microsoft is building a great deal of excitement both about internal UI consistency as well as educating the developer community to create better application. Much of the work seems to be about bringing Windows into some sort of visual UI parity with Mac OS X. OS X has its own standards, called the Apple Human Interface Guidelines, to which Apple and a vast majority of third party developers adhere. Technologies like Widgets (OS X’s Dashboard), the 3D App Switcher (a combination of Expose and the Mac’s App Switcher), the revamped task bar (a partial match to OS X’s Dock) are all “shared” ideas. Some originated on a Mac, some originated on Windows, but they have all become part and parcel of each OS’s UI. Vista wrapped everything in a glassy windowing system known as Aero and added widgets, but the real core of the UI experience was not drastically changed. Here are some of the UI issues that Windows 7 needs to overcome if it ever hopes to be as elegant as OS X:

Office Ribbon & Logo

For Office 2007, Microsoft spent wads of money and countless hours of focus groups to design the thingy featured in this picture to the right. Not quite an icon, not quite a button, it was an incomprehensible, overly glossy blob that frustrated thousands of Office users during their first experience with Office ’07. It is the Office Button, a replacement for the standard toolbar featured in Office 2003 and other programs, and it is the first element in the totally redesigned “Office Ribbon”, which purports to deliver contextually-appropriate formatting options to Office users. The only problem? People are not used to clicking on shiny buttons to bring up menus…they are accustomed to clicking on menus. In web design, buttons often act as menus/starting points, but they usually have something that indicates that they are clickable – an arrow, a “start here” banner, or whatever. This violates one of the design principles in the UX Guidelines:

Never require users to click an object to determine if it is clickable. Users must be able to determine clickability by visual inspection alone.

Microsoft needs to realize that Apple’s interfaces may be slick and visually whiz-bang, but they are ultimately usable. In only a very few instances has Apple gone for sheer style over functionality, while Windows often seems content with a slick interface to an otherwise-unusable app. In addition, consistency is key. Visio, InfoPath, and SharePoint Designer do not benefit from the Office Ribbon update, while Word, PowerPoint, Excel, and Access do. Microsoft is quick to toss an “Office” into the product name, but the interfaces do not follow suit; this violates another standard in the design guidelines:

Design experiences, not features. Design experiences from beginning to end, not just individual features. And maintain your standards throughout the entire product experience.

Open & Save

In Mac OS X, aside from some very esoteric exceptions, there is but one Open/Save dialog box. Buttons on this dialog box, and indeed the layout of dynamic content (the folder structure being browsed) are rigidly the same across all programs. Within Office 2007 alone there are at least three different Open/Save dialog box conventions (SharePoint Designer, Excel, and Word all get separate treatment). Different third party developers have also taken liberal license, using a multitude of “conventions” when it comes to these dialog boxes. Apple’s approach makes infinitely more sense; if there is a single purpose for the window, chances are you can design a single standard which will fit 99% of use cases. It is one of the little things that Microsoft espouses in their updated UX guidelines, but it is one of those things that they so frequently do wrong.

We will have to wait and see if Windows 7 brings us a new level of interface consistency, at least within MS applications (3rd party developers may be excused, though they should be ashamed nonetheless for making our lives as users more complicated).

Apply vs. Preview

There is a great section in the UI where Microsoft clearly details one of my biggest pet peeves with Windows: configuration dialog boxes with an “Apply” button. What purpose does this button serve?! Why not just “OK” and “Cancel” buttons? According to the Guidelines:

Provide an Apply button only if the property sheet has settings (at least one) with effects that users can evaluate in a meaningful way.

In the Display Properties dialog, I can change my screen saver, but I have no meaningful way to evaluate those changes (sitting still for 5 minutes waiting for the screensaver to kick in isn’t a meaningful evaluation). Reading further:

Typically, Apply buttons are used when settings make visible changes. Users should be able to apply a change, evaluate the change, and make further changes based on that evaluation.

So, in the same dialog box, I change my background image, then click “Apply.” The image changes, and I hate it, so I decide to hit “Cancel” to cancel my changes, right? Not so fast; Apply actually permanently applies the changes. Wouldn’t “Preview” be clearer? That way the changes would be temporary until I hit “OK,” and if I royally screw things up, Cancel gets me back to a known good state. It’s a fine point, but one that I see new Windows users flailing with on a routine enough basis. And some power users, too: it is possible to queue up a bunch of changes, hit Apply, and then not be able to figure out which checkbox you fiddled with is causing the on screen mess you have now created.

Careful Proofreading

This isn’t a UI design element, but rather a note to tech writers at Microsoft. A) Your wireless networking is a little too simplistic, resulting in an alarming lack of security and understanding when it comes to WiFi. B) You might want Legal to read your documents more closely, as this kind of makes it sound like Microsoft is responsible for wireless networking being popular. Very much an Al Gore “I invented the internet” moment. And finally, C) Apple deserves more credit for bringing easy-to-use AirPort WiFi with the iBook and base stations back in 1999 than you do for any wizard-less configuration:

For example, consider the wireless networking support in Microsoft Windows XP. Microsoft could have added a wizard to walk users through the configuration process. This approach would have resulted in ease of use but not simplicity, because an unessential feature (the wizard) would have been added. Instead, Microsoft designed wireless networking to configure itself automatically. Users ultimately don’t care about the configuration details, so long as it “just works” reliably and securely. This combination of power and simplicity in wireless networking technology has led to its popularity and rapid adoption.

The last word in all of this is consistency. And not just 3rd party developers—Microsoft needs to bring its own applications back into the fold. Apple makes some design choices for their programs that violate the Human Interface Guidelines, but it is usually because the program needs to be different (to allow users to achieve a specific task more efficiently, like GarageBand), or because they are pre-flighting a new interface design (iTunes has been a popular first look for updates to the Aqua look and feel). Within these programs, however, there is still some consistency with the rest of the OS: drop shadows and highlighted buttons indicate which window is active, dialog boxes present buttons that are clearly labelled for the task at hand, and other “little things.” Apple’s designs are by no means perfect, but they seem to put much more thought into the overall User Experience. Take note, Microsoft; it’s not just a cool looking translucent window or two. It’s the way those mundane things work day to day that really make the Wow Start Now.

*All quotes are from the Windows User Experience Interaction Guidelines, and are © 2009 Microsoft Corporation.