XP was my idea: Windows Explorer

Showing posts with label Windows Explorer. Show all posts

Friday, October 23, 2009

The navigation 'pain' in Windows 7

Windows XP introduced a very handy feature in Windows Explorer called "Simple Folder View". Basically, it allows you to click just once in the navigation/left pane of Explorer to expand the folder you want to work with, while you can keep the single-click-for-everything-else feature turned off. What's more, if you click on another folder, it automatically collapses the earlier one and expands the new folder. As a result, you won't end up with lots of folder trees to collapse manually if you are working with lots of folders and end up scrolling less vertically. But for no apparent reason (Microsoft's stupid telemetry at work?), they've removed this nice behavior from Windows Vista and Windows 7. How many times do I have to curse them for getting rid of stuff for no reason? Just what was the harm in keeping this untouched especially if it could be turned on/off from Folder options? I smell lazy shell programmers who didn't bother to update the code for the updated shell.

As a bonus annoyance, Windows 7 Explorer has an extremely annoying bug wherein the navigation pane scrolls upwards when a folder is expanded or collapsed (happens usually when using the keyboard) instead of adjusting the view to show the expanded folder's subfolders or making sure at least the collapsed folder remains in view.

Few more bonus annoyances of the left pane of Explorer include not supporting single click to rename, not giving us a "Folders" button (like XP) to toggle the navigation pane like they have for the "Preview pane" (like Windows 7), not showing a horizontal scrollbar when items extend beyond the split adjustor (instead showing a tooltip only upon hover!), getting rid of the intuitive automatic scrolling introduced in Windows Vista, playing a dumb default sound (ding) for Alt+Enter instead of bring up Properties and making the thickness of the vertical split view adjustor so thin that it becomes very difficult to drag it. Kudos to the Windows shell team for doing this!

Quite a number of people (some since Vista) seem to be asking about Simple Folder View but all replies are in vain. Some others seem to be pissed off about the missing horizontal scrollbar or automatic Vista-like scrolling in the navigation ~~pain~~ pane.

A million thanks to Classic Shell once again which fixes all of the navigation pane bugs and usability issues.

16 bit apps get degraded treatment even in 32-bit Windows 7

Now this is not a very way to treat 16-bit apps

The other day I migrated one of my laptops from Windows XP to Windows 7 and copied over the Microsoft Entertainment Pack games which I've always enjoyed playing. Guess what! The horrible Explorer wouldn't show icons for ANY of the 16-bit executables but instead shows a generic program icon! First, I thought I must have installed 64-bit Windows 7 by mistake but no this has got nothing to do with 32-bit or 64-bit. At a time when I used Windows XP Professional x64 edition, Explorer had no problems showing 16-bit icons. A little searching brought me to this article by Raymond Chen which confirms my fear - the "feature" was dropped in Windows Vista apparently because the code was obsolete and not so secure. 32-bit or 64-bit processes don't extract icons from 16 bit resources any more. But why does the shell team not understand that this decision degrades the user experience and just because they haven't come across anyone using 16-bit software today doesn't mean people don't. Instead of making the same old maintenance cost vs time vs value argument, why not prevent the experience from degrading? The current behavior essentially makes all Win16 apps look like MS-DOS apps. Sheesh!

Plus, the new taskbar ensures that users using 16-bit applications continue to have a degraded user experience. If a 16-bit program is pinned to the taskbar, it appears as a separate button (two instances) when launched/running. Looks like the Live Messenger 2009 team influenced this.

This issue has been discussed here on MSDN. I e-mailed Raymond Chen and he replied that he would add my request to the other requests being made of the user interface team so they can prioritize it appropriately. Which means that a feature that worked in previous Windows versions won't be fixed right away with a higher priority or may never be fixed (as MS crawls towards 64-bit).

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Got Windows 8/7/Vista annoyances?

I am good at usability testing of software and overall User Experience - having a great UX is essential to any piece of software. I imagine, plan and envision it - how to build a great user experience to achieve end-to-end scenarios. I'm a Windows enthusiast since the Windows 3.0 days but I have no official computer science training or qualification. My knowledge of Windows client is self-taught and unofficial. I make mistakes too but I know one thing by common sense: It is TOTALLY WRONG to abandon backward compatibility, drop functionality at random and break all usability like MS continually does. I am a critic of current Microsoft software and culture, because it compromises on existing features people use to give place to new ones. All concept of backward compatible UX is dead at Microsoft. I rebel against this but not necessarily to go against Microsoft or hate on them, but to bring them on the right path. Microsoft's technical prowess of writing stable, fast, secure and innovative software is still excellent but their understanding of usability and good user experience is disgraceful. The importance of a good user experience is underrated in software. I feel they have lost their way after Windows XP. We all know how Vista turned out and Windows 7 only succeeded because of customers' passion for Windows. As much as I still like Windows, the later versions just obstruct productivity, and to the average user, it is a constant process of re-learning for no reason.

So my programmer buddy, Ivo Beltchev created Classic Shell and I gave him feedback on the user experience. I help out in testing and giving ideas and feedback around UX of Classic Shell but I personally use Windows XP. If the user interface of Windows 7 or Windows Vista annoys you, try Classic Shell, the amazing FREE app that fixes dozens of these annoyances with the Start Menu, Explorer and Internet Explorer 9/10.

Want to fix Windows taskbar? 7 Taskbar Tweaker is the perfect utility for the job.

Want to find a decent alternative to the useless Windows Search? Try FileSearchEX (reasonably priced) or FileLocator Lite (free).

If you are struggling to make Windows 7 work the way you want, you may want to look at this eBook detailing the "To Work" options.

Office Ribbons driving you crazy and reducing productivity? Try Classic Menu for Office or UbitMenu.

Yes I know, it's a shame Microsoft software today requires third party fixes to complement and make it work properly. Don't tell me you have ignored the list of features removed in Windows Vista or in Windows 7. Were you foolish enough to believe from the reviews that Windows 7 was good and didn't make an objective comparison yourself? Were you foolish enough to dish out your hard earned cash and didn't miss any XP features in Windows 7? The software I listed above only fixes some of the usability issues and broken features but there are still many features Microsoft must fix themselves.

You may think why is XP still my idea and it is rather foolish to not "upgrade" to Windows 7. XP still rocks. XP is where the UX feels complete and well-rounded. Don't believe the fanboys who are blind, the shills who get paid to write favorable reviews, or the mainstream media which is clueless and just parrots what one "expert" shill says. In many areas, Windows 7 is a downgrade, not an upgrade and you will realize that from hands-on experience. XP hit the sweet spot for sufficiently powerful, customizable yet easy to use computing. I am a power user and if Windows 8 makes you feel that the OS is getting dumbed down to the point of uselessness, I feel pretty much the same about Windows 7, which is also extremely dumbed down from a power user's perspective. The geek in me refuses to accept Windows 7 as a viable replacement for the more-customizable Windows XP. As a power user I cannot make compromises about quality and Microsoft's commitment to quality is decreasing by the day.

I wrote hundreds of Wikipedia articles on Microsoft and Windows topics with over 5000+ contributions before realizing that Microsoft was cheating their users by removing features. I agree that software engineering is about tradeoffs but just deleting features people use and want is just ridiculous. It's all happening in the name of "simplifying" and "telemetry". I want Microsoft to acknowledge these issues which make Windows 7 unusable for serious work and fix them through hotfixes or service packs. Windows Vista and Windows 7 are not all bad, there are hundred different things to like about them, but being good only in part doesn't make the sum of parts better. What matters is the overall experience which is still degraded and sub-standard compared to Windows XP. Why Windows 7 is so successful is because it is sufficiently decent, so it works for the average user who just needs to get this job done and doesn't need perfection. It would be unfair to say don't use Windows 7 at all. I also do use it once in a while because it does have hundreds of nice improvements but it won't touch my main PC. Windows XP may not be as strong on security by default as Windows 7 or Vista are, but XP can be secured properly and is more usable than "simplified" later versions.

I am ready to assist Microsoft in improving Windows client if a certain quality bar is set and agreed upon. I believe I have a unique understanding of how to design the perfect UX without introducing too much complexity while at the same time, keeping it powerful and customizable. My passion and loyalty to Microsoft for great products will always remain but not at the cost of any compromises in quality of the product.