Windows Multitaksing Concept - Multitasking and Charms Bar fix

One of the biggest change to Windows 8 was the introduction of fullscreen apps that completely got rid of the task bar. Many people hated this because the task bar had been an integral part of the windows experience for the past 20 years. It was an at-a-glance multitasking solution that...dare I say...just worked.

Microsoft instead transitioned to a gesture based multitasking window that flew in from the side. This was obviously meant for touch input rather than a desktop keyboard input, but could also be accessed with a mouse gesture on desktops.

Microsoft also introduced the charms bar which came out from the other side. This menu bar had options for settings and sharing for the particular application you were working in.

The problem with these gestures is that they seemed poorly thought out and in some cases, poorly implemented. On a touch input like the Microsoft Surface, to get to the multitasking menu, you dont just swipe in from the left. That switches you to the last app you were working in. To get the switcher you have to pull out and then push it back in (insert sex joke here).

example:

Step 1) ------>
Step 2) <------
Step 3) WINDOW SWITCHER!!!

This is a tad annoying, not to mention it doesn't work on a desktop. You have to go bottom left and up to get the multitasking and there is no method for quick switching applications. Not very intuitive at all.

The issue with the charms bar is that I usually forget it's there, which is a shame. Windows 8/8.1 has implemented a number of great features that are accessible from any application through the use of this bar. Unfortunately I never USE this bar and so the non-essential items are rarely used.

So what do I propose?

That's right folks. Just merge the two in to one gesture. Swiping in from the left will bring in the charms bar, the clock (not shown here) as well as the app switcher. Every time you go to switch an app, you are reminded of the many very cool functions that Windows 8 brings to the table. It will be easier to remember where the options are.

As for the duplicate start buttons, The start button in the middle of the charms bar might be a good spot for a notification menu (hint hint wink wink).

I would also disable quick app switching from the left and instead make that the gesture from the right. Since the new method moves the charms bar from the right to left swipe, that entire gesture area is empty. It's now a great place to put the quick switch gesture.

On a desktop I would also propose that Microsoft just introduces hot corners, like many Linux and OS X iterations. Instead of making multiple motions, one down to the bottom left or top left will present the new combo menu.

This solution adds an elegant solution to the mess that is the Windows 8 UX / UI. It makes things like multitasking and gestures more intuitive and less time consuming. Productivity will be overall much better with this new method. From my experience, most people work visually and this is about as visual as you can get with a gesture based OS.

I hope Microsoft is considering things like this for the next iterations of Windows. I feel like 8 and 8.1 had potential but the difficulty of the UI is holding some consumers back.

The Quest For The Why Of Windows RT

In the beginning, Microsoft released the Surface RT. This made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.

Hitchhikers references aside, The Surface RT along with Windows 8 seem to be the biggest Microsoft failures in recent memory.

Windows 8 RT and the Surface RT were Microsoft's attempt at making a lightweight, low power, ARM processor based, media consumption tablet. If their Surface Pro models were intended to take on the likes of the MacBook Air and other ultraportables, the RT equivalent was almost certainly designed to take on the iPad and Android tablets. These were marketed as a "Get stuff done" tablet as an afterthought, but that idea was mainly used alongside the Pro models.

History shows that RT tablets sold poorly and nobody quite understood what the angle was with Microsoft and the OS spinoff. Why not just use atom processors and make low powered x86 netbook competitors? Why ARM, which breaks compatability with all existing Windows applications outside of the ones in the Windows Marketplace? Why Why Why?

To date, there's no clear cut explanation. RT just sounds like a bad move all together. Is it though? Could there be some nefarious ulterior motive? I think yes, and my jumping point for this topic is a strange one.

Who remembers the Ubuntu Edge concept? This was a crowd funding attempt by the open source Linux distribution to create a very unique phone. The device was said to come packing incredibly high specifications rivaling most laptop computers. The most intriguing part of the device was what it could do when it was tired of being a phone. This device could dock to a screen, mouse, and keyboard via USB and become a full fledged desktop computer. The phone would automatically boot in to a desktop mode which was literally a desktop operating system. Everything you could run on any other distribution of Ubuntu linux, you could run on this phone while docked. Alas, the crowdfund failed but it did spark some interest in the community for a device with those capabilities.

Fast forward back to present day. Microsoft just purchased Nokia and now has the ability to make their own Surface phone. As a rule of thumb, most phones (see: nearly all) are based on ARM processors, not x86.

Microsoft is keeping Windows RT around despite almost unanimous hatred from partners and consumers alike. I don't agree with many decisions made by Microsoft in recent years, but there has to be a method to the madness here. I've got my tinfoil hat on proudly, and I'm willing to bet that Microsoft is going to bring the Ubuntu Edge legacy to reality.

I figure they're going to load Windows 8 RT on to a separate memory chip inside the device. When the device is detected as being docked, the phone will switch over to "desktop mode" and load RT, which will offer users a full PC experience they are already extremely familiar with. Once Windows 8 / 8.1 start gaining more market share, more of the apps people use on a daily basis will become available through the Windows Market place (and thus, available on ARM and x86 devices alike). You will be able to take your entire computer with you wherever you go without any problems.

At the 2013 Microsoft Company Meeting, it was revealed that there are already plans to merge the Windows Phone and Windows 8 / RT App repositories in to one centralized "store". All of this seems to strongly point at my conclusion being correct.

Again, I'm not an industry insider. I have no idea if this is legit or not. As of right now, this is all just a nerd speculating on the internet. I must say this is an insanely cool idea. If something as "obscure" as linux could gather mainstream attention from the idea, I can only imagine what Microsoft could accomplish if they follow through with this.

The Dumb Problem With Smart Watches

I remember as a kid my dad had some ancient Dick Tracy Wrist Radio toys. I always thought they were the coolest thing and eagerly awaited the day when these were more widestream. Even as a kid I knew wearable tech was going to be the future one day.

Well fast forward to 2013 and the legacy those toys left behind are starting to breach in to mainstream culture and every day life. Google Glass and smart watches (specifically the Pebble and Galaxy Gear) are the modern interpretations of that vision. The fact these things exist are simply amazing on a technical and practical level. So why am I not excited?

From how I see it, smart watches are aiming to be an accessory to accommodate the technology you already own. Google glass carries the same ambitions at the moment but I can see Google want's to push it forward to completely replace smartphones as we know it. With this in mind, I will ignore the shortcomings of Glass at the moment and move on to smart watches. Their intent is clear, and I honestly feel like they're failing.

I don't quite know what I was expecting out of the Galaxy Gear. Samsung has a history of cramming gimmicky features and a terrible UI on top of high specs and I kind of anticipated the same thing. The product they presented did not disappoint. Color screen, cameras, and apps made this thing the closest thing to a dumbphone they've made in recent years.

So this might seem pretty great to most people but I was incredibly disappointed. Like I said, I feel the intention of a smart watch is to be more of an accessory to the devices we already own. They should provide at a glance information and just generally stay out of the way. I think Pebble and metawatch do "Smart" better than the Galaxy Gear.

The watches that got it "right" have common e-ink and low power characteristics along with a simple UI and setup procedure. They show you when you get an email and whatnot without you having to lug that 6 inch Galaxy note out of your pocket. Aside from that, they show the time and make it a point to not obstruct your day to day activities.

Since the Gear does the same why am I upset? The gear seems like it tries to overtake the phone. Why snap pics with your phone when you have a camera on your wrist? Why do anything with the phone? Why bother getting the phone? Oh wait, because you HAVE to pair with the phone. The Gear is a more expensive, more distracting smart watch that still needs an expensive phone as it's base. Whats the point?

The most important thing about unobtrusive wearable tech is the battery life and the Gear just fails completely. While the e-ink cousins do a better job at not dying that easy, they still don't last as long as you would hope. Bluetooth is intensive. Charging the gear once a day or the pebble once a week, the fact that you have to consciously remember to charge it alongside the phone is an annoyance.

My vision for the future of wearable tech is kind of a black and white one to be honest. Either rely solely on the wearable tech or use it as a luxury. Glass has the potential to replace the smartphone one day. It can comfortably emulate the main features of a smartphone without any additional tech. Smart watches would still need a bluetooth headset for calls typically. Smart watches really should take the foundation laid by pebble and the like, and build on it. Longer lasting batteries, more efficient pairing technology, and a UI that is simple and pleasant to use. Just show me if I have notifications and let the phone handle the rest. Most of the time I should forget it's there at all.

Then again,  for prices like the present ones for these types of devices, you probably don't want to forget about it. That's another issue that should be addressed but one step at a time I suppose.

Opening doors and Windows

If you keep up with me on various social networking sites, you'll know I'm not exactly the biggest fan of Windows 8. I feel like it has a clunky, schizophrenic UI / UX that makes it nearly impossible for PEOPLE to use. Notice I'm not specifying the "average folk". I mean PEOPLE. Everyone from seasoned computing veterans to computer newbies have a hard time navigating Windows 8.

The majority of this difficulty, I won't lie, comes from the UI and UX choices made by Microsoft. There's a lot that I would have done differently and that fact should not be swept under the rug.

However, accepting the inevitability of a launched OS, a new problem manifests in the form of inadequate instruction. Windows 8, as complicated as it is, CAN BE LEARNED! I managed to get comfortable with it in a few days of playing around with it (or as comfortable as I could possibly get). I had to TEACH MYSELF all of the navigation tricks. The only instruction given was a very vague screen on first boot:

Sorry bro, but that's just not going to cut it. 

Even with Windows 8.1, which did a LOT to fix usability issues that launched with 8.0, still has the same terrible tutorial. This is simply far too vague to be useful, especially to users familiar with the old way things worked. 

Instead, Microsoft should have included a more in depth tutorial, similar to what Ubuntu presents to users during the install procedure. 

The Ubuntu procedure gives a number of very informative screens laying out important OS details while the OS itself installs. 

I propose that Microsoft goes one step further and provides an interactive tutorial during the first boot procedure. As it stands, the user is presented with a very boring screen that says things like "we're getting things set up. Hang tight". I applaud their use of a casual tone, but this is wasted Time and space. It would be a great time to give users the option to learn more about their new OS while they wait. Demonstrate how to use things like the charms bar, the multitasking menu, desktop mode, the people app, and other things users might open often. Even a quick demonstration might ease the transition and stop some of the rage at usability of the new system. 

It's obvious Windows 8 was the result of a lot of usability research on Microsoft's part but they now see that it doesn't always translate to how things will be used in real life. Especially with people who are VERY set in the way things used to be. They need to be eased in to new things. Since the time for easing is long gone, this is a great compromise. 

I think Windows 8.1 has potential that Windows 8 lacked. I think it's a massive step in the right direction and with the inclusion of a few things, it could really shine with people. After all, it's PEOPLE who are their customers, and people very rarely fit a pre-determined mold. They can, however, be taught to adapt.