I'm referring to Jakob Nielsen's alertbox from November 19, 2012. He complains about the lack of windows in Windows 8:
Lack of Multiple Windows = Memory Overload for Complex Tasks
One of the worst aspects of Windows 8 for power users is that the product's very name has become a misnomer. "Windows" no longer supports multiple windows on the screen. ... the main UI restricts users to a single window, so the product ought to be renamed "Microsoft Window."
The single-window strategy works well on tablets and is required on a small phone screen. But with a big monitor and dozens of applications and websites running simultaneously, a high-end PC user definitely benefits from the ability to see multiple windows at the same time. Indeed, the most important web use cases involve collecting, comparing, and choosing among several web pages, and such tasks are much easier with several windows when you have the screen space to see many things at once.
When users can't view several windows simultaneously, they must keep information from one window in short-term memory while they activate another window.
I personally disagree with the opinion, that users really want to see multiple windows at once. Of course at the taskbar of my Windows 7 there are many active applications, documents and websites. But I use them all full-screen mode and just switch between them in the taskbar.
The only case when I drag two half sized windows next to each other is for example if I want to compare two versions the same document or if I want to move files in windows explorer.
However, to my mind for collecting and choosing information on the web, multiple windows are just confusing. Is there an explanation for Nielsen's statement? Are there any usability studies on the use and potential benefits of multiple windows? When the first windows version was published, it was a great benefit to work with multiple applications at all (multi-tasking). But I doubt, that it is a great benefit to distribute lots of small windows on your screen...
Answer
I've always viewed it as a matter of "state" tracking. When I use a computer, I am doing a task, not using a program. This task may be something as simple as check email, and only requires one window open. Or it could be complex, such as design a section of a code project.
In the more complicated case, the task is independent of any individual program. I need to have multiple programs open, such as a web browser, terminal(s), and editor. While I'm doing that, I offload as much thought off onto the computer as possible, so I can concentrate on the task.
Thus, the computer needs to keep track of where my windows are and ease the process of using them all at the same time. Transfer of information between programs should be seamless. Switching focus should be seamless. If I am entering a command in the terminal, and need to look up an argument, I would open the docs in my web browser, and leave it up for reference while I'm typing.
Then, when I have another command to look up, switching over to the "paused" browser and moving around in the docs should not make my terminal disappear. I may need to look back at the history while I'm examining docs.
This is the use case that is destroyed by a single window OS. Any and all tasks the user does that cannot be done in a single monolithic program, or if they do not have such a program, requires that the user keep "state" information inside their head.
Of course, I really should define state. State is things such as:
- current paragraph
- open tabs
- calculator results
- spreadsheet graphs
- chat history
- results of find command
These things all define the current context the user is operating in. They are pieces of the task at hand, and make no sense outside of the task itself. If the computer does not handle these details for you, then the user has to.
Therefore, everything the user wishes to accomplish requires far greater effort expenditure for an annoyance if they do not have a monolithic program to do everything. The monolithic program is a bad idea for a variety of reasons covered elsewhere, leaving us in the place Joel mentions. That is, the user can't get rid of the small annoyances, becomes frustrated, and leaves.
No comments:
Post a Comment