I knew it..Pretty Interfaces are just slow

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dale White
  • Start date Start date
Dale White said:
I dunno, don't you think the menu fade was put there to be aesthetically
pleasing ? Afterall, under the advance tabs, there is the options for Best
Appearance and an option for Best Performance. Choosing best performance,
task away all the "Appearance items" Whether anyone says, oooh that menu
fade "was pretty" or whether they say 'That's cool that way it does that"
is not overly important, and unless I'm missing something, options like
Menu fade, Taskbar slide and the likes, don't offer anything in terms of
being productive, Turning them off doesn't take away features
Click to expand...

I've seen apps that implement their own fades or transmissions and it CAN
look decent and feel solid. MS's implementations always seem cheap, look
bad and just don't feel solid to me. I turn them off company wide and I've
not heard a single complaint.
 
Dale White said:
Well, there you go, you've helped your company have less user friction :)
Click to expand...

Less friction in XP? I just don't buy that. Wait....I have all that stuff
turned OFF in XP but I haven't touched my 5 Vista machines. So, with Aero
in full effect and XP slimmed down, my Vista users are still MORE productive
then the XP users. More questions with no answers.
 
Dale said:
I'd like to see the research that says, a menu that pops open the second
I click it is a problem. The problem that the researcher noted is that
windows menus, though visual pleasing , is apparently too slow for a
productive user.

This is why, even under XP, I turn all the different menu fading, and
everything else off. I click it opens, I click it's gone. Obviously a
personal choice, but I'll take speed over pretty.
Click to expand...
How do you turn these effects off in Vista? I'm sure it used to be under
"Effects" on the display appearance settings (now Control Panel >
Personalization > Window Color and Appearance) but I can't see any
options for menu effects etc. there.
 
How are you measuring that they are more productive with Vista Aero on, then
with XP Visuals turned off ? Are you then saying that if you turned off
Aero, that they would be less productive them with Aero on ? Or are you
saying that no matter what you do with Vista or XP, your users will be more
productive with Vista than XP ?
 
Mark Bourne said:
How do you turn these effects off in Vista? I'm sure it used to be under
"Effects" on the display appearance settings (now Control Panel >
Personalization > Window Color and Appearance) but I can't see any options
for menu effects etc. there.
Click to expand...

My way is to run the Classic theme. Then under the System-Advance settings-
option, set it to best performance, instead of best Appearance
 
Dale White said:
How are you measuring that they are more productive with Vista Aero on,
then with XP Visuals turned off ? Are you then saying that if you turned
off Aero, that they would be less productive them with Aero on ? Or are
you saying that no matter what you do with Vista or XP, your users will be
more productive with Vista than XP ?
Click to expand...

Too many questions. Holy crap! :)

The 5 users I mentioned are more productive using Vista in general. Thus
this whole friction research is moot. This boils down to the research being
crap in the first place. Just because you have data on something specific,
doesn't mean your data is worth anything. This reminds me of that Tom
Leykis idiot. According to his DATA, the average house wife is NOT skinny.
So his research concludes that house wives are fat, ugly, and plain.

Data can be very dangerous when not properly handled or analyzed.

Lets just pretend for a second that the menus on Vista DO take longer to
open. Lets FORCE them to take twice as long to open. We're still under a
second! Vista would still be more productive then XP. DEPENDING ON WHAT
you are doing of course.

Again, let's pretend that UIF does in fact show Vista being under XP. So
what? UIF is not important and amounts to nothing. UIF can vary based on
machine performance and UIF can be canceled out by turning off fade.

In conclusion, Tom Leykis is the scum of the earth and should be taken as
entertainment ONLY if in fact you can actually find him entertaining.
 
Mark said:
How do you turn these effects off in Vista? I'm sure it used to be under
"Effects" on the display appearance settings (now Control Panel >
Personalization > Window Color and Appearance) but I can't see any
options for menu effects etc. there.
Click to expand...

Another option I can't see, which used to be in the same place, is to
always underline the shortcut keys for menus, rather than only
displaying them when the "Alt" key is pressed.
 
Mark Bourne said:
Another option I can't see, which used to be in the same place, is to
always underline the shortcut keys for menus, rather than only displaying
them when the "Alt" key is pressed.
Click to expand...

Yup, that speeds people up. Instead of wasting time hunting for a letter
THEN going to the keyboard. They get to the keyboard first then strike that
next key right away.
 
Justin said:
Yup, that speeds people up. Instead of wasting time hunting for a letter
THEN going to the keyboard. They get to the keyboard first then strike
that next key right away.
Click to expand...

I don't follow your point. How is hiding the underline until after you hit
the Alt key, better ? I'm looking at the screen, I can see, before I do
anything, hit the Alt-F key, to open file. Now I have to hit the Alt key,
look up see which key I want (since I'm not a touch typist) and then look
back down to type it. I'm sure even for touch typists, the newer process
would be slower than the older way. Granted if it's the same old tasks, you
pretty much know all your Alt Keys. But if you haven't memorized them all,
what's the harm in showing me the keys ahead of time ?

Just because it's seems trivial to you, doesn't mean it's trivial to
everyone
 
Dale White said:
I don't follow your point. How is hiding the underline until after you hit
the Alt key, better ? I'm looking at the screen, I can see, before I do
anything, hit the Alt-F key, to open file. Now I have to hit the Alt key,
look up see which key I want (since I'm not a touch typist) and then look
back down to type it. I'm sure even for touch typists, the newer process
would be slower than the older way. Granted if it's the same old tasks,
you
pretty much know all your Alt Keys. But if you haven't memorized them all,
what's the harm in showing me the keys ahead of time ?

Just because it's seems trivial to you, doesn't mean it's trivial to
everyone
Click to expand...

1. I didn't say it was trivial. Please post the quote.
2. If it takes you 3 seconds to look then .5 seconds to hit alt then another
half second to hit "F" you are at 4 seconds. Now look at Vista. You look
AND hit ALT at the same time. So you drop that .5 second. You are at 3
seconds to look and .5 seconds to hit "F" for a total of 3.5 seconds. Or if
you argue that it now takes 3.5 seconds to complete both ALT and looking
then you prove that it does not mater at all and takes the same amount of
time. Take your pick.
 
1. I didn't say it was trivial. Please post the quote.
2. If it takes you 3 seconds to look then .5 seconds to hit alt then
another half second to hit "F" you are at 4 seconds. Now look at Vista.
You look AND hit ALT at the same time. So you drop that .5 second. You
are at 3 seconds to look and .5 seconds to hit "F" for a total of 3.5
seconds. Or if you argue that it now takes 3.5 seconds to complete both
ALT and looking then you prove that it does not mater at all and takes the
same amount of time. Take your pick.
Click to expand...


I'm afraid I don't follow your math. I'm looking at the screen. 0 secs,
required. I see that I need to hit Alt-M 0.5-1 secs and I'm done. Under
Vista, I'm looking at the screen, I see nothing, .5 secs to hit the alt key,
1-2 secs to find the key I need to hit, .5 secs to hit the key.

But let's skip the numbers, since it's subjective. You honestly contend
there is zero difference in having the underlines already there, versus
making me hit the Alt key to see them ? And what I really want to know,
After 15+ years of having it one way (Win 3.1 had it), what possible purpose
does it serve to remove it now ? It's a small detail, espeically if someone
doesn't use it alot, But I'd like the Microsoft people who said "let's
change that" just explain to me, why ? And how it's better then the way it's
been. Some of us are use to it, we've learned a way and now I'm having to
change,just for the sake of change
 
Dale White said:
I'm afraid I don't follow your math. I'm looking at the screen. 0 secs,
required.
Click to expand...

Nope. You have to FIND the underlined letter you are looking for. It's not
always the first letter of the word. Especially when using a new app you
sometimes have to hunt for it.
But let's skip the numbers, since it's subjective.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Here's something else. Most of the complaining about what's
changed goes away once the complainer uses Vista for a little while.
You honestly contend there is zero difference in having the underlines
already there, versus making me hit the Alt key to see them ? And what I
really want to know, After 15+ years of having it one way (Win 3.1 had
it), what possible purpose does it serve to remove it now ?
Click to expand...

Actually, this is where you are wrong, a little. What you are noticing is
that YOUR preference is becoming a minority vote. In XP you can OPT to turn
off the underlines. A direct result of customer "WANT". Now, the scale has
tipped over to the other side. You lose. Sorry, but more people want it
this way.
It's a small detail, espeically if someone doesn't use it alot, But I'd
like the Microsoft people who said "let's change that" just explain to me,
why ?
Click to expand...

See above.
And how it's better then the way it's been. Some of us are use to it,
we've learned a way and now I'm having to change,just for the sake of
change
Click to expand...

See above.
 
Actually, this is where you are wrong, a little. What you are noticing is
that YOUR preference is becoming a minority vote. In XP you can OPT to
turn off the underlines. A direct result of customer "WANT". Now, the
scale has tipped over to the other side. You lose. Sorry, but more
people want it this way.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but I want to see the poll numbers. I guess I'm still
wondering why someone would oppose to having the underlines there. Seeing
how the majority of "noobie" user I watch don't even know they can do things
like Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V, I'm guessing that it's more of a case that no one
uses the feature or doesn't understand what the Underline means.Maybe I'm
just around too many special Ed type users or maybe those are the users
Microsoft surveyed.

You right, the complaining goes away if you're using Vista, cause that's
just how it is. You're stuck with it. Doesn't mean it is better, and fair
enough turn it off, give me the option to turn it on.
 
That may be true, but I want to see the poll numbers. I guess I'm still
wondering why someone would oppose to having the underlines there. Seeing
how the majority of "noobie" user I watch don't even know they can do
things like Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V
Click to expand...

That's just it, you answered it right here. If they don't know about Ctrl-C
and Ctrl-V then why would they ever use an ALT shortcut? If XP didn't teach
them then nothing will :)
You right, the complaining goes away if you're using Vista, cause that's
just how it is. You're stuck with it. Doesn't mean it is better, and fair
enough turn it off, give me the option to turn it on.
Click to expand...

I thought you could? I'll have to look it up.
 
Justin said:
That's just it, you answered it right here. If they don't know about
Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V then why would they ever use an ALT shortcut? If XP
didn't teach them then nothing will :)
Click to expand...

In that case, I must make it my mission to teach all users to use the Alt +
Letter before they release Vienna and start a national Alt+letter day

I thought you could? I'll have to look it up.
Click to expand...

Hopefully you're google skills are better than mine
 
Dale White said:
In that case, I must make it my mission to teach all users to use the Alt
+ Letter before they release Vienna and start a national Alt+letter day



Hopefully you're google skills are better than mine
Click to expand...

I just opened Outlook and it has all the underlines. So an app can turn
them on by choice.
 
I just opened Outlook and it has all the underlines. So an app can turn
them on by choice.
Click to expand...

Now that's mildly funny. All of the Office 2003 stuff seems to have the
underlines. Though win mail does not, or any other Vista App. Several other
apps I use, Smart Term, FTP Pro, Cisco VPN. does not.

Maybe MS says that if you're smart enough to use Office, then you're smart
enough to get the underlines. Guess I'll have to install Office 2007 (barf
!) to see if that keeps it as well.
 
Dale M. White -LV32 said:
Now that's mildly funny. All of the Office 2003 stuff seems to have the
underlines. Though win mail does not, or any other Vista App. Several
other apps I use, Smart Term, FTP Pro, Cisco VPN. does not.

Maybe MS says that if you're smart enough to use Office, then you're smart
enough to get the underlines. Guess I'll have to install Office 2007 (barf
!) to see if that keeps it as well.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep changing your name?

Maybe it's because these apps are also intended for XP?
 
Justin said:
1. I didn't say it was trivial. Please post the quote.
2. If it takes you 3 seconds to look then .5 seconds to hit alt then
another half second to hit "F" you are at 4 seconds. Now look at
Vista. You look AND hit ALT at the same time. So you drop that .5
second. You are at 3 seconds to look and .5 seconds to hit "F" for a
total of 3.5 seconds. Or if you argue that it now takes 3.5 seconds to
complete both ALT and looking then you prove that it does not mater at
all and takes the same amount of time. Take your pick.
Click to expand...

But if the shortcut keys are permanently displayed, I can be looking up
what letter I need while my fingers are moving towards the Alt key, or
even while I'm still typing before knowing that I'm about to need that
menu. By the time I press Alt, I already know what other letter I need!
That makes .5 seconds to hit Alt and .5 to hit the other letter - 1
second total. I'm still doing other useful work during the 3s taken to
look at the menu.

Anyway, is there any harm is having a check-box somewhere to change the
behaviour? Or even a registry setting if they want to de-clutter a
dialogue which only has 3 check-boxes on it anyway! (Maybe there is a
registry setting - if so, does anyone know what it is? Or maybe there is
still a check-box, but hidden somewhere else...) One of the first things
I've always done on Windows 2000 / XP install is turn this option back on!
 
Back
Top