Posts Tagged microsoft

A Tale of Two Microsoft Names

Microsoft needed a search engine to complete with Google. Windows Live was not doing it for them. Google had already become a verb – who hasn’t told someone else to “Just Google it”? So they needed something catchy and easy to remember. Bing! I’ve got it.

Bing! Short, catchy, and an onomonopia for when you’ve actually found what you want. It’s perfect. As good as, if not better than, Google.


Microsoft needed a new phone operating system to compete with the iPhone, Android, WebOS, and Blackberry. They needed something new and fresh after the holy disaster that is Windows Mobile. They seem to have done a good job with designing the system. But now they needed a name. Zune Phone? Windows PhoneOS? Wait, no, I’ve got it. How about…

Wow. That’s… a mouthful. It’s not catchy, it’s not easy to remember. Windows Phone 7 Series? Windows 7 Phone Series? A Series of Windows 7 Phones? Windows Phone Series 7? I can’t even remember the order that the words go in!

Microsoft Marketing Department: WINS: 1. LOSSES: 1.

No Comments

Office 2007 on a netbook: Not designed for small screens

I installed Office 2007 (the new one with the ribbon menu system) on my Dell Inspiron mini 9 netbook. Netbooks are made to be small and light by sacrificing power, speed, and storage space. It runs Word surprisingly well, but when I opened it for the first time, I was kind of shocked.

Netbooks have a small screen – my 9″ screen has a resolution of 1024×600. I am sure that Microsoft did not plan on Office being used at such a small resolution; after all, big LCD monitors are the norm. So it’s not a huge usability knock against Microsoft. But nonetheless, here is what I saw (minus the pixel measurements, of course):

word2k7_netbook

The ribbon takes up a HUGE amount of screen real estate! Combined with the Taskbar that I keep at the top of my screen (I’m a Mac user at heart), 170 vertical pixels (out of 600) are gone. The default New Document screen shows a small border and the headers as well, so the point at which you actually start typing is nearly 290 pixels down screen. This leaves you with about another 290 pixels to work with! Only half the screen.

Now, of course, you can scroll up to hide the header, change the document view to see just the text, hide the ribbon menu, and implement a host of other strategies to make the text your main focus. I plan on doing that and I credit Microsoft for allowing the flexibility of doing that. Still, it was shocking nonetheless to open Word 2007 for the first time and barely see any document at all.

By the way, in case anyone is curious, here is PowerPoint. Since you often need to see the entire slide to do your work… well, this is pretty darn small – about 330 pixels! This is definitely more of a problem.

pp2k7_netbook

,

No Comments

ClearType: Font smoothing and usability

What a difference ClearType makes! Windows does not turn this feature on by default, and I am not used to displays without this feature. While I am not a typographer, the difference is quite evident to me. Without ClearType:

With ClearType:

These two links explain a lot about why ClearType works and why it eases eye strain.

Anti-aliasing on OS X
ClearType on Windows

This is a case of physical ergonomics, but not about understanding arm length or knee flexibility. Instead, it’s about understanding how our eyes work and adapting systems to that fact.

,

No Comments

Bill Gates’ 2003 e-mail detailing usability nightmare

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer recently published an e-mail from Bill Gates to several Microsoft employees about his experience trying to download Windows Movie Maker for Windows XP. It’s scathing in the level of detail Gates goes in to, number of steps he had to perform, and the fact that he never got it working. Bill Gates didn’t get it working. He created Windows.

Now THAT is user testing!

Best Bill Gates quote from his e-mail: “So I give up on Moviemaker and decide to download the Digital Plus Package. I get told I need to go enter a bunch of information about myself. I enter it all in and because it decides I have mistyped something I have to try again. Of course it has cleared out most of what I typed.”

Best quote of the replies in response to Bill’s e-mail: “Guess we should start working on a list of things that need to be fixed withe web sites. W1J, and with windows, and identify owners. Bill’s frustration is not unreasonable.

Note: This e-mail is from 2003, but I’m sure much of the content is still relevant today.

Link to article
Link to the original chain of e-mails (PDF)

No Comments

Microsoft Word 2008 keyboard shortcut insanity

One of the rules of software design is that menus and commands should be as similar as possible between all applications. In OS X, Command-C means copy and Command-V means paste. This eases Transfer of Training from one application to another. Microsoft Word 2008 violates this principle, however. To initiate a search, the standard Command-F is used. However, to find the next instance of the search term, Command-G is traditionally used. This is not the case, unfortunately. It is possible to re-assign shortcuts to different commands. As blogger Pierre Igot found out, it is surprisingly and ridiculously difficult to do.

Snip:

“Easy,” you say. “Just go to the ‘Customize Keyboard’ dialog box, find the ‘Find Next’ command and assign command-G to it.” Right.

First of all, good luck finding “Find Next” in the list of commands in the “Customize Keyboard” dialog box. Due to Microsoft’s completely nonsensical way of naming Word’s internal commands, the “Find” command is actually listed as “EditFind,” but the “Find Next” command is not listed as “EditFindNext”:

That would be too easy. Instead, it is listed as… “RepeatFind”:

In the menus, the commands are listed as “Find” and “Find Next.” However, in Word’s internal naming, the command is “RepeatFind.” That’s not even transfer of training – that’s simple consistency, and it is not followed here.

Hit up the rest of the post and read about this exercise in frustration.

,

No Comments