Vista's user interface efficiency examined

I found this really interesting PDF:
http://www.pfeifferreport.com/trends/Vista_UIF_Rep.pdf

It measures "user interface friction", or basically how long it takes for the user to do many common tasks under an OS. How long do you have to wait for the UI, how precise do you have to be to do it and so on.
Some of the measured factors are menu latency (how long does it take to open a menu, including UI gimmicks like fade-ins), mouse precision (which shows a surprisingly big difference) and common desktop operations (create/delete/open folders)

As such, it completely ignores hardware factors, so let's not have any "yeah, but it runs much better on fast computers" flames, please.
They also point out that 1) for some tasks, bad UIF scores might be offset by other distinct improvements in the UI. And also, some users are more affected by it than others. (I'm one of those who are driven absolutely mad by slow fade-ins and other annoyances that slow me down. Others don't really care)

Still an interesting way to measure UI "efficiency"
Vista vs XP vs Mac OS are measured and compared, and does it come as a surprise that Mac OS beats both Windowses, and XP performs significantly better than Vista?

Anyway, have fun reading.

 

Is there any documentation for ubuntu around?

 

Did anyone expect any different from a "privately" funded study??

 

Umm, privately funded studies have also found Windows to be what was it, 80% cheaper than Linux. If your point is that "privately funded studies must be biased against Microsoft", you should probably do some more research.

Apart from that, are you saying that the fade-in effects on menus in Vista does not take time? Are you saying that it does not increase menu latency that it has to perform this effect? Yes, I can see how they must have made the entire study up just to make Vista look bad. *rolls eyes*

Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on what problems you see with the study? (Other than "omg, it's not funded by Microsoft")
It matches my experiences with Vista pretty well. While the OS in itself ran smoothly on my computer, I still had to wait longer for many common tasks to complete. An example would be the winkey+tab function which works *exactly* like alt-tab, except it involves a 0.3 second animation for each time you press tab.

 

I find it interesting that they threw in OSX, which was designed for a one button Mac mouse, and try to tell us the tests had nothing to do with hardware. Where's the uniformity in testing anymore...

As for the menu/window latency issue, that's an inherent characteristic of animated GUI's, you can't get something for nothing. I'm sure some computer users don't fancy the spiffy new graphics in Vista and will complain about it, but for many others the added processing time for looking good is worth it.

Personally, I don't notice the .2 second difference due to the animation, I mean if it builds up over the course of a year to over 30 minutes lost due to that, then so be it. Meanwhile, I'm having fun with the Vista gadgets and Win+Tabbing like a diabetic kid in a candy store, and I can still code just as fast and efficiently in VS2005. So yeah, the study shows what we should all logically accept, that the fancy new UI in Vista has some cost. Will it affect users to the extent that the report would have us believe? Probably not, but I'm just as comfortable saying "it depends on the user".

P.S. Are they trying to say because of Vista's new interface, that people are missing their clicks on the screen? I mean, Vista's only been out what a couple of weeks? Couldn't it be due to unfamiliarity with the OS? Also, how drunk do you have to be to miss clicking an icon that's 1cm by 1cm with a mouse pointer tip only one or two pixels in area?

 

Whoa, easy... so quick to jump on my remark.

I didn't mean to offend you or the study. It seems like the status quo lately to find something to criticize about Vista, so I automatically roll my eyes when I see these things. The post was more of a reflex, and I appologize.

In any case, there are many things you can do in all of these operating systems to improve performance. For instance, using ALT-TAB instead of WIN-TAB, just like XP. If you turn off all the fanciness on an XP machine and on a Vista machine, I find it hard to believe that you'd see much difference in "UI Friction". Aero is eye candy, and really not a productivity booster. I think it would be a rare instance for a company to use it on a regular basis. The other elements of the user interface can be changed to speed things up.

Either OS vs. Apple's OS is a different story. I don't pretend to know any nuance of OSX. Maybe it is better for productivity and causes less UI interference, as the study clearly indicates.

In its basic form, I agree with the study's findings. However, we know Apple will be using this to boost its reputation in the corporate world.

Next time I'll just be more careful when I post backhanded remarks, lol.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they were using a standard two-button mouse on OS X. It's been an available option for years.

The only thing that really bothered me enough in this area of UIF with Vista over XP was the winkey+tab thing. It was a cool feature, but I never used it as it was way too slow. But the Start menu latency bothers me even more in XP than it does in Vista. Newer Microsoft programs in general have this problem, as Office 2003 and 2007 are clearly evident of. I do find the mouse precision tests interesting though.

 

I don't think that study has a lot to do with a user's reality. It's a nice thing for UI designers to think about, but features do matter. They matter a lot. Having a fast search-and-run alleviates having to go through tons of menus. I know they mentioned that that wasn't what the study was about. I just want to reiterate that I think it's extremely relevant for a user.

I'll give them the points about menu lag. Now that I pay attention, when I use the start menu in xp, I actually click the folders, because that half second lag or whatever, is too large.

I'd give them points for noticing the importance of mouse input, but they seem to have it backwards. I can click small things accurately and quickly with Windows. I've noticed it's one of those things that makes my use of Windows more enjoyable than that of OS X... God bless that system, but the mouse acceleration curve is ****. (I'm trying SteerMouse at the moment. I like it nearly as well as Windows)

Also, I don't think it's completely valid to compare OS X and Windows menus. That is, menu-to-menu it's ok, but as a comparison of user experience it isn't. OS X doesn't have a start menu. The traditional (I guess? I'm using Quicksilver.) means of launching an application seems to be to open Finder, click "Applications", and then click the program. Then you have to navigate to the tiny little button (much "larger" after mouse adjustment) to close the window. I dislike this. Also, in iTunes for example, who cares how fast it scrolls, when it won't scroll at all because it's locked up solid every time it's adding tracks to its database?

I'd never trust studies like this anyways. Full disclosure or nothing
None the less, when I go home this evening, I think I'm going to play around with Vista a bit, keeping this in mind. It's good food for thought.