Windows taught the difference between UX and UI

<This article has been reproduced in Tech City News>

So it seems one of the bravest – and possibly most reckless – user experience (UX) changes in recent years has failed; Microsoft has announced that it will reinstate the Start Button to its desktop layout.

The announcement is an acknowledgement that it has failed in its attempt to migrate desktop users from their familiar Windows to the tiled layout first seen in Metro for mobile devices and later developed for all devices and called Windows 8.

On some levels this failure is a shame

The rationale for behind this migration was solid – Microsoft had seen the future of devices and knew that the majority of activity would be on mobile devices. Microsoft reasoned that it was vital to bring its vast desktop user base into contact with this new mobile world.

They certainly had a product that worked well for mobile – the tiled interface Metro (later Windows 8) was elegant and helpful, superior to the static layout of Apple’s iOS and cleaner than Android whilst just as dynamic.

It also made a lot of sense for Microsoft as they’d only need to focus on a single product rather than parallel one. If Microsoft could bring the market to their way of thinking, they would become the standard for mobile just like they had for desktop. It had always worked this way when they had made changes to Windows in the past.

So they ‘bet the company’ on the change.

Unfortunately for Microsoft things didn’t work out quite howthey had hoped. We can be sure Microsoft had expected some resistance to the change – given their 30 year ubiquity in desktop user interface (UI) there could be few companies with such experience in customer resistance to change. But this time the change was not just evolutionary – it was a total break from the past, a parallel with the change from MS DOS to Windows itself.

As it turned out, users hated this change even more than predicted; all their menus had disappeared, the Start Button was gone, and the tiled interface that worked so well with stubby fingers made no sense when using a mouse. In their rush to deliver the future, Microsoft had forgotten ubiquity comes with a price; most people don’t like change.

Lurking beneath the surface of this problem for Microsoft was the concept of Skeuomorphism – the transference of practical design elements from one application into another where their use is superfluous. Classic examples of this are the Qwerty keyboard and wood panelled cars.

Skeuomorphism may seem a pretty abstract subject area, but for designers it’s vitally important as changes in technology and consumer products mean changes to the how we interact with objects. Design luminaries like Jony Ive of Apple hate skeuomorphism, as they are forced to add largely unnecessary elements they believe unnecessary.

However as I’ve argued before, for the ordinary user, skeuomorphic design matters – it creates familiar connections to unfamiliar technologies. A Qwerty keyboard allows the user to make an intuitive connection with a device; wood panelled cards provide cues as to the premium quality of the product (no, seriously); showing a reel-to-reel tape rolling whilst recording on a digital device provides a fun connection with the past even for those too young to have ever used reel to reel.

In this way Skeuomorphism creates emotional connections to products every bit as valuable as the clean simple lines of the product itself. In my previous blog post I advised that those pushing for change would be advised to see how consumers responded to Windows 8 which was a break from a skeuomorphic past.

This, perhaps, is where Microsoft went wrong. Windows Metro and Windows 8 were beautifully designed for the new mobile medium. The people who bought these devices were early adopters, by definition predisposed to like change and difference. But the majority of Windows users are not like this; they want familiar, it helps them to navigate the constant blizzard of new technology. In returning the Start Button, Microsoft has been forced to acknowledge that they too have created their own skeuomorph and like it or not, for the time being, they’re stuck with it.

Their consumers have spoken, and to their credit, Microsoft have listened. The design world would be wise to do the same.

In defence of skeuomorphic design

(Author's note: I am not a designer, and don't pretend to be. However I am a believer in customer focus, so the opinions expressed here reflect this fact.)

Scott Forstall has been pushed out of Apple, and the wagons have circled behind him.

That's pretty rough for the man responsible for iOS - the operating system beloved of (nearly all) Apple acolytes. However with the passing of Steve Jobs, Forstall always was on borrowed time. His management style and ambition to build a power base were probably the main reasons behind his departure, but there's one group of people who will celebrate his departure with unrestrained joy - design purists. Scott Forstall was (gasp) a devotee of skeuomorphic design; on screen use wooden and leather textures, elaborately turning pages, files that get "shredded", all Forstall. He wasn't the only one to carry a torch for these real world touches though, Jobs was as well. Hence as long as Jobs was in power, Forstall's approach held sway. However with Jony Ive assuming responsibility for the design of iOS we can expect a different approach. The question is whether this is such a good idea, my belief from a customer perspective is that it isn't.

Skeuomorphism has been a part of Apple's design approach since the very first Macintosh in the 1980s... indeed use of the GUI was entirely based in the principles of skeuomorphism. Since that time, this approach has retained a vital place in Apple design for a number of reasons. Firstly, as mentioned Jobs was a fan of this approach and with good reason; more than almost any CEO in living memory, he was highly clued into his consumers. Apple products consistently push the boundaries of product capability and design, yet they are able do so whilst remaining intuitive and human. That they are able to achieve this balance is in large part due to the use of skeuomorphic design, which grounds Apple's radically different approaches to hardware in a world that is familiar to its users.

The second reason is related to the first, many designers reject skeuomorphism as they feel that today's digital natives would not understand the referential touches - how many 16 year olds would even recognise a cassette tape let alone reel to reel? But this argument misses a crucial point - given the price-points of most Apple products, the earliest adopters are often those who can afford to buy their products are most likely to either need or appreciate the links with the past... that sort of disposable income usually comes with age. As a side note, design is recycled and new generations often copy fashions of those who came before (even Ives himself is heavily influenced by the work of earlier designers).

The final reason to retain skeuomorphic elements is unexpectedly one sometimes neglected by designers, the relationship of the design with its audience. The move to simplicity is laudable, and Ives' ability to consistently hit the mark in product design reflects his customer focus. However the push to completely remove skeuomorphic design entirely risks falling into the category of designers getting too carried away with their art, forgetting that normal people must WANT to interact with their creations - both hardware and software. The best analogy I can think of here is Brutalist architecture... lauded by architects for its simplicity and modernity, whilst loathed by those forced to live with it. In their rush to simplify, the Brutalists neglected the humanity of their audience, simplicity became starkness, and modernity became alienating. Whether they're digital natives or not, people need these links with the products they see around them everyday. I doesn't need to be excessive, but it must feel organic.

It will be interesting to see where Ives takes the next iteration of iOS, will he look towards a slow phasing out of skeuomorphic elements or will he go for a radical redesign? If he wants an example of the latter, he might want to see what happens with Windows 8... Microsoft's latest release seeks to make a clean break with the past, shedding skeuomorphism entirely. In doing so they're taking a big gamble, especially given their  market ubiquity. Their rationale for doing so is certainly clear as mobile devices become the way of the future. However, whether it succeeds in the short term or not will come down to the ability of normal people to accept change. Whether Microsoft succeed will have a major effect on their market position; whether Apple believes Microsoft have succeeded will no doubt be reflected in iOS7.