The problem with Metro: it's boring. | Hacker News Reader

The problem with Metro: it's boring.

riagenic.com

Computers are in a state of maturing right now. No longer is it the rush to get the fastest, the best, the one that does the most. People are rushing to get the one that does what they want, that's easy to use, that has the features tailored to them. That's why people are buying the iPad over a new Core i7 machine.

Similarly, don't you think it's time for interfaces to mature? You claim it can't evolve, that we're going to see the same interface forever. Is this a problem? There were some wacky car designs in the early 1900s before you ended up with clutch on the left, brake in the middle, gas on the right, shifter in the center of the car. People wouldn't call that boring, they'd call that mature and standardized.

No one points to the iOS interface and says "That's fresh! That's exciting! That's evolved!" It's not, it isn't, and it hasn't. iOS is exactly the same as every interface that came before it. So your implication that the iPad is king because its interface isn't boring... I'm not buying that.

No one points to the iOS interface and says "That's fresh! That's exciting! That's evolved!"

That observation works better as a criticism of Metro than a defense of it.

Microsoft was clearly trying to come up with something strikingly fresh, exciting, and evolved when they cooked up Metro. If (as I'm inclined to agree) they didn't need to do that in the first place, then with Metro they didn't just miss the target, which would have been forgivable. They missed a target that they shouldn't have been shooting for in the first place.

It stands out to me every time someone brings up their opinion that Metro is awful. It stands out to me every time because that opinion is expressed so rarely, and is a very unpopular opinion. Almost universally, people love Metro [1]. The most criticism I hear is that people don't like Metro on their desktop; this is sometimes expanded by those people saying then that Metro is awful in any circumstance. The first statement is common, but it's rare that the expanded opinion is any more than a childish backlash against a new interface. There's nothing better on phones and tablets.

Regardless, Metro is the idea that the interface should not distract you from the information, that the GUI doesn't overshadow the content. At a quick glance, you can easily tell exactly what you want to know. You might call it boring, others call it useful.

What would have been more boring in my opinion? Another interface full of static icons aligned to a static grid. What's a little different, a little more exciting? Dynamic icons that don't make me enter the app to know what the weather forecast will be, that don't make me open Facebook to see what someone wrote on my wall, that show random pictures from my phone in a slideshow, that show me my stock performance without needing to open the app.

Desktop shortcuts circa 1994 are boring. Metro is far from boring.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_%28design_language%29#Re...

I use a WP7. I like it, its quick and usable. Some parts of the OS really work - eg the messaging app. But generally it is quite boring and visually sparse. On top of that the interface has a lot of rough edges. Simply, it needs a more polished visual style, with more colour, detail, and life.

What, exactly, is boring about it? I actually think it is, so not asking to prove a point. More - what is it about Metro that causes it to dull so quickly?

P.S. Fluoro pink on a black background with flashes of white will date faster than strawberries in the sun.

I think that the term "Airport lavatory signage" is quite fitting.

It is quite pleasing, does the job, but does not excite anyone. People like it, but do not love it. Just like the old Android design, before Holo.

Without regard to Metro being boring, Microsoft wanted to make its business plan be the world to use THEIR commodity, and now it has. Which leaves it not much place to go.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com