Forum Discussion
Discussion - Updating our interface with Fluent touches
Thank you so much for all your feedback on the overall design of the new version of Edge, as it is invaluable to our getting the experience right. A common thread through this feedback has been a lot of discussion about the definition of “Fluent” design, and how it should apply to Microsoft products, so we wanted to share an update to provide some clarity. As opposed to a specific or static set of design rules, Fluent is intended to be an ever-evolving design system across Microsoft products. As the world around us continues to evolve, including devices, interaction models, user habits and expectations, the Microsoft design system must also evolve to meet the changing needs of our users. This means Fluent will not necessarily always represent everything that it did several years ago when the look and feel of the legacy version of Edge was first developed. You can learn more about the current direction of Fluent by visiting the Fluent Design System Page, which provides a summary of the design system as a whole, as well as how it applies to different platforms, applications and controls across Microsoft.
If you browse through the Fluent guidance at the link above, you’ll note that the new version of Edge is aligned with the current direction Fluent is going, and we will continue to evolve along with the design system and Microsoft as a whole. While Edge may be one of the first to put some of these new Fluent elements into practice, you will continue to see other products across the company update to reflect this direction as well. For example, you’ll notice that the latest Fluent designs are characterized by rounded corners across objects and controls, and the new version of Edge is consistent with that guidance. Another example is that there isn't a pivotal focus on transparency in the latest Fluent designs, and surfaces of the new version of Edge reflects this.
This is not to say we will never consider incorporating such aspects into our designs going forward, or perhaps offering options to customize the look and feel, but there are no plans to incorporate these elements into the default experience for all users at this time. However, there are other design investments on our roadmap to continue aligning with the broader Fluent direction, such as updating icons and illustrations across the product. Please continue to send your feedback on the overall Edge look and feel, including preferences and pain points, as we are always open to learning more and updating our direction based on the needs of our users.
- The Microsoft Edge Team
There should be balance between UI and UX and if developer could implement high quality code and maintain it, there is no limitation on adding options. Users need to feel comfortable with product they are using.
Your example of Windows Server is not always true. There is famous quote in cybersecurity which is "complexity is the enemy of security" and GUI actually helps IT Professionals to have better control over their cybersecurity. That is why using Microsoft ATP is more productive than using log files.
Reza_Ameri-Archived wrote:
I am talking about basic controls, if option is not touch friendly and people won't able to use Microsoft Edge to interact with touch , they just go for alternatives. While too big icons in not nice so we need more flexibility.
There should be balance between UI and UX and if developer could implement high quality code and maintain it, there is no limitation on adding options. Users need to feel comfortable with product they are using.
Your example of Windows Server is not always true. There is famous quote in cybersecurity which is "complexity is the enemy of security" and GUI actually helps IT Professionals to have better control over their cybersecurity. That is why using Microsoft ATP is more productive than using log files.
IT professionals don't need GUI to control and interact with Windows server.
Microsoft ATP and log files? they aren't even comparable things.
Too many customizations and options always lead to more bugs. there is no software that is bug free.
So like I said there is Zoom level already in here: edge://settings/appearance
that covers websites and Edge settings, they should exclude settings page from that option, add another zoom level next to it that covers settings page and Edge UI (top bar, address bar, favorites menu etc)
Reza_Ameri-Archived wrote:
Still not agreed,Good, np
Spoiler
Reza_Ameri-Archived wrote:
try this out, open Linux and tell me status of security of Linux or even Windows Server Core, you will have to write several scripts to see if firewall is on with no error , if ports are okay and so on. You could do the same by opening Security Center which is matter of seconds. You could manage multiple Windows Defender in Windows 10 using scripts and check health status, firewall and so on. But companies paying license for Configuration Manager so they open single Dashboard and see everything there. I have been dealing with millions lines of code and I have been doing scripting for many years and I involved in real situations, so I am telling this as someone who has been living with code and scripts.
You will need to look into Software Engineering methodologies and things like SDLC and so on, so you will realize what I am saying.These are going way too off topic,
Yes you wrote millions of codes and I wrote Billions of code, for sure mate.
In some cases there are capabilities in Powershell that you won't find in a GUI tool, but that's generally by design.
now lets keep it on topic which is "Discussion - Updating our interface with Fluent touches"
- Still not agreed, try this out, open Linux and tell me status of security of Linux or even Windows Server Core, you will have to write several scripts to see if firewall is on with no error , if ports are okay and so on. You could do the same by opening Security Center which is matter of seconds. You could manage multiple Windows Defender in Windows 10 using scripts and check health status, firewall and so on. But companies paying license for Configuration Manager so they open single Dashboard and see everything there. I have been dealing with millions lines of code and I have been doing scripting for many years and I involved in real situations, so I am telling this as someone who has been living with code and scripts.
You will need to look into Software Engineering methodologies and things like SDLC and so on, so you will realize what I am saying. - Of course, I was only talking about tasks like system administration, or things that are not accessible in GUI.
I didn't say using command line is faster to go to a website than opening a web browser and entering a URL which also has auto complete feature.
both mine and your arguments are correct because they are about 2 different things. HotCakeX, I'm a fan of most your feedback on here, but there are clearly some things that can be done more quickly and/or more reliably using GUI than command line. Whenever doing something where it's easy to eyeball or select discrete options, it's quicker to select them with a mouse or touch, and then hit the action button. Similarly, if there are multiple steps to be performed that won't be repeated, then constructing a command, even for the most expert, can be significantly slower than just making a few clicks. The GUI also has the benefit of more easily protecting against human error, because it only allows certain operations. Where command line is great is for its flexibility (almost always allowing more options than the safer and more constrained GUI) and power for repeated batch operations. Both are useful.
There's also the fact that even for experts, there are usually some areas where they are less expert than others, typically the parts they don't touch very often. Even a poor GUI is usually easier to figure out as a non-expert, performing in seconds to minutes what could take many minutes or hours if the person needs to research the specific command.
If you're an admin and could only have one, then yes command line for power and flexibility. But so many operations can be done more quickly through GUI, that's also a good tool to have in the toolbox.
- Spoiler
Reza_Ameri-Archived wrote:
Regarding to GUI, I disagree.
You have to be in situation when you want to quickly check what is status of your system, their alerts, status of clients and so on , you will need one nice dashboard to see everything on. If you want to do it with scripting you will need to keep typing and writing and checking and see result and spend times to write scripts and analyze them.'
In some cases, we relay on PowerShell and other scripting language but in general we need to have GUI for better understandability.
More options and features might lead to more bugs, if there is no engineering and design and control over it. It is not the case with Microsoft , where there is requirement engineering and testing team and if you look into feature request for customization it won't associated with much bug or errors. Microsoft Edge team will know how to implement a feature and control it.Well that's not true.
GUI is good for beginners but once you are a pro, GUI just slows you down for the most part.
using Terminal on Linux or Powershell/CMD in Windows is a lot faster to get the job done.
Command line users only need to utilize a keyboard to navigate the interface, resulting in faster performance.
scripting and hacking all happens using command lines, not GUI. I suggest you get started with Powershell or if you're a fan of Linux, learn the terminal. you will see how efficient it will make you.
Nope,that is a universal thing, Microsoft would be the worst example for what you are saying.
I have high hopes for Edge team and hope they succeed nevertheless.
these are all off-topic though to the main subject.
- Regarding to GUI, I disagree.
You have to be in situation when you want to quickly check what is status of your system, their alerts, status of clients and so on , you will need one nice dashboard to see everything on. If you want to do it with scripting you will need to keep typing and writing and checking and see result and spend times to write scripts and analyze them.'
In some cases, we relay on PowerShell and other scripting language but in general we need to have GUI for better understandability.
More options and features might lead to more bugs, if there is no engineering and design and control over it. It is not the case with Microsoft , where there is requirement engineering and testing team and if you look into feature request for customization it won't associated with much bug or errors. Microsoft Edge team will know how to implement a feature and control it.
sgilder wrote:IT professionals don't need GUI to control and interact with Windows server.
Microsoft ATP and log files? they aren't even comparable things.
Just as a counter point the new Windows Admin Center is entirely based on the browser/using a GUI. So Microsoft will need to make sure that Edge works well with the new W.A.C.; not all IT Professionals are experts in PowerShell
That's not a counter point, just an opinion. IT pro that doesn't know Powershell is not a pro 😉
WAC is great, true, and that's mostly for managing headless GUI-less Server cores.
it also has the Powershell section to send the commands.
if you don't know Powershell, you won't be able to even setup and use WAC.
IT professionals don't need GUI to control and interact with Windows server.
Microsoft ATP and log files? they aren't even comparable things.
Just as a counter point the new Windows Admin Center is entirely based on the browser/using a GUI. So Microsoft will need to make sure that Edge works well with the new W.A.C.; not all IT Professionals are experts in PowerShell
