May 09 2019 07:07 PM
May 09 2019 07:07 PM
The visual design of Microsoft Edge for Android is inconsistent with both Material Design and the new Fluent Design principles being applied to Microsoft Edge Insider for desktop. I think Microsoft should either go for internal consistency (Fluent Design everywhere) or platform consistency (Fluent Design on Windows, Material on Android, and whatever Apple calls theirs on macOS).
Given that syncing with Android was recently added, what's the future road map for bringing these apps closer or more similar?
May 11 2019 04:24 AM
May 11 2019 09:52 AM - edited May 11 2019 09:53 AM
@vincentofearth I have to suggest you to not put your hopes up for UI consistencies across the platforms Microsoft is adopting. Despite what Microsoft said at Build about using Fluent Design on Windows, Android, iOS and websites, each developer team does whatever they want with their UI. A clear example of this is the Microsoft Launcher team, who has decided suddenly to abandon Fluent Design and embrace Material Design, a choice that I keep complaining to them but that they're deliberately ignoring
May 12 2019 10:10 AM
@vincentofearth "I think Microsoft should either go for internal consistency (Fluent Design everywhere) or platform consistency (Fluent Design on Windows, Material on Android, and whatever Apple calls theirs on macOS)."
I think that design should be as consistent as possible throughout the Microsoft ecosystem on any given platform, but that on a particular platform, the design motif should be consistent with the design principles for that platform (e.g. MacOs uses different design principles than Windows 10 or Android, for example). Internal consistency within platform, it seems to me, facilitates user familiarity and adaptability.
But consistency aside, I would really appreciate it if Microsoft would put user controls for turning design elements on or off much nearer the surface. As an example, I prefer to use as flat and simple a design as possible on all my devices (Windows, Linux, Android) both because of visual preference and to enhance performance, even on the most powerful of my devices. The controls for doing that do not exist in System controls, but instead are buried deep inside the traditional Control Panel (Control Panel, System and Security, System, Advanced system settings, Performance tab, Visual Effects tab) -- five-six layers down.
That is a long way down, and most users will stick with the defaults simply because they have no idea how to change things. I'd like to see a menu in Settings that gave users options.
May 12 2019 08:44 PM
@tomscharbach I would also like more options for customizing the user interface. They need to balance this though because allowing users to change how the UI looks and feels can lead to inconsistencies and confusion.
For example, I use Windows at home and Mac OS at work. It would be nice to move the window control buttons to the left for consistency, but if a non-technical user did that accidentally, they'd be very confused. Additionally, many apps (especially win32 and Electron apps) customize the title bar and have their own window controls. Given the diversity of the Windows app ecosystem, Microsoft would need to strike a careful balance if they're to provide these kinds of advanced customization options.
May 13 2019 04:10 AM
@vincentofearth I agree with your cautions, Vincent. User-defined UI changes have limits. What I'm suggesting, though, is limited. I am not talking about unrestricted user-defined changes.
I am suggesting that Microsoft should:
(1) stick to an internally and externally consistent design motif within each platform (that is, Microsoft-developed Windows components/apps should follow common Windows design conventions internally, Microsoft-developed MacOS apps (e.g. Edge) should follow MacOS design conventions when running on MacOS, and Microsoft-developed Android apps should follow Android design conventions when running on Android; and
(2) give users as much choice as is prudent when it comes to customizing the "look and feel" of the desktop environment, perhaps going so far as to offer a half-dozen pre-defined design packages, as many Linux distros do, and let the user choose, say, between Fluent design, Material design, flat design, and so on; and
(3) move UI controls (whatever those turn out to be, given the need for prudence and balance) to a common, easily accessible location within Settings, instead of forcing users to dig deep into Control Panel (an obsolete, deprecated system being replaced by Settings little by slowly). There is absolutely no reason why a user should be forced into Dante's circles of hell to rid resource-hogging Bling (transparencies, shadows and the like) from the system if that is what a user chooses to do.