Like many of you, I’ve been watching the big changes in user interfaces over the past few years, trying to make sense of them all. Is there a common explanation for the controversies surrounding the Windows 8 UI and Unity? Where do GNOME 3, KDE, Cinnamon, and MATE fit in? This article offers one view.

The Windows 8 UI

It’s no secret that PC sales have declined for the past couple years,

while smartphone and tablet sales have increased:

(Source: Gartner Inc,

June 2013 statistics, 2014 numbers are predictions, chart courtesy of Chron)

This has been terrible news for Microsoft. Windows sales are stagnant,

even while the company misses out on the tremendous growth opportunity

in handhelds:





(Source: Gartner Inc,

June 2013 statistics, 2014 numbers are

predictions, chart courtesy of Chron)



What to do? A few years ago — in a gutsy, bet-the-company move —

Steve Ballmer confronted this crisis

head-on, announcing a radical redesign of Microsoft’s flagship Windows.

Now, we all know the result: Windows 8. It flopped. The IDC research firm, Dell

Inc., and others

blame the decline in PC sales, in part, on the new Windows 8 interface.

While

the extent of the new UI’s responsibility for this decline is

debatable,

nobody disputes this basic judgment… not even Microsoft. The company

is breaking all speed

records to produce the 8.1 upgrade it will give away free to save its

product.

The puzzler here is why Microsoft decided on one OS with a single

interface for both desktops/laptops and its Surface handhelds. The

winners in the

handheld OS competition, after all, have decided on a two-OS approach.

Apple reaps success with iOS for its phones and tablets, yet the

company retains Mac OS for its desktop and laptop computers. Similarly,

Google offers Android for handhelds and Chrome OS for netbooks and

notebooks.

These companies recognize that handhelds and personal computers have

fundamentally different operating characteristics, and thus require

different UIs. Apple iOS supports touchscreens with direct manipulation

via sliders, buttons, and switches. Gestures includes the swipe, tap, pinch, and reverse pinch.

Accelerometers respond to movement, so that the device automatically

reorients between portrait and landscape. It can even respond when you

shake it. GPS navigation underlies locational services. These are vital

because we carry handhelds around with us. Lastly, the

small sizes of handheld screens dictate many aspects of their designs.

On a small screen, it’s easier to run a program by touching a big

colorful app icon, rather than by selecting from a tiny text list menu

that’s hard to read. You can’t easily minimize lots of windows to a

panel on

a small screen.

None of these

functions — so integral to handhelds — relate to desktop and laptop

computers. In fact, as the Windows 8 UI demonstrates, if you

try to alter the desktop/laptop UI to include some of them, you

compromise the

user experience.

So why did Microsoft insist on one interface for both its tablets and

PCs? And why does the company state

that “The release of

WindowsPhone8 is a significant step toward convergence with

Windows8″? Microsoft is clearly driving towards a single

OS and similar UI across all devices.

Some believe this was an engineering decision. Others think it was an

error in judgment, the kind that can happen in any large

corporation (even one with such talented people as Microsoft). I

believe this is a marketing-driven decision. Microsoft owns the desktop

but has no

meaningful market share in handhelds. So why not leverage all those

loyal desktop and laptop users? Force them into Microsoft’s new

multi-device

OS. Train them into Microsoft’s handheld world, even as they use their

desktops and laptops, so that when they buy a handheld, they’ll be

comfortable, familiar, and already loving the Microsoft product.

Microsoft believed they could leverage their personal computer OS

monopoly to build handheld market share.

So far, the strategy has failed. Perhaps version 8.1 will fulfill

Microsoft’s dream. Or

maybe the version after that. Microsoft’s got both the cash and the

will

for the long game. Many would like to see them succeed. As consumers,

we

would all benefit from a more competitive handheld universe, with three

big software

ecosystems vying for our money, instead of only two. (And we sure

wouldn’t mind if they fixed Windows 8 to work reasonably for desktop

and laptop users.) Will it all happen? We’ll find out over the two to

three years.

Ubuntu’s Unity

Microsoft’s bold interface gamble very much influenced Canonical in

switching Ubuntu’s interface to Unity. Mark Shuttleworth shed light on

this in his talk

at OSCON 2012:



and it’s a very popular desktop; lots of people love it. But we believe

that the future looks like this diverse collection of form factors. We

want to have a user experience that spans a range of form-factors, e.g.

a desktop, a tablet, and a phone, and, in fact, we even wanted a TV as

well!…‘ “We said: ‘We have this desktop,and it’s a very popular desktop; lots of people love it. But we believethat the future looks like this diverse collection of form factors. Wewant to have a user experience that spans a range of form-factors, e.g.a desktop, a tablet, and a phone, and, in fact, we even wanted a TV aswell!…‘ Different form factors [have] different constraints and need different

interfaces, but they can be, we believe, part of one family…



Theold desktop would force your tablet or your

phone into all kinds of crazy of funny postures… So we said: ‘Screw

it. We’regoingto move the desktop to where it needs to be

for the future.‘



We [had to move] our desktop because if we didn’t we’d end up where

Windows 8 is. [In Windows 8] you have this shiny tablet interface, and you … press the wrong

button… then it slaps you in the face and Windows 7 is back. And then

you think OK, this is familiar, so you’re kind of getting into it and

whack [Windows 8 is back] …

but they can be, we believe, part of one family…Theold desktop would force your tablet or yourphone into all kinds of crazy of funny postures… So we said: ‘Screwit. We’regoingto move the desktop to where it needs to befor the future.‘We [had to move] our desktop because if we didn’t we’d end up whereWindows 8 is. [Ubuntu] is in this great position to spread out across all of

the form factors.”

[Ubuntu] is in this great position to spread out across all ofthe form factors.”

So

Canonical bought into Microsoft’s idea of one OS for all devices. As

part of their plan, the company introduced the Unity shell for the

GNOME

desktop environment in Ubuntu 11.04. Unity replaces the traditional

Windows-Icons-Menus-Panels desktop with its new

Launcher-Quicklist-Dash-HUD-Panel paradigm. Like the

Windows 8 UI, Unity’s design was heavily influenced by small-screen

touch technology.

As Shuttleworth acknowledged in his speech, “… [This change] turned out to be a deeply unpopular process.” Canonical

responded to user resistance to the new Unity interface in several

ways. It has variously offered the

classic GNOME shell as a fallback, the gnome-panel

package, and Unity 2D. More importantly,

Canonical continues to improve and enhance Unity at a rapid pace.

Lastly, official

Ubuntu derivatives still support the traditional desktop metaphor. This

fulfills Shuttleworth’s vision where he says that “Different

form factors [have] different constraints and need different interfaces,

but they can be, we believe, part of one family…“

The different interfaces that are part of the family include Xfce

(Xubuntu), LXDE (Lubuntu), and KDE (Kubuntu). It is very telling that a

new

Ubuntu GNOME project was recently

added to this list, since it was the switch from GNOME 2 to Unity that

caused all the controversy.

Today, many users enjoy Unity. Others have left Ubuntu for its

derivatives, as

well

as for Linux Mint. The Mint developers saw what was happening with

Unity

and the somewhat similar new GNOME 3 interface and developed a

dual-bore response. They built upon the traditional GNOME 2 interface

in their product named MATE, which enhances this GUI and supports

legacy

graphics

hardware. Mint also built upon the new GNOME

3 interface and its state-of-the-art

graphics in their Cinnamon shell — while adding menus for traditional

navigation. Linux Mint has become very popular in part

because

its developers understood that Unity and GNOME 3 would meet user

resistance, and

they astutely continued supporting traditional desktop interaction.

(The Mint distribution also offers KDE and Xfce.)

GNOME 3 with the GNOME Shell





When it was introduced in spring 2011, GNOME 3 abandoned the

traditional desktop design of GNOME 2 in favor of the new GNOME

Shell. The GNOME shell is superficially somewhat similar

to Unity (though the two are diverging over time). Both present a new

style of desktop interaction influenced by mobile devices. As with

Unity, some

liked the new GNOME desktop paradigm, but others didn’t and it

caused quite a controversy.

Linus Torvalds famously criticized it and switched from GNOME 3 and its

shell to Xfce.

Then, as the product rapidly improved, he went back to GNOME. Tons of

extensions and packages like the GNOME Tweak Tool smoothed the way.

Computers that

couldn’t boot GNOME 3’s new graphics ran a Fallback mode that was

reminiscent of GNOME 2.

GNOME 3.8

was announced in May. It includes a new Classic mode “…for those who prefer a more

traditional desktop experience.” Classic

mode replaces Fallback mode. Through

Classic mode, the GNOME team addresses those who dislike its new

interface. The goal is to continue with the new desktop while keeping

users who want a traditional system in the fold. My guess is that most

will judge GNOME on the basis of its enhanced version 3 design, which

today

many like. Those who want

a traditional UI have probably already left the GNOME Shell for

alternatives. In any case, the GNOME project remains vitally important

to

the free software movement in its support of many dozen tools and

applications.

KDE

KDE, too, ran into controversy

when it altered its desktop paradigm. This was way back in 2008 when

version 4 was first introduced. KDE 4 promoted new understandings of

folders and icons that many initially found off-putting. But like the

Unity

and GNOME 3 projects, the KDE developers moved quickly to address

issues. The Plasma Desktop had matured by release 4.2, quelling most

complaints.

Rather than a “one UI fits all

devices” approach, the KDE project offers a multi-pronged strategy. The

Plasma Workplace concept includes

Plasma Desktop, Plasma Netbook, Plasma Contour (for tablets), and

Plasma Mobile (for phones), thereby distinguishing the high-level user

interface by device while retaining lower-level commonalities. Plasma

Desktop mates traditional and new concepts in its own unique manner.

Thus, KDE

continues to be popular on desktops and laptops, especially among

power users who appreciate its flexibility, customization, and powerful

applications.



Xfce, LXDE, and MATE

With the drastic changes in some UIs, interfaces that have remained

true to the traditional desktop metaphor have gained in popularity.

Xfce, LXDE, and MATE innovate within the context of this

long-established paradigm. Xfce is well polished and much faster than

when I first

tried it with Xubuntu several years ago. Today it really flies on my

Mint systems. You can customize it by adding icons to its desktop or

quick launch panel as

easily as you can in Windows. LXDE features a

highly-modular design with independent, plug-and-play components.

Together with its fast apps, LXDE has become the lightweight default

interface for several distros including Knoppix, Lubuntu, and

Raspbian. MATE continues the GNOME 2 heritage and

incrementally improves it with new features and themes. Several distros

have adopted MATE instead of GNOME 3.

Xfce, LXDE, and MATE will run on mature

computers. The newer UIs require

state-of-the-art graphics hardware. These include current releases of

GNOME (with 3.8’s

elimination of Fallback mode), Ubuntu (with 12.10’s dropping of Unity

2D), and Cinnamon (which requires 3D acceleration).

What Happened?

The rise of the handhelds caused turmoil in user interfaces. Ubuntu

Unity, GNOME 3 Shell, and KDE 4.0 transformed

their desktop UIs to

handheld-influenced designs. All three immediately became embroiled in

controversy as desktop and laptop users resisted. In response, these

projects modified their initial efforts. (They also admitted the

legitimacy of their users’ complaints by providing various options for

continuity

with the traditional desktop metaphor.) Now, a few years in, many users

enjoy the new UIs into which these three products have evolved.

Windows 8 suffers this same controversy today. Microsoft could

have avoided the strife had they adopted the dual-OS

approach favored by Apple and Google. These two competitors clearly

distinguish between handheld and desktop/laptop UIs. But Microsoft’s

marketing needs dictated

otherwise. Now the company endures a difficult period in which it tries

to

balance the UI changes consumers demand with achieving the company’s

marketing goals.

Xfce, LXDE, and MATE continue to refine the

traditional desktop-laptop interface for Linux users. My experience has

been that

even beginners take to these UIs without training.

While some argue that it’s “intuitive” to hover the cursor over

an invisible hot spot, click a hidden button, or type arcane

application names into an empty box, desktop users find old-fashioned

roll-over menus quick and self-explanatory. And

these interfaces don’t require new machines with high-end graphics.

Everyone’s needs are different. The good news is that now we have more

interfaces than ever from which to choose.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –



Howard Fosdick

(President, FCI) is an independent consultant who supports databases

and operating systems.