Is the Windows Start button an example of poor mapping?

Question

In my recent course on HCI, I've been told that start button on Windows systems is an example of poor mapping. The reason for that, as explained in materials, is that it doesn't start anything, but rather reveals a menu. I think that this is only valid if you approaching this from low level of abstraction (meaning that the button must start something).

If you on the other hand take a view on this from higher level of abstraction, as of "Place where I start most of my tasks", i.e.

This is the place where you are start*ing the task of switching off your computer
This is the place where you are start*ing the task of searching for something on your computer
This is the place where you are start*ing the task of running a program
This is the place where you are start*ing the task ...

Then I think it makes perfect sense and has perfect mapping.

Is this a sensible interpretation?

I want to point to Why you have to click the Start button to shut down., from someone who knows. — Joshua Drake, Apr 09 '12 at 13:00
Per @BenBrocka, this is being migrated to the User Experience Stack Exchange for experts in usability and HCI. I think you'll probably get better answers there. — Thomas Owens, Apr 09 '12 at 13:31
You could make the argument for any menu. The edit menu could be called start because that is where you start editing things. I think placing icons for the most important operations on the start screen is better than a start menu, because it is more discoverable: you don't have to click something to see the options available to. — Erik Engheim, Apr 09 '12 at 19:19
@Izkata: Look at the link Joshua provided. Long story short, Shutdown is in the Start menu because that's where the testers thought to look for it — 3Doubloons, Apr 10 '12 at 03:34
@AdamSmith no you are WRONG. Edit menu indicates that there are items associated with editing, start button indicates the place where you start tasks (most of them). Apple and oranges. And you don't start editing things from edit menu. Edit menu allows you to edit things. Start button allows you to start task/s, and it is the place where you start most of your tasks. — smallB, Apr 11 '12 at 08:52
@AdamSmith conceptually menu (be it toolbars, menubars or menu shortcuts), is a place where you start ALL your tasks. What you're talking about is a region of menu with specified (logically grouped) items in it - edit menu, but this is just a one of possibly many regions of one central menu, menu which is a starting point for ALL your tasks. — smallB, Apr 11 '12 at 10:09
Windows used a windows icon for that menu button after XP. If a product is made for customers, it's the customer's intuition that matters the most. If people look for shutdown button in start menu, probably that's where it should stay. Using the word "Start" for that button was probably a bad choice. — Fr0zenFyr, Jan 04 '14 at 06:52

score 37 · Answer 1 · edited Jun 26 '22 at 08:19

37

I think your own analysis matches Microsoft's own from the link I provided in my comment.

To quote from Why do you have to click the Start button to shut down?:

People booted up the computer and just sat there, unsure what to do next.

That's when we decided to label the System button "Start".

It says, "You dummy. Click here." And it sent our usability numbers through the roof, because all of a sudden, people knew what to click when they wanted to do something.

edited Jun 26 '22 at 08:19

Glorfindel

3,320
5
21
36

answered Apr 09 '12 at 13:02

Joshua Drake

575
5
13

Simple enough, I like it. It seems to have worked, since now in windows 7 there's not even a label anymore but everyone knows the start button. – Ben Brocka Apr 09 '12 at 13:35
1

Your Win 7 example goes with the idea: Don't break the user model, which I swear I got from Joel. – Joshua Drake Apr 09 '12 at 13:43
For first use of a new computer it makes a lot of sense. From that point onwards, it doesn't, but by then, you know what you are doing. So it makes sense, actually, although it is odd. – Schroedingers Cat Apr 09 '12 at 17:08
3

It is the place to "start" a task, which may include shutting down the system. – ehdv Apr 09 '12 at 21:29
Of course the rather more interesting question is why in 1995 Windows users looked blankly at the screen - but Mac users knew exactly what to do (even though at the time Macs didn't even list what programs where loaded on the machine)... This may have had something to do with the fact that Macs shipped with well written instruction books. – PhillipW Apr 09 '12 at 21:55
3

People don't read instruction books. Many usability studies that I read about seem to assume that you don't also. – Rangoric Apr 10 '12 at 01:26
1

I think its more subtle than that: people don't read instruction books - IF THEY THINK THEY CAN JUST FIGURE IT OUT. I suspect the attitude was rather different in 1984 as a Mac cost $2495, so new Mac users would treat them with a bit more reverence and bother to read the manual and go on training courses. And from 1984 on, the Mac's GUI stayed basically the same. I think the need for the Window's start button came up because there was a big jump between the Windows 3.1 GUI and Win 95 - and by 1995 computers where relatively cheap things, which people felt they ought to just be able to use. – PhillipW Apr 10 '12 at 10:04
@ehdv I agree that is an odd behavior, but as the link explains, that is what actual people did. I find it funny that no one complains about this same behavior on Apple products. The iPod nano has the same feature. You push play to play, you push play to pause, and you push play to put it to sleep. – Joshua Drake Apr 10 '12 at 12:25
@JoshuaDrake I think you're under the impression I'm disagreeing with you - I'm not at all. I'm just adding a more direct way to explain the mapping between the button and what it does. – ehdv Apr 10 '12 at 12:37
@ehdv Just my own bias showing. ;) Until I thought of Apple this morning (or the play/pause button generally) I've always felt that clicking Start -> Shutdown was just so odd, and on a Vista Laptop Choices = Headaches. – Joshua Drake Apr 10 '12 at 12:42
1

I don't think push on / push off is such an odd behaviour - it reflects the operation of the traditional on/off buttons on radios and TVs which would have been around in the mid 90s. – PhillipW Apr 10 '12 at 13:10

score 1 · Answer 2 · edited Apr 13 '17 at 12:32

If one could say that it's a new system where users are supposed to open a menu to programs, one could agree, but that is not the case. The start-menu button have been around since Windows 95, first released August 24, 1995. It superseded the Program Manager from Windows 3.0 and is comparable with Apple Macintosh "Apple Menu". The Start Menu have the ability to group within in groups that was not possible in the Program Manager (nor in the Apple Menu).

Windows 95 start button and menu

^{Image from Wikipedia}

This is in one word spelled Legacy. Another word for it could be convention, as in the save button icon or the faq label. Also we can draw a parallel to a web pages' first page which is called... (wait for it) the start page! This page doesn't start anything either, but it's the start of the web site. The same goes for mobile devices which have ... (that's right) start screens! IMHO start represent the start of a new activity, not a start of a program.

References from Wikipedia: Windows 95 and Start Menu History.

I think he's asking more "Why did they ever do that" vs what's currently understood. — Ben Brocka, Apr 09 '12 at 16:41
@BenBrocka I thought he was asking if his understanding of how it could be viewed as good UX was a reasonable one, vs. how his UX textbook described it. — Joshua Drake, Apr 09 '12 at 17:14
I don't think I hear the home page of web sites referred to as start pages very often, if at all in colloquy. — MetalFrog, Apr 09 '12 at 18:57

Danish Backer · Answer 3 · 2012-04-10T13:44:42.923

Note: My current os is Ubuntu 12.04 and rarely using windows My point of view: Non technical/Normal user.

Since the topic is user experience, the start button was a success when it was introduced. Even a person with absolute zero technical knowledge can use windows. Consider the stages of linux... still evolving even in 2012 still it doesn't have a good GUI.

Lets don't forget about the duty of operating system. It should be a platform for us to do our tasks, to ease our work.

How many of you had to spend time to fix/configure your os before you can start your work. If so this the case of other operating systems.

Every os has its ups and downs for mac hardware compatibility is an issue for windows good beginner and expert level users not for intermediate users :)

windows has many down sides but its not the interface.

MS still keep the start button to keep consistency, so that users don't get confused every time. Even if they shifted to next new operating system.

i believe that Consistency has got a very important role in User Experience.

Conclusion: Even if doesn't actually start anything when clicking START button, It means something to the user. I think we should study more when taking such big topics. Even the colors used in windows icon has got many specialties. People are different, not everyone has same power for eyes. Those icons are designed for everyone (any age).

Sorry if i am offending anyone and please correct me if i am wrong.

#Danish Just to note that Start button is not just an actual place where user starts most of his task as the OP rightly pointed out, but also start button starts most of those tasks. It happens to be that most of those tasks have idendical first step: one need to click on start button. — smallB, Apr 11 '12 at 13:08

Is the Windows Start button an example of poor mapping?

3 Answers3