|
Just realised that.. in Windows 11 task bar..
- the widget menu button has a top text box for searching
- the start button has a top text box for searching
- the hourglass button has a top text box for searching
- edge also use its op text box for searching
So much search... but still not finding myself! 
|
|
|
|
|
So you cured me of my schizophrenia, but where am I, now that I need me?
|
|
|
|
|
Listen to the voices! They show the way! 
|
|
|
|
|
You're just jealous cause the voices don't want to talk to you.
The difficult we do right away...
...the impossible takes slightly longer.
|
|
|
|
|
And a lot of users do not realize simply hitting the windows key and start typing is enough to find programs. I have seen even system administrators clicking those buttons. But to be fair, it is still a new feature - introduced with Vista 14 years ago, so give it another decade or two.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes… when they destroyed the “navigate to find features/applications” philosophy.
Now you have to know what you want and type it in to find it.
If you do not know a feature exists, you will never stumble across it! Bring back Program Manager!!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that was a fantastic piece of software (!)
|
|
|
|
|
And to be fair, relying on a key with an unpronouncable icon on it (I did not know it was called a "Windows key" until you mentioned it and I had to Google what that was), is not used on any other operating system, and is not even on all keyboards (one of my keyboards dates from 2001, and doesn't even have that key on it (it came from an SGI workstation), is not exactly going to be discoverable.
Thank god they've given up on the notion of hitting that key to bring up the start menu (Windows 8 fiasco, remember that?).
|
|
|
|
|
Mac have a similar key. Linux support it as well but it is (of course) configurable what it does.
It is OK for me they do not optimize the user interface for 20+ year old keyboards.
And yes, it could be a tad more discoverable - for example show the search box already having the blinking carrot showing it is ready to accept input. Maybe they had that in Vista where it was introduced, I do not remember anymore.
On Vista it was "oh how to I find anything in this crappy start menu" for a while until I realized how efficient it was just to type. Sure once or twice a year I am slowed down because I can't remember what to search for, but that is so infrequent it's fine with me.
Windows 8 to 11 has not changed anything here except visuals, so I do not notice any fiasco. Sure heard about it but never was affected by it.
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: So much search... but still not finding myself!
Try with your good eye closed 
GCS d--(d-) s-/++ a C++++ U+++ P- L+@ E-- W++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE- Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
... because nothing is in the obvious location any more?
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remember Desktop Google? It was great to have local files or local area network files searched
the way google does the internet. It's history. Is there something equivalent? Windows search engine does not measure up.
|
|
|
|
|
To search a lot, in my mind, is indicative of having trouble to find something. When it comes to the Windows search function, despite adamant claims to the contrary, it is and has been severely broken from the user's perspective for a long time. One has to go back in time to Windows 2000 to find a search box that actually does something useful and predictable.
|
|
|
|
|
I have been saying since Windows 8 that if your users have to search for something, your UI design skills are sh*t. Further up in the comments someone mentioned that you can't search for something if you don't know it exists! Amen!
Bringing everything to a consistent UI design in Win10 basically just means that you can't find anything. But it's ok, because your users are literally children and they won't need to use a computer for anything more than accessing the internet.
|
|
|
|
|
Seek and ye shall find.
Knock and it shall be opened unto you.
That is, unless you are using Microsoft products.
Then you will be eternally "Searching . . ."
Money makes the world go round ... but documentation moves the money.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe even year. When you can sit around and say, "Yay! It is done!" After you master something new! Split some vba form code into its own class module. Went from a 1200 line mishmash file of parsing and form logic to a 500 and a 600 line file where you can actually wrap your head around the logic! And extending the parsing logic will be a LOT easier!!! Yay! It is done!!! Office vba is the bomb!
|
|
|
|
|
But were any butterflies inconvenienced?
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the snowflies are disappearing! Does that count? 
|
|
|
|
|
40 Years of Failure: IRS Unable to Fix Computer System - Americans for Tax Reform[^]
Warning: this is a USA thing with the IRS... I know you Brits have a large group of idiots as well.....
Spend 30 minutes reading the top links. I was in the hospital yesterday getting a blood transfusion, so finally got around to it. Curious as to your feedback as to how you would fix it? I'd be cleaning house starting with "rm -rf you're_fired"
No politics. I was fascinated how the CF went for 40 years. Have you ever wondered why when a new CEO came into a company they fired 1/2 or more of the top staff?
Here's your sign.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
The underlying problem is the sheer complexity of our tax code. A simple flat tax:
How much do you make?
Send it in!
would work a lot better.
Seriously, a flat tax after a set deduction would work. About 10 years ago I ran the calculations and determined that a 15% flat tax on all income over the Federal Minimum Wage would result in the same revenue as the current convoluted tax code and save Americans huge amounts of time and money trying to figure out and game the current system. Turns out this method is also "progressive" in that someone who makes just over minimum wage has a far lower effective tax rate than someone making $100,000 per year.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, but our tax code has been "progressive" (meaning rich people - define rich - should pay more) for so long it's almost impossible. lol, can you see it? Changing the tax code to two layers of if statements?
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
It will never happen because of the Golden Rule...Them with the gold rule!
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is with the "How much do you make?" statement. There are so many forms of income i.e. paychecks, dividends, gambling, home sales, and so on. There are also MANY ways to hide income.
There are also legitimate expenses --- consider retail sales (small business) there is gross income (the sales) rent, staff payroll, utilities, cost of goods, and so on.
As much as we would all like to see obermd's version above, I don't think it is feasible.
|
|
|
|
|
I would fix it by completely shutting down the IRS and eliminating the income tax, and implement the FairTax[^].
Taxing consumption rather than income eliminates all tax loop-holes and allows each person to better control how much tax they pay. There are all kinds of other benefits.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
