[ThomPete]

I find your comment unfair and I am not even a MS user.

Usability is so much more about how it work, not just how it look.

All design systems will have some learning curve. A learning curve where you have to understand that everything a button is pretty close to being easy to learn.

So in my mind, the problem you seem to think there is is a pseudo problem. I.e. it's not actually a problem.

The Map is not the territory.

[ianstormtaylor]

The difference is that glossy buttons have affordances that make them stand out from the rest of the interface. Which means that even after learning what is and isn't a button, you can find them more quickly. Completely flat interfaces lose this advantage, but they also have other benefits.

[roc]

Links have more subtle affordances that make them stand out from web text and few people have a problem navigating that.

Microsoft's problem isn't inherent in having a 'flat' design. It arises because of their alternately uniform (outlook), and seemingly arbitrary (metro desktop), color, contrast, layout and font-weight choices.

They could conceivably shift to a design-language where those attributes could be used to hint at interactivity at least as well as a big shiny buttons.

[ThomPete]

Sure, but the thing is that after a while the obviousness can become a burden.

I think they are doing the right thing by making sure that they get the fundamentals right and then they can add to improve.

That is hell of a lot easier than if you have to fight with a and already established strong visual hierarchy.

I would do exactly as they are. That seems to be the right approach for such a huge undertaking that this will be.