How do I make Office look like a normal application?

"Gordon" wrote...
....
Hmmm - so when you get a NEW application, you don't bother to learn about it
because it's different from the others you have? Sorry, I don't buy that one
at all.

Depends on what one means by 'new'. There's a big difference between
same application but newer version (in which case radical change
unwelcome is a rational response) and an application one has never
used before.

Gemini wrote...
"it's very intuitive."

I respectfully disagree. I used the trial version (primarily Excel) for
....

This is the BIG problem with Office. Most Office users use Word, so
whatever may be perceived as good for Word and Word users gets force-
fed to users of other Office applications. Probably not a problem for
PowerPoint or Outlook.

However, what's good for Word isn't necessarily good for Excel, and
the ribbon is positively bad for Excel. Ain't all that good for Access
either.

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:26:44 -0700 (PDT), Harlan Grove wrote:

However, what's good for Word isn't necessarily good for Excel,
and the ribbon is positively bad for Excel.

I don't see how basic questions of complexity and usability
resulting in improved presentation of user options wouldn't apply to
Excel just as much as to Word. If there are bugs in the
implementation that is a different issue.

There's no doubt that individual users tend to repeat the same tasks
so each user has their own set of commands and options they tend to
use over and over, they are effectively trained to use the apps in
their own individual way. Changing this is hard, you have to forget
the old ways and learn the new. Does it pay off in the end? Studies
show it does (ok MSFT did the studies but they have an interest in
reducing user confusion and errors don't they?)

--
Chris Game

"I do not write for such dull elves,
As have not a great deal of ingenuity themselves."
-- Jane Austen

Chris Game wrote...
On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:26:44 -0700 (PDT), Harlan Grove wrote:
However, what's good for Word isn't necessarily good for Excel,
and the ribbon is positively bad for Excel.

I don't see how basic questions of complexity and usability
resulting in improved presentation of user options wouldn't apply to
Excel just as much as to Word. If there are bugs in the
implementation that is a different issue.
....

You aren't really an Excel user, are you?

. . . you have to forget the old ways and learn the new.

Or choose not to upgrade, or use non-Microsoft software, or use Office
on a Mac. To repeat a point I made in a different thread, Office 2008
for Macs seems to provide all the nifty new features without the @#$
%&*! ribbon interface, so the ribbon isn't NECESSARY for providing the
new features.

Does it pay off in the end? Studies show it does . . .

Really? Where's the data?

. . . (ok MSFT did the studies . . .

and won't make the data public

. . . but they have an interest in reducing user confusion and errors don't they?)

No. They have an interest in selling their own software and making it
more difficult for users to use non-Microsoft software. The ribbon
hasn't reduced user confusion or errors.

Chris, I (amongst many other users), don't see the need for the Ribbon at
all. The menus were just fine.

IMO, MS has tried to shove the new UI down users' throats. Had they provided
a choice, I'm willing to bet that the Ribbon would have fallen flat on it's
face. Based on Jensen Harris' description of how the usability data was
collected (see his blog), I believe there were significant gaps in that data.
In particular, I don't believe experienced users were well represented at all.

As for changes paying off in the long run, that's true only if the new UI
makes the user more productive. Jensen himself listed several points on which
they based the design, before Office 2007 was released. From my perspective
(and I am hardly alone in that), none of those points were satisfied by the
new UI. So, you have many experienced users who don't see any merits in
learning the new UI. What MS did get is long time users going back to Office
2003 and/or looking for other alternatives. As and when time permits, I am
looking into transitioning to OpenOffice and/or Zoho for future needs, rather
than shell out the $$$s for something I don't need/want in the first place,
merely because someone at MS thinks it's better for me. BTW, I've been using
Office apps for longer than I care to remember.

-- Gemini

"Chris Game" wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 23:26:44 -0700 (PDT), Harlan Grove wrote:

However, what's good for Word isn't necessarily good for Excel,
and the ribbon is positively bad for Excel.

I don't see how basic questions of complexity and usability
resulting in improved presentation of user options wouldn't apply to
Excel just as much as to Word. If there are bugs in the
implementation that is a different issue.

There's no doubt that individual users tend to repeat the same tasks
so each user has their own set of commands and options they tend to
use over and over, they are effectively trained to use the apps in
their own individual way. Changing this is hard, you have to forget
the old ways and learn the new. Does it pay off in the end? Studies
show it does (ok MSFT did the studies but they have an interest in
reducing user confusion and errors don't they?)

--
Chris Game

"I do not write for such dull elves,
As have not a great deal of ingenuity themselves."
-- Jane Austen

But it's all good to Micro$hit. They make more $ out of Office than from Windoze.
Office 2K is 40% faster than Office 2K7. Since ppl were only using the same old features, M$hit had to put them off balance.
Hence the "New Improved Interface", Ribbon toilet paper and all the rest.
And some are still buying it!

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:19:15 -0700 (PDT), Harlan Grove wrote:

No. They have an interest in selling their own software and making
it more difficult for users to use non-Microsoft software. The
ribbon hasn't reduced user confusion or errors.

No. No supplier tries to alienate their customers. I think you'll
find that customers loose their way in the long menus rather more
than in the ribbon.
--
Chris Game

"I do not write for such dull elves,
As have not a great deal of ingenuity themselves."
-- Jane Austen

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 11:27:03 -0700, Gemini wrote:

Chris, I (amongst many other users), don't see the need for the
Ribbon at all. The menus were just fine.

Would you say the same if there were twice as many menu items? After
a while the sheer number of items, which have to be searched one by
one with little visual help, makes the menu system unworkable.

Maybe you'd be happier with Abiword? MS-Word is getting too complex
for its own good.

--
Chris Game

Life would be much easier if I had the source code.

Chris Game wrote...
....
No. No supplier tries to alienate their customers. I think you'll
find that customers loose their way in the long menus rather more
than in the ribbon.
....

Suppliers of pens, paper, computer hardware maybe. Suppliers in
effective monopoly positions are in rather a different position.

Let's consider the number of nested menus. Call the items in Excel's
menu bar (File, Edit, View, etc.) level 1, and the entries that appear
when you click on any of them level 2, and if any of those have
triangles on the right side that indicate further submenus, the
entries in those submenus would be level 3. So how many level 2 menu
entries have level 3 submenus?

File Permission, Print Area, Send To

Edit Fill, Clear

View Toolbars

Insert Name, Picture

Format Row, Column, Sheet

Tools Speach, Track Changes, Protection, Online Collaboration,
Formula Auditing, Macro

Data Filter, Group and Outline, Import External Data, List, XML

22 level 3 submenus.


Now consider the ribbon. Call every ribbon tab level 1. Yes, if you
don't autocollapse the ribbon, there'll always be one tab's contents
visible, but if you need a command in a different tab, accessing that
tab is no different than clicking on a level 1 menu entry in the
classic UI. Call everything appearing in a ribbon tab level 2. Some of
the level 2 entries have downward pointing triangles to access what
are effectively submenus. Call the entries in those submenu entries
level 3. There are more level 3 submenus in Excel 2007's ribbon than
there were in Excel 2003's menu. Further, there are a lot of entries
in the ribbon with only a small icon and no text. Maybe some users
would consider the icons obvious, but others wouldn't.

Chris Game wrote...
Would you say the same if there were twice as many menu items? After
a while the sheer number of items, which have to be searched one by
one with little visual help, makes the menu system unworkable.

Take a look at Office 2008 for Macs. No ribbon in sight. Other than
VBA, where are the commands provided by Office 2007 in the ribbon with
no counterpart in the Office 2008 menu? Claims that it's just not
possible to provide the functionality without the ribbon are simply
wrong and display a lack of critical thought.

Microsoft did what it did on the platform they control to try to lock
in their customers. They did something different on Apple's platform
because they couldn't get away with the same thing. And maybe, just
maybe, the Apple OS X simply makes abominations like the ribbon
impossible.