If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
How do I make Office look like a normal application?
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. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
How do I make Office look like a normal application?
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
How do I make Office look like a normal application?
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
How do I make Office look like a normal application?
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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Micro$hit sucks
But it's all good to Micro$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! |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
How do I make Office look like a normal application?
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 |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
How do I make Office look like a normal application?
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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How do I make Office look like a normal application?
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. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
How do I make Office look like a normal application?
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. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|