Want to upgrade to Office 2007, but will it change all my menus, e

I stand corrected as to the "fewer vs about" the "fewer" should be with
the 150, as in "fewer than 150". As to the conclusion, it says that
less than 150 people have reduced their productivity trying to adjust to
the new menu system. So is that millions? Is it thousands? Is it
hundreds? And the answer is no to all of them. Does it represent
anything other than those individuals who filled in that survey? No
again. Is it even a good survey? I'd have to say no again. Why? Because
it relies purely on opinion, and "self valuation", and doesn't go into
the reason the person "loses productivity".

Gemini wrote:
Bob, my comprehension is excellent, much better than yours. You, otoh, appear
to have an integrity problem.

I quoted from that survey, word for word. The phrase used in the survey is:
"First, only about 200 people have responded so far."

The phrase you used, "fewer than 200", does NOT appear in the survey at all.
Anyone who reads that survey can see that, despite your weak attempt to
misstate the said phrase.

As I said, you appear to have an integrity problem. I do feel sorry for you.

-- Gemini


"Bob I" wrote:


Perhaps you have a comprehension problem? I copy/pasted what appears in
the quotes directly from article text. You just don't get it, do you?

Gemini wrote:


First of all, that survey is definitely more than anything MS has published
re user opinion of the Ribbon UI, esp. from longterm/power users.

Secondly, if you're going to quote from that survey, at least do so
accurately and honestly.

The actual phrase from the survey is:
"First, only about 200 people have responded so far."

The little difference: "only about 200" (original) v/s "fewer than 200"
(yours).

BTW, as I've said before, Jensen Harris has claimed great success for the
Ribbon. However, when asked by several posters re the specifics, which users
comprised the research, etc., JH maintained a solid silence. That speaks
volumes.

Oh yes, I do hope you read the section, "Why Does The Ribbon Hurt
Productivity" carefully.

-- Gemini

"Bob I" wrote:



Excerpt below taken directly from the survey text. So that would make
about 150 people? IF they only made one entry.

"First, fewer than 200 people have responded so far. Second, online
surveys don't produce a random sample of responses."

"Even so, this chart shows that that the results have been relatively
consistent during the past two months. It appears safe to say that the
majority of experienced Excel users dislike the Ribbon."

Well, I must acknowledge that you did have the guts to admit your error. So,
I'll withdraw my comments about your integrity.

As anyone with basic math skills knows, 150 or so doesn't qualify as
thousands, millions, etc. However, the survey does represent actual users,
not merely UI testers. Amongst the respondents, about 70% did not like the
Ribbon. Like it or not, that's more data that MS has released about the
wonderful acceptance of the Ribbon.

So as to the productivity issue is concerned, of course that's going to rely
on individual opinion. If you read the section, "Why Does The Ribbon Hurt
Productivity", it is quite enlightening.

Try looking at sites like TechRepublic. You'll find plenty of similar
opinions, in that the Ribbon hurts productivity, esp. for long term/power
users. There are more than a few "captive" users, i.e. those who would not
touch Office 2007 with a barge pole, but have had Office 2007 foisted on them
at work. I personally know quite a few of those.

You like it, fine! However, there are people who do have genuine issues with
it. Those who had created customized menus, for example, are now essentially
back to square one. The QAT is a weak bandaid for those situations.

Bottom line: considering that the Ribbon is supposedly highly customizable,
it would not have required a big effort from MS to provide the classic UI as
an alternative. IMHO, it was a grave mistake. Arrogance has never served any
company well. Remember IBM & OS/2? MS, of all, ought to remember that little
bit. Time will tell!

-- Gemini


"Bob I" wrote:

I stand corrected as to the "fewer vs about" the "fewer" should be with
the 150, as in "fewer than 150". As to the conclusion, it says that
less than 150 people have reduced their productivity trying to adjust to
the new menu system. So is that millions? Is it thousands? Is it
hundreds? And the answer is no to all of them. Does it represent
anything other than those individuals who filled in that survey? No
again. Is it even a good survey? I'd have to say no again. Why? Because
it relies purely on opinion, and "self valuation", and doesn't go into
the reason the person "loses productivity".

Yes there are people out there who are adamantly opposed to change no
matter what the reason and they are "actual users" too. The point is
that the surveys like that tend to be very skewed in the "indignant"
direction. As for MS data, I suppose the number of UPgrade sales from
the trial would be as good as it is. But, does it really matter? Also
the world is full of examples where "productivity" is initially lost
where a process is changed, and the up side is when the "new method" is
adopted the productivity increases over the old method. What amazes me
is all the hoopla about it, wailing, gnashing of teeth and wringing of
hands, "Oh my! What ever will we do, the interface is changed I can't
find anything!" For pete's sake, get over it, the command prompt has
been relegated to a corner in the back 40 and applications won't
interact from the command line. Old-timers are ****ed and the new kids
whizz right through the computer. So, what is the real problem? Feeling
threatened? Impotent? Take advantage of the new opportunities and move
forward. Me, "like it?", ambivalent would be the correct term, it was
installed, I use it, life goes on. (I have a bigger issue with little
"gotchas" that slipped through testing, "bugs" if you will).

As to the "Why Does The Ribbon Hurt Productivity", reading carefully
one will see that most of the reasons seem to be a bit of a reach. There
has been "context" enabling for a long time(just review the groups for
"why is the menu item greyed out?" querys). And as for the CTRL-Y
example, that isn't even a "ribbon issue". One would record a macro for
that.

The reasons why it was done should be enlightning. When you pause to
consider what the ribbon DOES bring to the table, productivity goes up
because you have all the tools there.

As to the OS/2 thing, well I used/bought version 2.1 and 3 and remember
MS eventually burying it as an operating system with Windows. As to what
MS should remember about it, I'm not sure how that fits in with the
"ribbon" and the decision to overhaul an interface that was cumbersome
and getting worse with every release.



Gemini wrote:
Well, I must acknowledge that you did have the guts to admit your error. So,
I'll withdraw my comments about your integrity.

As anyone with basic math skills knows, 150 or so doesn't qualify as
thousands, millions, etc. However, the survey does represent actual users,
not merely UI testers. Amongst the respondents, about 70% did not like the
Ribbon. Like it or not, that's more data that MS has released about the
wonderful acceptance of the Ribbon.

So as to the productivity issue is concerned, of course that's going to rely
on individual opinion. If you read the section, "Why Does The Ribbon Hurt
Productivity", it is quite enlightening.

Try looking at sites like TechRepublic. You'll find plenty of similar
opinions, in that the Ribbon hurts productivity, esp. for long term/power
users. There are more than a few "captive" users, i.e. those who would not
touch Office 2007 with a barge pole, but have had Office 2007 foisted on them
at work. I personally know quite a few of those.

You like it, fine! However, there are people who do have genuine issues with
it. Those who had created customized menus, for example, are now essentially
back to square one. The QAT is a weak bandaid for those situations.

Bottom line: considering that the Ribbon is supposedly highly customizable,
it would not have required a big effort from MS to provide the classic UI as
an alternative. IMHO, it was a grave mistake. Arrogance has never served any
company well. Remember IBM & OS/2? MS, of all, ought to remember that little
bit. Time will tell!

-- Gemini


"Bob I" wrote:


I stand corrected as to the "fewer vs about" the "fewer" should be with
the 150, as in "fewer than 150". As to the conclusion, it says that
less than 150 people have reduced their productivity trying to adjust to
the new menu system. So is that millions? Is it thousands? Is it
hundreds? And the answer is no to all of them. Does it represent
anything other than those individuals who filled in that survey? No
again. Is it even a good survey? I'd have to say no again. Why? Because
it relies purely on opinion, and "self valuation", and doesn't go into
the reason the person "loses productivity".

Milly Staples [MVP - Outlook] wrote:
you mean the hundreds of posts by Gemini? that hardly counts as millions.


I see three ribbon threads today, none started by Gemini.

Alias

Yes, most people are averse to change. However, in this case, every user who
responded to that survey, pro or con, tried out the Ribbon. There are some
who have used it for months and STILL find it to be slow and cumbersome.

Before I used the trial version of Office 2007, I had no preconceived
opinions of the Ribbon. I tried it out for several weeks. It was an enormous
productivity killer. I did not see (and still don't see) any reason to invest
time and effort to learn a whole new user interface (and a cumbersome one at
that) merely because some hotshot over at MS thinks it's a good idea not to
provide a classic UI.

"As for MS data, I suppose the number of UPgrade sales from the trial would
be as good as it is."
Nope! That includes corporate upgrades and thus includes "captive" users.

"the world is full of examples where "productivity" is initially lost where
a process is changed, and the up side is when the "new method" is adopted the
productivity increases over the old method."
Sure! However, in this case, there are many who have used it for months on
end and see zero benefit. I used it for a few weeks. Thankfully, I am not
beholden to some corporate suit dictating which Office version I need to use.

"What amazes me..."
I think that's very obvious. Once again, there are many users who have used
the Ribbon for months and don't care for it one little bit. They're under the
gun to get their work done, with the Ribbon slowing them down and they're
mandated to use the silly thing. That's like asking someone to win the
marathon carrying a heavy load on their back. I'm not at all surprised that
those folks dislike the Ribbon intensely.

"The reasons why it was done should be enlightning. "
I did read a lot of Jensen Harris' posts. Sorry, no cigar. JH talks of all
the data that was analyzed and led to the design of the Ribbon. Most of his
explanations are utterly unconvincing. What he avoided answering was what
kind of users were profiled (beginners, intermediate, advanced), were users
behind corporate firewalls included, etc. The basic user data that was used
as the basis itself is highly suspect. The fact that JH avoided answering
those questions speaks volumes.

"When you pause to consider what the ribbon DOES bring to the table,
productivity goes up because you have all the tools there."
There are many, including me, who would not agree with that statement one
iota. As that survey plainly shows, the Ribbon has been a productivity killer
for advanced users.

As far as the OS/2 comment, IBM had the attitude, "We are IBM. When we put
out a product, customers will accept it without question". That pretty much
sank OS/2. How do I know? I was at IBM during those years. MS was the
beneficiary of that arrogant attitude. Now, it's MS telling long term users,
"We don't care what you want" in so many words, by not providing a classic UI
alternative for those (esp. l/t users) who didn't like/want the Ribbon UI.

Oh yes, do read the rest of the survey after that productivity killer
section. It is very informative indeed.

Oh yes, those who don't like the Ribbon and come here looking if they can
get away from it, are not going to be won over with some of these snippy,
arrogant, juvenile, condescending responses they receive.

"Bob I" wrote:

Yes there are people out there who are adamantly opposed to change no
matter what the reason and they are "actual users" too. The point is
that the surveys like that tend to be very skewed in the "indignant"
direction. As for MS data, I suppose the number of UPgrade sales from
the trial would be as good as it is. But, does it really matter? Also
the world is full of examples where "productivity" is initially lost
where a process is changed, and the up side is when the "new method" is
adopted the productivity increases over the old method. What amazes me
is all the hoopla about it, wailing, gnashing of teeth and wringing of
hands, "Oh my! What ever will we do, the interface is changed I can't
find anything!" For pete's sake, get over it, the command prompt has
been relegated to a corner in the back 40 and applications won't
interact from the command line. Old-timers are ****ed and the new kids
whizz right through the computer. So, what is the real problem? Feeling
threatened? Impotent? Take advantage of the new opportunities and move
forward. Me, "like it?", ambivalent would be the correct term, it was
installed, I use it, life goes on. (I have a bigger issue with little
"gotchas" that slipped through testing, "bugs" if you will).

As to the "Why Does The Ribbon Hurt Productivity", reading carefully
one will see that most of the reasons seem to be a bit of a reach. There
has been "context" enabling for a long time(just review the groups for
"why is the menu item greyed out?" querys). And as for the CTRL-Y
example, that isn't even a "ribbon issue". One would record a macro for
that.

The reasons why it was done should be enlightning. When you pause to
consider what the ribbon DOES bring to the table, productivity goes up
because you have all the tools there.

As to the OS/2 thing, well I used/bought version 2.1 and 3 and remember
MS eventually burying it as an operating system with Windows. As to what
MS should remember about it, I'm not sure how that fits in with the
"ribbon" and the decision to overhaul an interface that was cumbersome
and getting worse with every release.

Wow, you're still here tilting at this windmill? :-) I thought you
were converting over to OpenOffice months ago? It only took me a few
minutes to get OpenOffice installed... chuckle

--
-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
http://www.officeforlawyers.com
Author - The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft Outlook 2007:
http://tinyurl.com/5m3f5q



"Gemini" wrote in message
:

Yes, most people are averse to change. However, in this case, every user who
responded to that survey, pro or con, tried out the Ribbon. There are some
who have used it for months and STILL find it to be slow and cumbersome.

Before I used the trial version of Office 2007, I had no preconceived
opinions of the Ribbon. I tried it out for several weeks. It was an enormous
productivity killer. I did not see (and still don't see) any reason to invest
time and effort to learn a whole new user interface (and a cumbersome one at
that) merely because some hotshot over at MS thinks it's a good idea not to
provide a classic UI.

"As for MS data, I suppose the number of UPgrade sales from the trial would
be as good as it is."
Nope! That includes corporate upgrades and thus includes "captive" users.

"the world is full of examples where "productivity" is initially lost where
a process is changed, and the up side is when the "new method" is adopted the
productivity increases over the old method."
Sure! However, in this case, there are many who have used it for months on
end and see zero benefit. I used it for a few weeks. Thankfully, I am not
beholden to some corporate suit dictating which Office version I need to use.

"What amazes me..."
I think that's very obvious. Once again, there are many users who have used
the Ribbon for months and don't care for it one little bit. They're under the
gun to get their work done, with the Ribbon slowing them down and they're
mandated to use the silly thing. That's like asking someone to win the
marathon carrying a heavy load on their back. I'm not at all surprised that
those folks dislike the Ribbon intensely.

"The reasons why it was done should be enlightning. "
I did read a lot of Jensen Harris' posts. Sorry, no cigar. JH talks of all
the data that was analyzed and led to the design of the Ribbon. Most of his
explanations are utterly unconvincing. What he avoided answering was what
kind of users were profiled (beginners, intermediate, advanced), were users
behind corporate firewalls included, etc. The basic user data that was used
as the basis itself is highly suspect. The fact that JH avoided answering
those questions speaks volumes.

"When you pause to consider what the ribbon DOES bring to the table,
productivity goes up because you have all the tools there."
There are many, including me, who would not agree with that statement one
iota. As that survey plainly shows, the Ribbon has been a productivity killer
for advanced users.

As far as the OS/2 comment, IBM had the attitude, "We are IBM. When we put
out a product, customers will accept it without question". That pretty much
sank OS/2. How do I know? I was at IBM during those years. MS was the
beneficiary of that arrogant attitude. Now, it's MS telling long term users,
"We don't care what you want" in so many words, by not providing a classic UI
alternative for those (esp. l/t users) who didn't like/want the Ribbon UI.

Oh yes, do read the rest of the survey after that productivity killer
section. It is very informative indeed.

Oh yes, those who don't like the Ribbon and come here looking if they can
get away from it, are not going to be won over with some of these snippy,
arrogant, juvenile, condescending responses they receive.

"Bob I" wrote:


Yes there are people out there who are adamantly opposed to change no
matter what the reason and they are "actual users" too. The point is
that the surveys like that tend to be very skewed in the "indignant"
direction. As for MS data, I suppose the number of UPgrade sales from
the trial would be as good as it is. But, does it really matter? Also
the world is full of examples where "productivity" is initially lost
where a process is changed, and the up side is when the "new method" is
adopted the productivity increases over the old method. What amazes me
is all the hoopla about it, wailing, gnashing of teeth and wringing of
hands, "Oh my! What ever will we do, the interface is changed I can't
find anything!" For pete's sake, get over it, the command prompt has
been relegated to a corner in the back 40 and applications won't
interact from the command line. Old-timers are ****ed and the new kids
whizz right through the computer. So, what is the real problem? Feeling
threatened? Impotent? Take advantage of the new opportunities and move
forward. Me, "like it?", ambivalent would be the correct term, it was
installed, I use it, life goes on. (I have a bigger issue with little
"gotchas" that slipped through testing, "bugs" if you will).

As to the "Why Does The Ribbon Hurt Productivity", reading carefully
one will see that most of the reasons seem to be a bit of a reach. There
has been "context" enabling for a long time(just review the groups for
"why is the menu item greyed out?" querys). And as for the CTRL-Y
example, that isn't even a "ribbon issue". One would record a macro for
that.

The reasons why it was done should be enlightning. When you pause to
consider what the ribbon DOES bring to the table, productivity goes up
because you have all the tools there.

As to the OS/2 thing, well I used/bought version 2.1 and 3 and remember
MS eventually burying it as an operating system with Windows. As to what
MS should remember about it, I'm not sure how that fits in with the
"ribbon" and the decision to overhaul an interface that was cumbersome
and getting worse with every release.

150 is a statistically insignificant sample in a population of hundreds
of thousands or millions. I could find 150 people who don't think
Angelina Jolie is very attractive. That doesn't make her ugly (except
to that small percentage of the population).

You're beating this strawman to death, Gemini. Nobody claims that the
Ribbon is universally loved. There are those who like it and those who
don't like it. There are some who hated it initially and grew to like
it. There are those who liked it initially and grew to not like it.

You seem intent upon blaming the Ribbon for everything from lost
productivity to global warming. This crusade of yours seems especially
odd considering you claim you only ran Office 2007 for a couple of weeks
and have long since abandoned it.

But whatever.

--
-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
http://www.officeforlawyers.com
Author - The Lawyer's Guide to Microsoft Outlook 2007:
http://tinyurl.com/5m3f5q



"Gemini" wrote in message
:

Well, I must acknowledge that you did have the guts to admit your error. So,
I'll withdraw my comments about your integrity.

As anyone with basic math skills knows, 150 or so doesn't qualify as
thousands, millions, etc. However, the survey does represent actual users,
not merely UI testers. Amongst the respondents, about 70% did not like the
Ribbon. Like it or not, that's more data that MS has released about the
wonderful acceptance of the Ribbon.

So as to the productivity issue is concerned, of course that's going to rely
on individual opinion. If you read the section, "Why Does The Ribbon Hurt
Productivity", it is quite enlightening.

Try looking at sites like TechRepublic. You'll find plenty of similar
opinions, in that the Ribbon hurts productivity, esp. for long term/power
users. There are more than a few "captive" users, i.e. those who would not
touch Office 2007 with a barge pole, but have had Office 2007 foisted on them
at work. I personally know quite a few of those.

You like it, fine! However, there are people who do have genuine issues with
it. Those who had created customized menus, for example, are now essentially
back to square one. The QAT is a weak bandaid for those situations.

Bottom line: considering that the Ribbon is supposedly highly customizable,
it would not have required a big effort from MS to provide the classic UI as
an alternative. IMHO, it was a grave mistake. Arrogance has never served any
company well. Remember IBM & OS/2? MS, of all, ought to remember that little
bit. Time will tell!

-- Gemini


"Bob I" wrote:


I stand corrected as to the "fewer vs about" the "fewer" should be with
the 150, as in "fewer than 150". As to the conclusion, it says that
less than 150 people have reduced their productivity trying to adjust to
the new menu system. So is that millions? Is it thousands? Is it
hundreds? And the answer is no to all of them. Does it represent
anything other than those individuals who filled in that survey? No
again. Is it even a good survey? I'd have to say no again. Why? Because
it relies purely on opinion, and "self valuation", and doesn't go into
the reason the person "loses productivity".