5 ms·

> How do you upgrade the UX of a legacy product like Access without pissing off everyone? Incrementally.

kevingadd 6y ago
The way people reacted to the Ribbon disagrees with you :) Toolbars specifically were replaced with an improved chunk of UI, everything else was left the same, and people were furious. Rightly so, to a degree - learning to use it was an adjustment. Now imagine that the whole app's UI incrementally changed and not just parts of it... nobody's gonna be happy about that.
- eitland 6y ago
  > Toolbars specifically were replaced with an improved chunk of UI, everything else was left the same Was hiding the file menu items behind a round logo that looked nothing like a button part of that improved UI? Is the current file menu that looks like the rest of the menus but behaves totally different part of the improved UI?
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    The Menus were a toolbar before the ribbon existed, which is why you could customize them. Visual Studio was the same. So it was natural for the ribbon to eat up the menus as well. Certainly that's part of why people disliked it, but the artificial separation between 'menu' and 'toolbar' was already kind of a problem and that's why they were unified.
    - ethbro 6y ago
      People disliked Ribbon because it took a logical system geared towards power users (hierarchical menus) and replaced it with an organic system geared towards new users (usage-driven ordering). There was no way that wasn't going to piss off a very vocal segment of users, and Microsoft, to their detriment, badly botched the messaging.
      - eitland 6y ago
        My point is that even if Ribbon was a good idea the implementation had a number of flaws that made me question of UX really was the reason and not something else. My go-to example is how the File menu was hidden behind a non-button that looked just like a fancy application logo. Why would an actual, caring ux developer do that in a flagship product?
- meddlepal 6y ago
  Am I the only damn person that liked the ribbon's?!
  - wyattpeak 6y ago
    I don't think it's a question of what people ultimately like. It's that change is frustrating, especially for only marginal benefit. I like the ribbon today, and I complained when it was released. And I stand by that complaint, I think pushback against change serves an important role, and developers should feel pain when making UX changes. It's not just a matter of some changes being bad, even when they're good there's a cost. My grandparents both had iPhones, loved them and loved learning to do different things on them. Whenever I'd visit they'd have a laundry list of things they wanted to learn to do. Over time, that list was slowly supplanted by relearning how to do things they once knew, but had changed. It was extremely frustrating because so much of it was near-pointless. Easy for me (and most of their test-base, I'm sure) to relearn, but very difficult for nonagenarians.
whoisjuan 6y ago
Windows incrementally removed the "Start" button and had to roll back. This is simply an issue of creating generational products that adapt to the new ways your demographics are using technology. You can incrementally change a product but you will never be able to use new interaction patterns in a product that is used by people who don't know them and don't want to learn them. Generation Z and Generation Alpha kids are not going to use Access. They will be using this or whatever succeeds this. That's for sure. This is the same reason why Apple is going full steam into making the iPad its core productivity and creativity device. Newer generations have way better dexterity when using touch as an input, than let's say my generation (millennials). They know Macbooks are products with a UX expiration date.
- enraged_camel 6y ago
  >> Windows incrementally removed the "Start" button and had to roll back. I mean, flat out removing something, by definition, is not incremental.
  - bryanrasmussen 6y ago
    I don't remember how it happened as I had moved off of Windows in that period, maybe they made it slowly opaque over a couple releases.
  - sooheon 6y ago
    If you can’t remove elements, you can’t refine design incrementally.
  - artificial 6y ago
    They should've shrunk the button down each release. For any features I plan to remove I'll gradually make them smaller.
  - internet2000 6y ago
    The corner still worked as a start menu, and they told you that on first run. It was as incremental as possible.
groby_b 6y ago
That's the one thing you really don't want to do. I know, product and UX teams everywhere believe it's a good plan, but I suggest talking to users. There are few things that generate stronger emotions than "They moved my FUCKING menu item AGAIN"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
jiggawatts 6y ago
They were actually doing that. Microsoft Access inherited many of the productivity features of Excel, such as filters in the column headers. It was great. Where they dropped the ball was the core engine and capabilities. What people wanted was quick & easy way to produce HTML5 forms and tables, but with the power of a native GUI app. Meanwhile, Microsoft was removing features from Access, such as the SQL Server based "Access Data Projects" (ADP) mode, which was much more scalable than the legacy Jet database mode.
- indymike 6y ago
  Actually, filters in the column headers came from a database, Paradox that predated GUI apps and was a major player in the PC database market.
- ethbro 6y ago
  > What people wanted was quick & easy way to produce HTML5 forms and tables, but with the power of a native GUI app. Spot on. As with all things, Microsoft-of-the-time saw the web as a competitor to its products, not a new platform. They actually could have built substantial portions of Office 365 (which is to say, cloud -first and -integrated Office) in the early 2000s, but tried to protect their legacy businesses. It's nice to see them finally getting there, but Access-to-Web would still be a killer product for much of Enterprise, if they could solve the data source connectivity issues in a clean way for users.

The way people reacted to the Ribbon disagrees with you :) Toolbars specifically were replaced with an improved chunk of UI, everything else was left the same, and people were furious. Rightly so, to a degree - learning to use it was an adjustment. Now imagine that the whole app's UI incrementally changed and not just parts of it... nobody's gonna be happy about that.

eitland 6y ago
> Toolbars specifically were replaced with an improved chunk of UI, everything else was left the same Was hiding the file menu items behind a round logo that looked nothing like a button part of that improved UI? Is the current file menu that looks like the rest of the menus but behaves totally different part of the improved UI?
- kevingadd 6y ago
  The Menus were a toolbar before the ribbon existed, which is why you could customize them. Visual Studio was the same. So it was natural for the ribbon to eat up the menus as well. Certainly that's part of why people disliked it, but the artificial separation between 'menu' and 'toolbar' was already kind of a problem and that's why they were unified.
  - ethbro 6y ago
    People disliked Ribbon because it took a logical system geared towards power users (hierarchical menus) and replaced it with an organic system geared towards new users (usage-driven ordering). There was no way that wasn't going to piss off a very vocal segment of users, and Microsoft, to their detriment, badly botched the messaging.
    - eitland 6y ago
      My point is that even if Ribbon was a good idea the implementation had a number of flaws that made me question of UX really was the reason and not something else. My go-to example is how the File menu was hidden behind a non-button that looked just like a fancy application logo. Why would an actual, caring ux developer do that in a flagship product?
meddlepal 6y ago
Am I the only damn person that liked the ribbon's?!
- wyattpeak 6y ago
  I don't think it's a question of what people ultimately like. It's that change is frustrating, especially for only marginal benefit. I like the ribbon today, and I complained when it was released. And I stand by that complaint, I think pushback against change serves an important role, and developers should feel pain when making UX changes. It's not just a matter of some changes being bad, even when they're good there's a cost. My grandparents both had iPhones, loved them and loved learning to do different things on them. Whenever I'd visit they'd have a laundry list of things they wanted to learn to do. Over time, that list was slowly supplanted by relearning how to do things they once knew, but had changed. It was extremely frustrating because so much of it was near-pointless. Easy for me (and most of their test-base, I'm sure) to relearn, but very difficult for nonagenarians.

whoisjuan 6y ago

Windows incrementally removed the "Start" button and had to roll back. This is simply an issue of creating generational products that adapt to the new ways your demographics are using technology. You can incrementally change a product but you will never be able to use new interaction patterns in a product that is used by people who don't know them and don't want to learn them. Generation Z and Generation Alpha kids are not going to use Access. They will be using this or whatever succeeds this. That's for sure. This is the same reason why Apple is going full steam into making the iPad its core productivity and creativity device. Newer generations have way better dexterity when using touch as an input, than let's say my generation (millennials). They know Macbooks are products with a UX expiration date.

enraged_camel 6y ago
>> Windows incrementally removed the "Start" button and had to roll back. I mean, flat out removing something, by definition, is not incremental.
- bryanrasmussen 6y ago
  I don't remember how it happened as I had moved off of Windows in that period, maybe they made it slowly opaque over a couple releases.
- sooheon 6y ago
  If you can’t remove elements, you can’t refine design incrementally.
- artificial 6y ago
  They should've shrunk the button down each release. For any features I plan to remove I'll gradually make them smaller.
- internet2000 6y ago
  The corner still worked as a start menu, and they told you that on first run. It was as incremental as possible.

groby_b 6y ago

That's the one thing you really don't want to do. I know, product and UX teams everywhere believe it's a good plan, but I suggest talking to users. There are few things that generate stronger emotions than "They moved my FUCKING menu item AGAIN"

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

jiggawatts 6y ago

They were actually doing that. Microsoft Access inherited many of the productivity features of Excel, such as filters in the column headers. It was great. Where they dropped the ball was the core engine and capabilities. What people wanted was quick & easy way to produce HTML5 forms and tables, but with the power of a native GUI app. Meanwhile, Microsoft was removing features from Access, such as the SQL Server based "Access Data Projects" (ADP) mode, which was much more scalable than the legacy Jet database mode.

indymike 6y ago
Actually, filters in the column headers came from a database, Paradox that predated GUI apps and was a major player in the PC database market.
ethbro 6y ago
> What people wanted was quick & easy way to produce HTML5 forms and tables, but with the power of a native GUI app. Spot on. As with all things, Microsoft-of-the-time saw the web as a competitor to its products, not a new platform. They actually could have built substantial portions of Office 365 (which is to say, cloud -first and -integrated Office) in the early 2000s, but tried to protect their legacy businesses. It's nice to see them finally getting there, but Access-to-Web would still be a killer product for much of Enterprise, if they could solve the data source connectivity issues in a clean way for users.