3 ms·

> The ribbon interface is one of the best things to happen to office. It was horrible to use before that. Says who? Do you have any UI/UX study to back up that

> The ribbon interface is one of the best things to happen to office. It was horrible to use before that. Says who? Do you have any UI/UX study to back up that claim? Most of us on this page seem to believe the opposite is true. > For an app as complex and feature rich as word or excel, the ribbon interface is a great way to organise commands. Exactly the opposite. That is, a ribbon _may_ be relevant to a feature-poor application, but much less so to a feature-rich application. > my productivity has increased tremendously. I just create a table and automatically go to the last tab to format it. You're conflating context-sensitive UI changes with the use of ribbons. That's a different argument. Also remember that if a Table toolbar or sidebar appears, you can have the same effect - better perhaps - without ribbons. For an app as complex and feature rich as word or excel, the ribbon interface is a great way to organise commands. Not to mention context specific menu tabs. Especially in Powerpoint, my productivity has increased tremendously. I just create a table and automatically go to the last tab to format it.

Frondo 6y ago
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Microsoft did extensive user testing in the course of development of the Ribbon UI: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23797590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23797590
kumarvvr 6y ago
> Says who? Do you have any UI/UX study to back up that claim? Most of us on this page seem to believe the opposite is true. I never said people found it good. I said, implicitly, I found it good. Perhaps I should have made it explicit in my comment. Also, it doesn't matter whether most of you believe the opposite was true. I was talking only about myself. No need to be so, aggressive, perhaps. > Exactly the opposite. That is, a ribbon _may_ be relevant to a feature-poor application, but much less so to a feature-rich application. Compared to the alternatives, the Ribbon has more density, in the sense that it packs more buttons and controls than a normal tool bar. Even AutoCAD uses a ribbon menu. I am guessing because the command density is much more than a normal toolbar. > You're conflating context-sensitive UI changes with the use of ribbons. That's a different argument. Also remember that if a Table toolbar or sidebar appears, you can have the same effect - better perhaps - without ribbons. My point was that the context sensitive UI is more apt to be used with a Ribbon system, than alternatives, like in 3DS MAX, where the context sensitive stuff comes up on a right-click. Or in Office itself after we highlight an item. I reiterate, it is a personal opinion. No need to get so defensive about it. Some people want their commands and work area to be separated. Some like it otherwise. I prefer the former. When I click my table in PP, I don't want something overlapping it with a menu item, that is not stable, and disappears after a while or after another interaction. It's distracting to me.

Frondo 6y ago

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, Microsoft did extensive user testing in the course of development of the Ribbon UI: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23797590 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23797590

kumarvvr 6y ago

> Says who? Do you have any UI/UX study to back up that claim? Most of us on this page seem to believe the opposite is true. I never said people found it good. I said, implicitly, I found it good. Perhaps I should have made it explicit in my comment. Also, it doesn't matter whether most of you believe the opposite was true. I was talking only about myself. No need to be so, aggressive, perhaps. > Exactly the opposite. That is, a ribbon _may_ be relevant to a feature-poor application, but much less so to a feature-rich application. Compared to the alternatives, the Ribbon has more density, in the sense that it packs more buttons and controls than a normal tool bar. Even AutoCAD uses a ribbon menu. I am guessing because the command density is much more than a normal toolbar. > You're conflating context-sensitive UI changes with the use of ribbons. That's a different argument. Also remember that if a Table toolbar or sidebar appears, you can have the same effect - better perhaps - without ribbons. My point was that the context sensitive UI is more apt to be used with a Ribbon system, than alternatives, like in 3DS MAX, where the context sensitive stuff comes up on a right-click. Or in Office itself after we highlight an item. I reiterate, it is a personal opinion. No need to get so defensive about it. Some people want their commands and work area to be separated. Some like it otherwise. I prefer the former. When I click my table in PP, I don't want something overlapping it with a menu item, that is not stable, and disappears after a while or after another interaction. It's distracting to me.