> 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.

> 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.