5 ms·

These ideas have a strong late 1990s vibe. Desktop app complexity had grown over a decade so that Microsoft Word, which started with a simple single-row toolba

by pavlov 3y ago

These ideas have a strong late 1990s vibe. Desktop app complexity had grown over a decade so that Microsoft Word, which started with a simple single-row toolbar, now was taking over 30% of a typical PC screen with a sea of icons and controls. Meanwhile the growth in PC sales meant there was an influx of non-corporate users who were not being trained to use the apps. That’s how we got Clippy (essentially similar to the text input box proposed here), “progressive”menus that hide advanced actions and features the user hasn’t been accessing, as well as the explosion of task-oriented panels in Windows XP. The execution of these ideas left a lot to be desired. (The Office 2006 Ribbon UI was actually a meaningful step forward because it contextualized and prioritized the UI rather than hiding stuff. Microsoft has solid data showing that Ribbon improved the user experience.) Maybe language model AI can give this kind of UI a new lease of life.

taskforcegemini 3y ago
> Microsoft has solid data showing that Ribbon improved the user experience do they also have data filtered to show powerusers? just because metrics go up doesn't really mean it got better. I'm pretty sure google also has metrics "showing" that it got better at finding stuff, which I really can't agree with. my ms-office literacy was much higher pre ribbon, and it never cought up
- pavlov 3y ago
  It’s a trade-off. The Ribbon demonstrably enabled average users to discover and access functionality that they never knew about or understood before. The numbers were very significant. (I think I read about it in Steven Sinofsky’s newsletter called Hardcore Software. He was in charge of Office back then.) Power users by definition tend to invest in learning the software. They’ll be initially annoyed at changes, then adapt. And in the era of continuously delivered web apps, there really isn’t any UI stability left for a lot of the widely used software (sadly).
  - andirk 3y ago
    Does the confirm or cancel go on the left or the right? How is that not even accidentally standard at this point?
    - dgellow 3y ago
      Because it is specific to a given platform and culture. For example: https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/1077 https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/1077 There isn’t one standard set of guidelines. Platforms evolve, new ones come, guidelines will always be contradicting each others in weird ways (like this button positioning).
      - drcongo 3y ago
        I've seen Windows "wizards" that manage to swap them between steps.
        AndroidKitKat 3y ago
        The only justification in my mind that makes sense for having it one way and then the next screen is the opposite is in the case of destructive actions (e.g. formatting a drive). It can help prevent users on autopilot from nuking things. The only example of this that comes to mind is factory resetting a Nintendo Switch, but I'm sure there are much more.
        hgsgm 3y ago
        If you're worried about autopilot, The button should move around so that auto pilot clicks have no effect, not change meaning. Or, require text input to confirm an action.
        Zanfa 3y ago
        I have a HP wide format printer where after loading in a roll of paper, it presents a "Paper loaded successfully" dialog, with an "Ok" button to dismiss the message. The fun part is that the dialog also dismisses automatically in a couple of seconds and the UI underneath has the "Unroll paper" button in the exact same position where "Ok" used to be. I must have accidentally unrolled the paper immediately after loading it in dozens of times by now.
- cjblomqvist 3y ago
  Haven't seen the data, but I assume that not all users got it better (that's kind of impossible in most scenarios?) but that on average it got better? Me personally like the ribbon concept and feel like it was a good improvement (because I could see the long term benefits) even if it meant I had to re-learn significantly.
  - chrisandchris 3y ago
    That data may be very interesting to differ between average, mean and median. If most of the people are not pro-users, the average may increase significantly, while the mean may not.
- rco8786 3y ago
  Doubtful, because that wasn’t their target. They want MS Word to be approachable to the masses. “Make the easy things easy and the hard things possible”
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    > “Make the easy things easy and the hard things possible” Unfortunately, that's not the principle in action. Modern UI/UX philosophy is more of "make the easys thing easy, and make the hard things out of scope of the product".
    - rco8786 3y ago
      I was referring specifically to the MS Word toolbar transformation. Everything you could do previously was still possible, but the most common things got a lot more obvious.
      - TeMPOraL 3y ago
        Oh, I see, sorry for misreading. You're right, that era obeyed the principle you stated, but that was still the Golden Era of UI.
      - layer8 3y ago
        Unfortunately, keyboard usage became harder, to the detriment of power users. Personally I also find the classic menus much easier to scan visually than the ribbon icons which have varying sizes and are laid out in two dimensions (no clear scanning path).
        rco8786 3y ago
        > to the detriment of power users Yes this is my whole point. They made it easier for casual users at the expense of power users. It was a purposeful decision.
        layer8 3y ago
- drcongo 3y ago
  Around the time they released that I happened to attend a talk from someone on the team that came up with it, presenting their "solid data". It's so long ago that I can't remember the details but I definitely wasn't the only person in the room thinking they were doing some extreme cherry-picking to make that case.
gitgud 3y ago
> The Office 2006 Ribbon UI was actually a meaningful step forward because it contextualized and prioritized the UI rather than hiding stuff. Microsoft has solid data showing that Ribbon improved the user experience. It’s great for learning. But the different panels and varied icons, make it annoying to scan and find things… compared to the traditional nested toolbar with consistent sized icons and labels
- pavlov 3y ago
  On the flip side, the variety of shapes and layouts makes it easier to recognize a feature you’ve used before. Humans need some variety to make sense of their environments. Imagine if every tool in a toolbox was the same shape and size and color, or if every room and hallway in a building had the same plan and decor. It would be a lot harder to find what you’re looking for.
  - hgsgm 3y ago
    If I'm typing in a doc then Ctrl-? and type the name/keyword for the feature I want is much easier then navigating through the zoo. The zoo is fine when I don't know what I'm looking for and I can browse the pictures for inspiration.
  - davidthewatson 3y ago
    Yes! We've arrived at "recognition vs. recall" and "a sense of place". https://www.nngroup.com/articles/recognition-and-recall/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/recognition-and-recall/ I've struggled to enumerate the spectrum from one to the other as I've worked through the impact of GPT on my work over the past year. What the author describe here is a great attempt at getting to the core concepts: * mixing and matching aspects of GUI and CLI in a single unified interface The key, to me, is that when designs combine elements of recognition vs. recall, those designs need to link the CLI and GUI in bi-directional ways such that direct manipulation of GUI objects impact model queries with near zero latency in the CLI while query and manipulation of the models in the CLI show changes in GUI "at once". Direct manipulation matters in both directions owing to perception. Of course, I'm probably describing ancient history in terms of Logo or Borland's early attempts at bi-directional tooling, but I think a tip of the hat and a little retro-computing software is not a bad way to approach the problem.
xg15 3y ago
> That’s how we got Clippy (essentially similar to the text input box proposed here), “progressive” menus that hide advanced actions and features the user hasn’t been accessing, as well as the explosion of task-oriented panels in Windows XP. You're implying those were bad decisions, but could you also explain what exactly was bad about them? I think Clippy legitimately was a bad idea: It was a clumsy attempt at anthropomorphising the computer, and it also came over cartoonish and game-y: Effectively, used UI patterns from a video game in a context where users wanted to get serious work done. (Interestingly, it also foreshadowed a lot of later trends in tech: Clippy was asynchronous, interrupting the user with notifications even if the user never did anything; and it foreshadowed the ability of programs to actually analyze content and not just be dumb typewriters with the infamous "it looks like you are writing a letter" message. I guess Tech learned it's lesson from the backlash, namely that it needs to be more covert and subtle about those abilities...) However, the idea to show possible actions in the context where they are useful always seemed like the most straightforward thing to me. Maybe i'm biased as a programmer, but it seems natural to structure an UI in an "object oriented" manner, where the user is presented with certain types of "entities" and can manipulate them using certain actions: E.g., if you have a file, you can copy, delete or move it; you can also launch a program to edit it. You can do the same with a folder, but you can additionally navigate into the folder, etc. The same pattern in a lot of programs designed for creating media: The entities would be text selections in word processors, shapes and layers in image processors, 3D objects in 3D designers, etc. That was the basic idea behind the task panels in WinXP I believe. So what was bad about them?
- Swizec 3y ago
  > and it also came over cartoonish and game-y: Effectively, used UI patterns from a video game in a context where users wanted to get serious work done. Hey hey hey. To an enthusiastic 12 year old like me, Clippy was pure gold! I could spend hours having fun with that guy. The doggie version was cool too.
  - xg15 3y ago
    Same :D Also the cat.
JohnFen 3y ago
> 2006 Ribbon UI was actually a meaningful step forward because it contextualized and prioritized the UI rather than hiding stuff. I deeply hate the ribbon because it's so good at hiding stuff. And moving stuff around.

by pavlov 3y ago

taskforcegemini 3y ago

> Microsoft has solid data showing that Ribbon improved the user experience do they also have data filtered to show powerusers? just because metrics go up doesn't really mean it got better. I'm pretty sure google also has metrics "showing" that it got better at finding stuff, which I really can't agree with. my ms-office literacy was much higher pre ribbon, and it never cought up

pavlov 3y ago
It’s a trade-off. The Ribbon demonstrably enabled average users to discover and access functionality that they never knew about or understood before. The numbers were very significant. (I think I read about it in Steven Sinofsky’s newsletter called Hardcore Software. He was in charge of Office back then.) Power users by definition tend to invest in learning the software. They’ll be initially annoyed at changes, then adapt. And in the era of continuously delivered web apps, there really isn’t any UI stability left for a lot of the widely used software (sadly).
- andirk 3y ago
  Does the confirm or cancel go on the left or the right? How is that not even accidentally standard at this point?
  - dgellow 3y ago
    Because it is specific to a given platform and culture. For example: https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/1077 https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/1077 There isn’t one standard set of guidelines. Platforms evolve, new ones come, guidelines will always be contradicting each others in weird ways (like this button positioning).
    - drcongo 3y ago
      I've seen Windows "wizards" that manage to swap them between steps.
      - AndroidKitKat 3y ago
        The only justification in my mind that makes sense for having it one way and then the next screen is the opposite is in the case of destructive actions (e.g. formatting a drive). It can help prevent users on autopilot from nuking things. The only example of this that comes to mind is factory resetting a Nintendo Switch, but I'm sure there are much more.
        hgsgm 3y ago
        If you're worried about autopilot, The button should move around so that auto pilot clicks have no effect, not change meaning. Or, require text input to confirm an action.
      - Zanfa 3y ago
        I have a HP wide format printer where after loading in a roll of paper, it presents a "Paper loaded successfully" dialog, with an "Ok" button to dismiss the message. The fun part is that the dialog also dismisses automatically in a couple of seconds and the UI underneath has the "Unroll paper" button in the exact same position where "Ok" used to be. I must have accidentally unrolled the paper immediately after loading it in dozens of times by now.
cjblomqvist 3y ago
Haven't seen the data, but I assume that not all users got it better (that's kind of impossible in most scenarios?) but that on average it got better? Me personally like the ribbon concept and feel like it was a good improvement (because I could see the long term benefits) even if it meant I had to re-learn significantly.
- chrisandchris 3y ago
  That data may be very interesting to differ between average, mean and median. If most of the people are not pro-users, the average may increase significantly, while the mean may not.
rco8786 3y ago
Doubtful, because that wasn’t their target. They want MS Word to be approachable to the masses. “Make the easy things easy and the hard things possible”
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > “Make the easy things easy and the hard things possible” Unfortunately, that's not the principle in action. Modern UI/UX philosophy is more of "make the easys thing easy, and make the hard things out of scope of the product".
  - rco8786 3y ago
    I was referring specifically to the MS Word toolbar transformation. Everything you could do previously was still possible, but the most common things got a lot more obvious.
    - TeMPOraL 3y ago
      Oh, I see, sorry for misreading. You're right, that era obeyed the principle you stated, but that was still the Golden Era of UI.
    - layer8 3y ago
      Unfortunately, keyboard usage became harder, to the detriment of power users. Personally I also find the classic menus much easier to scan visually than the ribbon icons which have varying sizes and are laid out in two dimensions (no clear scanning path).
      - rco8786 3y ago
        > to the detriment of power users Yes this is my whole point. They made it easier for casual users at the expense of power users. It was a purposeful decision.
        layer8 3y ago
drcongo 3y ago
Around the time they released that I happened to attend a talk from someone on the team that came up with it, presenting their "solid data". It's so long ago that I can't remember the details but I definitely wasn't the only person in the room thinking they were doing some extreme cherry-picking to make that case.

gitgud 3y ago

> The Office 2006 Ribbon UI was actually a meaningful step forward because it contextualized and prioritized the UI rather than hiding stuff. Microsoft has solid data showing that Ribbon improved the user experience. It’s great for learning. But the different panels and varied icons, make it annoying to scan and find things… compared to the traditional nested toolbar with consistent sized icons and labels

pavlov 3y ago
On the flip side, the variety of shapes and layouts makes it easier to recognize a feature you’ve used before. Humans need some variety to make sense of their environments. Imagine if every tool in a toolbox was the same shape and size and color, or if every room and hallway in a building had the same plan and decor. It would be a lot harder to find what you’re looking for.
- hgsgm 3y ago
  If I'm typing in a doc then Ctrl-? and type the name/keyword for the feature I want is much easier then navigating through the zoo. The zoo is fine when I don't know what I'm looking for and I can browse the pictures for inspiration.
- davidthewatson 3y ago
  Yes! We've arrived at "recognition vs. recall" and "a sense of place". https://www.nngroup.com/articles/recognition-and-recall/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/recognition-and-recall/ I've struggled to enumerate the spectrum from one to the other as I've worked through the impact of GPT on my work over the past year. What the author describe here is a great attempt at getting to the core concepts: * mixing and matching aspects of GUI and CLI in a single unified interface The key, to me, is that when designs combine elements of recognition vs. recall, those designs need to link the CLI and GUI in bi-directional ways such that direct manipulation of GUI objects impact model queries with near zero latency in the CLI while query and manipulation of the models in the CLI show changes in GUI "at once". Direct manipulation matters in both directions owing to perception. Of course, I'm probably describing ancient history in terms of Logo or Borland's early attempts at bi-directional tooling, but I think a tip of the hat and a little retro-computing software is not a bad way to approach the problem.

xg15 3y ago

> That’s how we got Clippy (essentially similar to the text input box proposed here), “progressive” menus that hide advanced actions and features the user hasn’t been accessing, as well as the explosion of task-oriented panels in Windows XP. You're implying those were bad decisions, but could you also explain what exactly was bad about them? I think Clippy legitimately was a bad idea: It was a clumsy attempt at anthropomorphising the computer, and it also came over cartoonish and game-y: Effectively, used UI patterns from a video game in a context where users wanted to get serious work done. (Interestingly, it also foreshadowed a lot of later trends in tech: Clippy was asynchronous, interrupting the user with notifications even if the user never did anything; and it foreshadowed the ability of programs to actually analyze content and not just be dumb typewriters with the infamous "it looks like you are writing a letter" message. I guess Tech learned it's lesson from the backlash, namely that it needs to be more covert and subtle about those abilities...) However, the idea to show possible actions in the context where they are useful always seemed like the most straightforward thing to me. Maybe i'm biased as a programmer, but it seems natural to structure an UI in an "object oriented" manner, where the user is presented with certain types of "entities" and can manipulate them using certain actions: E.g., if you have a file, you can copy, delete or move it; you can also launch a program to edit it. You can do the same with a folder, but you can additionally navigate into the folder, etc. The same pattern in a lot of programs designed for creating media: The entities would be text selections in word processors, shapes and layers in image processors, 3D objects in 3D designers, etc. That was the basic idea behind the task panels in WinXP I believe. So what was bad about them?

Swizec 3y ago
> and it also came over cartoonish and game-y: Effectively, used UI patterns from a video game in a context where users wanted to get serious work done. Hey hey hey. To an enthusiastic 12 year old like me, Clippy was pure gold! I could spend hours having fun with that guy. The doggie version was cool too.
- xg15 3y ago
  Same :D Also the cat.

JohnFen 3y ago

> 2006 Ribbon UI was actually a meaningful step forward because it contextualized and prioritized the UI rather than hiding stuff. I deeply hate the ribbon because it's so good at hiding stuff. And moving stuff around.