3 ms·

Also they are comparing draft vs. print layout. Computer display didn't used to have enough pixels to approximate paper, but when they did programs switched to

Also they are comparing draft vs. print layout. Computer display didn't used to have enough pixels to approximate paper, but when they did programs switched to print layout because people liked what-you-see-is-what-you-get. You can still switch back to draft mode where paper margin is collapsed and the content fills up most of the space. This is what a more fair comparison looks like. https://i.imgur.com/wAqSvrV.png https://i.imgur.com/wAqSvrV.png

luuio 3y ago
Yep. And the OP also failed to recognize that the whole Ribbon menu could be collapsed making it just looks slightly larger than Notepad.
torstenvl 3y ago
The computer display certainly could do a print layout in Word '97. https://imgur.com/a/nKbXwva https://imgur.com/a/nKbXwva And the issue isn't the content margins, it's the UI. There's no reason to have a paste button 3-4x the size of other buttons, for example.
- tamrix 3y ago
  He clearly implys they didn't have the print layout as a default. So the original comparison is unfair.
- kalleboo 3y ago
  > There's no reason to have a paste button 3-4x the size of other buttons, for example When Microsoft created the ribbon layout, this was the tail-end of when they were still doing lots of user-research, by putting real users in labs and observing how well they did at common tasks. So I believe them that having a paste button 3-4x bigger than the size of the other buttons is actually better for the majority of the users. These days UIs are just all defined by the designer or developers personal preference, without any actual user testing ("personally I just use command-V, why would you even NEED a paste button??!!", "lets make all these icons tiny and gray and obscure because it looks cleaner!!")
- nirimda 3y ago
  Word 6.0 from Windows 3.11 had a print layout on 800x600. I recall it being presented as new at the time but I didn't have any prior experience to compare it against.
crazygringo 3y ago
Yup, and that fair comparison shows two things: 1) There's plenty of room for editing 2) The UX at the top is about 25% taller because everything (fonts, icons) is scaled to be about 25% larger in each dimension for readability since people have bigger screens now. And so actually, usable area has actually increased as a proportion of average consumer screen height. The original Twitter post is just a silly unfair comparison.

luuio 3y ago

Yep. And the OP also failed to recognize that the whole Ribbon menu could be collapsed making it just looks slightly larger than Notepad.

torstenvl 3y ago

The computer display certainly could do a print layout in Word '97. https://imgur.com/a/nKbXwva https://imgur.com/a/nKbXwva And the issue isn't the content margins, it's the UI. There's no reason to have a paste button 3-4x the size of other buttons, for example.

tamrix 3y ago
He clearly implys they didn't have the print layout as a default. So the original comparison is unfair.
kalleboo 3y ago
> There's no reason to have a paste button 3-4x the size of other buttons, for example When Microsoft created the ribbon layout, this was the tail-end of when they were still doing lots of user-research, by putting real users in labs and observing how well they did at common tasks. So I believe them that having a paste button 3-4x bigger than the size of the other buttons is actually better for the majority of the users. These days UIs are just all defined by the designer or developers personal preference, without any actual user testing ("personally I just use command-V, why would you even NEED a paste button??!!", "lets make all these icons tiny and gray and obscure because it looks cleaner!!")
nirimda 3y ago
Word 6.0 from Windows 3.11 had a print layout on 800x600. I recall it being presented as new at the time but I didn't have any prior experience to compare it against.

crazygringo 3y ago

Yup, and that fair comparison shows two things: 1) There's plenty of room for editing 2) The UX at the top is about 25% taller because everything (fonts, icons) is scaled to be about 25% larger in each dimension for readability since people have bigger screens now. And so actually, usable area has actually increased as a proportion of average consumer screen height. The original Twitter post is just a silly unfair comparison.