4 ms·
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 ma
by 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 agoHe 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 agoWord 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.