3 ms·

Surely the combination of research and smart designers is better than either in isolation, though, right? Do you have evidence that the designers of the ribbon

by kvb 14y ago

Surely the combination of research and smart designers is better than either in isolation, though, right? Do you have evidence that the designers of the ribbon were not "smart"? Are you aware of a better design for surfacing hundreds of features? Clearly, standard menu bars weren't working. The combination of the ribbon plus the quick access toolbar seems quite elegant to me...

debacle 14y ago
Outlook is probably one of the most complicated non-admin pieces of software that Windows users use, and I find it completely impossible to do real things in 2010 - in fact, it took me way longer than it should have to even figure out that I was running Outlook 2010. There are conventions to any interface. In Windows, Help -> About will tell you what version of a piece of software you're using most of the time, but for some reason Outlook feels that I need to go to File -> Help -> Additional Version and Copyright Information. Disregarding decades of convention because a handful of wankers with a whiteboard say so is a recipe for failure. I find LibreOffice far easier to use than newer versions of Microsoft Office precisely because their navigation isn't a convoluted wad of deuce. There is a reason that Visual Studio, Visio, and Project don't have the ribbon interface - it's not better for anyone who actually knows how to use a computer. The ribbon interface was designed for a mythical group of people that hadn't ever used Windows-style context menus in 2005. Maybe as an emergent, intuitive interface for people who've never sent an email, the ribbon is great, but it's different than any other piece of software out there, and I've never met anyone who actually prefers it.
- MichaelGG 14y ago
  Did you bother to read the presentation I linked to? They had all sorts of tests, had many millions of users's usage data. They even ran eye tracking studies to see how people actually used menus versus the Ribbon and on and on. I'm unsure if, after reading the information how you could dismiss it as a "handful of wankers with a whiteboard" just "saying so". P.S. Clicking the help icon opens a window with "Outlook 2010" in the first line of content. Searching for "what version" also provides an article explaining how to find this. My guess would be that "checking the version number" didn't show up as a commonly used feature, enough to warrant higher visibility or reworking the help system.
  - debacle 14y ago
    The only difference between a handful of wankers with a whiteboard and the scenario you describe is budget.

by kvb 14y ago

debacle 14y ago

Outlook is probably one of the most complicated non-admin pieces of software that Windows users use, and I find it completely impossible to do real things in 2010 - in fact, it took me way longer than it should have to even figure out that I was running Outlook 2010. There are conventions to any interface. In Windows, Help -> About will tell you what version of a piece of software you're using most of the time, but for some reason Outlook feels that I need to go to File -> Help -> Additional Version and Copyright Information. Disregarding decades of convention because a handful of wankers with a whiteboard say so is a recipe for failure. I find LibreOffice far easier to use than newer versions of Microsoft Office precisely because their navigation isn't a convoluted wad of deuce. There is a reason that Visual Studio, Visio, and Project don't have the ribbon interface - it's not better for anyone who actually knows how to use a computer. The ribbon interface was designed for a mythical group of people that hadn't ever used Windows-style context menus in 2005. Maybe as an emergent, intuitive interface for people who've never sent an email, the ribbon is great, but it's different than any other piece of software out there, and I've never met anyone who actually prefers it.

MichaelGG 14y ago
Did you bother to read the presentation I linked to? They had all sorts of tests, had many millions of users's usage data. They even ran eye tracking studies to see how people actually used menus versus the Ribbon and on and on. I'm unsure if, after reading the information how you could dismiss it as a "handful of wankers with a whiteboard" just "saying so". P.S. Clicking the help icon opens a window with "Outlook 2010" in the first line of content. Searching for "what version" also provides an article explaining how to find this. My guess would be that "checking the version number" didn't show up as a commonly used feature, enough to warrant higher visibility or reworking the help system.
- debacle 14y ago
  The only difference between a handful of wankers with a whiteboard and the scenario you describe is budget.