Microsoft UI design...
Microsoft is learning from Apple, hiring more designers for Vista and their apps. Check out the Office 2007 screenshots:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...09/547281.aspx
Now I dont understand the large ugly button on the topleft, but the top horizontal bar seems like a good design. The Pages "info requester" is always in the way of my design (1024 x 768).
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...09/547281.aspx
Now I dont understand the large ugly button on the topleft, but the top horizontal bar seems like a good design. The Pages "info requester" is always in the way of my design (1024 x 768).
Comments
It's not a toolbar - you only get one at a time, ala a tabbed interface.
It's not a menu - it doesn't use descriptive terms to explain what things are, or do.
So you lose all the discoverability of menus, and you lose the instant access of toolbars. Brilliant.
You know what the reasoning behind this was? "Our users say that it's too hard to find things in menus."
Now, what's wrong with this reason? It's too hard to find things in THEIR menus. So instead of doing the intelligent thing, and reorganizing their menus... they're getting rid of them completely.
Yup, look closely, there's no menu bar at all in those screenshots. The claim is that you can revert to the old menus if you want to, but you either get the shitty old menus, or you get this new abomination. Lovely!
Thank god I don't use Office.
edit: The Office icon, AFAICT, is just a 'File' menu.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Oh for god's sake, you're kidding.
No, I'm not. One click, you get the menu.
Oh for god's sake... *THAT'S* it??
So they basically ditched the entire menu system... except for one... which they left in for the hell of it... but it doesn't look like a menu...
Man, they are *GOOD*.
1. I can't find anything in the menus. For example: Why is Autocorrect right in the Tools menu, but to turn off spelling and grammar checks I have to go Tools-->Spelling and Grammar-->Options. I don't see why these things are separate, and why the one is 200% easier to access than the other.
2. The icons are totally counterintuitive. I don't know what those little fuckers are supposed to represent. I'm so glad that Vista is copying OS X's icons.
This new solution seems to do nothing in terms of these two problems but aggravate them. Just look at how they 'group' buttons with similar functionalities. In one screenshot Paragraph and Text are separate "toolbars" but in another they bunched together in "Basic Text".
BTW, I can't seem to find the last thread about this, Kickaha... Remember? I posted some Word icons that looked like Miró?
--B
The problem I see is that Office's menus got utterly unusable because there were way, way too many items in them, with zero attempt at rational organization. MS tried to deal with the clutter by "expandable" menus, which was the single worst innovation in the history of menus. With ribbons, the problem is worse: graphics take up much more space and don't lend themselves to submenus. I don't see how MS will provide the same content - there just isn't room. And if there's not room in the graphical menu, where will the left-out options go? There's no place else to put them. This is where discovery goes out the window. If a function isn't on the default ribbon, the user will have to wade through screen after screen of ribbon-customizing configuration menus to find it. Good luck.
Edit: Actually, we all know how MS will handle it. They won't. There will still be no attempt at rational organization, and they will address the space issue by leaving out the most useful functions and cramming the rest in by using cryptic 8x8 icons that you have to mouse-over-and-wait to decipher. And thus, a potentially useful idea (one not that different from Apple's inspector) will become another hideous lesson in UI disasters.
Originally posted by Towel
[B]I shrink from disagreeing with Kickaha, but I don't think the ribbon is an inherently terrible idea. It's essentially graphical menus. You only see one menu at a time, after all, and you can discover the options here by clicking through the tabs - just as easily as clicking through the menu headers. You might even argue it's more discoverable, since with inspired icon design you can take in all the options under a menu at a glace.
Key word there is 'inspired'. A couple of keywords in a menu item is direct info. An icon has to be interpreted, and then that translation to concept remembered. I still say text menus are better for discoverability. *shrug*
Toolbars and such have a place for fast access and efficiency, but they suck for discoverability. The ribbons are just glorified (and hamstrung) toolbars.
The problem I see is that Office's menus got utterly unusable because there were way, way too many items in them, with zero attempt at rational organization.
BINGO. It had nothing to do with menus per se, it was just that they didn't know what the heck to do with them. Now they're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
MS tried to deal with the clutter by "expandable" menus, which was the single worst innovation in the history of menus. With ribbons, the problem is worse: graphics take up much more space and don't lend themselves to submenus. I don't see how MS will provide the same content - there just isn't room. And if there's not room in the graphical menu, where will the left-out options go? There's no place else to put them.
Exactly. As a *supplement* to menus, toolbars are spiffy. I use them, and appreciate them. But MS is trying to replace both toolbars and menus with these new ribbons, and I see nothing but pain for the user. But then, their customer base is used to that, so the poor bastards won't know the difference. \
This is where discovery goes out the window. If a function isn't on the default ribbon, the user will have to wade through screen after screen of ribbon-customizing configuration menus to find it. Good luck.
Edit: Actually, we all know how MS will handle it. They won't. There will still be no attempt at rational organization, and they will address the space issue by leaving out the most useful functions and cramming the rest in by using cryptic 8x8 icons that you have to mouse-over-and-wait to decipher. And thus, a potentially useful idea (one not that different from Apple's inspector) will become another hideous lesson in UI disasters.
Ayup, that's my prediction. And you're right, it's not *that* different from the Inspector - except that Apple leaves the menus where they are, and gives them honest to god organization that makes sense. Different tools and UI widgets for different reasons. MS doesn't seem to get that.
Originally posted by Lust
...
It took me all of one week to get used to these "unorganized" menus and I'm only 15.
Best Answer to this point. Well, the guys here argueing about
that particular Office issue reveal the real flaw Office
and therefor Microsoft has: you almost always have to learn (re-learn).
And this is what you shouldn't have to do anymore regarding modern
software - to learn. A modern GUI shouldn't distract an users
workflow. Ribbons seem to me way too much distraction from the
work i want to accomplish.
Hopefully i can hide them entirely, like i do with any toolbar in
Word. I just have my sole doc sheet visible.
And hopefully i can accomplish everything by using keys either.
Originally posted by Lust
Why are you guys complaining so much? If you don't like it, no one is going to force you to use it. Seriously, it doesn't look *that* bad. It needs some improvement, sure, but it'll still be useable. It will just take some time to get used to like all programs do. Anyone that actually uses the current version of Office should know where everything is and what it does so it doesn't really matter if it's in the "correct" menu or not because they will know where it is. It took me all of one week to get used to these "unorganized" menus and I'm only 15.
I don't really think anyone knows how "good" or "bad" the new UI will be until it's deployed. However, people ARE forced to use specific versions of Office. Certain businesses require the same version of Office due to compatibility reasons. Some organizations accept documents in only certain formats so you have to stay up to date. Colleges usually run the latest version of Office on their lab computers and won't put anything else on it.
When your time is more valuable, I think a lot of people don't want to (re)learn how to do things. They want to get the job done as quickly as possible because there are far more important things than learning the latest and greatest features of a program. Imagine if you're working and your boss requires you to fill out a nontrivial form for every task you've completed. And then the form keeps changing every so often. The new forms would slow down productivity significantly. That's why you have so many complaints.
When in reality, MS is just screwing over the users again.
Originally posted by Vox Barbara
and therefor Microsoft has: you almost always have to learn (re-learn).
Oh yeah, because with non-Microsoft software, no matter how many new menus and features and GUI changes - you know it, automagically!
I dislike Microsoft's GUI work as much as any other sane, rational person, but give me a break.
The other trick is to keep things simple. When I see features like Word Art and shitty drawing tools in a word processor, I can't help but roll my eyes. It's TOO fucking MUCH.
Apple knows when to seperate an app. This is exactly why we don't see something like Entourage or MSN Messenger from Apple. They're bloated software that try to do a zillions things that don't necessarily have anything to do with each other.
The same can be said about the Office suite. MS thought it would be a good idea to have shared libraries (drawing, web tools, stat tools) inside all their Office suite apps, but that just adds bloat.
How many here actually use the drawing tools is Office on a regular basis? And how many here think these tools are good? I thought so (and if you answered yes to both questions, pack your bags and go to Hollywood because you've got a promising career in comedy.)
Again, I'm not saying Apple is perfect...Apple is also adding junk that can better spun off to another app or a 'Font' and 'Color' type applet available to all apps...junk such as graph tools and graphics tools. But they've not reached the point MS has reached in bloatedness.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Oh yeah, because with non-Microsoft software, no matter how many new menus and features and GUI changes - you know it, automagically!
I dislike Microsoft's GUI work as much as any other sane, rational person, but give me a break.
Not automatically, but almost so. Back in the nineties
generally Apple software was designed to accomplish
certain tasks in the simpliest and most intuitive way. If you "learned"
one app you knew the other app yet.
Okay Apple messed around with this simple Guide of
usability. Time changed.
Though, I didn't say other software companies than MS
are king in UI development. But i keep standfast saying MS is
king in messing up UI Guidelines. MS software
almost always seems to me like bloated apps
which claim to be boss in everything, but put
the custumer in a mere loss. Everytime.
Originally posted by Kickaha
The top horizontal bar is called a 'ribbon', and it's got to be one of the worst UI throwbacks I've seen yet.
It's not a toolbar - you only get one at a time, ala a tabbed interface.
It's not a menu - it doesn't use descriptive terms to explain what things are, or do.
So you lose all the discoverability of menus, and you lose the instant access of toolbars. Brilliant.
You know what the reasoning behind this was? "Our users say that it's too hard to find things in menus."
Now, what's wrong with this reason? It's too hard to find things in THEIR menus. So instead of doing the intelligent thing, and reorganizing their menus... they're getting rid of them completely.
Yup, look closely, there's no menu bar at all in those screenshots. The claim is that you can revert to the old menus if you want to, but you either get the shitty old menus, or you get this new abomination. Lovely!
Thank god I don't use Office.
No, it's offering the spacially minimized nature of a textual menu, while incorporating a visual/spacial element that has the power of toolbar to provide the user with quick information and visually identifiable functions, yet can easily be switched between modes of operation. The same thing is used in Dreamweaver, and it works great.
And btw, who uses menus or toolbars anyways? Keyboard all the way, I don't care how they choose to dumb it down for those mouse-clickers.