Slashdot Mirror


ODF Offers MS Word Plugin to MA

Goalie_Ca writes "Groklaw just posted that the OpenDocument Foundation is offering Massachusetts a plugin that could 'allow Microsoft Office to easily open, render, and save to ODF files, and also allow translation of documents between Microsoft's binary (.doc, .xls, .ppt) or XML formats and ODF ... The testing has been extensive and thorough. As far as we can tell there isn't a problem, even with Accessibility add ons, which as you know is a major concern for Massachusetts.'"

55 of 263 comments (clear)

  1. Don't worry by suv4x4 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Microsoft will make sure this plugin won't work well for a long time ;)

    1. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And if not by technical means, perhaps by legal means.

      Who knows how many microsoft patents (and eolas patents) you're violating when you write a plugin for Office.

      Isn't that pretty much what the whole Open Doc format debate was about after all? While there may be technical ways to get through Microsoft's bullshit formats, the patent threats may make it illegal to do so. Unless Microsoft indemnifies it, this plugin is not really any better than the patent-encumbered Microsoft XML format.

    2. Re:Don't worry by hotspotbloc · · Score: 3, Funny
      Microsoft will make sure this plugin won't work well for a long time ;)

      From the old days: "DOS ain't done 'till Lotus won't run".

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    3. Re:Don't worry by andreyw · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually you got it wrong - its "DOS ain't done 'till Lotus runs".

      http://www.proudlyserving.com/archives/2005/08/dos _aint_done_t.html

      Which is really the reason why Windows is so buggy and unstable - they have/had to support all the OLD bugs and undefined behaviors exploited by other software vendors. You can't really sell another version of Windows if say, Adobe Acrobat, doesn't run anymore - even if its Adobe's fault!

    4. Re:Don't worry by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 3, Informative

      you're violating when you write a plugin for Office.

      Not that Office invented the concept of plug-ins, but it probably is one of the most used targets for plug-ins there is. From CRM systems, advanced securities pricing models, Adobe Acrobat, etc, etc, etc, etc. There are TONs of plug-ins and MS explicitly built thier framework to encourage this.

      Isn't that pretty much what the whole Open Doc format debate was about after all? While there may be technical ways to get through Microsoft's bullshit formats, the patent threats may make it illegal to do so.

      Not an issue in this case. Just like Adobe's plug-ins which can convert and Office documents to thier format, this plug-in I'm sure won't even bother messing with the raw binary data. Just open the document in the Office application and then each application exposes a friendly API to be able to play with, convert, ect, etc the document all you want. No need to even consider the underlieing documents format (in fact would be quite silly to) just use the API provided.

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    5. Re:Don't worry by speedphreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not following your logic? Wouldn't Microsoft benefit from this plugin? It allows the state to use their office suite (cha-ching $$$), and still give them the open document format that they are after. On top of that, Microsoft didn't have to do any work to develop it.

    6. Re:Don't worry by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But ulitmately it [odf plugin for Word] undermines an important USP for MS Office, namely, compatibility with MS Word documents! Microsoft specifically do not want people to use an open format such as OpenDocument because if they do, it makes it easier from them [the customer] to switch to a competing product, such as StarOffice or OOo.

      If MS wanted to, they could very easily have added such functionality to Word themselves. The fact that they haven't offered to do so highlights to importance they attach to keepinig people locked into *.doc and now OpenXML.

      In some ways, this plugin might undermine OpenDocument since it might provide a way for MS to keep their foot in the door, which they will likely exploit to "convert" customers back to using proprietry formats.

      However, I think that whilst it helps with using OpenDocument with MS Word, Excel is still a "killer app" that makes switching to competing office products difficult. There are a lot of companies that ship products that include Excel documents with macros as part of their product. Whilst these don't work with competing products (such as StarOffice/OpenOffice.org), then Excel retains the upper hand.

      [going off on a tangent here...] it might be better to build an OpenOffice.org API wrapper for MS Office? That way, a company wanting to produce a spreadsheet with macro functionality, could create one for OOo, and use this [hypothetical] API wrapper to make the macros work with MS Office.
      Or somthing!
      (I'm thinking out loud here).

    7. Re:Don't worry by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If this is written for the US government, remember that they are immune to patent claims.

      I think you forgot a "not" in there somewhere.

      35 USC 296. Liability of States, instrumentalities of States, and State officials for infringement of patents

      (a) In general.
      Any State, any instrumentality of a State, and any officer or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his official capacity, shall not be immune, under the eleventh amendment of the Constitution of the United States or under any other doctrine of sovereign immunity, from suit in Federal court by any person, including any governmental or nongovernmental entity, for infringement of a patent under section 271 [35 USC 271], or for any other violation under this title.

      (b) Remedies.
      In a suit described in subsection (a) for a violation described in that subsection, remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) are available for the violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in a suit against any private entity. Such remedies include damages, interest, costs, and treble damages under section 284 [35 USC 284], attorney fees under section 285 [35 USC 285], and the additional remedy for infringement of design patents under section 289 [35 USC 289].

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
    8. Re:Don't worry by shotfeel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      One of the reasons many people upgrade Office is because they need to be able to open documents from other people who may be using a newer version. MS not only has people locked into their format, but by changing their format, they push people into upgrading too.

      Now, along comes a plugin that allows all the different versions of Office, plus many 3rd party applications to work with the same document. Suddenly nobody needs to upgrade an entire Office suite just because someone somewhere bought a new computer with a new version of Office.

      So now people only need to buy MS Office if they feel compelled by the features offered, not because they need to be compatible with someone else. IOW if forces MS to compete more on merit.

    9. Re:Don't worry by rseuhs · · Score: 2, Insightful
      No.

      (Almost) nobody uses MS Office because of it's features, (almost) everybody uses it because - well - everybody uses it and the file format is the standard.

      So the standard is the most important thing here.

      This plugin eases the migration path to ODF a lot because:

      • No interface changes, so even the dumb employees will be able to use it without retraining.
      • You still have 100% Word compatibility, which is one worry less when you still have a huge amount of Word documents.
      • You can still use the old infrastructure, for example it is possible to start with a .doc template but save the finished work as ODF.

      This makes it possible to just install the plugin, set ODF as the default file format and continue without much interruption. After 1-2 years, when almost all files in current use are already ODF and you only need some odd .doc file from the archive now and then, you can migrate to OpenOffice, which much less hassle. (And why shouldn't you? As I said above, the format is the main reason why MS Office is in use, without the format, there is absolutely no more reason to periodically spend money on MS Office)

      Great work, I hope the plugin will be available for the public, this would be a big boost for the ODF file format.

  2. Sounds great... by DaHat · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sure there isn't the same victory for OSS in having them switch to OpenOffice as some would like, it instead shows that OSS can adapt as needed and allow the state to continue to use the same front end app and not have to deal with the cost and hassle of retraining countless workers with a new system.

    At the same time though... this does conceivably give more power to Redmond as there is now less incentive for MA to leave the Windows/Office platform.

    1. Re:Sounds great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I thought the point was to eliminate a barrier to entry. So workers could use either, not be forced to use Word.

      The desired effect would be to allow a gradual trasition that would be easier to swallow than a all-at-once changeover.

    2. Re:Sounds great... by jmv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At the same time though... this does conceivably give more power to Redmond as there is now less incentive for MA to leave the Windows/Office platform.

      Not necessarily. I may also make the transition easier. First everyone just save to ODF, then the switch is easy to make because you don't need to get everyone to make the transition at the same time.

    3. Re:Sounds great... by Vegard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      For me, it's not so much about getting everyone to use Open Source as to ensure that *I* have the freedom to use it, and still be a part of society (i.e be able to communicate with government etc).

      It's definitely true that it's open STANDARDS that matter. There is, however, a large pitfall: Don't let vendors like Microsoft redefine what an open standard actually is. They tried a little while ago, with their previous office XML standard...

      - Vegard

    4. Re:Sounds great... by OglinTatas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I read it differently: This completely blows Microsoft's lame argument out of the water that MA considering ODF is unfair to the millions of people who already use MSOffice, because it is impossible to rewrite office to use this "crazy new format."

      If a simple plugin can allow MSOffice to use ODF, there is then no argument whatsoever for MA to use Microsoft's proprietary formats, which really do shut out all non-Microsoft users.

    5. Re:Sounds great... by theguyfromsaturn · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. The idea behind an Open Format is that I can use the program that I choose to produce it. It would be ludicrous to pretend that most people aren't using Word today. We should be happy that this plugin exists as it makes it more likely that people will use ODF. Once ODF is well established, then people will see that they can choose whatever software they want to create such documents. In the long run it benefits the user and other office suites (not just OO.o)

      --
      I like my dinosaurs feathery, and my pterosaurs hairy (or is it pycnofibery?)
    6. Re:Sounds great... by CastrTroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I would like to know who came up with the idea of using binary files to store text documents. If Microsoft used something more sane, like the ODF format, we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. fewer people are pushing for 100% standard HTML everywhere because it's not such a hard task to figure out what the blink tag does, and how to implement it.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    7. Re:Sounds great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Binary files made a lot more sense when every CPU cycle and bit of space counted.

      These days, you can just use XML and zip it, and have something with good enough space efficiency and much better interoperability.

    8. Re:Sounds great... by arodland · · Score: 3, Informative

      RTF has no standard (other than various halfway-compatible implementations from Microsoft and open-source products), and has extremely little support for any useful formatting or metadata that you would want in an office format. Choosing RTF as your common-denominator standard format would be a lot like choosing HTML 2.0 for the same task. ODF, on the other hand, is flexible, with a complete and open spec, and one of its design goals is feature-compatibility with existing software.

      So while I haven't tried this plugin, I find it entirely possible that it supports all or very nearly all Word features, allowing for open-standards interoperability without compromising the quality of the document. It also doesn't hurt that it's apparently implemented in terms of XSLT transforms -- translating OOo XML to Word XML.

    9. Re:Sounds great... by nine-times · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm glad someone said this. We shouldn't be investing in getting people to stop using Microsoft Office. Why should they stop, so long as that program suits their purposes? The issue here is that, ideally, no company will be able to hold my data hostage, punish me, or blackmail me for choosing not to use their product.

      It's an issue of freedom. We should all demand open standards be used for data exchanges so that we have the ability to do with our data as we choose. Microsoft should not be in a position to use market forces to force people to buy products that they don't want.

    10. Re:Sounds great... by Vegard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't mean this. I'm dead sure that a significant amount of important customers have to switch to open formats before they themselves turn to open formats. Their history proves it.

      There is also another inherent danger in choosing the Microsoft standard - who's to say that Microsoft, once getting it approved by a standard, will actually *follow* their own standard? What's to prevent them, once having an ISO-standard that's widely accepted, to implement small but important, non-open extensions in their next version?

      I'm not saying they will, I say that I don't think it's beyond them, if they think that it'll benefit them against their competitors, and that they can get away with it. And what good will their once so open standard be then? It will be worth *nothing*, once again.

      I might be paranoid. But in some cases, I think you just have to be.

      There is of course also a danger that the same thing happens to ODT. The difference is that the reference application here is an already quite known and wide-spread Open Source-application, and it's already implemented in several products by several vendors. The opportunity for any of those vendors to get away with it without losing customers is just so much less. History has shown that Microsoft can get away with a lot, and nothing, not even lawsuits, can really prevent them.

  3. Hilarious! by Vengeance · · Score: 4, Funny

    Microsoft can't/won't provide interoperability tools, but the ODF (an organization with far more money, right?) is able to do it.

    I love it.

    --
    It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
  4. Heh.. by the_skywise · · Score: 5, Funny

    Embrace and Extend...

  5. too easy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    As far as we can tell there isn't a problem, even with Accessibility add ons, which as you know is a major concern for Massachusetts.

    I've met plenty of people from Massachusetts. I can imagine the Accessibility add-ons would be crucial there.

  6. So how the hell do we get the plugin? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    No one posts a link?
    wtf is the point of posting something like this without a link?

    wtf good is a plugin if no one can get it...

    eesh

    1. Re:So how the hell do we get the plugin? by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Informative

      You're right, it's not useful. And for those wondering, the plugin is not yet availible for download (ref:Groklaw article).

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:So how the hell do we get the plugin? by dominator · · Score: 4, Informative
      From TFA:


      Authored by: gary.edwards (of the Open Document Foundation) on Thursday, May 04 2006 @ 04:15 AM EDT
      Don't bother hunting for a download. It's not available. The ODF Plugin came
      out of testing last week. I wish i could say we did this last night, but it's
      been at least a year in development.

      The first stop for the ODF Plugin will be Massachusetts, followed by the EU and
      California.
      ...
    3. Re:So how the hell do we get the plugin? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      That plugin only allows importing of OO.o documents into Word, at least AFAICT (I just installed it, I have office 2003.) It's precisely the opposite of what we're talking about here.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  7. This time with help from ODF, by towsonu2003 · · Score: 4, Funny
    Microsoft wins yet again:
    FTFA: So, to Microsoft: never mind. You don't need to lift a finger.
    1. Re:This time with help from ODF, by chill · · Score: 5, Informative

      Microsoft wins yet again.

      No, this is not correct.

      The Office division of Microsoft has long been one of their major profit centers. MS Office is also a bigger monopoly than Windows, having greater penetration in the market percentagewise. These facts stem from the ability to lock-in customers by holding their data hostage to a closed format.

      This plug-in is a door to the world of non-MS Office products -- a way out, if you will. Yes, other office-type products exist, but none of them have gained serious traction because of the perceived lack of totally compatibility with MS .doc and .xls. This one will solve the .doc issue and, if widely distributed, have two effects:

      1. It will increase the market share of non-MS Office products at the expense of MS Office;

      2. It will cause Microsoft to lower the price of MS Office to compete, thus lowering their profits on what is widely rumored to be their LARGEST profit center, Office.

        -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    2. Re:This time with help from ODF, by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      to Microsoft: never mind. You don't need to lift a finger.

      Yes, but not having a finger lifted was Microsoft's optimum strategy.

      If there is something your enemy would be a complete idiot to do, make them a gift of it. (This is where the phrase White Elephant comes from)

      Their hand has been prised from their cold, dead monopolistic format by interoperability. The issue is choice vs. monopoly, not my monopoly vs. their monopoly.

      Microsoft has been very publicly denouncing the move to ODF as a my monopoly vs. their monopoly issue. Not only does this blow that argument out of the water, it makes MS look like complete assholes in the process.

      KFG

  8. Let me see.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft built Word/Office with Plug-in support, did they not? In fact, they built their OS with every intention that other companies would offer services on their platform.

    This foundation has decided to do so.

    Kudos to them. They just proved that there is none of that so-called vendor lock-in.

    Sure, it takes effort, but if you can be bothered to do it, it pays off.

  9. Step program by jbeaupre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can you feel it? It's the tide of inevitibility.

    Why? The Catch 22 has been solved (we need MS vs. can't convert while using MS). And it's the bean counters that ultimately sway government decisions.

    1) Plugin will be installed on gov pc's
    2) Documents will be handled in ODF
    3) Gov bean counters will be suggesting to managers everywhere they can save $XXXX if they use OpenOffice instead of MS Office

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    1. Re:Step program by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Can you feel it? It's the tide of inevitibility

      There is more to building a successful office suite than a choice of formats for storage, output and exchange.

    2. Re:Step program by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A friend told me a little story that may apply here (forgive me if I mangle it):

      After losing the "look and feel" lawsuit, Jobs said to Gates "But it will never be as good as ours." To which Gates replied "I doesn't have to be."

      "Good enough" is pretty powerful. And whereas MS could bond things to windows to fend off free stuff like Netscape and many others, it will be very difficult (impossible?) to bundle MS office to fend off OpenOffice.

      For the record, I use MS Office. But I used to use Word Perfect. I just have a gut feeling that I'll be switching to OO someday.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  10. Why isn't this available to everyone? by IANAAC · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I'd be passing the plugin along to everyone I knew.

    Seriously. I don't use MSOffice all that much, but have to constantly exchange .doc, .xls, etc. formats all the time with other people. For the most part, OO.o saves in these formats and opens in Office fine, as intended. Sometimes it doesn't though. If I could save in ODF format and include a plugin with the document itself, I would think that would be far more helpful in getting people to at least look at open source, rather than just pointing them to OO.o and saying "Install this".

  11. Yeah but WHICH VERSION of office? by gentimjs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Office 97? Office XP? Office 2002? Office 2000? Office 2007? Forward-portable to future versions? I'm quite sure this is a good thing, but at the same time I'm quite sure it wont work well for many many MS Office users...

    1. Re:Yeah but WHICH VERSION of office? by Gat0r30y · · Score: 2, Informative

      FTFA: all versions of MS Office dating back to MS Office 97. RTFA!

      --
      Prediction: The real iPhone killer is going to be sex robots from Japan. Think about it.
    2. Re:Yeah but WHICH VERSION of office? by ratboy666 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Given that the plugins do not work at the file format level (at least of the MS formats), but at the level of normal MS Office integration, I would imagine that the plugin will work across most current MS Office versions.

      There are plenty of vendors that offer MS Office plugins that work across most versions, and the existence of these plugins is one of the reasons for the "MS Office lock-in". The plugins are NOT offered for other office suites (and this was one of MAs concerns; disability support plugins for MS Office that didn't translate well into other platforms).

      The existence of these plugins makes MS Office a platform instead of simply a program. This plugin simply allows continued use of the platform where needed; yet allows competing product and platforms to coexist.

      Note that conversion accuracy is no longer a concern: .doc &etc. files will be handled by the NATIVE application, and the ODF format is clearly defined. As long as ODF supports the feature set needed by the plugin (and, given the plugin can be made, it does), which must be reasonably feature complete, things will work.

      Now, the plugin layer MUST be (reasonably) feature complete -- simply because if it is NOT, other plugins would suffer badly (eg. screen reader wouldn't be able to determine formatting, thus rendering difficulty to blind users of MS Office).

      If you are paranoid about Microsoft, and think that the feature completeness of the plugin layer will or can be compromised -- that is very unlikely. Other plugins would also suffer, and government users would be forced to start looking at alternatives.

      The existence of this plugin means that an ecosystem with both Microsoft and alternate vendors can be supported. Which is a good thing. Previously, the only way to use .doc (officially) on many Unix platforms was to use the limited Microsoft viewer. So this is a very good development.

      I don't think it will hinder or improve MS Office sales at all, but it will make things possible that have been VERY difficult in the past.

      I will start seeding the plugin as soon as I can!

      Ratboy

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
  12. Smart Move by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Very smart move. It allows the office workers to continue as if nothing had changed, for the moment. But when M$ comes knocking and tries to sell them an upgrade to Office200x, the answer will be "if we have to upgrade anyways, as you have just elaborately shown, then we'll upgrade to OpenOffice, thank you".

    Especially if the new Office they release with Vista changes the interface considerably, and requires re-training anyways.

    Of course, the next Office update will break the plugin. It'll be a cold day in hell before M$ can let this stand unchallenged.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
  13. Open documents good by DesertWolf0132 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Currently my office runs on M$ Office 2k3. We could easily switch to OpenOffice save one luser who creates every one of his spreadsheets using M$ specific formatting that throws the OO conversion tool for a loop. I would switch the rest of us but we all have to be able to access his documents as he is the shop manager and he gets cranky when people don't read his crap. Had I been here when the network was set up in the first place this would be a M$ free shop as Linux has all of the tools these lusers need in a default workstation install. So I am going to sit here patiently waiting to move everyone to Linux immediately after we can get ODF translations for all of his crap. At least I can move the website to a Slack server soon (after I weed out the useless ASP code). IIS is killing me

    I am Microsoft Certified, which is why I use Linux.

    --
    No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
    Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
  14. Is there a blurb that one can post in the office? by bertramwooster · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hi,

    I work in a fairly technical group, but many of my colleagues are quite ignorant about the problems of using proprietary standards (e.g., office) in their day-to-day life. When Firefox was released, I put up the copy of the New York times ad in the lounge and people noticed. I wondered if there is a similar blurb for ODF (or OpenOffice). Now seems to be the ideal time to make people aware of the choice and alternatives.

    Is there a nice one-page (non-technical) write-up that clearly states why open standards (ODF) is better than closed standards controlled by evil monopolies (Microsoft's doc format)?

    Aravind.

  15. Re:Critical Update by sbrown123 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I see less of this but rather Microsoft doing one of two things:

    1) Embrace the plugin and create it as a standard feature of MS Office. Make sure this integration solution falls behind the standard and start including special Microsoft initiated ideas. When standards people complain about the new features, yell at them stating that the standard people are holding the product back from its true capabilities that customers keep demanding of Microsoft.

    2) Include a warning message when loading or saving documents to special plugins that they may include viruses, have missing features, or that data may be lost. If people complain, Microsoft will state that feature X in Word is not in the standard.

  16. Re:Brace for an [Office] upgrade by Dcnjoe60 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We should expect the following from Microsoft. Microsft are going to prepare a patch that will eventually disrupt the working of the plugin in all Office versions."

    Of course, if MA passed a statute stating that government agencies had to use open document formats, then if Microsoft to action to prohibit the plugin from functioning as you suggest, they would be eliminating Office from being suitable for use by state agencies. As such, it would not be in their best interest to take action to disable or hinder the plugin from working now that it is available.

    A much more likely scenario is that they will need to do everything possible to keep it working and others will also start to adopt the the plugin and the proprietary Microsoft format, while maybe the default in the software, will no longer be the default used by the people.

    Once that occurs, it will be much simpler for competing products to come to market (commercial or open source) and challenge Office. The competition might not be good for Microsoft, but will be for the consumer.

  17. Why this is important by maggard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    MS Word isn't going away, at least, not any time soon.

    My sweetheart works for a non-profit health agency in Massachusetts. Nearly all of his paperwork is in MS Word. Not that he has any particular feelings for or against MS Word, but because the Massachusetts Department of Public Health requires this.

    Nearly every grant application, mandated report, etc. must be in MS Word "doc" format. Not plain text, not HTML, not SGML or XML or anything else, MS Word "doc" format. If it's not in MS Word "doc" format the state won't accept it and your grant application won't be received, your mandated reports not accepted, etc.

    Sure other levels of state government are talking about adopting ODF, but that is just theory, until the state converts all of it's huge library of forms and applications, the paperwork that it all runs on, to something other then MS Word "doc", this is all theory. For that there will need to be a huge transition, and this sort of plugin is what can make it possible.

    In the meantime all of the elaborate integration many of us take for granted, and that there are islands of in the state, and pockets of in state contractors, affiliated agencies, and the huge range of state-government dependent organizations, will be able to continue using MS Word in their established workflows.

    Back to my sweetheart's agency, they do have a considerable investment in MS Word. Not just in licenses, they know MS Word. Their staff aren't computer geeks, indeed most of them only tolerate the crappy PCs they have now (running Windows 98) because they have to. But at least their fingers are trained to the keystrokes, they know the menu options, the more ambitious can even do a mail merge, lay out a flyer, etc.

    Yes readers of /. think nothing of staring at an unfamiliar screen and working out how to do something with it; for a case manager trying to find a spot in a detox program for a 65 year old homeless woman who wants to get clean that is just not a hassle they want. Therefore anything that eases adopting open formats is a huge benefit, and critical to the process being painless and positive.

    While many would like to hurt MS more of us really just want a level field and files that can be properly read a hundred years from now. Let applications and vendors come & go, lets at least have some durable file formats.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
  18. That New Office Interface by buckhead_buddy · · Score: 4, Informative
    Tom wrote:

    But when M$ comes knocking and tries to sell them an upgrade to Office200x, the answer will be "if we have to upgrade anyways, as you have just elaborately shown, then we'll upgrade to OpenOffice, thank you". Especially if the new Office they release with Vista changes the interface considerably, and requires re-training anyways.

    On the topic of Office 2007's user interface, the recent promotional movie published on the Microsoft web site seems like they're trying especially hard in this next release to be different for the sake of being different. So hard that some of their innovative ideas may prove better in concept than implementation. Here were some of my thoughts on this 12 minute video.

    • They've done away with cross-application familiarity by doing away with the menu bar. With one exception, they put everything in tab like toolbars at the top of the window called the "ribbon". The one exception is the Microsoft Office logo icon in the upper left corner of the screen that, when discovered you can click on, opens a menu with unimportant options like "Save" and "Open".
    • The "ribbon" has some sets of checkbox buttons (for settings like applying bold and italic styles) but mostly it's littered with icon popup buttons where your choice causes an action to happen. There's text labels on some buttons but text is minimized as much as possible including removing keyboard shortcuts. Perhaps they've been placed in the "tooltips".
    • Speaking of tooltips, the video touted that Microsoft has revolutionized tool tip technology by making them larger providing fuller explanations of what you're looking at. The demo looked suspiciously like Apple's horrible Balloon Help feature from System 7.1. This was useful for about the first five minutes of using an application but quickly became obtrusive and annoying. Unlike balloon help though, they they showed no way to turn these new "wordy" tool tips off.
    • Can't find which button you're looking for in the ribbon? That's probably because it's contextual. If you drop a photo into word, a special toolbar appears that gives you options you can only see if the photo is selected. Or rather, you must see if the photo is selected. Now we're looking at the days of 1998 with OpenDoc that promised to give you custom options for your web browser embedded in your MacDraw document: any accidental context selection or de-selection will drive you crazy looking for options that don't apply. Additionally you have duplicate options that would apply to all contexts, but in different places of the ribbon.
    • Big features like Footer, Header, and Cell Format have been reduced to action popup buttons with about a dozen Microsoft designed templates in each. There's an option for you to customize your header/footer/cell format, but that was apparently not demonstrated. Like the Microsoft clip art that came with Word For Windows I think you'll get pretty sick of seeing many of these templates pretty fast. Hopefully there's a way to add 3rd party templates instead of the Microsoft defaults, but the size of those popup menus just won't show more than a dozen or so options in a comprehensible way.
    • Changes from those popup action buttons happen automatically. You don't even have to select the option, just hover over it in the menu and the change happens automatically. The demonstration of previewing changes to typeface and typestyle just seems easy. Apart from performance issues. Apart from making concepts like style sheets even more abstract. Apart from accidental selection issues. But you can't see your whole document at once so your hip red and grey Microsoft excel template may look fine on the selection you can see, but look awful on a part you can't see. This isn't a new problem with the new office, but it easier than ever to do now.
    • They claim these new popup action icon buttons in the ribbon does away with the need for "Undo".
    1. Re:That New Office Interface by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your comments appear to be based merely on your observation of the demo, and a lot of (largely incorrect) assumptions.

      Undo, for example, is not gone. There are toolbar buttons in the "quickbar" by default next to the big round button you seem to dislike so much. It also doesn't "do away" with the need for undo, but it does significantly reduce it since most actions have live-previews that go away as soon as you move off it.

      The "shy" toolbar doesn't appear when you're typing, but rather when you make selections, so your hand is already on the mouse.

      There's actually a lot MORE text on the toolbar than there is today. A hell of a lot more, except when the visual image is what's important (such as with templates).

      I'm also pretty confused by your comment that the toolbar is "littered with icon popup buttons where your choice causes an action to happen". Isn't that precisely what "buttons" are supposed to do? Isn't that the purpose of a toolbar?

      Changes don't happen automatically. You have to select them (not obvious from the video, i'll admit). PREVIEW happens automatically, but is removed when you move off the button if you don't select it.

      Word is already contextual, so your arguments that the button won't be findable if it's not selected is pretty silly. Notice how the actions in the Table menu in word 2003 aren't usable if a table isn't selected.

      Also, keyboard shortcuts aren't removed, but rather follow the new style guidelines that they only appear when you press the alt key.

      You really should try and get ahold of a copy to try out before jumping to all these conclusions. You seem to be looking for reasons criticize it, and are inventing them wherever a demo doesn't explicty show you something.

    2. Re:That New Office Interface by Gorshkov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Many people still use Word97 and are perfectly happy with it and see absolutely no reason to upgrade. If Microsoft wants to introduce a new file format (Office XML) and a new interface at the same time, I see a huge opportunity for OpenOffice to pick up the ball.

      Word97? Let's be honest here, folks - 99.99999% of all "documents" are still standard memos & letters that except for the typefaces, don't look any different than they did in the 1980s when the IBM Selectric was the big thing, and CP/M was something that geeks couldn't wait to get their hands on.

      And those 99.99999% of all documents could STILL be generated just as efficiently on Wordstar under CP/M, on a Z80 with 64K of memory, as what it is today on a 3.2Ghz XP machine with 2 gig of memory the secretary plays solitaire on during her lunch hour.

    3. Re:That New Office Interface by twistedcubic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Do you think Clippy was the result of "usability testing"?

  19. Re:"MA" is a postal code, but... by analog_line · · Score: 2, Funny

    In a conversation concerning the requirement of systems to use standards in order to be conisidered acceptable, it helps to not counter your entire culture by declaring unilaterally that you choose to ignore your own mandated standards.

    You're not from Massachussetts, are you. We invented the gerrymander here for goodness sake.

  20. Re:"The job's not done..." by Software · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Well, you can imagine it, but I rather doubt it's going to happen. The plug-in interfaces are fairly stable, and MS is not going to change them and break compatibility with one plugin out of spite. There are a lot of third-party providers of Office plugins, and MS doesn't want to annoy them.

    I know that MS has done similar things in the past (DR-DOS comes to mind), but usually that's only when a) they have a technically plausible reason for it and b) they think they can get away with it. This issue is too much in the public eye.

  21. Why MS should have supported ODF by Rob+Y. · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not only does this plugin allow MS Office users to use ODF, it does it with their existing MS Office licenses. Microsoft's OpenXML would have required an Office upgrade in order to achieve interoperability. And if they had implemented ODF in the upcoming Office release, this plugin probably wouldn't have been written, so again, you'd have needed to buy an Office upgrade to play.

    Now there's interoperability with no revenue stream for Microsoft. Nice going, MS.

    --
    Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
  22. MS will worry.... by Mariner28 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    If you bother to read the Groklaw article, you'll note that the ODF plugin supports Word, Excel and PowerPoint. I.e., you can save to an ODF format from each of the three. I assume Access will be forthcoming in a later release.

    Now can you see why they've bolted down all the furniture in the executive suite in Redmond? That's another three shackles coming off. Freedom of choice is within reach.

    And for all you die-hard MS fans that live in Massachusetts: You might want to download the plug-in anyway. At least in the future you'll be able to read newly archived ODF-formatted documents. Save them as .doc, .xls, or .ppt files if you want. And if you want to pay for the privelege of upgrading to Vista and Vista Office some time in the future, go ahead. I'd rather get off that high-speed carousel and upgrade on my terms, not some vendor's...

    --
    "A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
  23. Re:Never an 'either-or' situation by jjo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please post a quote where a Massachusetts official posed this as an either-or, Microsoft-vs-ODF situation. Random 'OOo advocates' may have posted some anti-MS rants, but that's irrelevant.

    If you truly believe that Microsoft will actually release enough of a specification, and actually adhere to that specification, enough to eliminate "lock-in", then God bless you.

  24. Re:DMCA by amliebsch · · Score: 3, Informative
    BULLSHIT!!! The DMCA makes it a felony (25 year in prison!) for me to play a DVD I bought on Linux.

    You own the DVD. You do not own the copyright on the DVD. Therefore CSS is a system for protecting a copyright that you do not own.

    --
    If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.