Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Changes Office 2007 Interface Again
daria42 writes "Microsoft has modified its interface for Office 2007 yet again, after complaints from beta testers that the 'ribbon' system took up too much space on screen. The article discusses the resistance the new interface is likely to prompt in old users of the software, both at a personal and corporate level. From a format perspective, there are other changes to expect as well." From the article: "Hodgson also confirmed that Microsoft is working on tools to help enterprises automatically translate existing documents into new file formats being introduced in Office 2007. 'We've been asked by a lot of customers to provide tools to do mass migrations,' he said. 'There will be tools that will take a million documents and migrate those to the new formats.' One likely incentive for that migration will be reduced storage costs. Microsoft claims that file sizes for the new Office 2007 XML-based formats are up to 75 percent less than existing Office formats."
Are these new changes happening out of some desire to resemble the old Windows software as little as possible? Is there some kind of necessity to change the interface? Does it need a complete overhaul?
I'm sure lots of people are gonna respond to that with a resounding "YES", but I personally have gotten used to what it is. It took me years to learn the ins and outs of Office after computers stopped coming bundled with MS Word. Even now, I've done away with that side-by-side view in Outlook 2003 and moved everything back to the same way it was in 2000. This goes the same for most other programs which throw in an abundance of menus and graphics to try to make things TOO user friendly. Nine times out of ten, if there is an option for the "traditional view", I'll take it.
I dunno, maybe I'm just living in the past. I still use vi on Linux, I still use Notepad in windows whenever I can, and I don't feel any desire to get used to any "ribbons" flying across my screen.
--
"A man is asked if he is wise or not. He replies that he is otherwise." ~Mao Zedong
Capitalism: When it uses the carrot, it's called democracy. When it uses the stick, it's called fascism.
Judging from past conversions, you'd better keep the original version close at hand, because when the conversion doesn't look right, you're going to have people wanting the original. So now you're dealing with 25% more storage - the original files as a safety copy, and the new 'improved' conversions. Hmmm.
I'm a little disappointed to read that MS is changing the ribbon system. Maybe it's because I run at 1280x1024 at home and at work, but I absolutely adore the ribbon system. As rarely as I feel that it takes up too much space, I can always double-click the tabbed heading to minimize it until I click a heading again. I found the admittedly oversized ribbon to be welcoming and easy to read and click. I wish all the Office 2007 programs used it, but some (like Outlook, Visio, and Infopath) keep with the pulldown bar.
.DOC will remain the default file format until, I estimate, at least 2010, unless MS makes a .DOCX interpreter for prior iterations.
I've been using Word for about 10 years and have come to know its little foibles and workarounds and sub-sub-sub menus. That being said, the SECOND time I used Word 2007 I was able to teach others how to use it! It's an absolute triumph of GUI design and I'm really enthusiastic about its final release. I'm also dreading the coming of February when my free beta expires and becomes unusable.
And on the topic of mass migration - don't go nuts with that, Microsoft. Even if a company wants to implement Office 2007 among its entire ranks, interoperability with other shops who will be reluctant to upgrade (due to cost of licensing and training) will mean that
Of course the reason they're pushing this document converter to save all this space (who else reckons any savings aren't even gonna approach 70%!) is to get as many documents as possible into Office XML format to gain as much "traction" as possible for said format....although I think "traction" is a word more appropriately used in the context of an enormous slow-moving vehicle mired in mud...maybe not so inappropriate after all.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
That article is hilarious. You gain a whole 28 pixels because they removed the left-hand document ruler. C'mon.
Monitors are wider these days. It's vertical screen real-estate that users will notice more. At least in the old Office versions, I can completely remove toolbars or combine the ones I use into one custom toolbar. The ribbon still bugs me, and making it an auto-hide just adds a step to typical usage.
Nothing was really "broken" about the old system, it just needed more consistency and easier configurability. Changing to a completely new and unproven design just increases training costs for businesses and slows adoption of their new version.
I really hate the UI changes in each version of Office and wish there was a "classic" setting that causes a default skin to be displayed with everything in a standardized spot. Why? Because when my mother/sister/neighbour's cat purchases a new computer it inevitably comes with a new version of Office that has features senselessly 'hidden' in different spots. It causes no end of agony to help these poor users adapt. After all, most people need little more than a glorified typewriter with spell-checking. Microsoft should offer "Office Extrasimple Basic" for folks like these.
Of course, they'd market it in a way that encouraged people to upgrade "just in case they need the ability to do something powerful."
This is what I've always said about people's reluctance to switch to Linux; it's not that software isn't as good for most users, it's that it's simply not what they're used to.
Many people claim to be sick of MS and the intrusiveness and high costs of being legal, but when they try Linux they complain that it's not Microsoft.
Well, now it looks like, with this new Ribbon thing, users will complain because, according to the article, there will be inconsistency between MS applications - some will have the ribbon, some won't.
It's not even whether or not the ribbon is a bad thing, it's that people don't like learning new things.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Six other words:
Vendor lock-in, Vendor lock-in, Vendor lock-in
As bad as DOC is, at least it's been reverse engineered to death and is compatible with the bulk of most modern word processors.
In any given hour of work in Word or Excel, do you know how often I use menus, buttons or anything outside the actual document/worksheet space? Maybe once or twice for Word, maybe only a little more for Excel. The reason? Shortcuts, people, shortcuts.
How office-monkeys can sit in their Dell Hells day after day, doing the same crap over and over again, without learning
a) to touch type and
b) how to do things a bit quicker and easier with the keyboard
is absolutely beyond me.
What do I need from my UI? Leave it as it is. I have exactly two toolbars in either Word or Excel, and use a fraction of each (if I'm that concerned about screen space, I'll customise more carefully). Anything beyond my capabilities with keyboard and the odd button, I will happily use a menu for. Anyone who tells me how much easier and more intuitive Ribbons are to use, I say this: I've tried it, and I found them exactly as useful as the current UI, ie not at all.
No, this is not a "I don't need no stinkin' upgrades" rant. This is a "For God's sake, people, learn to use the tools you have properly and you'll work quicker, easier and not give a damn about this either" tirade.
Meta will eat itself
I would agree with your moderation of my comment if it was directed with a generally Microsoft-bashing slant. But that's not the case. I use Office both in my personal and professional lives, and it's basically one of those software packages I cannot function without due to professional requirements. It does its job very, very well.
What it hasn't done is give anyone any compelling reasons to upgrade. Someone needs to explain precisely how this "ribbon" feature adds value. What does it say about the product as a whole when it's THE most talked-about aspect of the new version? Is the product so stagnant that the only way to get people to eye it as a purchase is to shuffle around the UI a bit?
That's what I was trying to point out, and hopefully spur some discussion about. That's NOT flamebaiting.
"I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar."
-Hoban Washburn
Which is exactly why they changed document format.
This isn't exactly on topic, but what I noticed from those screen shots (in the parent's link) was that M$ actually bothers to make their programs sexy. I mean really, don't you wish OpenOffice looked a little more like your shiny new OS instead of looking like Office 97? (Don't mod me troll.. I use OO)