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."

20 of 300 comments (clear)

  1. Call me old fashion... by ExE122 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Call me old fashion... by Anonymous+Conrad · · Score: 4, Informative
      I don't feel any desire to get used to any "ribbons" flying across my screen.
      It's just a tabbed large-icon toolbar. It's nothing to fear.

      It's actually very usable when you've learned your way around it (e.g. to edit the header and footer in word you go to the 'insert' tab in Word - hmm?) and many of the old key commands still work, e.g. ALT-E S for 'paste special'. But not in Outlook, bah.
    2. Re:Call me old fashion... by teslar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I suppose this means you would also throw power steering, anti-lock braking systems, traction control and so on out of your car because you like it the traditional way.
      You know, there is a chance that his thing might actually make your life a lot more comfortable...
      Granted, this is Microsoft, so you'd have a point if you said "not very likely", but you should at least give it a try :)

      Using vi isn't a good example of living in the past btw. It may be hideous and horrible and I certainly wouldn't go anywhere near it, but if you know how to use it properly, it's pretty damn useful and will remain so for many years to come.
      Notepad on the other hand... has it even learned to do syntax highlighting yet? ;)

    3. Re:Call me old fashion... by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ask anyone off the street and they'll tell you that "computers are hard to use". The problem isn't the user interface, however, but the fact that it keeps changing. A huge number of people out there learn how to use computers by rote: they click this, select that, and double-click such-and-such to get something done. But nearly every major revision of MS Windows (and to a lesser extent MS Office) has changed these things. Win3x's Program Manager was replaced by Win9x's Start Menu. Win98's Network Neighborhood got renamed to WinME's My Network Places. Win9x's My Computer was moved from the desktop onto a WinXP Start menu that changes from one session to the next. Somewhere along the way, the menus started hiding options from people, making them harder to find. Now Microsoft's taking one of the few things that has remained fairly dependable over the years (predictable pull-down menus along the top of the window), and is now renaming them, hiding them, etc. Is is any wonder that people find this stuff baffling?

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Call me old fashion... by Lumpy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      call me more old fashoned...

      I dont care about the interface, I am worried about the new slew of "helpers" they put in there that will do what you dont want them to do, change your formatting, start a bulleted list when you dont want to, "help you" because you are not doing it the microsoft way, etc...

      Personally, a word processor that has NO features is perfect. put on the screen EXACTLY what I type, dont screw with my margins, dont adjust my tabstops, etc... Fun part is they make it intentionally hard to disable all that useless crap.

      I guarentee that Office 2007 will come with twice the amount of that garbage in it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:Call me old fashion... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The user interface to power steering is just the same as ordinary steering - you turn the wheel. The interface to use antilock brakes isn't any more complicated than old-fashioned breaks. Traction control 'just works'; you don't have to fiddle with settings for it to help.

      I guess these are examples of the ideal way to improve things: you don't have to relearn anything to use the improvement, it's just magically better. A shame that so few software improvements follow this path. I guess improved font rendering, faster speed, or better reliability are examples.

      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
    6. Re:Call me old fashion... by Ed+Avis · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Are these new changes happening out of some desire to resemble the old Windows software as little as possible?
      Well, yes. It has long been a pastime among Microsoft's Office team to reinvent the wheel rather than using the standard Windows GUI controls. Perhaps the changes introduced in Office get adopted in the next version of Windows (for example the shaded gradient on title bars), perhaps not.

      The silly thing is that you end up with a mixture of software using different widget styles since the style of menu to display seems to be burned into the executable. Some apps will have old Windows-style grey menu bars, some will have Office 2003 white menus with dropdown shadows, others the slightly different style used in Office 2002, some draggable and some fixed, but they're all doing the same thing. Even a stock installation of Windows with no third-party apps has different styles for window borders between, say, Control Panel and Command Prompt. Surely the sane way to do things is to have a standard Windows interface for 'please make a menu bar', and then when an innovation like draggable menus or hiding unused menu items comes up, it can apply to all applications consistently. Unfortunately I fear that the Win32 API is too low-level for something like that to work.

      (NB I'm not implying that the free software world is any better; historically Unix desktops have been far worse than Windows for lacking a consistent look and feel between applications. It's improving, and distributions like Ubuntu are doing sterling work in trying to harmonize look and feel between programs written with different toolkits. At least a Linux system has only one copy of (say) GTK 2.x installed, so when the GTK appearance changes all the 'g' programs remain consistent.)

      Some suggest that for Microsoft, the inconsistency in appearance is deliberate. Once you have the new Office 2000+x installed, applications from year x-1 start to look a bit out of date in comparison. You need to upgrade. Get a new version of Windows and your old Office version isn't quite right any more; you get a slightly dirty feeling using such old software that doesn't quite fit with the rest of the desktop; best to go and buy the latest one just to be on the safe side. You can compare this with the car market where styling changes are made from one year to the next to help make the old model look old-fashioned and encourage buyers to trade up.
      --
      -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  2. No pics by Life700MB · · Score: 4, Informative


    Articles about GUI's without images make baby Jesus cry. Google gives these as the old design, hope it helps.

    --
    Superb hosting 20GB Storage, 1_TB_ bandwidth, php, mysql, ssh, $7.95

    1. Re:No pics by amliebsch · · Score: 4, Informative

      Having RTFA, it appears that the "new" GUI is exactly the same, except you can set it to auto-hide, like you can with the system task bar. Why this is front-page news is a mystery to me.

      NEWS ALERT! BETA SOFTWARE MAKES MINOR INTERFACE CHANGE! FILM AT 11!

      --
      If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
  3. Hmm... by tttonyyy · · Score: 5, Funny
    "Microsoft claims that file sizes for the new Office 2007 XML-based formats are up to 75 percent less than existing Office formats."

    Presumably to make up for the >33% increase in the size of their new software? :)

    --
    biopowered.co.uk - catalytically cracking triglycerides for home automotive use since 2008. Just say no to big oil!
  4. Re:75% smaller file formats! by Anonymous+Conrad · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well there's a bit of junk in the OLE serialisation format but not a lot.

    The new formats are zipped by default. The zip files do contain the data as XML rather than a binary format which must be a small loss but it's gained back by zipping them.

  5. Reduced Storage Costs by sam1am · · Score: 4, Insightful
    One likely incentive for that migration will be reduced storage costs
    Yeah, but storage costs for office documents are so low in the grand scheme of things anyways. Storage is cheap. (Especially for us - we deal with extremely large quantities of HD video each day - our perspective may be affected by this)

    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.
  6. Tie a ribbon around me - I'm hooked by spyrochaete · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    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 .DOC will remain the default file format until, I estimate, at least 2010, unless MS makes a .DOCX interpreter for prior iterations.

  7. Re:Too much room? by wizbit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  8. XML FTW (WTF) by dsandler · · Score: 5, Funny
    Microsoft claims that file sizes for the new Office 2007 XML-based formats are up to 75 percent less than existing Office formats.
    ...thus marking the first time that using XML ever made any data representation more compact.
  9. Re:What about the bloat? by Chaffar · · Score: 4, Insightful
    While earlier versions of Office would run just fine on computers with 800 to 1000 MHz processors, and 256 MB of RAM, this appears not to be the case with Office 2007.
    Do people realize just how obscene these kinds of specs are? For a friggin' word processor? Word processors existed in the 80's, and believe me they didn't have 256 MB on their hard disks, let alone 256 MB or RAM. I understand that they have added x,y and z features since (hurray for Clippy)... but I remember running a version of Office FULL of bloat on my P3 500Mhz that ran properly. How much crap have they added since to slow it down like this ? And this is not a problem that only concerns MS... even Open Office is insanely slow. What's the deal?
  10. Re:A million documents? by g2devi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. Ribbons, menus... seriously, c'mon by tygerstripes · · Score: 4, Insightful
    As a 'dumb' Office user (apart from my other work, I have to slog away with Word & Excel a lot of the time, as mandated by the Board Room in the Sky), I have to ask: what difference does it make??

    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
  12. Re:A million documents? by kilgortrout · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Which is exactly why they changed document format.

  13. Google Video of new UI by foniksonik · · Score: 4, Informative
    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.