I rarely use New Item, but here's why I occasionally do:
Sometimes I'm working in a folder that contains all the files for a project. And now I want to make a new file.
Yes, I could open Word/Excel/Whatever and then Save, and navigate allllll the way to wherever my project folder is.
Or, I could New Item, select Word/Excel/Whatever, name it, and go right to working on it. This saves the time of re-navigating the path to the folder I was already staring at.
The "AutoFit" feature is located in the giant Format menu on the ribbon, in the Cells group.
It's no more difficult than finding it in the Format menu, then Column, then AutoFit, back in Excel 2003.
Besides, most people just double-click on the column divider anyway, which is why this feature probably didn't get top billing. If it were more-commonly used, it would have.
You mention that the icons move around when your screen is resized, but how often do regular users do this? Studies show that most users run Office apps in maximized mode.
And even if they do move things around, this is still better than Office 2003's toolbars which had to truncate icons that didn't fit into the chevron menu which everyone hates.
And, Copy as Picture is in the Copy menu, not Paste. Though it is *next to* Paste, it's very clearly a little pull-down menu next to Copy.
There exists precisely what you're describing as a free add-on, by Microsoft.
You click into the text box (which is added to the ribbon or Quick Access Toolbar), start typing, and the entire ribbon starts to filter based on your typing. It even understands synonyms for commands, too (typing "search" will show you the Find command).
And, it also shows you where that command was hiding, and its shortcut key, in case you want to find it directly later.
Unfortunately, the plug-in's name escapes me at the moment. But I'm sure you could find it at office.microsoft.com.
Surely you know that the Ribbon is more consistent in feature locations than the old menu and toolbars were in prior versions of Office.
For example, to insert a page header in Word 2003 you would use the View menu, then Header/Footer. In Excel, you would use the File menu, then Page Setup. In Word 2007 and Excel 2007, you go to Insert, then Header/Footer.
How is running your eye "down a menu" any different than running your eye "across a ribbon"?
And if you tell me that the Ribbon has multiple tabs, may I remind you that most UIs have multiple menus?
And if you prefer a toolbar over both, then may I suggest the Quick Access Toolbar which is easily customized in Office 2007/2010?
Common functions may be on different ribbon tabs, but 95% of what most users do is on the Home tab. This is supported by telemetry evidence. Add to that that the rest of the commands are organized by task, and you end up with less mouse-clicking than before.
Add to that the ease of discovery of new features due to the ribbon, and you get a lot of happy users.
It's my profession to train people on Microsoft Office. People who attend my classes on Office 2007/2010 accomplish more than those who attend Office 2003 classes because of the improved interface.
No. You hover over ANY ribbon icon and the pop-up tells you:
1) The name of the icon
2) Its shortcut key (if there is one)
3) What it does
4) A picture of what it does (for some features)
If there are commands that you use frequently in tabs other than Home, consider adding them to the Quick Access Toolbar. Just right-click on the icon and you're there.
Being tagged in a comment trumps any privacy settings that the poster selected.
If Andy metions Bob in a post, and sets the post so that everyone can see it except Bob, even if Andy and Bob are not friends, Bob will see it because he is tagged in it.
Beging tagged in a comment trumps any privacy settings that the poster selected.
If Andy metions Bob in a post, and sets the post so that everyone can see it except Bob, even if Andy and Bob are not friends, Bob will see it because he is tagged in it.
As soon as Bob untags himself, he can no longer see it. It will remain on Andy's profile, but no longer linked to Bob.
And at that point, it's no different than anything else on the internet.
While you're wrong that I lack reading comprehension (and thank you for that baseless libel spewage), you're right that friends of the jerk could still see the image that I was tagged in.
And so what?
People have been able to post images of people, and say things, since the beginning of the internet.
How does this relate to privacy? And how would you propose Facebook stop it?
The new Privacy Controls are very easy to figure out. Just click "Account" and "Privacy".
You get a few menus, like Tagging, Apps, Block Lists, etc. Each one brings up very simple menu items each with a description.
If you click on the one for tags, you can easily require your own approval for anyone that tags you. You can also set who is allowed to see items that you're tagged in (everyone, friends of friends, just friends, or a custom list of people).
And here's the best part: even if you have the tag approval feature turned off, anyone who tags you that is not currently a friend will ALWAYS require your approval before the tag is published.
So the only way the OP situation is correct is if 1) you are already friends with the jerk who posted the photo, 2) you manually approve the tag OR you have the setting set so that you trust all your friends, and 3) the person looking at the photo is allowed to see the photo based on your preference for tagged content (and "everyone" is not the default).
Many here will be interested in Camp Quest. They offer a secular experience for kids of ages 8-17. The curriculum includes freethought, Humanism, scientific method and peer review, skeptism, etc... plus all the traditional camp stuff like archery, swimming, hiking, arts and crafts, and songs.
There are 10 locations in the United States, and three overseas.
I don't know about that. They've also made great strides in removing clutter from their interface. There are features that only appear when you mouse-over them, "submit" buttons can be turned off, there are fewer page refreshes and "endless scrolling" is enabled on many pages, etc.
For all that Facebook does, I think it's a pretty simple interface.
I am a Vine Reviewer, so of course you'll take this post with a grain of salt.
Just because the product is free, doesn't mean the system is rigged. In fact, I think one could easily argue that reviews from "professional" journalists/reviewers are far more prone to being rigged. After all, if they don't write positive reviews, the manufacturer can simply choose to not give them a product for review.
With Amazon Vine, I'm a "normal person" who doesn't write reviews for a living. The manufacturer does not get to choose who reviews their product. They do get to request demographics (for example age, technical affluency, interests, etc), so that someone who is familiar with PhotoShop might get to review a competing product -- rather than Grandma Gayle who can barely turn on her computer.
The Vine contract specifies that neither Amazon nor the manufacturer will remove the review unless it contains profanity, no matter if it is positive or negative. And, manufacturers cannot request their product be reviewed only by people with positive reviews. They're taking a chance.
I've reviewed about 50 items for Vine, ranging from soft drinks to luggage to a $400 unlocked Nokia smartphone. I'd say most of my reviews got a 3 or 4. (If you're curious, the $400 Smartphone got 2 stars.)
The only bias is that I didn't pay for the product I am reviewing. So, if one paid $400 for a crappy cell phone, one might give it a lower rating than if they got it for free. I don't think that's the case with most reviews, however. I know that when I review an item, I consider it's retail price against its value.
Let's also remember that every Vine review is clearly labeled as such. If one wanted to ignore them, they could.
Slashdot Mirror
Complete a Mail Merge in 2003 and 2007 (or 2010) and tell me which was easier and faster.
Or insert a Table of Contents using both versions.
Or work with Indexes, Footnotes, or other references.
Or go into Excel and customize a chart.
Do any of these things in 2007 (or 2010) and try them in 2003, and you'll quickly see the benefit of the Ribbon.
Probably not. Applications where you tend to consume content don't have the ribbon. This is true of Notepad, Explorer, Media Player*, etc.
But applications where the user is likely to create content, in a variety of ways, have ribbons.
* Except for the portion of the screen where you are working with playlists.
I rarely use New Item, but here's why I occasionally do:
Sometimes I'm working in a folder that contains all the files for a project. And now I want to make a new file.
Yes, I could open Word/Excel/Whatever and then Save, and navigate allllll the way to wherever my project folder is.
Or, I could New Item, select Word/Excel/Whatever, name it, and go right to working on it. This saves the time of re-navigating the path to the folder I was already staring at.
You can hit the [Backspace] key to go "Up".
You've got to be kidding me.
When you *HOVER YOUR MOUSE* over a feature in the ribbon, it tells you the shortcut key (if there is one).
The Alt-X-Y feature that the parent is referring to is only necessary if the feature has no dedicated shortcut key.
The "AutoFit" feature is located in the giant Format menu on the ribbon, in the Cells group.
It's no more difficult than finding it in the Format menu, then Column, then AutoFit, back in Excel 2003.
Besides, most people just double-click on the column divider anyway, which is why this feature probably didn't get top billing. If it were more-commonly used, it would have.
You mention that the icons move around when your screen is resized, but how often do regular users do this? Studies show that most users run Office apps in maximized mode.
And even if they do move things around, this is still better than Office 2003's toolbars which had to truncate icons that didn't fit into the chevron menu which everyone hates.
And, Copy as Picture is in the Copy menu, not Paste. Though it is *next to* Paste, it's very clearly a little pull-down menu next to Copy.
In the References tab, you click on the Footnotes dialog button. It's the little arrow right next to the word "Footnotes".
Granted it's not as prominent as the giant "Insert Footnote" button, but 90% of users don't need funky footnotes.
There exists precisely what you're describing as a free add-on, by Microsoft.
You click into the text box (which is added to the ribbon or Quick Access Toolbar), start typing, and the entire ribbon starts to filter based on your typing. It even understands synonyms for commands, too (typing "search" will show you the Find command).
And, it also shows you where that command was hiding, and its shortcut key, in case you want to find it directly later.
Unfortunately, the plug-in's name escapes me at the moment. But I'm sure you could find it at office.microsoft.com.
Surely you know that the Ribbon is more consistent in feature locations than the old menu and toolbars were in prior versions of Office.
For example, to insert a page header in Word 2003 you would use the View menu, then Header/Footer. In Excel, you would use the File menu, then Page Setup. In Word 2007 and Excel 2007, you go to Insert, then Header/Footer.
And how does it "fuck up text editing"?
How is running your eye "down a menu" any different than running your eye "across a ribbon"?
And if you tell me that the Ribbon has multiple tabs, may I remind you that most UIs have multiple menus?
And if you prefer a toolbar over both, then may I suggest the Quick Access Toolbar which is easily customized in Office 2007/2010?
Common functions may be on different ribbon tabs, but 95% of what most users do is on the Home tab. This is supported by telemetry evidence. Add to that that the rest of the commands are organized by task, and you end up with less mouse-clicking than before.
Add to that the ease of discovery of new features due to the ribbon, and you get a lot of happy users.
It's my profession to train people on Microsoft Office. People who attend my classes on Office 2007/2010 accomplish more than those who attend Office 2003 classes because of the improved interface.
No. You hover over ANY ribbon icon and the pop-up tells you:
1) The name of the icon
2) Its shortcut key (if there is one)
3) What it does
4) A picture of what it does (for some features)
Try it next time you're in MS Word 2007/2010.
Find is, and always has been, Control+F.
Control+H is, and always has been, the shortcut for Replace.
Your shortcut keys haven't changed, save for a few exceptions which nearly no one used. I promise that you didn't either.
Then they added all of the Alt+Letter shortcut keys so that EVERY command on the ribbon now has a shortcut.
As for height, unless you've eliminated all but one row of toolbar icons, the Ribbon is no taller than what we had before with menus and toolbars.
If there are commands that you use frequently in tabs other than Home, consider adding them to the Quick Access Toolbar. Just right-click on the icon and you're there.
The article is wrong.
Being tagged in a comment trumps any privacy settings that the poster selected.
If Andy metions Bob in a post, and sets the post so that everyone can see it except Bob, even if Andy and Bob are not friends, Bob will see it because he is tagged in it.
Beging tagged in a comment trumps any privacy settings that the poster selected.
If Andy metions Bob in a post, and sets the post so that everyone can see it except Bob, even if Andy and Bob are not friends, Bob will see it because he is tagged in it.
As soon as Bob untags himself, he can no longer see it. It will remain on Andy's profile, but no longer linked to Bob.
And at that point, it's no different than anything else on the internet.
How is this any different from going on ANY social network and saying "Bob sucks"?
Yes, all of your friends will see it, and some of those will be Bob's friends. And yes, you can even hide the statement from Bob.
And yes, maybe it's even a photo of Bob doing something he shouldn't be.
But again, how is this any different from Google+ or WordPress or even Slashdot?
Wow dude, really?
My point is that Facebook has done what they reasonably can to eliminate this as a privacy matter unique to their network.
But hey, I'm sucking up your air now... so I'll just shut up and kill myself. My bad.
While you're wrong that I lack reading comprehension (and thank you for that baseless libel spewage), you're right that friends of the jerk could still see the image that I was tagged in.
And so what?
People have been able to post images of people, and say things, since the beginning of the internet.
How does this relate to privacy? And how would you propose Facebook stop it?
This post is completely wrong. Here's why:
The new Privacy Controls are very easy to figure out. Just click "Account" and "Privacy".
You get a few menus, like Tagging, Apps, Block Lists, etc. Each one brings up very simple menu items each with a description.
If you click on the one for tags, you can easily require your own approval for anyone that tags you. You can also set who is allowed to see items that you're tagged in (everyone, friends of friends, just friends, or a custom list of people).
And here's the best part: even if you have the tag approval feature turned off, anyone who tags you that is not currently a friend will ALWAYS require your approval before the tag is published.
So the only way the OP situation is correct is if 1) you are already friends with the jerk who posted the photo, 2) you manually approve the tag OR you have the setting set so that you trust all your friends, and 3) the person looking at the photo is allowed to see the photo based on your preference for tagged content (and "everyone" is not the default).
Many here will be interested in Camp Quest. They offer a secular experience for kids of ages 8-17. The curriculum includes freethought, Humanism, scientific method and peer review, skeptism, etc... plus all the traditional camp stuff like archery, swimming, hiking, arts and crafts, and songs.
There are 10 locations in the United States, and three overseas.
http://www.campquest.org/
It was Hulu's data that was exposed to the wrong Hulu users, not Facebook data.
This was made clear in the first paragraph of TFA.
It was Hulu's data that was exposed to the wrong Hulu users, not Facebook data.
This was made clear in the first paragraph of TFA.
So how is that Facebook's fault? Hate much?
I don't know about that. They've also made great strides in removing clutter from their interface. There are features that only appear when you mouse-over them, "submit" buttons can be turned off, there are fewer page refreshes and "endless scrolling" is enabled on many pages, etc.
For all that Facebook does, I think it's a pretty simple interface.
I am a Vine Reviewer, so of course you'll take this post with a grain of salt.
Just because the product is free, doesn't mean the system is rigged. In fact, I think one could easily argue that reviews from "professional" journalists/reviewers are far more prone to being rigged. After all, if they don't write positive reviews, the manufacturer can simply choose to not give them a product for review.
With Amazon Vine, I'm a "normal person" who doesn't write reviews for a living. The manufacturer does not get to choose who reviews their product. They do get to request demographics (for example age, technical affluency, interests, etc), so that someone who is familiar with PhotoShop might get to review a competing product -- rather than Grandma Gayle who can barely turn on her computer.
The Vine contract specifies that neither Amazon nor the manufacturer will remove the review unless it contains profanity, no matter if it is positive or negative. And, manufacturers cannot request their product be reviewed only by people with positive reviews. They're taking a chance.
I've reviewed about 50 items for Vine, ranging from soft drinks to luggage to a $400 unlocked Nokia smartphone. I'd say most of my reviews got a 3 or 4. (If you're curious, the $400 Smartphone got 2 stars.)
The only bias is that I didn't pay for the product I am reviewing. So, if one paid $400 for a crappy cell phone, one might give it a lower rating than if they got it for free. I don't think that's the case with most reviews, however. I know that when I review an item, I consider it's retail price against its value.
Let's also remember that every Vine review is clearly labeled as such. If one wanted to ignore them, they could.
It's not an issue of preventing them from making the purchase. People are capable of speeding in their cars down the highway.
But they can make it illegal to use the iPad name in a promotion without concent. And that, if the small bank gets caught, is where the issue lies.