Office 12 Controls
-
Luis Alonso Ramos wrote:
he basic reason why the ribbon was invented is that the Office apps were growing way too big in features,
So why not reduce or restructure the feature set? Why not shift some of the features to another application or applet? Maybe it should have occured to them that if they had too many features, that the feature list weas the problem, not the menu bar! So instead of resolving the issue of "do we have the appropriate number of features for this app", we just skipped right ahead to "Hey lets just apply a totally different paint job!". To my mind that just seems like sloppy work. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
But what features do you cut? Even if users use on average only 20% of Excel features, with 500 million users, not everyone's 20% is the same. I don't think cutting features with such a huge user base is possible. What they effectively have done is reorganize those features into major features, with specific (or contextual) options only appearing when they can be actually used (In Word you always have the Table menu, even if your document doesn't have tables.)
Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix Chihuahua, Mexico
Not much here: My CP Blog!
-
Judah Himango wrote:
Even for more sophisticated, professional users, a polished UI is nothing to scoff at.
A polished UI doens't necessarily mean eye-candy. It doesn't mean having 1200 different damn gradients, or a bazillions different color schemes all over the place, that, by the way, don't fit in with the rest of windowing system either. That's a product that's being driven by developers anxious to try out new whiz bang graphics code. A polished UI should make it easy for the user to accomplish their tasks, in the least amount of time, with the least hassle, and the least interference and distractions from the app (yes I'm talkin' bout you Clippy). It should *also* be aesthetically pleasing, but that's not the only deciding factor. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote:
A polished UI doens't necessarily mean eye-candy. It doesn't mean having 1200 different damn gradients, or a bazillions different color schemes all over the place
I agree. I would also add that "aesthetically pleasing" apps are not 256 color apps with Windows 95-esque mono solids. X| A polished UI includes eye candy. Eye candy is something that looks nice. If your UI works well, great. But if looks like crap, its going to be unattractived and used less, due to the negative impression it leaves on your users.
-
But what features do you cut? Even if users use on average only 20% of Excel features, with 500 million users, not everyone's 20% is the same. I don't think cutting features with such a huge user base is possible. What they effectively have done is reorganize those features into major features, with specific (or contextual) options only appearing when they can be actually used (In Word you always have the Table menu, even if your document doesn't have tables.)
Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix Chihuahua, Mexico
Not much here: My CP Blog!
Well I didn't say it was easy :) I have a suspicion though that there are a number of features in Excel, or Word, that could be cut pretty easily. What they are I couldn't tell you at the moment because I don't it that much. Also, like I said, maybe it's not a matter of *cutting* feature, as much as it is moving them to a different application?
Luis Alonso Ramos wrote:
What they effectively have done is reorganize those features into major features, with specific (or contextual) options only appearing when they can be actually used (In Word you always have the Table menu, even if your document doesn't have tables.)
Yep, and that makes perfect sense to a developer. But here's my theory: Most users aren't developers! From what I have seen, most people simply are not used to absorbing the vast amount of visual data that is presented to them from all the little nooks and crannies in the average application. Developers *are* (or have trained themselves to be) used to dealing with this, because our job demands an enourmous amount of attention to details, plus a general interest (if not love) of using computers, and just playing around with them. But most people just don't care. So having all these various components, like the status bar, tooltips, buttons that don't look like buttons (flat toolbar items), menus, scrollbars, etc, then on top of all of that, the main view of their work, and it's just an awful lot to handle. It doesn't seem to be intuitive at all! And that's stuff that's relatively static. Now you go and add things that are going to dynamically change all over the place? Granted, a developer will have no problem with this - we are used to, and enjoy this kind of thing. But I just can't see my Mom and Dad dealing with this very well. Nor can I see a lot of the people in our office dealing with this very well either. It just seems like too much info to process effectively. But maybe I just need to go and do some more user testing... :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
A polished UI doens't necessarily mean eye-candy. It doesn't mean having 1200 different damn gradients, or a bazillions different color schemes all over the place
I agree. I would also add that "aesthetically pleasing" apps are not 256 color apps with Windows 95-esque mono solids. X| A polished UI includes eye candy. Eye candy is something that looks nice. If your UI works well, great. But if looks like crap, its going to be unattractived and used less, due to the negative impression it leaves on your users.
Judah Himango wrote:
I would also add that "aesthetically pleasing" apps are not 256 color apps with Windows 95-esque mono solids.
And where did I say that an application should look that way? I didn't.
Judah Himango wrote:
A polished UI includes eye candy. Eye candy is something that looks nice. If your UI works well, great. But if looks like crap, its going to be unattractived and used less, due to the negative impression it leaves on your users.
Well of course! But you're trying to purposely pick an extreme example here to justify all the glitz. But Windows 2000/XP/etc gives you all the neccessary common controls. APIs and UI elements to make a perfectly functional UI that looks great, or least looks *standard* within the context of the rest of the system. If you want to add nicer icons great. But there's *no* reason to go and spend oodles of time on a toolbar that has 14 dynamic gradients, with tabs and gradient selections. Doing that is just adding eye-candy to add eye-candy, and that's what I'm complaining about. If that's what you need to do because you need to distinguish your application, fine, then call it what it is, which is just eye-candy for marketing purposes - don't dress it up in fancy terms and claim "ooh the users asked for this". That's just bullshit. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
Well I didn't say it was easy :) I have a suspicion though that there are a number of features in Excel, or Word, that could be cut pretty easily. What they are I couldn't tell you at the moment because I don't it that much. Also, like I said, maybe it's not a matter of *cutting* feature, as much as it is moving them to a different application?
Luis Alonso Ramos wrote:
What they effectively have done is reorganize those features into major features, with specific (or contextual) options only appearing when they can be actually used (In Word you always have the Table menu, even if your document doesn't have tables.)
Yep, and that makes perfect sense to a developer. But here's my theory: Most users aren't developers! From what I have seen, most people simply are not used to absorbing the vast amount of visual data that is presented to them from all the little nooks and crannies in the average application. Developers *are* (or have trained themselves to be) used to dealing with this, because our job demands an enourmous amount of attention to details, plus a general interest (if not love) of using computers, and just playing around with them. But most people just don't care. So having all these various components, like the status bar, tooltips, buttons that don't look like buttons (flat toolbar items), menus, scrollbars, etc, then on top of all of that, the main view of their work, and it's just an awful lot to handle. It doesn't seem to be intuitive at all! And that's stuff that's relatively static. Now you go and add things that are going to dynamically change all over the place? Granted, a developer will have no problem with this - we are used to, and enjoy this kind of thing. But I just can't see my Mom and Dad dealing with this very well. Nor can I see a lot of the people in our office dealing with this very well either. It just seems like too much info to process effectively. But maybe I just need to go and do some more user testing... :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote:
Now you go and add things that are going to dynamically change all over the place?
The idea is precisely to avoid this. When you select an image you get the Picture toolbar floating, if you deselect the image, the toolbar disappears. If you select File New, you get a Task Pane on your right, then you can close it. Suddenly you end up with 8 floating toolbars, three docked to the side, 2 task panes, and very little space for you document. The idea behind the ribbon is to have everything there. If you select an image, the tab for images appear; if you are inside a table, then the command to set its borders is visible and enabled. You won't have toolbars all over the place, task panes, menus, and many more UI elements; you'll just have the ribbon, on top of the window, always taking up the same space, and everything will be there. At first I was also a bit skeptic about changing the paradigm. But from what I read it seems to me it will actually work out. Yes, users are not developers, so dynamic changes (toolbars appearing and disappearing) probably make them crazy. But the ribbon will always be there, and so the UI will be more predictable (always the same tabs, with contextual tabs (image or table for example) being marked like so.) We'll have to wait and see how it works, but from what I have read Beta 1 was successful.
Luis Alonso Ramos Intelectix Chihuahua, Mexico
Not much here: My CP Blog!
-
Judah Himango wrote:
I've heard this many times from end users; "there are too many options in the menus! I can't find a damn thing!"
Fine. That means the menu *content* is poorly deisgned, not that the menu *concept* is broken. And I'd agree, many applications get their menu content wrong, or at least could benefit from streamlining.
Judah Himango wrote:
I've heard some Open Office zealots claim their menus are easier to use and navigate than MS's complex menu system.
Whatever, OO folks just mindlessly barking up a tree. It's not like they really did anyhting other that parrot whatever Office does.
Judah Himango wrote:
On top of that, let's not forget Microsoft has done more UI usability studies than all of us combined. After playing with Vista, I have to say some of it has payed off (example[^], example[^]). The whole thing feels easier to use.
OK this is where I become suspicious. And I'm not just poking fingers at Microsoft either - I'd be perfectly happy to poke at Apple to. Where are these studies? Who did them? Why should I beleive they happened at all? The 1st screenshot that you linked to is an *exact* duplicate of the Human Interface Guidelines that Apple pushes dating back to 2000 (pre-OSX) and possibly going back to NeXTStep. So to come up with that dialog would have required *zero* user testing! I'll grant that the second one is slightly more evolved, so who knows about that.
Judah Himango wrote:
Honestly though, users like new cool eye candy.
Do they? Or do developer's just like to work on providing new eye-candy because that's more fun to do, since the results are instantly recognizeable. I think some things they might like, but having watched my parents go through the steps of learning a computer, I think users would benefit from developers focusing on the features of their app, and how to make it easy, consistent, and well thought out to use. I think *thats* what users would really like. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
I just can't stand this new-fangled UI whiz bang gadgetry, with its millions of colors, its big icons, gradients, and those soft-cornered buttons. Back in my day we had black and white prompts, and that's where you got the real work done! It was hard times back then, but we struggled and made it through. Men were men, we had hair on our chests, and we had to work for a living! :rolleyes:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: How 'bout a little guitar now? The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Judah Himango wrote:
I would also add that "aesthetically pleasing" apps are not 256 color apps with Windows 95-esque mono solids.
And where did I say that an application should look that way? I didn't.
Judah Himango wrote:
A polished UI includes eye candy. Eye candy is something that looks nice. If your UI works well, great. But if looks like crap, its going to be unattractived and used less, due to the negative impression it leaves on your users.
Well of course! But you're trying to purposely pick an extreme example here to justify all the glitz. But Windows 2000/XP/etc gives you all the neccessary common controls. APIs and UI elements to make a perfectly functional UI that looks great, or least looks *standard* within the context of the rest of the system. If you want to add nicer icons great. But there's *no* reason to go and spend oodles of time on a toolbar that has 14 dynamic gradients, with tabs and gradient selections. Doing that is just adding eye-candy to add eye-candy, and that's what I'm complaining about. If that's what you need to do because you need to distinguish your application, fine, then call it what it is, which is just eye-candy for marketing purposes - don't dress it up in fancy terms and claim "ooh the users asked for this". That's just bullshit. ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote:
And where did I say that an application should look that way? I didn't.
You didn't, and I didn't say you did, Jim. :) I placed a limit on the boundaries; you said apps don't need to have millions of gradients, I countered by saying apps need more than 256 colors. All in the name of looking good. The problem with your argument, as I see it, is this: what you just mentioned can be likened to 20 years ago. Imagine if someone just said the same thing as you did, only 20 years back:
"But Windows 1.0 gives you all the necessary common controls, APIs and UI elements to make a perfectly functional UI that looks great (or at least *standard* within the context of the system). If you want to add 16 color icons, great. But there's *no* reason to go and spend ooldles of time on a app UI that has 256 colors, with buttons and multi-colored menus. Doing that is just adding eye-candy to add eye-candy, that's what I'm complaining about."
See the problem? If UI progress means more colors and more definition, higher resolutions, fine lines, smoother transitions, rounded corners, even 3d...then hell, I'm all for it. If I wasn't all for it, I'd just be a luddite in denial.
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
And where did I say that an application should look that way? I didn't.
You didn't, and I didn't say you did, Jim. :) I placed a limit on the boundaries; you said apps don't need to have millions of gradients, I countered by saying apps need more than 256 colors. All in the name of looking good. The problem with your argument, as I see it, is this: what you just mentioned can be likened to 20 years ago. Imagine if someone just said the same thing as you did, only 20 years back:
"But Windows 1.0 gives you all the necessary common controls, APIs and UI elements to make a perfectly functional UI that looks great (or at least *standard* within the context of the system). If you want to add 16 color icons, great. But there's *no* reason to go and spend ooldles of time on a app UI that has 256 colors, with buttons and multi-colored menus. Doing that is just adding eye-candy to add eye-candy, that's what I'm complaining about."
See the problem? If UI progress means more colors and more definition, higher resolutions, fine lines, smoother transitions, rounded corners, even 3d...then hell, I'm all for it. If I wasn't all for it, I'd just be a luddite in denial.
Judah Himango wrote:
If UI progress means more colors and more definition, higher resolutions, fine lines, smoother transitions, rounded corners, even 3d...then hell, I'm all for it. If I wasn't all for it, I'd just be a luddite in denial.
If UI progress was in the *entire* windowing system I'd be a lot more receptive to it. But it's not. For example, the standard toolbars you create, or buttons, or whatever will not look or behave like this. It's strictly app localized. So what you end up with is a mish-mash of apps that behave wildly different. What you end up with is X Windows[^]. If you stick with largely standard elements then *everybody* moves forward together, and your users learning efforts pay off for *all* the apps that they use, not just one or two. What Office is presenting is a (possibly) completely different learning curve, one that is quite different from all the other applications. And if we all jump on this bandwagon, then we all need to stop improving our applications and instead devote either time *re-implementing* this stuff, or money on buying components that do so, all for something of dubious value to the customer. If this were integrated into the OS/windowing system then we could just all use it, and og about our business. And I'd be a lot more amendable to that. I'm all for progress. I just think the progress needs to happen at the right place, and a whole bunch of apps re-implementing the wheel on this stuff doesn't seem like the right place. What it reminds me of is this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html[^] ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
I just can't stand this new-fangled UI whiz bang gadgetry, with its millions of colors, its big icons, gradients, and those soft-cornered buttons. Back in my day we had black and white prompts, and that's where you got the real work done! It was hard times back then, but we struggled and made it through. Men were men, we had hair on our chests, and we had to work for a living! :rolleyes:
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: How 'bout a little guitar now? The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Yes we heard you the first time :) It feels good to quote yourself huh? :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
Judah Himango wrote:
If UI progress means more colors and more definition, higher resolutions, fine lines, smoother transitions, rounded corners, even 3d...then hell, I'm all for it. If I wasn't all for it, I'd just be a luddite in denial.
If UI progress was in the *entire* windowing system I'd be a lot more receptive to it. But it's not. For example, the standard toolbars you create, or buttons, or whatever will not look or behave like this. It's strictly app localized. So what you end up with is a mish-mash of apps that behave wildly different. What you end up with is X Windows[^]. If you stick with largely standard elements then *everybody* moves forward together, and your users learning efforts pay off for *all* the apps that they use, not just one or two. What Office is presenting is a (possibly) completely different learning curve, one that is quite different from all the other applications. And if we all jump on this bandwagon, then we all need to stop improving our applications and instead devote either time *re-implementing* this stuff, or money on buying components that do so, all for something of dubious value to the customer. If this were integrated into the OS/windowing system then we could just all use it, and og about our business. And I'd be a lot more amendable to that. I'm all for progress. I just think the progress needs to happen at the right place, and a whole bunch of apps re-implementing the wheel on this stuff doesn't seem like the right place. What it reminds me of is this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html[^] ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
I see where you're coming from. I think the problem remains that if everybody's doing the same thing, there's no progress. Someone, at some point, has to step forward and introduce a new idea, despite the criticisms of unfamiliarity and being different. If it's bad, it's rejected and everyone will continue on. If it's good, people will jump on the bandwagon until a newer and better concept evolves. Essentially, that is what is being argued here. Progress versus familiarity. We cannot and should not wait for something to be "integrated into the OS/windowing system" just to move foward with UI progress. That's not a good idea. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: How 'bout a little guitar now? The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
Yes we heard you the first time :) It feels good to quote yourself huh? :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
I'm not going to say anything more; I don't want to get into an internet insult war with you. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: How 'bout a little guitar now? The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
-
I'm not going to say anything more; I don't want to get into an internet insult war with you. :)
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit. I'm currently blogging about: How 'bout a little guitar now? The apostle Paul, modernly speaking: Epistles of Paul Judah Himango
Sorry, I was just being a bit of a jackass and a grump :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
Sorry, I was just being a bit of a jackass and a grump :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Jim Crafton wrote:
I was just being a bit of a jackass
That makes two of us. :)
-
Jim Crafton wrote:
I was just being a bit of a jackass
That makes two of us. :)
Yeah but I was being the bigger jackass... oh wait, I wanted to *avoid* doing this again... :) ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
-
Judah Himango wrote:
If UI progress means more colors and more definition, higher resolutions, fine lines, smoother transitions, rounded corners, even 3d...then hell, I'm all for it. If I wasn't all for it, I'd just be a luddite in denial.
If UI progress was in the *entire* windowing system I'd be a lot more receptive to it. But it's not. For example, the standard toolbars you create, or buttons, or whatever will not look or behave like this. It's strictly app localized. So what you end up with is a mish-mash of apps that behave wildly different. What you end up with is X Windows[^]. If you stick with largely standard elements then *everybody* moves forward together, and your users learning efforts pay off for *all* the apps that they use, not just one or two. What Office is presenting is a (possibly) completely different learning curve, one that is quite different from all the other applications. And if we all jump on this bandwagon, then we all need to stop improving our applications and instead devote either time *re-implementing* this stuff, or money on buying components that do so, all for something of dubious value to the customer. If this were integrated into the OS/windowing system then we could just all use it, and og about our business. And I'd be a lot more amendable to that. I'm all for progress. I just think the progress needs to happen at the right place, and a whole bunch of apps re-implementing the wheel on this stuff doesn't seem like the right place. What it reminds me of is this: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html[^] ¡El diablo está en mis pantalones! ¡Mire, mire! Real Mentats use only 100% pure, unfooled around with Sapho Juice(tm)! SELECT * FROM User WHERE Clue > 0 0 rows returned Save an Orange - Use the VCF!
Minor note: The new look will be in the entire OS. The replacement of the File menu with the "Logo Button" imitates the new Start button in Vista. Richard
-
So has anyone here been brave enought to tackle creating an Office 12 Ribbon control yet? And if so, are you going to write a CP article on it? I've seen 1 from DevComponents[^] but no others so far but it isn't free ofcourse. Richard
The poor folks who copied the ribbon from O12 beta 1 have got some work to do, since the ribbon's real final design looks much different. :doh: --Mike-- Visual C++ MVP :cool: LINKS~! Ericahist | NEW!! PimpFish | CP SearchBar v3.0 | C++ Forum FAQ