Want to use the Ribbon in your app? Here, sign this.
-
It makes sense, I guess - it's just that they've never done it before. I've seen at least a half-dozen component vendors hawking Office 2007-style UI elements and I'm sure more are on the way. But if you want to use them in your application, you'll need to agree to Microsoft's new license and use their guidelines. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx[^]
if(!curlies){ return; }
What ever happened to Lotus 1-2-3 anyway...
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
-
What ever happened to Lotus 1-2-3 anyway...
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on!
Steve Echols wrote:
What ever happened to Lotus 1-2-3 anyway...
Wiki indicates it was ultimately rolled into Smart Suite. If it’s anything like Lotus Notes then it’s a steaming pile of dung. Lotus 1-2-3[^] IBM Lotus SmartSuite[^]
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
-
Nishant Sivakumar wrote:
Blast! And I thought they were making public their Office UI source code
:) No such luck, but word is that they're thinking about whether to do a version that would ship with Visual Studio. I wonder how that makes the current crop of 3rd party vendors feel.
if(!curlies){ return; }
Charlie Williams wrote:
but word is that they're thinking about whether to do a version that would ship with Visual Studio. I wonder how that makes the current crop of 3rd party vendors feel.
Orcas time frame?
Regards, Nish
Nish’s thoughts on MFC, C++/CLI and .NET (my blog)
Currently working on C++/CLI in Action for Manning Publications. (*Sample chapter available online*) -
It makes sense, I guess - it's just that they've never done it before. I've seen at least a half-dozen component vendors hawking Office 2007-style UI elements and I'm sure more are on the way. But if you want to use them in your application, you'll need to agree to Microsoft's new license and use their guidelines. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx[^]
if(!curlies){ return; }
Die blast ribbon, die!
-
Die blast ribbon, die!
Have you actually used it? I have and I think it's wicked awesome!
if(!curlies){ return; }
-
It makes sense, I guess - it's just that they've never done it before. I've seen at least a half-dozen component vendors hawking Office 2007-style UI elements and I'm sure more are on the way. But if you want to use them in your application, you'll need to agree to Microsoft's new license and use their guidelines. http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx[^]
if(!curlies){ return; }
This thread is strange because everyone is so accepting of this "licence". You can't patent or copyright UI. Anyone remember Lotus v Microsoft where Lotus went after Microsoft because Excel "stole" its look-and-feel? Lotus lost in part because the whole of the windowing UI concept is predicated on work done by Xerox years ago and because the principle of the spreadsheet was not novel. In my opinion the ribbon is not novel it's an adaptation of the rebar but consumes more screen real estate. Suppose someone asked you to agree to their licence for the air guitar or a set of the emporers new clothes. You wouldn't sign up would you. You would be especially incredulous if they then stipulated that you were not allowed to use the air guitar in the pub or while wearing jeans. However, if you did sign up, voluntarily as an adult, then you could be held to the agreement. So think of this as being an air guitar and ask yourself whether you would still sign up or be enthusistic about it. Without doubt it is great that Microsoft publish guidelines and of course the guidelines themselves are subject to copyright. But the fact that they spent a lot of time thinking about UI does not give them a right to any exclusivity. If they wanted that exclusivity they should have covered that with each of us individually *before* the release the first versions of Office 2007 and has us sign our lives away. But they didn't and that UI is in the public domain.
-
no..yeah of course I understand that. I wasn't planning to make my own version(too much work ;P). But using component like those from DevComponents, I could already do that without this license. The license just makes them safe from those who'd want to roll theyre own and screw up real bad I guess. meh. Hrm, on a different note, would I need the license to use controls like from DevComponents? I'd think not, if I dont have the sources. Ideas?
:badger:
Anton Afanasyev wrote:
Hrm, on a different note, would I need the license to use controls like from DevComponents? I'd think not, if I dont have the sources. Ideas?
According to Microsoft's Chris Bryant (from Jensen Harris' blog[^]), you need to agree to the license even if you're using a 3rd party control. The license doesn't pass through from DevComponents to you. A lot of people seem to be questioning the legitimacy and/or enforceability of this type of license, though. If it were me, I'd probably sign the darn thing and let someone with deeper pockets than me worry about whether it has any teeth.
if(!curlies){ return; }
-
Steve Echols wrote:
What ever happened to Lotus 1-2-3 anyway...
Wiki indicates it was ultimately rolled into Smart Suite. If it’s anything like Lotus Notes then it’s a steaming pile of dung. Lotus 1-2-3[^] IBM Lotus SmartSuite[^]
I'd love to help, but unfortunatley I have prior commitments monitoring the length of my grass. :Andrew Bleakley:
S Douglas wrote:
If it’s anything like Lotus Notes then it’s a steaming pile of dung.
"This place stinks like a pair of armoured trousers after the Hundred Years War. Baldrick, have you been eating dung again?" Blackadder
-- The Blog: Bits and Pieces
-
Have you actually used it? I have and I think it's wicked awesome!
if(!curlies){ return; }
I have. I guess it's a personal preference thing. I find it very counterintuitive. I know all kinds of usablility research says it good, but I'm skeptical. I can understand how it is useful to someone who has never used the application before, but finding a specific tool or setting can be enraging.
-
I have. I guess it's a personal preference thing. I find it very counterintuitive. I know all kinds of usablility research says it good, but I'm skeptical. I can understand how it is useful to someone who has never used the application before, but finding a specific tool or setting can be enraging.
yrodrigu wrote:
I can understand how it is useful to someone who has never used the application before, but finding a specific tool or setting can be enraging.
I can see it being frustrating to get used to a new interface after investing the time to learn the old one. But finding a specific tool is one of the areas where the ribbon excels (no pun intended), assuming you hadn't memorized the locations of all the commands in the previous interface. According to the group program manager for Office, a high percentage of feature requests were for features the applications already had, which is why they started looking at new UI concepts in the first place. All that said, though, it still remains that you can't design a UI for tens of millions of people and have everybody be happy with it. I guess you just got the short end of the stick this time around ;P
if(!curlies){ return; }
-
This thread is strange because everyone is so accepting of this "licence". You can't patent or copyright UI. Anyone remember Lotus v Microsoft where Lotus went after Microsoft because Excel "stole" its look-and-feel? Lotus lost in part because the whole of the windowing UI concept is predicated on work done by Xerox years ago and because the principle of the spreadsheet was not novel. In my opinion the ribbon is not novel it's an adaptation of the rebar but consumes more screen real estate. Suppose someone asked you to agree to their licence for the air guitar or a set of the emporers new clothes. You wouldn't sign up would you. You would be especially incredulous if they then stipulated that you were not allowed to use the air guitar in the pub or while wearing jeans. However, if you did sign up, voluntarily as an adult, then you could be held to the agreement. So think of this as being an air guitar and ask yourself whether you would still sign up or be enthusistic about it. Without doubt it is great that Microsoft publish guidelines and of course the guidelines themselves are subject to copyright. But the fact that they spent a lot of time thinking about UI does not give them a right to any exclusivity. If they wanted that exclusivity they should have covered that with each of us individually *before* the release the first versions of Office 2007 and has us sign our lives away. But they didn't and that UI is in the public domain.
Yeah I wondered about the concept of copytrighting a UI. When I first started Windows development my boss would answer questions on how I should do the UI by saying just follow the styles in MS Word. At the time I thought I was following conventions, File menu on the left, Help menu on the right etc. These conventions are a part of increasing usability for users, the "don't make me think" style. With alot of people using Office making Windows applications that follow the conventions established in Office in you own applications helped people learn how to use your application.
