"Gemini" <Gemini> wrote in message
news:B97AA18E-56C8-4EC4-BC90-09DF8309D0C6:
> >Some Office users don't like the Ribbon.
>
> The word "some" is an inaccurate characterization.

10=some. Sorry.


Ben M. Schorr, MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
http://www.officeforlawyers.com/outlook.htm

"Gemini" <Gemini> wrote in message
news:BE04FBD1-243A-412F-B026-8B24789FBD15:

> > Gemini, it can't be an "undeniable" fact about how the "majority" feels
> >when it's based entirely upon anecdotal evidence of "several posts".
>
> Ben, based on the posts I've seen here and elsewhere, the response from
> longterm/power users to the Ribbon has been overwhelmingly negative. The
> proper term is "a lot", not "some".

A few hundred in the context of millions is not "a lot" but if you're
convinced it's proof of the total failure of the Ribbon, that's fine.

> If it comes to discussing what's "anecdotal", the "success" of the Ribbon
> can be viewed in precisely the same manner.

Yes, of course.

> >You're extrapolating what you want the limited data set to say.
>
> Incorrect! That has been my observation, as stated above.

Whatever. Your substituting personal observation and a tiny sample for
statistical relevance.

> > You can describe the UI decisions as arrogance if you want to
> It's either arrogance or omission, one of the two.

Naturally those are the only two options you'd consider.

> It must have been quite
> evident to MS that not all longterm users would like the new UI.

It was. Like I said, it was a trade-off and they felt that on balance
it was better to make the UI cleaner (i.e. not have so many levels of
menus and 50+ task panes) and more discoverable even though not
everybody was going to like it. And the reality is that it HAS made
features formerly obscure more discoverable to the average user.
Exactly what it was designed to do.

It's evident to ANYBODY who designs a UI that not everybody is going to
like it - at least if you're designing an application for more than 2
people. Especially when you make such a dramatic change to a UI that
has been around for quite a while and has an enormous installed base.

> It was certainly within their capability to provide the classic UI as an
> alternative.

Not and deliver the feature-set they did. Even at Microsoft resources
are not infinite.

> > But I don't know the source (or even definition) of the "85% acceptance"
> > statement that you keep calling out and don't have any interest in
> > trying to defend it. Jensen is more than capable of defending himself if
> > he thinks he wants or needs to.
>
> Ben, I mentioned that source of that "acceptance" was Jensen's blog. Here's
> the link.
> [..]

<shrug> O.k.

> As far as JH being capable of defending that statement, that's anecdotal,
> for sure.

Well, I've actually met the man. Have you? :-)

> Despite several questions about how the initial usability data was
> collected and how the "success" numbers were computed, JH has remained
> utterly silent. If he did have an answer, he could have easily stated it. The
> silence leads one to conclude that MS cannot back up their claims of the
> Ribbon's "success" with any hard data.

The silence leads me to believe that he's chosen not to respond.
Perhaps he senses that it's futile to debate it with you? :-)

> >It's clear to me that you are pretty heavily invested in hating the Ribbon
> "Invested"? Don't quite follow your meaning here.

You're quite passionate in your dislike of it and I think you'll defend
that feeling to the grave.

> > I don't think anything I have to say will change your mind about that.
>
> That's about the only thing on which we can agree.

And there ya go.

> As far as other alternatives are concerned, I am decidedly not the only user
> that was encouraged to look at other alternatives,

The other alternatives existed long before the Ribbon did - by your
argument that should be proof that users hated the old UI too.

Best wishes,

-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
http://www.officeforlawyers.com/onenote.htm

> Excel (and Access) are forced to follow Word's lead in terms of UI
> whether it makes sense for Excel (and Access) or not. Mindless
> uniformity has been the Office way since Office 95.

It's not "mindless uniformity" it's a consistent user-interface which
reduces the learning curve for the users.

Otherwise you have a set of disparate applications.

And yes, I know that Outlook 2007 and OneNote 2007 don't implement the
Ribbon in the same ways. Outlook only has it in the inspector windows
and OneNote doesn't have it at all. The Outlook team ran out of time
and the OneNote team had other features prioritized.


-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
http://www.officeforlawyers.com/onenote.htm

"Ben M. Schorr - MVP (OneNote)" <b> wrote...
....
>10=some. Sorry.

Nice try. Check out Charles Kyd's (Excel MVP) site. He's been running
a survey for Excel users' impressions of the ribbon. Majority of
respondents have an unfavorable impression.

"Ben M. Schorr - MVP (OneNote)" <b> wrote...
>>Excel (and Access) are forced to follow Word's lead in terms of UI
>>whether it makes sense for Excel (and Access) or not. Mindless
>>uniformity has been the Office way since Office 95.
>
>It's not "mindless uniformity" it's a consistent user-interface which
>reduces the learning curve for the users.

It's mindless because it fails to reflect the fundamentally different
nature of spreadsheets and (toy) databases compared to word
processors. Yes, for those who use Excel as the grid editing module
for PowerPoint, there's not much difference between Excel and the
other apps. For anyone who uses as many or more formulas as constants,
they're rather different beasts.

>Otherwise you have a set of disparate applications.

Duh! They do fundamentally different things.

For the 90% of Office users who don't even tap the features provided
by Works, maybe it makes sense to give them a spreadsheet UI that's
the same as the word processor's UI, but for the 10% who use advanced
Excel features, the ribbon is rubbish.

>And yes, I know that Outlook 2007 and OneNote 2007 don't implement the
>Ribbon in the same ways. Outlook only has it in the inspector windows
>and OneNote doesn't have it at all. The Outlook team ran out of time
>and the OneNote team had other features prioritized.

Outlook rather irrelevant for those who use other e-mail clients.
OneNote generally irrelevant.

> A few hundred in the context of millions is not "a lot" but if you're
> convinced it's proof of the total failure of the Ribbon, that's fine.
LOL! Ben, please do read my responses carefully. I have NEVER said the
Ribbon was a "total failure". Also, my comment about the majority of longterm
users not liking the Ribbon is based on the proportion of non-positive posts
I've seen from that particular category. Where do you get the "few hundred in
the context of millions"? Is there some hard data to back that up, or is it
yet another unfounded claim?

> Whatever. Your substituting personal observation and a tiny sample for
> statistical relevance.
That is exactly what can be said for your claim above, "a few hundred in
millions".

> Naturally those are the only two options you'd consider.
Is there another one?

> It was. Like I said, it was a trade-off and they felt that on balance
> it was better to make the UI cleaner (i.e. not have so many levels of
> menus and 50+ task panes) and more discoverable even though not
> everybody was going to like it. And the reality is that it HAS made
> features formerly obscure more discoverable to the average user.
> Exactly what it was designed to do.
Really? Jensen Harris wrote down three criteria for the Ribbon's success.
Here's a link. Look for the section entitled, "How The New Design Is Faring".
http://www.baychi.org/calendar/20051213
From the perspective of many longterm users, hardly any of these criteria
are fulfilled by the Ribbon.

> It's evident to ANYBODY who designs a UI that not everybody is going to
> like it
As I said before, I've designed quite a few UIs myself, across different
application domains and am quite well aware of the challenges involved. How
much experience do you have in designing UIs yourself?

> Not and deliver the feature-set they did. Even at Microsoft resources
> are not infinite.
That's a very weak defense. A small outfit could produce an add-in to
provide users with the classic UI alternative. Are you saying MS has less
resources than that?


> <shrug> O.k.
First, you doubted the "acceptance" claim. Then I provided you with a link
that proves my statement. I guess you have no cogent argument on that point,
going by your response.

> Well, I've actually met the man. Have you? :-)
I haven't. What does that have to do with anything?

> The silence leads me to believe that he's chosen not to respond.
> Perhaps he senses that it's futile to debate it with you? :-)
The definition of a debate is two or more people discussing a topic. Not
answering any questions about the validity of the data, from multiple
posters, does NOT constitute a debate. It more than likely points to the
conclusion that JH isn't able to back up his claims.

> You're quite passionate in your dislike of it and I think you'll defend
> that feeling to the grave.
Ben, after trying that Ribbon thing for several weeks, I found it to be a
nuisance and a productivity killer. Why would I like the thing after that?
Insofar as being "invested" is concerned, I'd say that the term applies a
sight more to you than to me.

> The other alternatives existed long before the Ribbon did - by your
> argument that should be proof that users hated the old UI too.
I'm very sure some users didn't like the old UI either. However, it
certainly appears that the Ribbon has encouraged longtime MS customers to
seek other alternatives. If that's a criterion of measuring success, then the
Ribbon has been very successful indeed.

Cheers!

-- Gemini

> 10=some. Sorry.

LOL! Nice try, Ben, but no cigar!

10 out of 11 comments? "Some" is an absolutely incorrect characterization.
It's along the lines of Jensen Harris claiming "85% acceptance"! <G>

Cheers!

-- Gemini

"The Outlook team ran out of time."

Are you serious? That's why some Office 2007 products don't have the Ribbon?

What ever happened to "it will be released when it's ready"?

I was addressing the specific link Gemini provided. I don't have the
time or the interest to review and abstract each and every website you
guys want to provide showing some users who are unhappy with the Ribbon.

You don't like the Ribbon, we get it. Thanks.

> >It's not "mindless uniformity" it's a consistent user-interface which
> >reduces the learning curve for the users.
> It's mindless because it fails to reflect the fundamentally different
> nature of spreadsheets and (toy) databases compared to word
> processors. Yes, for those who use Excel as the grid editing module
> for PowerPoint, there's not much difference between Excel and the
> other apps. For anyone who uses as many or more formulas as constants,
> they're rather different beasts.

But part of the same suite and thus should have similar interfaces. It
doesn't make sense to provide users with totally different interfaces,
make them learn both and switch back and forth. That's just bad design.
You may not like the UI but it IS an advantage to have it be
consistent across the suite.

> For the 90% of Office users who don't even tap the features provided
> by Works, maybe it makes sense to give them a spreadsheet UI that's
> the same as the word processor's UI, but for the 10% who use advanced
> Excel features, the ribbon is rubbish.

Thanks. So given the choice between making things better for 90% of the
users or 10% of the users which do you think Microsoft should choose?

That nicely summarizes my point in this thread.

> >And yes, I know that Outlook 2007 and OneNote 2007 don't implement the
> >Ribbon in the same ways. Outlook only has it in the inspector windows
> >and OneNote doesn't have it at all. The Outlook team ran out of time
> >and the OneNote team had other features prioritized.
> Outlook rather irrelevant for those who use other e-mail clients.

User Interface is irrelevant for people who don't have computers.

> OneNote generally irrelevant.

And yet, a growing user-base.


-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
http://www.officeforlawyers.com

That decision isn't up to the development team. They build as much of
the app as best they can in the time allotted. Sometimes features have
to be dropped from the current version because there isn't time to
implement them well before the company decides it wants to ship.

If they never shipped anything until every possible feature was in the
product and perfect then they'd never ship anything. There are ALWAYS
more features they wish it had.

"Gemini" <Gemini> wrote in message
news:B51AE5F8-06F6-4FE6-8AAB-A60250CE2B8F:

> > A few hundred in the context of millions is not "a lot" but if you're
> > convinced it's proof of the total failure of the Ribbon, that's fine.
> LOL! Ben, please do read my responses carefully. I have NEVER said the
> Ribbon was a "total failure".

Ah. Just a "major failure?" :-)

> Also, my comment about the majority of longterm users not liking the Ribbon is based on the proportion of non-positive posts
> I've seen from that particular category.

You haven't seen posts from the majority of longterm users. You've seen
a few hundred posts at most, I'm betting, and from that extrapolating
what you think hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of users are
feeling.

> Where do you get the "few hundred in the context of millions"?

Based upon NG/Blog/Forum participation I think it's unlikely that you've
seen posts on the Ribbon from more than a few hundred (or at most a
thousand or so) unique users. There are millions of Excel users in the
installed base.

> > Whatever. Your substituting personal observation and a tiny sample for
> > statistical relevance.
> That is exactly what can be said for your claim above, "a few hundred in
> millions".

Well, no, not really. But whatever. :)

> > Naturally those are the only two options you'd consider.
>
> Is there another one?

Of course.

> > It was. Like I said, it was a trade-off and they felt that on balance
> > it was better to make the UI cleaner (i.e. not have so many levels of
> > menus and 50+ task panes) and more discoverable even though not
> > everybody was going to like it. And the reality is that it HAS made
> > features formerly obscure more discoverable to the average user.
> > Exactly what it was designed to do.
>
> Really? Jensen Harris wrote down three criteria for the Ribbon's success.
> Here's a link. Look for the section entitled, "How The New Design Is Faring".
> [..]
> From the perspective of many longterm users, hardly any of these criteria
> are fulfilled by the Ribbon.

And from the perspective of many other Excel users the Ribbon is fine.

> > It's evident to ANYBODY who designs a UI that not everybody is going to
> > like it
> As I said before, I've designed quite a few UIs myself, across different
> application domains and am quite well aware of the challenges involved. How
> much experience do you have in designing UIs yourself?

Plenty, thanks.

> > Not and deliver the feature-set they did. Even at Microsoft resources
> > are not infinite.
> That's a very weak defense. A small outfit could produce an add-in to
> provide users with the classic UI alternative. Are you saying MS has less
> resources than that?

I'm saying they had other priorities. A small outfit with no other
goals but to produce an add-in can do it. A product team with a long
list of other features that are more important to them doesn't have
time.

> > <shrug> O.k.
> First, you doubted the "acceptance" claim. Then I provided you with a link
> that proves my statement. I guess you have no cogent argument on that point,
> going by your response.

I didn't doubt it; I simply have no knowledge of it nor any interest in
defending it. I don't know where he got the 85% number from or what the
definition of "acceptance" of a UI is. And I don't really care that
much. It's important to you, not to me.

> > Well, I've actually met the man. Have you? :-)
> I haven't. What does that have to do with anything?

When it comes to our respective opinions of his abilities I think I'll
go with the guy who has actually spent time with him. :-)

> > The silence leads me to believe that he's chosen not to respond.
> > Perhaps he senses that it's futile to debate it with you? :-)
> The definition of a debate is two or more people discussing a topic. Not
> answering any questions about the validity of the data, from multiple
> posters, does NOT constitute a debate. It more than likely points to the
> conclusion that JH isn't able to back up his claims.

Well, I think that's the conclusion that you're hoping for, yes. I
disagree. :-)

> > You're quite passionate in your dislike of it and I think you'll defend
> > that feeling to the grave.
> Insofar as being "invested" is concerned, I'd say that the term applies a
> sight more to you than to me.

Not especially. I'm fine with the Ribbon and I was o.k. with the old UI
too. I have to work in several different versions of Office on a daily
basis and switch back and forth between them without much thought. If
they ever change to some other UI then we'll see how I feel about that
too. It doesn't make a lot of difference to me one way or the other
what UI they put out there as long as I can get my work done. And, as it
turns out, I can. :-)

And so can a lot of other Office 2007 users.

Best wishes,

-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
http://www.officeforlawyers.com

"Ben M. Schorr - MVP (OneNote)" <b> wrote...
...
>But part of the same suite and thus should have similar interfaces. . . .
...
>You may not like the UI but it IS an advantage to have it be
>consistent across the suite.

Good point. Bring back menus and toolbars for all the Office apps.
Happy?

>>For the 90% of Office users who don't even tap the features provided
>>by Works, maybe it makes sense to give them a spreadsheet UI that's
>>the same as the word processor's UI, but for the 10% who use advanced
>>Excel features, the ribbon is rubbish.
>
>Thanks.  So given the choice between making things better for 90% of the
>users or 10% of the users which do you think Microsoft should choose?
...

You're confusing numbers of users with time spent in an application
and what users do in those applications. Where I work, and it may not
be representative, 10% of users DEVELOP Excel models the other 90% of
users use, and 100% of users use roughly a dozen Excel models which
COMPLETELY REPLACE the default Excel menu and toolbars.

As for ad hoc stuff, the 10% who understand and use Excel's advanced
features likely make up 2/3 or more of ad hoc Excel usage IN TOTAL FOR
ALL USERS.

For the 90% who keep track of their kids' soccer teams' stats or write
their grocery lists in Excel, I'll accept that the ribbon is useful.
What I have to challenge is whether those people are better off with
Office rather than Works.

>>OneNote generally irrelevant.
>
>And yet, a growing user-base.

2 to 3 -> 50% growth! Way to go!

"Harlan Grove" <hrlngrv> wrote in message
news:d101f5c3-3969-4114-a355-9466435c2a69:
> "Ben M. Schorr - MVP (OneNote)" <b> wrote...
> ...
>
> >But part of the same suite and thus should have similar interfaces. . . .
> >You may not like the UI but it IS an advantage to have it be
> >consistent across the suite.
>
> Good point. Bring back menus and toolbars for all the Office apps.
> Happy?

Doesn't matter to me. You're the one getting all caffeinated about it.
:) Of course later you say that the Ribbon benefits 90% of the users so
it doesn't really seem like such a good decision to me to take away a
feature that benefits "90%" of the users just because "10%" of the users
are sour about it.

> >>For the 90% of Office users who don't even tap the features provided
> >>by Works, maybe it makes sense to give them a spreadsheet UI that's
> >>the same as the word processor's UI, but for the 10% who use advanced
> >>Excel features, the ribbon is rubbish.
> >
> >Thanks. So given the choice between making things better for 90% of the
> >users or 10% of the users which do you think Microsoft should choose?
>
> You're confusing numbers of users with time spent in an application
> and what users do in those applications.

No, I'm not. You just said "For the 90% of Office users who don't even
tap the features provided by Works, maybe it makes sense to give
them..."

You didn't say "For those users who spend 90% of their time in Excel..."

> Where I work, and it may not
> be representative, 10% of users DEVELOP Excel models the other 90% of
> users use, and 100% of users use roughly a dozen Excel models which
> COMPLETELY REPLACE the default Excel menu and toolbars.

O.K. I have one or two clients like that too. Most of my clients, who
use Excel, have a lot of users who do fairly pedestrian things with
Excel and have to start from blank workbooks to do it. They may have a
few templates, but not entire robust developed applications built around
it.

And, of course, Excel is just one part of the suite.

> For the 90% who keep track of their kids' soccer teams' stats or write
> their grocery lists in Excel, I'll accept that the ribbon is useful.

See, now we're back to the Ribbon being useful for 90% of the users. :)
Again, on balance a UI or feature that benefits 90% of the users (and
honestly I'd be a little surprised if it's actually that high a
percentage) is a fairly easy decision.

> What I have to challenge is whether those people are better off with
> Office rather than Works.

Well, that's an entirely different question. But it's my opinion that
NOBODY is better off with Works. :-) And in many cases these users are
working on corporate machines where Works is not an option.

> >>OneNote generally irrelevant.
> >
>
> >And yet, a growing user-base.
> 2 to 3 -> 50% growth! Way to go!

Whatever. <rolling eyes>


-Ben-
Ben M. Schorr, MVP
Roland Schorr & Tower
http://www.rolandschorr.com
http://www.officeforlawyers.com

"Ben M. Schorr - MVP (OneNote)" <b> wrote...
>"Harlan Grove" <hrln> wrote in message
...
>>Good point. Bring back menus and toolbars for all the Office apps.
...
>Of course later you say that the Ribbon benefits 90% of the users
...

I believe I expressed it as the ribbon **MAY** benefit . . . Reread
the thread. Find anywhere where I make any unconditional statement
about the ribbon.

Of course if you don't really understand English . . .

>>You're confusing numbers of users with time spent in an application
>>and what users do in those applications.
>
>No, I'm not. You just said "For the 90% of Office users who don't
>even tap the features provided by Works, maybe it makes sense to
>give them..."
...

Yes, I should have been more precise. I'll correct that.

For their own ad hoc Excel use.

A majority of the 90% in question likely spend more than half the time
they use Excel using spreadsheet models they themselves didn't design.
Often such models provide their own UI, sometimes in addition to
Excel's own UI, sometimes COMPLETELY REPLACING Excel's UI. The latter
is much, much more difficult in Excel 2007 than it was in ANY previous
version.

>And, of course, Excel is just one part of the suite.
...

But it's a fundamentally different part. It's the part that can be
used to develop substantial, calculation-intensive applications.
Access is the only other Office application that provides comparable
application development facilities (but it's a toy compared to real
RDBMS's).

>>What I have to challenge is whether those people are better off
>>with Office rather than Works.
>
>Well, that's an entirely different question.  But it's my opinion
>that NOBODY is better off with Works. . . .

No, people should waste their money.

> . . . And in many cases these users are working on corporate
>machines where Works is not an option.
...

Why not?

Do these 90% use word processor features not provided by Works?

Organizations buy Office for everyone rather than the 10% who need the
advanced features for one reason: inertia.