OSNews

Ribbon UI is the best UI innovation since the overlapping window.

Seriously, it allows greater access to the full features of Office. It makes using Office a dream.

Sorry, but Ribbons are the biggest UI disaster since Microsoft Bob.

the ribbon concept is excellent, microsoft just botches the implementations of it

I don't know if you're being sarcastic, but I find the ribbon a very useful UI invention. Granted, I wouldn't go so far as to call using a ribbon UI a dream (which could easily turn into a nightmare!).

Still, it's is a very clever way of making the functionality of a complex application easily accessible without cluttering up the screen with toolbars/coolbars/palettes/etc.

A toolbar with tabs is used in Delphi since version 1.0. I don't say it's bad or anything. The Ribbon is just hardly innovative.

The new UI of Office 2007 consists of more than just the Ribbon, and the Ribbon is not just a toolbar with tabs. I suggest you start reading the detailed list of blog posts by Jensen Harris about the development of the new UI: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/pages/table-of-contents.aspx

You obviously have never used office 2k7

No. I don't buy a Windows and a MS Office 2007 license just to look at Ribbon.

This actually gives me hope.
The Ribbon is the first seriously long, hard look at the whole concept of the WIMP interface in 20 years.

The Office team managed to remove the menu, entirely, from one of the worst possible programs that you could have taken as an example. Office had hundreds of menus, approaching a hundred toolbars - it would be the equivalent of redesigning Photoshop to have no menu or toolbars, or Maya, or 3D Studio Max. That is the level of complexity they had to approach, and succeeded.

The Ribbon is proven by user testing to be better. The only users who suffer with it are, guess who, indignant old users who prefer the old model and are unwilling to adapt. It's like MFC runs through their veins.

Using the ribbon for 7 gives me hope it might just make Windows functionality up-front and accessible to all users.

Edited 2008-09-18 20:21 UTC

If Kroc approves you know it's impressive

Just teasing.

...or from Cupertino.

;)

I still pertain, the iPhone is a joke.
I might like Apple stuff, but surprise, it actually works:

The iPod was introduced. Creative laughed.
The iPod nano was introduced. Creative laughed.
The iPod Shuffle was introduced. Creative laughed.
Creative arn't laughing now.

It's 2008 and Windows Media Player still doesn't do podcasts.

Providers have had 10 years to get their act together and only now, does anybody who's not Apple think that having a single, unified method of purchasing and installing software on a phone is a good idea.

You know those cartoons where the good guy's sidekick suggests an idea, and then the good guy suddenly has a good idea and repeats just what the sidekick said. That's how it is with Apple and the Microsoft.

If I approve, it's because I appreciate good engineering. Nothing out of the ordinary with that.

Agreed. I was waiting for a moment when someone would finally come up with an alternative to the jungle that is menu's and toolbars. The problem is that the old way of doing things just isn't scalable - or worse, what happens is that the end user assumes that the feature doesn't exist but it does - but hidden behind layers of menus.



When one talks to the 'little people' - the real people out there who use Microsoft software, day in and day out; they're bloody happy with the new interface. The only people who hate it are those self appointed 'power users' - I'm sure you've seen them in businesses, a mouse with 1000 buttons, thinks they're computer genius's because they remember 100 short cuts off by heart.

For me, I've got Office 2008 on my Mac, and the ribbon work has even found its way in (to some degree) their Office 2008 for Mac - and believe me, having used all the versions prior, it makes a HUGE difference when it comes to usability.



I want to see the WHOLE interface WPF based and using Ribbon everywhere. I want one consistent user experience right through out the operating system rather than the a hodgepodge of the different UI experiences so far with the the current operating systems.

Edited 2008-09-18 21:19 UTC

I think that is most people's problem/issue with Ribbons and Office 2007. It's the first time they've seen them and they don't see them in any other program. Using more ribbons and providing a more consistent interface will probably grab ribbons the reputation it deserves. I'm not really a big fan of ribbons, I like clicking on menus and toolbar buttons, but I imagine I'm in the minority.

Office on the Mac uses a variation on the UI concepts Apple introduced with AppleWorks YEARS ago, and that they now use in their iWork suite. There is a (collapsable) horizontal mini-ribbon with commonly accessed functions, but there is also a floating, tabbed, auto expanding, context based, VERTICAL "ribbon" palette, which is what I see many people asking for here.

The difference is they also left the unobtrusive menu in place for all those dinosaurs who just want to get on with the job when they get their shiny new app...

Let's get something out of the way: I'm a big mac head. That said, Office 2007 is a dream for me. I *love* the ribbon interface. Microsoft has hit a home run here. They even have an infinitely deep "file" menu in the upper left hand corner. Well done. The more I think about it, the more I realize the depth of design that went into it. It's really that good.

The only downside I can really see is that as the window changes width, the position of the toolbar entries shift around as they shrink to fit the width, and the fact that some people simply can't grasp tabbed interfaces of any kind. These are no problem for me personally, but I know that my mom can't find anything on a computer unless it's in the same exact spot as before. She's asked me on numerous occasions how to do something, and almost inevitably what she wants is accomplished by clicking the big, honking, **pulsating** button which is jumping out at her screaming "God, woman, just click me!" A typical dialogue might go something like this:
--How do I send this mail?
--Click the send mail button.
--There's no send mail button.
(I walk over and click the send mail button which is clearly visible.)
--Did you even *look* for it?

How much worse it will be when the button isn't even on screen!

I do not look forward to the day when I have to help people who can't figure out that in the Office 2007 ribbon, things move for space constraints, and that sometimes the functionality is in a different tab. I think it's a reasonable tradeoff which allows Office to using the toolbar space for big buttons when available, and it's also a reasonable method of avoiding the dreaded "toolbar too full" chevron. The modality of tabs is why I believe a regular menubar of some sort must remain in the application. Some people simply cannot operate modally. Period.

On another note, what's annoying for me, and it could be just my peevishness, is that the quick access toolbar shifts the centering of the text in the title bar. I disable that toolbar, though it probably could be useful, just because it is disorienting to have the text move.

It's strange to see after all these years that we're moving away from a menubar-and-toolbar paradigm, and toward pop-up menus in toolbars, as we've finally figured out how to effectively scale the menu-and-toolbar interface. I believe this is a huge and a positive shift. Menubars or a main application-level menu should always be present as far as I'm concerned, and I'm not sure if I like the decentralization of functions in the toolbar without some menubar system behind it. (As I understand it, the menubar is supposed to be the fallback containing all of an application's functionality, so if you can't find something, it'll be in the menubar.) That said, bring on more Office 2007 toolbars. I can't get enough of them!

Edited 2008-09-19 04:19 UTC

I seem to recall Lotus Smart Suite having something long these lines as well. Not as graphically impressive as Office2k7 nor iWorks (hazard a guess here as never used it), however it did exist in a basic form on Lotus Smart Suite.

The thing about ribbons is it's not a revolutionary new invention - more just a clean "upgrade" to an existing invention. So it's not really as streightforward to pin credit to specific inventor as one might think (or Microsoft might try to claim).

yeah, I agree. I hated the idea of the ribon at first, but now that I have had to use Office 2007 (specifically, Word), I've fallen in love with it. It is awesome. Very intuitive and easy.

People that hate it probably were like me and haven't even used it.

or more correctly, have the old menus memorized to the last pixel in muscle memory...

True.



Perhaps true in complexity level. I don't think they necessarily succeeded in every aspect yet though...



No, I adapt quite well. For example, I really can't stand MFC and love Qt. I'm also eagerly awaiting KDE4; and primarily use OpenOffice.

I have also used Office 2007, and it drives me nuts. My wife (who had to use it at her last jobs) love it; but I much prefer the older UI as it actually had things that made sense and were practical. I don't like have to scroll through numerous tabs just to find the one function that was easily accessible before.

Fortunately, I'll be able to install Office 2007 SP1 on her laptop too, and then she'll be able to natively use ODF again.



Windows is far from being "up-front and accessible to all users" any more. Yes, they are still one of the few that support both keyboard & mouse out-of-the-box (short-cuts, etc.); but they're fast falling behind. The requirements of Vista show that very well.

Now, if they managed to get Win7 to have an default install-base of < 200 MB (with GUI and basic applications), improve performance, etc. then I'll be impressed.

The problem is that MS will not force app developers (be it 1st or 3rd party) to use Ribbon eg by removing the classic toolbar implementations (there are several part of Windows already). This means that the Windows GUI will be further diversified. Some apps use the toolbar implementation that first shipped with Win95, others use the toolbar that's also available since IE4, other's use Window.Forms from .NET, and many other are using custom widgets (Firefox, OpenOffice, MS Office, WordPerfect Office, Photoshop,...).

IE7's menu changes are bad enough.

Gawk, imagine what the world would look like if all people were like that.

We'd still be flinging poo at one another from trees.

Instead of flaming one another from our web browsers.

+4375637567348564385.

And we'd be better for it!

Whether you realize it or not, not everyone is made to understand computer interfaces. Some people are just too scared to simply click around and learn a new interface. They think that they'll break something (and with Microsoft products, they probably will).

Besides, sometimes it's just enjoyable to fling poo.

kinda like how one dont drive a car or plane on trail and error?

i wonder how we would approach computers, if user errors could be fatal...

Interestingly enough that's the argument often used against Linux and alternatives. That people will need to be re-trained, that they arent used to it and that it will cost money. Funny how then the same people (not you Thom) who derided the alternatives are praising when MS does the same.
It's a funny old world, innit.

known evils and all that...

True. And interestingly enough, it lowered the cost for many to switch to OpenOffice or Lotus Symphony, etc. as the re-training cost was at worst the same as moving to Office 2007, and at best far lower; plus they didn't necessarily have the licensing fees that Microsoft charges...

Yep...it hurt them at least as much (if not more) than it helped them...

No, it's called business sense and return-on-investment. Why pay lots of money to retrain everyone on something that they already know how to do well?

This company was sold the idea that their employees would be more productive with no training needed and it was ONE BIF FAT LIE.

This migration was such a fiasco that Microsoft returned the money for the licenses when they were threatened by the company in question with going public with the story.

Progress is making people more productive or making the new capabilities of an application so compelling that people are willing and eager to under re-training.

Gawk, imagine what the world would look like if all people were like that.

We'd still be flinging poo at one another from trees. "

I do not know. Innovation is generally good, but in my opinion, changing things just for the sake of change is stupid.

But most people who have given Office 2007 an honest chance and gotten past the initial confusion seem to think that the improvements are for the better.

In this case it's changing things for the sake of seeing if there is a better way than the old way and that should be applauded.

Did Office 2003 contain any real improvements over Office 2000? Not that I found, but since it was practically the same in every other way, no-one cared. It was business as usual. Does Office 2007 have any real improvement over 2003? Not that I can see, but it is very different for the sake of being different, so it's a needless waste. Businesses cannot afford to be fashionistas and change everything every few years only because "last year's software" isn't "in" at the moment.

Let's go back to your analogy. If being different for the sake of being different was the way people always did thing, we'd still be flinging poo at eat other from the trees, but we'd be "innovating" by mixing it with different types of leaves and in 2007, we'd improve it by mixing it was cactus, rose thorns, and porcupine quills.

Hi,

That will probably be Microsoft's next patent - a unique and innovative method of flinging poo.

Not sure if anyone here has realized, but apparently Microsoft are trying to patent the ribbon (and then planning to license the ribbon idea to third party developers royalty-free, as long as those third party developers aren't doing anything to compete with Microsoft)...

wrong place

Edited 2008-09-18 20:15 UTC

I have the same problem at work. People complain endlessly. Then I show them how to change their approach to working in the Office app e.g. how Office 2007 is very much context sensitive and things start coming to them. Office 2007 has may nice touches. The zoom bar is very handy. The attachment preview saves a lot of time.

Office 2007 is a big step forward but you have to be willing to open your mind.

And you have to have time to spend on it. When I need to get work done, I get very "old and indignant" when the UI is totally changed, there is little in the way of transition aids, and it takes me twice as long to find things.

If I had time I'd be willing to give it a chance, but unless my employer purchases Office 2007, my only exposure to it will be helping friends with it. Office 2003 (and increasingly, OpenOffice) fulfill my needs for "office" software.

If you are hiring people who are unwilling to relearn new skills as part of their job - then obviously you've hired people who aren't suitable for the job title. For me, I've held a variety of jobs in the past - and each job I continuously up-skilled myself; what is the next thing coming around the corner, what is the new product in the pipe line.

Continuous up-skilling is part of your job description and it isn't for the company to do it - it is for YOU to do it, and if YOU fail to do it, then YOU should get fired for not keeping yourself up to date with the equipment provided by the company.

Me? I've moved from Word Star 2000 to Wordperfect/Harvard Graphics/Lotus 1-2-3 to Lotus Smartsuite to Wordperfect Suite, then to Microsoft Office with dabbling in OpenOffice.org - each time I've moved, I hit the ground running without any problems. Why? because I *LEARN* the fundamentals of computers so that I can transport existing skills to new software packages and apply the same knowledge to a new situation.

The problem is that people are taught as if they were automated macro's, and if they get out of their comfort zone - if an icon is ever so slightly moved - they lose their orientation. Quite frankly, I really fear what the future will be like with people like that in charge.

Yes, lets rewrite the linux kernel in c++ because change should be a part of the job.

Obviously retraining people who are just as productive with the new or old is a waste of money. Given your bizarre take on shoving ribbon up peoples rumps a company you ran might end up in the ground rather fast.

At least give the people a reversion choice. No-choice foisting is just arrogant jerk programming.

Rewriting the Linux kernel in C++ is no small feat and there are no gains to be had. Ribbon on the other hand has made a thoroughly complex interface much easier to use.

There is no comparison between the two.

The parallel I gave (C->C++) is fine, its just that you have trouble thinking clearly in abstractions.

Change for the sake of change is wrong, and when a new method can be implemented side by side with the old method without penalty its arrogant and stupid.

Its funny, everyone I know seems to hate ribbon and disables or avoids this trash wherever possible. You might see utility is shuffling deck chairs, most of us are busy.

Stanford has free CS, EE and Robotics courses online now, you might want to sign up for a few so you can stop being such a moron and lusting after forced UI design changes from the worst UI designer in the industry whose only appeal is a large compatible software library that doesn't change for the hell of it (until Vista/2007, which is widely derided especially by IT departments.)


http://see.stanford.edu/default.aspx

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2330703,00.asp

Stanford is offering some of its most popular engineering classes free of charge to students and educators around the world, according to the university.

tah tah.

Perhaps they had problems running Office 2007 on their stone tablets?

Funny, I've seen more or less the exact opposite. People where completely confused for the first day and still grumbling half way through the second, by the end of the second day they've re-learned how to do most of their basic tasks, by day four they had pretty much gotten the hang of everything and by the end of the week most people far preferred it to office 2003.

These where people with normal levels of computer experience and without any sort of training.

Yes, you are the "old wave"

The ribbon is a much more functional way to access program features. organizing by the task you are performing and having all the relevant functions visible at the same time is much better than deeply nested menus.

The ribbon is task based UI design. much more efficient and much more pleasing to work with, except for those who are so inflexible as to not be able to make the adjustments.

I really think that 90% of the reasons to hold back on moving forward in design is due to 10% of the users.

A menu with a lot of submenus containing submenus is not a problem of the menu by itself, but an application usability design problem. A simple menu containing a lot of things in a good structured way is a simple and nice UI tool.

You can easily iterate through all the menu options or you can easily reach a menu option using your keyboards, I do not know if that is possible and easy through ribbons.



If the change is for good, the "pain and sorrow" will be worth it, but otherwise (as in this case), there is no need to suffer ... I always will prefer a nice and clean UI than an UI filled with lots of little figures than probably I will never use.

Anyway, I will agree fully with your comments if Apple replaces its top level menu for a top level ribbon

Edited 2008-09-18 20:52 UTC

Tell that to the corporations who have to retrain 90% of their staff at a massive up-front cost, not to mention the cost in productivity without significant gain at the end of the retraining.

Its not about holding back on moving forward, its about how you implement the "moving forward". No "legacy" mode in the first version to contain a new UI concept is just plain stupid.

good thing there is a legacy mode in Office 2007.

http://on10.net/blogs/sarahintampa/Office-2007-quotLegacyquot-Mode/

Edited 2008-09-18 23:55 UTC

That is not a legacy mode, it is an add-in that emulates certain aspects of the previous look-and-feel. Legacy mode implies that the program is inbuilt to be able to fall back to how it used to feel/function, not that someone has released something you could download (and buy, as I notice there is a Professional version of this for sale). I guess some people wont mind spending 30$ to get Office 2007 to behave more like previous versions.

Edited 2008-09-19 04:37 UTC

yeah, and people who paid like $600 bucks for o2k7 should have to pay another $30 to fix the asinine new menu system that everyone I know dislikes? I even asked the VP-level PA's and they are competent and responsible people who after months still dont like it.

It is not there to fix a problem, it is there to satisfy the fools who do not want to get more productive.

Well done sir, well done!

Why would you bring Sara Palin into this? The fact that you used Lipstick in your comment is a clear indication that you were talking about her and I find your remark highly sexist.

You + Sarcasm = disaster.

Cripes.... I thought I was laying it on pretty thick with the faulty logical connection between Palin and the lipstick.

Ding ding ding! Vertical space is at a premium. Put a tabbed interface on the side, and leave me with a menu with full functionality. It's not hard MS.

I wonder if the user will be able to click and drag the 'ribbon' from top to the bottom or to either side? Microsoft's toolbars have had that capability for years.

They could just bundle Paint.NET, which would be totally awesome. 1) It replaces MS Paint which is utterly useless. 2) It would show case the .NET framework as a viable client side framework. I find it disconcerting that while MS pushes Winforms and WPF as next generation GUI libraries, many of their applications are still Win32.

Paint.NET is NOT a Microsoft product, so it's impossible to be part of Windows.

It's written by one guy. Hire him and get him to work on Paint.NET full time and you can bundle it with Windows and get rid of the atrocity that is MS Paint.

I think most people jump right into photoshop after mspaint.exe . Or at least those of us that do work for a living.

Why not? MS has bought out apps before and included them in their OS. So has Apple (Logic, Final Cut, iTunes). If the app is good enough then MS should consider just buying the application and including it. Liek I said they have done that many times before (directx comes to mind as well as .net).

The developer of Paint.NET works at Microsoft. He does not intend Paint.NET to ever be included in Windows because that would make the development schedule of Paint.NET depend on that of Windows. Now he can release new versions often.

There's a pretty strong incentive to not mess at all with notepad, so I doubt you'll see any new features there. Notepad is essentially always going to be an Edit box with a simple shell around it that doesn't do a whole lot because it needs to have very few dependencies.

But IE7Pro and Mozilla have spell checkers. Its inexcusable something so simple be omitted.

If the Ribbon takes up too much vertical space, double click on one of the tabs and it will be minimised. Single click on a tab and it will be displayed again and will auto-hide when you return to the body of the document.
Simple as.

Cool icon. Gort, Klaatu barada nikto!.

Anyways, I think MSFT post XP/2003 have really gone into bad territory, its far easier to embrace Aqua than it is to embrace Aero/Ribbions. Its to the point of absurdity.

My guess is that Microsoft are using the ribbon everywhere because Microsoft have got a patent on the ribbon GUI interface.

Microsoft's dream would be to have "ubiquitous ribbon GUIs" on computers everywhere, so that the bulk of newbie users would expect a ribbon GUI and could not operate a more traditional menu/toolbar interface ... and hence all desktop software would have to be sourced from Microsoft, or at least pay Microsoft a royalty.

This is the one and only reason why you will see a ribbon interface on Microsoft's applications ... my prediction is that you will see it used in Microsoft applications even where it make no sense at all.

Given that many screens these days have 16:10 aspect ratios, and that the market seems to be moving towards smaller screens and ultraportable netbooks instead of larger screens, IMO it is a wonderful thing that "the ribbon" GUI eats up vertical screen real estate, and that Microsoft's patent is unlikely to cover a ribbon-type GUI that is vertically orientated on the left or right side of the screen ...

Edited 2008-09-18 23:59 UTC

or maybe they just prefer using UI they deem better

I'm actually hopeful that this latest attempt at lock-in by Microsoft won't actually work.

http://www.workswithu.com/2008/09/16/can-ubuntu-overcome-the-status...

The more Microsoft change things from one version of Windows/Office to the next, the more capable people become at adjusting to a different thing than what they were used to before.

This works just as well for adjusting to a new OS altogether as it does to adjusting to a new version of Windows.

Paradoxically, going with a non-Windows option that this UI change enables you to at least attempt (you have to learn a new UI anyway, so why not learn a non-Microsoft one?) actually allows you you utterly escape the very lock-in that Microsoft are seeking to entrench.

Not necessarily. If you look at the ribbon, it seems like a natural extension of the tool bar fused with the tab based interface - one could easily, if they got a decent lawyer (who actually had his shit together) to argue prior art. Then again, IMHO - patents on software shouldn't be given out to the same level they're done today.

Anyway, I think that the ribbon, although a HUGE improvement over the menu based paradigm, I still prefer the 'grand unified menu' at the top and the way which iWorks/Office 2008 is done. But I guess I would be in the minority (given that all alternative operating systems seem to be hell bent on copying Windows, right down to some of the stupid UI ideas too).

If XP/2003 and windows before the Ribbon era are so stupid and copied stupidly, why is there so much shrink wrap and custom software developed there ? I guess everyone in the world making this a popular place to use software are all idiots then.

They do have stupid UI paradigms; the only reason why people use them is because they ignorant as to the alternatives that exist. For someone like me who used Amiga/Atari/Apple computers before using a PC - the whole concept of a menu on every window is a stupid idea.

The ribbon can be easily navigated with the keyboard - easier in fact than menu bars.
Press the Alt key on the keyboard. Tags will appear on all the Ribbon tabs. Press the letter for the tab you want; H for Home, N for Insert.
The tags will move to the command level. Press the letter to activate the required command.
In this way a picture dialog box can be opened with three keystrokes ALT N P.
It only takes a little time and an open mind...

You are so right, but I can't mod you up as I've already commented. For Windows to move on, the Registry *has* to go.

May I ask why? Registry is much faster than text files. It contains standard API to read and write. And it has been proven many times, that registry *is not* the thing which slows windows down, contrary to what many thinks.

So why does it have to go?!? Just because you would prefer it? I don't think so. Many more people (including me) would complain about if its gone.

Actually using database is a very good idea for system settings storage. Just look at the mess which *nix config files are. Different syntax, random locations, etc. Registry just makes more sense. If you put all the stuff from registry to text/xml, can you imagine how many megabytes they would take? Can you imagine overhead to read/write? You can? Good.

PS. Yes, applications should store settings as files in AppData directories and that's what Microsoft encourages. But you cannot force everyone in thousands of 3rd party devs to do so.

Ok, so maybe it's not what slows your system down. At least, not in NT-based Windows. Maybe it's not even faster than text configuration files. But it sure as hell is what's still keeping it virtually impossible from successfully backing up all your settings and data in Windows and transferring them to another machine, or even back on to the same damn system.


I won't complain. Its main use is "hiding" information from users, such as registration info, which shouldn't even *need* to be hidden. All it does is complicate reinstalls and moving one system to another. And Microsoft and other companies like it that way. Why? Because you depend on *them* for all your backup needs, such as for moving to a new system. Plus the fact that it makes it more difficult to move a Windows installation from one PC to another, forcing you to buy "moving" software when you buy a new Windows PC.


Yeah, and I like it that way. It's not hidden and--get this--it's commented so you can understand how to read it. And even if it's not commented, it's still easy to figure out just by looking at it. And if all else fails, there are man pages to explain what you don't understand.


The registry is a good idea in concept. In reality... it's a disaster and a pain in the f****** ass, and it ties you to one single machine. And even gives you trouble if you try to reinstall the same OS onto the same machine. Genious, ain't it? Yeah, I just love the registry...

Edited 2008-09-20 08:45 UTC

Thank you for seeing reality.
In practice, the registry is a disaster.

It makes backup and restore in Windows a pain in any form. Windows geeks are given over to the idea that "Backup" means 'duplicating files to somewhere else' and "Restore" means 'doing a full re-install and re-configure'. That's not Restore, that's doing your annual re-install early!

Yikes! I don't mean to reply to my own topic but there's one major oversight I completely missed. I meant "Linux and BSD", not "Linux and Ubuntu." Oops.

But yeah, "No Bullshit Edition" sounds like a good name for the imaginary Windows OS I was describing. Has a nice ring to it, don't ya think?

A large part of the bloat is coming in with "advanced" UI bull crap. I used to think Stardock Window Blinds was bloated, Aero and beyond are horrific.

Whoops, didn't see this post before I commented. Damn I completely agree. Hate wasting vertical space.

Me too, but since this is the FIRST ever big UI upgrade to Paint and Wordpad and punch of other applications at least in what? 20 years? oh man, this is going to be huge. Espesially if they manage to fix the performace issues and make ui more consistant. Server 2008 is not bad performance wise.

I agree with you 100% here. Ribbons suck up screen real estate like nothing else.

The ribbon has good keyboard accessibility, maybe even better than that of the classical menus and toolbars. Check out this blog post by Jensen Harris: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2005/10/13/480568.aspx

You're under the mistaken impression that MS cares about accessibility. The only accessibility they put it is enough so that third party screen readers and other products can take advantage of various video driver hooks, API hacks, and some limited accessibility APIs to then retrofit accessibility onto Windows. Being one who relies on a screen reader myself, and having made various scripts/hacks/what have you for programs in Windows that either do not hook to the Microsoft accessibility APIs at all or are just plain awkward to use I can tell you firsthand it's absolutely ridiculous. MS does enough to comply with section 508 and nothing more.
If you want to see very big strides in accessibility take a look at what Apple has been doing--the results they've achieved in this amount of time are amazing. A very good screen reader built right into the operating system, for instance, and a comprehensive accessibility framework that they are slowly but surely updating their own software to use. This will happen even faster in Snow Leopard, as Carbon will finally be phased out and accessibility is a 99% certainty in any native cocoa application--and when it isn't, it doesn't take much to implement the missing accessibility at all. This is also good for developers, as it makes them more aware of accessibility issues and, since the screen reader and magnifier are right there, they can easily test their programs accessibility. Compare this to the windows screen readers, the most popular of which costs $1200 and, being the bolted-on approach, often renders windows unstable. Most small software developers are not willing to pay for that, and I don't blame them. Add to that Apple has come out with the first truly accessible consumer device--the 4th generation iPod nano. I'm hoping that this actually makes MS sit up and take notice--while I am very much a Mac lover, I believe true accessibility to all platforms is important (KDE, I'm pointing at you here too). If you actually se MS and Apple side by side in their accessibility efforts Apple is the clear winner especially in recent years. Even the GNOME accessibility effort, slow and bug-ridden as it is, has done more in terms of making a platform accessible than MS has done.
In terms of the ribbon (back on topic here) I find that while it is keyboard accessible up to a point, you already have to have a basic idea of what will be there. I can't move around it like I can a menu with the keyboard. I also dislike the ribbon for its context-sensitive nature, I really don't like when software tries to hold my hand. Office's UI was indeed cluttered, I'll give them that. Still, given the ribbon's layout it's just not something I prefer.
The question of lock-in concerns me as well. As I understand it, one of the previous commenters had it right--that MS will license the ribbon, royalty free, to anyone's product as long as they're not competing with MS directly. I have, however, found another condition in addition to this one: the product must meet Microsoft's UI guidelines. In other words, MS has to approve your program. Does anyone smell trouble coming? Also, what mainstream programs won't be directly competing with Microsoft? Wordprocessors, spreadsheets, chat/IM/VOIP clients, email readers... fail, on all of these and more as MS has a product in all of these areas. So, if you want the program to have a ribbon you'd better not be competing with MS and they'd better like the way your program looks. If you don't have a ribbon you won't fit into the overall UI. Completely insane. Of course this does depend on whether MS is actually able to patent this user interface concept. Personally, I've always found patents on user interfaces to be a bit silly but the law is what it is until someone manages to change it. Now, how the patents work outside of the US I honestly can't say, as I'm not a lawyer.

It doesn't sound like you answered the question with a "Yes" or "No" because its not available yet. Your making the assumption that its the same ribbon as in Office. We will have to wait and see how accessible Win7 is when we get it publicly. Feel free to continue reading if you want to see my response to the other points made in the post.

Microsoft's approach to accessibility has always been to provide the framework and means to plug into the UI and allow Assistive Technology (AT) vendors to create software for different users. They provide some built in AT which allows you to install a more commercial and powerful screen reader. Although I don't use JAWS, I have a lot of friends that do. It is a great solution to the operating system. You mention it makes Windows unstable? I'd like to see some hard data on that. My friends use JAWS and love it. In fact anyone can download JAWS for a free trial and take a shot themselves. Please do not over generalize your bad experiences, as a lot of us have had great experience with AT on Windows.



Apple is offering the first accessible consumer device? Don't you think your doing a bit of an inustice to the thousands of AT vendors out there that design commercial hardware/software for people with disabilities? Take a look at some of the products at http://www.abledata.com/ who lists the thousands of software/hardware solutions for users created by other companies way before Apple.


you'll be happy to hear MS is involved in the AIA, working with Novell to bring an accessibility framework to Linux and Windows. See point 3 below. I believe interoperability is a key to future improvements in accessibility across the board.



Although there may not be a lot of AT users on OSNews to argue with you, I would like to bring up my research on what MS is doing in accessibility.

Microsoft is committed to accessibility on a lot of fronts:
1) UIA - http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms747327.aspx, is the new framework that is replacing MSAA on Windows. It provides a greater flexibility and has a lot of potential to overcome the issues MSAA faced. Your correctly identified the limitations of that framework, but MS is working hard to find a better solution.
2) Windows, IE 8, Office, etc- http://www.microsoft.com/enable/ Showcases the products and services Microsoft is committed to with regards to accessibility. IE 8 makes great strides in accessibility compliance and ARIA
3) AIA http://www.accessinteropalliance.org/ Microsoft is committed to accessibility and its interoperability on other operating systems. Its not just show, look at what Novell is doing with UIA http://www.mono-project.com/Accessibility
4) AT Vendors - There are a lot of unique solutions available for people on Windows. It is apparent that Microsoft views accessibility as a space where AT vendors can provide the best solutions, albeit, expensive ones. With the thousands of software and hardwrae solutions that work with Microsoft, I would like to see a side by side comparison if the software developed for Apple (including what Apple produces) and the software developed for Windows (including what MS produces). Apple may provide more in the box, but Windows reaches a lot of more people. Whether they use MSAA, UIA, or other API's/workarounds, they still provide so many more solutions for a diverse group of people. Also take a look at MS developer center for accessibility http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/accessibility/default.aspx
5) Bill Gates commits the company to accessibility http://www.magnifiers.org/access/speechgates.shtml
6) VPATS - http://www.microsoft.com/industry/government/products/section508.ms... MS provides extremely detailed VPATS to discuss their limitations in accessibility. Yes, this relates to 508, but take a look at their VPATS which actually provide workarounds for some of the issues and problems people have.
7) Testing Tools - Open source accessibility testing tools are made available by Microsoft on Codeplex http://www.codeplex.com/AccCheck - AccChecker is a great tool. UIA Verify is also impressive http://www.codeplex.com/UIAutomationVerify
8) Windows SDK tools - Allow you to see how accessible your application are with the Windows standards. http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=3755582A-A...
9) Windows 7 Accessibility- we don't know much externally yet, but the Windows Accessibility site points to the Win7 blog. I am sure we'll see more from them soon.
http://blogs.msdn.com/accessibility/archive/2008/08/19/new-windows-...
10) CSUN - One of the biggest AT conferences in the world, and each year Microsoft showcases their work. http://blogs.msdn.com/accessibility/archive/2008/03/28/inspiration-...

I'm concerned over your comment as it generalized a lot of us that use Windows and assistive technology. You mentioned your a "Mac lover" which is fine, but please don't say that MS doesn't care about accessibility. As a low vision user, I am happy with my current software and hardware working in Windows.

Given that this has gone way off the topic I suggest that, should you wish to continue this discussion, we do so off of this thread. You missed the point of some of my statements and on others we have a very different viewpoint on what actually constitutes effort for accessibility. Again though this has gone too far from the topic of this comment thread, and I'll not bore the rest of the people here by discussing something they probably don't care about.

Hi Dark Nexus,

While I understand that many screen readers cost an absurd amount of money, I'd urge you to consider taking a look at Issist (www.issist.com). Issist has been developed specifically to provide affordable Assistive Technology to the visually impaired.

iZoom 2.0, the flagship product, is a professional grade product that retails at $199, and is NOT made with a bolt-on approach. It is the only screen reader software that works WITH Windows, and is highly stable. iZoom2Go is the USB Key version that retails for $299, and can be used on ANY computer without installation.