Linked by on Sun 26th Feb 2006 16:17 UTC
ActiveWin reviews Office 2007 beta 1, and concludes: "It's an innovative interface yes, but will the benefits outweigh the changes? That's for users to decide. Yes this early code does have glitches and performance issues left to be ironed out; right now the focus is on reliability and stability. The BETA 2 release should provide us with an early glimpse of what's in store in the final product. My personal say is getting used to interface should not be a problem for many since the familiar tools are organized in ways that makes it convenient for the user, and new tools make the interface more intelligent and more aware of what the user is doing, presenting the right tools for the task at hand."
Permalink for comment 99411
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:
2005-09-04
Just because the article doesn't cover it, doesn't mean there isn't anything innovative. The interface is actually innovative in itself. You may not like it much, but innovation is not about what people like. Some of the best tools and products out there are the ones that have a steeper learning curve. But in the end, you're more productive once you learn. vi is a good example of this.
Innovation MUST BE about what adopters like, or they won't adopt it (unless forced to).
vi is a superb example of an awful interface. *nix types that cite vi as being a great product are what holds *nix back. Or I could ask the question "Why is it that DOS is bad but vi is good?" Doesn't make sense really. DOS in its own way is just as powerful and cryptic as vi -- and neither ultimately triumphed. DOS & vi have a certain utility and place, but are not marvels of innovation.
Innovation is a new product that triumphs. Beta was better but VHS was the innovation that triumphed.
vi may be great, for a machine, but the vast majority of humans do not want it. Similarly the vast majority of humans do not want a new interface unless it clearly offers something they need. Since hundreds of millions of users already know the Office interface, a new one offers nothing to them. Nada, zip, zilch.
A new interface only offers something, maybe, perhaps, to new users. That is once everyone in the pipeline, from teachers to book writers to IT staffers learns the new system. All of which adds up to huge costs for, ah, no gain.
I switched to a gui from DOS not because DOS was not powerful. In fact I still use DOS, constantly. I now also use a GUI because with a GUI (1) I can do multiple things at once (yes, yes, *nix got this one right), (2) the MS GUI has a more consistent interface making new apps easier to learn to use, (3) the G in GUI.
The only correct statement you made above is:
Some of the best tools and products out there are the ones that have a steeper learning curve. But in the end, you're more productive once you learn.
Your conclusion about vi is a mistake. The best "steep learning curve" products are good because of their power/scope and _despite_ their difficulty of use not because of it.
When difficulty of use is a virtue, vi is king.
When power & scope are virtues, amalgams like (DOS + Windows) or (*nix cmd prompt + vi + perl + ... + *nix GUI) are king.
vi is the hammer that too many *nix nerds try to pound non *nix users with.
Floyd <-- not a nail
http://www.just-think-it.com