Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 12th May 2010 15:41 UTC
Microsoft The Microsoft empire is built upon two pillars: the Windows operating system, and Microsoft Office. Windows 7 made its way unto the scene last year, and now it's time to work on the other pillar. Today, Microsoft officially launched Microsoft Office 2010 and SharePoint 2010. Regular customers will be able to purchase the new versions next month, starting at 119 USD.
Thread beginning with comment 424138
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
MollyC
Member since:
2006-07-04

The old UI is already way over burdened. Keeping it around as an option would entail having to cram even more things into that already over-burdened UI as more features are added. And those features would be hidden from the user, as they'd be buried in that byzantine UI, and things would simply get worse and worse with each subsequent release.

Also, there's something to be said for forcing the users to move on to the new UI. If the old one were available as an option, lots of people would simply use that out of force of habit, even if they would've found the new UI to be way better. Which would lead back to my first point.

Maybe you should read some entries on the excellent blog of Jensen Harris, starting with this one:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2008/03/12/the-story-of-the-r...

It'll show how the old UI simply could not be scaled any further. New features crammed into it were hidden from the user. Menus, toolbars, task panes, etc. Something needed to be done. And a clean break was best.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

New features crammed into it were hidden from the user. Menus, toolbars, task panes, etc. Something needed to be done. And a clean break was best.


If Microsoft were truly interested in a clean UI break, in UI consistency across Windows applications, and thereby in improving the "experience" for their users, then why didn't Microsoft simply publish a set of "ribbon rules" (a specification, if you will) to define that ribbon UI consistency, and then let any developer who wanted to simply go ahead and implement a ribbon interface for their application?

No, with Microsoft, instead we get this:
http://weblogs.asp.net/fbouma/archive/2008/07/20/the-evil-of-the-of...
http://www.itwriting.com/blog/591-microsofts-office-ui-patent-trap-...

This pretty much guarantees that some Windows applications (mostly, those from Microsoft) will have a ribbon interface, and other Windows applications (those not from Microsoft) won't ... making for a horribly confused UI environment in Windows.

Just typical.

PS: One remembers, of course, bygone days when Microsoft used to insist that "look and feel" was not protectable IP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corp...

The court ruled that, "Apple cannot get patent-like protection for the idea of a graphical user interface"


Edited 2010-05-13 07:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

1. Microsoft's position is that the old menus/toolbars are fine for apps where such a UI isn't overburdened. So there's no need for every app to use a Ribbon UI.

2. UI consistency among all 1st and 3rd party apps is overrated. Web pages have different UIs and users get along just fine.

3. There are multiple ribbon components provided by third party developer component makers like DevExperss, provided by MFC, and provided by Win32 itself. And there are many non-Microsoft apps that use these to implement Ribbons, and they're just fine.

4. As for your complaint that Microsoft seeks to disallow OO.o from ripping off the Ribbon UI for which Microsoft spent millions on R&D, while at the same time allowing any and every app that doesn't directly compete with Office to use it, I really couldn't care less.

5. Your post is irrelevant to the subject that was being discussed, and you know that.

Reply Parent Score: 2