Does anyone else think Word 2007 Sucks? Badly!!

[Pduol]

So the company I work for just gave me a new laptop. Great!!! :) The one I had was about 6 years old.

It came with Office 2007.

I fired up Word 2007 for the first time this morning. At first glance I thought, "Hey this looks pretty cool!"

After playing around with it for I while I came to the conclusion that Microsoft had done something right. Word 2007 is awesome!

Then I had to do some actual work.

Ever have something go from awesome to total shit in about 7 seconds?

What the fuck was microsoft thinking when they built this piece of shit?? Every damn function that I use I have to go on an expedition to find it! Nothing is where I would expect it to be. There's a toilet in the middle of the living room and the kitchen sink is out in the garage. I STILL haven't figured out which light switch controls that big honkin' huge crystal chandelier that's in the broom closet.

And for the love of god, would somebody please tell me how to split a table. You know, that command that you can reach in Word 2003 be clicking on TABLE and then SPLIT TABLE. I've been searching for it for an hour!:mad:

FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK!!!

I can't wait to try Excel.

[StusBlues]

There ARE some real advantages, actually, but there probably was no need for the radical changes inflicted on society in this iteration.

[What Exit?]

My understanding is the ribbon is suppose to be a huge help to touchscreen users. I think the new interface is terrible and they needed an option to return to the menu system of old.

On the bright side, they are some really excellent improvements in the file handling and especially the excel capabilities for really large spreadsheets.

[RhapsodyInBlue]

I guess I spent too many years getting used to the old format for MS Office. The new version took some getting used to; I ended up buying "MS Office 2007 for Dummies" which was a big help.

The onscreen/online help section is pretty good, too. If you click the ? in the upper right, it will take you to MS Help. From there, it was two clicks to Table, Split Table to arrive at this direction:

NOTE: To split one table into two tables, you must do the following:

Select the row that you want to be the first row of the second table.
Under Table Tools, on the Layout tab, in the Merge group, click Split Table.

[Pduol]

I guess I spent too many years getting used to the old format for MS Office. The new version took some getting used to; I ended up buying "MS Office 2007 for Dummies" which was a big help.

The onscreen/online help section is pretty good, too. If you click the ? in the upper right, it will take you to MS Help. From there, it was two clicks to Table, Split Table to arrive at this direction:

NOTE: To split one table into two tables, you must do the following:

Select the row that you want to be the first row of the second table.
Under Table Tools, on the Layout tab, in the Merge group, click Split Table.

Thank you Thank you Thank you!!

[DianaG]

But seriously, how bassackward is that?

WHERE"S THE FUCKING FILE MENU?!?!? I WANT MY FUCKING FILE MENU BACK!!!!

Ahem. Okay, I'm better now. But seriously, I HATE the new interface. I hate it with the fiery, blistering hatred I usually reserve for telemarketers and people who stand on the left side of the escalator.

[amarone]

What the fuck was microsoft thinking when they built this piece of shit?? Every damn function that I use I have to go on an expedition to find it! Nothing is where I would expect it to be. There's a toilet in the middle of the living room and the kitchen sink is out in the garage. I STILL haven't figured out which light switch controls that big honkin' huge crystal chandelier that's in the broom closet.
I felt like that at first. Now having gotten used to Office 2007, I would hate to go back to 2003. There are so many things that are now quicker. Stick with it - not that you have any choice.

[Southern Yankee]

Do a Google search for "Search Commands." It's a free add-in for Office 2007 from Microsoft labs that puts a new ribbon section in with a context-sensitive search bar. You simply type in what you want (i.e., split table) and it brings all the relevant menu options right to the ribbon. The downside is that it doesn't show you how to find them yourselves, but when you're in a crunch and can't find something it works great.

Incidentally, I'm playing with the Office 2010 beta and they already dropped the big ol' Office Button and replaced it with a button just called "File." I suppose they got a lot of hate mail about dropping the File menu bar.

All in all, I have come to like Office 2007, and 2010 has some very useful features as well, but there is definitely a learning curve.

[Harmonious Discord]

I don't know as I'm using Word 97.

[Duke]

On the bright side, they are some really excellent improvements in the file handling and especially the excel capabilities for really large spreadsheets.

Plus in Pivot Tables and in Conditional Formatting, as well. Of course, for those of us who have to deal with it, the 1-million+ lines allowed is pretty nice.

But all the ribbon does is foul up the msoCommandBar commands.

[Runs With Scissors]

I just got it on my computer at work.

After five minutes with it, I thought maybe I should offer extra credit to any of my students who are forced to type a paper with it.

One thing I discovered about it accidentally (Read the directions? I think not!) is after you highlight some text, right click...you get a nice pop up of useful commands.

But, in general, they took things that were one step tasks and made then three step tasks...after searching for each step for several minutes.

[Pduol]

Do a Google search for "Search Commands." It's a free add-in for Office 2007 from Microsoft labs that puts a new ribbon section in with a context-sensitive search bar. You simply type in what you want (i.e., split table) and it brings all the relevant menu options right to the ribbon. The downside is that it doesn't show you how to find them yourselves, but when you're in a crunch and can't find something it works great.

You are a life saver! Thank you for this. Looks like this will also help when I tackle the "new and improved":rolleyes: version of Excel tomorrow.

[Rhythmdvl]

There ARE some real advantages, actually, but there probably was no need for the radical changes inflicted on society in this iteration.

Microsoft: Yeah, but they're macadamia nuts in this shit!


I write/edit extensively with Word and Excel. I'm also pretty tech-savvy and generally love to play around with advanced features and options to unravel programs. I've had this piece of shit for several months now, and am still in the process of getting used to it. A month or so I got fed up with this and that and this and that dagnabbit fricken fracken AAAHHHRRR... so I started a running list of complaints. It's up to about twenty eight items. I was originally thinking of posting it in the Pit (hence to doc title, I hate Word), but will likely put it in GQ in case there are fixes, workarounds, or tips that address the issues.

Oh, there's also a couple add-ons that will help with the OP. One is Ribbon Customizer (http://pschmid.net/office2007/ribboncustomizer/index.php). Among other things, it recreates the 2003 menu system (File, Tools, Edit, etc.).

I can freely admit that there are some choice macadamia nuts, but that doesn't make up for the overall bucket of diarrhea MS is trying to feed us.

[HookerChemical]

What the fuck was microsoft thinking when they built this piece of shit?? Every damn function that I use I have to go on an expedition to find it! Nothing is where I would expect it to be. There's a toilet in the middle of the living room and the kitchen sink is out in the garage. I STILL haven't figured out which light switch controls that big honkin' huge crystal chandelier that's in the broom closet.


In high school and college, I used Word Perfect. When I graduated, I switched to Open Office. Whenever I switched to Word (because a professor required Word files or work required Word), this is how I felt. I still feel that Office 2003 wired the garage door to the Clapper.

When I got my current job, I had to switch over to Office 2007, and I found it very easy to pick up. I'm Excel guru in my office now. Word still baffles me sometimes, but it would confound me even more in Office 2003. (Word Perfect spoiled me. I expect formatting to be easy to understand and manipulate. Microsoft doesn't subscribe to that theory.)

That said, they should have included an option to use the old style menus. Some people like the open the garage door with a round of applause.

[Rhythmdvl]

Some people like the open the garage door with a round of applause.

I'm not quite getting the idiom here.

I think there are related spheres of complaint. One is how MS changed the interface. IMHO, much of this was driven by the marketing department. There are great threats to Word out there (e.g., OO), and Word users are still using an intuitive interface (i.e., an interface that has much in common with other programs, such as File, Edit, Tools, etc.), then switching from Word is easier. So, for primarily marketing reasons, they made massive changes that detract from, rather than improve the experience. Yes, things can be figured out, but there were few benefits to the reorganization.

In the meantime, what a pain in the ass. I tried keeping track (similar to the OP, I was excited about the upgrade, then stuck in shock and disbelief at what I found) of the differences between interfaces. For example, there was a lot more movement between selecting tabs and items in the tabs.

Second, despite a lot of improvements, there were a slew of steps backwards. Here's my favorite bit from the MS site:

Can I customize the Ribbon? (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HA102277541033.aspx)
Things you can't do

Add to or rearrange the commands on the Ribbon.
Change or remove a command or group on the Ribbon.
Add tabs to the Ribbon, unless you use XML and programming code.
Switch to the toolbars and menus from earlier versions of Microsoft Office.
Change the font or font size used on the Ribbon.


Things you can do

Minimize the Ribbon to make more space available on your screen.
Move the Quick Access Toolbar to position it below or above the Ribbon.
Customize the Quick Access Toolbar to add buttons that represent the commands that you frequently use.
Use XML and programming code to extend the Office Fluent user interface by adding custom tabs, buttons, check boxes, or Dialog Box Launchers.


Thanks, assholes. So basic customization, such as moving and resizing the fucking takes-up-too-much-space ribbon isn't possible out of the box. I'm glad Ribbon Customizer is there, but this is pretty basic functionality.

[robby]

Does anyone else think Word 2007 Sucks? Badly!! Yes. (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=451583)

[Bosstone]

I'm not quite getting the idiom here.Not an idiom; it's a direct callback to:I still feel that Office 2003 wired the garage door to the Clapper.

[Rhythmdvl]

Right ... I didn't get it from that point on. Is the clapper that old TV gadget?

[Mangetout]

I've been using Office 2007 for a little over a year now at work, and I still hate the ribbons. I can find my way around them a bit better now, but I still hate them.

They're at their very worst in Access 2007 - because so many of the things you might want to do there really don't have graphical ways to represent them that are particularly distinctive, and anyway, when I want to create a new table, I just don't need a pictoral representation of a table to help me decide where to click.

The ribbon is patronising and intrusive, occupying a huge and unnecessary slice of screen real-estate (I know it can be hidden, but that's just a nuisance too either way).

I consider myself a reasonably adaptable user and intuitive learner for these sorts of things, but a year in, the ribbon still gets on my nerves.

[tacoloco]

Nope, sorry OP, I actually prefer Office 2007. I didn't at first, but once I got used to it, there are a lot of cool features.

[Southern Yankee]

You are a life saver! Thank you for this. Looks like this will also help when I tackle the "new and improved":rolleyes: version of Excel tomorrow.

You're welcome. We included Search Commands in our default installation package when we rolled 2007 out to our users. It's been a life saver to a lot of folks.

[Frylock]

I dig Word 2007's bibliography features. If Word 2003 had them, I didn't know about them.

[Vinyl Turnip]

Nope, sorry OP, I actually prefer Office 2007. I didn't at first, but once I got used to it, there are a lot of cool features.

There's one in every crowd.

No, seriously, there's always at least one. I'm pretty sure they're put there.

[Harriet the Spry]

Count me as another who likes it. I think its main benefits are to those who are learning Word for the first time. Remember, that's a new batch of humans every year. It takes a lot of very useful features that we experienced users knew about, and knew exactly where they were buried, but and puts them right out in the open. That should cut down on things like "I didn't know you could sort!" Also, the ribbon is very helpful for shared machines, like in a lab, that don't have individual user accounts. It was really nice to have your toolbars customized the way you like them in the older versions, but using a shared computer meant no toolbar, or someone else's completely illogical toolbar. Here, at least you have a standard.

I will admit to a little stress over messing with keyboard shortcuts. My fingers know a lot of the Alt + Menu letters shortcuts, and a few of those seem to be going away. Like I used to know Print Preview as Alt-F, V and Page Setup as Alt-F, S, and I think those are two that have gone away.

Putting the features on the ribbon is, I hope we can agree, 1000% better than the dancing paper clip, or Bob.

[Lightray]

I will admit to a little stress over messing with keyboard shortcuts. My fingers know a lot of the Alt + Menu letters shortcuts, and a few of those seem to be going away. Like I used to know Print Preview as Alt-F, V and Page Setup as Alt-F, S, and I think those are two that have gone away.
This, this is the reason Microsoft's developers deserve a month of fire ants in their beds. They have, unbelievably, sabotaged the productivity of their customers. I used to be lightning-fast on Excel, Word, etc., but now grind to a halt every minute, cursing as hotkeys that've been supported for decades not only don't work, but bring up completely different random commands.

Unfortunately, MS has reached that not-quite-monopoly stage of "too big to fail", no matter how they deserve it for their crappy business practices.

[amarinth]

There ARE some real advantages, actually, but there probably was no need for the radical changes inflicted on society in this iteration.Apparently, if you've never used Word before, Word2007 is supposedly much more intuitive.

So for all - three... maybe even four of those people across the world this change was for them. (Small children don't count, they don't use word processors)

[Harriet the Spry]

(Small children don't count, they don't use word processors)

:dubious: Every year, a new batch of them do.

[Grumman]

I don't find it that bad. I've only been using it for less than a year compared to 10-12 with the old style, but I didn't actually have much difficulty learning the new changes. It probably helps that I knew ahead of time that the logo in the top-left corner was really a button.

[Larry Mudd]

I don't use Word very hard, so I am only annoyed by Word 2007 the rare time I have to do a mail merge or work with forms or locked documents.

Excel 2007, on the other hand - it kills me to reorient myself when I'm forced to use it. Where the fuck are my macros? Oh, right, three levels down under "Developer." And so on, and so on...

That being said, when Office 2010 comes out next summer, we're going to move everyone over to that, uniformly. I've been trying to get used to working with 2007, in anticipation. But it burns... it burns....

[dropzone]

Excel, with which many of us have muscle memory that knows the old [Alt] commands, still pretended to know them in 2007. I have no faith that 2010 does.

OTOH, one can slap into submission the latest version of AutoCAD. Too many of us rebelled against the "ribbon" as a solution to a problem that never existed, as we all had our toolbars and our muscles knew where to find each command. Had they not carried forward that feature there would've been wholesale rebellion with many more lost sales, though I still save in 2004 format for better compatibility. I've noticed that it still supports the old DOS menus, though I haven't used them in almost 20 years.

[elucidator]

You're welcome. We included Search Commands in our default installation package when we rolled 2007 out to our users. It's been a life saver to a lot of folks.

"We"? You work for MicroSoft? Aren't you supposed to wear a bell, or something?

[Cubsfan]

People are bitches. Office 2007 is FAR superior in nearly every way to previous versions of Word. Just because it's different and you can't figure it out in 2 seconds doesn't make it inferior to older versions.

The fact of the matter is that O7 puts thing where you EXPECT to find them instead of burying them 6 clicks down in some fucking task bar drop down box. It's true that MS has trained you over the years to look for shit in oddball places in the File bar, but now they are putting shit where you SHOULD find it. Nothing wrong with that.

Powerpoint is WAY better than any previous version. No contest. I also really like the format previewing in all of the programs in the suite.

The only thing they really jacked up on was the "Developer Toolbar" that is automatically hidden in each program and you don't even know it exists unless you go looking for it. There are some commands on those bars that are fairly common use that shouldn't be hidden.

[BigT]

I have to disagree with Cubsfan. Their biggest mistake was trying to force everyone to change all at once, instead of gradually. (Well, that and not being consistent. I'll get to that later.) Users of Windows have pretty much been trained to work with a particular interface, and even their way of thinking expects that interface. It's not just Office--nearly everything in Windows works with the menu bar, and certain options are always in the same place. Changing this around messes with people.

The problem with the new interface is that it doesn't take into account other programs. The ribbon is not even consistent among the different programs in Office (and some even still have the menus), let alone the other programs you use. This makes the interface take longer to learn. So they traded intuitiveness for practicality, and a lot of people don't like that.

Microsoft would have been far better to gradually change things, where the new interface would gradually feel more intuitive, instead of changing everything at once. They focused on making the new and casual users more comfortable, and left out the power user base.

[DWMarch]

The reason why MS changed the interface is because they kept getting requests for features that were already there.

Can you imagine being a developer and getting 6000 emails saying "This software really needs <obscure command>!!!"

Meanwhile, you're going "FFS! <obscure command> is already in there! It's under alt-tools-options-preferences-turnleft-turnright-sacrificeagoat!"

So they said fuck it and put it all up front where you can find it easily enough if you click around. Why is that so hard to adjust to?

[Merneith]

I disagree BigT. I think the only way to do this change was to do it all at once. If they'd tried to sneak in changes gradually, everyone would have stuck to their old ways until finally MS cut the ties and then there'd be the same amount of whinging as there was for the ribbon. It's like switching from a QWERTY keyboard to Dvorak. You just have to hold your nose and jump in.

Personally I think the ribbon is genius (and I've been using word processors since Word Perfect was blue.) People who complain because they can't find anything now are making a comment about themselves - not the program, imo.

[Southern Yankee]

"We"? You work for MicroSoft? Aren't you supposed to wear a bell, or something?

Ha. No, I just work in IT. I should have said "when my company deployed Office 2007, our customized installation package included Search Commands."

[Scuba_Ben]

I much prefer OpenOffice for my own use. Why shell out however-many-hundreds every new OS, when I can get the functionality I really care about for free?

I installed Ribbon Customizer, but it hasn't linked in to MS Office '07 yet. Other than being on the job today, what did I do wrong?

[Cubsfan]

So they said fuck it and put it all up front where you can find it easily enough if you click around. Why is that so hard to adjust to?


It's not. People are just a bunch of whiny bitches.

[amarone]

I much prefer OpenOffice for my own use. Why shell out however-many-hundreds every new OS, when I can get the functionality I really care about for free?
I have never had to buy Office again just because I change OS (but sticking to Microsoft operating systems). I tried Open Office but found it was missing functions that I was used to using and the spreadsheets were as slow as molasses.

So each to their own.

[BrotherCadfael]

The fact of the matter is that O7 puts thing where you EXPECT to find them instead of burying them 6 clicks down in some fucking task bar drop down box. It's true that MS has trained you over the years to look for shit in oddball places in the File bar, but now they are putting shit where you SHOULD find it. Nothing wrong with that.
To split one table into two tables, you must do the following:

Select the row that you want to be the first row of the second table.
Under Table Tools, on the Layout tab, in the Merge group, click Split Table.

Putting Split Tables under Merge is an example of "Put[ting] thing[s] where you EXPECT to find them"?

Well, this IS the company that makes you go to START to shut down. If you are used to that, perhaps putting Split under Merge makes sense.

But I wouldn't boast about that...

[Vinyl Turnip]

I much prefer OpenOffice for my own use. Why shell out however-many-hundreds every new OS, when I can get the functionality I really care about for free?

No reason, if you do all your own work, or share only with other OO users. I've gotten some Open Office documents from a co-worker in which the formatting is slightly screwed up when I open them in Word, requiring some low-level repair to display properly.

(Yes, I understand that's what I get for supporting Microsoft's unfair business practices and that my life and the world around me would be much improved if everyone used Open Office and Linux.)

[Merneith]

Putting Split Tables under Merge is an example of "Put[ting] thing[s] where you EXPECT to find them"?

Well, this IS the company that makes you go to START to shut down. If you are used to that, perhaps putting Split under Merge makes sense.

But I wouldn't boast about that...

The command for splitting tables is not really -under- anything. It's right there on the Table Layout ribbon, in plain sight. It happens to be grouped with other Split & Merge functions including Split Cells & Merge Cells.

This group, although it contains both Splitting & Merging commands, has the group name, Merge, in a little title bar beneath the actual commands. It would have been more accurate to call it Splitting & Merging but that would have been too long a title and screwed up the spacing.

The reason the group title bars are below the commands, rather than above them, is to break the concept that this is a menu of some sort rather than a grouping of related commands. The group names aren't important. A user who has read down to the group names has already read & passed over the command he's looking for.

The point of Start button was not, "Here's where I turn on my computer" but "Here's where I start if I want to issue a command (like, open a program or run defrag. Or, yes, shut down windows.)". But some people found this confusing so MS changed it with Vista, several years ago.

[Superfluous Parentheses]

My understanding is the ribbon is suppose to be a huge help to touchscreen users.
Hahaha. While it's probably true that the ribbon works better for touch screens than the traditional menus, nobody in their right mind uses a touchscreen for a word processor. The ones that try probably develop severe muscle issues in the first day.

Do a Google search for "Search Commands." It's a free add-in for Office 2007 from Microsoft labs that puts a new ribbon section in with a context-sensitive search bar. You simply type in what you want (i.e., split table) and it brings all the relevant menu options right to the ribbon. The downside is that it doesn't show you how to find them yourselves, but when you're in a crunch and can't find something it works great.

That sounds so much like Emacs it's not even funny.

[Scuba_Ben]

The command for splitting tables is not really -under- anything. It's right there on the Table Layout ribbon, in plain sight. It happens to be grouped with other Split & Merge functions including Split Cells & Merge Cells.

This group, although it contains both Splitting & Merging commands, has the group name, Merge, in a little title bar beneath the actual commands. It would have been more accurate to call it Splitting & Merging but that would have been too long a title and screwed up the spacing.
Maybe they should have abbreviated it. I might, after having learned where this command is today and if I use it often enough, learn to look for "split" under "merge". But some text indicator would have helped. It's much like going to "Start" to stop.

@Superfluous Parentheses: Emacs would have a command shortcut to search commands like "Control-alt-F7, escape-bellybutton, control-escape-search."

[Merneith]

<shrug> If they'd abbreviated it, there'd just be people moaning "How was I supposed to know 'Spt Mrg' meant 'Splitting & Merging? I thought it was the Spit Manager!!!!"

And again, if you're reading down to the group title, "Merge", you've already read & skipped over the command "Split Table". That's the text indicator, right there in the middle of your screen, the words: "Split Table."

[Superfluous Parentheses]

@Superfluous Parentheses: Emacs would have a command shortcut to search commands like "Control-alt-F7, escape-bellybutton, control-escape-search."

C-h a, actually :)

[Larry Mudd]

I disagree BigT. I think the only way to do this change was to do it all at once. If they'd tried to sneak in changes gradually, everyone would have stuck to their old ways until finally MS cut the ties and then there'd be the same amount of whinging as there was for the ribbon. It's like switching from a QWERTY keyboard to Dvorak. You just have to hold your nose and jump in.This is difficult to support, from a productivity viewpoint. Everyone in our office uses Word, but we have nine administrative assistants who need to be able to use the more esoteric features, and they have been trained on 2003 and earlier. Trying to move them over to Office 2007 has posed difficulties beyond what folks experienced moving to 2003. So far, everyone that we've tried to make the goat has ended up moving back to 2003, because their workload made it impractical for them to spend time trying to work out where everything is under the new interface.

So what do we do? We've already budgeted $25,000 for licensing. We can cough up another $7,000 for advance training for key users who need to use the software hard, whom we can't afford to have sitting there scratching their heads trying to figure out how to unlock a protected document for editing. ...and hope that they'll agree to take courses on their own time.

No, what we're going to do is get our greenest AA trained on Office 2007 and comfortable doing all the things she needs to do, and have her prepare a cheat sheet for common (for us) tasks that the other eight can refer to. Maybe phase it in gradually with the others so that she doesn't get overwhelmed with "Okay, how do I do this, now?!"

Of course you can reorient yourself in anything - but typical users don't have a surplus of time.

Incremental changes are much better if you want to get any work done. Adobe has done this well with Photoshop -- every time I've upgraded I've been able to continue working without significant interruption for reorientation -- even when there are major improvements. Might take a while to get the hang of the new features, it's not so much like sitting down to learn new a totally new application of the same generic type. The only time I recall such a radical difference between iterations of software was moving from 3D Studio to 3D Studio Max, barely the same product. (Of course, the benefits of 3D Studio Max over 3D Studio were conisderably more tangible, and the differences between the interfaces didn't seem so arbitrary.)

Sure, even without any training, it's just going to take a couple weeks of poking around to adjust to a radically different user interface - and since the software is more up-to-date, it's a safe bet that it'll generally be a better experience, once you get there.

People who are frustrated with this aren't necessarily "whiny little bitches," though - they may just be in the larger category of people who need to get their work done now. Currently, my Office 2007 install is running in a virtualized XP Pro environment under VMWare. When I am not too busy I am trying to get used to it. Office 2003 is still the workhorse, though - at month end I go straight to Excel 2003.

[Nava]

This, this is the reason Microsoft's developers deserve a month of fire ants in their beds. They have, unbelievably, sabotaged the productivity of their customers. I used to be lightning-fast on Excel, Word, etc., but now grind to a halt every minute, cursing as hotkeys that've been supported for decades not only don't work, but bring up completely different random commands.

Oh, I already feel like that about their localization. The fuckers use the same shortcuts for different things in different languages. I've had jobs where I was using two computers, one with Office in English and one with Office in Spanish. Same edition, they even belonged to the same company. But you know ctrl+b, aye? For bold? Well, in Spanish it reformats the page. So does ctrl+a, although of course in a different way.

If I ever catch hold of the fucker who came up with the idea of localizing the shortcuts, I'll claim the judge and jury can't be appropriately be considered my peers unless they've had to use Office in a minimum of two languages. No judge or jury who have ever gone through that would consider me guilty.


And I don't see what's the relationship between "improving the way we save files, which was about bloody time because the old way blew goats" and "redoing the interface completely in a way that gives people less control over it."

[BrotherCadfael]

The point of Start button was not, "Here's where I turn on my computer" but "Here's where I start if I want to issue a command (like, open a program or run defrag. Or, yes, shut down windows.)".Someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid...

[LouisB]

I fairly recently semi-hijacked a thread by inserting a bunch of question about upgrading an OLD computer I am currently compelled to use. One of my comments concerned Office2000, which I'm using and someone, I've forgotten who made the comment that he/she recently installed Office2007 and intended to scrap it and return to Office2000 ASAP. FWIW and YMMV.

[HookerChemical]

Right ... I didn't get it from that point on. Is the clapper that old TV gadget?

Yes. It's a callback to the OP's analogy of the toilet in the living room and chandelier in the closet.

The reason MS didn't implement the changes gradually is that:
(a) They roll out a new version of Office every few years, so changes would literally take decades; and,
(b) It would be a complete pain in the ass to learn that in Word 2003, "split tables" is
under format>tables>merge>split, then learn in Word 2007 that it's tables>rows and columns>split then again learn in Word 2011 that tables is only visible when you're in a table. Essentially, a lot of little changes would have to be learned every iteration rather than learning one massive change for Word 2007.

Obviously, I'm making up where the commands are. I use the ribbon and have no clue where these things actually are.

Finally, to Larry Mudd, you can put commands you use frequently on the quick access bar. It does piss me off that they broke many macros when they changed to 2007. There are tools put together to make regulatory compliance easier that just don't work on Office 2007.

[Merneith]

This is difficult to support, from a productivity viewpoint. Everyone in our office uses Word, but we have nine administrative assistants who need to be able to use the more esoteric features, and they have been trained on 2003 and earlier. Trying to move them over to Office 2007 has posed difficulties beyond what folks experienced moving to 2003. So far, everyone that we've tried to make the goat has ended up moving back to 2003, because their workload made it impractical for them to spend time trying to work out where everything is under the new interface.

So what do we do?

<snip>


Sack the lot of them and hire people who are willing to keep their computer skills up to date.

I'm only half kidding. I don't actually want to sack anybody but ultimately, people who refuse to keep up are shooting themselves in the foot.

And let's be honest, it's not like you have to move the state of Nebraska a few inches to the left before you can spot the "Save" command. Take a long lunch and read through the commands on the ribbons then open a few old docs and play around. If you're paying attention, that's 95% of all the training right there.

And then if you still have questions, maybe you can search the internet for a helpful message board devoted factual advice and suggestions. Some place where you can get it straight, without feeling like a dope, maybe ...



Someone's been drinking the Kool-Aid...


Yeah, that has to be it. It couldn't possibly be that the whole "click on the Start Menu to turn off your computer" whinging is about as dumb as being confused because you park on your driveway.

[dropzone]

But you know ctrl+b, aye? For bold?As God has intended, at least since Wordstar? Ya'll can call me an old fart but, at 55, I'm well below the oldest age to have learned Wordstar/Word commands. And thems who are laughing at our Luddite ways will know what we are talking about in five years.

Microsoft and its sheep, in their drive to justify yearly upgrades, forget that their users just want to have their work done by 5PM, and, functionally, there is VERY LITTLE that separates the capabilities of Winword 2.0 and the current version, except file compatibility.

[Merneith]

I disagree. As someone who writes a lot of academic papers, the current version of Word has, hands down, the best reference, bibliography and footnotes tools I've had the pleasure of working with. Plus the style tools are easier to work with even than Word 2003. The smart art & graphing tools are top notch.

I also really like the new shortcut system with pressing ALT to see the badges then, pressing the appropriate badge. They've left the basics alone but the new ALT shortcuts are very easy to pick up.

It's funny that people who are complaining about having to learn something new are the ones tossing around terms like 'sheep' and 'kool-aid'.

I think we forget sometimes how new this whole computer revolution is - even though of us who were born before it began. In five years, in ten years, who knows what our computers will do. I know not everyone shares my fascination with computers. But like it or not, computer fluency is not something you can learn once and then coast on for thirty years. It may work for you short-term (and honestly, MS doesn't change yearly) but the rest of the world is not standing still.

Refusing to adapt to new software doesn't mean it's the software that's the problem.

[amarone]

Microsoft and its sheep, in their drive to justify yearly upgrades, 2000, 2003, 2007, 2010. Try every 3 or 4 years.
functionally, there is VERY LITTLE that separates the capabilities of Winword 2.0 and the current version, except file compatibility.Those of you who are reluctant to learn anything new may actually believe this. Many of my spreadsheets will not work in Excel 2003 because I use the new features in 2007 (e.g. COUNTIFS, SUMIFS, conditiona formatting). Yes, I realize the initial comment was about Word, not Excel, but it's all part of the same package.

[Lightray]

Refusing to adapt to new software doesn't mean it's the software that's the problem.
No, it's pretty much the jerks who insultingly dismiss the legitimate customer complaints of others that are the problem.

[Cubsfan]

No, it's pretty much the jerks who insultingly dismiss the legitimate customer complaints of others that are the problem.

Then buy something else and stop bitching. No one cares.

[dropzone]

2000, 2003, 2007, 2010. Try every 3 or 4 years.
Those of you who are reluctant to learn anything new may actually believe this. Many of my spreadsheets will not work in Excel 2003 because I use the new features in 2007 (e.g. COUNTIFS, SUMIFS, conditiona formatting). Yes, I realize the initial comment was about Word, not Excel, but it's all part of the same package.COUNTIF was available in 2003. It was available in 97. As I recall, it was available in Excel 2.1, way back in the 80s. It was even available in Lotus 123.

We are in that eternal battleground between users and "power" users. The power users want all the bells and whistles. The users want to clock out at 5PM, but are stuck with whatever management is forcing them to use. Not even management, who doesn't give two shits HOW the work gets done, as long as it's done. Instead, we are at the mercy of the people in IT who are at the mercy of Microsoft/Autodesk/whoever who is more interested in licence renewals than productivity.

[Cubsfan]

Instead, we are at the mercy of the people in IT who are at the mercy of Microsoft/Autodesk/whoever who is more interested in licence renewals than productivity.

Are you suggesting that making money shouldn't be their first priority? Where do you work that making money isn't the priority?

[aruvqan]

The reason why MS changed the interface is because they kept getting requests for features that were already there.

Can you imagine being a developer and getting 6000 emails saying "This software really needs <obscure command>!!!"

Meanwhile, you're going "FFS! <obscure command> is already in there! It's under alt-tools-options-preferences-turnleft-turnright-sacrificeagoat!"

So they said fuck it and put it all up front where you can find it easily enough if you click around. Why is that so hard to adjust to?

Because my last office manager would only order chickens, so the sacrificegoat command never worked =(

Actually, if they had an option for Shift Interface to Word2003 peopel would have been freaking thrilled/

I had a bought a personal copy before the rest of the people in my office had one to play with, and I detested it. It also sort of did not help that they did not roll it out to everybody, and I was one of the last users to get my laptop shifted over ... so for 3 months when my bosses would send out spreadsheets in office 07, i would have to remail them to my home email, run it through 2007 to convert it to 07 and email it back to me. My idiot boss seemed to be too stupid to realize that not every person had 07 yet.:smack:

[wmfellows]

Actually, if they had an option for Shift Interface to Word2003 peopel would have been freaking thrilled/

Quite right and it would save the corporate customer world from having to invest in retraining of expensive senior and mid executives, among other related transitional skills.

Then buy something else and stop bitching. No one cares.

Executives such as myself care. And I make buy decisions on a regional basis for my firm, that is a continent level geography.

My buy decision on Office 2007, having been unfortunately gifted with it on my laptop on a single buy, is not worth it. Many aspects I do care for, but lost productivity from relearning so many command items is not worth it.

It should have had - as a trivial matter to meet large buyer needs - a transitional interface tool so that high cost users could seemlessly transition.

The fact that was not included and the positive stench of Microsoft trying to create "barriers to change" by inconveniencing customers between platforms rather rankles.

It's funny that people who are complaining about having to learn something new are the ones tossing around terms like 'sheep' and 'kool-aid ... But like it or not, computer fluency is not something you can learn once and then coast on for thirty years. It may work for you short-term (and honestly, MS doesn't change yearly) but the rest of the world is not standing still.

Refusing to adapt to new software doesn't mean it's the software that's the problem.

Actually, it does mean that software is the problem.

Office is a business tool for me. It is a business tool for the group that I run and the people that work for me. The largest buyers of MS Office are corporates. I expect Office to meet my group's needs. Not Microsoft's nor smarmy individuals on low level work, or individual editors with their artistic idiosyncrasies.

I expect it, then, to serve our needs, not us to serve MS agenda - however much I understand it - in trying to create usage rupture barriers between their suite and competition. That is the one and sole explanation of not providing a packaged transition tool. To the extent that I lose hard won productivity over my group because of this conceit on their part, and have to increase training spend - direct and indirect form lost hours (in particular lost hours of highly paid executives), for frankly largely marginal utility gains, the SOFTWARE IS THE BLOODY FUCKING PROBLEM. It exists to serve, not me to serve it.

The attitude that the "software" has to be met is one of the major conceits of the MS world, the Customer has to be met.

If I took that attitude, I'd not have me any fucking customers.

[wmfellows]

Then buy something else and stop bitching. No one cares.

Of course quitting bitching means that the Redmond firm will continue to make the same mistakes, as it did with Vista.

And given the failure that was Vista, the Redmond firm should bloody well care.

Certainly it was my call on Vista - we did not move to it, stayed with XP.

[yojimbo]

A very handy tool (http://office.microsoft.com/assistance/asstvid.aspx?assetid=xt100766331033&vwidth=1044&vheight=788&type=flash&ctt=11&origin=ha100744321033).

Just carry out the function you want to do in a virtual Word 2003 and it shows you where in 2007 that function is. When we rolled out 2007 in work we gave the users that tool aswell.

Try it. It will help you.

[wmfellows]

A very handy tool (http://office.microsoft.com/assistance/asstvid.aspx?assetid=xt100766331033&vwidth=1044&vheight=788&type=flash&ctt=11&origin=ha100744321033).

Just carry out the function you want to do in a virtual Word 2003 and it shows you where in 2007 that function is. When we rolled out 2007 in work we gave the users that tool aswell.

Try it. It will help you.

Useful if not particularly solving productivity issues. However, it merely confirmed for me that the zapped one of the most useful portions - for me - of Autotext, the multilingual choices in auto salutations, closings. I suppose there may be some convoluted way to import that from Word 2003.

[Merneith]

Actually, it does mean that software is the problem.

Office is a business tool for me. It is a business tool for the group that I run and the people that work for me. The largest buyers of MS Office are corporates. I expect Office to meet my group's needs. Not Microsoft's nor smarmy individuals on low level work, or individual editors with their artistic idiosyncrasies.



I get that it's sort of a leap of faith, the idea that if your company will just suck it up and deal, you'll see increased productivity once everyone's made the switch. I get why it's tempting to stand still. There is a productivity cost to moving to a new software package. But you know - there's also a productivity cost to clinging to older, outdated ways of doing things.

The Ribbon interface is here to stay. Increasingly, your new hires will be people who use the Ribbon, not the older, slower, one. Office 2003 will likely only be supported for another three years, at which point it becomes even more expensive to maintain. And in another 10 years, Word will do things we don't know even know we need.

The costs here are not all on one side.


I expect it, then, to serve our needs, not us to serve MS agenda - however much I understand it - in trying to create usage rupture barriers between their suite and competition.

It's not solely a usage rupture barrier. After all, they really don't have any competition. If they did, they probably wouldn't have changed at all. They can make this sea change like this because what are you going to do, switch to Pages? (And best of luck telling Apple that -their- job is to serve -you-. It is to laugh.)



That is the one and sole explanation of not providing a packaged transition tool.

I'm genuinely curious what you envision for this transitional tool. As I said early, it seems to me like it would just prolong the agony. If the user base was able to go on doing things the old way, what would be their incentive to change gradually? For those who resist learning the new method, won't they be just as unhappy when the transition is phased out?



To the extent that I lose hard won productivity over my group because of this conceit on their part, and have to increase training spend - direct and indirect form lost hours (in particular lost hours of highly paid executives), for frankly largely marginal utility gains, the SOFTWARE IS THE BLOODY FUCKING PROBLEM. It exists to serve, not me to serve it.

The attitude that the "software" has to be met is one of the major conceits of the MS world, the Customer has to be met.

If I took that attitude, I'd not have me any fucking customers.

It seems to me that the conceit here is that all Customers work just like you, personally, that your needs and yours alone are the only needs to be considered, that Microsoft's UI department should begin and end with the way people learned to do things in Office 98.

I've got bad news for you. Computer technology is an evolving field. The software you are currently using is not finalized. You can expect to see regular changes in your method of use. You and your employees will routinely need to update your skills, learn new methods and embrace new hardware.

Failure to do so means you will lose productivity compared to your competitors. These are your actual options: lose some productivity short-term while adopting the new capabilities or lose long-term compared to your competitors who embrace the new capabilities before you do.

It's absurd to blame Microsoft for developing new technology with new capabilities. It's unrealistic to expect the new technology to be limited to behaving exactly like software from 10 years. Humans are the dominant species on this planet because of our abilities to adapt to changing circumstances. Evolve or perish.

[wmfellows]

But you know - there's also a productivity cost to clinging to older, outdated ways of doing things.

If older ways are in fact outdated, then one changes. If not, merely changing because something is new and shiny is nothing but faddishness.

My judgement is that the transition costs relative to the marginal gains in Office 2003 are not worth it. As my decision also moves a large geography, it's not merely personal.

The Ribbon interface is here to stay. Increasingly, your new hires will be people who use the Ribbon, not the older, slower, one. Office 2003 will likely only be supported for another three years, at which point it becomes even more expensive to maintain. And in another 10 years, Word will do things we don't know even know we need.


An assertion. I heard the same claims about Vista.

In 5 years they will have another fix. Then if it works better, fine. If not, other choices may be on the market.

MS either serves my needs or I move on.

It's not solely a usage rupture barrier. After all, they really don't have any competition. If they did, they probably wouldn't have changed at all. They can make this sea change like this because what are you going to do, switch to Pages? (And best of luck telling Apple that -their- job is to serve -you-. It is to laugh.)


Actually, despite your amateur analysis snideness, Apple's job is to serve me. The customer. Apple has done a great job of that over the years with a much more stable offering, better interfaces that are more intuitive to use in general, better transitioning between releases, etc.

Their success with other products reflects the same focus.

They did not capture the corporate market most due to non licensing.


I'm genuinely curious what you envision for this transitional tool. As I said early, it seems to me like it would just prolong the agony. If the user base was able to go on doing things the old way, what would be their incentive to change gradually? For those who resist learning the new method, won't they be just as unhappy when the transition is phased out?


No you're not curious, you're banging away at your single user decision. A transitional tool is as noted, ability to in part and or in whole recreate the menu system as needed.

I don't need incentives to change, I need a multi-country work force that delivers service to our clients in an effective manner.


It seems to me that the conceit here is that all Customers work just like you, personally, that your needs and yours alone are the only needs to be considered, that Microsoft's UI department should begin and end with the way people learned to do things in Office 98.

My conceit is based on my knowledge of my Spend size relative to market, to what I know similarly sized firms in my space are doing, and what we are saying amongst ourselves about this product. Not on some artsy little academic writer's snideness and personal experience.

I've got bad news for you. Computer technology is an evolving field. The software you are currently using is not finalized. You can expect to see regular changes in your method of use. You and your employees will routinely need to update your skills, learn new methods and embrace new hardware.

News for me?

I've got plenty of executive experience and have watched computer tech change massively. My offices are early adopters when the value analysis says adopt. We're not impressed by hand waving about tech change. Office suites are not cutting edge business software, they're base productivity tools. My spend on training for new methods is focused on real cutting edge. Word is like typewriters, either it functions for our needs, or it doesn't.

Save your misplaced preaching.

Failure to do so means you will lose productivity compared to your competitors. These are your actual options: lose some productivity short-term while adopting the new capabilities or lose long-term compared to your competitors who embrace the new capabilities before you do.


Hahahah.

Myself and the competitors have pretty much the same conclusions on this "upgrade." Our productivity concerns are in things rather less pedestrian than fucking word processors and baseline spreadsheet functions.

It's absurd to blame Microsoft for developing new technology with new capabilities. It's unrealistic to expect the new technology to be limited to behaving exactly like software from 10 years. Humans are the dominant species on this planet because of our abilities to adapt to changing circumstances. Evolve or perish.

No, you stupid bitch, it is not absurd to blame MS for developing a fucked up new interface that imposes costs. And spare me your subliterate comps with evolution.

It's fucking world processing software. Word processing software is not fucking new technology. They're working on putting new clothes on fairly basic stuff. New tech is say their fucked up Vista OS, which again they fucked up for similar reasons.

I have seen good transitions. And I see MS over-reaching.

[dropzone]

Are you suggesting that making money shouldn't be their first priority? Where do you work that making money isn't the priority?Sure, they can want to make money by creating a virtual subscription service with yearly shuffling of menu items and files with no backwards compatibility. And I don't have to buy into it.

[PrettyVacant]

It's not like they have to migrate from the friggin typewriter.

Fuck sake, if this is the sotftware biggest problem you have, congratulations.

[Merneith]

If older ways are in fact outdated, then one changes. If not, merely changing because something is new and shiny is nothing but faddishness.

My judgement is that the transition costs relative to the marginal gains in Office 2003 are not worth it. As my decision also moves a large geography, it's not merely personal.

<snip>

An assertion. I heard the same claims about Vista.

Amerone and I have already mentioned things we can do with the new version that the older versions don't do. I can probably google up a full list for you for Office, Vista & Win7 too, if you want.

I have no idea what your business is except that you're obviously a Very Special Executive of some sort. Maybe your business isn't cutting edge, I don't know. But it's an objective fact that the current software can do things that the older versions can't.

In 5 years they will have another fix. Then if it works better, fine. If not, other choices may be on the market.

MS either serves my needs or I move on.

The next office version is 2010, not 2015. It also uses the Ribbon interface. The chance that anyone, in the next five years, will debut an Office suite capable of replacing Microsoft Office is non-existent.

But I don't know your business. Maybe Google docs will do for you.




Actually, despite your amateur analysis snideness, Apple's job is to serve me. The customer. Apple has done a great job of that over the years with a much more stable offering, better interfaces that are more intuitive to use in general, better transitioning between releases, etc.

Their success with other products reflects the same focus.

They did not capture the corporate market most due to non licensing.


Apple's strength and weakness, both, is that they want you to do things their way, on their hardware, at their price-point, at their pace. Apple's the company, don't forget, that completely dumped their old architecture when they introduced OSX forcing everyone to cut their legacy software entirely.

It results in a remarkably consistent user experience - provided the user wants to do things exactly the way Apple wants it. What you said up there about, about Apple's non-licensing being the reason Apple failed to gain a toe-hold in the corporate? That would be Example #1 of Apple refusing to cater to their customers, even when it costs them business.



No you're not curious, you're banging away at your single user decision. A transitional tool is as noted, ability to in part and or in whole recreate the menu system as needed.

I've been doing IT and designing website interfaces since 1995. I'm currently studying interface design and usability, with an eye for a career in information architecture for library systems. So yes, I am curious what you have in mind for a transitional tool to make adopting the Ribbon interface easier.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to have an idea beyond 'let us go on doing things the old way'. That's not a transition. Further, it wouldn't address my question as to how this would be anything but prolonging the point at which people have to stop using the old way and use the new one.

Word 6 (I think this was Word 97, iirc,) had a feature where it included special help for people who were switching over from WordPerfect. Sort of like the tool yojimbo pointed to. I wonder if including this would have helped ease the transition or just made the help files to wordy? I think the help files for


I don't need incentives to change, I need a multi-country work force that delivers service to our clients in an effective manner.

What you personally need has nothing to do with the objective suckitudity of the Office 2007 interface. It objectively does things the old interface couldn't. Whether you need those things is irrelevant.


My conceit is based on my knowledge of my Spend size relative to market, to what I know similarly sized firms in my space are doing, and what we are saying amongst ourselves about this product. Not on some artsy little academic writer's snideness and personal experience.

Actually I think, conceit is the wrong word to use there. You seem to be using it as a synonym for 'circumstances' or 'context' when it more clearly connotes a metaphor. Sorry. It's been worrying me.

Anyway, your company's ability to be satisfied with the outdated methods has no bearing on whether the new advanced interface is good or bad. If you don't need the new features, that doesn't mean other people don't, or won't, or shouldn't, or that Microsoft was wrong or sucky to devise an interface which enables them.


News for me?

I've got plenty of executive experience and have watched computer tech change massively. My offices are early adopters when the value analysis says adopt. We're not impressed by hand waving about tech change. Office suites are not cutting edge business software, they're base productivity tools. My spend on training for new methods is focused on real cutting edge. Word is like typewriters, either it functions for our needs, or it doesn't.

Save your misplaced preaching.


Again, Office 2007 objectively can do things that older versions can't. Office 2007, objectively, has a more advanced interface which enables the new things to happen. Your personal job and its personal needs are irrelevant in determine whether Office 2007, therefore 'sucks'.



Myself and the competitors have pretty much the same conclusions on this "upgrade." Our productivity concerns are in things rather less pedestrian than fucking word processors and baseline spreadsheet functions.

Well, that's nice then. It must be lovely that all your competitors agree that there's no point in trying out new things or looking for a new advantages. Lucky for you that no one in your field will ever want to do anything with the new features in Office. It must be a real relief not to have to go through the agony of updating your computer skills.

Microsoft sure does suck! They should have just asked you first and you could have told them that your personal needs were entirely met by the old software so there's absolutely no point in their releasing yucky new versions. Stupid Microsoft!


No, you stupid bitch, it is not absurd to blame MS for developing a fucked up new interface that imposes costs. And spare me your subliterate comps with evolution.

Subliterate! oh, how very wounding. Pardon me while I sit on this pedestal and weep. :rolleyes:

You haven't demonstrated that Microsoft has developed a fucked up interface. You've ranted at length about your dick size and how it's completely adequate for all your present needs, and all your competitors agree with you on that point.

My point about evolution was ... not so much about your post, I guess. Now that I think about it. More bewilderment on my part I guess. I learn new interfaces because I think it's fun and I get that most people don't share that point of view. But do people honestly not get that it's part of staying competitive and current? You don't have to be a rocket scientist to sit down and explore the new toolbar. Yeah it takes a while to get muscle memory but it's still just a toolbar.

I know I sound like a snob. I'm used to it. I just don't get why people wouldn't be proactive about learning new methods. Even if the current job doesn't demand them the next one might. And they might well be competing for that job with someone who can.



It's fucking world processing software. Word processing software is not fucking new technology. They're working on putting new clothes on fairly basic stuff. New tech is say their fucked up Vista OS, which again they fucked up for similar reasons.

I have seen good transitions. And I see MS over-reaching.

Yeaaah, see. I may be a pissant little academic with a kool-aid mustache who goes 'baaa' when the Win startup tune plays. Granted. But I know how to run Vista, flawlessly, on multiple networks and I do so because it's more secure and more stable and all around more attractive than XP (well, I did before upgrading to Win7, just for the fun of it.) And I didn't need thousands of dollars of corporate training or hand-holding transitional tools. It didn't take years of my life. It didn't need a Comp Sci doctorate. It dind't drive me to drink. It didn't even interfere with my WoW playing.

The fact that you -don't- know any of that probably explains why you seem to have confused word processors with selectrics.

[BigT]

The feature that has been removed is the old interface. This is the feature they want back. It is bad design to remove a feature your customers want, no matter how much better you think they'd be without it. You should only remove features that are detrimental.

Look at IE7. Microsoft tried to get rid of the menu bar there, but at least left it as an option. Still, quite a lot of people don't use it. Having it there does not make people use it.

The big problem with the ribbon is that it isn't inherently customizable. A lot of people I know use custom toolbars in Office, and have had to buy separate software to do so in the latest version. If they don't, they lose productivity, as they have to have multiple clicks to do what used to take one.

Anyways, if you are going into UI, please stop making the mistake that so many companies do. If people want a feature, figure out the cost that it would take to implement, and if it fits, do it. Don't get all stuck up in ideals about how the software should work. Remember, New Coke should have sold better than Coke Classic.

ETA: And remember that not all your customers are as computer savvy as you. Remember that they're not knowing how to use your software is your problem, not theirs. A business's job is to serve the customers so they will pay them.

[dropzone]

The fact that you -don't- know any of that probably explains why you seem to have confused word processors with selectrics.Pulled out my manual for Wordstar 3, circa 1982. There are surprisingly few features humans normally use that could not be done with a few extra keystrokes 28 years ago. Word processors were virtually perfected before you , or other IT types, were born. Everything since then has been the interface.

[PrettyVacant]

Pulled out my manual for Wordstar 3, circa 1982. There are surprisingly few features humans normally use that could not be done with a few extra keystrokes 28 years ago. Word processors were virtually perfected before you , or other IT types, were born. Everything since then has been the interface.
And how the interface is presented is closely tied to the expanding real estate - screen size.

[AHunter3]

I don't use Word, don't have it installed anywhere except in emulation environments, and have pretty much found every version of it since Word 2.0 to be among the least pleasant software packages to use. (Encountering it on occasion is basically unavoidable). I have no idea how this horrid piece of shit became the word processing standard.

[dropzone]

And how the interface is presented is closely tied to the expanding real estate - screen size.Which is eaten up some by the ribbon.

[What Exit?]

I don't use Word, don't have it installed anywhere except in emulation environments, and have pretty much found every version of it since Word 2.0 to be among the least pleasant software packages to use. (Encountering it on occasion is basically unavoidable). I have no idea how this horrid piece of shit became the word processing standard.
Easily

[Daylate]

They can take my copy of WordPerfect 5.1 when they pry it out of my cold dead hands.

Perfection in word processing!

[dropzone]

The feature that has been removed is the old interface. This is the feature they want back. It is bad design to remove a feature your customers want, no matter how much better you think they'd be without it. You should only remove features that are detrimental.That's the thing. Light users may be helped by the ribbon. Heavy users say, "Don't fuck with my interface." I wasn't joking when I spoke of muscle memory. Our hands and our subconscious "know" where certain commands are and if you move them or, worse, take them away we are slowed substantially.

[toofs]

Office 2007 blows.

I still get the occasional reply, "I can't open it, what is a .docx?" Shame on Microsoft.

[Palooka]

Agreed.

Office 2010 beta is where it's at now. Time to upgrade, granddad.

[Sampiro]

I disagree. As someone who writes a lot of academic papers, the current version of Word has, hands down, the best reference, bibliography and footnotes tools I've had the pleasure of working with. Plus the style tools are easier to work with even than Word 2003. The smart art & graphing tools are top notch.


I really do appreciate the convenience of the reference tools but it drives me nuts that they apparently didn't check with an English professor (or any professor) before designing them. For example: one of the most commonly used sources in college papers are articles from databases, yet there's not a template for that, in addition to which some of the abbreviations and multiple author and other 'more complicated than a simple book or web page' features are erratic, and it doesn't do hanging indent.

It took me forever to figure out how to do the indentation for citations on W2007. In case anybody else has wondered I'll share it here:


After inserting your Works Cited/Bibliography, highlight the entire section.

From the HOME tab click on the doo-hickey that's shaped like an arrow pointing southeast in the right bottom corner of the PARAGRAPH toolbar.

Select "Hanging" from the dropdown under "Special" in indentation.

[dropzone]

...and it doesn't do hanging indent.Wordstar did hanging indent, but not until 1987. In 64 kilobytes, including both the program and your document. :D

[Don't Call Me Shirley]

I use Word 2003 at work right now. I have made a bunch of templates that contain lots of VB 6 code. When my work upgrades to Word 2007, will these templates work?

[wmfellows]

Amerone and I have already mentioned things we can do with the new version that the older versions don't do. I can probably google up a full list for you for Office, Vista & Win7 too, if you want.[/quote3]

No need my dear smarmy bitch. I am rather finely informed
[QUOTE]
I have no idea what your business is except that you're obviously a Very Special Executive of some sort. Maybe your business isn't cutting edge, I don't know. But it's an objective fact that the current software can do things that the older versions can't.


My business is my business, but it's not fucking widgets. My industry is one of the leading consumers of IT globally in fact.

Yeah, the software can do some extra silly bells and whistles.

The added value of those extra silly bells and whistles relative to the transitioning costs I see is negative.

The next office version is 2010, not 2015. It also uses the Ribbon interface. The chance that anyone, in the next five years, will debut an Office suite capable of replacing Microsoft Office is non-existent.


I have plenty of clients that are still in Word 97 or whatever the prior generation is.

Just because smarmy MS brainwashed Americans may jump doesn't mean the rest of the world transitions like bloody lemmings.

I've been doing IT and designing website interfaces since 1995. I'm currently studying interface design and usability, with an eye for a career in information architecture for library systems. So yes, I am curious what you have in mind for a transitional tool to make adopting the Ribbon interface easier.

PRETTY FUCKING SIMPLE, THE CUSTOMISABLE INTERFACE, OLD MENU SYSTEM AVAILABILITY.

Users can flip and transition at own speed, or naturally allow the menus to die out - if in fact they do die out or rather if MS doesn't have to backtrack.

Ribbon can be a fine little option.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to have an idea beyond 'let us go on doing things the old way'. That's not a transition. Further, it wouldn't address my question as to how this would be anything but prolonging the point at which people have to stop using the old way and use the new one.

You begin with the presumption that there is value in using their pointless fucking ribbon.

And that this magical New Way is an advantage.

Anyway, your company's ability to be satisfied with the outdated methods has no bearing on whether the new advanced interface is good or bad. If you don't need the new features, that doesn't mean other people don't, or won't, or shouldn't, or that Microsoft was wrong or sucky to devise an interface which enables them.


Your smarmy continued assertion that one method is "outdated" has no bearing on my and other firms analysis this is more pain than the presumptive gain.

Again, Office 2007 objectively can do things that older versions can't. Office 2007, objectively, has a more advanced interface which enables the new things to happen. Your personal job and its personal needs are irrelevant in determine whether Office 2007, therefore 'sucks'.


Yes "objectively" they added more features while not addressing speed or memory bloat. Big fucking deal.


Well, that's nice then. It must be lovely that all your competitors agree that there's no point in trying out new things or looking for a new advantages. Lucky for you that no one in your field will ever want to do anything with the new features in Office. It must be a real relief not to have to go through the agony of updating your computer skills.

No my dear stupid bitch, it's not about "not trying new things" - we're not in bloody school, it's about focusing on where added value is.

You smarmy conceit about not updating computer skills is typically academic. We have massive spend on computer skills where there is added value to the business.

World Processing is not "new computer skills"

[Vinyl Turnip]

World War III, if it happens, will arise from a violent disagreement over the placement of menu options in a word processing application.

[dropzone]

Them's fightin' words, suh!

[Saintly Loser]

My take on Word 2007:

I run the word processing department for a large New York law firm. I probably know Word as well as anyone on the planet.

We have not upgraded to 2007. Mostly because the learning curve that will be required of our staff will be an expensive nightmare (excepting the word processing staff, who actually think that kind of thing is fun). I've been fooling around with it just so I'm ready when the inevitable comes, but I'm not ready to call myself an expert.

That said, 2007 has some new functionality. Most of that new stuff will not be useful to the run-of-the-mill user (not that that means it isn't useful -- just that it won't be worth the effort of learning the new interface for most). The interface is a fucking nightmare. Excuse my language, but I am baffled by Microsoft's decision to radically change what is one of the most familiar interfaces in existence. Surely new functionality could have been included in Word without making it look and feel like an entirely different program.

The jury (well, if the jury consists of just me) is still out on the .docx format.

[Ogre]

It annoyed me for a while. Then I learned the new system, which is really not all that different from the old one, and now I don't care anymore.

See, I'm capable of something called "learning".

[Saintly Loser]

It annoyed me for a while. Then I learned the new system, which is really not all that different from the old one, and now I don't care anymore.

See, I'm capable of something called "learning".

Yes, but you don't have to train around 150 secretaries, many of whom are highly resistant to learning anything new, and are in fact convinced that if they refuse to learn, they won't have to do the work.

[amarone]

Yes, but you don't have to train around 150 secretaries, many of whom are highly resistant to learning anything new, and are in fact convinced that if they refuse to learn, they won't have to do the work.I would make that conviction come true: their replacements will do the work.

[The Real Regency Elf]

Yes, but you don't have to train around 150 secretaries, many of whom are highly resistant to learning anything new, and are in fact convinced that if they refuse to learn, they won't have to do the work.

See, I live for that sort of thing. Been training current and would-be office professionals since WIN 3.1 days. I'm awfully good at helping highly intimidated/frightened people overcome that resistance to the new and rarely have I ever had to use the threat of potential job loss as the carrot. You'd be surprised how quickly people can pick new software up once they realize it's the only way forward. In my experience, people who cannot or will not make the change usually leave of their own volition because they can't stand the pressure.

In 2007 I was part of a massive retraining initiative with 500+ medical staff who had been using a DOS-based clinic appointment system (many of them for the entire 18 years since it was implemented). We taught them the brand-new turnkey GUI program in TWO DAYS. I'd say a third of 'em were scared shitless, another third were just very worried, and the other third were younger and fresh out of college, so they were mostly OK. After the training ended and the system went live, the healthcare company lost fewer than 7% of their staff within the first two months; somewhat lower than the 20% they were predicting based on similar situations at other companies of the same size. I credit that low attrition rate in no small part to the training (and our in-person support after go-live) and our ability to make the intimidating seem straightforward.

If someone's in a situation similar to Saintly Loser's above and you're in the DC/NoVA area, shoot me a message, 'cause I'm your gal.

[Ludovic]

It annoyed me for a while. Then I learned the new system, which is really not all that different from the old one, and now I don't care anymore.

See, I'm capable of something called "learning".But there are only a finite amount of minutes in a human life, which can be spent more productively doing almost anything than re-learning a basic word processing program.

In this case, the secretaries get more productivity done in the short term and do not have to relearn their muscle memory and the office saves upgrade money, win win.

And I suppose this represents some major marketing coup for microsoft.

[Ogre]

But there are only a finite amount of minutes in a human life, which can be spent more productively doing almost anything than re-learning a basic word processing program.

In this case, the secretaries get more productivity done in the short term and do not have to relearn their muscle memory and the office saves upgrade money, win win.

And I suppose this represents some major marketing coup for microsoft.It's not like they rewrote the program in Klingon. It's really not all that different. Spend 15 minutes looking at it, and you've got it.

[Frylock]

See, I live for that sort of thing. Been training current and would-be office professionals since WIN 3.1 days. I'm awfully good at helping highly intimidated/frightened people overcome that resistance to the new and rarely have I ever had to use the threat of potential job loss as the carrot. You'd be surprised how quickly people can pick new software up once they realize it's the only way forward. In my experience, people who cannot or will not make the change usually leave of their own volition because they can't stand the pressure.

In 2007 I was part of a massive retraining initiative with 500+ medical staff who had been using a DOS-based clinic appointment system (many of them for the entire 18 years since it was implemented). We taught them the brand-new turnkey GUI program in TWO DAYS. I'd say a third of 'em were scared shitless, another third were just very worried, and the other third were younger and fresh out of college, so they were mostly OK. After the training ended and the system went live, the healthcare company lost fewer than 7% of their staff within the first two months; somewhat lower than the 20% they were predicting based on similar situations at other companies of the same size. I credit that low attrition rate in no small part to the training (and our in-person support after go-live) and our ability to make the intimidating seem straightforward.

If someone's in a situation similar to Saintly Loser's above and you're in the DC/NoVA area, shoot me a message, 'cause I'm your gal.

Do I understand correctly that you're saying companies typically lose 20% of staff when that staff has to learn new software?!

[Ludovic]

Do I understand correctly that you're saying companies typically lose 20% of staff when that staff has to learn new software?!I wouldn't call it "lose", because really, how productive could they be if they refuse to learn something useless? That's why my company is rolling out mandatory Ancient Etruscan training for all employees: the few who will survive will be the truly hard core workers.

One could make the argument that at the 50000 foot level, changes like this cause the nations economy to decline due to otherwise enormously productive employees losing their jobs and being replaced by people without those specialized skills, but I call it social darwinism in action.

[dropzone]

The point of my repeated Wordstar references is that word processing software is a MATURE technology. Anything changed or added to it is either change so that a company can sell more copies or a nuanced change that most users will find pointless. It's like changing the color of the grip on a hammer: most people would not care and would find the promoters of such a change useless idiots.

Word has been a hammer since Winword 2.0. Subsequent changes have mostly been to enrich Microsoft.

[Lord Ashtar]

It took me all of 10 minutes to find all the features in Word 2007 that I needed to write my papers and do all the things I need it to do for work. Same for Excel, Access, and Powerpoint. Now I prefer it, since the different ribbons are like different modes: one for writing the paper, another for formatting it, another for the citations, etc.

Anyone complaining that all their people need to be retrained to use it is either lazy themselves, has lazy employees, or both. It just ain't that hard, people.

[amarone]

I am currently finalizing my death pool list on my wife's laptop which only has Excel 2003. I have not used 2003 for a year or so. I have come across things I never realized were new in 2007 but I now accept as normal. Sorting is easier in 2007. I wanted to select my top 13 picks, and selected rows expecting the status bar to show me how many rows I had selected. Nope - must be new in 2007. So is showing the average of the selected cells. And I wanted to increase the size of the display using the slider in the status bar. Nope - that's not there either.

Yes, learning 2007 was a bit of a pain, but no way would I go back - I would lose too much function that I am now used to. Maybe the new function could have been added without the GUI changes, but I like both the new GUI and the extra function.

[Saintly Loser]

Now I prefer it, since the different ribbons are like different modes: one for writing the paper, another for formatting it, another for the citations, etc.

This is true. And while it may be a plus for you, it can be a headache for others. I'll go into more detail tomorrow, because this is an interesting topic (in fact, I think I'll start a non-Pit thread), but right now my hand is in excruciating pain because I have a broken knuckle and no painkillers. No more typing for me.

[Merneith]

If you're interested in a non-Pit thread, I'd be willing to contribute. I do enjoy interface design and discussing it. Here's some linkage to get us started:

Paul Thurott:
Inside Office 12 (]http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/office12_inside.asp) (January, 2006)
Microsoft Office 2007 Review Part 2: What's New? (http://www.winsupersite.com/reviews/office2007_02.asp)

Thurott's a Microsoft apologist (for reals, not just because internet loudmouths are calling him names) but he's on a first name basis with the developers and has been following this closely for a long time.

In those links, Thurrot discusses how the old menu interface of 2003 was becoming bogged down. New features were being added to the existing Office menu designed for Office 6 and the result was a proliferation of menu items. Office 2003 tried to address this with an inconsistent side bar. When faced with adding more abilities in 2007, and with the knowledge that people were already unable to find exisiting abilities, MS implemented the Ribbon interface to make the expanding capabilities of Office more accessible since it makes the commands visible rather than residing three submenus down.

Jakob Nielson:

Summary of 10 Best Application Design UI Competition (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/application-design.html) (August, 2008)

Life-Long Computer Skills (http://www.useit.com/alertbox/computer-skills.html)

Nielson primarily focuses on website UI design but the line between that and stand-alone application design is blurring.

In the contest (from the Usability Week conference, 2008) Nielson summarizes the full report (pdf, $125, available at that link) and points out that some of the winning UI's are starting to adopt the Ribbon approach. As he puts it, the Ribbon is an example of giving people what the need (improved access to all the many commands of Office 2007) instead of what they want (the old familiar.)

That second link there is basically an op-ed, but Nielson starts by pointing out that workers who learn one version of one piece of software don't really have computer skills. It's an interesting read, I think, and it's applicable here (although it's obviously not proof of anything but his opinion.) Nielson posits that actual computer skills (and people who will be at an advantage in the job market) will involve basics like knowing how search, knowing how to present information online and so on, rather than learning say, Secrets of Excel 2000. The computer field moves on but problem-solving skills will always be useful.

OpenOffice will be switching to a Ribbon-type interface in the next major iteration. The design team posted about their experience with what they're calling the Renaissance Project.

Here's an example with a screenshot - Example (http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS/entry/prototyping_a_new_ui_julylink)
Here's a FAQ about it - FAQ (http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Renaissance/FAQ)

at the first link above, there's a powerpoint thing from their July 2009 meeting with more and more elaborate screenshots.

One of the main goals of this Renaissance version is to provide a more streamlined experience with the increasing capabilites of OpenOffice. Through testing and prototyping, they found this Ribbon-ish arrangement allowed them to provide access to more items, in a more obvious manner.

I guess I'll stop for a while now. It's an interesting subject, I think.

[Merneith]

Pulled out my manual for Wordstar 3, circa 1982. There are surprisingly few features humans normally use that could not be done with a few extra keystrokes 28 years ago. Word processors were virtually perfected before you , or other IT types, were born. Everything since then has been the interface.

I want to address this, because it's at the heart of some of the disagreement.

Here, for the curious, is the Wordstar for Dos command list:

http://www.wordstar.org/wsdos/kb/Q2002.htm

WordStar for DOS (All Versions)

WordStar for DOS Commands Reference

Introduction

Based on the WordStar version 3.0 command set


No-File Commands
Description Command Notes
Open Document file D
Rename file E (^ KE)
File directory on/off F (^ KF)
Set help level H (^ JH)
Changed logged disk L (^ KL)
Run mailmerge (optional) M
Open non-document N
Copy file O (^ KO)
Print file P (^ KP)
Run program R
Run SpellStar (optional) S
Exit to operating system X
Delete file/td> Y (^ KJ)



Help Menus
Description Command Notes
Help menu ^ J
Block menu ^ K
Onscreen menu ^ O
Print menu ^ P
Quick menu ^ Q



Cursor Movement
Description Command Notes
Right character ^ D
Left character ^ S
Up line ^ E
Down line ^ X
Right word ^ F
Left word ^ A
Tab right ^ I
Top of screen ^ QE
Bottom of screen ^ QX
Beginning of file ^ QR
End of file ^ QC
Right end of line ^ QD
Left side of screen ^ QS
Block beginning ^ QB
Block end ^ QK
Find misspelling ^ QL
Position before previous command ^ QP
Start of last find/replace ^ QV
To marker 0-9 ^ Q0-Q9



Scrolling
Description Command Notes
Down line ^ W
Up line ^ Z
Up screenfull ^ C
Down screenfull ^ R
Continuous up scroll ^ QZ
Continuous down scroll ^ QW



Basic Editing Commands
Description Command Notes
Delete character ^ G
Delete character left DEL also ^ H
Delete word right ^ T
Delete line ^ Y
Delete to end of line ^ QY
Delete to beginning of line ^ Q DEL also ^ QT
Insert on/off ^ V
Insert carriage return (blank line) ^ N
Reform paragraph ^ B


Formatting
Description Command Notes
Paragraph tab ^ OG
Variable tabbing on/off ^ OV
Center line ^ OC
Left margin set ^ OL
Right margin set ^ OR
Margin release ^ OX
Set margins and tabs from file ^ OF
Tab set ^ OI
Tab clear ^ ON
Justification on/off ^ OJ
Line space setting ^ OS
Page break display on/off ^ OP
Ruler display on/off ^ OT
Word wrap on/off ^ OW
Print control display on/off ^ OD
Hyphen help on/off ^ OH
Soft hyphen entry on/off ^ OE


File/Block Operation
Description Command Notes
Column mode on/off ^ KN
Mark block beginning ^ KB
Mark block end ^ KK
Hide/display block ^ KH
Copy block ^ KC
Delete block ^ KY
Move block ^ KV
Write block to file ^ KW
Set/hide marker 0-9 ^ K0-K9
Read file into text ^ KR
Copy file ^ KO
Rename file ^ KE



Search & Replace
Description Command Notes
Find string ^ QF
Find & replace ^ QA
Find/replace again ^ L


Saving Files
Description Command Notes
Save and resume ^ KS
Save, done edit ^ KD
Save, exit to operating system ^ KX
Abandon edits ^ KQ



Printer Controls
Description Command Notes
Alternate pitch (12cpi) ^ PA
Boldface begin/end ^ PB
Double strike begin/end ^ PD
Non-breaking space ^ PO
Overprint next character ^ PH
Overprint next line ^ P RETURN
Print pause ^ PC
Ribbon color change ^ PY
Standard pitch (10cpi) ^ PN
Strikeout begin/end ^ PX
Subscript begin/end ^ PV
Superscript begin/end ^ PT
Underscore begin/end ^ PS
Phantom space ^ PF
Phantom rubout ^ PG
User printer controls ^ P Q, W, E, R


Miscelleneous Commands
Description Command Notes
Delete a file ^ KJ
Interrupt ^ U
Print a file ^ KP
Set help level ^ JH
Changed logged disk ^ KL
File directory on/off ^ KF
Repeat next command ^ QQ



Dot Commands
Description Command Notes
Bidirectional print on/off .BP
Microjustify on/off .UJ
Page offset .PO
Character width .CW
Comment (not printed) .IG or ..
Conditional page .CP
Footing .FO
Footing margin .FM
Heading .HE
Heading margin .HM
Line height .LH
Margin at bottom .MB
Margin at top .MT
New page .PA
Omit page # .OP
Page number .PN
Page number column .PC
Sub/superscript roll .SR
Paper length .PL



Mailmerge Dot Commands
Description Command Notes
Data file .DF
Read variables .RV
Repeat .RP
Set variable .SV
Ask for variable value .AV
Display message .DM
Clear screen .CS
File insert .FI
Print-time line forming .PF
Right margin .RM
Left margin .LM
Output justification .OJ
Interpret input as justified .IJ



Character Pitch
Pitch in characters per inch (cpi) Command Notes
5 .CW24
6 .CW20
7 .CW17
8 .CW15
10 .CW12 default
12 .CW10
15 .CW 8
20 .CW 6
24 .CW 5
30 .CW 4



Line Height
Lines per inch Command Notes
2.0 .LH24
2.4 .LH20
2.6 .LH18
3.0 .LH16
4.0 .LH12
4.8 .LH10
5.3 .LH 9
6.0 .LH 8 default
6.8 .LH 7
8.0 .LH 6
9.6 .LH 5


That's it. Command line text-editing. And here's what it looked like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wordstar.gif

It doesn't have mouse support.
It doesn't have a graphical user interface.
It doesn' supply visual feedback
No images
No graphs
No styles for formating
No commenting
No proofing & tracking changes
No version control
No connection with a spreadsheet or presentation program
No internet publishing
No email support
No flowcharts
No automatic bibliography/footnotes/end notes
No tables
No macros
No find & replace
No hyperlinks
No spellcheck or thesaurus
No special print abilities, like multiple copies or collation

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

Don't get me wrong - it was hot stuff in 1983. It was a legitimately important piece of small business software. I didn't use it myself, but I used it's successor, Word Perfect for DOS, until I switched to Word 6 and it's sexay GUI. Later addon programs had things like a spellcheck.

But bottom line: it's Notepad, without a mouse, and less functionality.

Word processing may have begun in the 80's but it didn't end there. It's true that DOS era software can do the basics of what we require in modern usage. But that's it - the basics. It's simply incorrect to say that everything which happened in word processor development is unnecessary or irrelevant. As the list of what we need to do grows, so does the complexity of the interface required to manage them.

Getting back to the OP, I would point out that those of us from the DOS era have already made a bigger adjustment than going from Office 2003 menus to the 2007 Ribbon. It would be silly to assume that this is the last time we'll have to make such a jump. The personal computing era is only 30 years old. I suspect the next big interface jump will happen as computing increasingly takes place on non-traditional monitor surfaces. It will do things we don't even know we want. Don't assume that if you just learn the Ribbon, you'll never need to know anything else.

[Cubsfan]

wmfellows is an EXECUTIVE. If you're in this thread and you're not an EXECUTIVE then don't bother talking to him because only he can understand the awesome perspective of an EXECUTIVE.

[dropzone]

That's it. Command line text-editing. And here's what it looked like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wordstar.gif

It doesn't have mouse support.
It doesn't have a graphical user interface.
It doesn' supply visual feedback
No images
No graphs
No styles for formating (WRONG!)
No commenting
No proofing & tracking changes
No version control
No connection with a spreadsheet or presentation program
No internet publishing
No email support
No flowcharts
No automatic bibliography/footnotes/end notes (WRONG!)
No tables
No macros (WRONG!)
No find & replace (WRONG!)
No hyperlinks
No spellcheck or thesaurus (WRONG!)
No special print abilities, like multiple copies or collation (WRONG!)

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there's more.

Don't get me wrong - it was hot stuff in 1983. It was a legitimately important piece of small business software. I didn't use it myself, but I used it's successor, Word Perfect for DOS, until I switched to Word 6 and it's sexay GUI. Later addon programs had things like a spellcheck.

But bottom line: it's Notepad, without a mouse, and less functionality.Nonsense. Notepad has NOT had, for TWO FUCKING DECADES, most of those features. Many of the rest (and you will note that they aren't supported by Notepad, either) are internet-based, and the internet as we know it was, in 1983, not imagined by most anyone. And so what if there were no hyperlinks? In a well-designed program things like that can be added easily. Okay, as Wordstar was, to the best of my knowledge and given the size of the executable, NOT written to make additions easy, my claim that word processing, as a substitute for a typewriter in which additions and subtractions can be made easily, is a mature technology, only added to by other functions, still stands.

Read HOW A WORD PROCESSING PROGRAM WORKS (http://www.atariarchives.org/deli/how_word_program_works.php) by Paul Lutus to see how the basics, which differentiate a word processor from a typewriter, operates and, if you are any sort of programmer, how basically they remain the same. The rest are bells and whistles, like how a 1975 Dodge differed from a 1946 Dodge in (sadly) insignificant ways.

[dropzone]

... if you are any sort of programmer ...I'm old. Is that still a call-out for software types or are they all memory hogs who don't give a shit how long it takes for software to boot? Because Word 2003 boots faster than 2007 or its Open Office equivalent

[dropzone]

wmfellows is an EXECUTIVE. If you're in this thread and you're not an EXECUTIVE then don't bother talking to him because only he can understand the awesome perspective of an EXECUTIVE.Executives are the folks who sign our purchase requisitions. Sell the idea to them and you're home free. However, if you sold them a previous idea that didn't pan out, be prepared to do either some dancing or a pile of reasons why this time is different.

You Office justifiers have it easy only needing to do it every few years. Autodesk is very interested in yearly or, at worst, bi-yearly paid upgrades. I still save my files in ACAD 2004 format because they are very compatible with other software, though I use a later version. Yeah, 2006 FINALLY added a feature I've desired for 20 years, but it doesn't kill the deal.

ETA: I have a toolbar icon for that. You don't get that option with Word.

[wmfellows]

It's not like they rewrote the program in Klingon. It's really not all that different. Spend 15 minutes looking at it, and you've got it.

No, not really.

I am in fact using Word 2007 personally, and while some aspects are "neat" 15 minutes has not solved the fact some features are gone - such as customisations to fit my particular style of interacting with the commands, or no longer accessible (such as the multilingual auto salutations etc).

For non-individual users, and I rejoin Saintly, there are serious transitions costs, for.... not particularly impressive changes - from the perspective of Word and Office as simple baseline tools.


But there are only a finite amount of minutes in a human life, which can be spent more productively doing almost anything than re-learning a basic word processing program.

In this case, the secretaries get more productivity done in the short term and do not have to relearn their muscle memory and the office saves upgrade money, win win.

And I suppose this represents some major marketing coup for microsoft.

Quite right.

It took me all of 10 minutes to find all the features in Word 2007 that I needed to write my papers and do all the things I need it to do for work. Same for Excel, Access, and Powerpoint. Now I prefer it, since the different ribbons are like different modes: one for writing the paper, another for formatting it, another for the citations, etc.

Anyone complaining that all their people need to be retrained to use it is either lazy themselves, has lazy employees, or both. It just ain't that hard, people.


No, not lazy you dumb backend of a horse's arse, rather we have other areas to spend finite amounts of effort on.

The old office interface has a large legacy population (and for you smarmy Americans, I can assure you that much of Developing World which is part of my geographic footprint, e.g. Africa, is still in 9x Generations of Office. And will be for quite a while).

Unlike you cunts, I am not on particularly worried about my own individual ability to adapt to Office 2007, I have not stripped it off my laptop, although the more I use it the more irritated I get by pointless "Ooh look at the Shiny Bells & Whisltes to Seduce the Fucking Gits Functions and New Graphic Presentations" rot, and the

Some aspects I find fine.

There was no particular need, however to package the new formats and functionalities with a total throwout of the old interfacing - except as a marketing ploy to try to create a market barrier between the New Special MS interface and the general menu interfacing.

wmfellows is an EXECUTIVE. If you're in this thread and you're not an EXECUTIVE then don't bother talking to him because only he can understand the awesome perspective of an EXECUTIVE.

Yes, you don't. I sign off the the Buy of systems for a continent sized geography of multiple offices. I work in an industry that the marketing data from IT consultants indicates is a major IT buyer, and usually buying fancy stuff. Office Suite software ain't fancy stuff, by the way, it's a mature product whose only real evolution these past years is marketing oriented bells and whistles.

A bunch of individuals who think that fucking "looking" at it for 15 minutes is training or blither on like smarmy, dreary marketing fucking drones about Ribbons being the "wave of the future" (because the MS fuckers say so? Said that about fucking Vista too, gullible fucks) tells you fuck all (except perhaps about individual taste).

I piped up since those complaining about Office 2007 were getting idiotic "oh you're against change" - "oh you're just whinging on," etc.

I provided a corporate buyer perspective (or rather that of the guy who can authorise the buyer, or not). Saintly provided a lower level view, but it is substantially a similar analysis.

And merely being accused of being "lazy" - an empty and pointless accusation - is simply childishness. The reality is a corporate needs to look at Cost-Benefit and playing around with funny new ways to present or execute non-core features.... doesn't outweigh my training and productivity losses (which contra the smarmy American view, will be ongoing as the Legacy Base in schools etc. that will exist for at least 5-10 years in my experience will be an ongoing drag; of course perhaps in American MS has enough arm twisting to magically get rid of that problem).


Executives are the folks who sign our purchase requisitions. Sell the idea to them and you're home free. However, if you sold them a previous idea that didn't pan out, be prepared to do either some dancing or a pile of reasons why this time is different.

You Office justifiers have it easy only needing to do it every few years. Autodesk is very interested in yearly or, at worst, bi-yearly paid upgrades. I still save my files in ACAD 2004 format because they are very compatible with other software, though I use a later version. Yeah, 2006 FINALLY added a feature I've desired for 20 years, but it doesn't kill the deal.

ETA: I have a toolbar icon for that. You don't get that option with Word.

ah yes......

[E-Sabbath]

Hiya. I'm here to provide the IT perspective.

You're right. Ninety percent of all clerical workers do not have computer skills. At all. And if you try to retrain them, they freak the hell out. That losing one out of five people? Yeah, that's accurate. Generally, they'll be the older ones, who can scream all the way up to upper management, too.

Especially since the ones most resistant to change are generally the big boss' secretaries.

I'd like you to visualize every single VP and CXO level secretary pissed off at you. These are the most important people in the entire company, if you're not already management, but have to deal with management.

[AHunter3]

Some of the issues at hand apply to software changes in new versions regardless of whether it's Word (or Microsoft Office) or not. Others may be specific to Word.

Not being a user of Word (except under duress), I'm going to comment on some of the former.

a) Conformity to established interface standards is a good thing (unless you really want to argue that the standards actually suck). Whether it is a new version of software I already use (Photoshop CS 19) or a brand new software title I've never seen before (IshmaKabibble Pro 1.0) I expect it to have a File menu, an Edit menu, probably a View menu, probably a Tools or Options menu, probably a Window or Windows menu, perhaps a Format menu, and a Help menu. If I'm on a Windows PC I'd expect to find Preferences or Options or Settings at the bottom of the Edit menu, or in the Tools or Options menu. (On a Mac it would be in the Application-Name menu that's to the left of the File menu). The File menu is where one opens new document files, saves existing ones (or does a Save As), Closes current window, does Print Setup and Print, and exits out of the application. I expect Cut Copy Paste and Undo to hang out in the Edit menu.

If the program lets me edit content (not just view and interact with content like a web browser) I expect a Format menu, especially if any of the editable content has text characteristics (font, font size, margin, justification) but also if it has graphical-object characteristics (color, fill pattern, border, border color, border pattern). And I expect conventional keystrokes to invoke conventional behaviors: ⌘-O, ⌘-S, ⌘-C, ⌘-X, ⌘-V, ⌘-Z, ⌘-P, ⌘-Q, ⌘-F, ⌘-N, ⌘-W may not all be present but unless the thing that the application itself does is very esoteric and unusual, a decent chunk of them should be; at a minimum, if the functions exist and they have keystroke equivs, they should have THESE keystroke equivs, and reciprocally these keystroke commands should NOT invoke some other oddball command.

Consistency is what makes it easy to learn new applications. There have been some pretty decent yet convention-breaking apps (KPT Corel Daz Bryce, for one; and while it gets off the hook due to its Unix roots, having evolved in a world without the same conventions, The GIMP deserves mention here as well) but for the most part they prove the maxim more than they disprove it: they didn't really HAVE to depart from convention so thoroughly and it DOES make it harder to learn their product, and their different way of doing things is NOT markedly superior to the conventions.


b) New versions should not change things just for the sake of changing them. If version 5 or 2003 or X3 used the icon of a spyglass to invoke a function, there's no good reason to replace that with a crystall ball. If the power-use keystroke combo ⌘-Shift-R used to rotate the selected object 90° it's a bad idea to remap that to "redo" and make -⌘-Option-> the new 90° rotate command. I will single out FileMaker Inc as poster child for this particular sin. Some blithering idiot in marketing probably decided it was important to emphasize how *NEW* the new version 7 was a few years ago, I don't really know for sure... but they changed the name of dozens of existing functions (BAD!) as well as introducing dozens of new ones (GOOD!), they changed the tab order in the ScriptMaker so that focus moves to the NAME of the script being edited, thus screwing up power-users' tactile memory of how to script (EXTREMELY BAD! and STUPID! how often in the course of editing your script are you gonna want to change the name of the script?), got rid of the list view of relationships (BAD!) while giving us a graphical relationship diagram (GOOD!) thus forcing us to do all viewing creating editing and investigating of relationships in an environment requiring an entirely new workflow, with no good reason to do so. (I've compared it to taking away a sortable telephone directory of your office's employees and giving you instead a floor plan with each person's telephone number conveniently printed below the icon of the person's office chair).

From the description of this "ribbon", the lack of traditional menu structure, and the extent to which legacy workflow has been interrupted, it sounds to me like Microsoft has done a FileMaker and have also ended up with a Bryce.

Now, me, I have always detested Word. Bloated feature-crammed all-purpose jack of all trades master of none program that isn't a very good word processor due in part to trying to be a graphics program, a browser, a spreadsheet, and probably a goddam coffee maker; a program that broke conventions used by other programs right from the start, seldom with good and sufficient reason; an annoying uncooperative mule of an application that would change 30 things you did not ask it to change when you edited one small element, and which from early on decided it knew better than you did what you were trying to do and by god was therefore going to do what it thought best without your confirmation or consent.

Word has been a hammer since Winword 2.0

That is a very good description. That's exactly how I feel when I try to use Word: "Yeesh, I wish I had Nisus or AppleWorks or WordPerfect or WordPro, or any word processor on this machine. This is like trying to write a letter with a freaking hammer!"

But I think my dislike for Word is largely irrelevant to the discussion, except insofar as some of it was originally prompted by Word's convention-breaking characteristics (they've been doing that for a long long time. "This is WORD, whatever is done in WORD is the new convention, we don't have to follow anyone else's lead")

[The Real Regency Elf]

Do I understand correctly that you're saying companies typically lose 20% of staff when that staff has to learn new software?!

Not all companies, not all software. If you re-read my post, I said "similar situations at other companies of the same size," meaning a full cut-over to a brand new enterprise-wide turnkey software system that had no other training options available. A nearby healthcare business with nearly the same number of employees tried the same thing but without the formal training program that we used. They lost on average 1 in 5 registration staff in each clinic but we were told that in some clinics the turnover rate was close to 90% for three months after go-live, because the switchover was handled so poorly.

Granted, training for Microsoft Office is normally a much more straightforward effort and the average user has many options for learning. Concerned about the reaction of the executive assistants if you give them OTJ training, as E-Sabbath mentioned, and rightfully so? That's why you should get executive buy-in first. The admin assistants can't really argue with management when the directive comes from management in the first place. This should always be a top-down decision. Even then it's hard, but not impossible if you have the right approach.

[Pindusa]

I used to be able to format a document in just a couple of minutes. Now I have to be searching through all these useless "format" options on this Too Thick, Too Overloaded, Too Useless, Too Illogical toolbar to find what I need. To date I have been unable to find the auto text Page # of ## which I liked to use on the footnote of documents to indicate how many pages were in a document and what number each particular page was. I don't know who the moron was who designed this new version but obviously he was BORED and just wanted to entertain himself and enlarge his ego with this overly-elaborate, illogical monster of a menu toolbar he has invented. Not to say that Word ever worked better than WordPerfect which apparently has been driven off the market. But this new version of Word takes the cake. I hope the moron or morons who designed it (who obviously never had to do wordprocessing work in their sad lives) go straight to hell when they die. As to Support from MicroSoft--HA! Those bastards don't give a dam about the user. It may be that they are understandably upset with Bill the Bastard Gates laying off a whole bunch of American employees while at the same time going to Congress to lobby for more H1B visas so he can import cheaper IT workers to replace his american workers. I hope Bill Gates ends up in the lowest circle of Hell.

[Hunter Hawk]

I used to be able to format a document in just a couple of minutes. Now I have to be searching through all these useless "format" options on this Too Thick, Too Overloaded, Too Useless, Too Illogical toolbar to find what I need. To date I have been unable to find the auto text Page # of ## which I liked to use on the footnote of documents to indicate how many pages were in a document and what number each particular page was.

Have you tried this? (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/HP012265131033.aspx#3) (Though personally I just insert the fields myself.)

[Frylock]

I tried to insert a row in a table on Word XP, and it took me several minutes to locate the option in the menu.

In Word 2007, I right clicked on the menu, and there it was.

Therefore Word 2007 is better.

[Lord Ashtar]

There was no particular need, however to package the new formats and functionalities with a total throwout of the old interfacing - except as a marketing ploy to try to create a market barrier between the New Special MS interface and the general menu interfacing.

Sure there was. There are differences in the files because the new ones do things the old ones can't. For example, did you happen to notice that Excel 2007 allows for the files to be much, much bigger? Maybe that doesn't matter to someone like you, but to people who use Excel to create CSV files to move massive amounts of data between systems, it matters.

A bunch of individuals who think that fucking "looking" at it for 15 minutes is training or blither on like smarmy, dreary marketing fucking drones about Ribbons being the "wave of the future" (because the MS fuckers say so? Said that about fucking Vista too, gullible fucks) tells you fuck all (except perhaps about individual taste).

I never said that it was the "wave of the future" or anything that could even be remotely construed that way. I have also have had virtually no problems using Vista, either at home, on my work laptop, or in any of the dozens of client environments I've worked in over the last year.

And merely being accused of being "lazy" - an empty and pointless accusation - is simply childishness. The reality is a corporate needs to look at Cost-Benefit and playing around with funny new ways to present or execute non-core features.... doesn't outweigh my training and productivity losses (which contra the smarmy American view, will be ongoing as the Legacy Base in schools etc. that will exist for at least 5-10 years in my experience will be an ongoing drag; of course perhaps in American MS has enough arm twisting to magically get rid of that problem).

Here, go read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Office-2007-Dummies-Computer-Tech/dp/0470009233/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262578594&sr=8-1

It's designed with people like you and your employees in mind.

[dropzone]

Trust me: NOTHING that requires a link, especially one that only mentions it after three pages of bitching, is "designed with people like you and your employees in mind." Good God, haven't ANY of you had real-life jobs? You are talking out your asses like you didn't. The point of a JOB is to GET THE JOB DONE. A Normal quickly realizes that ANYTHING that slows or prevents that is a hindrance that reflects poorly on them. The latest versions of Word introduce MANY hindrances.

Dig?

For MANY users you are CUNTS trying to get them fired.

As I said before, a word processor is a fucking HAMMER that was, if not perfected, was good enough decades ago.

[E-Sabbath]

To be honest, the new format is not a bad thing. Except, uhm. Where it is a bad implementation of a okay idea. F'r example, the 65536 error.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2007/10/65536_lashes_fo.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_techbeat
Basically, they were in such a rush to put out this new format that there's a bunch of little bombs in it... and they can't even spec it out properly to the ISO standards committee, even after the committee-packing trick they did.

I mean, yeah, some improvement was necessary, but the way they did it... not helping.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the changes in UI. Which also, not helping. I mean, yes, we could spend a lot of money and send people to training. And we'd only lose, say, one in ten people that way. Which is a further cost to our business. And I could name the one in ten we'd lose. And many of them would be the older employees, the institutional memory of our organization. Which is a further cost. Yes, they're not horribly efficient, but they can do their work. And further, when things go wrong, they do miracles.

The purpose of our job isn't to type numbers in. That's just how we get paid. Our job is to save people. And these people are very, very good at that.
We don't want to lose our best healers.

... we also don't want to piss off the doctors. oh, god, retraining doctors. I daaaare you to do that.

[wmfellows]

Sure there was.

Oh wonders, I am about to have the fucking obvious pointed out to me.

There are differences in the files because the new ones do things the old ones can't. For example, did you happen to notice that Excel 2007 allows for the files to be much, much bigger? Maybe that doesn't matter to someone like you, but to people who use Excel to create CSV files to move massive amounts of data between systems, it matters.

Woo. bigger files, why I am bloody fucking impressed.

We use proper analytical software for that, thanks very much, rather than sub-optimal all purpose Swiss Army Knife tools.

However, I already noted, issues like the format and other optionality changes in no way require the hard break with historical interface tools, which immediately impose significant toothaches for a vast legacy base of users that are working quite effectively off of the old.

It appears fundamentally difficult for stupid fucking gits like yourself to understand, but the fact that I have to look at and worry about a baseline office suite and see it imposing added training costs and down time, never mind the inevitable loss of efficiency over a year or so, is utter rot.

As an executive managing a regional organisation, I should not have to even think about this. Word, Excel, etc are low level tools. We do not want or need them to do fancy things.

That there are users out there (largely it would be small business and even more so, personal users) that want extra functionalities, fine.

None of this requires a massive interface break, that directly imposes on my firm - were I to be a gullible cunt and upgrade pointlessly - efficiency losses, downtime, and other direct costs. For frankly trivial widget gains.

It is perfectly within the realm of the reasonable and the possible to upgrade features (to the extent needed, although frankly I agree with the comment supra about Word being bloatware, trying to function as HTML editor (badly), picture editor (badly), etc etc)) and including interface optionality so as not to impose on large scale users unnecessary training and migration costs.

Cost Benefit fucking analysis you stupid fucking smarmy peon git.


I never said that it was the "wave of the future" or anything that could even be remotely construed that way. I have also have had virtually no problems using Vista, either at home, on my work laptop, or in any of the dozens of client environments I've worked in over the last year.


I wasn't fucking talking to you, you dumb git. It was that Academic Writer. So fuck off, fucking smarmy twit.

As for Vista, oooh, you had not a wee problem. So the fuck what. The market has spoken, Vista failed.

(and in our limited install we had many issues with integration, failed drivers, etc, enough so that we bounced the fucker back, and rolled back. Microsoft's job is to serve my firm as a client, when they fail, they lose my business. I don't need smarmy fucking lectures about computer skills, we use plenty of nice stuff like geo-analytics, etc that are in fact cutting edge. Office is a damned basic fucking tool, we should never have to even fucking discuss the goddamned thing.)


Here, go read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Office-2007-Dummies-Computer-Tech/dp/0470009233/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262578594&sr=8-1

It's designed with people like you and your employees in mind.

No, it's designed for twittish gits like yourself, who know fuck all about business decisioning, and like to make really idiotic, smarmy little useless fucking references to a fucking book they personally used.

In case you had missed it, I actually am using Office 2007 personally, and while continuously annoyed at the unneeded changes and the losses of real functionality where useful, it is not "hardness" of learning, you dumb fucking subliterate moron, it is the motherfucking time wasted for the pointless and useless changes. Changes apparently made so that stupid fucking gits like yourself that are impressed by graphics, bells and whistles and other marketing drivel will pointlessly refer me to a fucking idiotic basic fucking manual, as they evidently understand not a bloody fucking thing about the whole Cost Benefit discussion to date.

Jaysus, you really are a dumb fuck.

[wmfellows]

To be honest, the new format is not a bad thing. Except, uhm. Where it is a bad implementation of a okay idea. F'r example, the 65536 error.
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2007/10/65536_lashes_fo.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_techbeat
Basically, they were in such a rush to put out this new format that there's a bunch of little bombs in it... and they can't even spec it out properly to the ISO standards committee, even after the committee-packing trick they did.

I mean, yeah, some improvement was necessary, but the way they did it... not helping.

This, of course, has nothing to do with the changes in UI. Which also, not helping. I mean, yes, we could spend a lot of money and send people to training. ....

Ah wonders.

On the Excel calculation error (first of doubtless more in my experience with MS), the whole bloody issue is MS Office is a mature product. A basic product. It is not a mission critical product, it is useful, like the old IBM Selectronics - which everyone in industries I have worked in stuck with over fancy items - because they did the basics, serviced well, and had reliability.

Our expectations (mine and others in my industry and client industries that I talk to) are that MS Office should be like IBM Selectronics. You buy it, and Sr. Mgmt never hears about it. When I have to hear about, it pisses me off.

It is a product that firms like mine should not have to worry about.

An upgrade should be seamless, minimise transitioning and generally never be a bother to Sr. Mgmt.

MS insists on making itself a bother.

Thus, no one I know is upgrading to 2007. Not my footprint, not my colleagues / competitors. Fuck it, too much fucking trouble in direct and indirect expensing for really trivial gains.

[HMS Irruncible]

Why does Microsoft feel that every 4 years, it must rearrange all the commands and options in a product that many have just begun to master? My best guess is that the product only needs some bugfixing/refactoring/enhancement, but nobody's going to shell out $350 for a product that doesn't visibly look new. It's not just Word... it's Windows, it's every piece of shit that comes out of their advanced fecal labs in Redmond.

This is a racket between Microsoft and IT departments, IMO. You have a bunch of people who get paid to upgrade software (IT workers). Microsoft gets paid to sell software. What will they possibly lobby for except to install the same software over and over again, repackaging it so that it looks new? Fuckers.

[E-Sabbath]

I should, I feel, point out that the number '65336' (0r 65335, if starting at 0), is the value of a 16 bit unsigned word. The implications should be obvious to anyone who programs. There's some pretty basic problems with Excel 2007's math engine. Isn't that sweet?

Generally, it's not an issue. Except for when it is.

[HookerChemical]

It's important to realize that there are several different groups of changes to be discussed here. They are not necessarily related.

First, there are changes to functionality. For example, the ability of Excel to handle larger spreadsheets, new functions, or the improvements to the way Word handles footnotes. These are Good Things. In no way does Excel 2007's ability to open huge spreadsheets adversely impact the ability to learn it. The only possible drawback is that a file saved in Excel 2007 won't be usable in Excel 2003 because there are too many lines, but Excel 2003 couldn't have created the spreadsheet anyway.

Then there are the interface changes. These are a different beast. I think the Ribbon is an improvement for people coming to Office 2007 without being heavily invested in learning Office 2003. I found it easy and intuitive. I doubt I would feel that way if I had spend 10 years in Office 9X and 2003, but I didn't.

[Lord Ashtar]

Jaysus, you really are a dumb fuck.

And you're a pretentious blowhard. Yeah, I took some business classes too, so I do know what a cost/benefit analysis is. You don't think it's worth it? Fine. I don't give a flying fuck whether you upgrade or not. But if the primary cost is retraining because your people are soooo confused by the new layout, then perhaps you've got other issue that require your oh so important and valuable time, like the fact that you've hired incompetent employees who can't handle their cheese being moved (that's executive-speak for being unable to adapt to change, right?).

[Purd Werfect]

I love Office 2007, but it took awhile to get used to it. Now, the interface really makes sense to me, and the added functions in Excel are most appreciated.

Microsoft's "Story of the Ribbon" (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2008/03/12/the-story-of-the-ribbon.aspx) is pretty interesting if you like this sort of stuff.

Office 2010 looks pretty cool, especially Visio 2010, but they did change the Button to be a separate File tab. If you use Visio extensively though, your life is going to become heavenly with this next version. It's intuitive and the shapes and connectors are smart as hell and easy to use.

For those saying people are still going to use Office 97 or 2003, that's true, but not a good idea. 97 no longer gets security patches, and 2003 will go that way sooner rather than later. Unpatched is no way to live.

[Saintly Loser]

Office 2010 looks pretty cool, especially Visio 2010, but they did change the Button to be a separate File tab. If you use Visio extensively though, your life is going to become heavenly with this next version. It's intuitive and the shapes and connectors are smart as hell and easy to use.


That would be wonderful. We use Visio all the time, for fairly complex stuff, and it isn't the most intuitive program in the world.

[Purd Werfect]

That would be wonderful. We use Visio all the time, for fairly complex stuff, and it isn't the most intuitive program in the world.

You're in for a treat then. I used to do large-scale network drawings, and I would have killed for this version. You can download the beta from here. (http://www.microsoft.com/office/2010/en/visio/download.aspx)

[Gfactor]

Unlike you cunts

Reminder:



The following expressions should not be directed at other posters.

cunt

Please avoid. No warning issued.

Gfactor
Pit Moderator

[tacoloco]

And you're a pretentious blowhard. Yeah, I took some business classes too, so I do know what a cost/benefit analysis is. You don't think it's worth it? Fine. I don't give a flying fuck whether you upgrade or not. But if the primary cost is retraining because your people are soooo confused by the new layout, then perhaps you've got other issue that require your oh so important and valuable time, like the fact that you've hired incompetent employees who can't handle their cheese being moved (that's executive-speak for being unable to adapt to change, right?).

Taking a few classes is hardly the same thing as actually being responsible for whatever happens as part of an software upgrade at a big company.

It really isn't lazy or incompetent employees. It's the lost productivity due to learning new software, reworking procedures and processes that no longer work the same way, dealing with software defects, etc.

There is also the aspect of "if it's not broken, don't fix it".

Despite wmfellow's snotty attitude, he's 100% correct. Especially when it's HIS ass on the line if something goes wrong.

[Dead Badger]

"But I liked it when notices were in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet, stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'!"

[Cubsfan]

Reminder:
Please avoid. No warning issued.

Gfactor
Pit Moderator

Leave wmfellows alone, he's a fucking EXECUTIVE or didn't you catch that?

[Measure for Measure]

If Word is so wonderful, why do I rotate across 5 text processors?

Leave wmfellows alone, he's a fucking EXECUTIVE or didn't you catch that? With respect, this nonexecutive has grasped his underlying point, which many here have either ignored or dodged.

Transition costs to a new UI are not trivial: actually they are substantial. The advantages of a new UI in a mature product are inevitably minuscule.

Well, actually I disagree in part with that: Excel is arguably a pretty good swiss army knife that could have its feature set expanded usefully. So a more flexible UI might make sense for that. And it tends to be used by analysts anyway, who are a little more motivated. But Word? If their new UI was acutally so superfreakingawesome, then a Revert to 2003 option would have died a natural death anyway.
-----
Credit where due
Word's 2007 equation editor was improved. Yay! Word 2010 brings back menus. It also has a way of pasting in multiple way, something that copiers of web pages might appreciate.

Business Letters
Dumb question: why doesn't MS like to put the return address in the upper right hand corner? I can adapt, but I've always wondered what their problem was.

Oh yeah
One Note is pretty cool.

[Pduol]

:eek:
I didn't mean to start WWIII!

Anyway, some thoughts after using Office 2007 for about a week:

It's not that bad. It's not good either, but it's not bad. With the "Search Commands" that Southern Yankee recommended, along with some experimenting, I've learned where everything that I regularly use in both Word and Excel are hiding. It does seem like a lot of things take more clicks with the mouse than they did in 2003, therefore taking a little longer to get things done. (I've never used keyboard shortcuts, so the fact that MS changed that up is of no consequence to me)

I don't like how much space the ribbon takes up, and it still seems less than intuitive.

Even though I say that it's not that bad, I would still take 2003 over 2007. I want my damn menus back!!!

Anyway, continue on with the bloodbath.......

[Dead Badger]

Transition costs to a new UI are not trivial: actually they are substantial.
Everyone has grasped that change management is important, and that cost/benefit considerations are vital. Of course rolling out 2007 to an entire company directly on release is daft, but then I don't think anyone has suggested such a thing.

The advantages of a new UI in a mature product are inevitably minuscule.I think you're simply wrong here, because you're ignoring the plentiful examples of things that were exceedingly fiddly in pre-ribbon Office, assuming that everyone who uses Word is already entirely familiar with it, and further assuming that any new features included in 2007 can be integrated with the old-style UI without completely compromising their usability. If the best that can be said about the old UI is that most people have memorised where some subset of its functions are, then no, I don't believe you can blithely write off UI improvements as of "miniscule" value. Even if you assume that the UI is worthless, you're paying for new functions. What's the value there, if no bugger can find them?

Of course if you assume that any UI change has no value, you're going to prove to yourself that a UI upgrade isn't worth it. I don't think it's a sensible assumption, though.

Microsoft have taken the pain with this latest release to ensure they can keep adding features without making the interface ever more byzantine. Businesses, as wmfellows says, can and should take a more conservative approach to this change (familiarity with the new interface will increase naturally, as universities and home users upgrade). But that doesn't mean it's sensible for Microsoft to keep releasing the same old dogshit, and it doesn't make them stupid for releasing something that wmfellows doesn't find instantly worth the upgrade. He's still got 2003, no?

[wmfellows]

It really isn't lazy or incompetent employees. It's the lost productivity due to learning new software, reworking procedures and processes that no longer work the same way, dealing with software defects, etc.

There is also the aspect of "if it's not broken, don't fix it".


Transition costs to a new UI are not trivial: actually they are substantial. The advantages of a new UI in a mature product are inevitably minuscule.

Precisely.

Well, actually I disagree in part with that: Excel is arguably a pretty good swiss army knife that could have its feature set expanded usefully. So a more flexible UI might make sense for that. And it tends to be used by analysts anyway, who are a little more motivated. But Word? If their new UI was acutally so superfreakingawesome, then a Revert to 2003 option would have died a natural death anyway.


I can grant this to an extent, but nothing in the features updates, expansions requires imposing the added burden of retraining relative to the interface. That is an entirely separate calculation.

Regardless, Excel 07 given our other tools does not merit me taking large amounts of analysts and other relevant staff time into retraining for a bloody interface. Wasted effort. In particular as I believe complaints from my type of firm will cause MS to create a transition tool that will reduce our costs - a revert to 03 option relative to interfacing style.


Leave wmfellows alone, he's a fucking EXECUTIVE or didn't you catch that?

Yeah, and evidently you're a jealous, peevish little git of a labourer-peon. Not terribly enlightening that.

And this is as well important, as I have been noting the same point:
It's important to realize that there are several different groups of changes to be discussed here. They are not necessarily related.

First, there are changes to functionality. For example, the ability of Excel to handle larger spreadsheets, new functions, or the improvements to the way Word handles footnotes. These are Good Things. In no way does Excel 2007's ability to open huge spreadsheets adversely impact the ability to learn it. The only possible drawback is that a file saved in Excel 2007 won't be usable in Excel 2003 because there are too many lines, but Excel 2003 couldn't have created the spreadsheet anyway.

Then there are the interface changes. These are a different beast. I think the Ribbon is an improvement for people coming to Office 2007 without being heavily invested in learning Office 2003. I found it easy and intuitive. I doubt I would feel that way if I had spend 10 years in Office 9X and 2003, but I didn't.

Doubtless, the last is correct. And overall were the Ribbon not imposing a cost relative to lost productivity, I would have nothing against it per se. On a personal basis I am using, although I find it annoying in key areas.

Roll that annoyance and loss productivity out over multiple offices, analysts, secretaries, consultants, and I see a big hit. For near zero gain, trivial widget gains, bright & shiney "ooh, doggies can stand on their hind legs for 10 seconds" type gains for the most part. Layer on training costs, inevitable refreshers for the large body of staff with decades of experience with the old interfaces, and the decision is, "Pass."

And we tell the MS Sales Rep, "fuck off mate, go tell your masters that our mega license stays with 03 until you address our concerns."

As in the case of the Vista cock up, that will move things.


And you're a pretentious blowhard.

Better that than a dumb smarmy shite who understands fuck all of what is being said to him.

Yeah, I took some business classes too, so I do know what a cost/benefit analysis is.


Oooh some classes, bloody impressed mate, bloody impressed. Go get your fucking money back as you evidently didn't grok a fucking thing, you dumb shite.


You don't think it's worth it? Fine. I don't give a flying fuck whether you upgrade or not.

Evidently you do else you would not have been haranguing and belittling the others and then getting slapped by me, eh?

But if the primary cost is retraining because your people are soooo confused by the new layout, then perhaps you've got other issue that require your oh so important and valuable time, like the fact that you've hired incompetent employees who can't handle their cheese being moved (that's executive-speak for being unable to adapt to change, right?).

No you dumb shite, as you keep dodging and weaving your stupid fucking smarmy pretension this is about being "smart" or "competent" enough to learn Office 07 becomes more fucking stupid.

Competence is not about jumping into every fucking little marketing move by MS just because they added some shiny little objects for dumb gullible fucking shites like yourself, but assessing whether the transition cost is worth it, given lost productivity, training money spent on this bloody basic tool rather than on more mission critical training in software that actually is adding substantial new value, or even training spend in areas other than software.

My firm is the fucking client, and MS will serve us, not the other way around, they're the fucking tail, and the tail doesn't wag big dogs.

Adapting to change involves, you stupid gullible git, knowing what changes are effective, and what is just running around like a fucking chicken with its head cut off or some Attention Deficit Disorder Retard child.

[Rhythmdvl]

Fuck me with a blind rooster, I'm pissed. So pissed I'm making up Popeye-like swears involving handicapped poultry.

My current nightmare -- I'm trying to change machines. A simple fucking task. What the hell happened to the Office tool that did just that?! Why am I copying templates, macros, and style sets manually? What the fuck about all the keyboard shortcuts I have? What about the myriad tweaks and customizations? Do them again? What the hell am I missing? (And while we're at it, why did I have to hack the registry and make changes to a control panel setting just to get my Outlook email accounts to transfer over?)

No shit Word can do a lot of things better, but buying the "oh, we had to change the interface for your own good" line of bullshit makes the most ardent Apple Fanboy look like an aloof zen master. Bullshit they had to redo the entire menu system to make things work. It's like some hack designer insisting that an entire site must be done in Flash, and insisting on controlling every aspect of the Web Experience so it will look "right."

Bullshit. Open up just about any program and you'll see lots of similarities in menu trees and systems. File. Edit. Tool. View. All sorts of things that are common to programs. Word is really that much more complicated than Dreamweaver? Illustrator? A fucking Web browser? Bullshit they needed to make things pretty in order to make it work. They needed to carve out a niche before Open Office and Google Docs started overtaking them. No fucking excuse other than taking advantage of a current (and seemingly short lived) veritable monopoly.

I'm awfully proud of those of you who are so fucking special that you know where to find your nice features. Who gives a flying fuck? Who gives a fuck about how much your mothers love you and beam at your adaptation skills? That has nothing to do with the main complaints made in the thread. They took a bunch of industry standards and fucked them into Tuesday purely because marketing said so.

I'm sure there are a good number of firms out there with more than ten people who are just full of plucky little go-getters who love eating MS's shit and feigning bemusement that anyone could find it vexing to adapt to some pretty little lights (I need to fucking see where the page number is going to appear? What the fuck is up with that? I can't just PUT IT IN THE FUCKING PAGE?!). But anyone who has ever managed more than ten people cannot, with a straight face, suggest that switching over to an absurdly revamped UI isn't going to be a hell of a headache in terms of personnel management, training, and lost productivity.

Bullshit they had to rip out customizability for non-marketing reasons. Bullshit they needed to totally redo the interface for any of their new features. What the fuck couldn't fit into the industry standard structure? What? What feature needed the ribbon?

I really like a lot of the improvements. Given that I often lead teams of contributors, the document review/compare functionality is fantastic. As noted, references are a boon. But that doesn't make up for the needless change and the lack of customization.

Way up thread I mentioned a running list of off-pissing things. Here it is. Maybe there's a simple fix for these. Point out the obvious for more than half and I'll definitely turn a new eye towards the piece of shit and honestly praise it.



Title bar now gets squooshed by quickmenu. This means with a lot of items and a less-than maximized screen, I can't see the window’s name.
Double clicking on a comment in draft view doesn't bring it up. I don't want to hover. Maybe I want to edit or add to it.
Much more mouse movement left-to-right not just in the upper corner and compact menus.
Show changes defaults to showing formatting. EVERY TIME I work on a document I need to change this setting.
Maybe it’s just my system (I’m moving machines, so let some maintenance slip), but it’s a lot less stable.
Help system has shit the bed. Videos? Who the fuck wants to watch videos? Contextual help is not contextual.
Got rid of text effects (marching ants, etc.). Not that I'd ever send them to someone, but blinking background was a huge help.
Cannot customize Outlook macros?
Their miserable lack of customization is predicated on their being a slew of add-ons. Where the hell are all the add-ons?
No automatic updates? Office update doesn't work and Windows update isn't automated program-wide
Can't track changes of deleted endnotes without crashing
How do I get page numbers to stop previewing in dialogue box
Language setting doesn't change for comments. If a document came in with the wrong language (UK v. US English or vice versa), the change must be done manually for every new comment.
Reviewing pane doesn't spell check when adding comments.
Used to have 3 rows (on a widescreen monitor) for toolbars and information. Now I have just the top, thin quick-access and thick, unwieldly, uncustomizable (size-wise) ribbons.
I lose an entire row so that sections of the ribbon can be labelled (e.g., font , paragraph, styles)?
Style panel is useless — more space devoted to image than style name, can't get away from square boxes. Some styles are subtly different, and without seeing their name don’t lend themselves to easy differentiation.
Why the hell can’t I edit the right click menu?
Why can’t I float toolbars?

[wmfellows]

I think you're simply wrong here, because you're ignoring the plentiful examples of things that were exceedingly fiddly in pre-ribbon Office, assuming that everyone who uses Word is already entirely familiar with it, and further assuming that any new features included in 2007 can be integrated with the old-style UI without completely compromising their usability. If the best that can be said about the old UI is that most people have memorised where some subset of its functions are, then no, I don't believe you can blithely write off UI improvements as of "miniscule" value. Even if you assume that the UI is worthless, you're paying for new functions. What's the value there, if no bugger can find them?

There is some merit to this, and I am not unrelentingly hostile to the Ribbon revision as such. However, again to enhance the transition for legacy users - which are a massive base - tools such as flip to 03etc style should have been included.

One can buy such aftermarket, it would have been trivially easy for MS to include that - however it is very clear that they are also angling to use this interface break to lock in users to their specific product (note for example they are blocking adoption of Ribbon by other parties).

Of course if you assume that any UI change has no value, you're going to prove to yourself that a UI upgrade isn't worth it. I don't think it's a sensible assumption, though.

Well, I am not convinced as such that the Ribbon does in fact improve accessibility. Some features it does, other seem rather harder to access.

Further, one can not edit or change style to meet own needs, a wholly unnecessary rigidity in my opinion (as I see large parts of the ribbons displaying features I don't care for at all. They may well be popular, that is fine, but as a user I should be able to remove them so I have stuff up that I like to use.

Generally, given the retraining costs, I think the baseline hypothesis that a major interface break adds more cost than value is whole defensible as a hypothesis.

Microsoft have taken the pain with this latest release to ensure they can keep adding features without making the interface ever more byzantine. Businesses, as wmfellows says, can and should take a more conservative approach to this change (familiarity with the new interface will increase naturally, as universities and home users upgrade). But that doesn't mean it's sensible for Microsoft to keep releasing the same old dogshit, and it doesn't make them stupid for releasing something that wmfellows doesn't find instantly worth the upgrade. He's still got 2003, no?

Well yes I do. And the IT people have conversion packs installed across the board for the annoying gits who email out docx without thinking.

And yes on corporate decisions, one tends to be more conservative. When I started my career although Windows was around, the corporate world was very much in DOS (and typewriters for that matter), even Windows transitions were slow, up to XP which showed immediate and immense value over its prior versions (and contra the cock up with Vista, dumb shites).

However, MS was stupid not to include more flex into the release, and the very simple recreation of 2003etc type interface option. They earned quite a bit of ill-will for that stunt in my circles, as we don't much appreciate the imposition of added and unnecessary training costs for an item we shouldn't have to think about.

The format innovations and features are fine, ex the cock-ups in Excel, and even the interface innovation might be fine were MS not trying to over-leverage it to create barriers to change and entry.

[Dead Badger]

There is some merit to this, and I am not unrelentingly hostile to the Ribbon revision as such. However, again to enhance the transition for legacy users - which are a massive base - tools such as flip to 03etc style should have been included.
Maintaining two distinct UIs is far from trivial, and in essence the 2003 interface is provided - you can still use 2003, which is in extended support until 2014. Microsoft are quite used to companies skipping entire upgrade cycles, and you'd think companies, therefore, are used to doing so too. It's the anger I don't understand. As I say below, it's perfectly reasonable to view 2007 as a skippable upgrade, but I don't understand why this would be considered some sort of major problem. For Microsoft, providing the dual route doubles their work (particularly in testing), will lead to extra bugs, and only postpones the changeover problem to some unknown future date. This is already a release that took 4 years; UI design may seem trivial to the end user, but any programmer will tell you it takes a quite staggeringly disproportionate amount of project time.

Further, one can not edit or change style to meet own needs, a wholly unnecessary rigidity in my opinion (as I see large parts of the ribbons displaying features I don't care for at all. They may well be popular, that is fine, but as a user I should be able to remove them so I have stuff up that I like to use.
While I broadly agree that a little bit of customisation might be nice, it seems a bit incongruous to claim that your user base is so adherent to 2003's specific interface that an upgrade is all but unconscionable, yet simultaneously argue that it's important that everyone can create their own interface. If people are flexible enough to not only understand existing UIs, but bend them to their needs, aren't they flexible enough to learn something new?

Generally, given the retraining costs, I think the baseline hypothesis that a major interface break adds more cost than value is whole defensible as a hypothesis.
Sure, but with the caveat that this equation will change, and change quite rapidly as the new interface is adopted in other, less training cost-sensitive areas. 2007 is ubiquitous in universities and on new home PCs now, and I'm quite sure we're already at the point where significant numbers of workers are familiar with the 2007 interface through use outside work. Upgrading in 2007 may not have made financial sense; upgrading in 2010 may well.

This is the point: the old interface was, by almost any measure, objectively terrible. Its sole benefit was familiarity, and this can only take you so far. In much the same way as Microsoft took the pain with Vista to rectify Windows' unquestionable history of security flaws, Office 2007 has seen them take a hit to rectify Office's godawful interface. This has meant that for many more conservative users this has been an upgrade cycle to skip, and that's fine. But it doesn't mean 2007 and Vista were bad products, nor that Microsoft were wrong to make the changes they did.

[Doughbag]

Office 2007 is much better to work with then 2003....once your getting used to it.

The first time I used it, I couldn't find the printer icon... CTRL+P still worked, so I was out of the pickle and discovered this ball in the top-right...... great place to start.

The Ribbon is there and the buttons are always at the same place, no more change of toolbars or moving of the damn toolbars or haveing half the screen filled with fucking toolbars.

Execel.... you can actually move stuff around like colums, add colums or boxes and you don't have to re-do all the formulas.....

.....I know Word 2.0 was a great improvment and maybe we should have stayed with DOS and the command prompt a bit longer..... if this get's all to complicated for you, just use WordPad or NotePad or scrible on a stonewall with some dirt.

[wmfellows]

Maintaining two distinct UIs is far from trivial, and in essence the 2003 interface is provided - you can still use 2003,

That is utter tripe.

First, one can buy an after market add on (single user license Euro20 I believe) that recreates substantially the 03 interface. I have not used it, but it receives great reviews so far.

Asserting that staying with 2003 is the same as MS providing 2003 replication ability in its upgrade is simply absurd and laughable.


Microsoft are quite used to companies skipping entire upgrade cycles, and you'd think companies, therefore, are used to doing so too. It's the anger I don't understand. As I say below, it's perfectly reasonable to view 2007 as a skippable upgrade, but I don't understand why this would be considered some sort of major problem. ...


My irritation here specifically has been with the stupid gits who were abusing those users complaining about 07 as if it were some bloody magic leap forward.

While I broadly agree that a little bit of customisation might be nice, it seems a bit incongruous to claim that your user base is so adherent to 2003's specific interface that an upgrade is all but unconscionable, yet simultaneously argue that it's important that everyone can create their own interface. If people are flexible enough to not only understand existing UIs, but bend them to their needs, aren't they flexible enough to learn something new?

There is nothing incongruous at all. It is not - and I don't know how many fucking times I have to make note of this before you stupid gits get it - a matter of being "flexible enough" to learn something new for the sake of a bloody fucking Christ. It is a matter of whether taking the time is worth it given we have lots of other fucking things to do.

Nevermind the triviality of the usual customisation is nowhere near the leap from Ribbon to Menu and vice-versa. (Or even simply excluding unused functionalities from the Ribbon to leave more space for more used functionalities).

That is an amazingly idiotic comparison.


2007 is ubiquitous in universities and on new home PCs now, and I'm quite sure we're already at the point where significant numbers of workers are familiar with the 2007 interface through use outside work. Upgrading in 2007 may not have made financial sense; upgrading in 2010 may well.


Maybe in the US of A, where apparenlty MS has you lot bloody getting wagged by the tail, but not in my markets.

This is the point: the old interface was, by almost any measure, objectively terrible. Its sole benefit was familiarity, and this can only take you so far. In much the same way as Microsoft took the pain with Vista to rectify Windows' unquestionable history of security flaws, Office 2007 has seen them take a hit to rectify Office's godawful interface. This has meant that for many more conservative users this has been an upgrade cycle to skip, and that's fine. But it doesn't mean 2007 and Vista were bad products, nor that Microsoft were wrong to make the changes they did.

So you assert. I don't see objective efficiency data out there, I do see a lot of taste and style being asserted as objective.

And Vista was a bad fucking product, that is why it failed.

[Doughbag]

To the Format change......its not really a new thing. Office 97 does not open Office 2003 files correctly either. So, by this definition Office 2003 is a heap of shit aswell.

Why we need new formats? After all a floppy disk is as good as a CD, DVD or BlueRay. Surely, sometimes the new formats are put out in a hurry and are not well thought through....and mistakes are done.

The gerneral Joesoap does not even know what these extensions are or that they even exist.....for crying out loud, they send desktop shortcuts as email attachments.
Secretries can not open Word files, like CV's from people in email attachments.
The CV's where done in Word....MS Works Word.... MS Office Word did not open them.......unless you download a patch, which the program prompts you to do anyhow.
Those same clowns call it Office Vista.

By the way 2003 prompts you to download a patch to open things like the docx files, after patching it..... of cos

[Doughbag]

And Vista was a bad fucking product, that is why it failed.

It also failed because, people used underpowered PC's which can't even run Windows XP properly to run Vista...and to many idiots that never knew anything else but XP and are unable to change..........but that's another thread for another day.......

....that's not saying, Vista was a great OS to start with.......it has it's good sides as well.....a few...... somewhere.... really

[Dead Badger]

That is utter tripe ... absurd and laughable ... stupid gits ... amazingly idiotic ...
Ah, I'm glad I bothered to try to talk this down into something resembling a normal conversation. Have fun swinging your EXECUTIVE dick, you big ol' hunk o' joy, you.

And Vista was a bad fucking product, that is why it failed.
Thanks for that. Is this the sort of mindless reductionism that one needs to be an EXECUTIVE?

[Sateryn76]

You guys are all suckers.....WordPerfect has had all of these problems solved for years. Everything is completely intuitive - I'm constantly shocked that people still use Word, with it's high cost and totally ridiculous interface.

I'm a high-level user, and I can click around almost program to figure out how to do something. Most programs make sense. Word on the other hand, is a big pile of shit. It doesn't make any sense to anyone, ever.

If I need to change margins in WP, I go to "Format-Margins". Or I use a shortcut key. Or I just drag the little gray line around. In Word...well, I couldn't figure it out the one time I tried. There was no on-screen drag feature, and I couldn't even find it in a menu. It sounds like that's what the "Ribbon" is supposed to fix, but why not just use the fucking tool bar?

I think that, in the next ten years, MS is in for some hurt. As more "regular" people become more confident with computer work, this kind of bloatware bullshit is going to become quite unpopular, and MS is going to get their asses handed to them. They've already lost the IE race to Mozilla, and word processing, spreadsheet and database programs are not far behind.

[HookerChemical]

Vista was a horrible product on the roll-out. I bought a laptop with it within the first month it was out and regretted it. A few years later, I think it's been patched into a decent operating system.

There were so many annoyances on release that it was ridiculous. For example, I had to patch my Vista computer so it could read my shared XP folders, but XP could read my shared Vista folders without a problem. That's just plain dumb.

User Account Control is annoying as hell and adds very little to make my computer safer. "Are you sure you want to execute the file you told me you want to execute?." Yes. "Are you sure? It's an executable and may be harmful." Yes, I really want to execute the file. It's the Firefox installer, which means I can move away from your horrible insecure Internet Explorer. "You can only execute this executable if you confirm a third and fourth time. I'm trying to keep you safe."
/me throttles the computer. This takes some determination, as it's a laptop with a rather large screen, but if you're mad enough, you'll find you can do it too.

Now, docx. I like the idea of opening and standardizing the format. Installing a patch onto older versions of Office isn't a big deal. (Seriously, it isn't. It's no worse than adding a security patch and something an IT department at a multinational firm should do as routine. It doesn't break any functionality or change the way the program works in any significant way.) The execution, possibly rigged vote for approval, and Microsoft's inability to follow its own standard, are a problem.

[HookerChemical]

I think that, in the next ten years, MS is in for some hurt. As more "regular" people become more confident with computer work, this kind of bloatware bullshit is going to become quite unpopular, and MS is going to get their asses handed to them. They've already lost the IE race to Mozilla, and word processing, spreadsheet and database programs are not far behind.

If only this were true. MS has a lock on the operating system and will continue to leverage that lock to force Office on people. MS has a lock on the Office suite and will continue to use it to force people to use their operating system.

Formatting in WP is so much more intuitive than Word. "Reveal Codes." That's it. Those two words make WP a hundred times easier to work with. Word's show formatting is a pale, pathetic, imitation.

The menus were more intuitive for me than the Word menus, but I still prefer the ribbon interface. Still, I'll take WP and Reveal Codes over Word with a ribbon if I had my choice.

On the other hand, I like Excel 2003 more than Quattro, and I like Excel 2007 even more.

[Dead Badger]

Ah, fuck it, I'll do it your way.

First, one can buy an after market add on (single user license Euro20 I believe) that recreates substantially the 03 interface. I have not used it, but it receives great reviews so far.So what's the problem? There exists a tool that solves your issues. I'm sure it wasn't trivial to write. Why does it have to be made by Microsoft? Do Matlab users whine that Mathworks don't write every Matlab addin? Do Excel users piss themselves in consternation at the thought of using third-party toolboxes? Of course not. So why does Mr Bigshot Executive have his panties in a bunch at the fact that there's a cheap, easily-available solution to his problem?

Asserting that staying with 2003 is the same as MS providing 2003 replication ability in its upgrade is simply absurd and laughable.
I didn't say that, I said that seeing as you define your needs with reference to 2003, 2003 is by definition acceptable. You've spent half the thread arguing about how it's perfectly fine for you, and unwanted change is bad. So keep using it, for crying out loud. And if you think the 2007 features are so incredibly desirable, then either pay for retraining with the new UI, or pay the measly fee for Toolbar Toggle. It's fucking simple. Stop whining that you've got a decision to make; that's why you're the big swinging dick, right?

My irritation here specifically has been with the stupid gits who were abusing those users complaining about 07 as if it were some bloody magic leap forward.
It's not a magic leap forward; Word 2007 is (IMO) a vaguely competent product, where 2003 was a detestable piece of shit that should be dragged out and shot. Personally I don't use Word unless forced to at gunpoint, but that doesn't mean I don't a) know improvement when I see it, and b) know "I hate change" whinges when I see them. I've hardly seen a single complaint about it vs. 2003 that wasn't a simple "where is X command?" query wrapped up in swearing, usually with the answer "right in front of your stupid, stupid face, for fuck's sake."

Unfortunately, it's a trait of the common or garden idiot that they'd rather rant about something to strangers than spend 5 seconds with Google, hence the irritation amongst people who have a bit more initiative than God gave watercress. I sympathise if you employ a lot of common or garden idiots (I prefer garden idiots, myself), but that's your cross to bear.

Maybe in the US of A, where apparenlty MS has you lot bloody getting wagged by the tail, but not in my markets.
I'm in the UK, thanks all the same, and can speak for at least two top UK universities. They tend to roll over software frequently because they get cheaper support for newer versions, and replenish their machines a lot. And yes, Office 2007 has been the default retail edition since its release, unless your "markets" are in Bumfuck, Mongolia. So I'm sorry, but if you think 2007 isn't widespread outside offices and getting more so, you're not doing your job properly.

So you assert. I don't see objective efficiency data out there, I do see a lot of taste and style being asserted as objective.
Given your enlightened approach to software development, I can't imagine you really want any such detail, but here is a whole blog feed (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/pages/table-of-contents.aspx) dealing solely with how MS went about designing their new UI, including validation. Knock yourself out. I also recommend Merneith's roundly ignored posts earlier. Not enough insults for you, I suppose.

For the intellectually incurious, however, and just off the top of my head:
commands are more consistently placed (as opposed to the old "guess where the toolbar went" approach to layout);
there's much more label text, reducing the need to guess what individual icons mean;
GUI elements are larger, meaning less hunting and pecking;
and they've made a better attempt to group options conceptually, as opposed to the dire pre-2007 game of guessing whether the option you want is in "tools, options, advanced" or "tools, customize, advanced" or wherever the hell else Microsoft stuck all their features they couldn't be bothered to locate usefully.

It's not the best thing since sliced bread, but it surely is an improvement on the morass of anonymous, draggable icons and opaque dropdown menus that infested Word pre-2007. You're welcome to your own opinion of course, but frankly I think anyone who can pretend that someone facing Word for the first time would prefer this (http://i.d.com.com/i/dl/media/dlimage/41/76/8/41768_large.jpeg) to this (http://www.qweas.com/downloads/business/office-suites-tools/scr-microsoft-office-word-2007.png) is off their rocker.

[Lord Ashtar]

Evidently you do else you would not have been haranguing and belittling the others and then getting slapped by me, eh?

You think you've "slapped" me? Calling me names and telling me I don't understand something doesn't mean I don't understand it. All you keep saying is that you need to retrain your people and that you don't think the benefit is worth the cost. That's fine. You don't believe your people can grok it in a reasonable amount of time, so you're going to stay a version behind. Two versions, pretty soon, since 2010 is out this year I believe.

No you dumb shite, as you keep dodging and weaving your stupid fucking smarmy pretension this is about being "smart" or "competent" enough to learn Office 07 becomes more fucking stupid.

Every time you call me a "shite", God kills a kitten. Save a few kittens and expand your vocabulary a little.

Competence is not about jumping into every fucking little marketing move by MS just because they added some shiny little objects for dumb gullible fucking shites like yourself, but assessing whether the transition cost is worth it, given lost productivity, training money spent on this bloody basic tool rather than on more mission critical training in software that actually is adding substantial new value, or even training spend in areas other than software.

My firm is the fucking client, and MS will serve us, not the other way around, they're the fucking tail, and the tail doesn't wag big dogs.

Sorry, I forgot that you're their only client. How dare Bill Gates' and his people do something that doesn't EXACTLY the way you want? You should go smack him around and call him a "little shite". That'll show him. Don't forget to add in "gullible little git". That's always a fun one.

Here's the inside scoop, Bigshot. Thousands of other firms have managed to upgrade to Office 2007, including mine and dozens of my clients, without the world blowing up on us. Clearly they were not all idiots, despite your cost/benefit analysis saying it's not worth it.

I eagerly await your response where you come back and tell me, AGAIN, that I'm a gullible, stupid, little shite who couldn't possibly understand your super important job of allocating resources to train people how to use a fucking word processor so that you can better focus on your core competency, or whatever other mindless, corporate-speak you use to keep your ego inflated to such enormous proportions.

[tim314]

Want to know why they redesigned the MS Office user interface? Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth. (In this case the horse is Jensen Harris, who was the Group Program Manager of the Office 2007 User Experience team.)

The Why of the New UI (Part 1) (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/03/28/563007.aspx)

Ye Olde Museum Of Office Past (Why the UI, Part 2) (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/03/29/563938.aspx)

Combating the Perception of Bloat (Why the UI, Part 3) (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/03/31/565877.aspx)

New Rectangles to the Rescue? (Why the UI, Part 4) (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/04/03/567261.aspx)

Tipping the Scale (Why the UI, Part 5) (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/04/04/568249.aspx)

Inside Deep Thought (Why the UI, Part 6) (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/04/05/568947.aspx)

No Distaste for Paste (Why the UI, Part 7) (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/04/07/570798.aspx)

Grading On the Curve (Why the UI, Part 8) (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/04/11/573348.aspx)

[tim314]

The main point of those articles seems to be that their basic menu structure hadn't changed too much since the very first version of MS Word, and while this was great when they only had a small number of features, it doesn't work so well now that they have roughly a billion features. People never even discover a lot of useful features because they're buried in submenus of submenus. The new UI is better for finding features you've never used before, because more stuff is right in front of you.

To add my own take on things: The problem is that if you already knew where something was, it's now harder to find (at least at first) because it's not where you expect it to be. I think MS is probably right that the old Office UI had outlived its usefulness. However, it's a basic principle of UI design that a good UI should work like people expect it to work. Otherwise, people tend to get angry. In this case, that expectation has been shaped for many of us by years and years of using the old versions of MS Office.

So Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't . . . either they keep using an increasingly inadequate menu system, or they switch to one that commits the cardinal sin of being unfamiliar and piss off all their established users who had come to expect everything to work a certain way.

I'm not sure there's any good solution . . . I guess they're gambling that those who are initially pissed off by the new UI will get over it and adjust to the new arrangement. They're Microsoft, so they can probably get away with this when others couldn't.

[Measure for Measure]

So Microsoft is damned if they do and damned if they don't . . . either they keep using an increasingly inadequate menu system, or they switch to one that commits the cardinal sin of being unfamiliar and piss off all their established users who had come to expect everything to work a certain way.

I'm not sure there's any good solution . . . The main complaint is that Office 2007 contains no "Revert to 2003 menus" option. Managing wetware transition isn't exactly a new concept.

[Critical1]

Of course quitting bitching means that the Redmond firm will continue to make the same mistakes, as it did with Vista.

And given the failure that was Vista, the Redmond firm should bloody well care.


Vista was a Resounding success, it did Exactly what it was intended to do. Get people to PAY microsoft for the honor of beta testing windows 7.



personally I love the new office, then again I am not a power user and have few problems that cant be solved with a quick google (note google, not bing)

[Prelude to Fascination]

I haven't read the whole thread, but my company offered Office 2007 as a personal download for $9.95. Considering we were looking at buying an office suite, and saw it priced at least at one store for about $200, it seems like a good deal.

On the other hand, you get what you pay for.

On the third hand, it was a company benefit -- one of the few I get (I deserve more, to be honest, but that's another topic). Given that, as long as it doesn't actually damage my computer, what's the harm (unless there's an indication that it does harm my system, in which case, I'm probably fucked)?

On the fourth hand, my 11-year old will use it for school reports, which is why I agreed to buy it.

[BrandonR]

Everyone hates the new Office interface until they give a chance and learn where everything is, then they love it. Microsoft did a lot of research into what functions are used and where they should be logically placed, and it really is better than going through endless menus. Just give it some time to adjust... Why must everyone flip out when change occurs?

[Corner Case]

I may have missed the link in this thread, but here is a link to an interactive guide (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word/Ha100744321033.aspx). Click on the Word 2003 menu item and it shows you where it is in Word 2007.

[Lord Ashtar]

Why must everyone flip out when change occurs?

Because Microsoft forgot to consult with wmfellows before redesigning the interface.

[Ignatz]

Yeah. I just needed to insert a line between two other lines in an Excel spreadsheet and couldn't remember how I did it the last time so I try the INSERT function. Nada. Then I try the PAGE LAYOUT function. Nada. Then I tried the others and finally HOME. Tada. Big Green Donkeys.

[AHunter3]

In a grqphics program I see a legitimate need & purpose for a tools palette with icons and whatnot — you don't do graphics editing with just your keyboard, after all.

No word processor should assume you want your screen taken up with lots of icons though. Commands belong in menus (until you memorize the keystroke equivalents, that is).

[Banquet Bear]

No word processor should assume you want your screen taken up with lots of icons though. Commands belong in menus (until you memorize the keystroke equivalents, that is).

...why not?

[tacoloco]

Because Microsoft forgot to consult with wmfellows before redesigning the interface.

:rolleyes:

[Waenara]

No word processor should assume you want your screen taken up with lots of icons though. Commands belong in menus (until you memorize the keystroke equivalents, that is).Word 2007 has over 1,500 commands. If they were all in menus, it would be impossible to find everything because they would be buried 2 or 3 menus deep and then inside of a dialog box.

One major reason they redesigned the UI was because people kept requesting new features that old versions of Word already contained - people just didn't know they were there or couldn't find them.

[Polerius]

I haven't read the whole thread, but has anyone mentioned the following: In today's vertically challenged laptops with widescreen displays, vertical real estate is very valuable, and no matter how "brilliant" the new menu structure is, it eats up a lot of vertical space, leaving less room for the document you are editing.

As more and more people use netbooks, the problem is exacerbated even further.

One positive thing: In case some of you don't know, pressing Control+F1 hides the ribbon allowing you to write/read without taking so much space, and pressing Control+F1 again makes the ribbon reappear.

[Polerius]

Word 2007 has over 1,500 commands. If they were all in menus, it would be impossible to find everything because they would be buried 2 or 3 menus deep and then inside of a dialog box.
This explanation I don't get. Are you claiming that they have been able to cram 1,500 commands into the ribbon? It seems a bit unlikely.

If you need multiple menus buried 2 or 3 deep to fit 1,500 commands, how much ribbon space would you need, since the ribbon just lays it all out there?

[Measure for Measure]

One major reason they redesigned the UI was because people kept requesting new features that old versions of Word already contained - people just didn't know they were there or couldn't find them. MS's help function sorta sucks doesn't it?

[Waenara]

This explanation I don't get. Are you claiming that they have been able to cram 1,500 commands into the ribbon? It seems a bit unlikely.

If you need multiple menus buried 2 or 3 deep to fit 1,500 commands, how much ribbon space would you need, since the ribbon just lays it all out there?I'm not a huge expert - I've just read a couple blog posts about the UI design process. However, all the commands are in the ribbons or accessible by the ribbon, so they must have worked it out somehow. Just playing around with Word 2007 myself, there's eight different tabs on the ribbon for major groupings of commands (Home, Insert, Page Layout, References, Mailing, Review, View, Add-Ins), and some of the buttons open a dialog box. Also, some tabs only appear when needed (e.g. insert a picture or select a picture and the "Picture Tools Format" tab appears, insert a table and the "Table Tools Design" and "Table Tools Layout" tabs appear).

But all the commands fit in the somehow, and every command has one home and is in the same place. My understanding is that in previous versions of Word some commands were in the menus and toolbars, some were only available from toolbars, and some were only in task panes. Then in some later versions of Word the menus tried to be "smart" and hide the less commonly used tasks, but I always found it to be a huge pain in the ass when trying to find a command you hadn't used in a while.

I'm not some huge Office 2007 devotee or anything, but after fiddling around with it for the last year (came on my new laptop I got for school), I don't have any huge issues with it. I am somewhat of a power user, and in old versions of Word I customized the hell out of Word and added custom macros, toolbars, etc... and use mostly keyboard shortcuts. I'm not finding the lack of user UI customizability in 2007 to be a huge issue for me, and the Ribbon works fairly well overall.

[Random Design]

Of course it sucks massively. MS boxes everyones thinking, serves them a pile of shit, repackages the shit so the box feels new and different and everyone just goes along with it.

I work in an office, using Office 2007 - as I suspect most users do. How the FUCK is it possible that this far down the line there is zero integration between the Office products, or the Windows OS?
For example, let's say I'm working on a spreadsheet. I need for someone in the office next to me to add some data to it. Where is the button on the motherfucking ribbon that lets me select the person's computer and queue the file to open on their screen? HMM? it's fucking STUPEFYING how pathetic Office is when you consider they make the shitty O/S too. no, instead I have to save the file, go to outlook, compose a message, add attachment, send via the server, and then the receiver has to go through the reverse steps, add their data, save the file, go to outlook, compose a message, add attachment, send via the server etc.. Tedious, time-consuming and 100% unnecessary. We're on the same network, using the same software on the same operating system, but there is no integration.

Anyone who thinks Office 2007 provides a decent product is as imaginative as M$.

[Dead Badger]

Are you sure your problems aren't the result of your organisation not having something really basic, like a fileserver? No company with a competent IT department should be collaborating on documents via email.

[BigT]

Everyone hates the new Office interface until they give a chance and learn where everything is, then they love it. Microsoft did a lot of research into what functions are used and where they should be logically placed, and it really is better than going through endless menus. Just give it some time to adjust... Why must everyone flip out when change occurs?

Because every other program since the beginning of Windows has used menus. People know how to use them. Having your program be artificially different is stupid.

It's the wrong type of optimization, They should be trying to make every program work the same, rather than make each program different, which is what the ribbon does. They analyze each program individually, rather than the entire operating system as a whole.

My overwhelming rule for software is not to remove something people are using unless you HAVE to, for some logistical reason. They didn't HAVE to take out the old way. So my guess is that the whole point was not to make things easier (though they arguably did) but to make their UI proprietary so people wouldn't be able to change. If they really cared about the best UI, they'd leave both in, and let the progression naturally happen. They were actually starting to get some competition amongst their current audience, and wanted to quell it to make it harder to switch later.

[Random Design]

Are you sure your problems aren't the result of your organisation not having something really basic, like a fileserver? No company with a competent IT department should be collaborating on documents via email.

Yes obviously there are other work-arounds to this issue such as using IMs or shared folders... that's not my point, none of them are as simple as having the products integrated as they should be.

[Saintly Loser]

For example, let's say I'm working on a spreadsheet. I need for someone in the office next to me to add some data to it. Where is the button on the motherfucking ribbon that lets me select the person's computer and queue the file to open on their screen? HMM? it's fucking STUPEFYING how pathetic Office is when you consider they make the shitty O/S too. no, instead I have to save the file, go to outlook, compose a message, add attachment, send via the server, and then the receiver has to go through the reverse steps, add their data, save the file, go to outlook, compose a message, add attachment, send via the server etc.. Tedious, time-consuming and 100% unnecessary. We're on the same network, using the same software on the same operating system, but there is no integration.

This sounds like a network issue in your company, not an Office issue. I can do exactly that here at my firm.

[Larry Mudd]

This sounds like a network issue in your company, not an Office issue. I can do exactly that here at my firm.I think one of us is misreading the complaint. It seems to me that Random Design wants to push a document to open in Excel on another user's workstation.

I am unaware of any spreadsheet software that allows this, and would be surprised if there's any significant demand for a feature like this. If our workflow demanded this, I would probably approach it as a templated shared task in Outlook, with an imbedded link to the document. The risks of inbuilding an ability to push a macro-enabled document to another workstation far outweigh any perceived benefits.

Corner Case, thanks for the link to the interactive guides. This is pure pain relief, and installing these on transitioning users' desktops will be much more helpful (and less of a time-suck) than hoping they'll use the actual "Help" feature or (more likely) finding the answer for them myself when they ask for support.

[AHunter3]

Word 2007 has over 1,500 commands.


I'm well aware of the phenomenal bloat of Word. It was well-underway when Word version 4 for Mac was in its heyday. We all said "Word can probably do anything... but it may take you a week to find out where the command to do it is buried". And that included the straightforward simple everyday stuff.


If they were all in menus, it would be impossible to find everything because they would be buried 2 or 3 menus deep and then inside of a dialog box.

As opposed to putting 1500 icons on some kind of toolbar or "ribbon"? Where finding the one you're looking for would be EASY? :dubious:


One major reason they redesigned the UI was because people kept requesting new features that old versions of Word already contained - people just didn't know they were there or couldn't find them.

Of course they didn't / couldn't. That's in large part because there are 1500 freaking commands in the stupid program.

People keep requesting new features in Word because as relatively ignorant newbies the first thing they learned to use on their computer was the word processor, and they came to think of the word processor as the main program on the computer. So for any given task they'd ever want to do on the computer, their default behavior is to try to do it in WORD. This predictable but wrong-headed behavior was greatly encouraged by Microsoft tossing in silly feature after silly feature, many of them having damn little to do with word processing.

(The tendency has not gone away but in large part people's "main program" is now their web browser, which has a lot to do with why web browsers are bloated klunky beasts that don't navigate and render web pages as well as they should, not to mention the tendency of developers to do stupid and totally inappropriate things via the web. But I digess).

[Dead Badger]

Yes obviously there are other work-arounds to this issue such as using IMs or shared folders... that's not my point, none of them are as simple as having the products integrated as they should be.
Having a shared file store is not a collaboration "workaround", it's a basic facility that any organisation that regularly collaborates on electronic documents should have. And indeed, Office has lots of features for users who have this facility; in fact 2010 will apparently let multiple users edit the same document simultaneously (http://blogs.msdn.com/microsoft_office_word/archive/2009/09/09/co-authoring-in-word-2010.aspx) rather than allowing only one person write access at a time - a bit like Google Wave, if you've used that. But if your IT department won't supply you with shared storage, then yes, collaboration will suck and there's not much Microsoft can do about it.

Like Larry Mudd, I'm at a loss to name a single bit of software in existence that allows force-opening of files on other people's computers in the way you apparently want. Quite apart from the nightmarish security issues (do we really need another macro virus vector?), I don't see how this can possibly be much smoother than emailing back and forth, which is already integrated in to the Office interface (Office Blob > Send > Email). It's hard to imagine the scheme you suggest being any simpler.

[Dinsdale]

We received an e-mail that our work computers would have Office 2007 installed over the weekend. I am not looking forward to it.

Although I use a computer all day every day at work, I am by anyone's definition a low-level user. All I need to do is word process, do some work with adobe acrobat, send and receive e-mails, and access the web. I'm in the goofy situation where I am required to use Word for some things, and Wordperfect for others.

My work product are legal briefs - I get no benefit from fancy formatting or anything. Just give me a legible font and a template that complies with the court rules, and that's all I want or need.

I really wish that when some new product like this came out they would allow low-level users like me to "hide" all of the fancy new things, and keep my computer appearing and functioning how it always has - at least since the most recent change/"upgrade".

I don't have any "problems" with the current system that need to be improved. Well, other than it having way more crap in my face that I am never going to use, but I've gotten pretty good at ignoring that. And no improvements are likely to improve my work product, or work experience. Using the function keys for formatting in Wordperfect 15-20 years ago was perfectly fine for my uses. As were each of the subsequent changes. And I'm sure I'll learn this system as well - probably get damned efficient in it just around the time they replace it with something else!

My intentional approach is to identify the lowest tech "work-arounds" for just about any situation, and have stopped customizing my desktop, because as soon as I do they do something to the server or replace some hardware in my office that causes them to disappear. And our IT support is too unreliable for me to want to go through the hassle of trying to locate or recreate anything I've lost. Instead, I'll just stumble on.

[Dead Badger]

Of course they didn't / couldn't. That's in large part because there are 1500 freaking commands in the stupid program.How many commands are optimum for a word processor, in your view?

[Dinsdale]

How many commands are optimum for a word processor, in your view?

Well, couldn't you start from the presumption of using the fewest, with some simple way to open up more complex functions?

Or maybe after I've used a word prcessor for a few thousand hours, could it somehow say "Hmm, you've NEVER clicked on this icon - maybe we'll toss it into some clearly designated file."

Or maybe make it more intuitive why some commands are in the drop down menus, some in icons, and some duplicated in both. I really don't care HOW I get the darned document in some basic format. I don't WANT all these options. Just make clear the simplest way to do it, and I'll be happy with that - and then retain that simplest way in all subsequent versions - allowing those with the skills and desire to open up new possibilities.

[Dead Badger]

Well, couldn't you start from the presumption of using the fewest, with some simple way to open up more complex functions?Some sort of interface where the most frequently used functions are presented first, say, and where other less-used sets of activity-related functions are accessible with minimal clicking, and with plenty of text cues along with their icons? I agree, this sounds brilliant. Someone should do it (http://reviews.cnet.com/i/ss/2007/0130_Office_2007_slideshow/WordRibbon_440.jpg). :)

Facetiousness aside: there aren't 1500 icons in the ribbon. There are about 40-odd on the main tab, almost all relating to very common formatting commands. Compare this to pre-2007, when every toolbar you could need was on screen at once. How is this preferable to you, the self-described basic user? Isn't the ribbon an attempt at exactly what you describe?

The point of my query of AHunter3 is that bloat should not be defined with reference to some optimum number of functions, but with reference to how easy they are to access. Remember, this (http://i.d.com.com/i/dl/media/dlimage/41/76/8/41768_large.jpeg) is the sort of ghastly shit Word users were confronted with pre-ribbon. Can you honestly say you find that more comprehensible than the ribbon screenshot above? Removing features is not the first step to fixing that mess, it's fixing the interface. And in my humble opinion, despite all the hyperventilating, the ribbon is a pretty big jump towards doing that.

[Dinsdale]

How is this preferable to you, the self-described basic user?

I won't be able to comment on 2007 until I see it. Who knows - maybe it will be what I've hoped for for decades. But I'm not getting my hopes up. :p

[Rhythmdvl]

Facetiousness aside: there aren't 1500 icons in the ribbon. There are about 40-odd on the main tab, almost all relating to very common formatting commands. Compare this to pre-2007, when every toolbar you could need was on screen at once.

That's just not true. You could have all toolbars open at once doesn't mean that was anything close to how it shipped or how it was routinely set up. This is as silly as saying IE sucks because this (http://blig.ig.com.br/brokenarrow/files/2009/04/too_many_toolbars.jpg)happens.

The ribbon equals more mouse movement, especially on a wide screen. Instead of one small section of columns and plenty of rows menu-wise, it's now pretty much one long row that you need to move back and forth on. Load up Classic UI via Ribbon Customizer and play around with different commands. This is especially true given how many people have widescreen monitors. Baaaaacccckkkk and fooorrrrrtthhhhhh, baaaacccckkkk and ffoooorrrrttthhh....

ETA: I quoted DB, but am not directing all this directly at him/her. It was just a convenient launch point. No offense meant.

The quicklaunch bar is a hint at avoiding this, but it's limited to one row across the top. It's as if MS recognized the need for customizability (having the sets of commands you mostly use at the tips of your fingers) but were so obsessed with carving their market niche that they limited it to just one row.

It's been mentioned upthread that they are moving from widespread usability -- just about every other program out there has the File/Edit/View/Etc.-type structure. That makes for ease of switching between programs. If this concept isn't important, then why are the ribbons similar across Office apps?

And what is the ribbon other than a thick, uncustomizable toolbar? At best it's a tabbed toolbar. And this is where the marketing department entered. Rather than keeping with industry conventions, they prevented users from laying out the tabs as they want. They prevented floating tool-ribbons. The back-end is there, because things like thesaurus and style inspector still float.

It's not a matter of finding commands. Yes, that is an annoying part of the transition, but there's so much more. That MS depreciated marching ants and Vegas Lights was bothersome to me (not that I'd ever send them to someone, but for my own internal use they were handy), but not necessarily angerfying. It's the blatant attempt to break from the industry to lock in/entrench an interface for the primary purpose of retaining market share.

Compare Office to Windows 7, where there is real competition. Apple's main advertising thrust (and it's only selling point beyond aesthetic design) is how much better it's OS is than Windows. While Win 7 still has some flaws, and Vista did screw the pooch on some things (I went from XP to 7 so I don't know specifics), Win 7 is designed for the user, not for Microsoft. The changes to the UI are improvements, most of which take some getting used to, but most of which benefit the user. Office changes are in a completely different class. And I giddily upgraded to Office expecting to be in geeky heaven.

My challenge still stands. I could very well be terribly wrong about things. Someone find solutions half the list I posted above and I'll be happy to praise the program.

[AHunter3]

How many commands are optimum for a word processor, in your view?

About 40, give or take:

New document, Open document, Open Recent Documents, Close window, Save document, Insert Document, Save As, Print Setup (includes options like double-sized printing, restarting of pages), Print (includes options like printing odd or even pages only), Add Footnote/Endnote, Add/Edit Footer/Header, Quit Program,

Insert Page Break, Insert Special (date, time, path, other codes),

Undo, Cut, Copy, Paste, Paste Unformatted, Find / FindReplace (including Find All => list of found results), Find Again, Go to Page.

Font, FontSize, FontStyle.

Justification (left, centered, right, even-justified), New Section (with its own tab stops and margins), Copy Section Settings, Apply Section Headings. Kerning. Line Spacing (single, double, custom). Units (inches, cm, points, picas, pixels, whatevers).

Create Index. SpellCheck. Add to Dictionary. Browse/Edit Dictionary. Add Graphic Frame (right-click to change characteristics of graphic frame). Add table (right-click to change characteristics of table).

Document Info (wordcount, character count, pagecount, sentence count, avg wordsize, avg sentence-size, path saved to, date created, date modified, etc).


Give me awhile, I might be able to think of a dozen or so more.

Then again, maybe not.

[Waenara]

About 40, give or take:

<snip>

Give me awhile, I might be able to think of a dozen or so more.

Then again, maybe not.Margins? Inserting pictures? Tables? Table of contents? Indexing? Mail merges? Comments, reviewing and tracking changes?

There are lots of features in Word 2007 that are extremely useful for many people. I know some people call them "bloat" because they don't use the features, but I think if MS got rid of those features there would be much louder bitching from the people who use them a lot.

[AHunter3]

Margins?

Go to top of section. Margins and tabs, right there. Or create a new section. Different implementation, same idea.

Inserting pictures?

Add Graphic Frame. See above, got you covered, among my 40.

Tables?

Add table. See above, got you covered, among my 40.

Table of contents?

Would not want. If I wish a table of contents I will type out a table of contents.

Indexing?

Create Index. See above, got you covered, among my 40.


Mail merges?

I would use FileMaker, not a word processor, but OK. We're up to 41. Lots of folks would prefer to use a word processor for mail merge.

Comments, reviewing and tracking changes?


I would not want.

There are lots of features in Word 2007 that are extremely useful for many people.

You've got a long way to go to get to 1500.

I know some people call them "bloat" because they don't use the features, but I think if MS got rid of those features there would be much louder bitching from the people who use them a lot.

Put the 40 umm 41 features in a default menu. List the remaining 1459 in a "Power Users" section in Preferences (hmm, OK 42 menu commands) and let folks who want them add any specified command to any specified menu.

[Waenara]

Put the 40 umm 41 features in a default menu. List the remaining 1459 in a "Power Users" section in Preferences (hmm, OK 42 menu commands) and let folks who want them add any specified command to any specified menu.I don't know how the folks at MS count the number of commands, but think you're probably simplifying way too much. Your "only 41 commands" is really much more than that.

You can't just say "add table" and then say you're done with one command. In reality it's add table, how many columns and rows, add row, delete row, add column, delete column, adjust row/column width/height, merge cells, split cells, format table fonts, text direction, borders, shading, , etc, etc, etc

Similarly, pictures aren't just "add graphic frame". What about adjusting picture size, shape, border, effects, cropping, position on the page, text wrapping, etc

Sure some of that stuff can be done with other computer programs, but I think regular average users don't want to open up another program like Photoshop or even Paint just to make basic modifications to a picture when for over a decade they've been doing those things within Word.

[dropzone]

I opened a document in which its date updated to today, not the date it was created. There is probably a way to turn off this "feature" which does not include hitting over the head with a rolled-up newspaper the people on whom I depend for my bread and butter, but I haven't managed to find it. I trust some caring soul here will point me the right way.

Um, Word 2003, of course. ;)

[Rhythmdvl]

Put the 40 umm 41 features in a default menu. List the remaining 1459 in a "Power Users" section in Preferences (hmm, OK 42 menu commands) and let folks who want them add any specified command to any specified menu.
I think 40 is way underestimating the diversity of uses out there, but I understand your general point. I'd say the pool of most frequently used tools may be in the low hundreds or so, but again I agree with the essence of your point. I'm only bringing it up to avoid the 43! no, 45! See, now you're up to 48 so you must be wrong! -type impression.

That's a major missed opportunity with the glorified taskbar. I used to be able to choose the handful of toolbars that I needed to have visible and could float the few that I'd need for short periods. I could knock off those little-used formatting buttons until I had the primary and secondary ones visible, add a few buttons as necessary, then do the same with one or two other toolbars. After turning off the little-used toobars, I had just about everything I want withing several inches of each other. No meandering back and forth across the screen.


Rhythmdvl's advice for Office 2010:

Set MS developer's loose on Ribbon Customizer to do the standard Microsoft Rape n Pillage routine so that it gets fully incorporated (with improvements) into 2010.
Allow resizing and full manipulation of the ribbon so that people can put their 40, 50, or whatever frequently used commands wherever they like -- even if it means mixing reference commands with view commands.
Give up on trying to be unique little snowflakes and study commonalities between other programs. It's OK to strike out on your own and name a new tab (e.g., reference), but recognize the pool of programs that people are used to using and the accompanying mindset.
Drop the mandatory flashy shit. Some of it can be turned off, but many people who use word professionally don't need to see the fancy previews. I just built a beast of a machine and even it take a moment to render pictures of page numbers. Let the morons who don't know what "bottom right" looks like have their pictures, let the rest of us work.
Work on my list above to fix things that you didn't get working right the first time.


It's my hope that Office 2007 goes down in history as the Windows ME/Vista of Office applications.

[Dead Badger]

About 40, give or take:
So. You'd have no style maintenance system. You'd have no change tracking. You'd have no reference tracking, no contents, no indexing, no page numbering, no lists - everything will be done manually, over and over and over again. Are you sure you've actually used a word processor before? More than once?

And, as Waenara points out, you're eliding hundreds of individual functions with things like "right click to modify". Modify how? How many commands does this entail? Picture borders, picture margins, columns, gutters, flow control, all of these things are utterly missing from your picture of the perfect word processor, and all of them are unavoidable if you want something that looks better than My First Skool Report. So, how do you go about making these things accessible to the user without cluttering the interface to buggery?

This is precisely what I hoped to illustrate: to talk about some ideal number of functions is absurd (and as a bonus, it's highlighted your unreasonably narrow view of what a broadly-used software package should do). What's important is to make common functions easily accessible, and other functions easily found. And guess what, the ribbon does show the main commands you mentioned front-and-center, and puts other commands where they can be easily found (at least, more easily than in Word 2003). You're complaining about something that does almost exactly what you want. It's bizarre.

[Dinsdale]

What I don't see as a problem is why not start out with a barebones approach - let's say 40, one of which is "other functions" which users can open and pick and choose from as they wish.

I suspect I am not the only person who uses his word processing program for the production of text documents, nothing more. So I have no need to insert pictures, track text, etc. These things you folk are mentioning as necessary are things I have never done in 2 decades of daily word processing. For folk who wish these functions, couldn't they click to the "other features" icon/menu which would contain all of their desktop publishing/customizing/data management/etc. options?

I've been using my present version of Word for over 5 years now, and when I look at my toolbars a good half of them I have never used and may not know what they are for. Yet there they are, taking up as much space as CUT, PASTE, COPY, SAVE, OPEN, PRINT. Same for WP. Hell, one of the things I hate MOST is when it kicks in some auto-formatting crap. For my uses, I can do just fine with tabs and the occasions center text.

Yes, I have customized my toolbars in the past to hide what is "clutter" for me. But I have had my customization undermined but whatever tech support has done to my computer or the system. Wouldn't it be possible/preferable to, instead of having the least capable user try to hide or ignore things he will never use, to make it easy for the more adept users to open up and enable such functions?

[Rhythmdvl]

So. You'd have no style maintenance system ... So, how do you go about making these things accessible to the user without cluttering the interface to buggery?
Non-rhetorical question: where did the back-and-forth over the optimal number of commands come in? Are you saying that a “good” word processor must have all 1,500 or so commands visible to every user? That seems so odd that I’m pretty sure that’s not what you’re saying. (ETA: you do realize that under the customize options there is a slew of choices listed under "commands not on the Ribbon.")

You seem to be taking umbrage with the notion that the vast majority of users work with some countable number (I’m using “countable” as an arbitrary variable, something far greater than ten but far fewer than 1,500) of commands. That is, if you take the size of the quicklaunch buttons (which seem to be about the same size as the buttons on the old toolbar), most users could fill up just about every command they need in two, maybe three rows. Yes, this involves dialogue boxes or dropdowns (so too with the ribbon), but this would fully serve most users, especially since there is still the menu system and ability to temporarily add floating toolbars.

How do you differentiate the Ribbon from a tabbed toolbar?

Why is the non-customizability (in terms of size, mix, and layout of commands) a positive aspect of the Ribbon?

I daresay that curing that defect (I know that begs the question, but I’m viewing its rigidness as a fault) would go far towards reconciling many users’ pique at Microsoft. While I understand that some people never look under the hood and would never customize anything, I don’t understand how lack of customizability — lack of a feature — isn’t recognized as a fault. (Again, I’m not sure what your views are, so please don’t get defensive if I’ve misunderstood them; feel free to correct.)

Where I suspect there is divergence in opinion is in the reorganization. I strongly hold to it being more of a by-product of a long-term marketing strategy and less about improving a product. Clearly there is overlap, but IMHO the prime motive of the former is in response to how to lock users into our system and make it harder to switch while the latter is in response to how to make our product better than Wordperfect/other competition.

Under either the old or the new scheme, a virgin user has a steep learning curve to find commands. At face value, MS is saying that their reorganization and re-labelling greatly lessens the slope of that curve — our product is better than WordPerfect because it’s now easier to learn and easier to use. I disagree. (As a side note, I do recognize that there are a lot of improvements to Word, and many things/dialogue boxes are indeed easier. I’m referring to the wide-scale reorganization.)

I disagree because the curve is not flat. MS could have made substantial strides in user friendliness without making such a massive reorganization. A completely new user is going to still have to learn about sections, styles, etc. None of these are intuitive concepts to someone who has never used a word processor before — an audience that is vanishingly small — and all are going to require intense investigation about what a command is and where its located. By the time such a user grows familiar enough to find other commands under the reorgainzed structure, they will have been able to follow the patterns of finding commands under the old structure -- massive reworking is not a net benefit.

However, the majority of the audience are approaching the package with two sets of background knowledge. One is pre-existing familiarity with Word processors in general, the other with software in general. Both conflict with and demand re-learning an arbitrary set of new locations. Office fails to take advantage of user’s familiarity with semi-standard toolbars and organization. The majority of benefit to changing the shape of the curve are lost to this new direction. There is only cumulative benefit to learning MS’s new set of definitions, which harkens back to my claim that this was motivated by desire to lock people in to a system, not to improving the interface.

Certainly there were (and are) improvements over previous versions, but these improvements do not entail wholesale revamping of the menu system.

And then, well, then there's all the other things that went wrong. No more email note in the task bar for any folder you have rules for? No more keyboard customizations in Outlook? Oh, the list goes on...




If it makes a difference (purely from a disclosure perspective, no swaggering or authority intended), I’m as tied to Word/Office as possible. I write and edit out of a home office, frequently collaborating with Mrs. Dvl who does the graphic design side of or business. Projects range from five to ten-page policy briefs to 2–300+ page, statistically heavy reports with oodles of graphics. I’m also pretty tech-prone (read: geeky). I build all the hardware in the office (except the Mac), manage multiple file, Web and backup servers, love learning basic programming languages (Applescript, MySQL, VBA) for our own and client purposes. I couldn’t wait to upgrade, really wanted to be blown away by improvements. While there wasn’t a complete lack of improvements, I was sorely disappointed.

[Larry Mudd]

I've been using my present version of Word for over 5 years now, and when I look at my toolbars a good half of them I have never used and may not know what they are for. Yet there they are, taking up as much space as CUT, PASTE, COPY, SAVE, OPEN, PRINT. What You Need. (http://www.functionx.com/vb6/windows/wordpad1.gif)

[/Rod Serling]

[AHunter3]

So. You'd have no style maintenance system. You'd have no change tracking. You'd have no reference tracking, no contents, no indexing,

I would have indexing. See my list of 40. Styles totally suck (in the Word sense of "Styles"); it's one of the things I detest the most about Word. If I am going to work on a document that needs change tracking I'll do it in FileMaker, not a word processor; that's a database function.

no page numbering

WHY would you think I would not have page numbering? Page numbers go in the header or footer, where they have ALWAYS gone, and I clearly mentioned commands for adding/editing Headers and Footers in my list of 40; and in print setup / print dialog I said you could print odd or even pages only etc.


, no lists

• who
• the
• bloody hell
• needs
• a
• "list function"?

If I wanna make a list I'll type out a freaking list. Yeesh.



- everything will be done manually, over and over and over again. Are you sure you've actually used a word processor before? More than once?


I promise that I have. And never, ever, Microsoft Word, or not voluntarily.

And, as Waenara points out, you're eliding hundreds of individual functions with things like "right click to modify". Modify how? How many commands does this entail?

My count of 40 is a count of separate MENU ITEMS. If you wish to count commands by all means count the various likely modification commands (perhaps 10 for modifying table, 10 for modifying graphics box, etc). Does "Put the tab stop here instead of there" count as a "command"? Or is it reasonable to say "I would have a RULER and the tab stop would be a little black icon that the user drags left or right"?


Picture borders, picture margins

Characteristics of the graphics box: center, left, or right align the graphic; center, top or bottom aligh the graphic; border; allow or disallow text flow around graphics box. Dunno what "picture margins" does or why you'd need it: if you want a white border around your picture put a white border around your picture in your graphics program and THEN paste it into the graphics box.


, columns

OK, good one. Add a Columns command somewhere.

, gutters, flow control

What, are we word processors or plumbers here?


, all of these things are utterly missing from your picture of the perfect word processor, and all of them are unavoidable if you want something that looks better than My First Skool Report.

I turned in my share of academic papers and they looked fine.

And guess what, the ribbon does show the main commands you mentioned front-and-center, and puts other commands where they can be easily found (at least, more easily than in Word 2003). You're complaining about something that does almost exactly what you want. It's bizarre.

If I can create the MENUS I want, containing the commands I want to be in them, hide all others, and get rid of any stupid freaking buttons, toolbars, ribbons, etc, so that what I see in front of me is mostly a blank white area in which to type, I may indeed be complaining about someting that does almost exactly what I want.

I need it to NOT start "making a list" or indenting without my permission or underlining words with squiggly little "I think maybe you misspelled that" lines or capitalizing words I typed in lower casse or changing the left margin of the preceding paragraph if I backspace over a hard return or change the formatting of a paragraph if I paste a sentence cut from a different paragraph or otherwise do ANY THING except what I explicitly tell it to freaking do, with the exception of

• it should auto line wrap when I reach the far right of the screen as defined by the right margin; and

• it should automatically paginate when I reach the bottom edge of the page

[AHunter3]

What You Need. (http://www.functionx.com/vb6/windows/wordpad1.gif)

[/Rod Serling]

Too cluttered. Get rid of those silly icons that are under the menus. And the font, fontsize, and formatting icons, put those up in the menus as menu commands.

Can it do endnotes and footnotes? Can it do a graphics box?

[dropzone]

What You Need. (http://www.functionx.com/vb6/windows/wordpad1.gif) Add this (http://www.pcworld.com/downloads/file/fid,68576-page,1-c,downloads/description.html) and you'll have all the word processor power most people would ever use.

[Rhythmdvl]

Other than a hilarious combination of user names, what is the AHunter3—Dead Badger pissing contest about?

Ahunter, do you feel somehow pressured into using styles? It’s OK if you don’t. Are you trying to say that no one needs to use styles? That’s laughable, and I’m pretty sure you’re not a drooling idiot. So it beats me.

(Oh, one thing I would take exception with — tracked changes. When moving between authors, editors, reviewers, and project managers, tracked changes and comments, while a database feature, are a necessary component of a word processor.)

[AHunter3]

Ahunter, do you feel somehow pressured into using styles? It’s OK if you don’t.


Isn't "styles" responsible for each paragraph (and also any text FROM a paragraph that is copied to the clipboard) having certain characteristics above and beyond the character-based characteristics like bold or italic, such that when you paste elsewhere it ruins applies those attributes to the paragraph into which you paste?

[Rhythmdvl]

Isn't "styles" responsible for each paragraph (and also any text FROM a paragraph that is copied to the clipboard) having certain characteristics above and beyond the character-based characteristics like bold or italic, such that when you paste elsewhere it ruins applies those attributes to the paragraph into which you paste?

I am livid that Outlook removed the ability to customize the keyboard. One of my most frequent macros is a simple paste-unformatted to avoid what you're talking about.

Word’s implementation of styles has come a long way. There used to be tremendous fights with it to get it stop changing things randomly. I’d say this had stopped by Word 2000, though that wasn’t perfect.

If you have any sort of structural complexity to your document (various heading levels), style tools are an excellent way to manage the ultimate look. Yes it can be done manually, but this is an area where automation is a boon. Most of what I work with gets published -- which means eventual export to InDesign or Quark. Though not every client demands it, it’s simple professionalism to turn in cleanly styled documents. Page layout is a whole world separate from word processing, and a well-styled document can save the designer hours of labour.

If you’re interested I can describe this in more detail, but suffice as to say there are a lot of people who benefit from good style implementation (not that Word’s home tab doesn’t suck ass). But if you don’t have a call for it, you don’t need to use it.

[Frylock]

Would not want. If I wish a table of contents I will type out a table of contents.



Would you like it if the page numbers auto-updated whenever you made changes to the document that changed them? Or do you prefer to go back through the table of contents and make those corrections yourself every time it comes up?

[AHunter3]

Would you like it if the page numbers auto-updated whenever you made changes to the document that changed them? Or do you prefer to go back through the table of contents and make those corrections yourself every time it comes up?

Why would you put in the page numbers before you are DONE? And when you ARE done it's easy to do a FIND for the symbols you use to indicate start of section and get the page numbers and type them in to your table of contents.

In order for them to work AUTOMATICALLY, the little chunk of characters that constitutes your section title (or the section break) has to be an Officially Recognized Part of the Structure, not just some boldface centered characters that you typed in somewhere. The more true structural elements your word processor has to deal with, the more likely it is to become an annoying and badly-behaved beast that thinks it knows better than you do what to do with the characters that you are typing.

[Frylock]

Why would you put in the page numbers before you
are DONE?

Mm? Why wouldn't I?

Anyway, I'm sure you know all the stuff about word processors that annoys you can be turned off fairly easily.* So what you're aggravated about is the fact that it's on by default. You don't like having to do something in order to make it the way you like it. On the one hand that's understandable. On the other hand it's something like complaining about having to dial one for English. Somebody is going to have to dial one, why not you? Somebody is going to have to switch off or on the options they don't like, why not you?

*Of course you can't just get rid of the ribbon. I do think it could be good to have the ribbon hide itself when not in use, kind of like the taskbar in windows. I'd be down with that. For others, not for myself. I'm not as big into having "just a clean white sheet of paper in front of me" as you and some others seem to be.

[AHunter3]

Or I can just a word processor that is already considerably closer to what I like.

[Rhythmdvl]

You, AHunter3 can use a quill and parchment if it makes you happy. I don't think anyone is saying that you personally need to use styles, tracked changes, comments, or page numbers. There seems to be honest answers to questions about the usefulness of such features, but though addressed to you personally I think the answers have been more along the lines of "this is why someone would use such a feature and how you could use it to your advantage."

[CanvasShoes]

There ARE some real advantages, actually, but there probably was no need for the radical changes inflicted on society in this iteration.

Every time MS decides to force an "improved" version upon us, there's a learning curve. Mostly it consists of searching for "where the hell did they put Feature X"? But with 2007, they did away with features that were quite useful. Supposedly they do research with end users, but having been using Office 2007 for a few months now, I SERIOUSLY doubt that any of those end users actually write reports or create spreadsheets or databases.

Anytime a person trying to do productive work has to take their hands off of the keyboard and "mouse-up" some command or another, it wastes time they could be writing.

So to make a short story longer, yes, I hate it. Word and Access seem to be worse regarding missing useful features that were available in 2003, but Excel has its own weird little glitches.

[Frylock]

EvBut with 2007, they did away with features that were quite useful.


What are some examples?

[Frylock]

Or I can just a word processor that is already considerably closer to what I like.

Well sure, and by the way, which word processor is that?

[CanvasShoes]

What are some examples?

I'm not sure I'll explain this correctly, but just one example is in Word with the way formatting styles are viewed. In 2003, there was a drop down box that could be set in the menu to always be visible, and when you put your cursor anywhere in the text, you could simply glance up and see what formatting that particular text was. In 2007 it's about a 5 step mousing process. Time consuming (ergo project budget wasting), annoying, and tedious.

In fact, the whole way formatting styles work in 2007 is extremely annoying and time-consuming.

The glitch in Excel is the "file is locked for editing by "X" error. It occurs for no apparent reason, (though online research at several zillion tech sites suggests it has something to do with the compatibility feature). What happens is that a user will open a spreadsheet and the dialogue box will return a "file is locked for editing" message with the user's own name. And the user doesn't have it open on another computer, did NOT have the SS close due to an save error earlier etc.

Also, the ribbon, while it does work, is very time-consuming to use. Again, a lot of time spend with your hands off of the keyboard and having to "mouse" really slows down writing.

Big pain in the butt. Those are just a few I can think of off the top of my head.

[Rhythmdvl]

I'm not sure I'll explain this correctly, but just one example is in Word with the way formatting styles are viewed. In 2003, there was a dropdown box that could be set in the menu to always be visible, and when you put your cursor anywhere in the text, you could simply glance up and see what formatting that particular text was. In 2007 it's about a 5 step mousing process. Time consuming (ergo project budget wasting), annoying, and tedious.

In fact, the whole way formatting styles work in 2007 is extremely annoying and time-consuming.

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but it sounds like you're talking about the dropdown box that sat on the formatting toolbar. The dropdown box with Normal, Heading 1, Heading 2, etc. in it. It showed whatever formatting was applied to a paragraph, and if you wanted to change it you just did what one does with a dropdown box.

Go to Word Options > Customize. Change Choose Commands From: to Commands Not in the Ribbon (or All Commands). Scroll down to "Style," the entry with the dropdown arrow on the right hand side of the list. Add it to the Quick Access Toolbar, and you're done.

While I don't blame MS for making a change that takes a bit of digging to figure out, I do blame them for limiting us to just the Quick Access bar. Again, Ribbon Customizer (http://pschmid.net/office2007/ribboncustomizer/index.php) should help out.

Anyone know how to change the size of the dropdown box on the QAT?
ETA:
Per Microsoft (http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/help/HA012341051033.aspx):


You cannot increase the size of the buttons representing the commands by an option in Microsoft Office. The only way to increase the size of the buttons is to lower the screen resolution you use.
You cannot display the Quick Access Toolbar on multiple lines.
Fuckers. Anyone know a workaround?

[AHunter3]

Or I can just a word processor that is already considerably closer to what I like.
Well sure, and by the way, which word processor is that?

These days I use AppleWorks.

Back when I was still in academia, I used Nisus Writer. They have an OS X native version out, but I don't really need all those additional features. (I hardly even need different fonts or boldface. I do the overwhelming vast majority of text-based content creation and editing in a text editor nowadays, not a word processor). I also looked at WordPerfect 3 for Mac (too many bells and whistles but not as frustrating to use as Word).

I don't care for iWork's word processing module (Pages?) but maybe I haven't given it a decent try.

On the PC side, I've used WordPro and its predecessor AmiPro; aside from WAY too many bloody toolbars that I could not turn off or hide, it was easy to use and non-frustrating.

Fifteen years ago, I used MacWrite Pro and was mostly happy with it. It was one of the best for minimalist interfaces. That's really why I've ended up using AppleWorks NOW: it's like the resurrection of MacWrite Pro in a lot of ways.

Twenty to twenty five years ago, I played with FullWrite, WriteNow, and yes I had my first run-ins with Microsoft Word right around that time also. The free word processor that came with the Mac was MacWrite 4.6 but it was way too underpowered even for my liking: when you can't do footnotes or endnotes and can't even have more than one document open at one time, you're not good for much. Its successor, MacWrite II, was a substantial step up, but if I recall correctly I used WriteNow until I switched to MacWrite Pro.

In the DO NOT LIKE category, just for comparison, I care no more for OpenOffice or NeoOffice than I do for Word, and AmiPro isn't very pleasant either. They are all Word-wannabees and it shows.

A lot has been said about the horribly user-hostile WordPerfect for MS-DOS, but one day playing around on my friend's PC I discovered that there was a keystroke (alt-equals?) that turned on overhead menus. Freed from having to memorize and use arcane F6 and Shift Alt F7 and all that garbage, it actually wasn't too bad. Still, the menus themselves were nonstandard compared to Mac (and Windows)...I can't honestly say I would happily work in that environment. But I'd use it before I'd use Microsoft Word.

[CanvasShoes]

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but it sounds like you're talking about the dropdown box that sat on the formatting toolbar. The dropdown box with Normal, Heading 1, Heading 2, etc. in it. It showed whatever formatting was applied to a paragraph, and if you wanted to change it you just did what one does with a dropdown box.

Go to Word Options > Customize. Change Choose Commands From: to Commands Not in the Ribbon (or All Commands). Scroll down to "Style," the entry with the dropdown arrow on the right hand side of the list. Add it to the Quick Access Toolbar, and you're done.

Okay, so then where does it show up after that? FWIW, I know how to get the giant formatting sidebar that shows up on the right hand side of the screen. I don't want that, you STILL have to use 2 or 3 mouseclicks to glean the information about your formatting. The reason the old way was so useful is that you didn't have to do anything at all other than move the cursor to the text. With that giant sidebar thing that's 2007's answer to formatting, there are still several clicks you have to use to view and change formatting.

And don't get me started on global changes...sigh.

[CanvasShoes]

Oh wait, now I see it. Why can't it go in the "menu" part of the ribbon in a category like everything else. And unfortunately, it doesn't contain the specifics of the formatting, but it's better than it was. BTW, I've been through I don't know how many tech sites, including actually calling MS and you're the first person who's had the answer. Our other tech writers will be thrilled!

[Waenara]

Also, the ribbon, while it does work, is very time-consuming to use. Again, a lot of time spend with your hands off of the keyboard and having to "mouse" really slows down writing.One thing I only learned about a couple days ago that has decreased my need to use the mouse as much is that you can access all the commands that are visible in the Ribbon or your Quick Access toolbar via a few keystrokes. I wish I'd known about it earlier, since I've been using Office 2007 for over a year on a laptop with a crappy mouse touchpad. I was going to try to describe how to do this, but I'm lazy so I think I'll just quote from the Word online Help. Navigating the Office Fluent Ribbon

NOTE: The Ribbon is a component of the Microsoft Office Fluent user interface.

Access keys provide a way to quickly use a command by pressing a few keys, no matter where you are in the program. Every command in Office Word 2007 can be accessed by using an access key. You can get to most commands by using two to five keystrokes. To use an access key:

1. Press Alt - The KeyTips are displayed over each feature that is available in the current view.

2. Press the letter shown in the KeyTip over the feature that you want to use.

3. Depending on which letter you press, you may be shown additional KeyTips. For example, if the Home tab is active and you press I, the Insert tab is displayed, along with the KeyTips for the groups on that tab.

4. Continue pressing letters until you press the letter of the command or control that you want to use. In some cases, you must first press the letter of the group that contains the command.

NOTE: To cancel the action that you are taking and hide the KeyTips, press ALT.For example, to access "insert pagebreak" you press ALT, then N to get to the Insert tab, then B to insert a page break.

[CanvasShoes]

One thing I only learned about a couple days ago that has decreased my need to use the mouse as much is that you can access all the commands that are visible in the Ribbon or your Quick Access toolbar via a few keystrokes. I wish I'd known about it earlier, since I've been using Office 2007 for over a year on a laptop with a crappy mouse touchpad. I was going to try to describe how to do this, but I'm lazy so I think I'll just quote from the Word online Help. For example, to access "insert pagebreak" you press ALT, then N to get to the Insert tab, then B to insert a page break.

Good to know! Thanks, and I don't blame you for being lazy. :)

[Capt. Ridley's Shooting Party]

I suspect I am not the only person who uses his word processing program for the production of text documents, nothing more. So I have no need to insert pictures, track text, etc. These things you folk are mentioning as necessary are things I have never done in 2 decades of daily word processing. For folk who wish these functions, couldn't they click to the "other features" icon/menu which would contain all of their desktop publishing/customizing/data management/etc. options?


Confused: if you only ever use Word for producing text documents, then why did you buy Word? There's already a text editor built into Windows, and also a minimal word processor.

[Rhythmdvl]

Confused: if you only ever use Word for producing text documents, then why did you buy Word? There's already a text editor built into Windows, and also a minimal word processor.
It came with a free Frogurt.

[Dead Badger]

Not got time to respond to much really, but:
Non-rhetorical question: where did the back-and-forth over the optimal number of commands come in?AHunter3's assertion that 1500 commands is too many, and that rather than redesign the shitty interface, Microsoft should remove some functions. As he's rather demonstrated, this view a) relies on a pretty generous view of what constitutes a "command", and a preference for doing things manually that I think is atypical. It was a slightly facetious question not meant to be taken literally, but rather to suggest that perceived bloat is a function not just of the number of features, but of their ease of access, and that saying "take away some features" isn't very helpful unless you can identify what features aren't needed.

Will respond to the rest of your post later. :)

[Saintly Loser]

Although I use a computer all day every day at work, I am by anyone's definition a low-level user. All I need to do is word process, do some work with adobe acrobat, send and receive e-mails, and access the web. I'm in the goofy situation where I am required to use Word for some things, and Wordperfect for others.

My work product are legal briefs - I get no benefit from fancy formatting or anything. Just give me a legible font and a template that complies with the court rules, and that's all I want or need.


You're a lawyer. I have no idea what kind or size of firm you're with, but if you're at a medium to large sized firm, believe me, others at your firm are doing a lot more with Word than you are.

As I said above, I run the document services department at a large (500+ lawyer) firm. You may be writing briefs and the occasional letter, but we're cranking out every kind of document you can imagine, from briefs with tables of contents and tables of authorities to complex SEC filings with linked or embedded spreadsheets containing reams of financial data to marketing brochures with extensive graphics, to booklets (tricky, but Word 2007 has some real improvements for this task), to just about anything you can imagine.

So if you're a lawyer at a large firm, you do need to do all these things -- you just (quite sensibly) delegate those taks to someone else so you're free to work on briefs.


I really wish that when some new product like this came out they would allow low-level users like me to "hide" all of the fancy new things, and keep my computer appearing and functioning how it always has - at least since the most recent change/"upgrade".

While still keeping in mind everything I said above, this isn't such a bad idea.

[E-Sabbath]

For plain text processing, might I reccomend Notepad++?
http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/site.htm
It's really amazing. Does all sorts of neat tricks.

[Measure for Measure]

For plain text processing, might I recommend Notepad++?
http://notepad-plus.sourceforge.net/uk/site.htm
It's really amazing. Does all sorts of neat tricks. I haven't tried that out yet. I've used Textpad for years. Does anybody have experience with both? http://www.textpad.com/

[dropzone]

A solid vote for both. Or either. They get the job done with minimal BS, especially if you are coding.

[Lord Ashtar]

It came with a free Frogurt.

But the Frogurt was also cursed, am I right?

[Dinsdale]

So if you're a lawyer at a large firm, you do need to do all these things -- you just (quite sensibly) delegate those tasks to someone else so you're free to work on briefs.

Nope - sorry. Work for the BIGGEST firm around - the federal government. My agency has Word as its internal system, but DOJ, the gov't's atty of record in just about all of our litigation, has WP as their system. May make no sense to you, me, or anyone else, but that is the way it is, the way it has been for more than the past decade, and the way I expect it to continue. Hell, I suspect should the day ever come that Justice converts to Word, my agency will see fit to switch over to WP! :p

So everything I send to Justice has to be in WP. That is probably 90-95% of my work product, as opposed to internal memos and such which must be in Word. (Docs filed directly w/ the court must be saved as PDFs.)

In the past, I have found that WP translated to Word FAR better than the other way around. So I chose to draft primarily in WP.

You may need to do all of those things in a large private law firm, but I have not needed to working in this job for this employer for 23 years. Also, as a gov't employee I have to ask, where do I find these people you suggest to whom I can delegate tasks I don't care to do? :p

On the good news front, was happy to find that this a.m. my computer works pretty much the same as it always has. Outlook looked a little different at first, but I'm already forgetting exactly how the old version looked.

Just pulled up Word this a.m., and I should be able to do what little I need to in there pretty well. But - now this is the kinda thing that pisses me off. One the very few things I ever do is print docs when I need a hard copy for a file or some other reason. Where the fuck do I print? I used to have a print icon as well as a print command on the leftmost pulldown. Now I've clicked through home/insert/page layout/references/mailings/review/view, and haven't found an obvious way to print.

It really is hard for me to imagine how some fucking genius would think it an improvement to make an experienced user not know how to PRINT! That's the kind of thing that makes me wonder what other little surprises lie in wait for me. And, the way things go, I'm sure I'll discover them when I am under a deadline...:rolleyes:

Oh - just found it under that goofy icon up in the left corner. Hell, I thought that was just a decorative logo or something! That little logo probably contains a quarter of the functions I ever do - new/open/save/save as/print/publish. And I have to imagine those are among the most basic commands used by the vast majority of users. In terms of marketing, I can imagine why they want you to click on their logo as often as possible. But in terms of utility and user friendliness, I don't see it - and it kinda pisses me off.

[Hunter Hawk]

One the very few things I ever do is print docs when I need a hard copy for a file or some other reason. Where the fuck do I print? I used to have a print icon as well as a print command on the leftmost pulldown. Now I've clicked through home/insert/page layout/references/mailings/review/view, and haven't found an obvious way to print.

It really is hard for me to imagine how some fucking genius would think it an improvement to make an experienced user not know how to PRINT!

Ctrl+P still works, y'know.

[Dinsdale]

Ctrl+P still works, y'know.

No, I didn't know that. Well, I guess I did at one time, but since I need to work in both WP and Word, I've stopped using any number of shortcuts or macros so long as I find something that works for me reliably.

[Dead Badger]

Oh - just found it under that goofy icon up in the left corner. Hell, I thought that was just a decorative logo or something! That little logo probably contains a quarter of the functions I ever do - new/open/save/save as/print/publish.This I completely agree with; the Office Blob thingy is a usability disaster. There's no particular reason you'd expect it to be clickable, and no visual clue as to what commands it might contain even if you did; indeed the usual thing in that corner deals purely with window maximisation and so forth.

I do however know why they did it, which is not to make the logo huge, but rather that it's a big target right in the corner, and thus one of the easiest things to track to with the mouse. Same for the Start button - you just slam the mouse down-left, or up-left, and don't have to worry about overshooting. It's a perfectly good reason why frequently-accessed buttons should be at the corners, and not in the middle of the screen. And like you say, that button now contains a lot of really common functions.

Unfortunately, they got so caught up in this little bit of usability theory that they completely forgot to give users a little hint that this is a functional button, let alone what it does. Which is weird, seeing as they went to so much trouble to get as many text cues as possible in the ribbon.

[Dead Badger]

Right, two days and one eaten draft later, an utterly loser-length post:
How do you differentiate the Ribbon from a tabbed toolbar?Well, I don't. That's what it is all right. :) And I think that alone is an improvement, certainly on the mishmash of textless, shifting toolbars users were previously presented with, and very definitely on the appearance and disappearance of contextual toolbars, which tended to rearrange things confusingly. Apart from that, the way it rearranges itself to present as much information as possible for a given window width is rather nice, and moderately innovative. But mostly the tabbed aspect is why (IMO) it's an improvement. It provides locality of reference for groups of commands frequently accessed at similar times, and increases the information on screen for users to work out what each individual button does. I think both of these are almost indisputable improvements.

Why is the non-customizability (in terms of size, mix, and layout of commands) a positive aspect of the Ribbon?I don't think it is per se; I think it's more that it would've complicated the changes they were making, and was thus ditched as less important than actually having a usable interface to start with. It is, however, on the way back in 2010 (http://blogs.technet.com/office2010/archive/2009/11/09/making-the-ribbon-mine.aspx) (in fact it looks like they've essentially purchased and extended RibbonCustomizer).

That said, I do happen to think that customisability is a bit overrated, and that often people think they know best, but in fact harm their usability by setting things up "just the way they like it." I also suspect that the value of customisation is artificially enhanced by just how utterly shit the old interface was. It almost necessitated digging out every button you wanted, and putting it where you knew it was, because finding the motherfuckers in the first place was such an absolute arse. But this shouldn't be the limit of our expectations of UIs, that we can bully them into being tolerable.

Clearly there is overlap, but IMHO the prime motive of the former is in response to how to lock users into our system and make it harder to switch while the latter is in response to how to make our product better than Wordperfect/other competition.This view seems rather at odds with the rest of the argument here, which is that users are already so locked in to Word 2003's interface that even something exposing exactly the same functions in a slightly different way is untenable. Microsoft are in fact providing an ideal break point at which other word processor manufacturers can step in and say, "hey! Our UI is just like Microsoft's old one!" It's practically the opposite of lock-in. If users can learn the ribbon, they can certainly learn competitors' UIs.

Look at the default opening screens of:

Wordperfect Office X4 (http://www.softpedia.com/screenshots/Corel-WordPerfect-Office_1.png)
Word 2003 (http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/office2003_beta2_02.gif)
Word 2007 (http://blogs.msdn.com/photos/bethmassi/images/6686220/640x319.aspx)

To my eye, those contain mostly the same commands, and mostly the same icons. In no program are they in identical spots; the only really significant difference to my eye is that Word 2007 it's made explicit what tasks the groups relate to (paragraph, font etc.). I confess I find it very hard to believe that anyone can be so locked in to the specific positions of any of these sets of icons that they would be unable to work with the other interfaces; the key is that classic icons are largely unchanged, and non-standard ones are discoverable. You only have to click something a couple of times to have learnt the new position; the real time goes in finding a function whose icon you don't know.

I also don't think the consistency you describe was ever truly there even within Word itself. Because of the way toolbars could be dragged all over the place, and wrapped and displaced each other in an arbitrary manner, at best you could expect the first couple of toolbars or so to be where you put them. Other commands you had to know the icon for, and go hunting for it. Maybe you even had to right-click and remember which toolbar it was in, re-enable it, re-arrange the resulting changes to your toolbar layout, and then click. You could never sit at a co-worker's computer and expect to find the same toolbar layout. And this, I think, was something Microsoft were seeking to address. Customisability is all very well, but because the old interface was so terrible that customisation became the norm, meaning that in effect everyone had to become their own Office interface designer. It shouldn't be like that, and it can't possibly have ended up maximising efficiency over large organisations.

You might argue that in optimising for the common case, the non-expert user, Microsoft has taken something away from power users (and like I say, they're putting customisation back). And I would probably agree. But I think it's a tradeoff that had to be made somewhen. Like I say, I think this is the very opposite of Microsoft lock-in. As with Vista, they've made some fairly significant changes that have probably harmed take-up of the product in the short term, but have set up the product line to be much better in future.

I couldn’t wait to upgrade, really wanted to be blown away by improvements. While there wasn’t a complete lack of improvements, I was sorely disappointed.Hmm, yes, well I certainly wouldn't ever argue that Word 2007 "blows me away." Like I said earlier, I think it's now a more-or-less competent product, as opposed to the steaming pile of manure it once was. I approach it from the point of view of the occasional user, but one who's usually required to do something reasonably tricky with it (because I mostly have to deal with it when it's outfoxed a colleague). From this perspective, the new UI is a big improvement, as measured in "number of nearby grannies given coronaries by my swearing." I still think it's pretty ghastly typography-wise (although I see 2010 will have advanced OpenType features), and I still wouldn't choose to write anything longer than a letter in it (I loves me my LaTeX). But it surely is easier to find out how to do new things, and isn't so different that it takes very long to find how to do old things.

I'm certainly not saying Office 2007 is perfect. I'm also not saying there have been no regressions (I don't really use Outlook, so can't comment on what I'm sure are annoying omissions). But I do think the Ribbon has come in for some undeserved stick, and has acted as something of a lightning-rod for other inevitable complaints about the products (which are, after all, still made by Microsoft). I can see the reasons it was introduced (and I really do recommend reading the UI blogs linked to earlier), and I think Microsoft should be given some credit for really taking a step back and thinking things through. No, the results aren't to everyone's taste, but it's a marked improvement on their previous approach to design, and I don't think the negative motives imputed are fair.

[Dead Badger]

In fact I just found a blog from the UI team on customisation (http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/06/27/648269.aspx), how it had gotten out of hand with the old toolbars, how they analysed how it was most frequently used, and considered how to best incorporate it within the new UI. It's really rather good, and I don't think there's any point my summarising it here, particularly because this is now my third post in a row and I'm feeling enough of a dork already. But it is worth reading, and is indicative of how they went about the redesign in general.