<div dir="ltr">On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:57 AM, jedi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jedi@mishnet.org">jedi@mishnet.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="Ih2E3d">
<br>
</div>> There are two versions of Office. Why would you upgrade if you like and<br>a) New installs<br>
b) People insist on sending you files in the newest format.</blockquote><div><br>a) If IT knows what it's doing, they likely have a standard install for all the computers.<br>b) You can read new formats with the old Office with a free plugin<br>
<br><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">> And it completely violates the "Windows is a pretty neat idea because<br>
<div class="Ih2E3d">
> > you only have to learn how to run apps once" argument in favor of WIMP<br>
> > interfaces in general.<br>
><br>
><br>
> 1. The utility of that paradigm breaks down when you start getting to the<br>
> point of hundreds of menu items.<br>
<br>
</div>...no argument there.<br>
<br>
That's a reason to avoid unecessary feature creep. Most end users<br>
would be well suited by $50 "office" applications from before the<br>
MS hegemony in office suites. Microsoft's equivalent of Word Perfect<br>
is plum overkill.</blockquote><div><br>I completely agree. However I bet there'd be a much greater outcry if MS started removing features from Word.<br><br> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
> 2. It's arguable whether it's even true in the first place, but regardless,<br><div class="Ih2E3d">
> it doesn't mean that one should never try to improve the UI.<br>
<br>
</div>For the given context, that's such an obvious false strawman.</blockquote><div><br>Well then suggest an alternative. Given that Word is bloated with hundreds of functions, how would you improve usability? A menu paradigm isn't designed for that kind of situation. All I've heard so far is that MS should have changed the UI. It sounds like stasis to me.<br>
<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><div class="Ih2E3d">
> > Efficiency: fixing the problem right.<br>
> ><br>
> > Effectiveness: fixing the right problem.<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> The purpose of O2K7 was to fix its usability problems, from what I<br>
> understand, and I think they made good strides in doing that.<br>
<br>
</div>WHAT "usability problems"?<br>
<br>
The purpose of Office2007 is to continue the cash cow.<br>
Any end user requirements or technical considerations<br>
are entirely secondary (if not tertiary).<br>
<br>
Why even change the tools at all since their 4.2 versions?</blockquote><div><br>Yes, of course the ultimate purpose of Office is to make money for MS. However the programming team was trying to fix a particular problem with Office, backed up by a lot of data. <br>
<br>-Jerry <br></div></div><br></div>