LibreOffice 3.3.0 (fork of OpenOffice.org) final released

[WindowsFanatic]

No, I mean a reliable, objective, unbiased source.

In the above links, they have explained in detail how Ribbon beats the menus/toolbars in every single area in terms of productivity. You can't say they are all wrong simply because they come from Microsoft. You should explain specifically which points you don't agree with, and the discussion can move on from there. Try to question the message, not the messenger. Try to provide a pointer to any such studies which explains in detail why Menus/Toolbars is better than the Ribbon. No one who says they prefer the menus to the Ribbon can come up with any usability data which proves that is the case.

[buckaroo]

No one who says they prefer the menus to the Ribbon can come up with any usability data which proves that is the case.

The same applies to you. I just asked for an unbiased source.

But maybe I shouldn't ask a "WindowsFanatic" to provide one.

[WindowsFanatic]

The same applies to you. I just asked for an unbiased source.

But maybe I shouldn't ask a "WindowsFanatic" to provide one.

Again you don't get my point. I am asking you for ANY source. Even if that is Richard Stallman. I don't care who has done the research as long as their reasoning is solid.

You, on the other hand, can't debunk the posts I have referred to, and have instead resorted to shooting the messenger.

[buckaroo]

First: I didn't say ribbons are bad.

But you said "It is a FACT that Ribbon is 100 times more productive than the fugly Menus/Toolbars." and I just asked for a reliable source to prove that.

Just because Im curious if it's really more productive.

[WindowsFanatic]

First: I didn't say ribbons are bad.

But you said "It is a FACT that Ribbon is 100 times more productive than the fugly Menus/Toolbars." and I just asked for a reliable source to prove that.

Just because Im curious if it's really more productive.

If you go through the links that I provided, it should become clear why they chose to implement the ribbon. They discussed it step by step why Ribbon is more productive than the menus/toolbars in various areas. You should either accept those claims, or point out which specific claims you don't agree with and why. That's how reasoning works. Instead you are saying they are all worthless because you don't trust the source. The source in this case doesn't matter at all, because everything has been broken down to pieces.

[XerXis]

First: I didn't say ribbons are bad.

But you said "It is a FACT that Ribbon is 100 times more productive than the fugly Menus/Toolbars." and I just asked for a reliable source to prove that.

Just because Im curious if it's really more productive.

no, the fact is that you probably havn't even read the provided links, you can't tell if they contain valid arguments, you can't say anything about their contents. You've dismissed them immediatly just because they are from Microsoft. They might not be the most unbiased source, but that doesn't mean everything they say is wrong.

[GreenMartian]

Well partly because they're useless and partly because easter eggs (undocumented features) are now illegals in apps.

What if they start documenting the easter eggs? You know, maybe put them in the help file somewhere not so obvious? :p

First: I didn't say ribbons are bad.

But you said "It is a FACT that Ribbon is 100 times more productive than the fugly Menus/Toolbars." and I just asked for a reliable source to prove that.

Just because Im curious if it's really more productive.

You're trying to have a productive discussion with a self-professed fanatic. You see where this might have gone wrong?

I myself love the ribbon, but keep it hidden, so it's like a menubar with overlarge icons :)

[buckaroo]

Useless to continue this conversation with you. Sounds too fanboyish to me.

If somebody has a good source regarding the usability fell free to post it.

[Frylock86]

The "problem" with the Ribbon (and anything else new) is that it still has to be learned. It doesn't just magically make everything better and more efficient with no investment. That's what most of the complaints really boil down to. You need to invest time and money in retraining people who are already proficient in the previous interface. You might see some return in the long run, but there is a need for large immediate investment that can be difficult to defend.

It does, but once learned, the Ribbon provides a better and faster environment to work with. The Ribbon is essentially the DD menu, however presented in a more visual way, which allows users to find exactly what they need without the guesswork, and messy toolbars. It saves real estate by eliminating the 'fluff' that is associated with the old UI layout, while being able to show off all the options the user has to choose from.

[WindowsFanatic]

Useless to continue this conversation with you. Sounds too fanboyish to me.

If somebody has a good source regarding the usability fell free to post it.

It's funny how you avoid the real issue every single time. I bet you haven't read even one of those posts.

On a side note, this is just a classic example of how Microsoft does thorough research before making every single software. On the other hand, open-source software is made without any sort of research or usability data. That's why ALL open-source software are so fugly and unproductive.

[Growled Member]

The "problem" with the Ribbon (and anything else new) is that it still has to be learned. It doesn't just magically make everything better and more efficient with no investment. That's what most of the complaints really boil down to. You need to invest time and money in retraining people who are already proficient in the previous interface. You might see some return in the long run, but there is a need for large immediate investment that can be difficult to defend.

That is correct. Once a person learns something one way it takes time (and money in the workplace) to retrain them. And people are usually very resistant to change anyway.

[.Neo]

Obligatory screenshot (OS X version):

Oh my God! They killed Aqua!

[ViperAFK]

It's funny how you avoid the real issue every single time. I bet you haven't read even one of those posts.

On a side note, this is just a classic example of how Microsoft does thorough research before making every single software. On the other hand, open-source software is made without any sort of research or usability data. That's why ALL open-source software are so fugly and unproductive.

Saying "all open source software are so fugly and unproductive." is extremely hyperbolic.

[Frylock86]

Oh my God! They killed Aqua!

They killed it in the worst way possible! Reminds me of those God awful programs that still run on Windows Vista/7, but yet still force 9x UI elements.

+1 :x

[HawkMan]

That is correct. Once a person learns something one way it takes time (and money in the workplace) to retrain them. And people are usually very resistant to change anyway.

That's the thing though. You don't need to train people to use the ribbon. people who have been trained on old office and have used the menus for years upon years, they pick up the ribbon right away,and not only are they able to use it right away, they're able to use it better and more effectively than the old method they know and have been trained how to use.

[WindowsFanatic]

Saying "all open source software are so fugly and unproductive." is extremely hyperbolic.

Can you give an example of an open source software with innovative and productive UI? I can't find any.

[lamminium]

Can you give an example of an open source software with innovative and productive UI? I can't find any.

The KDE?

[WindowsFanatic]

The KDE?

OK, I agree KDE is a nice desktop environment, although it's no where near the level of Windows 7. But I was thinking more in the line of individual software like OpenOffice, GIMP, NetBeans, Eclipse, Firefox for Linux, Inkscape, Pidgin, VLC Player -- all of them have so fugly and unproductive UI, especially compared to the proprietary alternatives like Office 2010, Photoshop CS5, Visual Studio 2010, IE9 on Windows 7, Illustrator, WMP12, WLM 2011 etc.

[farmeunit]

That's the thing though. You don't need to train people to use the ribbon. people who have been trained on old office and have used the menus for years upon years, they pick up the ribbon right away,and not only are they able to use it right away, they're able to use it better and more effectively than the old method they know and have been trained how to use.

The majority of people I know don't like Office 2007 and the ribbon because they don't know how to use it. It maybe more efficient, but only cuts out a step or two in any project. For "most" people, they just want to get in and type a paper. They're not professionals. They are home users and students. I'd venture to say that most office workers don't even know how to fully utilize the software they have.

[WindowsFanatic]

The majority of people I know don't like Office 2007 and the ribbon because they don't know how to use it. It maybe more efficient, but only cuts out a step or two in any project. For "most" people, they just want to get in and type a paper. They're not professionals. They are home use and students. I'd venture to say that most office workers don't even know how to fully utilize the software they have.

On the other hand the majority of people I have seen who started off with Office 2007 are able to take advantage of some very advanced features with very little experience or knowledge. They are able to master things in months which used to take years to discover using the old fashioned menus/toolbars.

[lamminium]

OK, I agree KDE is a nice desktop environment, although it's no where near the level of Windows 7.

Have you used a polished KDE distro like OpenSUSE or PCLinuxOS yet? UI-wise, the only thing that shines in Win 7 is the Superbar. For other tasks, KDE is either the same or better IMO. :)

I'm a Windows user btw. lol

But I was thinking more in the line of individual software like OpenOffice, GIMP, NetBeans, Eclipse, Firefox for Linux, Inkscape, Pidgin, VLC Player -- all of them have so fugly and unproductive UI, especially compared to the proprietary alternatives like Office 2010, Photoshop CS5, Visual Studio 2010, IE9 on Windows 7, Illustrator, WMP12, WLM 2011 etc.

Not so good looking UI but definitely not unproductive. Give Blender a go? Also most KDE programs sport an aesthetic and consistent UI and a decent level of productivity.

[farmeunit]

On the other hand the majority of people I have seen who started off with Office 2007 are able to take advantage of some very advanced features with very little experience or knowledge. They are able to master things in months which used to take years to discover using the old fashioned menus/toolbars.

Then why hasn't every other software switched to ribbons. You talk about a very small percentage of software that uses it, and say all the others are inferior. Not to mention the fact of cost involved to purchase all that software that can be spent in other areas. You also have upgrade costs to stay with newest versions. If you can afford it, good for you. A lot of people can't. Plus you're locked it to their proprietary systems and services.

[WindowsFanatic]

Have you used a polished KDE distro like OpenSUSE or PCLinuxOS yet? UI-wise, the only thing that shines in Win 7 is the Superbar. For other tasks, KDE is either the same or better IMO. :)

I have only used Ubuntu and Kubuntu. I found Ubuntu's UI to be incredibly pathetic and a usability disaster compared to Windows 7. Kubuntu was much better and worthwhile. But I find the Windows Aero so incredibly beautiful and productive that nothing else comes close to it.

[hdood]

That's the thing though. You don't need to train people to use the ribbon. people who have been trained on old office and have used the menus for years upon years, they pick up the ribbon right away,and not only are they able to use it right away, they're able to use it better and more effectively than the old method they know and have been trained how to use.

That is not at all my experience. It takes time to adapt, even for the skilled computer users who are able to figure out programs on their own (as opposed to the group that is basically replaying specific procedures they've memorized and often panic if an icon moves). That they're able to instantly become proficient (and even more efficent!) is something that only belongs in a marketing blurb.

[WindowsFanatic]

Then why hasn't every other software switched to ribbons. You talk about a very small percentage of software that uses it, and say all the others are inferior. Not to mention the fact of cost involved to purchase all that software that can be spent in other areas. You also have upgrade costs to stay with newest versions. If you can afford it, good for you. A lot of people can't. Plus you're locked it to their proprietary systems and services.

Many software are switching to Ribbon. The names that come straight to my mind are AutoCAD and 3d Studio Max -- both of them use a Ribbon UI. Software don't get much more technical than those two. So the fact that they have switched to ribbon indicates how productive it is.

As far as the paid vs free software is concerned, yes I agree that people who can't afford to pay must stick with those inferior free alternatives. But we are talking about some highly technical softwares which should only be needed by the professionals who can afford them.