FJCC wrote:I use MS2007 at work and, though it was annoying at first, I've gotten used to it and don't notice any significant difference in productivity compared to other interfaces I've used.
It is time to start thinking on lateral toolbars, extending the dockable concept now at work on stylist and navigator to other tools.
RGB wrote:My main complain is also with space: monitors are getting wider, not taller, and with all those netbooks on the market it is very important to save space. It is time to start thinking on lateral toolbars, extending the dockable concept now at work on stylist and navigator to other tools.
acknak wrote:I do wonder if key ideas behind the ribbon may be patented.
RGB wrote:This raise a good point, I think: is it the user that needs to adapt to the UI or the UI that needs to adapt to the user?
RGB wrote:It is time to start thinking on lateral toolbars, extending the dockable concept now at work on stylist and navigator to other tools.
FJCC wrote:My main question is about the priority given to the UI. Program stability seems more important to me, though maybe the UI project doesn't take resources away from that. Wouldn't it be better never to have to suggest again that a user reset the user profile?
Hagar de l'Est wrote:RGB wrote:It is time to start thinking on lateral toolbars, extending the dockable concept now at work on stylist and navigator to other tools.
Seems to be the right way indeed, even if I like it for the Stylist and Navigator, I'm not yet used to it for lateral toolbars (I like to see the whole words for the menus and it would take too much space horizontally I guess).
FJCC wrote:... Wouldn't it be better never to have to suggest again that a user reset the user profile?
TheGurkha wrote:This makes interesting reading: Top 10 User Experience Myths.
deebo wrote:acknak wrote:Get a grip. How is a petition going to help?
I'm not a big fan of the Renaissance process myself, but I can't see how petitions are going to lead to any improvements. What they're looking for is constructive criticism, or some better proposals. "I hate the ribbon" is not particularly helpful.
Here is a hugely better official proposal from IBM:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wik ... sal_by_IBM
I was expecting some comments about it, but there's been nothing in UX mailing list. Or, better, there's been nothing my lurking activity has detected.
Bill wrote:I definitely don't like the sidebar idea. I recently upgraded to a widescreen monitor and can now have two different applications open side-by-side on one monitor instead of using dual monitors. If OOo claimed more screen width by adding sidebars, I'd have to go back to dual monitors.
In that mail, Mathias Bauer wrote:
We should concentrate on which contexts we want to have, which toolbars they should get assigned to, which buttons should be in the toolbars, how the switching between different button sets can be implemented with as less screen space consumption as possible but as understandable and intuitive as possible. And if the result has some similarity with parts of MS's ribbon implementation - so what?
deebo wrote:Really, I don't understand why Mathias Bauer, another (long time and respected) Sun employee, has to justify what the Renaissance project is doing, this is to say changing from a Stylist-oriented paradigm to a Task-oriented paradigm.
More people who support the same bad idea with different words doesn't make it a better one.
IMO, it's that change of paradigm the mistake, whatever UI will be chosen.
deebo wrote:Bill wrote:I definitely don't like the sidebar idea. I recently upgraded to a widescreen monitor and can now have two different applications open side-by-side on one monitor instead of using dual monitors. If OOo claimed more screen width by adding sidebars, I'd have to go back to dual monitors.
The sidebar would be hideable, I suppose. In fact, there is a handle on its side, just like you had docked the Stylist in OOo 3.1.
IMO, a pop-up sidebar is absolutely more desirable than a pop-up top ribbon on a widescreen display.
Bill wrote:What makes the current UI "Stylist-oriented"?
Bill wrote:I took another look, and the "sidebars" can also be docked at the top or bottom, but IMO, there's not much point in docking the panels if they're going to be hidden. If they're going to be hidden, I'd just leave them as floating windows. That's what I do now with the Stylist and Navigator. By leaving them as floating windows, I can position them where they won't be in the way.
Bill wrote: By the way, the sidebar proposal is part of Project Renaissance which the petition is trying to stop.
RoryOF wrote:@Deebo: Thank you for making a reasoned contribution to a discussion!
deebo wrote:If you like reasoned contributions to this Ribbon vs Flat toolbar vs vertical sidebar discussion, please read this message...
deebo wrote:There will be a huge point in docking panels in future versions of OOo. In fact, there will be live previews of applied styles and formatting in your documents. With extending pop up call-outs like those included into the present OOo prototype, the document working area may be covered from GUI elements and the live previews would be simply useless, because in many cases you couldn't see a relevant part of your document to which the style/formatting has to be applied. This is more or less true according to your display dimensions and document zoom.
Example:
See this star:
and how it is hidden from GUI elements:
while we have wonderful live previews in other positions of the object:
This is just an example. It can be reproduced in many other ways and situations during a normal work session.
Is this UI approach an "improvement" for my work? Uhm... let me think... No! It even spoils the usefulness of new exiting features.
deebo wrote:Yes, floating windows are handy, but they have to be moved around your working area all the time.
deebo wrote:About the Stylist: now it has an icon on the main toolbar, even a newbie can see it. In the prototypes, it's hidden in the menus. Hidden UI items are also less used by the majority of users. And less used options are usually less developed in new software applications or even abandoned.
I think it's a contradiction Renaissance developers state that they want to disclose more advanced feature thanks to the new UI, while they really hide the Stylist. That feature tied to live previews would be an extremely powerful tool both for new and experienced users. Of course, if you don't know it exists (by mean of a little icon on the main toolbar), it's difficult to use it.
Please, let me make a simile. A "task-oriented" Ribbon-like bar or application is like building an house by using bricks without a project. It's easy and fast, but the overall result may be a bit botched and surely difficult to be modified.
A "Stylist-oriented" toolbar or application is like building an house by having the project in your hands: you can change details, re-use them in other houses, insert parts from other projects and so on.
According to you, which approach should we prefer in order to have a UI that "produces" more skilled users and more professional documents in less time?
I think it's obvious it's the latter one.
acknak wrote:deebo wrote:If you like reasoned contributions to this Ribbon vs Flat toolbar vs vertical sidebar discussion, please read this message...
Isn't "reasoned contribution" just a fancy name for "some guy's opinion"?
Does this fellow have any special training or experience that makes his opinion more valuable or reliable than yours or mine?
How can I objectively determine whether his opinion is right/wrong/better/worse than any other?
The best I can say is "that does/doesn't make sense to me", but then, that's just another opinion.
Design by committee (or mob) discussion/argument/petition seems unlikely to lead to any particularly good outcome... in my opinion.
Bill wrote:The thread shouldn't be closed, but your introduction of the petition into the thread has been disruptive to discussion of the subject of this thread which is Renaissance, not the petition you support. There was already a thread for discussion of the petition. One of your other posts had already been merged with that thread. IMO, your introduction of the petition into this thread is just spam advertising the petition and should also have been moved to the other thread.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests