MSGID: 1:379/45 fc4e8506
 REPLY: 1:379/45 04c3c2df
 TZUTC: -0500
 CHARSET: PC-8
From: "Rich Gauszka" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_00E2_01C729EB.862E67B0
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Since Microsoft wishes to freely license and actively promote  their = ribbon
paradigm to all applications that don't compete with Office it = seems to me
that Microsoft is attempting to change the toolbar/menu for = applications
which is part of this discussion 
  "Rich"  wrote in message news:45930444$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     This discussion has nothing to do with the ribbon as we are not =
discussing Office.

  Rich

    "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message =
news:4592de88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    The problem ( for me at least ) is that Microsoft has decided to =
replace the menu/toolbar with the ribbon design and forcefeed us the = ribbon
paradigm. When one changes the interface the excuse of = consistency seems
irrational

    http://www.infoq.com/news/2006/11/Office-UI-License
    In order to promote the ribbon design as a replacement for menus and =
toolbars, Microsoft has decided to license the Office 2007 User = Interface
including the new "ribbon paradigm". One of the primary = reasons
is to promote
a consistent look and feel across all Windows = applications that want to use
the ribbon paradigm.

    What made the menu and toolbar paradigm so effective is that it is =
familiar to all users. No matter what application one used, the menus = and
toolbars essentially worked the same. In order for the ribbon = paradigm to be
effective, it needs to be just as consistent and = ubiquitous.

    Currently the only way for developers to use the ribbon paradigm is =
to hand roll their own version. Microsoft fears that this will result in =
several inconsistent variants, so they have decided to share the user =
interface by publishing a publish design guidelines for developers.=20

    The guidelines will require a license agreement, though it is =
royalty free. Any application, even ones not running on Windows will be = able
to use the ribbon paradigm without fear of IP lawsuits. The = exception is
applications that directly compete with the core Office = products, namely
Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Access.

    Impressions from the Channel 9 interview, suggest that Microsoft =
isn't really concerned about the ribbon paradigm as a revenue source. = Rather,
they want to take over from Apple as the thought leaders for the = next
generation of user interfaces. Expecting that other companies are = going to
copy the ribbon design anyways, and that bad copies will hurt = the reputation
of Microsoft Office, they decided the best course of = action is to just make
it easy to copy it the right way.

    When asked if developers can implement ribbon-like interfaces that =
work differently but have the same underlying concept, Microsoft has = said no.
Microsoft has never before been this serious about enforcing = this level of
consistency before. Unlike past guidelines, mandatory = requirements are
legally mandatory according to the license agreement. = While they are there
specifically to ensure a minimum level of user = experience, some developers
are certain to dislike the idea of being = forced to abide by the
guidelines.=20

      "Rich"  wrote in message news:4592d20f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
         Game vs. File doesn't matter as there is no Edit or View.  What =
matters is that some of these apps have no menus and some of them other =
menus.  It is not uncommon for non-document based applications in = particular
not to use the File/Edit/View paradigm.

      Rich

        "John Beamish"  wrote in message =
news:op.tk75vjufm6tn4t{at}dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com...
        You might also have quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson:  a foolish =
consistency is =20
        the hobgobblin of little minds!  (Not that I would necessarily =
agree with =20
        you in this case.)

        Along with Solitare there is, btw, no File/Edit/View in Hearts.  =
OTOH ... =20
        Spider has (as do Hearts and Solitaire) a "Game" menu option and =
in Spider =20
        one of the Game menu items is "Save this game..." so a =
counter-argument =20
        could be made that while Spider doesn't have "File", the =
"Save..." option =20
        appears under a menu item that should have been named "File".  =
"File", =20
        almost invariably, has always had "new" and
"Exit" (you'll find =
both those =20
        under "Game").  Spider also has "undo" (under
"Game") while Word =
has =20
        "undo" under "Edit".

        IOW, I think this is one of those cases where the consistency =
isn't =20
        foolish and, in the broader context, software is the better for =
it.

        On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:08:43 -0500, Rich  wrote:

        >    Solitare.  MSN Messenger.  Windows Media Player.  Yahoo! =
Messenger.  =20
        > AOL Instant Messenger.  That's five.
        >
        > Rich
        >
        >   "Geo."  wrote in message =
news:4591cdd1{at}w3.nls.net...
        >   "Rich"  wrote in message
news:45900382{at}w3.nls.net...
        >
        >   >> Every program on earth does not have File Edit View but =
that is =20
        > besides
        >   >> the point.
        >
        >   Name one. Name one popular program on Mac, Linux, or Windows =
that =20
        > doesn't
        >   have File/Edit/View.
        >
        >   Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_00E2_01C729EB.862E67B0
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








Since Microsoft wishes to freely =
license and=20
actively promote  their ribbon paradigm to all applications that =
don't=20
compete with Office it seems to me that Microsoft is attempting to = change
the=20
toolbar/menu for applications which is part of this =
discussion <ribbons=20
suck>

  "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:45930444$1{at}w3.nls.net...
     This
discussion has =
nothing to do=20
  with the ribbon as we are not discussing Office.
   
  Rich
   
  

    "Rich Gauszka" <gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.commailto:gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com">gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com
A>>=20
    wrote in message news:4592de88$1{at}w3.nls.net...
    The problem ( for me at least ) is =
that=20
    Microsoft has decided to replace the menu/toolbar with the ribbon =
design and=20
    forcefeed us the ribbon paradigm. When one changes the interface the =
excuse=20
    of consistency seems irrational
     
    http://www.i" target="new">http://www.i=">http://www.infoq.com/news/2006/11/Office-UI-License">http://www.i=
nfoq.com/news/2006/11/Office-UI-License
    
    In order to promote the ribbon design as a replacement for menus =
and=20
    toolbars, Microsoft has decided to license the Office 2007 User =
Interface=20
    including the new "ribbon paradigm". One of the primary reasons is =
to=20
    promote a consistent look and feel across all Windows applications =
that want=20
    to use the ribbon paradigm.
    What made the menu and toolbar paradigm so effective is that it =
is=20
    familiar to all users. No matter what application one used, the =
menus and=20
    toolbars essentially worked the same. In order for the ribbon =
paradigm to be=20
    effective, it needs to be just as consistent and ubiquitous.
    Currently the only way for developers to use the ribbon paradigm =
is to=20
    hand roll their own version. Microsoft fears that this will result =
in=20
    several inconsistent variants, so they have decided to share the =
user=20
    interface by publishing a publish design guidelines for developers. =

    The=20">http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx">The=20
    guidelines will require a license agreement, though it is =
royalty free.=20
    Any application, even ones not running on Windows will be able to =
use the=20
    ribbon paradigm without fear of IP lawsuits. The exception is =
applications=20
    that directly compete with the core Office products, namely =
Microsoft Word,=20
    Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, and Access.
    Impressio=">http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=3D259548">Impressio=
ns from=20
    the Channel 9 interview, suggest that Microsoft isn't really =
concerned=20
    about the ribbon paradigm as a revenue source. Rather, they want to =
take=20
    over from Apple as the thought leaders for the next generation of =
user=20
    interfaces. Expecting that other companies are going to copy the =
ribbon=20
    design anyways, and that bad copies will hurt the reputation of =
Microsoft=20
    Office, they decided the best course of action is to just make it =
easy to=20
    copy it the right way.
    When asked if developers can implement ribbon-like interfaces =
that work=20
    differently but have the same underlying concept, Microsoft has said =
no.=20
    Microsoft has never before been this serious about enforcing this =
level of=20
    consistency before. Unlike past guidelines, mandatory requirements =
are=20
    legally mandatory according to the license agreement. While they are =
there=20
    specifically to ensure a minimum level of user experience, some =
developers=20
    are certain to dislike the idea of being forced to abide by the =
guidelines.=20
    
    

      "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:4592d20f$1{at}w3.nls.net...
        
Game vs. File =
doesn't matter as=20
      there is no Edit or View.  What matters is that some of =
these=20
      apps have no menus and some of them other menus.  It is not =
uncommon=20
      for non-document based applications in particular not to use the=20
      File/Edit/View paradigm.
       
      Rich
       
      
        "John Beamish" <JLBeamish{at}rogers.com>">mailto:JLBeamish{at}rogers.com">JLBeamish{at}rogers.com>
wrote = in=20
        message news:op.tk75vjufm6tn4t{at}dellblack.wlfdle.phub.net.cable.rogers.com..=
.You=20
        might also have quoted Ralph Waldo Emerson:  a foolish =
consistency=20
        is  the hobgobblin of little minds! 
(Not that I =
would=20
        necessarily agree with  you in this
case.)Along =
with=20
        Solitare there is, btw, no File/Edit/View in Hearts.  OTOH=20
        ...  Spider has (as do Hearts and Solitaire) a
"Game" =
menu=20
        option and in Spider  one of the Game menu items is =
"Save this=20
        game..." so a counter-argument  could be made that =
while Spider=20
        doesn't have "File", the "Save..."
option  appears =
under a menu=20
        item that should have been named "File". 
"File",  =
almost=20
        invariably, has always had "new" and "Exit"
(you'll find both=20
        those  under "Game").  Spider
also has "undo" =
(under=20
        "Game") while Word has  "undo" under =
"Edit".IOW, I=20
        think this is one of those cases where the consistency =
isn't =20
        foolish and, in the broader context, software is the better =
for=20
        it.On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:08:43 -0500, Rich =20
        wrote:>   
Solitare.  MSN=20
        Messenger.  Windows Media Player.  Yahoo!=20
        Messenger.   > AOL Instant
Messenger.  =
That's=20
        five.>>
Rich>>  
"Geo." =
<georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message=20
        news:4591cdd1{at}w3.nls.net...>=
  =20
        "Rich" <{at}> wrote in message news:45900382{at}w3.nls.net...>=
>  =20
        >> Every program on earth does not have File Edit View but =
that=20
        is  >
besides>   >> the=20
        point.>>   Name
one. Name one popular =
program on=20
        Mac, Linux, or Windows that  > =
doesn't>  =20
        have
File/Edit/View.>>  =20
    =
Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_00E2_01C729EB.862E67B0--

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5