From: "Rich Gauszka" 

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C729CE.841F6400
Content-Type: text/plain;
        charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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  =

    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_001B_01C729CE.841F6400
Content-Type: text/html;
        charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable








The problem ( for me at least
) is that =
Microsoft=20
has decided to replace the menu/toolbar with the ribbon design and = forcefeed us=20
the ribbon paradigm. When one changes the interface the excuse of = consistency=20
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 = promote a=20
consistent look and feel across all Windows applications that want to = use the=20
ribbon paradigm.
What made the menu and toolbar paradigm so effective is that it is =
familiar=20
to all users. No matter what application one used, the menus and = toolbars=20
essentially worked the same. In order for the ribbon paradigm to be = effective,=20
it needs to be just as consistent and ubiquitous.
Currently the only way for developers to use the ribbon paradigm is =
to hand=20
roll their own version. Microsoft fears that this will result in several =

inconsistent variants, so they have decided to share the user interface = by=20
publishing a publish design guidelines for developers. 
The">http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx">The
=

guidelines will require a license agreement, though it is royalty
= free. Any=20
application, even ones not running on Windows will be able to use the = ribbon=20
paradigm without fear of IP lawsuits. The exception is applications that =

directly compete with the core Office products, namely Microsoft Word, = Excel,=20
PowerPoint, Outlook, and Access.
Impressio=">http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=3D259548">Impressio=
ns=20
from 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 = over=20
from Apple as the thought leaders for the next generation of user = interfaces.=20
Expecting that other companies are going to copy the ribbon design = anyways, and=20
that bad copies will hurt the reputation of Microsoft Office, they = decided the=20
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=20
differently but have the same underlying concept, Microsoft has said no. =

Microsoft has never before been this serious about enforcing this level = of=20
consistency before. Unlike past guidelines, mandatory requirements are = legally=20
mandatory according to the license agreement. While they are there = specifically=20
to ensure a minimum level of user experience, some developers are = certain to=20
dislike the idea of being forced to abide by the guidelines. 

  "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 apps=20
  have no menus and some of them other menus.  It is not uncommon =
for=20
  non-document based applications in particular not to use the =
File/Edit/View=20
  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 =

    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 option and =
in=20
    Spider  one of the Game menu items is "Save
this game..." =
so a=20
    counter-argument  could be made that while Spider doesn't =
have=20
    "File", the "Save..." option 
appears under a menu item =
that should=20
    have been named "File".  "File", 
almost invariably, =
has=20
    always had "new" and "Exit" (you'll find both
those  under=20
    "Game").  Spider also has "undo" (under
"Game") while Word =
has =20
    "undo" under
"Edit".IOW, I think this is one of those =
cases=20
    where the consistency isn't  foolish and, in the broader =
context,=20
    software is the better for it.On Tue, 26 Dec 2006 22:08:43 =
-0500,=20
    Rich 
wrote:>   
Solitare.  MSN=20
    Messenger.  Windows Media Player.  Yahoo! =
Messenger.  =20
    > AOL Instant Messenger.  That's
five.>>=20
    Rich>>  
"Geo." <georger{at}nls.net>">mailto:georger{at}nls.net">georger{at}nls.net>
wrote in =
message 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>   have=20
    File/Edit/View.>>  =20
Geo.

------=_NextPart_000_001B_01C729CE.841F6400--

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