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 Gauszka" <gauszka{at}dontspamhotmail.com=">mailto: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