Hei, i had given up on this, but now i feel a bit inclined to comment again...
> > You won't find any true usability reviews. Nor is it likely that you will > > find any reviews, period. The days of a real product shootout are over a > > decade past. Recall that MS started a policy of prohibiting criticims in > > its licenses starting around the time it started pushing FrontPage. > > > > > Nor do they "place it well below OpenOffice.org". > > > > Connect the dots. With what kind of pen? Both articles kinda say that the new MSO UI is rather unusual and hence requires training. But we knew that already with the mere notion of that they'd have a new interface. If you change the way something works, you have to relearn how it works. Merely logical. Doesn't say anything about if it's more/less usable or not. Or did i miss some dots, eventually? > Exactly - the one thing Microsoft does do very well is pour massive amounts > of money into its army of lawyers and PR people, who flood the media with > disinformation on the one hand, and ruthlessly attack any honest information > about their shoddy products on the other. Well then, how confident are we about discussing both OOo and MSO honestly? Confident enough to openly discuss the issues both have? One of them being that the OOo UI sucks just as (well almost as) much as any former MSO UI, because we made the decision to make it as close as possible? Funnily - and this is just one of many contradictions in these defensive (non-confident) OOo vs. MS "discussions" - a decision that obviously was based (as in inherently motivated) on MSO market share, not on considerations of technical superiority. For what otherwise were the reasons for making OOo2's interface as close as possible to MSOs? See the point? Market share is irrelevant because OpenDocument is superior? But somehow market share is relevant for UI, because a superior UI wouldn't be superior? André.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
