2009/9/3 Drew Jensen <usersl...@paintedfrogceramics.com>
> Lars Nooden wrote:
>
>> John Boyle wrote:
>>
>> To all users: I am curious as to why OpenOffice needs a new Gui? Can
>>> someone please explain that to me, as I find it is the easiest program
>>> to work with from opening to closing it when finished! Why on earth
>>> change the part of the program that makes it work the best? That is one
>>> of the MAJOR reasons why Microsoft in general is such a flop! Please do
>>> not change the GUI for this program, or you may lose many users! Least
>>> as far as upgrading is concerned! :-(
>>>
>>
>> Fouling the opponent is a time-honored, if despised, business tradition.
>> The ribbon is a flop, so something has to be done to trip up OOo...
>>
>> -Lars
>>
>>
> Hello John, Lars,
>
> Well - OpenOffice.org as you may know has been running a user survey for
> the last couple of yours, at least.
>
> During that time not hundreds and not thousands but tens of thousands of
> users have responded.
>
> In that data there are significant numbers of people that do report less
> then satisfactory experiences with the applications.
>
> Additionally there is the simple fact that the rest of the software world
> is constantly changing and every application has to adapt as it does.
>
> Put another way - there is very little room for any application to rest on
> its laurels for long and have any hope of staying relevant.
>
> Recently on this list one of the primary developers has offered a rather
> detailed explanation of what thought processes are driving the change.
>
> The User Experience (UX) team also works via mailing lists - the lists are
> available for anyone to follow. There are discussions ongoing on those
> lists.
>
> Personally I haven't made up my mind whether I like or dislike the
> direction the team is heading with the prototype.
>
> I do believe that the UX team made a small mistake in calling the preview
> that was released an Impress Prototype - it is much to early in the process
> and too lacking in functionality to be so named, IMO.
>
> I'll add this - Everyone involved in this ongoing work has stated that they
> are not trying to clone MSO and in the five years I have been participating
> in this project and interacting with those actively developing it there has
> been not a single time that I have felt anyone was disingenuous in their
> dealings with me. Put bluntly, I take them at their word not simply on faith
> but because they have earned my trust by their actions.
>
> Am I saying that you should just be quiet and accept whatever comes - not
> at all - you are free to express your like or dislike, you can make
> suggestions or you can even start a petition. You are free to not change to
> the new application, when it happens finally. (and everyone involved, that
> I've seen emails from, is talking about years for that change) I will say
> though, if you are looking for the application to just not change at all,
> then that is not a viable option.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Drew
>
>
> I think there are several problems here:
1. The "prototype" was poorly done and, apparently, premature. This is a
shame and, unfortunately has coloured peoples' judgment - including mine. I
don't have any feelings about "ribbons". To be honest I'm not even sure what
the term means. But I certainly didn't like what I saw.
2. I don't think the "explanation" was particularly helpful. MS office's
"paper clip" helper was supposed to be context sensitive ("You appear to be
writing a letter ..."). Philosophising about context sensitivity is not
productive. I don't believe Microsoft implemented the paper clip, presumably
after a lot of talking, deliberately to annoy millions of users. A UI can
really only be described by a significant [set of] prototype[s] or by
extensive use-case documentation which most of the interviewees you
mentioned and most of the people in this list won't read.
3. Change for change's sake is not a good maxim. IMHO the extensive changes
proposed are probably not a good idea. In my experience, major re-writes
cause more problems than they cure because they introduce new "bugs" and,
very frequently, re-introduce old ones. I'd much rather see evolution than
revolution. Fix the outstanding UI bugs and shortcomings; there are plenty
of them. If the UX team strongly feels it want to implement a completely new
style of UI then let that be an option. Microsoft got it right (yes, really)
when they introduced a whole new style to its Explorer/Control Panel/Start
Menu view but offered "classic view" as an alternative right there on the
"front page", not hidden or obfuscated.
Major changes, particularly to UIs, are very prone to cause major annoyance
and confusion among experienced users who are really not that interested in
the aesthetics but simply want to get the job done. They knew how to do the
job - warts and all - but now, suddenly, they don't. Having the new
interface as an option at least lets people learn the new things at their
own pace rather than having it forced upon them when they have a deadline to
meet. Who knows, they may even warm to the new interface if they can explore
it at leisure.
4. If there is to be a new UI then the developers need to be **a lot** more
responsive to bug-reports than they appear to be today. A new UI that
doesn't work in some major way or that removes/spoils existing functionality
could easily just kill OOo. Of course the death won't be sudden; it'll be a
wasting disease with users quietly disappearing.
I'm not anti change. I am anti trauma.
--
Harold Fuchs
London, England
Please reply *only* to users@openoffice.org
