The article, and Larson-Green, slam "confusingly redundant features" (multiple ways to accomplish the same action/function, find the button that does it). I think that's just wrong. The redundant ways give multiple options for finding a function when you are just hunting for it, and make it more likely found. The more options the better, including the options to use one type of interface or another. Let the just-upgraded user use the classic interface immediately, when he has a deadline to meet, and then explore the new interface when he has time to mess around.
Fred Holmes At 06:55 AM 4/20/2009, Chris Dunford wrote: >There's been considerable criticism here regarding the Office ribbon: it >makes no sense, users hate it, the organization is random, etc. This is an >interesting article about the woman behind it and how it came to be. As some >WFBs have kept repeating, and MFBs and other WFBs keep denying, (a) it's not >random, (b) it's based on mountains of data about how real users actually >use Office, and (c) it's quite popular, not universally loathed as some >would have you believe. > >http://tinyurl.com/csawdu ************************************************************************* ** List info, subscription management, list rules, archives, privacy ** ** policy, calmness, a member map, and more at http://www.cguys.org/ ** *************************************************************************
