![]() ![]() ![]() The interfaces vary in strengths and weaknesses, but neither stands out as particularly well done. And, although you can point to areas where the interface of one is easier or more efficient, such as the template selector in MSO or OOo's Navigator that allows you to jump from feature to feature, these areas are counterbalanced by other features in which each suite is at a disadvantage. ![]() For instance, OOo borrows a zoom slider bar from MSO, while MSO borrowed floating windows from OOo. With OOo, the problems with help are incompleteness and out of date and poorly written entries, but the result is equally unfriendly, even though the help system is more thorough.Īs for the editing window, one office suite needs only to implement a feature for the other one to copy it. ![]() With MSO, users hoping for help have to drill down deep to find answers, and the arrangement of topics by questions is both limiting and hard to scan. Much the same is true of the on-line help. Most users are likely to be exasperated with the arrangement of features with the classic interface just as often as they are with ribbons. At first, you may have to search for repositioned features, but neither has a clear advantage once you adjust to it. Yet for all the effort, no independent study has proven conclusively that ribbons are easier or harder to use than the classic menus and taskbars. When ribbons first appeared, they were both attacked and defended vigorously. Both use context-specific floating windows that open automatically when the cursor is at a particular type of formatting. By contrast, OOo still retains menus and taskbars. In Office 2007, Microsoft implemented its Fluent User Interface (better known as ribbons), replacing menus and taskbars with a combination of both. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |