If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2007 Learning Curve
I asked about SQM in regards to how they ascertained users didn't use custom
toolbars and such and never really got an answer. I've discovered long ago they key to obtain the answer you are seeking lies in "how" you ask your question. So I kept asking essentially the same question but a little differently each time. I finally asked the *right* question and found CEIP doesn't record programmatic actions, only "user clicks". From that I surmised add-ins/global templates that contain customized toolbars weren't recorded. And, as you noted, if in Word 2002 you already customized your toolbars for Normal.dot and simply used it for Word 2003 then your customizations wouldn't be recorded since they were already present. All provided, of course, if you even opted in to CEIP. I suspect those users who are knowledgeable enough to customize their toolbars are also those who would refrain from opting in. (I know I didn't opt in initially.) BUT, I also know that in corporate environments and help desk situations, trying to help a user over the phone or in email isn't easy to begin with. Combine that with nonstandard toolbars/menus and that makes things even more difficult. In this scenario I do understand the desire for a command to always be present in a specific place. Another aspect to consider is while it was easy to customize the menus/toolbars in the previous versions, if you're an add-in developer you can really mess things up! I think of the countless questions we encounter about missing menus/menu items (not all of them can be attributed to user error), menus that didn't open when clicked, the overpopulation of menu items, the prompt to save Normal.dot each time you exit Word, the lack of the prompt (in the case of the Adobe add-in which simply discarded all customizations made to Normal.dot), and so on. I forget what the ratio is for each question asked what the number of others with the same question is but I recall it's quite a bit. The number of users encountering problems that stem from the same exact issue (primarily add-ins) indicate there is indeed a problem that needed fixing. So how does MS go about fixing it?? Why not redesign of the menus/toolbars which also enables the ability to set specific standards. Doing so forces developers into using a specific standard for UI customizations and that's not necessarily a "bad thing". For the last year or so I've been doing numerous presentations on Office 2007 and have the opportunity to talk with a LOT of users. The majority used the Office apps in the past and they ranged from average users to advanced users. What I found was an overwhelming number were thrilled with QAT customizations. They love the ease in simply right-clicking to add or remove a command/group. To be perfectly honest, I'm digging the ease in customizing the QAT too. Basically what I have is the first half looks a lot like the old Standard toolbar (New, Open, Save, Close, Print, Print Preview, Cut, Copy, Paste, Undo, Redo, along with groups of commands I frequently use, such as the Font group, Paragraph group, Styles group, and Page Setup group. The rest changes depending on the task at hand. My Ribbon is usually minimized and seldom used. I tend to treat it as my "pool" of commands for quickly adding to my QAT. I also have a few templates that are more task-oriented than those used for formatting/boilerplate. All they contain is a customized QAT. So if I'm creating a I'll use my Mail Merge template. If creating a form I'll use my Forms template. That way I have the tools I frequently use at my fingertips simply by creating new document. I think the key to the new UI involves a bit of letting go of the old ways (IOW, don't attempt to force Word 2007 to work exactly like previous versions) and adapting new ways, which, for me, have actually been more efficient. Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for assistance by email cannot be acknowledged. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Beth Melton Microsoft Office MVP Coauthor of Word 2007 Inside Out: http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/boo...x#AboutTheBook Word FAQ: http://mvps.org/word TechTrax eZine: http://mousetrax.com/techtrax/ MVP FAQ site: http://mvps.org/ "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... The real problem is that MS depended too much on SQM data that suggested users never customized the UI, overlooking the fact that (a) UI customization, if captured at all by CEIP (and they weren't very confident about that), would be captured only once, and that existing customizations (created before Word 2002/2003) would not be represented at all. This led the developers to believe that "users never customize the UI," which may still be true for the majority (especially the large portion whose UI is locked down by IT), but they overlooked a large and vocal minority who do customize. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Jay Freedman" wrote in message news Just a couple more observations in the mix: The "Ribbons are locked down" statement needs qualification. The built-in Ribbon groups aren't customizable, but it _is_ possible to remove any/all built-in groups and replace them with customized groups that might be either slight modifications of the built-ins or completely different. To do this, though, you need to get somewhat familiar with RibbonX, which is what Patrick Schmid tries to do at http://www.pschmid.net/office2007/ribbonx. Yes, this is harder than customizing Word 2003 and earlier, and thus not end-user-friendly. I suspect that's intentional, at the request of the aforementioned large companies. They can afford to have someone learn RibbonX, create customized templates for their needs, and have everyone in the company forced to use the same customizations (including IT support). Eventually someone will come up with an end-user tool that makes Ribbon changes easier. Patrick's RibbonCustomizer is close, but still not as easy as many would like. Probably it will have to wait until MS fixes some of the bugs and limitations in RibbonX itself. On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:23:50 -0600, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: While I agree that a customizable ribbon or tab would be helpful, it has been pointed out that you can create a specialize QAT for a specific template. Don't think, however, that I am in any way defending the loss of customizability. I haven't yet "upgraded" to Office 2007, but I'm going to be one of the loudest whiners when I do, as I have highly customized my Word 2003 UI (with some customizations probably dating back to Word 2.0). -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Paul I agree: the current implementation makes it harder for all and I cannot see what the long-term advantages are to anyone that the Ribbons are locked down so tightly. What I would like to see is the ordinary user being able to create their own 'Home' Ribbon that can be tied in with a template. On this ribbon, the user can add whatever groups they want from any of the other standard ribbons and remove/change the contents of these groups. For example, my Home ribbon would remove the Clipboard group (a real waste of screen space), remove much of the Font and Paragraph group tools (but adding a few more useful tools) and thus making loads more space for styles. Terry "Paul Gauci" wrote in message ... OK - but how about the needs of companies (large and small) who use customised styles/templates/toolbars/icons etc to standardise the presentations of letters, reports, etc? For instance, when such companies work with outsiders (say, when they outsource), all they had to do with 2003 was to provide their sub-contractors with their customised templates/toolbars/icons etc and save considerable time and energy on post writing-up formatting. Also, freelancers who work/ed for different companies using their clients' customised templates/toolbars/icons can/could be very efficient when 2003 customisations are/were well designed. It appears to me that they will have problems being as efficient with 2007. -- Paul Gauci "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: No, but that would be why customization would make it difficult to support. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... I see. So we dumb down Word to help the helpers? Terry "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... Because the help desk person is not looking at the same screen the user is, so the user is referring to buttons and menu items the IT person may not even be aware exist, much less have in his UI. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Gordon I'm not sure why this should be a support nightmare. If you use roaming profiles, surely, the customisations stay with the user. So if I log into any computer on the network, I get My Profile with My Desktop displayed and in Word I will see all my toolbars as I want to use them. Why is that a support nightmare? Terry "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... In previous versions, I always modified the Toolbars. Many of the tools I never used (such as cut, copy, past, bold, italics underline, etc.) I always dragged off and added useful tools that were hidden (such as ParaPageBreakBefore, Doc Properties, File New... and custom macros, etc.). I always like that there were always so many different ways to work in Word that allowed users to customize and work in a way that suited themselves and their principal tasks. To me, much of this choice seems to have been removed. I was privileged to be shown demos of the proposed Ribbon before it went beta and was enthusiastic as I could see that so many more commands could be made available for users, rather than having to dig deep to find the hidden nest of tools available. But I wasn't aware of how rigid the Ribbon was to be until beta testing started. I was deeply disappointed and I still am. And I will remain disappointed until the Ribbon is user customizable out-of-the-box. Terry I hear what you say, but from a support perspective in a commercial environment, a User customising ANYTHING on an individual basis turns into a support/helpdesk nightmare..... -- Regards, Jay Freedman Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2007 Learning Curve
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:22:11 -0600, "Beth Melton"
wrote: I asked about SQM in regards to how they ascertained users didn't use custom toolbars and such and never really got an answer. I've discovered long ago they key to obtain the answer you are seeking lies in "how" you ask your question. So I kept asking essentially the same question but a little differently each time. I finally asked the *right* question and found CEIP doesn't record programmatic actions, only "user clicks". From that I surmised add-ins/global templates that contain customized toolbars weren't recorded. And, as you noted, if in Word 2002 you already customized your toolbars for Normal.dot and simply used it for Word 2003 then your customizations wouldn't be recorded since they were already present. All provided, of course, if you even opted in to CEIP. I suspect those users who are knowledgeable enough to customize their toolbars are also those who would refrain from opting in. (I know I didn't opt in initially.) Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a template containing customizations and macros that are then used by hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that. BUT, I also know that in corporate environments and help desk situations, trying to help a user over the phone or in email isn't easy to begin with. Combine that with nonstandard toolbars/menus and that makes things even more difficult. In this scenario I do understand the desire for a command to always be present in a specific place. Another aspect to consider is while it was easy to customize the menus/toolbars in the previous versions, if you're an add-in developer you can really mess things up! I think of the countless questions we encounter about missing menus/menu items (not all of them can be attributed to user error), menus that didn't open when clicked, the overpopulation of menu items, the prompt to save Normal.dot each time you exit Word, the lack of the prompt (in the case of the Adobe add-in which simply discarded all customizations made to Normal.dot), and so on. I forget what the ratio is for each question asked what the number of others with the same question is but I recall it's quite a bit. The number of users encountering problems that stem from the same exact issue (primarily add-ins) indicate there is indeed a problem that needed fixing. So how does MS go about fixing it?? Why not redesign of the menus/toolbars which also enables the ability to set specific standards. Doing so forces developers into using a specific standard for UI customizations and that's not necessarily a "bad thing". Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this time so people will accept it better in the next version. For the last year or so I've been doing numerous presentations on Office 2007 and have the opportunity to talk with a LOT of users. The majority used the Office apps in the past and they ranged from average users to advanced users. What I found was an overwhelming number were thrilled with QAT customizations. They love the ease in simply right-clicking to add or remove a command/group. To be perfectly honest, I'm digging the ease in customizing the QAT too. Basically what I have is the first half looks a lot like the old Standard toolbar (New, Open, Save, Close, Print, Print Preview, Cut, Copy, Paste, Undo, Redo, along with groups of commands I frequently use, such as the Font group, Paragraph group, Styles group, and Page Setup group. The rest changes depending on the task at hand. My Ribbon is usually minimized and seldom used. I tend to treat it as my "pool" of commands for quickly adding to my QAT. I also have a few templates that are more task-oriented than those used for formatting/boilerplate. All they contain is a customized QAT. So if I'm creating a I'll use my Mail Merge template. If creating a form I'll use my Forms template. That way I have the tools I frequently use at my fingertips simply by creating new document. Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept: distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros). I think the key to the new UI involves a bit of letting go of the old ways (IOW, don't attempt to force Word 2007 to work exactly like previous versions) and adapting new ways, which, for me, have actually been more efficient. Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for assistance by email cannot be acknowledged. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Beth Melton Microsoft Office MVP Coauthor of Word 2007 Inside Out: http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/boo...x#AboutTheBook Word FAQ: http://mvps.org/word TechTrax eZine: http://mousetrax.com/techtrax/ MVP FAQ site: http://mvps.org/ "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... The real problem is that MS depended too much on SQM data that suggested users never customized the UI, overlooking the fact that (a) UI customization, if captured at all by CEIP (and they weren't very confident about that), would be captured only once, and that existing customizations (created before Word 2002/2003) would not be represented at all. This led the developers to believe that "users never customize the UI," which may still be true for the majority (especially the large portion whose UI is locked down by IT), but they overlooked a large and vocal minority who do customize. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Jay Freedman" wrote in message news Just a couple more observations in the mix: The "Ribbons are locked down" statement needs qualification. The built-in Ribbon groups aren't customizable, but it _is_ possible to remove any/all built-in groups and replace them with customized groups that might be either slight modifications of the built-ins or completely different. To do this, though, you need to get somewhat familiar with RibbonX, which is what Patrick Schmid tries to do at http://www.pschmid.net/office2007/ribbonx. Yes, this is harder than customizing Word 2003 and earlier, and thus not end-user-friendly. I suspect that's intentional, at the request of the aforementioned large companies. They can afford to have someone learn RibbonX, create customized templates for their needs, and have everyone in the company forced to use the same customizations (including IT support). Eventually someone will come up with an end-user tool that makes Ribbon changes easier. Patrick's RibbonCustomizer is close, but still not as easy as many would like. Probably it will have to wait until MS fixes some of the bugs and limitations in RibbonX itself. On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:23:50 -0600, "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: While I agree that a customizable ribbon or tab would be helpful, it has been pointed out that you can create a specialize QAT for a specific template. Don't think, however, that I am in any way defending the loss of customizability. I haven't yet "upgraded" to Office 2007, but I'm going to be one of the loudest whiners when I do, as I have highly customized my Word 2003 UI (with some customizations probably dating back to Word 2.0). -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Paul I agree: the current implementation makes it harder for all and I cannot see what the long-term advantages are to anyone that the Ribbons are locked down so tightly. What I would like to see is the ordinary user being able to create their own 'Home' Ribbon that can be tied in with a template. On this ribbon, the user can add whatever groups they want from any of the other standard ribbons and remove/change the contents of these groups. For example, my Home ribbon would remove the Clipboard group (a real waste of screen space), remove much of the Font and Paragraph group tools (but adding a few more useful tools) and thus making loads more space for styles. Terry "Paul Gauci" wrote in message ... OK - but how about the needs of companies (large and small) who use customised styles/templates/toolbars/icons etc to standardise the presentations of letters, reports, etc? For instance, when such companies work with outsiders (say, when they outsource), all they had to do with 2003 was to provide their sub-contractors with their customised templates/toolbars/icons etc and save considerable time and energy on post writing-up formatting. Also, freelancers who work/ed for different companies using their clients' customised templates/toolbars/icons can/could be very efficient when 2003 customisations are/were well designed. It appears to me that they will have problems being as efficient with 2007. -- Paul Gauci "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: No, but that would be why customization would make it difficult to support. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... I see. So we dumb down Word to help the helpers? Terry "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... Because the help desk person is not looking at the same screen the user is, so the user is referring to buttons and menu items the IT person may not even be aware exist, much less have in his UI. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Gordon I'm not sure why this should be a support nightmare. If you use roaming profiles, surely, the customisations stay with the user. So if I log into any computer on the network, I get My Profile with My Desktop displayed and in Word I will see all my toolbars as I want to use them. Why is that a support nightmare? Terry "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... In previous versions, I always modified the Toolbars. Many of the tools I never used (such as cut, copy, past, bold, italics underline, etc.) I always dragged off and added useful tools that were hidden (such as ParaPageBreakBefore, Doc Properties, File New... and custom macros, etc.). I always like that there were always so many different ways to work in Word that allowed users to customize and work in a way that suited themselves and their principal tasks. To me, much of this choice seems to have been removed. I was privileged to be shown demos of the proposed Ribbon before it went beta and was enthusiastic as I could see that so many more commands could be made available for users, rather than having to dig deep to find the hidden nest of tools available. But I wasn't aware of how rigid the Ribbon was to be until beta testing started. I was deeply disappointed and I still am. And I will remain disappointed until the Ribbon is user customizable out-of-the-box. Terry I hear what you say, but from a support perspective in a commercial environment, a User customising ANYTHING on an individual basis turns into a support/helpdesk nightmare..... -- Regards, Jay Freedman Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. -- Regards, Jay Freedman Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2007 Learning Curve
Hi Jay,
In many large corporate settings (where Office apps are often run through thin clients, such as Citrix [i.e. slow no matter what G] and not used full time by users, the Ribbon seems to be better accepted as in the previous incarnation, users were locked out from doing any customization on their own that would 'stick' and the menus seemed to almost always be set to not show the full menus (many folks don't realize there are additional menu commands below the ones shown in that mode and think that with the Ribbon MS added a lot more features than just those new in 2007). With 2007 corporate users may still not be allowed to make their own QAT that 'sticks', but they do have, as Beth mentioned some help in that Template embedded QATs do seem to be allowed For help desks, with the internet and broadband and higher speed connections being more common these days it's more likely that the help desk will have the ability to 'take over' the users workstation or at least watch what they're doing to help out than in the past, but they would still be slowed by having to figure out too many unique locations for items as Office is usually not the only thing they have to support Developer's also have a learning curve. It's more unfamiliarity than degree of difficulty in some cases that prevents folks from providing customized ribbons for their users in corporate environments, and yes in both the Ribbon and the QAT there is room for improvement in 'version next' g). For the Ribbon, scaling took a lot of work on MS on the backend and DIY (do it yourself) Ribbons don't always scale as well and yes locking down the QAT graphics was an interesting choice, rather than providing a 'sandbox' area for having 'safe' graphics to use. In addition to Patrick's work, Greg's article at http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/Customize_Ribbon.htm can be an interesting exercise for a first play with making your own custom ribbon. In watching users with Office 2007, I've seen some frustration that the Themes aren't consistent in their effects across apps, but I've also seen that folks are more willing to try something/undo it/try something else with the ribbon than with menus. Menus, after you choose something, often 'go away', and unless you happened to remember what you just clicked, you have to hunt for the same spot to try again With the Ribbon, it's still there, pretty much where you left it unless you move the context point in your document, so you can try until more or less satisfied. Having had to write my own UI for programs for years, then add custom commands to WordStar and beyond, I can appreciate how much 'fun' selling and implementing then troubleshooting each of the changes within MS must have been. To their credit, MS hasn't fallen back on the 'it's version 1' (when speaking of the Ribbon) as basically, it does work very well for the most part for day in/day out tasks. The lack of use of text labels on the QAT (since one of Jensen's blog's statements was that there research said the ribbon had icons plus text because it worked better) came down, in part, to how much screen space it would take up both vertically and how many QAT items you could put across a screen with and without text. Tradeoff/settlement/compromise/lack of time to make more changes... who can say for sure ============ "Jay Freedman" wrote in message ... Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a template containing customizations and macros that are then used by hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that. Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this time so people will accept it better in the next version. Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept: distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros). -- Bob Buckland ?:-) MS Office System Products MVP *Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends* |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2007 Learning Curve
Suzanne
It is a useful and valuable feature - but it is a nightmare to change the button faces and you can end up with several tools all with the same button face or with button faces that are irrelevant to Word or any of its commands. A simple example is the ParaPageBreakBefore button face is a green Bullet when added to the QAT: what relevance to real life is a green bullet. It is also share by many other commands too, so you can fill the QAT with green bullets if you love green bullets. My point is that although I now believe that Ribbons (and the QAT) are a way forward, until it can be customised out-of-the-box without the need for programming skills, it falls down BADLY. Terry "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... While I agree that a customizable ribbon or tab would be helpful, it has been pointed out that you can create a specialize QAT for a specific template. Don't think, however, that I am in any way defending the loss of customizability. I haven't yet "upgraded" to Office 2007, but I'm going to be one of the loudest whiners when I do, as I have highly customized my Word 2003 UI (with some customizations probably dating back to Word 2.0). -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Paul I agree: the current implementation makes it harder for all and I cannot see what the long-term advantages are to anyone that the Ribbons are locked down so tightly. What I would like to see is the ordinary user being able to create their own 'Home' Ribbon that can be tied in with a template. On this ribbon, the user can add whatever groups they want from any of the other standard ribbons and remove/change the contents of these groups. For example, my Home ribbon would remove the Clipboard group (a real waste of screen space), remove much of the Font and Paragraph group tools (but adding a few more useful tools) and thus making loads more space for styles. Terry "Paul Gauci" wrote in message ... OK - but how about the needs of companies (large and small) who use customised styles/templates/toolbars/icons etc to standardise the presentations of letters, reports, etc? For instance, when such companies work with outsiders (say, when they outsource), all they had to do with 2003 was to provide their sub-contractors with their customised templates/toolbars/icons etc and save considerable time and energy on post writing-up formatting. Also, freelancers who work/ed for different companies using their clients' customised templates/toolbars/icons can/could be very efficient when 2003 customisations are/were well designed. It appears to me that they will have problems being as efficient with 2007. -- Paul Gauci "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: No, but that would be why customization would make it difficult to support. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... I see. So we dumb down Word to help the helpers? Terry "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... Because the help desk person is not looking at the same screen the user is, so the user is referring to buttons and menu items the IT person may not even be aware exist, much less have in his UI. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Gordon I'm not sure why this should be a support nightmare. If you use roaming profiles, surely, the customisations stay with the user. So if I log into any computer on the network, I get My Profile with My Desktop displayed and in Word I will see all my toolbars as I want to use them. Why is that a support nightmare? Terry "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... In previous versions, I always modified the Toolbars. Many of the tools I never used (such as cut, copy, past, bold, italics underline, etc.) I always dragged off and added useful tools that were hidden (such as ParaPageBreakBefore, Doc Properties, File New... and custom macros, etc.). I always like that there were always so many different ways to work in Word that allowed users to customize and work in a way that suited themselves and their principal tasks. To me, much of this choice seems to have been removed. I was privileged to be shown demos of the proposed Ribbon before it went beta and was enthusiastic as I could see that so many more commands could be made available for users, rather than having to dig deep to find the hidden nest of tools available. But I wasn't aware of how rigid the Ribbon was to be until beta testing started. I was deeply disappointed and I still am. And I will remain disappointed until the Ribbon is user customizable out-of-the-box. Terry I hear what you say, but from a support perspective in a commercial environment, a User customising ANYTHING on an individual basis turns into a support/helpdesk nightmare..... |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2007 Learning Curve
Beth/Jay/Bob
All excellent arguments and reasoning behind the Ribbon/QAT. But it needs work to make it user friendly. The user is the customer and if the customer wants, the customer should get. The music industry is suffering from its pig-headedness in not providing what customers wanted. Had they listened and reacted 5 years ago to customer's needs, illegal file sharing would probably have been a non-event and probably the growth of the Internet and Mobile downloads would be two or three years ahead of its current state. If corporates want to be able to lock down the user interface, then it should be made so that corporates can lock down rigidly. But this should not be at the expense of all the other users who want customisable Ribbons. If MS doesn't change its attitude, users will migrate to one of many alternatives. Some are free and loyalty to brand can only be pushed so far! Terry "Bob Buckland ?:-)" 75214.226(At Beautiful Downtown)compuserve.com wrote in message ... Hi Jay, In many large corporate settings (where Office apps are often run through thin clients, such as Citrix [i.e. slow no matter what G] and not used full time by users, the Ribbon seems to be better accepted as in the previous incarnation, users were locked out from doing any customization on their own that would 'stick' and the menus seemed to almost always be set to not show the full menus (many folks don't realize there are additional menu commands below the ones shown in that mode and think that with the Ribbon MS added a lot more features than just those new in 2007). With 2007 corporate users may still not be allowed to make their own QAT that 'sticks', but they do have, as Beth mentioned some help in that Template embedded QATs do seem to be allowed For help desks, with the internet and broadband and higher speed connections being more common these days it's more likely that the help desk will have the ability to 'take over' the users workstation or at least watch what they're doing to help out than in the past, but they would still be slowed by having to figure out too many unique locations for items as Office is usually not the only thing they have to support Developer's also have a learning curve. It's more unfamiliarity than degree of difficulty in some cases that prevents folks from providing customized ribbons for their users in corporate environments, and yes in both the Ribbon and the QAT there is room for improvement in 'version next' g). For the Ribbon, scaling took a lot of work on MS on the backend and DIY (do it yourself) Ribbons don't always scale as well and yes locking down the QAT graphics was an interesting choice, rather than providing a 'sandbox' area for having 'safe' graphics to use. In addition to Patrick's work, Greg's article at http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/Customize_Ribbon.htm can be an interesting exercise for a first play with making your own custom ribbon. In watching users with Office 2007, I've seen some frustration that the Themes aren't consistent in their effects across apps, but I've also seen that folks are more willing to try something/undo it/try something else with the ribbon than with menus. Menus, after you choose something, often 'go away', and unless you happened to remember what you just clicked, you have to hunt for the same spot to try again With the Ribbon, it's still there, pretty much where you left it unless you move the context point in your document, so you can try until more or less satisfied. Having had to write my own UI for programs for years, then add custom commands to WordStar and beyond, I can appreciate how much 'fun' selling and implementing then troubleshooting each of the changes within MS must have been. To their credit, MS hasn't fallen back on the 'it's version 1' (when speaking of the Ribbon) as basically, it does work very well for the most part for day in/day out tasks. The lack of use of text labels on the QAT (since one of Jensen's blog's statements was that there research said the ribbon had icons plus text because it worked better) came down, in part, to how much screen space it would take up both vertically and how many QAT items you could put across a screen with and without text. Tradeoff/settlement/compromise/lack of time to make more changes... who can say for sure ============ "Jay Freedman" wrote in message ... Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a template containing customizations and macros that are then used by hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that. Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this time so people will accept it better in the next version. Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept: distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros). -- Bob Buckland ?:-) MS Office System Products MVP *Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends* |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2007 Learning Curve
I can only hope that when I get ready to upgrade (side-by-side with 2003) I
will find that I can use Graham's instructions to import my custom buttons and button faces, including the ones Robert Franz provided for KWN, KLT, and PBB. I can't believe I got along without those buttons for so long! Not only do they save many tedious trips to the Format Paragraph dialog, but they also allow me to see at a glance what Line and Page Breaks settings are already applied to a given paragraph. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message news Suzanne It is a useful and valuable feature - but it is a nightmare to change the button faces and you can end up with several tools all with the same button face or with button faces that are irrelevant to Word or any of its commands. A simple example is the ParaPageBreakBefore button face is a green Bullet when added to the QAT: what relevance to real life is a green bullet. It is also share by many other commands too, so you can fill the QAT with green bullets if you love green bullets. My point is that although I now believe that Ribbons (and the QAT) are a way forward, until it can be customised out-of-the-box without the need for programming skills, it falls down BADLY. Terry "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... While I agree that a customizable ribbon or tab would be helpful, it has been pointed out that you can create a specialize QAT for a specific template. Don't think, however, that I am in any way defending the loss of customizability. I haven't yet "upgraded" to Office 2007, but I'm going to be one of the loudest whiners when I do, as I have highly customized my Word 2003 UI (with some customizations probably dating back to Word 2.0). -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Paul I agree: the current implementation makes it harder for all and I cannot see what the long-term advantages are to anyone that the Ribbons are locked down so tightly. What I would like to see is the ordinary user being able to create their own 'Home' Ribbon that can be tied in with a template. On this ribbon, the user can add whatever groups they want from any of the other standard ribbons and remove/change the contents of these groups. For example, my Home ribbon would remove the Clipboard group (a real waste of screen space), remove much of the Font and Paragraph group tools (but adding a few more useful tools) and thus making loads more space for styles. Terry "Paul Gauci" wrote in message ... OK - but how about the needs of companies (large and small) who use customised styles/templates/toolbars/icons etc to standardise the presentations of letters, reports, etc? For instance, when such companies work with outsiders (say, when they outsource), all they had to do with 2003 was to provide their sub-contractors with their customised templates/toolbars/icons etc and save considerable time and energy on post writing-up formatting. Also, freelancers who work/ed for different companies using their clients' customised templates/toolbars/icons can/could be very efficient when 2003 customisations are/were well designed. It appears to me that they will have problems being as efficient with 2007. -- Paul Gauci "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: No, but that would be why customization would make it difficult to support. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... I see. So we dumb down Word to help the helpers? Terry "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... Because the help desk person is not looking at the same screen the user is, so the user is referring to buttons and menu items the IT person may not even be aware exist, much less have in his UI. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Gordon I'm not sure why this should be a support nightmare. If you use roaming profiles, surely, the customisations stay with the user. So if I log into any computer on the network, I get My Profile with My Desktop displayed and in Word I will see all my toolbars as I want to use them. Why is that a support nightmare? Terry "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... In previous versions, I always modified the Toolbars. Many of the tools I never used (such as cut, copy, past, bold, italics underline, etc.) I always dragged off and added useful tools that were hidden (such as ParaPageBreakBefore, Doc Properties, File New... and custom macros, etc.). I always like that there were always so many different ways to work in Word that allowed users to customize and work in a way that suited themselves and their principal tasks. To me, much of this choice seems to have been removed. I was privileged to be shown demos of the proposed Ribbon before it went beta and was enthusiastic as I could see that so many more commands could be made available for users, rather than having to dig deep to find the hidden nest of tools available. But I wasn't aware of how rigid the Ribbon was to be until beta testing started. I was deeply disappointed and I still am. And I will remain disappointed until the Ribbon is user customizable out-of-the-box. Terry I hear what you say, but from a support perspective in a commercial environment, a User customising ANYTHING on an individual basis turns into a support/helpdesk nightmare..... |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2007 Learning Curve
"Jay Freedman" wrote in message
... On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:22:11 -0600, "Beth Melton" wrote: I asked about SQM in regards to how they ascertained users didn't use custom toolbars and such and never really got an answer. I've discovered long ago they key to obtain the answer you are seeking lies in "how" you ask your question. So I kept asking essentially the same question but a little differently each time. I finally asked the *right* question and found CEIP doesn't record programmatic actions, only "user clicks". From that I surmised add-ins/global templates that contain customized toolbars weren't recorded. And, as you noted, if in Word 2002 you already customized your toolbars for Normal.dot and simply used it for Word 2003 then your customizations wouldn't be recorded since they were already present. All provided, of course, if you even opted in to CEIP. I suspect those users who are knowledgeable enough to customize their toolbars are also those who would refrain from opting in. (I know I didn't opt in initially.) Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a template containing customizations and macros that are then used by hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that. I agree with this assessment as well. If you aren't making the modifications yourself or then customizations aren't recorded. Not to mention if one does customize their toolbars it's not something folks do daily -- it may be a onetime occurrence. Why not redesign of the menus/toolbars which also enables the ability to set specific standards. Doing so forces developers into using a specific standard for UI customizations and that's not necessarily a "bad thing". Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this time so people will accept it better in the next version. I heard that as well. I'm also recalling some discussions I had with some softies regarding add-in difficulties and the need to create some type of standards. Who knows what the prompted the decision but I think you're right, they introduced it now for things to come in the future. Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept: distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros). I think that was a bad decision too and one I complained about endlessly. (And filed a few "wishes" on). I can accept locking them for built-in commands that have associated images, but a bunch of green circles are useless. They should have enabled same customizations for commands without icons as they did macros. Also, regarding custom images, doesn't the difficulties with transparency have something to do with the inability to use custom icons? There's a bit on this topic he http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...image-faq.aspx ~Beth Melton |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2007 Learning Curve
Hi Bob,
You're right, I don't think the general user population has much understanding of either how much work was involved in overhauling the UI, or how much more the UI team wanted to do but didn't have the time or resources for. The next version, or two or three, certainly have plenty of room for improvements. s On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:26:26 -0800, "Bob Buckland ?:-\)" 75214.226(At Beautiful Downtown)compuserve.com wrote: Hi Jay, In many large corporate settings (where Office apps are often run through thin clients, such as Citrix [i.e. slow no matter what G] and not used full time by users, the Ribbon seems to be better accepted as in the previous incarnation, users were locked out from doing any customization on their own that would 'stick' and the menus seemed to almost always be set to not show the full menus (many folks don't realize there are additional menu commands below the ones shown in that mode and think that with the Ribbon MS added a lot more features than just those new in 2007). With 2007 corporate users may still not be allowed to make their own QAT that 'sticks', but they do have, as Beth mentioned some help in that Template embedded QATs do seem to be allowed For help desks, with the internet and broadband and higher speed connections being more common these days it's more likely that the help desk will have the ability to 'take over' the users workstation or at least watch what they're doing to help out than in the past, but they would still be slowed by having to figure out too many unique locations for items as Office is usually not the only thing they have to support Developer's also have a learning curve. It's more unfamiliarity than degree of difficulty in some cases that prevents folks from providing customized ribbons for their users in corporate environments, and yes in both the Ribbon and the QAT there is room for improvement in 'version next' g). For the Ribbon, scaling took a lot of work on MS on the backend and DIY (do it yourself) Ribbons don't always scale as well and yes locking down the QAT graphics was an interesting choice, rather than providing a 'sandbox' area for having 'safe' graphics to use. In addition to Patrick's work, Greg's article at http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/Customize_Ribbon.htm can be an interesting exercise for a first play with making your own custom ribbon. In watching users with Office 2007, I've seen some frustration that the Themes aren't consistent in their effects across apps, but I've also seen that folks are more willing to try something/undo it/try something else with the ribbon than with menus. Menus, after you choose something, often 'go away', and unless you happened to remember what you just clicked, you have to hunt for the same spot to try again With the Ribbon, it's still there, pretty much where you left it unless you move the context point in your document, so you can try until more or less satisfied. Having had to write my own UI for programs for years, then add custom commands to WordStar and beyond, I can appreciate how much 'fun' selling and implementing then troubleshooting each of the changes within MS must have been. To their credit, MS hasn't fallen back on the 'it's version 1' (when speaking of the Ribbon) as basically, it does work very well for the most part for day in/day out tasks. The lack of use of text labels on the QAT (since one of Jensen's blog's statements was that there research said the ribbon had icons plus text because it worked better) came down, in part, to how much screen space it would take up both vertically and how many QAT items you could put across a screen with and without text. Tradeoff/settlement/compromise/lack of time to make more changes... who can say for sure ============ "Jay Freedman" wrote in message ... Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a template containing customizations and macros that are then used by hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that. Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this time so people will accept it better in the next version. Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept: distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros). -- Bob Buckland ?:-) MS Office System Products MVP *Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends* -- Regards, Jay Freedman Microsoft Word MVP FAQ: http://word.mvps.org Email cannot be acknowledged; please post all follow-ups to the newsgroup so all may benefit. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2007 Learning Curve
*You* whine!?!?!?!?! Say it ain't so!
LOL Dan Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote: While I agree that a customizable ribbon or tab would be helpful, it has been pointed out that you can create a specialize QAT for a specific template. Don't think, however, that I am in any way defending the loss of customizability. I haven't yet "upgraded" to Office 2007, but I'm going to be one of the loudest whiners when I do, as I have highly customized my Word 2003 UI (with some customizations probably dating back to Word 2.0). "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Paul I agree: the current implementation makes it harder for all and I cannot see what the long-term advantages are to anyone that the Ribbons are locked down so tightly. What I would like to see is the ordinary user being able to create their own 'Home' Ribbon that can be tied in with a template. On this ribbon, the user can add whatever groups they want from any of the other standard ribbons and remove/change the contents of these groups. For example, my Home ribbon would remove the Clipboard group (a real waste of screen space), remove much of the Font and Paragraph group tools (but adding a few more useful tools) and thus making loads more space for styles. Terry "Paul Gauci" wrote in message ... OK - but how about the needs of companies (large and small) who use customised styles/templates/toolbars/icons etc to standardise the presentations of letters, reports, etc? For instance, when such companies work with outsiders (say, when they outsource), all they had to do with 2003 was to provide their sub-contractors with their customised templates/toolbars/icons etc and save considerable time and energy on post writing-up formatting. Also, freelancers who work/ed for different companies using their clients' customised templates/toolbars/icons can/could be very efficient when 2003 customisations are/were well designed. It appears to me that they will have problems being as efficient with 2007. -- Paul Gauci "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: No, but that would be why customization would make it difficult to support. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... I see. So we dumb down Word to help the helpers? Terry "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... Because the help desk person is not looking at the same screen the user is, so the user is referring to buttons and menu items the IT person may not even be aware exist, much less have in his UI. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Gordon I'm not sure why this should be a support nightmare. If you use roaming profiles, surely, the customisations stay with the user. So if I log into any computer on the network, I get My Profile with My Desktop displayed and in Word I will see all my toolbars as I want to use them. Why is that a support nightmare? Terry "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... In previous versions, I always modified the Toolbars. Many of the tools I never used (such as cut, copy, past, bold, italics underline, etc.) I always dragged off and added useful tools that were hidden (such as ParaPageBreakBefore, Doc Properties, File New... and custom macros, etc.). I always like that there were always so many different ways to work in Word that allowed users to customize and work in a way that suited themselves and their principal tasks. To me, much of this choice seems to have been removed. I was privileged to be shown demos of the proposed Ribbon before it went beta and was enthusiastic as I could see that so many more commands could be made available for users, rather than having to dig deep to find the hidden nest of tools available. But I wasn't aware of how rigid the Ribbon was to be until beta testing started. I was deeply disappointed and I still am. And I will remain disappointed until the Ribbon is user customizable out-of-the-box. Terry I hear what you say, but from a support perspective in a commercial environment, a User customising ANYTHING on an individual basis turns into a support/helpdesk nightmare..... |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Word 2007 Learning Curve
I'll try to avoid whining publicly, but I'm willing to bet there will be
some private moaning and gnashing of teeth. g -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Dan Freeman" wrote in message ... *You* whine!?!?!?!?! Say it ain't so! LOL Dan Suzanne S. Barnhill wrote: While I agree that a customizable ribbon or tab would be helpful, it has been pointed out that you can create a specialize QAT for a specific template. Don't think, however, that I am in any way defending the loss of customizability. I haven't yet "upgraded" to Office 2007, but I'm going to be one of the loudest whiners when I do, as I have highly customized my Word 2003 UI (with some customizations probably dating back to Word 2.0). "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Paul I agree: the current implementation makes it harder for all and I cannot see what the long-term advantages are to anyone that the Ribbons are locked down so tightly. What I would like to see is the ordinary user being able to create their own 'Home' Ribbon that can be tied in with a template. On this ribbon, the user can add whatever groups they want from any of the other standard ribbons and remove/change the contents of these groups. For example, my Home ribbon would remove the Clipboard group (a real waste of screen space), remove much of the Font and Paragraph group tools (but adding a few more useful tools) and thus making loads more space for styles. Terry "Paul Gauci" wrote in message ... OK - but how about the needs of companies (large and small) who use customised styles/templates/toolbars/icons etc to standardise the presentations of letters, reports, etc? For instance, when such companies work with outsiders (say, when they outsource), all they had to do with 2003 was to provide their sub-contractors with their customised templates/toolbars/icons etc and save considerable time and energy on post writing-up formatting. Also, freelancers who work/ed for different companies using their clients' customised templates/toolbars/icons can/could be very efficient when 2003 customisations are/were well designed. It appears to me that they will have problems being as efficient with 2007. -- Paul Gauci "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote: No, but that would be why customization would make it difficult to support. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... I see. So we dumb down Word to help the helpers? Terry "Suzanne S. Barnhill" wrote in message ... Because the help desk person is not looking at the same screen the user is, so the user is referring to buttons and menu items the IT person may not even be aware exist, much less have in his UI. -- Suzanne S. Barnhill Microsoft MVP (Word) Words into Type Fairhope, Alabama USA "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... Gordon I'm not sure why this should be a support nightmare. If you use roaming profiles, surely, the customisations stay with the user. So if I log into any computer on the network, I get My Profile with My Desktop displayed and in Word I will see all my toolbars as I want to use them. Why is that a support nightmare? Terry "Gordon" wrote in message ... "Terry Farrell" wrote in message ... In previous versions, I always modified the Toolbars. Many of the tools I never used (such as cut, copy, past, bold, italics underline, etc.) I always dragged off and added useful tools that were hidden (such as ParaPageBreakBefore, Doc Properties, File New... and custom macros, etc.). I always like that there were always so many different ways to work in Word that allowed users to customize and work in a way that suited themselves and their principal tasks. To me, much of this choice seems to have been removed. I was privileged to be shown demos of the proposed Ribbon before it went beta and was enthusiastic as I could see that so many more commands could be made available for users, rather than having to dig deep to find the hidden nest of tools available. But I wasn't aware of how rigid the Ribbon was to be until beta testing started. I was deeply disappointed and I still am. And I will remain disappointed until the Ribbon is user customizable out-of-the-box. Terry I hear what you say, but from a support perspective in a commercial environment, a User customising ANYTHING on an individual basis turns into a support/helpdesk nightmare..... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|