New answers tagged

2

If you look at it more closely, most of the redundancy consists of different "access vectors" to the same functionality. You may be able to achieve the same thing through the menu, through a context menu, a toolbar button or a hotkey – but you are unlikely to find multiple menu items or multiple hotkeys for the same thing. These access vectors cater to ...


2

scottishwildcat's answer already touched on Jensen Harris's excellent blog posts about the "new Office UI" (the Ribbon debuting in Office 2007), but there is one article which I think is particularly pertinent, titled "No Distaste for Paste": Early on, we were toying with the idea of not having buttons for Cut/Copy/Paste in the Ribbon. Everyone “knew” ...


4

Microsoft's Jensen Harris wrote an extensive series of blog posts about the MS Office 2007 UI design as it evolved, which went into a great deal of detail about (what was then) the radical new ribbon design, why they kept what they kept, and why they changed what they changed. Obviously a little dated now, but well worth a read.


1

Wordprocesors such as MS Word and text editors such as Notepad ++ have to cater for many different users. The extra functions to cater for all of those other users are comparatively cheap to implement, the extra features not needed by the majority is refereed to as software bloat. As someone above mentioned "normal" users only use something like 5% of the ...


2

Many ways to access functions are always good. Take this text editor as example. You can write bold text at least in three different ways. Select the B icon on the toolbar. Type Ctrl+B. Write two asteriscs (*) before and after the text to be emphasized. Nice.... I recently had one of the worst user experiences using latest MS Word versions (2010 ...


11

Keyboard shortcuts The fastest. Tool bars It's the fastest if it is impractical to set a keyboard shortcut for everything. And if it wasn't an editor, people sometimes just don't want to use a keyboard for whatever reasons. Context menus They are more likely showing what the users intended to do. Changing the tool bars too much on the fly may distract ...


102

If a user can't find an option or feature, then it doesn't exist There has to be some means by which a user who is looking for a feature can reasonably expect to find it, and by which users can browse features to learn what is available. Well-designed menus are really good at this. Clusters of related buttons and displays too, especially with tool tips. ...


12

Often this can be summed up with 2 words. Backwards Compatibility The original Word users likely migrated from WordPerfect.. Which was very keyboard focused cause when you type that's where your hands are. Thus when Word first had its menus and toolbars they had to support hot keys too. When they came out with "personalized menus" where options not used ...


8

It's simply very painful to remove features from established software. Featuritus is often a marketing advantage. The initial redundancy of being able to invoke an action via menu or keyboard is proven useful pattern - some people prefer to use the mouse (menu) and some prefer the keyboard. The menus are more discoverable but the keyboard is faster. This ...


30

You'd probably needs someone who works at Microsoft to answer this one, but from the outside observer, there are a number of reasons why this might be the case: They cater for a very diverse group of users: think about the audience and users of Microsoft products and perhaps this is a way to accommodate all the different ways that people might use the ...



Top 50 recent answers are included