Office 2007 UI License 281
MikeWeller writes, "Microsoft has recently announced a new licensing program for the Office 2007 user interface. This page links to the license and an MSDN Channel9 interview about the program (featuring a lawyer). The program 'allows virtually anyone to obtain a royalty-free license to use the new Office UI in a software product. There's only one limitation: if you are building a program which directly competes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the Microsoft applications with the new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free license.' What does this mean for OpenOffice? Will traditional menus/toolbars hold up to an ever-increasing number of features, or will OO be forced to take on a new UI paradigm? With the gap between OO and MS Office widening, how is this going to affect users trying to move between the two platforms?" You need to sign the license before you can get the 120-page UI implementation guidelines, which are confidential.
I think the courts have made it pretty clear (Score:5, Interesting)
This is just a clear threat to competitors that they're going to be spending millions defending frivolous law suits. Interesting that Microsoft have decided that their business model is now to sue competitors.
Re:so, what this seems to say (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I think the courts have made it pretty clear (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically what this says is, IF you download the document, you CAN'T implement the UI unless MS sign off on your implementation. But if you ignore this propagandist nonsense, you can implement any UI you like including a poorly implemented version of the Ribbon UI.
Jeez. Wake me up when it's in the Win32 API.
Menu structures are common across different models (Score:3, Interesting)
My Smarter Colleagues noticed that from the same data structure we used for the lotus menus we could build PF-key menus, modern cascading drop-down menus and right-mouse-button pop-up menus.
Which means that for any menu sequence of head->middle->middle*->tail, you can change the visual appearance of the menu without changing the application-level calls used to create it. And that in turn means you can make "ribbon menus" a user-specifiable "skin".
--dave
isn't it just a modern/fancy lotus 123 style menu? (Score:2, Interesting)
The bigger question is who cares (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:so, what this seems to say (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, I've asked folks at MS several times at conferences about the switch, and they all give a similar answer. Their research indicates that users overwhelmingly prefer the new UI over the old menu-driven approach.
It's a gutsy move, but they're sure it'll be a welcome one.
Ingenuity? (Score:2, Interesting)
The words "Microsoft" and "ingenuity" hardly belong in the same sentence. Considering the billions they allegedly spend on R&D, and I personally don't believe they really spend that much, you'd think they could deliver a better, more reliable product. MSFT has purchased its most innovative products. They haven't developed anything internally that's a home run product in nearly a decade. Their market position is more the result of file formats and OEM agreements than any creative development. They're sort of like Disney after they got rid of all the animators, costume designers and set builders. Just a shell with the name of the imaginative company they used to be.
The open source development model offers a more competitive approach to developing a UI and final product can be configured to user preferences and specific needs. There's no way a focus group will ever be able to compete with an arena where survival of the fittest determines the most useful products and configurations.
Re:The myth of Windows GUI consistency. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Compatibility (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that it contradicts what you are saying, but my experience working for many years at a Fortune 100 company is exactly the opposite. I worked as a copy writer at the regional headquarters for this outfit but spent most of my time addressing the rest of the computer-illiterate staff's technical issues--like finding documents they saved and assuring them that the color of the floppy disk was not related to its function. Why floppy disks? Because nobody could understand how to save anything on the network shares.
Don't even get me started about some of the stupid computer conversations that I had there. Needless to say, they didn't exactly make full use of the Exchange server that they had. No calendaring, no tasks, no contact lists--only email.
What the poster seems to say (Score:1, Interesting)
What does this mean for OpenOffice? Will traditional menus/toolbars hold up to an ever-increasing number of features, or will OO be forced to take on a new UI paradigm?
For starters, it means OOO will have to stop ripping off MS's ideas.
Oh, and a quick translation for the non-bullshitters out there: "forced to take on a new UI paradigm" is code speak for "creating your own ideas". Something OOO, with their "follow the leader" design model, has not displayed any ability for.
Nothing was stopping OOO from creating an innovative new interface. Aside from their own inability to innovate, of course.
Re:so, what this seems to say (Score:3, Interesting)
The Best Option: Support Both (Score:3, Interesting)
One of the big points of Open Source is to empower the user. Instead of making draconian decisions about this sort of stuff as edicts handed down from the mountain at Redmond, Open Office should be allowing users to pick any style. Their is value in making Open Office look and behave like Office 2007 or like Lotus 1-2-3 or like any number of other configurations out there. Being able to give the users a choice is what is supposed to be an advantage against Microsoft.
Re:so, what this seems to say (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not so sure it's as bad as all that. For example, look at the OOo 2.0 icons. They look great. I know an icon is barely a UI element, much less a whole UI, but you know a a regular ol' programer didn't do that. It took someone with more than a little artistic talent to pull that off.
For that matter, look at the visual elements in major Linux distros over the last few years. Visual quality and consistency have improved dramatically across the board. Some areas are still rough, but if you've ever looked at the mess that's in most Microsoft "options" menus, you know theyr'e not alone.
I have to admit that I've been lulled into looking for the next clone of an MS feature. When they put the format painter in OO.o 2 I was very pleased. But it's not the clone features that get me comming back to open source. It's the things that only those products offer.
Wasn't it tabs. popup blocking and the small footprint that got you hooked on Firefox? MS didn't have 'em. I know I like being able to have more than one true window in OO.o spreadsheet. The guys in Redmond make me use a single window.
Now microsoft is following Firefox's lead on tabs. They're actually following open source. Tabs are a UI element. Clearly OS has some ability to lead.
BTW, I agree with you. Microsoft has some very bright people who often do a great job at making thier UIs work for you. Sometimes they don't. Often, even if they do, they take their good, sweet time to get there. The OS community can bang out an improvement almost at the speed of thought, and then ramp up evolutionary improvements in short months, or even weeks. I think that if it's a priority for OS to lead, MS is going to have no choice but to follow. I also think if we simply follow, we'll never be given the opportunity to lead.
TW
Re:so, what this seems to say (Score:4, Interesting)
Today there are lots of inexperienced computer users who still manage to:
So, sure... some people will feel lost at first, but I think a complete UI overhaul is much manageable now than it was before the coming of the net.
Re:so, what this seems to say (Score:3, Interesting)
The transition from 2003 to 2007 is probably an initial five minutes to look around the ribbon and see what's on each of them. In my experience, you find the vast majority of features you've ever used pretty quickly. Then you start seeing other features that you might start using (whereas you never saw them in 2003, so you never thought to start using them).
Re:so, what this seems to say (Score:3, Interesting)
Being someone who develops a product that is heavily integrated into Office wherever possible (because our customers demand it) I could actually see using some of these components. I know there's a lot of MS hate, but Office 2007's UI will become known - sooner or later - and riding their giant monopolistic wave to success isn't bad business.
It may make you feel dirty, I can understand it. From a business perspective, with a product that we want to be seen as made for the business professional - it's not an entirely off-the-table idea.
Re:Pure marketing without meat (Score:3, Interesting)
This whole concept got me thinking about UI history overall. Let's take a romp through history of some of the UI advancements over the decades:
Function Labels
Old-school "green screen" standards such as IBM's user interface guidelines included the use of label displays for function keys (where supported by hardware), standardization of keystroke actions such as "ALT-F4" closing a window, and recommendations for font highlighting to indicate mandatory/optional data, read/write access, primary keys, etc. "ALT-F4" works to this day in virtually every GUI there is.
Text Menus
Part of the fundamental UI models going back as far as function keys with screen labels, if not farther.
Spreadsheet Interface
Dan Briklin's Visicalc. 'nuff said. The man never did get reasonable financial rewards for what he did.
Edit Regions
Text boxes have been around as long as green screens, as well as field validation. They're just fancier now.
Drop-down Menus
Not quite as old as the green screen, these were a display-saving alternative to screens listing menu options. Power users would just enter a dot-suffix navigation of menu options: 1.3.5.8 might fire up an "Add Customer" screen, for example.
Pop-up Menus
I think these started with X-11, maybe even Xerox PARC. Certainly it was a key feature of Motif and OpenLook, which preceded MS Windows substantially. They were also present in the Amiga UI, several years before even Windows 3.1 was released.
Audio Feedback
ANSI7 defines CTRL-G as bell. Some form of ping, alert, sound effect, or other attention-getting audio signal has been around since the teletypewriter. WAVs and MP3s are just fancier ways of doing the same thing that applications have done since the Commodore PET and Apple II.
Images and Icons
How far back does the BMP go? Higher resolution, compressed, even primitive animations via GIF go back much farther than any GUI. Once upon a time, only an image viewer displayed an image, not the UI.
Drawers
Drawers of icons have been around at least since Motif.
Toolbars
Tear-aside and pinnable menus have been around since at least OpenLook. Whether icons are displayed beside, above, below, under, or to the right of a text label, the metaphor is far from new.
Wizards
I laughed myself silly when someone years ago presented the "Wizard" as a "new" way of doing things. Ever enter a timesheet on an old mainframe form application? GECOS email (I think that's what it was called)? Wizards are just old fashioned step-by-step forms prettified.
Bubble Help
Green screens would display a help line to the bottom or top of the screen. Dialogue-box help showed up with the green screen as well. Even vi and emacs had help systems, though they weren't triggered by the now-common F1. Pretty laughable that anyone thought the particular shape of the dialogue box displaying the text was important, isn't it?
Mouse Gestures
The idea was around for a long time. I think I even saw prototypes of pie menus for the Amiga or the Mac, but I'm not sure. Pie selection is closely related to gestures -- select via stroke direction instead of precise mouse placement. Interesting, but not comfortable for everyone.
3D User Interface
SGI. 'nuff said.
Personally, I can't imagine paying royalties to use the idea of a Motif icon/menu drawer opening sideways. It's kind of obvious.
Re:IOW: MS == Hypocrites (Score:2, Interesting)