Other Software > Developer's Corner
Ribbon UI - is it really THAT good?
ewemoa:
Side seems nicer for screens that are not so tall.
barney:
I had been refraining from comment, but might as well add my own two (2) pennies ;).
My biggest complaint with the ribbon is screen real estate - it takes a significant amount compared to a menu or even a toolbar. (That's generic, not application specific, btw.) And while you folk without vision impairment might well be able to discern each discrete icon and recognize its function :up:, older or visually impaired folk may not have that luxury :down:. Oh, yeah, those same icons are not intuitive, they have to be learned :(.
But my biggest gripe is screen real estate :mad:. Recently discontinued a program I'd been using for years for that very reason. They added a ribbon which stole a minimum of four (4) lines of vertical dimension. That's four (4) lines of information that can no longer be viewed w/o scrolling. OK, the ribbon can be minimized to some extent, but that's just more work - clicks, shortcuts, or the like - that has to be done, consuming more time that could be devoted to the project at hand.
MS was notorious when I was in IT for changing the menu structure in every new release of Office, and the ribbon strikes me as one more unwarranted change, just so you'll know it's a new version. I can see some usefulness in, say, a graphics program, but for me and some of my contemporaries, it is a production hindrance in most of the software that we've seen utilize it.
That said, there are also a number of folk known to me that absolutely adore it. To me, it seems a lot like the Web 2.0 groundswell, where everyone had to convert their sites to a new format and appearance lest they seem behind the times, change for the sake of change. That has never been a good reason to alter a working UI.
In the long run, I'll prolly have to live with it, just as with Web 2.0. And, as Renegade has pointed out, it's like the old Miller Lite beer commercials of, "Great taste!! Less filling!!" But as long as there's a choice, a menu system (with a single-line toolbar, if available) will be my choice. I want an interface that does not get in the way.
IainB:
+1 from me for just about all of what @barney says. :Thmbsup:
Especially:
My biggest complaint with the ribbon is screen real estate - it takes a significant amount compared to a menu or even a toolbar. (That's generic, not application specific, btw.) And while you folk without vision impairment might well be able to discern each discrete icon and recognize its function :up:, older or visually impaired folk may not have that luxury :down:. Oh, yeah, those same icons are not intuitive, they have to be learned :(.
But my biggest gripe is screen real estate :mad:. Recently discontinued a program I'd been using for years for that very reason. They added a ribbon which stole a minimum of four (4) lines of vertical dimension. That's four (4) lines of information that can no longer be viewed w/o scrolling. OK, the ribbon can be minimized to some extent, but that's just more work - clicks, shortcuts, or the like - that has to be done, consuming more time that could be devoted to the project at hand.
MS was notorious when I was in IT for changing the menu structure in every new release of Office, and the ribbon strikes me as one more unwarranted change, just so you'll know it's a new version. I can see some usefulness in, say, a graphics program, but for me and some of my contemporaries, it is a production hindrance in most of the software that we've seen utilize it.
-barney (December 02, 2011, 01:32 PM)
--- End quote ---
Criterion #7a - Use - Ergonomics (and efficiency) - (see below) is, for me and from experiences of many users arguably the single most important factor for user acceptance and continued use of a piece of software. If the UI is a pig, then the Criterion #11 - Trade-off/compromise - fails as well.
SpoilerI am very critical of the quality, design and purposes of most new technology. I tend towards a minimalist approach. The technology that I acquire usually has to meet some general benefit and function criteria. I usually put it through a PMI (Plus, Minus, Interesting - per De Bono) review before I acquire it. The PMI will cover these pretty basic requirements:
* #1: Input: Does it improve my current processes of data/information/knowledge gathering?
* #2: Processing (includes Output): Does it improve my current processing methods?
* #3: Storage/backup: Does it improve my current processes of storage or backup/recovery?
* #4: Quality: Is it technically sound, well-designed and well-made for its purpose?
* #5: Support: Is it likely to have some reasonable degree of continuing support?
* #6: Reliability: Can I trust the provider to be delivering something of reasonable quality and that he will not rip me off (i.e., make a victim of the customer)?
* #7a: Use - Ergonomics (and efficiency): Does it at least meet my current ergonomic requirements?
* #7b: Use - Control: Will I have full, free and unencumbered control over the technology, to use as I need/please?
* #8: Cost: What is the cost, and does it seem reasonable?
* #9: Change: Will the use of the technology effect/necessitate a change for the better in the way I do things?
* #10: Deficiencies: How is it deficient in light of the above criteria, or in any other way?
* #11: Trade-off/compromise: What deficiencies are worth accepting in order to realise the improvements/benefits of using this technology?
-IainB (November 30, 2011, 12:16 PM)
--- End quote ---
ewemoa:
I don't suppose a whole lot survives that list these days...
As a side note, +1 for PMI :)
IainB:
I don't suppose a whole lot survives that list these days...
-ewemoa (December 02, 2011, 08:44 PM)
--- End quote ---
Haha. Yes, you are probably right - but then that's a good thing, I think. Your selection process using those criteria (or similar) can be quite speedy. You can narrow the field down rapidly because the failure rate is so high. It narrows things down to just a few choices at most.
SpoilerIt is a pretty tough list. I developed it from work I did over several years helping clients to define their requirements criteria for software selection. The thing about that list is that it forces you to see, for example, that though some aspect of a proggy may stink, the rest of it is quite good if not ruddy great, so you can deliberately make a trade-off/compromise - and you do it wittingly.
Thus, after the proggy has been purchased/developed/licenced by the client, they don't go around saying "Oh but this/that proggy stinks!" - because the response will be "Yes, and we knew that when we bought it, but the compromise/trade-off was an acceptable business risk".
Software selection or requirements identification can be a complex and bias-laden business. For clients, I therefore tend to recommend that they use a weighted table and panel selection to average out the bias (per Kepner-Tregoe).
Where it's just for myself and not a client though, it is a bit different. For example, I use FARR, CHS, Process Tamer and SSC from DC - have tried a few others also, but those are the main ones that I persist in using. Some of these have passed through my criteria checklist and failed at various points. However, since I am talking about my requirements here, I am prepared to use a less-than-perfect proggy if it is in ß, because I can get a rough idea of the direction it is being taken in by the developer(s), and if that direction looks like it could potentially meet my requirements down the line, then I will tend to stick with the proggy (that's compromise/trade-off).
I also have the freedom/flexibility to experiment with prototypes - at least for a short time.
Occasionally you trip over an apparent stroke of genius - such as the built-in SQL search capability in CHS, for example. I kid you not, that got me really excited.
But the Ribbon? Seems like another possible case of The Emperor's New Clothes to me.
My list is pragmatic at least, and the Ribbon fails big time on Criterion #7a - Use - Ergonomics (and efficiency).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version