Recent Posts
Microsoft also publishes Excel - what some have called the The Deadliest Computer Game of All.
Considering how many real-world jobs, businesses, research projects, sports statistics, lives, and plans for world dominance are 'virtualized' using Excel - and are then acted upon based on the results it furnishes - it's a pretty accurate description IMO.
And that review was brilliant!-40hz (January 20, 2012, 02:03 PM)
If 80 pixels is a big deal, why not hide the UI automatically? You can set it to auto-appear only on hover or when the ALT key is pressed. This actually takes up less real estate than the standard menu system with toolbars.-Josh (December 01, 2011, 04:42 PM)
Also don't forget that the ribbon is more than just a menu / toolbar replacement, e.g. the Galleries are a new concept, which I think is very powerful.-phitsc (December 01, 2011, 11:14 AM)
Yes, the part where you hover the mouse over a font or style selector and the text in your document temporarily assumes that style - that part is awesome. But although it came together with the ribbon, it does not require one. You could just easily have that kind of "live preview" with a menu or a toolbar.-tranglos (December 01, 2011, 02:15 PM)
On the other hand, Office 2007 had these tiny semi-buttons:
(see attachment in previous post)
I wonder how many people ever figured out you can click those. I personally know a few who never have. And these are pretty important buttons - you can't get to Font or Paragraph properties without those. Why not allow users to click the whole lower bar where the "Font" and "Paragraph" labels are? Now that would be intuitive and easy to click. Seems like no-one at Microsoft has ever read Joel Spolsky's essay on affordances - or they have read it and decided to do the opposite out of spite.
And although you can navigate to these tiny thingamajigs with the Tab key, try doing that in Word 2007, it takes at least twice as many keypresses as Alt+F (Open Format menu) and three or four Down Arrow (to navigate to "Paragraph..." or "Font..") used to take. And really, even if you see them, there is no indication of what they do. They seem to still be there in Office 2010.-tranglos (December 01, 2011, 02:15 PM)
My rule of the thumb is, if you have enough UI to fill half a dozen tabs on the ribbon, then maybe consider it. But if you're going to have a whole huge ribbon with only one tab and six buttons on it, then that's exactly what the ribbon was not designed for.-tranglos (December 01, 2011, 10:16 AM)
Thanks phitsc.if you specify 25 there, you'll never get more than 25 result items.
Yes I understood that. However, what I don't understand is :
A)
- I set 45 as the max
- I search for some term ("Denise")
- There are much more then 25 items found (e.g. : status bar says 75)
- But farr shows only a few : 32
Ok, so this could be because of what you said earlier. But there's more :
B)
- I set 100 as the max
- I search for the same term ("Denise)
- Now status bar says that it found 100 results (why ? before it said 75 and the max was set to 45)
- farr shows only a few : 49 (Why 49, which is more than the previous 32, and at the same time doesn't seem to increase proportionally -- well not in an obvious way)
In any case, setting the max displayed items to 100 or more helps getting what I want, but there's still something funny about the way windows search and farr interact.
If I search for the same term in the normal windows search interface, I get 538 results. Granted, some might be shortcuts etc., but it's still a huge difference (compared to 100 or 75). Strange-Armando (November 24, 2011, 10:41 AM)
FarrWindowsSearch will query for is the 25 (or whatever you choose) most recently changed items in the Search Index, matching your search terms. FARR will then show you however many of these as you've specified in the FARR Display Options. I think FARR will also do its own filtering, e.g. if you have two file results point at the same file (don't know if that is a practical case) it will end up only once in the list.-phitsc (November 24, 2011, 06:21 AM)
Thanks for the precisions. I got that you chose to present the most recently changed items. I'm ok with that, as long as "terms matching" has the topmost priority... Right ?-Armando (November 24, 2011, 10:41 AM)
Thanks phitsc
What's weird is that farr says (e.g.) "28 results found in 0s", but it shows only 5...
An I also compared with the normal Windows Search interface, and it does (usually) show me much more results. As the others have reported. I haven't done that many tests -- lack of time. But I can confirm that there's some problem. I never noticed before as I was mainly using it for contacts and recent emails.
So results in farr seem to be filtered in some weird way.
EDIT : I might be mistaken, but it seems that the "Max. items to search" option not only reduces the items to be shown (e.g. : 50), but also shows only a fraction of the result, no matter how many were found, and even if the number is < to the defined max. E.g. : if ws find only 28 results, it'll show 5, if ws finds 50, it'll show 20, etc.-Armando (November 23, 2011, 09:44 AM)
Strange, this only searches Outlook mail and mail contacts for me.-CGA (November 23, 2011, 07:00 AM)
... I'm actually not sure about the wording of that option -- shouldn't it be "Max items to display" ? Or maybe I'm not understanding what it does ?-Armando (November 22, 2011, 08:13 PM)
I was able to test on a different installation of Windows 7 and had more success -- get results in FARR now
It is still puzzling to me though why via the windows key, "cmd" gives the result "cmd.exe" but with FARRWindowsSearch I get nothing. Similar with "regedit".
Any ideas?-ewemoa (November 22, 2011, 07:01 PM)
Hi phitsc, I still get the EAccess violation error (mentioned in the thread earlier).-Armando (November 21, 2011, 11:53 AM)
I can't get the latest to work at all. Using Windows 7 x64. Every time I type ws a space and then anything it freezes and crashes.-justauser (November 21, 2011, 06:40 AM)
