[IxDA Discuss] Critiquing the Office 2007

[Todd Zaki Warfel]

On Nov 28, 2006, at 12:48 PM, David Malouf wrote:
There is a lot of published detail that is quite convincing about how  
they came to this design and what problems they are hoping to solve  
from earlier Office designs.

It's convincing about the problems they were trying to solve, but not  
convincing about the approach they took to solve them. In other  
words, I understand the problems they were trying to solve, but don't  
think they went about it in the correct way.

1. Their first problem is with the application. From the article on  
MS's own site:
"...Now that the programs do so much more, the menus and toolbars  
system does not work as well. Too many program features are too hard  
for many users to find. For this reason, the overriding design goal  
for the new user interface is to make it easier for people to find  
and use the full range of features these applications provide. In  
addition, we wanted to preserve an uncluttered workspace that reduces  
distraction for users so they can spend more time and energy focused  
on their work."

Okay, their first problem is the approach of quantity over quality.  
They just don't get it. More isn't better. Exposing 55 different  
actions on the outset for word processing seems a bit overkill.  
Quality over quantity.

Also, I don't find this very "webby" at all except to say that  
"webby" means conventionless and this being a new convention without  
a lot of precident would confirm that.

It's very web-like in it's approach to use a web-like tab metaphor to  
arrange the ribbon. MS isn't innovating here, they're recycling a  
convention that's been used on the web for about a decade now. I'm  
not saying that there's anything wrong w/tabs on the web, they work  
for websites, it just seems like they're going backwards instead of  
innovating and moving forwards.

Lastly, the ribbon is only a small part of the changes they've done  
to office and to look at the Ribbon as the only major change to me  
feels also very surface as a critique.

I'm simply commenting on the ribbon as that was the main focus of the  
article on MS's own site.

They did take a tactile "task-based" approach, which I agree with.  
We've used that, tested it, and it has proven to perform well for the  
applications we've designed. But performance testing is more than  
just "Can they access 132 features faster than the prior version?"  
It's really about total productivity. And if that interface is  
getting in the way of them working w/their document instead of  
getting out of the way, then that's a problem.

It is possible to do both - provide access to the features and get  
out of the way. This approach is just too in your face, which again,  
is in opposition to their goal:

"...will feature a streamlined, uncluttered workspace that minimizes  
distraction and enables people to achieve the results they want more  
quickly and easily."

My own take after using Office 2007 almost exclusively for a few  
months now is that while the beta was buggy the premises were very  
very sound.

1. See before you do is REALLY helpful.

Yes, this is one of our guiding principles we refer to as "Predict  
before you click." So, live preview is great.

2. The tabs and associated ribbon as a way of presenting things in a  
more discoverable fashion does work over time. It has a learning  
curve, but that curve definitely pays off.

I think grouping is a good presentation model. I just think they  
could have taken a better approach and put the "ribbon" to the right  
and not eaten up additional precious vertical space. MM and Adobe  
have used tabs to group things for years. In fact, I think Adobe  
holds a patent on that model (at least on tear away and regroupable  
tabs). But their approach of putting these at the fringe of the  
screen (edges) versus the top works better. The functions shouldn't  
be the focus - they're an accessory. MS is making them the focus,  
which is on opposition to their stated goals.

3. text formatting widgets as overlay within the text editing space  
is GREAT! No longer having to go "all the way" back to the top for  
the toolbar to do things like bullets and alignment and other primary  
formatting changes is brilliant.

With palettes at the side you don't have to go all the way to the top.

...Things that I miss from the Mac Office 2004 version is the right  
panel palettes akin to Adobe software. Since our screens are wider  
than they are high and since Word and PPT docs seem to be vertically  
focused, using this right space seemed to work better than the  
ribbon....

That's my point. And I'm not sure I agree with Excel documents being  
more horizontal. Most of the Excel documents we create as well as the  
ones we get from clients tend to be more vertical in nature - maybe  
10-30 columns wide (wider than Word docs), but hundreds to thousands  
of rows long.

Over all, licensing aside, I really like the new version of Office.  
It is a bold move for a company that has been locked with its legacy  
for way too long in the Windows space. They did 1000's of hours of  
research for this project, and I wouldn't want to be so quip with  
snubbing it out of hand.

I agree it's bold. I just see it as a step backwards in many ways. I  
do see and agree with their challenges, I just think they took the  
wrong approach - more is better, expose more. Their stated goal is  
uncluttered, but that's not what they produced. And I don't deny that  
they did 1000s of hours of research for this project, but having  
spoken with several researchers at MS, I know the disconnect between  
the research data they provide and what gets implemented.

Personally, I think a company with their presence has a duty to their  
customers to create better application design than they do. MS just  
doesn't get design. Apple does. Mercedes does. Adobe does sometimes,  
more than MS, less than Apple. MS is like the Chrysler of the  
software industry - they can't make quality, so they try and focus on  
sexy. But MS can't even get that right.

There is so much potential for them. They're just missing the boat.

Consider me an idealist if you will, but I believe that interaction  
design can be better than it is in most applications today. And I for  
one, will keep fighting the good fight.

PS. While I do think that Apple's Pages application excels over MS  
Word in many ways, I think the palettes used in Pages are not a good  
design solution. They're not efficient for moving between options for  
formatting, especially in Keynote. I did recently learn of an  
undocumented feature that allows you to have multiple palettes open  
at once, which helps, but it's still not optimal.


Cheers!

Todd Zaki Warfel
Partner, Design & Usability Specialist
Messagefirst | designing and usability consulting
--------------------------------------
Contact Info
Voice:	(215) 825-7423
Email:	todd at messagefirst.com
AIM:	twarfel at mac.com
Blog:	http://toddwarfel.com
--------------------------------------
In theory, theory and practice are the same.
In practice, they are not.