- How to use electrical outlets and cheap lasers to steal data
- The botnet world is booming
- NTIA seeks volunteers to review broadband applications
- The 10 dumbest mistakes network managers make
- What's driving this university to IPv6? Going green
Mich Kabay takes a high-level view of security issues and provides resources to help safeguard your corporate and personal security.
Earlier this year, I was writing an e-mail message using Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 and clicked on the button for adding one of my signature blocks.
Presto! Most of my message disappeared! Investigation and testing showed that the behavior was unpredictable; sometimes, only the existing default signature was replaced by the new signature but occasionally the program became confused and wiped out portions of the text as well.
I tried in vain to find a problem report on the Microsoft site about this peculiar behavior. Using my status as a Network World columnist, I was able to get through to a press relations officer representing Microsoft Office products, and had a pleasant conversation about what turned out to be a usability issue.
During that conversation, I pointed out that the observed normal behavior -- replacing the previous signature block -- was new to Outlook 2007 and represented what I felt to be a presumption about both the limitations of users (obviously incompetent to delete a redundant signature block) and mental rigidity by the designers, who were tricked by the name of the feature into believing that signature blocks should be used only for signatures.
On the contrary, I said, I had long used the signature block feature as a macro facility, storing dozens of predefined texts in the signature list and selecting them at will. In addition, why would it seem reasonable to designers to assume that a signature block would necessarily be replaced instead of added to? Why would they make the choice for the user never to have components of signature blocks stored separately, to be combined at will?
I admitted that macro facilities in Office 2007 were far better than in previous versions of the software suite. We can now easily create and manage blocks of text, favorite headers and footers, and even text boxes and other objects for storage and retrieval. For more details of these useful functions and others in Word 2007, see a guide by my colleague Prof. Rich Huebner and myself.
Our conversation then turned to another irritating aspect of Office 2007: the absence of a backward-compatible user interface. As most readers know, the Office 2007 suite has a radically different user interface, called the Microsoft Office Fluent user interface (UI), in which
M. E. Kabay, PhD, CISSP-ISSMP, specializes in security and operations management consulting services. CV online.
Comments (17)
That doesn't change the fact...By Sorwen on April 3, 2009, 11:47 amLike other I wish you would have quoted more from the email, but I still don't believe it. That doesn't change the fact that they removed much used functionality...
Reply | Read entire comment
2007 is terrible. Maybe we have a reason to learning to use a nBy Anonymous on February 5, 2009, 6:01 amLook we all use Microsoft because we took years getting used to it. We know where things are located and so on. Now all has changed. Learning the new menu is...
Reply | Read entire comment
I think it was a much needed redesignBy Anonymous on October 24, 2008, 9:08 amIt took me a few weeks to get used to the new interface but I have say they did a good job, if you give it a chance. On the rare occasions that I have to use Office...
Reply | Read entire comment
Office 2007 By Anonymous on October 16, 2008, 12:14 pmI have to come down on the side of ARROGANCE!
Reply | Read entire comment
It seems the arrogance is yours.By Anonymous on October 16, 2008, 11:16 amYou as much as admit in he article that you are using the signature block for a purpose that it wasn't intended to server, and then you complain about it not working...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments