- Microsoft Windows chief decries standards grandstanding
- The 5 best, and 5 worst, features of Google Chrome OS
- Federal government using PS3 to crack pedophile passwords
- 10G Ethernet cheat sheet
- Top 10 free Windows tools for IT pros, at a glance
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)
Microsoft calls Office 2007's UI, 'fluent'?By Anonymous on October 14, 2008, 11:18 amMicrosoft calls Office 2007's UI, "fluent"? I call it effluent.
Reply | Read entire comment
I thought they were called "ribbons".By Anonymous on October 14, 2008, 11:17 amI thought they were called "ribbons".
Reply | Read entire comment
Another example of engineers not taking user needs into accountBy Anonymous on October 14, 2008, 11:31 amI'm sure this was an attempt to improve things, but the question is "Why?" People had learned their way around Office. They new how to navigate the tools. The...
Reply | Read entire comment
Silly gripeBy Anonymous on October 14, 2008, 11:39 am Why do you think it is called the "signature"? I wish more signatures that are a yard long and full of fluff would disappear. Yay Microsoft!
Reply | Read entire comment
Office 12 UIBy Anonymous on October 14, 2008, 11:54 amComing from: MA in Learning Psych; 20+ years in Product Mngmt; heavy experience in analyzing user requirements and UI to find that special degree of comfort and...
Reply | Read entire comment
Bringing back the old Office 2003 menusBy Mike.D. on October 14, 2008, 12:11 pmBeing somewhat a creature of habit, the ribbon interface in Office 2007 had little to offer. Like Vista, all it really seemed to do was to move around things, making...
Reply | Read entire comment
View all comments