Maybe there's a reason why ribbon-style components haven't really taken off outside of core Microsoft products. I don't think the ribbon is actually that great-looking and I don't think it's that functional.
I'm also a fan of a LO forging it's own identity. For far to long Open Office strove to mimic MS Office in look-and-feel.
One of the main designers ran a blog explaining the design process. Even if you hate the ribbon, the explanation of how they came to it (heavily driven by telemetry, eye tracking studies, etc) is pretty cool. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2008/03/12/the-story...
I couldn't go back to taskbars and task panes after watching that.
I think the sibling comment is right---the ribbon makes a lot of sense when you have tons and tons of commands.
My issue with LO is that it doesn't work on complex spreadsheets and powerpoints. I had spreadsheets corrupted and I just had to turn away from LO and go back to Office. I was much happier in LO, but alas I cannot stay.
It was introduced 8 years ago. It is hardly new anymore.
While going to the ribbon 8 years ago was a struggle, I couldn't go back now. The context aware parts, realtime previews, and just organisation is too good.
Unfortunately LibreOffice now feels cluttered and overly busy by comparison. That's more because Libre/Open Office has stood still, largely based on Office 9x rather than trying anything new themselves.
I'm not saying they should copy everything Microsoft does. I am saying that they should evolve themselves and look at where the industry is headed. For example look at all of the UI concepts from the web and touch devices, they've introduced a number of new ideas none of which Libre/Open Office have adopted.
If I wanted to use LibreOffice on my Surface Pro, I couldn't, no touch UI at all. That's a little disappointing.
I can make due and get things done but when I have the choice, I go for a traditional UI. I prefer a regular Menu Bar.
I'm not saying that it sucks or that it shouldn't exist or that no one should use a ribbon. I'm just saying that I don't like ribbons and will continue to use standard interfaces.
Note: Some of this was an exaggeration to drive home the point of how bad the ribbon interface sucks.
http://www.mlponies.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05...
Icons without text labels work ONLY for frequently performed tasks with an obvious visual representation.
For everything else text and icons is probably optimal.
If you can use both of those -- and I'm certain you can -- then I don't see why something that simply combines tabs and toolbar icons is such problem.
Obviously 2003 to 2007 was a big deal due to the introduction of the ribbon, but we're taking something that happened eight years ago.
Personally, FOSS or not, I simply don't like the ribbon style menu.
I've added my most used Word functions to the quick access bar, and some features are provided by the ghost menus that appear by the cursor, and I know a load of keyboard shortcuts. All of which means I very rarely open the ribbon. But when I do need it, it's orders of magnitude better than the rat's nest of menus and task panes we had before.
If Windows doesn't have the same thing already built in, I'd guess there must be some add-ons that do the same thing.
I'd speculate that this patent application provided at least a small amount of hesitation towards the FOSS community implementing a similar interface.
And if LO ends up also using a ribbon, I'll move on to something else.
I am forced to use it at work, so there's nothing I can do about that but FLOSS is all about user empowerment and choice so I don't think I'll ever use it at home.
I'll stay with an old version of the package if upgrading means having the ribbon foisted upon me.
I like the idea of having an option to select a Ribbon interface or a Standard interface. That way, everyone can get what they like.
Don't down vote people simply because you disagree with them. Just because you don't agree with their opinion doesn't mean it should be hidden from others. Use the down vote to hide comments that don't add to the discussion.
To be honest, I got angry and clicked the downvote arrow without sufficient consideration, then thought (since I couldn't undo it) that the civil thing to do was to explain.
EDIT: s/like your/like/g (unintentional ad-hominem)
PG has said that downvote to disagree is acceptable.
Can you point to anything in the guidelines or introductions or faqs about not downvotig for disagreement?
Since it's impossible to eliminate downvotig for disagreement you may as well just let it happen.
I've advocated your same guidelines in the past, as they promote a healthy site/forum, but they are not HN's guidelines. PG has actually encouraged the antithesis of your guidelines in the past, so I'm compelled to tell you as much.
Edit: ah. Everyone assumed I was talking about ggparent's spiritual beliefs. Amazing how a sole personal pronoun can alter intent.
The celebrations come when there are significant improvements, and there have been plenty of those. The (web-inspired) tabbed Office ribbon was a big one. Sorry they moved your cheese but the rest of the world isn't going to stop progressing even if you do.
So, it doesn't work now?
The main question would be 'how much more productive one can be now than before?'. It would be nice if there were independent quantative studies on this - as word-processor use is a central part of most governments administrative functions I'd imagine that one can't move for the vast number of such studies ... lol.
I'm guessing that the UI changes between Wordstar and Office 2015 amount to a tiny change in the time needed both for training and useful production of word-processed documents. When it comes to spreadsheets I can see things have probably moved on - at least in speed of processing if nothing else.
I'd love to ask, of the top 100 functions used - how many weren't in office applications 5 years ago, 10 years ago? How has the average time per word in production of business letters changed (reduced?) over time and what specific [versions of] applications caused the greatest change?
If you're just typing simple text documents, the current Word is not going to save a massive amount of time over WordStar, but it will save some thanks to spelling corrections etc. And even a few seconds per hour per worker can represent a lot of value for large organizations.
If you're doing an essay or a brochure with headlines in different fonts, double-column text, embedded pictures, math equations etc, then the time savings will be massive. Just the ability to move a pic while text flows around it provides huge benefits.
When my son was in his early teens, I watched him use Microsoft Office to create complex documents that would have taken an IBM PROFS mainframe user weeks, or might have been impossible. His homework looked more professional than IBM's corporate documents.
I guess there are plenty of workers who use Word at the same level as they used WordStar, or who reckon that (back on topic!) LO is just as good. (Yes, LO is almost as good as Word if you just want to replace WordStar.)
But are those our criteria? Should we ignore the fact that people who have open minds and a willingness to explore (like children) can quickly and easily do new things that they can't?
I'd prefer to have a product with a crappy UI that can interoperate with everybody else seamlessly, than one with a great, simple UI that can't.
There are groups that investigate the risks. EUSPRIG (European Spreadsheet Risk interest Group) has some great documents. http://www.eusprig.org/quotes.htm
I don't know if anyone is testing the main spreadsheet software with fuzzer-like tools; or if there are any mass audits of spreedsheets. Both would be useful.
I was not complaining about progress (which, in this case, I would simply call change). I was merely responding to drzaiusapelord's complaint about LibreOffice not 'keeping up' with MS Office by expressing my appreciation for the existence of a more 'classical' alternative.