Word 2007 Learning Curve

[Terry Farrell]

Gordon

I'm not sure why this should be a support nightmare. If you use roaming
profiles, surely, the customisations stay with the user. So if I log into
any computer on the network, I get My Profile with My Desktop displayed and
in Word I will see all my toolbars as I want to use them. Why is that a
support nightmare?

Terry

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

Because the help desk person is not looking at the same screen the user is,
so the user is referring to buttons and menu items the IT person may not
even be aware exist, much less have in his UI.

 

[Terry Farrell]

I see. So we dumb down Word to help the helpers?

Terry

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

No, but that would be why customization would make it difficult to support.

 

[JMB]

Herb and all other responders:

Thanks for all the lively feedback. I'm almost as overwhelmed by it as I
am/was by the new and improved Office 2007 interface. I say "am/was" because
I've been sweating hard in recent days to experiment and get familiar with
the new interface and I think I'm slowly getting used to it. Sint ut sunt aut
non sint - accept them as they are or deny their existence. Denying their
existence is a luxury that Bill Gates et al won't let us afford ...

A few observations:
- Customizing toolbars etc. has never worked well for me. Partly a personal
thing, and partly because it tends to make interactions with company provided
user support even more complicated than they already are.
- Everything in Office 2007 is very visual now - almost exclusively. That
may work well for most people but not for all. Like me for instance. I just
liked the option in previous versions to use text-based pull-down menus
without having to glance all over the screen to find some cute little darn
icon until my eyes start to hurt.
- Some new features I really like, e.g. the long overdue citation insertion
and bibliography creation will come in very handy.
- Pity they still they did not fix some of the chart issues (funky aspect
ratio issues). Guess that will never be addressed.

Thanks again!

 

[Paul Gauci]

OK - but how about the needs of companies (large and small) who use
customised styles/templates/toolbars/icons etc to standardise the
presentations of letters, reports, etc?

For instance, when such companies work with outsiders (say, when they
outsource), all they had to do with 2003 was to provide their sub-contractors
with their customised templates/toolbars/icons etc and save considerable time
and energy on post writing-up formatting.

Also, freelancers who work/ed for different companies using their clients'
customised templates/toolbars/icons can/could be very efficient when 2003
customisations are/were well designed. It appears to me that they will have
problems being as efficient with 2007.

 

[Terry Farrell]

Paul

I agree: the current implementation makes it harder for all and I cannot see
what the long-term advantages are to anyone that the Ribbons are locked down
so tightly.

What I would like to see is the ordinary user being able to create their own
'Home' Ribbon that can be tied in with a template. On this ribbon, the user
can add whatever groups they want from any of the other standard ribbons and
remove/change the contents of these groups.

For example, my Home ribbon would remove the Clipboard group (a real waste
of screen space), remove much of the Font and Paragraph group tools (but
adding a few more useful tools) and thus making loads more space for styles.

Terry

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

While I agree that a customizable ribbon or tab would be helpful, it has
been pointed out that you can create a specialize QAT for a specific
template. Don't think, however, that I am in any way defending the loss of
customizability. I haven't yet "upgraded" to Office 2007, but I'm going to
be one of the loudest whiners when I do, as I have highly customized my Word
2003 UI (with some customizations probably dating back to Word 2.0).

 

[Jay Freedman]

Just a couple more observations in the mix:

The "Ribbons are locked down" statement needs qualification. The
built-in Ribbon groups aren't customizable, but it _is_ possible to
remove any/all built-in groups and replace them with customized groups
that might be either slight modifications of the built-ins or
completely different. To do this, though, you need to get somewhat
familiar with RibbonX, which is what Patrick Schmid tries to do at
http://www.pschmid.net/office2007/ribbonx.

Yes, this is harder than customizing Word 2003 and earlier, and thus
not end-user-friendly. I suspect that's intentional, at the request of
the aforementioned large companies. They can afford to have someone
learn RibbonX, create customized templates for their needs, and have
everyone in the company forced to use the same customizations
(including IT support).

Eventually someone will come up with an end-user tool that makes
Ribbon changes easier. Patrick's RibbonCustomizer is close, but still
not as easy as many would like. Probably it will have to wait until MS
fixes some of the bugs and limitations in RibbonX itself.

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I suspect that if toolbar/menu customization had been possible only through
VBA in the past, we'd hear a lot less moaning about the need to learn
RibbonX for Word 2007 customization.

The real problem is that MS depended too much on SQM data that suggested
users never customized the UI, overlooking the fact that (a) UI
customization, if captured at all by CEIP (and they weren't very confident
about that), would be captured only once, and that existing customizations
(created before Word 2002/2003) would not be represented at all. This led
the developers to believe that "users never customize the UI," which may
still be true for the majority (especially the large portion whose UI is
locked down by IT), but they overlooked a large and vocal minority who do
customize.

 

[Beth Melton]

I asked about SQM in regards to how they ascertained users didn't use custom
toolbars and such and never really got an answer. I've discovered long ago
they key to obtain the answer you are seeking lies in "how" you ask your
question. So I kept asking essentially the same question but a little
differently each time. I finally asked the *right* question and found CEIP
doesn't record programmatic actions, only "user clicks". From that I
surmised add-ins/global templates that contain customized toolbars weren't
recorded. And, as you noted, if in Word 2002 you already customized your
toolbars for Normal.dot and simply used it for Word 2003 then your
customizations wouldn't be recorded since they were already present. All
provided, of course, if you even opted in to CEIP. I suspect those users who
are knowledgeable enough to customize their toolbars are also those who
would refrain from opting in. (I know I didn't opt in initially.)

BUT, I also know that in corporate environments and help desk situations,
trying to help a user over the phone or in email isn't easy to begin with.
Combine that with nonstandard toolbars/menus and that makes things even more
difficult. In this scenario I do understand the desire for a command to
always be present in a specific place.

Another aspect to consider is while it was easy to customize the
menus/toolbars in the previous versions, if you're an add-in developer you
can really mess things up! I think of the countless questions we encounter
about missing menus/menu items (not all of them can be attributed to user
error), menus that didn't open when clicked, the overpopulation of menu
items, the prompt to save Normal.dot each time you exit Word, the lack of
the prompt (in the case of the Adobe add-in which simply discarded all
customizations made to Normal.dot), and so on. I forget what the ratio is
for each question asked what the number of others with the same question is
but I recall it's quite a bit. The number of users encountering problems
that stem from the same exact issue (primarily add-ins) indicate there is
indeed a problem that needed fixing. So how does MS go about fixing it?? Why
not redesign of the menus/toolbars which also enables the ability to set
specific standards. Doing so forces developers into using a specific
standard for UI customizations and that's not necessarily a "bad thing".

For the last year or so I've been doing numerous presentations on Office
2007 and have the opportunity to talk with a LOT of users. The majority used
the Office apps in the past and they ranged from average users to advanced
users. What I found was an overwhelming number were thrilled with QAT
customizations. They love the ease in simply right-clicking to add or remove
a command/group. To be perfectly honest, I'm digging the ease in customizing
the QAT too. Basically what I have is the first half looks a lot like the
old Standard toolbar (New, Open, Save, Close, Print, Print Preview, Cut,
Copy, Paste, Undo, Redo, along with groups of commands I frequently use,
such as the Font group, Paragraph group, Styles group, and Page Setup group.
The rest changes depending on the task at hand. My Ribbon is usually
minimized and seldom used. I tend to treat it as my "pool" of commands for
quickly adding to my QAT. I also have a few templates that are more
task-oriented than those used for formatting/boilerplate. All they contain
is a customized QAT. So if I'm creating a I'll use my Mail Merge template.
If creating a form I'll use my Forms template. That way I have the tools I
frequently use at my fingertips simply by creating new document.

I think the key to the new UI involves a bit of letting go of the old ways
(IOW, don't attempt to force Word 2007 to work exactly like previous
versions) and adapting new ways, which, for me, have actually been more
efficient.

Please post all follow-up questions to the newsgroup. Requests for
assistance by email cannot be acknowledged.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Beth Melton
Microsoft Office MVP

Coauthor of Word 2007 Inside Out:
http://www.microsoft.com/MSPress/books/9801.aspx#AboutTheBook

Word FAQ: http://mvps.org/word
TechTrax eZine: http://mousetrax.com/techtrax/
MVP FAQ site: http://mvps.org/

 

[Jay Freedman]

I asked about SQM in regards to how they ascertained users didn't use custom
toolbars and such and never really got an answer. I've discovered long ago
they key to obtain the answer you are seeking lies in "how" you ask your
question. So I kept asking essentially the same question but a little
differently each time. I finally asked the *right* question and found CEIP
doesn't record programmatic actions, only "user clicks". From that I
surmised add-ins/global templates that contain customized toolbars weren't
recorded. And, as you noted, if in Word 2002 you already customized your
toolbars for Normal.dot and simply used it for Word 2003 then your
customizations wouldn't be recorded since they were already present. All
provided, of course, if you even opted in to CEIP. I suspect those users who
are knowledgeable enough to customize their toolbars are also those who
would refrain from opting in. (I know I didn't opt in initially.)

Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been
pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a
template containing customizations and macros that are then used by
hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that.

BUT, I also know that in corporate environments and help desk situations,
trying to help a user over the phone or in email isn't easy to begin with.
Combine that with nonstandard toolbars/menus and that makes things even more
difficult. In this scenario I do understand the desire for a command to
always be present in a specific place.

Another aspect to consider is while it was easy to customize the
menus/toolbars in the previous versions, if you're an add-in developer you
can really mess things up! I think of the countless questions we encounter
about missing menus/menu items (not all of them can be attributed to user
error), menus that didn't open when clicked, the overpopulation of menu
items, the prompt to save Normal.dot each time you exit Word, the lack of
the prompt (in the case of the Adobe add-in which simply discarded all
customizations made to Normal.dot), and so on. I forget what the ratio is
for each question asked what the number of others with the same question is
but I recall it's quite a bit. The number of users encountering problems
that stem from the same exact issue (primarily add-ins) indicate there is
indeed a problem that needed fixing. So how does MS go about fixing it?? Why
not redesign of the menus/toolbars which also enables the ability to set
specific standards. Doing so forces developers into using a specific
standard for UI customizations and that's not necessarily a "bad thing".

Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad
thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to
the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar
paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but
I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this
time so people will accept it better in the next version.

For the last year or so I've been doing numerous presentations on Office
2007 and have the opportunity to talk with a LOT of users. The majority used
the Office apps in the past and they ranged from average users to advanced
users. What I found was an overwhelming number were thrilled with QAT
customizations. They love the ease in simply right-clicking to add or remove
a command/group. To be perfectly honest, I'm digging the ease in customizing
the QAT too. Basically what I have is the first half looks a lot like the
old Standard toolbar (New, Open, Save, Close, Print, Print Preview, Cut,
Copy, Paste, Undo, Redo, along with groups of commands I frequently use,
such as the Font group, Paragraph group, Styles group, and Page Setup group.
The rest changes depending on the task at hand. My Ribbon is usually
minimized and seldom used. I tend to treat it as my "pool" of commands for
quickly adding to my QAT. I also have a few templates that are more
task-oriented than those used for formatting/boilerplate. All they contain
is a customized QAT. So if I'm creating a I'll use my Mail Merge template.
If creating a form I'll use my Forms template. That way I have the tools I
frequently use at my fingertips simply by creating new document.

Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept:
distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green
circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary
bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros).

 

[Bob Buckland ?:-\)]

Hi Jay,

In many large corporate settings (where Office apps are often run through thin clients, such as Citrix [i.e. slow no matter what
<G>] and not used full time by users, the Ribbon seems to be better accepted as in the previous incarnation, users were locked out
from doing any customization on their own that would 'stick' and the menus seemed to almost always be set to not show the full menus
(many folks don't realize there are additional menu commands below the ones shown in that mode and think that with the Ribbon MS
added a lot more features than just those new in 2007).

With 2007 corporate users may still not be allowed to make their own QAT that 'sticks', but they do have, as Beth mentioned some
help in that Template embedded QATs do seem to be allowed

For help desks, with the internet and broadband and higher speed connections being more common these days it's more likely that the
help desk will have the ability to 'take over' the users workstation or at least watch what they're doing to help out than in the
past, but they would still be slowed by having to figure out too many unique locations for items as Office is usually not the only
thing they have to support

Developer's also have a learning curve. It's more unfamiliarity than degree of difficulty in some cases that prevents folks from
providing customized ribbons for their users in corporate environments, and yes in both the Ribbon and the QAT there is room for
improvement in 'version next' <g>). For the Ribbon, scaling took a lot of work on MS on the backend and DIY (do it yourself)
Ribbons don't always scale as well and yes locking down the QAT graphics was an interesting choice, rather than providing a
'sandbox' area for having 'safe' graphics to use.

In addition to Patrick's work, Greg's article at
http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/Customize_Ribbon.htm
can be an interesting exercise for a first play with making your own custom ribbon.

In watching users with Office 2007, I've seen some frustration that the Themes aren't consistent in their effects across apps, but
I've also seen that folks are more willing to try something/undo it/try something else with the ribbon than with menus. Menus,
after you choose something, often 'go away', and unless you happened to remember what you just clicked, you have to hunt for the
same spot to try again With the Ribbon, it's still there, pretty much where you left it unless you move the context point in your
document, so you can try until more or less satisfied.

Having had to write my own UI for programs for years, then add custom commands to WordStar and beyond, I can appreciate how much
'fun' selling and implementing then troubleshooting each of the changes within MS must have been. To their credit, MS hasn't fallen
back on the
'it's version 1' (when speaking of the Ribbon) as basically, it does work very well for the most part for day in/day out tasks.

The lack of use of text labels on the QAT (since one of Jensen's blog's statements was that there research said the ribbon had icons
plus text because it worked better) came down, in part, to how much screen space it would take up both vertically and how many QAT
items you could put across a screen with and without text. Tradeoff/settlement/compromise/lack of time to make more changes... who
can say for sure

============
Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been
pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a
template containing customizations and macros that are then used by
hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that.


Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad
thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to
the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar
paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but
I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this
time so people will accept it better in the next version.

Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept:
distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green
circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary
bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros).>>
--

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

 

[Terry Farrell]

Suzanne

It is a useful and valuable feature - but it is a nightmare to change the
button faces and you can end up with several tools all with the same button
face or with button faces that are irrelevant to Word or any of its
commands. A simple example is the ParaPageBreakBefore button face is a green
Bullet when added to the QAT: what relevance to real life is a green bullet.
It is also share by many other commands too, so you can fill the QAT with
green bullets if you love green bullets.

My point is that although I now believe that Ribbons (and the QAT) are a way
forward, until it can be customised out-of-the-box without the need for
programming skills, it falls down BADLY.

Terry

 

[Terry Farrell]

Beth/Jay/Bob

All excellent arguments and reasoning behind the Ribbon/QAT. But it needs
work to make it user friendly.

The user is the customer and if the customer wants, the customer should get.
The music industry is suffering from its pig-headedness in not providing
what customers wanted. Had they listened and reacted 5 years ago to
customer's needs, illegal file sharing would probably have been a non-event
and probably the growth of the Internet and Mobile downloads would be two or
three years ahead of its current state.

If corporates want to be able to lock down the user interface, then it
should be made so that corporates can lock down rigidly. But this should not
be at the expense of all the other users who want customisable Ribbons. If
MS doesn't change its attitude, users will migrate to one of many
alternatives. Some are free and loyalty to brand can only be pushed so far!

Terry

Hi Jay,

In many large corporate settings (where Office apps are often run through
thin clients, such as Citrix [i.e. slow no matter what
<G>] and not used full time by users, the Ribbon seems to be better
accepted as in the previous incarnation, users were locked out
from doing any customization on their own that would 'stick' and the menus
seemed to almost always be set to not show the full menus
(many folks don't realize there are additional menu commands below the
ones shown in that mode and think that with the Ribbon MS
added a lot more features than just those new in 2007).

With 2007 corporate users may still not be allowed to make their own QAT
that 'sticks', but they do have, as Beth mentioned some
help in that Template embedded QATs do seem to be allowed

For help desks, with the internet and broadband and higher speed
connections being more common these days it's more likely that the
help desk will have the ability to 'take over' the users workstation or at
least watch what they're doing to help out than in the
past, but they would still be slowed by having to figure out too many
unique locations for items as Office is usually not the only
thing they have to support

Developer's also have a learning curve. It's more unfamiliarity than
degree of difficulty in some cases that prevents folks from
providing customized ribbons for their users in corporate environments,
and yes in both the Ribbon and the QAT there is room for
improvement in 'version next' <g>). For the Ribbon, scaling took a lot of
work on MS on the backend and DIY (do it yourself)
Ribbons don't always scale as well and yes locking down the QAT graphics
was an interesting choice, rather than providing a
'sandbox' area for having 'safe' graphics to use.

In addition to Patrick's work, Greg's article at
http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/Customize_Ribbon.htm
can be an interesting exercise for a first play with making your own
custom ribbon.

In watching users with Office 2007, I've seen some frustration that the
Themes aren't consistent in their effects across apps, but
I've also seen that folks are more willing to try something/undo it/try
something else with the ribbon than with menus. Menus,
after you choose something, often 'go away', and unless you happened to
remember what you just clicked, you have to hunt for the
same spot to try again With the Ribbon, it's still there, pretty much
where you left it unless you move the context point in your
document, so you can try until more or less satisfied.

Having had to write my own UI for programs for years, then add custom
commands to WordStar and beyond, I can appreciate how much
'fun' selling and implementing then troubleshooting each of the changes
within MS must have been. To their credit, MS hasn't fallen
back on the
'it's version 1' (when speaking of the Ribbon) as basically, it does work
very well for the most part for day in/day out tasks.

The lack of use of text labels on the QAT (since one of Jensen's blog's
statements was that there research said the ribbon had icons
plus text because it worked better) came down, in part, to how much screen
space it would take up both vertically and how many QAT
items you could put across a screen with and without text.
Tradeoff/settlement/compromise/lack of time to make more changes... who
can say for sure

============
Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been
pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a
template containing customizations and macros that are then used by
hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that.


Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad
thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to
the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar
paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but
I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this
time so people will accept it better in the next version.

Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept:
distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green
circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary
bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros).>>
--

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I can only hope that when I get ready to upgrade (side-by-side with 2003) I
will find that I can use Graham's instructions to import my custom buttons
and button faces, including the ones Robert Franz provided for KWN, KLT, and
PBB. I can't believe I got along without those buttons for so long! Not only
do they save many tedious trips to the Format Paragraph dialog, but they
also allow me to see at a glance what Line and Page Breaks settings are
already applied to a given paragraph.

 

[Beth Melton]

Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been
pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a
template containing customizations and macros that are then used by
hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that.

I agree with this assessment as well. If you aren't making the modifications
yourself or then customizations aren't recorded. Not to mention if one does
customize their toolbars it's not something folks do daily -- it may be a
onetime occurrence.

Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad
thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to
the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar
paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but
I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this
time so people will accept it better in the next version.

I heard that as well. I'm also recalling some discussions I had with some
softies regarding add-in difficulties and the need to create some type of
standards. Who knows what the prompted the decision but I think you're
right, they introduced it now for things to come in the future.

Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept:
distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green
circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary
bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros).

I think that was a bad decision too and one I complained about endlessly.
(And filed a few "wishes" on). I can accept locking them for built-in
commands that have associated images, but a bunch of green circles are
useless. They should have enabled same customizations for commands without
icons as they did macros. Also, regarding custom images, doesn't the
difficulties with transparency have something to do with the inability to
use custom icons? There's a bit on this topic here:
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/11/27/ribbonx-image-faq.aspx

~Beth Melton

 

[Jay Freedman]

Hi Bob,

You're right, I don't think the general user population has much
understanding of either how much work was involved in overhauling the
UI, or how much more the UI team wanted to do but didn't have the time
or resources for. The next version, or two or three, certainly have
plenty of room for improvements. <s>

Hi Jay,

In many large corporate settings (where Office apps are often run through thin clients, such as Citrix [i.e. slow no matter what
<G>] and not used full time by users, the Ribbon seems to be better accepted as in the previous incarnation, users were locked out
from doing any customization on their own that would 'stick' and the menus seemed to almost always be set to not show the full menus
(many folks don't realize there are additional menu commands below the ones shown in that mode and think that with the Ribbon MS
added a lot more features than just those new in 2007).

With 2007 corporate users may still not be allowed to make their own QAT that 'sticks', but they do have, as Beth mentioned some
help in that Template embedded QATs do seem to be allowed

For help desks, with the internet and broadband and higher speed connections being more common these days it's more likely that the
help desk will have the ability to 'take over' the users workstation or at least watch what they're doing to help out than in the
past, but they would still be slowed by having to figure out too many unique locations for items as Office is usually not the only
thing they have to support

Developer's also have a learning curve. It's more unfamiliarity than degree of difficulty in some cases that prevents folks from
providing customized ribbons for their users in corporate environments, and yes in both the Ribbon and the QAT there is room for
improvement in 'version next' <g>). For the Ribbon, scaling took a lot of work on MS on the backend and DIY (do it yourself)
Ribbons don't always scale as well and yes locking down the QAT graphics was an interesting choice, rather than providing a
'sandbox' area for having 'safe' graphics to use.

In addition to Patrick's work, Greg's article at
http://gregmaxey.mvps.org/Customize_Ribbon.htm
can be an interesting exercise for a first play with making your own custom ribbon.

In watching users with Office 2007, I've seen some frustration that the Themes aren't consistent in their effects across apps, but
I've also seen that folks are more willing to try something/undo it/try something else with the ribbon than with menus. Menus,
after you choose something, often 'go away', and unless you happened to remember what you just clicked, you have to hunt for the
same spot to try again With the Ribbon, it's still there, pretty much where you left it unless you move the context point in your
document, so you can try until more or less satisfied.

Having had to write my own UI for programs for years, then add custom commands to WordStar and beyond, I can appreciate how much
'fun' selling and implementing then troubleshooting each of the changes within MS must have been. To their credit, MS hasn't fallen
back on the
'it's version 1' (when speaking of the Ribbon) as basically, it does work very well for the most part for day in/day out tasks.

The lack of use of text labels on the QAT (since one of Jensen's blog's statements was that there research said the ribbon had icons
plus text because it worked better) came down, in part, to how much screen space it would take up both vertically and how many QAT
items you could put across a screen with and without text. Tradeoff/settlement/compromise/lack of time to make more changes... who
can say for sure

============
Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been
pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a
template containing customizations and macros that are then used by
hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that.


Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad
thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to
the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar
paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but
I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this
time so people will accept it better in the next version.

Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept:
distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green
circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary
bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros).>>
--

Bob Buckland ?
MS Office System Products MVP

*Courtesy is not expensive and can pay big dividends*

 

[Dan Freeman]

*You* whine!?!?!?!?! Say it ain't so!

LOL

Dan

While I agree that a customizable ribbon or tab would be helpful, it
has been pointed out that you can create a specialize QAT for a
specific template. Don't think, however, that I am in any way
defending the loss of customizability. I haven't yet "upgraded" to
Office 2007, but I'm going to be one of the loudest whiners when I
do, as I have highly customized my Word 2003 UI (with some
customizations probably dating back to Word 2.0).

 

[Suzanne S. Barnhill]

I'll try to avoid whining publicly, but I'm willing to bet there will be
some private moaning and gnashing of teeth. <g>