But the new ribbon sucks.

I’ve been using it daily for months (Word, Powerpoint, Excel), and I consistently stumble on the same functions over and over again. I doubt I will ever master it. And I’m an interface designer!

When I want to center text both horizontally and vertically, I can always find the horizontal centering, but have to search for quite some time to find the vertical centering.

I consistently to this day scan all of the available options in the ribbon looking for things.

Just yesterday I couldn’t figure out how to change the paragraph style for some text without looking for 3 to 4 minutes.

When I want to print a page, I have to remind myself that it’s under the big Microsoft circle button. And there are so many more…

Bottom line, for me at least, nothing is automatic. Nothing is natural. Learnability is poor. It’s as if I’m looking at a bag of goodies and my eye has to scan through all of them to find the particular piece of candy I want.

If the problems were all a result of change, that would be one thing. But I’ve been using Office 2007 long enough to exclude change as a problem. If the changes were learnable I would have certainly learned them by now. I believe the problems stem from the following:

1) visual density/complexity

There is just too much to process on the screen. It’s a Swiss Army Knife with every tool exposed (well, not all of them). Not only is it too much, but the density, the proximity and variety, make it difficult to process quickly or to associate a function with a location. For example, it’s impossible to mentally associate upper-middle with paragraph styles because upper-middle is too broad and would include many other functions. My mind must process the ribbon each time rather than jump to a location.

2) anticipated functionality

The designers chose (through testing and usage data I’m sure) what functions to display prominently and where to display them. Whatever criteria they used leaves me with less than half of what I need visible on the screen at any given time to accomplish what I need to do. So I wind up searching for what I need — everytime. In my experience, anytime I’m asked to anticipate what users will want to do, I hesitate. True, very often you have to do it to some degree, but it’s challenging to get right. And the degree to which this was done with the ribbon, in my opinion, made it an impossible goal to achieve.

We (designers) all make mistakes. I recently designed a navigation system that I thought was innovative and efficient. In testing it failed miserably and I had to redesign it. What amazes me given what I know about the Office redesign, and the amount of work that went into it (along with the great minds that contributed), is that they must have gotten good test results and I can’t fathom how. I personally would have failed.

I would love to hear comments from others on their experiences. I haven’t heard many positive remarks personally (except regarding the context-sensitive right-click menus, which I think are excellent).

No related posts.

Microsoft’s Inductive User Interface

MSDN (the Microsoft Developers Network) has a short introduction to a relatively new trend in the way Microsoft thinks about Interface Design.

Inductive User Interface (IUI for short) is a term that describes the collection of methods and guidelines for designing interfaces that, according to Microsoft, are easier to follow than the current generation of software products are.

According to Microsoft, IUI gained traction as a design process as a result of the research they’ve done on actual users performing tasks on their products. In short, they found that a number of important assumptions that are commonly made by User Experience practitioners are incorrect. They found that, contrary to the commonly held notion, most users are unable to successfully perform even basic computer tasks. The article stated 3 key reasons as to why they have concluded that software is hard to use:

* User’s don’t understand the software’s conceptual model. From the original article:

“The interface design for most current software products assumes that users will understand a conceptual model that the designers carefully crafted. Unfortunately, most users don’t seem to ever acquire a mental model that is thorough and accurate enough to guide their navigation. These users aren’t dumb – they are just very busy and overloaded with information. They do not have the time, energy, or desire to wonder about a conceptual model for their software.”

* Even expert users never master common interface tasks. From the original article:

Designers know that new users may have trouble at first, but expect these problems to vanish as users learn common tasks. Usability data indicates this often doesn’t happen. In one study, researchers set up automated equipment to videotape users at home. The tapes showed that users focusing on the task at hand do not necessarily notice the procedure they are following and do not learn from the experience. The next time users perform the same operation; they may stumble through it in exactly the same way.

* Every piece of functionality on a screen takes effort to figure out how to use. From the article:

Most software products are designed for (the few) users who understand its conceptual model and have mastered common procedures. For the majority of customers, each feature or procedure is a frustrating, unwanted puzzle. Users might assume these puzzles are an unavoidable cost of using computers, but they would certainly be happier without this burden.

Most current software GUI’s aren’t addressing these problems. Instead, assuming the user’s (1) are familiar with standard Interface controls (2) have the time or the desire to learn the software’s conceptual model (3) Are willing to put up with a steep learning curve for additional functionality rather than use a more basic, yet simpler product.

As a result is what Microsoft calls the Deductive User Interface (see image). An Inductive User Interface is one whose screens require the user to figure out what can be done, and how to do it. The more time spent trying to figure out what can be done, the less energy and patience the user has left to actually perform them.

Microsoft’s solution is to design interfaces that induce, or lead, the user through one task at a time. As such, the computer screen should act not unlike an expert standing over the user’s shoulder, directing them through one screen at a time. The four essential ingredients to designing an IUI are:

1. Focus each screen on a single task.
Don’t try to accommodate multiple distinct and possibly unrelated tasks onto one screen. This will potentially overwhelm the typical user, in order to satisfy the expert, or speed user.

2. State the task.
Part of identifying a task, is stating it, clearly. This sounds elementary, but there is actually a lot of literature on the advantages of compact, even terse language in interface design. IUI screen title should use natural language and state the exact task at hand, using verb / object phrases. The example Microsoft gives in the article is from it’s redesign of Microsoft Money: One of the original screen title’s was this too general “Account Details”, whereas the redesigned screen title was “Change account setup”-much clearer.

3. Make the screen’s contents suit the task.
Once users have read the screen title they will proceed directly below, to the contents of the screen, IUI’s make that transition effortless, as the tasks associated with the screen are intuitive and natural, corresponding directly with the title (or primary task).

4. Offer links to secondary tasks.
Unlike the Wizard, that ubiquitous and often controversial feature of many a Microsoft product, IUI’s aren’t meant to be modal, and according to Microsoft, aren’t intended to impede the expert user. Adding links to secondary tasks allows the user some flexibility in the way he/she goes about performing their tasks.

Criticisms:
The web is full of interfaces that exhibit many of these same characteristics for a few reasons:

* Relatively slow reaction times as commands are frequently sent over the internet and processed remotely

* Products need simple interfaces so as to flatten learning curves, to thwart the relatively quick abandonment resulting from the democratic, highly competitive nature of the web

Microsoft calls the IUI design process an extension of the Web -Style Interface, and a few bloggers have commented that there isn’t really much new here. Just a rehashing of tried and true design practices applied to the desktop model.

Additionally, there has been much discussion in the blogshpere on the relative merits and disadvantages of IUI. Most comments have lamented IUI’s similarities with Wizards, which have been rightly blamed for dumbing down the population of computer users by unnecessarily shielding them from any complexity, and preventing them from learning.

Related posts:

1. Reviewing User Interfaces
2. Cisco’s new CTO comments on the importance of user interface design
3. An online directory of tools for user interface design