Making the best of MS Office files
-
Incentivize non-Microsoft companies to compete at building office software
QFT. The ODF effort is a key part of that, because it allows an ecosystem of tools and libraries to develop that you can fit into, instead of having to reinvent the productivity-file-format-wheel from scratch, or go through the perilous travails of trying to reuse Office's native formats as your own.
-
Ok, I'm going to say this one more time in the hopes that it'll start sinking-in:
The file format is dictated by the features of the application.
ODF doesn't help at all for developing a competitor to Word, it only helps for developing a word processor that competes with other ODF-using word processors. You can't develop a new Word-killer feature without either: 1) ditching ODF, or 2) going through a long, involved process to modify ODF to support your feature. (And note, if you do option 2, all your ODF-using competitors will have the feature too! Oops!)
-
The file format is dictated by the features of the application.
What was the last 'killer feature' Word added? Or Excel for that matter? I haven't heard of major feature changes in either since before the Ribbon ever was a twinkle in some UX expert's eye.
The way I see it is that the best thing a productivity tool could do isn't try to come up with some juggernaut-killer feature which likely would just get ripped off by Office anyway; instead, they should focus on making the tool, you know, usable in a way that neither old-Office and most of the competing suites (too many cryptic buttons and menu items) nor new-Office (not discoverable enough, too jarring for experienced users) were/are.
-
What was the last 'killer feature' Word added? Or Excel for that matter? I haven't heard of major feature changes in either since before the Ribbon ever was a twinkle in some UX expert's eye.
They haven't added any in a long time. Isn't that exactly what we are talking about? The product being stagnant due to lack of effective competition???
They have, however, been putting a lot of work improving their usability recently.
The way I see it is that the best thing a productivity tool could do isn't try to come up with some juggernaut-killer feature which likely would just get ripped off by Office anyway;
Every feature, if it's good, will get ripped-off by someone. That's part of the game. I'm just saying that using ODF makes it impossible to play the game.
instead, they should focus on making the tool, you know, usable in a way that neither old-Office and most of the competing suites (too many cryptic buttons and menu items)
You mean like Office has been doing? Hmm!
nor new-Office (not discoverable enough, too jarring for experienced users) were/are.
The new Office interface is more productive for both new and experienced users. Microsoft knows this with confidence because they do scientific usability testing in a way virtually nobody else does anymore.
That said: productivity doesn't recognize "like". A lot of people "like" CLIs, but are far less productive than they would be if they used a GUI. A lot of people don't "like" the ribbon, but are simultaneously much more productive when using it. Microsoft isn't optimizing for "like".
-
They haven't added any in a long time.
I woudn't call the online version 'nothing'. I'm still not a fan but it is usable for basic tasks and it really does feel like office in a browser, e.g. stuff actually works similar. Most documents open and as even the blog in the OP had to admit it even works on none MS browsers.
Additionally the online/cloud stuff is the only part where there actually is competition.
-
Isn't that exactly what we are talking about? The product being stagnant due to lack of effective competition???
There's stagnation (no forward progress) and there's convergence (this tool does the task at hand well enough that it does not need to change). People do confuse the former and the latter, although I do think that Office is closer to the former unfortunately, still...
Anyway, the things that Office needs to make progress on (like making non-buggy versions of the various and sundry bug-riddled spreadsheet functions in Excel, of which there are a fair few) probably won't happen.
The new Office interface is more productive for both new and experienced users. Microsoft knows this with confidence because they do scientific usability testing in a way virtually nobody else does anymore.
For me, the Ribbon was a mixed bag, about evenly split between 'this works better' (styles snap to mind instantly) and 'OMG why can't I find this?'
Also, you can't measure productivity in the abstract, only relative to a workflow. All interfaces are designed to facilitate certain workflows over others; the Unix shell, for instance, is designed to facilitate batch processing of semi-structured text over highly interactive exploration, whereas say HyperCard is designed for interactive, exploratory RAD and rich prototyping work, but isn't exactly a great batch processor.
The Microsoft folks indeed did tons of testing on the Ribbon. The question at hand is not 'what did the tests show?' (which was indeed that the ribbon was more productive for the workflows Microsoft tested with) but 'how do the workflows the Ribbon facilitates compare to how people use Office?' This is the mixed bag I'm referring to, and is probably why people don't like the ribbon: it, instead of being a task-oriented, uniform impedance mismatch to everyone's workflow, is a process-oriented UI that strongly emphasizes some workflows over others.
I'd actually be happy with the Ribbon-style toolbar paired with a traditional menu bar; that way, you have a toolbar that's actually convenient, yet still have access to the task-oriented interface for oddball workflows.
-
The Microsoft folks indeed did tons of testing on the Ribbon. The question at hand is not 'what did the tests show?' (which was indeed that the ribbon was more productive for the workflows Microsoft tested with) but 'how do the workflows the Ribbon facilitates compare to how people use Office?' This is the mixed bag I'm referring to, and is probably why people don't like the ribbon: it, instead of being a task-oriented, uniform impedance mismatch to everyone's workflow, is a process-oriented UI that strongly emphasizes some workflows over others.
Maybe, but I'm still going to spend my life encouraging the type of work and research Microsoft did while developing it. Because that is exactly the type of thing our industry needs and hasn't been seeing since, say, 1992 or so.
It's 2014 and most major software developers are still writing their UIs by guessing what their customers want. That's bullshit. You wouldn't optimize slow-running code by "guessing" where the problem was, and you shouldn't improve usability by "guessing" what areas to improve.
-
Which was funded largely in part by google
I don't see how (a) that matters or (b) invalidates my point, which was, remember "[some]body came along and wrote a better browser and forced Microsoft to produce IE11."
-
You wouldn't optimize slow-running code by "guessing" where the problem was
Aren't you feeling optimistic this morning? IME most people do that.
-
The file format is dictated by the features of the application.
Here's what I see in Word 2007 when I do Save As and scroll through the file types:
tl;dr; STFU
-
Yeah and it loses data if you save as ODF, there's even a huge warning dialog. Ditto that with RTF and TXT and WPS, which are also on your list there.
-
Likewise in Libreoffice. I'm just saying, your feature set argument is obviously wrong.
The real reason is that they have no (or at least not big enough) incentive to support other formats.
-
Since when did anybody who picked Linux as their default operating system want anything to be easy
I do! I never get my wish though =(
-
It's 2014 and most major software developers are still writing their UIs by guessing what their customers want. That's bullshit. You wouldn't optimize slow-running code by "guessing" where the problem was, and you shouldn't improve usability by "guessing" what areas to improve.
I agree that it's BS that most UI design is shots in the dark. The rub is that trying to extrapolate from a study or set of studies to a complete UI design puts you in the same 'shots in the dark' boat. So, to do it scientifically requires every last little UI tidbit to be scrutinized at the level the Ribbon is. While I don't doubt we'd be better off for it, most middle managers would be aghast at the bill.
-
So, to do it scientifically requires every last little UI tidbit to be scrutinized at the level the Ribbon is. While I don't doubt we'd be better off for it, most middle managers would be aghast at the bill.
I have doubts. We'd have better UI, but we'd have a lot fewer programs and they'd cost more.
-
Why is everybody acting like there are no free word viewers (even provided by Microsoft)?
Last I checked, you can open word docs on Linux and be reasonably accurate in terms of content, and sending it back is reasonably accurate as well. Content formatting might change, but the content text doesn't.
You're arguing that the pretty shit should be legislated, to which I say Fuck you. Microsoft IS the standard because nobody else properly stepped up and still hasn't. It's cross platform available and basic features are fully supported.
In closing, step up or step off just stfu
-
Har, har. "Unit train" is actually a term for "this train takes one kind of lading (say coal or autos) from one origin to one destination, not being broken up in yards along the way".
- Woooooosh. (Edit: Where's the thing he quoted. Dang. Sigh. Anyhow "unit train" = one engine + one car is pretty funny to math people. Unit.)
Point B.) This reminds me of one of my favo-rite stories (waves cane)...
The folks at the company that became Xerox were trying to decide whether or not this nifty "Copier" thing would be a good business decision.
Back in the day there was "copying" but it was an expensive photographic-based process - IIRC the paper was like a dollar a sheet - in the '50s.
They had a guy wander down to the main IRS office loading dock, and, just casual-like, ask how much of that paper they used. The answer was:
"In what units? Boxcars-per-week, or what??"
Filed under: "So, yea, I bet we can some money from that..."
Edit: Actually, '50's tone: "Good news, sir! We can safely predict strong demand for our new product!"
-
You're arguing that the pretty shit should be legislated, to which I say Fuck you. Microsoft IS the standard because nobody else properly stepped up and still hasn't. It's cross platform available and basic features are fully supported.
I'm arguing that neither Microsoft, nor anyone else, has the right to out-and-out rig ISO. Because that's what they did with OOXML in response to the (reasonable) long-term concerns of interop and especially archival that the ODF group set out to solve, in response to entities raising those concerns in the first place.Anyone have some Word 1.x documents they wish to try opening with the latest version of Word?
Why is everybody acting like there are no free word viewers (even provided by Microsoft)?
Last I checked, you can open word docs on Linux and be reasonably accurate in terms of content, and sending it back is reasonably accurate as well. Content formatting might change, but the content text doesn't.
Yes, there is a free-as-in-beer viewer for .doc/.docx. Yes, LibreOffice can ingest both formats without dropping content all over the floor. (Although woe betide you if your teacher says "Use this macro-laden Excel sheet or else you get a F for the class".) It still doesn't change the issue I am raising, though.
-
Yes, it does.
You're glorious OOXML isn't solving the problems required by day to day use for business, personal, or other. Microsoft's format, tools, documents, interop does. They've even got something that transmits reasonably well between different platforms, and they have NO obligation to do so.
You're issues are imaginary, and instead of working towards fixing your imaginary problems, you want to attack a company that is the defacto supporter of home and business.
Give a reasonable alternative, and people will switch.
Know why more people aren't using libreoffice or openoffice?
IT DOESN'T FUCKING DO SHIT THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO
I've tried multiple times to switch. Doing basic things like making a fucking table of contents page takes damn near an act of god. I don't know what the groups are working on, but what it's not working on is usability enhancements of basic core functionality that lets home users take advantage of the software.
Home users drive business use. Familiar software is far more likely to be adopted as business productivity suites.
-
You, sir, are flat-out confused. I'm attacking the Office division because they showed a specific example of highly monopolistic and flatly beyond unethical behavior.
Can anyone call Microsoft and tell DevDiv to give the Office folks a good, hard lesson in 'how to play nice with standards bodies'?
And archival is not an imaginary issue, TYVM; ask your nearest archivist.
Also: did you read what I stated in this thread earlier? If not:
@tarunik said:Microsoft had the option before them to be a big boy and contribute to the group, or even abstain from the process and quietly implement ODF on the side as YADF (Yet Another Document Format) that Office supports (which is a long list, so I doubt it'd be a big deal, and it really hasn't been, save for a known issue in ODF 1.0; namely, the lack of a definition for spreadsheet formulae). They could have even plodded along, blissfully ignorant of the efforts, and I'd have been naught but mildly annoyed by it.
-
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
You're glorious OOXML
You're issues
I don't even know what the rest of the post said.
-
That's Pretty much the tl; dr;
Otherwise stated TL;MTR;
Microsoft doesn't owe anybody shit in terms of how their software produces documents. It would be completely reasonable to be 100% proprietary and unreadable to any software not their own. They are attempting to make it open so the contents of documents can be read by others, but that doesn't mean all the pretty formatting and features they support have to be handled. If you want pretty print editor, buy office. If you want functional viewing, use a free reader that's fully supported. If you want to use another application to write doc files, fuck off. You get what you pay for from the free suites.
-
Although woe betide you if your teacher says "Use this macro-laden Excel sheet or else you get a F for the class".
Practically speaking, though, if that happens, you suck it up and get Office Student and Teacher Or Whatever They're Calling It This Year edition. You're probably already spending too much on other software and textbooks (assuming college level.)
By which I just mean, outrage and whatnot is better directed at other areas, because now you're just talking about a little WTF in the part of the map that reads Here Be WTFs.
-
I don't even know what the rest of the post said.
If you can't get past illiterate stuff like that so you can attack the rest of the argument you won't last long here.
-
What if I was lying?
Filed Under: shit, spending too much time in that other thread
-
Microsoft doesn't owe anybody shit in terms of how their software produces documents. It would be completely reasonable to be 100% proprietary and unreadable to any software not their own. They are attempting to make it open so the contents of documents can be read by others, but that doesn't mean all the pretty formatting and features they support have to be handled.
I don't disagree with any of that. But that doesn't mean other organizations should be complicit. Or shouldn't lose credibility through their complicity.
-
-
Flagged for pedantic dickweed award.
-
You'll note I didn't say they should be complicit. I stated
If you don't like it, give an alternative
If you don't do anything to change it, you're not helping anything by bitching since the current market leader has no incentive to change how they are approaching things, and everybody does currently benefit from their approach.
There could be arguments on how to make things better, but that's not the thrust of this thread.
-
That's pendantic dickweed to you.
Is there anyone here who would actually object to that award?
-
Google objects.
-
Google objects.
Google's not a person, and progressives these days are all about how corporations don't get the rights of persons, so I don't care.
Also, did you mean some kind of multiple thing that belong to Google, or that the entity known as Google doesn't like it?
-
The USA treats corporations as persons, so your argument fails.
-
Is he here?
-
They are.
-
The USA treats corporations as persons, so your argument fails.
I know that. You fail reading comprehension because I specified a certain group of people who don't believe in corporate personhood (with a particular exception) because except for the exception, some of the corporations don't always agree with them.
-
I wasn't disputing it.
The point is that google could do the same for office if they were serious about it. They have the resources. While google docs is very good ... It isn't as good as office.
I honestly don't like office. But people and businesses will continue to use it until something cheaper and better comes along.
-
The point is that google could do the same for office if they were serious about it.
Sure. And for a company notable for tilting at windmills until they get bored of it, that says something. It might even say something about whether they think it's worth it or not.
Based on the Chromebook experience someone quoted in that other thread (cloud syncing eats changes made offline) they're not even serious about Google Docs.
-
Practically speaking, though, if that happens, you suck it up and get Office Student and Teacher Or Whatever They're Calling It This Year edition. You're probably already spending too much on other software and textbooks (assuming college level.)
And then you have to spool up an entire VM to run it in. (Or at least, you would if you were me.)
-
And then you have to spool up an entire VM to run it in. (Or at least, you would if you were me.)
Or you could just use Windows rather than going to all that much effort. Yeah, I know, heresy!
-
So then why are you wasting energy complaining that Microsoft basically dominate when nobody can be bothered to compete? Why are you surprised they don't even bother playing friendly with other office suites.
-
So then why are you wasting energy complaining that Microsoft basically dominate when nobody can be bothered to compete?
I'm not the one complaining about that, so I'm wasting my energy elsewhere. :)
-
It's 2014 and most major software developers are still writing their UIs by guessing what their customers want.
But we're agile!!! We can fix it in next week's build.
I wish I was kidding...
-
Anyhow "unit train" = one engine + one car is pretty funny to math people. Unit.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2545/4151647382_6809dd8fac.jpg
It's a shit concept IMO, but it exists.
-
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html
Wow. Just wow. I hit that page and my eyes screamed I've been assaulted!!!
I had to reduce the page to 67% to be readable, and found out it's a whole page of:
"Waaaa, Oh NOs, javascript used in a proprietary fashion, along with other stuff. Waaaaa, Waaaaa."
Christ on a raft with Costner.
-
outside of
" and "people who have their anti-M$ tinfoil hats glued on and only use ODF"FTFY. However my tinfoil hat is for very different reasons.
-
Christ on a raft with Costner.
That phrase in itself would merit a Like from me, but you're dissing RMS too. You're good in my book…
-
javascript used in a proprietary fashion
RMS--who I've met a couple of times--is actually pretty funny in a grim sort of way.
He's quoted in a book as having said something like "I have a problem [understanding] things that aren't true." If it weren't for the fact that so relatively few people know about that I'd suggest offering an Order of the RMS chevron on the Whooosh badge.
-
RMS--…--is actually pretty funny in a kuru sort of way.
FTFYFiled Under: If only you could get that from self-canabalism…
-
Waaaaa, Waaaaa.
That is indeed the sound a few people here make when confronted with ideas other than their own. ;)
Corporate personhood - Wikipedia
