Why is there a TV icon in Microsoft Word?
-
@Aaron said:
@bstorer said:
Why is it that Hostess Fruit Pies are considered pies, but Hot Pockets aren't?
This is for backward compatibility with the legacy Hot Pockets Pizza Minis and Croissant Crust products, which do not support pie scenarios. Fruit Pies were a new product line so Hostess was free to eschew the limited and outmoded Snack API and push their new Dessert architecture.
Not surprisingly, a number of previous Hot Pockets users who upgraded to Fruit Pie have complained of insufficient meat and/or cheese in the Pie, claiming that simply melting a slice of American cheese on top is a clumsy and inconvenient and altogether unacceptable workaround.
+1
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
I think the take-home lesson on this is that different people work in different ways, and while the new UI may be better for some (indeed, hopefully most) users, there are others for whom it is worse.
I will never understand this kind of comment from an IT professional. I can work efficiently in Office 2003 and after a few weeks of using it, I now can also work efficiently in Office 2007. Just learn your tools.
-
@bjolling said:
I will never understand this kind of comment from an IT professional. I can work efficiently in Office 2003 and after a few weeks of using it, I now can also work efficiently in Office 2007. Just learn your tools.
I can't. I tried for 2 months and couldn't get used to it.
-
@bjolling said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
I think the take-home lesson on this is that different people work in different ways, and while the new UI may be better for some (indeed, hopefully most) users, there are others for whom it is worse.
I will never understand this kind of comment from an IT professional. I can work efficiently in Office 2003 and after a few weeks of using it, I now can also work efficiently in Office 2007. Just learn your tools.Oh, I have and do. And I can now work in Office 2007 about as efficiently as I could in Office 2003. But the fact remains that this efficiency is only possible because I bypass the ribbon for half or more of the commands I use regularly, putting them on the Quick Access toolbar instead. Otherwise I would spend much more time switching tabs and using long combinations (e.g. Office > Send > Email, three clicks instead of a single click on the corresponding icon on the Quick Access toolbar; or Office > New, go all the way to the opposite corner of the screen because the dialog box is HUGE and click Create instead of a single click on the toolbar icon). So my point is that the ribbon doesn't seem like such a good idea if the only way to use it efficiently is to set up the QAT like an Office 2003 style toolbar and use that instead of the ribbon for much or even most of your work.
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Office > New, go all the way to the opposite corner of the screen because the dialog box is HUGE and click Create instead of a single click on the toolbar icon).
Wait, WTF are you talking about? The "New" button is literally right below the Office button:
Furthermore, if 2 clicks is too much for you then ctrl+N will create you a new document.
-
@tster said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Office > New, go all the way to the opposite corner of the screen because the dialog box is HUGE and click Create instead of a single click on the toolbar icon).
Wait, WTF are you talking about? The "New" button is literally right below the Office button:
Furthermore, if 2 clicks is too much for you then ctrl+N will create you a new document.
Clicking "New" does bring up the template dialog by default, so he's technically correct. The problem with his argument, of course, is that Word 2003 did something very similar if you went to File->New: it opened up an idiotic sidebar on the right side of the screen, which many first-time or occasional users wouldn't even notice, and they'd sit there hitting "new" again and again unable to fathom why it wasn't responding. If you just wanted to create a new blank document then you always had to press Ctrl+N. Yes, there was a toolbar button for it in Word 2003, which was inconsistent with the menu item and therefore confusing, and if you really desperately need it in 2007 (I never used it in 2003) then go ahead and add it to the toolbar, or use the link I posted a week ago to customize the ribbon if you know for sure that you'll never ever want to use a template.
Even then, Scarlet's being a drama queen, because you don't need to move the mouse all the way to the bottom right in the dialog, you can just double-click on the template. Or just press the Enter key, because the blank template is selected by default. Really I think he's just looking for things to be mad about; I find it hard to believe that he's unable to figure this stuff out on his own.
-
@Aaron said:
@tster said:
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Office > New, go all the way to the opposite corner of the screen because the dialog box is HUGE and click Create instead of a single click on the toolbar icon).
Wait, WTF are you talking about? The "New" button is literally right below the Office button:
Furthermore, if 2 clicks is too much for you then ctrl+N will create you a new document.
Clicking "New" does bring up the template dialog by default, so he's technically correct. The problem with his argument, of course, is that Word 2003 did something very similar if you went to File->New: it opened up an idiotic sidebar on the right side of the screen, which many first-time or occasional users wouldn't even notice, and they'd sit there hitting "new" again and again unable to fathom why it wasn't responding. If you just wanted to create a new blank document then you always had to press Ctrl+N. Yes, there was a toolbar button for it in Word 2003, which was inconsistent with the menu item and therefore confusing, and if you really desperately need it in 2007 (I never used it in 2003) then go ahead and add it to the toolbar, or use the link I posted a week ago to customize the ribbon if you know for sure that you'll never ever want to use a template.
Even then, Scarlet's being a drama queen, because you don't need to move the mouse all the way to the bottom right in the dialog, you can just double-click on the template. Or just press the Enter key, because the blank template is selected by default. Really I think he's just looking for things to be mad about; I find it hard to believe that he's unable to figure this stuff out on his own.
So in other words, both Office 2003 and 2007 have stupid new file behavior. But 2007 is worse (due to having to hit more commands) than 2003.
-
@DescentJS said:
So in other words, both Office 2003 and 2007 have stupid new file behavior. But 2007 is worse (due to having to hit more commands) than 2003.
No, it's 2 clicks (Office --> New) or two keystrokes (ctrl+N).
-
@tster said:
@DescentJS said:
So in other words, both Office 2003 and 2007 have stupid new file behavior. But 2007 is worse (due to having to hit more commands) than 2003.
No, it's 2 clicks (Office --> New) or two keystrokes (ctrl+N).
Still slower than 2003 (one click).
-
@DescentJS said:
So in other words, both Office 2003 and 2007 have stupid new file behavior. But 2007 is worse (due to having to hit more commands) than 2003.
Stupid according to you, perhaps. That's not an argument, it's an opinion, and one which you can't prove is widely held. That's precisely the kind of snide elitism that motivates people who do actual research (such as the Office team) to ignore the likes of you.
And you do not have to hit more commands in 2007, it's exactly the same; the difference is that in 2007 the "commands" (templates) are much more plainly visible and easier to click on.
And you STILL ignore the obvious solution of pressing Ctrl+N, which is faster than any mouse-driven approach. How did you get your head so far up your ass?
-
@Aaron said:
How did you get your head so far up your ass?
I don't know, but I bet it was easier to do in Office 2003.
-
@DescentJS said:
Still slower than 2003 (one click).
One click takes much longer than 2 keystrokes. lern2think.
-
@bstorer said:
@Aaron said:
How did you get your head so far up your ass?
I don't know, but I bet it was easier to do in Office 2003.
-
This thread is epic.
At least we've all learned to never buy from "ClockInSoftware.com". https://www.clockinsoftware.com/ImageHandler.ashx?Gallery=53&Picture=308&thumb=0&raw=1
Runtime error, ahoy!
But yah, the thing that Office 2007 detractors don't have is actual data. Wheras Microsoft has this blog: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/ full of actual data and summaries of usability studies that Microsoft did during the development of Office 2007.
(I'd turn those URLs into links, but natch the "Link" button doesn't work today.)
-
@blakeyrat said:
This thread is epic.
At least we've all learned to never buy from "ClockInSoftware.com". https://www.clockinsoftware.com/ImageHandler.ashx?Gallery=53&Picture=308&thumb=0&raw=1
Runtime error, ahoy!
clockinsoftware.com is just a domain I own which I pointed to my home computer where I am playing with web development by creating an image gallery. This is most interesting, but it appears that the image I uploaded earlier has disappeared! very crazy.
Anyways, here is the image (try 2):
-
Now that I've seen it, I'm disappointed. I was expecting something more like this:
-
@blakeyrat said:
Now that I've seen it, I'm disappointed. I was expecting something more like this:
Looks like someone took advantage of the recent Steam sale on the Civ games.
-
Yeah, and then the next week, Steam put the whole 2K pack (which includes all the Civ IV games) on sale for the same thing I paid for just the Civ IV games. Fuckers.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Yeah, and then the next week, Steam put the whole 2K pack (which includes all the Civ IV games) on sale for the same thing I paid for just the Civ IV games. Fuckers.
He's a defender of the Office 2007 UI and a fan of tedious, turn-based games where "fun" is considered directly proportional to the number of clicks, pages of rules and number of hours spent playing. Shocking.
-
@tster said:
Turns out I had a bug in the code that loaded the images from the database for .bmp files.clockinsoftware.com is just a domain I own which I pointed to my home computer where I am playing with web development by creating an image gallery. This is most interesting, but it appears that the image I uploaded earlier has disappeared! very crazy.
Anyways, here is the image (try 2):
<snip>
-
@tster said:
Turns out I had a bug in the code that loaded the images from the database for .bmp files.
Intentionally putting BMP files on the internet is a bug in your [i]brain[/i].
-
@Zylon said:
@tster said:
Turns out I had a bug in the code that loaded the images from the database for .bmp files.
Intentionally putting BMP files on the internet is a bug in your brain.
Yeah, everybody knows real men use TIFF.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
Yeah, everybody knows real men use PCX.
-
@morbiuswilters said:
I seem to recall a thread where <table> should be used. Stops people copying it or something.@Zylon said:
@tster said:
Turns out I had a bug in the code that loaded the images from the database for .bmp files.
Intentionally putting BMP files on the internet is a bug in your brain.
Yeah, everybody knows real men use TIFF.
It was probably on here....
-
@PJH said:
That would be dumb.@morbiuswilters said:
I seem to recall a thread where <table> should be used. Stops people copying it or something.@Zylon said:
@tster said:
Turns out I had a bug in the code that loaded the images from the database for .bmp files.
Intentionally putting BMP files on the internet is a bug in your brain.
Yeah, everybody knows real men use TIFF.
It was probably on here....
-
@bstorer said:
Efficacy (or lack of) of the (slow) links provided aside, I made no promise about using said 'technology' would be useful. Just that it was mentioned.@PJH said:
I seem to recall a thread where <table> should be used. Stops people copying it or something.
That would be dumb.It was probably on here....
-
@Aaron said:
Even then, Scarlet's being a drama queen, because you don't need to move the mouse all the way to the bottom right in the dialog, you can just double-click on the template.
If I could, I wouldn't have complained about it. I can double-click on the template forever and it does nothing. I'm sure I mentioned that in my original comment. Yes, I could press Enter, but switching between mouse and keyboard control is just as much of a pain.
... hmm, a bit of experimentation gives an interesting result: I can indeed get a new document by double-clicking on the template, but the double-click timing required is MUCH faster than the system double-click timing (cf Mouse control panel). So much so that by clicking it as rapidly as possible for about ten or twenty seconds I can eventually create a new document (or two or three). I have the double-click setting on Fast in the Mouse control panel, but that gives me (everywhere else except here) about oh, a quarter of a second or so in between clicks. If I turn down the system double-click speed several notches, the timing required in Word is about half the interval allowed everywhere else, which makes it about my normal double-click interval and I can then do it (at the price of launching a file every time I try to rename it). But at my normal settings it's virtually impossible to hit the timing in the Office ribbon.
So perhaps the real WTF in that respect is that the Office ribbon doesn't interpret the double-click sensitivity the same way that the rest of the system interprets it. That's actually pretty impressive in a horrible sort of way.
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
So perhaps the real WTF in that respect is that the Office ribbon doesn't interpret the double-click sensitivity the same way that the rest of the system interprets it. That's actually pretty impressive in a horrible sort of way.
Wow. o_O
[verification needed]
-
So...why is there a TV icon in Microsoft Word? I've forgotten.
-
@dhromed said:
Confirmed. I've got double-click speed set to High in Control Panel (and no problems with stuff registering double-clicks), but to get Word's New Document dialog to acknowledge my double-click, I need several tries.Wow. o_O
[verification needed]
-
@Someone You Know said:
So...why is there a TV icon in Microsoft Word? I've forgotten.
It's so you can add a TV capture stream into your Word document, of course. What did you think it was for?
-
@ender said:
Confirmed. I've got double-click speed set to High in Control Panel (and no problems with stuff registering double-clicks), but to get Word's New Document dialog to acknowledge my double-click, I need several tries.
Hooray, it's not just me!How is this even possible? I'm not up on Windows internals, but surely the idea is that the OS detects the low-level events (button up/down, mouse movement) and converts them to higher level events such as click and double-click before sending them to the application. Indeed, the fact that double-click speed is set in the OS and not in each application implies this. But the application does change its double-click sensitivity as the OS sensitivity is changed, just not to the same value - so the OS settings are being read at some point (and misinterpreted). This makes it seem like the application is doing one of two things:
(a): Single and double-click events are being passed to the same handler, which tracks the interval between clicks and compares it against a misinterpretation of the OS setting to detect double-clicks; or
(b): The application hooks the low-level OS routines and uses its own double-click detection routine, which misinterprets the OS setting.
Both these alternatives seem... well, "mind-bogglingly broken" is the kindest phrase I can think of. Can anyone come up with a more plausible scenario, or some vaguely possible reason why either of these possibilities might
be a good ideahave some positive element?Edit: I had a frightening thought... (c): The OS has never done double-click detection, it just stores a central double-click speed setting and all applications are supposed to track click intervals to determine whether they are getting single or double clicks, and they got it wrong here even though you'd think that would be a stable piece of code. But... no, surely that can't be true, or we'd have much more "random app has stupid double-click behaviour" happening. Right? Someone please tell me this isn't true.
-
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Both these alternatives seem... well, "mind-bogglingly broken" is the kindest phrase I can think of. Can anyone come up with a more plausible scenario, or some vaguely possible reason why either of these possibilities might
be a good ideahave some positive element?Here's my thought - they are doing standard double clicking, however some other control is (periodically?) grabbing focus, so in effect it would take 3 rapid clicks to double-click elsewhere. I've seen this behavior writing .NET apps - the grid looks like it has focus, but double-clicking doesn't work (e.g. the first click gets the focus to the grid, the second acts as a single click).
@Scarlet Manuka said:
Edit: I had a frightening thought... (c): The OS has never done double-click detection, it just stores a central double-click speed setting and all applications are supposed to track click intervals to determine whether they are getting single or double clicks, and they got it wrong here even though you'd think that would be a stable piece of code. But... no, surely that can't be true, or we'd have much more "random app has stupid double-click behaviour" happening. Right? Someone please tell me this isn't true.
Your option (c) (happily) isn't true. There is a message that gets sent to the program loop: WM_LBUTTONDBLCLK. However, they could "roll-their-own" by capturing the surrounding WM_LBUTTONDOWN and WMLBUTTONUP events.
-
@robbak said:
Interestingly, OpenOffice, and many Open Source packages, use the 'arrow-into-folder' icon instead.
Any bets on how long it'll take before desktop apps start switching to an "arrow-into-cloud" like Android uses?
-
@robbak said:
Interestingly, OpenOffice, and many Open Source packages, use the 'arrow-into-folder' icon instead.
Any bets on how long it'll take before desktop apps start switching to an "arrow-into-cloud" like Android uses?
-
@Seahen said:
@robbak said:
Interestingly, OpenOffice, and many Open Source packages, use the 'arrow-into-folder' icon instead.
Any bets on how long it'll take before desktop apps start switching to an "arrow-into-cloud" like Android uses?
Did you just wake up after your 5 year nap?
-
Is this a thread necro or a forum necro?
-
It's interesting to see Aaron's suggestion at the beginning about dealing with open and save, since it did (for Apple users, anyway) come to pass.
-
@Seahen said:
@robbak said:
Interestingly, OpenOffice, and many Open Source packages, use the 'arrow-into-folder' icon instead.
Any bets on how long it'll take before desktop apps start switching to an "arrow-into-butt" like Android uses?
SAVE FILE
