For those who are only familiar with Linux (or Windows): don't relegate yourself to any one system. FreeBSD has its benefits and so does Linux (and Windows, though that shrinks by the day - and MacOS). Use the best tool for the job at hand and enjoy things for what they are. Personally, I find enjoyment and usefulness in all of them (BSD, Linux, Mac, Windows), and use them all regularly (daily to weekly).
It looks great using Plasma. If the comparison and "problem" is the lack of a "ribbon" menu, etc., then you are missing the whole point of Office alternatives: they are free, open source, but most importantly, they are usable. That is, they do not eschew usability and function for the sake of change, pure aesthetics, or a company's latest foray into some new gimmick.
Ultimately, the "classic" approach taken is because many users feel that the classic style is more usable and makes them more productive irrespective of their learned habits of the past 20-30 years.
Microsoft did usability studies on real people to determine the ribbon interface is better. This is back in the days when software companies cared about objectively verifiable results.
No, they did not (or if they did, they didn't publish it). If I'm wrong, please give me some links because I'd genuinely love to see it.
Microsoft did those usability studies on the versions of Office that were current before the ribbon. The ribbon followed those studies as their attempt at a solution.
A few times over the years I've tried to search for usability studies of the ribbon interface because I've never got on with it myself. I find plenty of others asking the same thing online, and everybody points them to those same earlier studies from before the ribbon, while wrongly telling them it's a study of the ribbon.
Those studies are unable to tell us whether or not MS's attempt at a solution actually fixed the problems.
I believe the ribbon was a downgrade in usability terms (but people expect it in office suites, purely because it's seen as looking more modern). And I'd love to see real intensive research to tell me whether my belief is right or wrong.
Yeah, that's exactly it - there were all those history blogposts, full of very interesting stuff, but all about before the ribbon was in active use. (Pity about the image rot.) No usability studies of the ribbon itself.
Parts of those blog posts were unintentionally revealing of the groupthink of an enclosed bubble of people who couldn't see the wood for the trees. A great example is this piece about moving menu entries around so you couldn't build muscle memory, and had to take the time to look for what you wanted:
> First, remember that we're analyzing this with 20/20 hindsight... there was a lot of excitement (not just at Microsoft) about "auto-customization"... to present exactly the right UI for the person at hand. Now, it's easy to say that today people are generally against this idea... but we know that mainly through trying... the adaptive UI in Office 2000
As I recall it, the vast majority at the time - users, reviewers, UI/UX writers - considered its downsides to be completely obvious and were firmly against it. Its designers were apparently the only ones who needed 20/20 hindsight to see that.
> I remember thinking that the thought process behind the ribbon was very solid
I agree, the historical research, and the work on identifying the problems, was very solid. But the massive criticisms of the ribbon suggest it was not an entirely successful attempt at a solution.
I've seen it said that there's no way Microsoft would have neglected to carry out major usability studies on such a major UI change, and that the fact that nothing's been published, after all the blogposts and talks beforehand, suggests they chose to bury a bad result. No idea whether there's any truth in that of course, but it does sound plausible.
As a techie with no horse in this race I've always found the ribbon very usable. It has a layered shortcut system that is much logical than the legacy one, it still supports the legacy shortcuts (Alt-d, f, f forever!) and the number of commands now easily accessible for sure is higher than with the old menus.
Only no, it’s not and everyone reviled it when it came out but we’ve been stuck with it ever since.
MS may have done usability studies earlier (say, when they cared about dethroning Lotus 123 and WordPerfect) but that war was long won when the ribbon UI came out, by then they only cared about milking the cash cow.
It looks awful and undiscoverable on a standard Mint/Cinnamon install.
Anyway, the point is surely that if LibreOffice really wants to attract users from Microsoft Office, then it should do everything possible to optimise that transition?
Offering the option of a UI mimicking the familiar MS Office layout is not a difficult engineering problem. And if it makes users significantly more likely to switch, it should be a high priority to implement.
Honestly, at this stage, thinking of Gimp, FreeCAD, LibreOffice, and Blender, it’s as though there’s a weird group psychology deliberately against offering even decent (let along best-in-class) UIs in the open source world. These are all apps with excellent fundamental underlying engines/tech which are handicapped hugely by their UI/UX. (Yes I know some of these have improved in recent years, but only after far longer without improvements.)
>Offering the option of a UI mimicking the familiar MS Office layout is not a difficult engineering problem. And if it makes users significantly more likely to switch, it should be a high priority to implement.
It's already there. It really feels like such criticisms are from people who haven't used it in 10+ years.
Well, if that's the case, I take (that part of) it back and I'll fire up Mint later to explore. Thanks. It wasn't an obvious option when I tried LibreOffice a few weeks ago, but maybe I should have explored further.
My experience is less than two years old. I have the impression that those who defend it have a UI taste that is stuck in the 2000s. The same people who also point at UIs that are barely usable and ugly from a modern perspective like Windows 2000 and say "this was the pinnacle of UI".
Perhaps it's that well-known psychological effect where people self-report higher productivity when using an interface they find more visually appealing, whereas studying them proves the opposite is true.
Just a few examples of what makes Windows 2000 barely usable for me (and pretty much anyone who grew up with later UIs):
No central place to search for software, files, or settings. You have to dig through layers of menu trees like an idiot.
No visual preview to find the right open window. You have to alt-tab through a list of windows like an idiot.
No way of separating windows into work spaces / desktops (whatever you might call them). You have to either constantly kill windows or work your way through layers of them. The point above doesn't help with that.
This one has less to do with Windows 2000 but was part of the state of the art of the time for software: Walls of icons and buttons and not even a way to group them. Sometimes the entire window is just one wall of tiles sometimes there's the tool bar of doom at the top.
On top of lacking usability, Windows 2000 is ugly. Mostly because all main UI elements like buttons are visually thrust into your face by faux 3d elevation. This had it's place at the time when most of your users would not have had experience with computer UIs in the first place. With those users UI designers back then felt they needed to overemphasize visual cues from the real world. Nowadays you can show the user just a box or something that looks like a link (because people are used to browsers now). Maybe give a cue by changing the emphasis on hover.
The other reason that comes to mind why Windows 2000 is so ugly is colors. Again, this is due to its time and the capabilities of graphics cards back then that mostly didn't allow more subtle color differences.
I'm just using Windows 2000 as pars pro toto here. Pretty much all graphical UIs back then were lacking modern usability features and UI sensibilities, regardless of OS.
> Perhaps it's that well-known psychological effect where people self-report higher productivity when using an interface they find more visually appealing, whereas studying them proves the opposite is true.
You have your slightly condescending explanation for why we disagree and I have mine. Let me give you a hint quoting Douglas Adams:
"I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies: 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things."
We understand "time" in the context that we must: to subsist in order to procreate. The extent it exists outside of our own perception as we imagine it does, is debatable. Ultimately, time is our sensory interpretation of the world around us to facilitate our survival and thus, we may never make sense of it outside the constraints it exists within.
We know empirically that time only flows in one direction, it can’t be described as just a perception. You’d have had at least the tiniest of evidence that time sometimes flows backwards.
Time doesn't flow at a speed. So, time flows at no speed, so, time doesn't flow. Time doesn't exist within time, so it has to be static. Moments don't change.
How would you measure time going backwards if you can only perceive it going forwards? How can you "experience" everything around you going "backwards" if that includes your memory? How can you determine that a specific moment in time was arrived at by time going forward, or by going backwards?
How do you know anything outside of your perception is true? All things boil down to a philosophical argument. The simplest answer is that "time" as we imagine it is a product of our interpretation and the true nature of "it" is hidden from us.
This is about time as it relates to our understanding of the physical world through science. You might as well say matter is an illusion, nether is relevant to this discussion.
You believe it is irrelevant - I believe it is relevant. I argue matter itself has more basis in reality in that it cannot be as easily explained away as time. In the context you're speaking in, there is much more evidence and logic to support the existence of matter. My point is that time as we believe it exists, is a construct that has meaning to us because of its benefit to our survival, rather than it being an objective reality.
_Everything_ flows in one direction, all particles goes in a straight line from their self reference, fields "modifying direction" is just an observer point of view. The separation of time and space is purely a perception matter.
A gross comparison would be to compare with objects perception, it only exists because our mind can leverage it for a strong evolutional advantage (I'm not only speaking of humans here).
No, a particle can flow left OR right, up AND THEN down, forward THEN reverse THEN forward again.
But in time, it can only go forwards, at very slow rates like far from gravity wells, or fast like in relativistic situations. Never backwards. Never stop.
As we haven't seen any evidence of this, then the effects must be so tiny that we can just ignore that possibility. It's like worrying about the gravitational effects of Russell's Teapot.
Life isn't inherently easy - or fair. For most, it is much easier today because of the efforts of those who came before us. We are lucky for those efforts because they afford us moderation and comfort that are not guaranteed.
To expect results without hard work is presumptuous and pretentious, of which this author has in spades.
It’s a bit trickier than that imho because Hard work doesn’t guarantee results either. And since, as you said, life isn’t fair, we are faced to… randomness. True story, working hard/intelligently does buy us some tickets to a decent life, but it’s not 100% jackpot. I know plenty of people that worked hard, they studied things that are not in demand, and so they are work in whatever they can with shitty salaries. I worked as hard as them, but studied (by luck I guess) something with demand (software engineering), and so I can afford some more niceties in life. And I know people who didn’t work as hard as others, and live a better life than many. So, it’s more complicated than “work hard”.
There’s plenty of productivity to afford all of us housing, utilities, food, and healthcare.
The only real reason we don’t do that is because we take hard work as a virtue, it’s not; ignore the effects of luck, the capacity for hard work is derived by luck; and like to imagine ourselves being rich one day and think that hard work is enough.
Homelessness is not a bug, it’s a feature, and so is every other aspect of society that directly or otherwise forces us plebs to be obedient cogs in the wheel unless!
Great things demand hard work, there is nothing great about basic needs.
Rock solid and plenty of ports. I use it for multiple ZFS file servers, which subsequently led me to utilizing Linux regularly, which then led to dropping Windows altogether. It sounds corny to say but FreeBSD changed my life is a measurable way.
