Why did UI’s turn from practical to form over function?

E.g. Office 2003 vs Microsoft 365

Office 2003

It’s easy to remember where everything is with a toolbar and menu bar, which allows access to any option in one click and hold move.

Microsoft 365

Seriously? Big ribbon and massive padding wasting space, as well as the ribbon being clunky to use.

Why did this happen?

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    Weirdly as someone who has used both styles heavily, I’d say the ribbon is more practical than the old toolbars. There’s more contextual grouping and more functional given the tabs and search, plus the modern flat design is less distracting, which is what I’d want from a productivity application. Also for me two rows of toolbars & a menu is about the same height as the ribbon anyway, and you can collapse the ribbon if you want to use the space

    • owenfromcanada@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Yeah, does anyone else remember the menu bars that would show up and disappear depending on what you were doing? Those were awful–the ribbon method of context-specific tabs is better (IMO).

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 hours ago

      Flat design may be less distracting to you but that also means it’s less clear, because there are fewer obvious demarcation.

      I despise flat design, it’s downright awful design, and done for looks rather than functionality.

      Even saying it’s “less distractive” supports this.

      Microsoft also did this to obfuscate features, which is pretty apparent when you consider new users used to “discover” features via the menu system. I supported Office for MS in the early days, and this was a huge thing at the time. It was discussed heavily when training on new versions.

      • 9point6@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        Flat design may be less distracting to you but that also means it’s less clear, because there are fewer obvious demarcation.

        I despise flat design, it’s downright awful design, and done for looks rather than functionality.

        to you

        Flat design dominates for a reason—the less visually busy something is, the easier it is for users to wrap their heads around it. This gets proven again and again in user studies, the more busy and dense you make things, the more users miss stuff and get lost.

        People’s opinions on the ribbon specifically are obviously all subjective, but I would say the less distracting design would be the one done less for looks, rather it’s a pretty utilitarian design if you pick it apart. This is an interface for productivity tools, and as such the interface should get out of your way until you need it—the ribbon just does that better IMO.

        Microsoft also did this to obfuscate features, which is pretty apparent when you consider new users used to “discover” features via the menu system. I supported Office for MS in the early days, and this was a huge thing at the time. It was discussed heavily when training on new versions.

        Why on earth would Microsoft want to obfuscate features? There’s no way that motivation would ever make sense.

        IIRC one of the main reasons Microsoft introduced the ribbon was that grouping functionality contextually helped users discover features, because people kept requesting features that already existed, but they just couldn’t find. I remember there being a blog on the Microsoft developer site about the making of it that went into this.