Jakob Nielsen’s Love for Office 12 Comes At A Price
Thursday, October 13th, 2005 by MR
I was looking at Blogdex when I came across Jakob Nielsen’s latest Alertbox article: R.I.P. WYSIWYG - Results-Oriented UI Coming. In the article, Jakob Nielsen asserts that WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) interfaces are now dead, and that the future of user interfacing lies inside the next version of Microsoft Office, where pointing and clicking to modify pre-built templates is the real way to go. Excuse me Jakob, but you’re so full of shit it’s coming out your ears.
His Paid Viewpoint
I was a bit hesitant to write this post for fear that the Nielsen fanboys would come lynch me, but then I realized that modern user interface design theory and practice is no longer derived from what Jakob says, and that he has no fanboys by his side, so then I relaxed a bit and carried on.
Jakob waxes ergonomically about how WYSIWYG interfaces lead to clutter and user confusion, but I postulate that feature-itis and poor design lead to confusion and not the manner in which the interface is displayed. A poor craftsmen blames his tools, and Jakob is saying that complicated software is unusable because of the underlying interface paradigms instead of addressing the real problem. A quote, if you will:
Unfortunately, we’ve now reached the limits of the current GUI paradigm. Displaying commands in menus, toolbars, and dialog boxes works with a limited number of elements. But Microsoft Word 2003 has 1,500 commands, and users typically have no clue where to find most of them.
— Jakob Nielsen
Hmm, maybe it’s the 1,500 commands that are confusing users and not WYSIWYG! The jist of the article is that instead of creating content first and then making it look how you want, you should start with the aesthetics first, and then mold the look until it fits what you want, and then create the content. Supposedly the next version of Office has no toolbars or commands, but works on the basic results-oriented principles Jakob is talking about.
I had the distinct feeling this sounded like a pitch for the next version of Office, so I did some digging.
Peter Merholtz, a real interface guru, has this to say about Jakob’s new viewpoint:
The problem is, there are infinite desired results… How will Office be able to accommodate them? And, given their past UIs, why should I not simply fear that their attempts at making it “easier” will only confound and frustrate me?
…
The last thing I find puzzling about RIP WYSIWYG is that, well, WYSIWYG remains pretty well intact in the new Office interface. I try to make the thing on the screen look exactly how I want it, so that I can then print it. There’s no great paradigm shift.
Exactly. No paradigm shift. Jakob is simply spouting off. Hell, maybe Jakob is even in Microsoft’s pocket and was paid to write this to hype the new interface. Hmm, well it looks here that Nielsen and a Microsoft guy are talking about results-oriented interfaces at UX2005 with a highlight placed on Office 12. Looks like money rules Jakob’s opinions after all.
Reader Comments
18 Responses to “Jakob Nielsen’s Love for Office 12 Comes At A Price”
On top of all that he acts like this idea of “Results Based Design” is so new. Take a look at Keynote or Pages; the first window asks you to pick what you want; and then it lets you edit it tell it works for you. Sounds like all Microsoft is doing is stealing Apple’s Ideas; but losing ease of use in the process….
October 14th, 2005 at 2:15 am
So long. It’s nice start working here in an Italian fresh morning and read such marvellous words.
Some words here “His Paid Viewpoint…” , some others there “…there are infinite desired results… How will Office be able to accommodate them?”.
Thanks. I think it will be a good day!
Greetings from Genoa, Italy (where we’re all waiting for Lost season 4 episode 4 as soon as the torrent download ends… oops, can I say that?)
October 14th, 2005 at 3:24 am
When I read Jacob’s article, every time I heard “results-oriented principles”, my brain kept translating that into the horrible wizards and templates that Office has thrown at us for decades now.
I do web consulting and tend to rotate through some pretty big companies, so I work onsite at “regular” offices a lot. People just don’t use those wizards at all.
Everything I have seen indicates that, sure there are 1500 commands and no one knows where they are, but it doesn’t matter. They tried to limit it in the last couple of releases by hiding a bunch of the commands under expandable menus. What happened in real offices? EVERYONE was having to constantly expand those menus. This is because, while there are 1500 commands and most people only need about 50-100 of them to do all of their work for a year, it’s a DIFFERENT 50 for each person.
The wizard (or I guess we’re calling it “results-oriented”) approach only works if people know which exact, predefined result is what they’re actually after.
For instance, if I need to write up a feature enhancement specification after meeting with a client, is that a “memo”, a “letter”, etc.? I’m quite sure that “feature enhancement spec” won’t be on the list of “results” to choose from.
October 14th, 2005 at 6:56 am
Thats some hard hitting journalism.
October 14th, 2005 at 7:14 am
Dude, fair enough, but Office 12 is still going to be the most powerful, versatile, and infinitely customisable and extendable productivity suite out there…
Heck, even Office 2003 still is, whether you “new-economy-participative-age-web 2.0″ geeks like it or not. Money does rule the business world, which is (I suppose) why this blog needed to be called “Business Logs”.
Minimalism in interfaces (or features) doesn’t work for the entire market. Sure, for some, but not close to for everyone, which is why Microsoft does things the way they do: because their target market is a few people bigger than that of 37 Signals (or Apple’s, or whoever else’s ).
Please just give up already with the fundamentally-opposed-to-Microsoft thing, and admit that they know what they’re doing. Seriously.
PS: I’m not in any way affiliated to Mr Nielsen. Heck, I don’t even like the guy’s haircut.
October 14th, 2005 at 8:40 am
Apologies, but I suppose I have to back my comment up somehow.
October 14th, 2005 at 9:48 am
I wouldn’t jump the gun so fast and pass judgement on his comments until you’ve actually spent some time in Office 12 (a solid month would be a good stretch to work with it). Microsoft might have a flop on its hands, or it might have a gem - no matter what you call the new UI, it’s different, and that may or may not prove its naysayers otherwise.
I’m an OS X guy, have been since late 2001, but that doesn’t mean I don’t give props to Microsoft’s usability teams.
For all of their failings, Windows and Office are the defacto standard in the corporate world (sadly so, Open Document Format: I wish) and they’ve done a bang-up job making it “work” for so many people with so many different needs.
Wait and see. Jut because it’s new and unique doesn’t mean it’s wrong.
October 14th, 2005 at 10:20 am
My criticism is more towards Jakob in saying this is the hottest thing out there since sliced bread than the Windows team. I’ve seen many a screenshot from Office 12 and the new Ribbon concept looks really cool. Icons are hot, the way they do it is hot, but I just don’t see it as being the big advancement that Jakob says it is.
October 14th, 2005 at 11:04 am
Mike,
But those are just screenshots - pictures on a page. That’s much different than actually using the product.
October 14th, 2005 at 11:13 am
Good call Geof, I guess it may or may not be a big advancement, I just don’t know it yet. My angst was more towards Jakob jumping the gun and announcing it is amazing, while at the mean-time doing paid conference appearances with the Microsoft team.
That rubs me the wrong way, especially since so many people pay attention to what Jakob says in his Alertbox and may not know necessary that his paycheck is being signed by Microsoft people. Supposedly :)
October 14th, 2005 at 11:15 am
Spot on Mike, I’m sick of Jakob spouting is rules as law. Wysiwyg is everywhere, most business/productivity software is wysiwyg. I don’t know how that can be dead. Chris over at brainfuel has a nice series on simple software.
October 14th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
Instead of making a bunch of friendly templates, why not just make the toolbar more friendly? Make options easier to find and use. And, yeah, how is this not WYSIWYG?
October 14th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
All I know is, if Office 12 requires users to learn a “powerful new paradigm”, even if it’s the best UI ever made, the business world will avoid it like the plague.
Half the people in offices are using obsolete versions of Word as it is. The only hope of getting them to upgrade is a new version that lets them ignore the new stuff and use it exactly like the old version…
New paradigms can appear in cool online Web 2.0 apps like GMail, but the business world is entrenched. They don’t want a new paradigm. If you asked them what new features they want in Word, “less crashes” would be #1 on the list every time.
October 14th, 2005 at 3:02 pm
1500 commands is poor design for a word processor no matter how you cut it.
October 14th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
Isn’t this the same guy who declared that Flash was “99% Bad,” then changed his tune when Macromedia hired him to work on a Flash usability guide/project?
Usability is a lousy business because no one cares. You take the money from wherever you can.
But that doesn’t mean your ideas and advice are corrupt.
October 14th, 2005 at 10:06 pm
Jared Spool commented at the recent UI10 conference in Boston - should it have so many features in the first place? I liken this to an enterprise sized site - should it have so much content in the first place? Who needs it, who reads it, who manages it? Sure it puts people in work, but how useful is it? How much does it help or complicate?
October 15th, 2005 at 10:12 am
To follow up - The Upgraded Digital Divide: Are We Developing New Technologies Faster than Consumers Can Use Them?
October 16th, 2005 at 6:44 am
I don’t have a problem, by default, with Jakob talking positively about Office 12 while doing speaking gigs. If he was doing usability consulting on the actual product for the product team, that’d be different. Or if he was being paid to do PR for Office 12, that’d be different. Or if MS was sponsoring his site, that’d be different…maybe.
But simply showing up and giving a speech on what’s on his mind, isn’t a bad thing (by default) in my mind. I’m willing to give the benefit of the doubt that he sees something he thinks is cool, and is sharing that - the way he saw it was to be connected to the product team. There’s not anything nefarious, necessarily, in that.
Now, the real issue is “..what he thinks is cool”. I personally was a huge fan of his back in the day. But he’s definitely lost his steam, and I find he’s trying to make these bold claims as more of a way to capture his lost guru youth and status. But because that’s his focus, he tends to miss the mark in a big way.
November 4th, 2005 at 8:27 am
Add Your Comment
Comments are moderated because spam's not tolerated.
