Save me from shit UI (you can't be saved)


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @RaceProUK said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    So let me get this straight. Users, in order to return their program to it's expected behavior, have to:

    Think for themselves. Of course, that assumes they actually have a brain, and not just some leftover jelly from some birthday party.

    We're supposed to be using our brains to solve a problem by using the software. Not using our brains to solve a problem with using the software. As Lorne pointed out, the whole dialog is sabotaged to be unusable (what's prominent? what can I click to make something happen?).

    I don't generally mind start screens like this that are on by default and supply an easy way to turn off. Usually there's a checkbox right on the page labeled something like, "Show this page at startup." Hiding it under a menu in a nonstandard location is just user hostile.



  • @boomzilla said:

    the whole dialog is sabotaged to be unusable
     

    My biggest frustration is that I can't get up, walk to the people ultimately responsible, calmly talk to them, and at least,  at the very least, get some sort of explanation for their thought process or decisions. Even if I think they're full of shit, I want to know that they made decisions based on.. something.

    Instead I am hounded by a conmstant flurry of WTF WTF WTF in the back of my mind whenever I have to use such an interface.


  • FoxDev

    @boomzilla said:

    I don't generally mind start screens like this that are on by default and supply an easy way to turn off. Usually there's a checkbox right on the page labeled something like, "Show this page at startup." Hiding it under a menu in a nonstandard location is just user hostile.

    You mean you don't put options under the Options menu item?

     


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @RaceProUK said:

    @boomzilla said:

    I don't generally mind start screens like this that are on by default and supply an easy way to turn off. Usually there's a checkbox right on the page labeled something like, "Show this page at startup." Hiding it under a menu in a nonstandard location is just user hostile.

    You mean you don't put options under the Options menu item?

    Are you as bad at reading as you are passive aggressive?

    @Lorne Kates said:

    3) To find an option three menus deep (which, BTW-- options should be under Tools, not File-- so yay to even less discovery)

    It might be OK if the option were there, in addition to the obvious place (right on the fucking page itself). But it's dispiriting when MS (who is supposed to know better) builds interfaces that try to break as many conventions as they can. FORWARD!



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Lorne, have you ever posted anything on this forum that wasn't bitching about UI changes? Ever? Because goddamned it's tiresome. Take up a hobby, please. Like self-mutilation with power tools. That's a good one.

    You owe me a new irony meter.


  • FoxDev

    @boomzilla said:

    @RaceProUK said:

    @boomzilla said:

    I don't generally mind start screens like this that are on by default and supply an easy way to turn off. Usually there's a checkbox right on the page labeled something like, "Show this page at startup." Hiding it under a menu in a nonstandard location is just user hostile.

    You mean you don't put options under the Options menu item?

    Are you as bad at reading as you are passive aggressive?

    Turning the start screen off is an option. That option is in Options. It's pretty standard for options to be in Options, that's why it's called Options.

     


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @RaceProUK said:

    @boomzilla said:

    @RaceProUK said:

    @boomzilla said:

    I don't generally mind start screens like this that are on by default and supply an easy way to turn off. Usually there's a checkbox right on the page labeled something like, "Show this page at startup." Hiding it under a menu in a nonstandard location is just user hostile.

    You mean you don't put options under the Options menu item?

    Are you as bad at reading as you are passive aggressive?

    Turning the start screen off is an option. That option is in Options. It's pretty standard for options to be in Options, that's why it's called Options.

    OK, so it was the bad at reading part. Thanks for clearing that up.


  • FoxDev

    @boomzilla said:

    @RaceProUK said:

    @boomzilla said:

    @RaceProUK said:

    @boomzilla said:

    I don't generally mind start screens like this that are on by default and supply an easy way to turn off. Usually there's a checkbox right on the page labeled something like, "Show this page at startup." Hiding it under a menu in a nonstandard location is just user hostile.

    You mean you don't put options under the Options menu item?

    Are you as bad at reading as you are passive aggressive?

    Turning the start screen off is an option. That option is in Options. It's pretty standard for options to be in Options, that's why it's called Options.

    OK, so it was the bad at reading part. Thanks for clearing that up.

     

    Maybe you'd care to explain what I've not read properly? As far as I can tell, the only thing you've complained about is having an option in the Options dialog.

     


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @RaceProUK said:

    @boomzilla said:
    @RaceProUK said:
    @boomzilla said:
    @RaceProUK said:
    @boomzilla said:
    I don't generally mind start screens like this that are on by default and supply an easy way to turn off. Usually there's a checkbox right on the page labeled something like, "Show this page at startup." Hiding it under a menu in a nonstandard location is just user hostile.

    You mean you don't put options under the Options menu item?

    Are you as bad at reading as you are passive aggressive?

    Turning the start screen off is an option. That option is in Options. It's pretty standard for options to be in Options, that's why it's called Options.

    OK, so it was the bad at reading part. Thanks for clearing that up.

    Maybe you'd care to explain what I've not read properly? As far as I can tell, the only thing you've complained about is having an option in the Options dialog.

    Are you going to read it this time? Third time's a charm, I guess:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    3) To find an option three menus deep (which, BTW-- options should be under Tools, not File-- so yay to even less discovery)


  • FoxDev

    @boomzilla said:

    Are you going to read it this time? Third time's a charm, I guess:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    3) To find an option three menus deep (which, BTW-- options should be under Tools, not File-- so yay to even less discovery)

    So what stopped you providing that context earlier?

    As for Options being under File, guess who's to blame - all the users who complained about the Charms button (or whatever it was called) in Office 2007/2010! Because of them, MS had to restore the File menu. But wait, where's the menu bar gone? Oh yes, it was replaced by the Ribbon (the toolbars too). So now there needed to be a 'special' tab that would open the start screen, and MS called it 'File' because people are too stupid to adapt.

    All this shit because a few people made a huge fanfare over a button. One freaking button.

     


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @RaceProUK said:

    @boomzilla said:

    Are you going to read it this time? Third time's a charm, I guess:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    3) To find an option three menus deep (which, BTW-- options should be under Tools, not File-- so yay to even less discovery)

    So what stopped you providing that context earlier?

    I guess I assumed you read the part of the comment you had originally replied to (my bad). Or my reply that re-provided the context. Hard to say for certain.

    @RaceProUK said:

    As for Options being under File, guess who's to blame - all the users who complained about the Charms button (or whatever it was called) in Office 2007/2010! Because of them, MS had to restore the File menu. But wait, where's the menu bar gone? Oh yes, it was replaced by the Ribbon (the toolbars too). So now there needed to be a 'special' tab that would open the start screen, and MS called it 'File' because people are too stupid to adapt.

    It's like MS never heard the old saw about holes...when you're in one, the first thing to do is stop digging.

    @RaceProUK said:

    All this shit because a few people made a huge fanfare over a button. One freaking buttonMS found an ingenious way to confound their users.

    FTFY


  • FoxDev

    @boomzilla said:

    @RaceProUK said:
    All this shit because a few people made a huge fanfare over a button. One freaking buttonMS found an ingenious way to confound their users.

    FTFY

    Well... yeah, I guess :)

    It's also one of those things where whatever they did, they'd piss of enough people to get dragged over the coals anyway.

     



  •  And five years from now, people will be saying, "Can you believe application options was under a menu called "Tools"? What does "Tools" have to do with the application?



  • @anachostic said:

     And five years from now, people will be saying, "Can you believe application options was under a menu called "Tools"? What does "Tools" have to do with the application?

    Kind of like how most new users of software probably don't know what a floppy disk is, or why you'd click on a picture of one to save data.



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    @anachostic said:

     And five years from now, people will be saying, "Can you believe application options was under a menu called "Tools"? What does "Tools" have to do with the application?

    Kind of like how most new users of software probably don't know what a floppy disk is, or why you'd click on a picture of one to save data.



    And yet the floppy pic is instantly recognizeable by anyone as the "save file" icon. Even if they don't know why. Whereas if you tried to change the icon to something different, people would be confused.

    The problem with what Microsoft is doing is that many of these sorts of choices don't ultimately matter. There is no difference between using a floppy disk as the icon for save, or using the windows logo instead. The difference comes from the existing userbase of millions of people already being trained to recognize the first, and not trained to recognize the second. Thus, there is ZERO benefit to changing this, either initially or in the long-term, and a great deal of detriment in the time it takes to retrain people.

    If the changes they were making were inherently for the better, that would be one thing. But a lot of the things they've been doing to the UI has been minor inconsequential shit like that. What's the workflow benefit to having "Options" under File in stead of Tools? Zero. Neither is particular more intuitive than the other. Neither saves steps in navigation. The other difference is forcing people who already know where "options" is to relearn.

     



  • @Snooder said:

    And yet the floppy pic is instantly recognizeable by anyone as the "save file" icon.

    "Anyone" represents a lot of people. I'd argue that a picture of a /floppy dis[ck](ette)?/ is not discoverable to a person with no computing experience whatsoever. That said, to someone with truly no computing experience, it would be difficult to explain why they even need to "save" changes in the first place. If they write on a piece of paper, they've written on it - they don't have to write with a saving pen to have the paper actually keep their writing.

    That wasn't really my point, though; I'm just trying to make you all feel old. And also point out that I hate the use of icons instead of text - see android'sgmail for android's select all/copy/share?/etc icons of late. Select all is a square with four squares in it.

    @Snooder said:
    The entire rest of the post.

    You seem to believe I was for some reason championing MS's horrible new UI because of this. I'm not.

    I mostly just find it funny that a lot of the original discoverability / usability concepts; mimicking a desktop, naming things based off how one manipulate a print-media layout pre-computer, etc, are now all anachronisms to new computer users. Even terms like "cut" or "paste" are possibly anachronistic to an 18-year-old. In XX years, how many computing concepts will have naming conventions (or usage conventions) that are purely legacy?

    I'm not trying to make an argument or derail the thread, anachostic's comment just made me muse over this for a while.



  • @anachostic said:

     And five years from now, people will be saying, "Can you believe application options was under a menu called "Tools"? What does "Tools" have to do with the application?

     

    That's what people have always said. "Tools" is programmer for "Fuck I don't know where to put these features but it seems weird to call it "stuff"."

     



  • @Snooder said:

    If the changes they were making were inherently for the better, that would be one thing. But a lot of the things they've been doing to the UI has been minor inconsequential shit like that. What's the workflow benefit to having "Options" under File in stead of Tools? Zero. Neither is particular more intuitive than the other. Neither saves steps in navigation. The other difference is forcing people who already know where "options" is to relearn.

    "Undo" is another example. Fuck knows how many times I've been annoyed by flipping through Ribbon tabs looking for Undo, only to recall yet again that it has its own little unlabelled button in some vestigial excuse for a toolbar stuck way up there where the menu bar used to go - a toolbar, what's more, that I am no longer allowed to add my own frequently used buttons to, because obviously some MS fuckhead knows better than I do how I prefer to use my own computer, and whether or not my ctrl-Z hand is tied up holding a phone.

    Also, anybody else have trouble remembering where the fuck to find the well-hidden dialog you need to use in order to tell a Xerox photocopier to select a paper tray automatically for A4 output instead of choosing the "default" (and wrong) Tray 4 - which isn't set as default anywhere in any of the system-wide preference dialogs for that printer, or in its printer property sheets, either on the workstations that use it or the server where its queue is?

    Fuck The Ribbon. Fuck it sideways with a white hot cast iron dildo. And fuck Microsoft for not even leaving the old UI in place as a selectable option.



  • @flabdablet said:

    white hot cast iron
     

    Wouldn't that just be a liquid already? It's not steel.



  • @Buttembly Coder said:

    @anachostic said:

     And five years from now, people will be saying, "Can you believe application options was under a menu called "Tools"? What does "Tools" have to do with the application?

    Kind of like how most new users of software probably don't know what a floppy disk is, or why you'd click on a picture of one to save data.

    Or how most new users of a smart phone don't know that the icon to make a call is a picture of an actual phone?



  • @dhromed said:

    @flabdablet said:

    white hot cast iron
     

    Wouldn't that just be a liquid already? It's not steel.

    I believe you are correct. Better make that white hot wrought iron instead. Though I wouldn't object to pouring in a bit of white hot liquid cast iron afterwards, just to see what shape it makes.



  • @Nexzus said:

    We're about a to do a company-wide upgrade from 2007 to 2013. I installed it to test out some of my Office-integration stuff. First thing I was presented with when opening Word was the stupid start screen. For 30 years, the standard convention for opening a word processing program was presenting a new blank document. I predict about 3% of users will like that change. When 97% of your users will hate your program in the first 500ms of the first time opening it, you fucked up.


    The blank document is an established tradition but I think it's a fail. 99% of the time I open Word I am either just reading a document or editing something that already exists. That is, each one of 'my' files gets opened at least 100 times and it was only the first one of those where it made sense to start from an empty page. Excel 2010 does it perfectly for me - it starts with the "recent files" list because I'm usually editing or reading a file that I opened yesterday.


    For those people who do create lots of new documents, I bet they're not using the blank document anyway. Often (like, half the time) I immediately go to the templates to create a new {something} and then when I've finished and I'm closing down, there's an empty 'new document' that was sitting open the whole time.


    I think the new start screen is a good idea: either I want to open an existing document or start a new one from a template (the blank document is just the most important template, so I want to see that first) and really not much else. Not having Word 2013 to test: does it show you a list of recent documents in that screen or do you always have to go to "open"?



  • @flabdablet said:

    Though I wouldn't object to pouring in a bit of white hot liquid cast iron afterwards, just to see what shape it makes.
     

    An interesting one, no doubt.


  • FoxDev

    @Qwerty said:

    Not having Word 2013 to test: does it show you a list of recent documents in that screen or do you always have to go to "open"?

    The left panel has that list.

     


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @RaceProUK said:

    The left panel has that list.
     

    Earlier Words had a sidebar (panel? panel? don't know) with that list that didn't take up the whole screen, and still presented a blank document. Fucked if I know if Word 2007+ still has that feature.

    However, Word 2010 (possibly 2007, don't have it on hand) at least had File -> Recent, which is MASSIVELY more usable than the Start Screen in every way.

    It's "File -> Recent" screen also broke it out into Recent Documents (pinnable) and Recent Places (pinnable) in two columns that you can fill to your heart's content.

    Here, let's compare screenshots. First, W2013's "useful" Start Screen.  Recent documents is shoved off into the left side. Smal whtie text on blue back, so you'll probably miss it. Incomplete path names, so fuck you if the folder location is important to which file you'll open. No icons so it isn't even obvious what those documents are.No counting padding in the blue column, only ~30% of the screen width is dedicated to the recent documnets, and 70% to templates. I don't know the resulution of Vishai Gupta's monitor.

     

    Now let's compare it to Word 2010's File -> Recent screen (click to embiggen to 1080p).

    There's an option right on that screen to  "Quockly access this number of Recent Documents". I missed it in the screenshot, but that adds those documents directly in the File menu (under Open ... Close .. etc).  It obeys the pinnable flag. 90% of the screen width is given to the files list, divided evenly amongst Files and Places. Black text on white background, easy to read. Documents are given the instantly recongnizable WORD icon, so you know what they are. Places are given FOLDER icons, os you know what they are. Full paths are shown, so you know where the files are located.  The number of "Recent documents" to show is a File -> Option - > Advanced, so not very discoverable. But it is labled extremly obviously:  "Show this number of Recent Documents [###]".


     


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

     Sidenote: I didn't check spelling in the last post. Sorry/live with it.



  • @Qwerty said:

    @Nexzus said:

    We're about a to do a company-wide upgrade from 2007 to 2013. I installed it to test out some of my Office-integration stuff. First thing I was presented with when opening Word was the stupid start screen. For 30 years, the standard convention for opening a word processing program was presenting a new blank document. I predict about 3% of users will like that change. When 97% of your users will hate your program in the first 500ms of the first time opening it, you fucked up.

    The blank document is an established tradition but I think it's a fail. 99% of the time I open Word I am either just reading a document or editing something that already exists. That is, each one of 'my' files gets opened at least 100 times and it was only the first one of those where it made sense to start from an empty page. Excel 2010 does it perfectly for me - it starts with the "recent files" list because I'm usually editing or reading a file that I opened yesterday.


    You are the 3% he was talking about.

    Personally, I almost always start with a blank document and pretty much never use templates. If something needs to be in a templated form, I just open the most recent document of that type and hit "Save As" (which is also fucking hidden away). Often I'll even just open a blank document and copy paste in the relevant portions from that other document.

    More importantly though, there's no increased time savings to you in having a start screen. You go through the same process for opening an existing document. 1. Find it in the filesystem. 2. Double click. The only difference is that someone who would normally click on the Word icon to open a new and empty document now has to wade through additional bullshit. That's dumb.

     


  • FoxDev

    @Lorne Kates said:

    @RaceProUK said:
    The left panel has that list.
    Earlier Words had a sidebar

    Good for them.

    As for the rest of your post, just because you don't like a feature, doesn't mean MS has deliberately gone out of its way to make your life as hard as possible. It's safe to assume the commenters on this site are part of the <1% of people who want their computers to be dumb boxes that do exactly what we tell them, when we tell them, and nothing else. Microsoft's market is the other >99% that don't know the difference between a drive and a disk, or that think Google is the Internet. To them, computers are mysterious, mythical and malevolent, and in order to sell them anything, they need interfaces that (to them) are easy and friendly.

    Remember: we don't get scared when we see a window with 'C:\>' and a blinking underscore. Most normal users do.

     


  • Considered Harmful

    @dhromed said:

    @flabdablet said:

    Though I wouldn't object to pouring in a bit of white hot liquid cast iron afterwards, just to see what shape it makes.
     

    An interesting one, no doubt.

    That was my first thought when reading that as well. Mostly I was just happy to know many ants died a gruesome death.


  • Trolleybus Mechanic

    @RaceProUK said:

    It's safe to assume the commenters on this site are part of the <1% of people who
     

    No. No it isn't. And that isn't a valid counterargument for "This UI is demonstrably shit for 100% of the users".  I hereby formally and absolutely declare that "but the majority of users..." is a logical fallacy in an argument, and should be rejected as such.  It's nothing more than a baseless excuse/apology trotted out as the supposed "absolute truth" in any UI discussion.  It has no numbers or facts to back it up. It isn't even a falsifiable statement.  It's a magic wand wave, a "because God did it" argument.

    No.  Prove that this is what a majority of users "want" and need. Prove it actually improves the workflow of the majority of users, saves them time. Demonstrate the advantages of the layout, of the color scheme, of the design of the UI controls.

    The only argument for this layout so far has been "I can find recent documents faster", to which I've demonstrated you could do it faster, better and in a much more discoverable way with either pre-Ribbon "recent documents" side panels, or post-Ribbon Recent items.

    If your argument is just "because users like it" then go back to the fallacy-filled troll-hole you crawled from and let the adults talk.


  • FoxDev

    @Lorne Kates said:

    This UI is demonstrably shit for 100% of the users

    And you call my argument a fallacy...

    There is no hope.

     



  • @Snooder said:

    @Qwerty said:

    @Nexzus said:

    For 30 years, the standard convention for opening a word processing program was presenting a new blank document. I predict about 3% of users will like that change.

    The blank document is an established tradition but I think it's a fail. 99% of the time I open Word I am either just reading a document or editing something that already exists.


    You are the 3% he was talking about.

     

     On the contrary. Given the assumption Microsoft actually employs user testing (or does stuff on the basis of the "user experience feedback" that we all opt out of the first time we launch an Office program), then people who use Word to create documents are the 3%. Or fewer.

     It's clear in Office 2010, and it's far more clear in Office 2013. The 97% only open documents that other people e-mail to them. Word condescends to allow the few who actually want to create a document, and it's a rare bird indeed who has saved his own templates.

     



  • @RaceProUK said:

    C:&gt;


      C:\>_



  • @RaceProUK said:

    we don't get scared when we see a window with 'C:\>' and a blinking underscore.
    Scared, no; repelled, yes. I vastly prefer a window with "myhost /users/hardwaregeek 501 >" and a blinking █. Or, if I must use Windows, a window with

    hardwaregeek@myhost /cygdrive/c/Users/hardwaregeek/Documents
    $ |



  • @Lorne Kates said:

    demonstrably
     

    Can you demonstrate that you know what this word means other than an intensifier for an argument?



  • @dhromed said:

    Can you demonstrate that you know what this word means
    Inconceivable.



  • @dhromed said:

    @Lorne Kates said:

    demonstrably
     

    Can you demonstrate that you know what this word means other than an intensifier for an argument?



    COnsidering that he used it correctly in context, I'm not sure of your point. One can literally pull up Word 2013 and Word 95, demonstrate the difference in the startup experience, demonstrate how the Word 2013 start screen is less efficient for certain tasks, demonstrate how it doesn't improve workflow for other tasks, and therefore demonstrate how it is worse.

     



  • @dhromed said:

    @Lorne Kates said:
    demonstrably
    Can you demonstrate that you know what this word means other than an intensifier for an argument?

    He just copied it from me. Except I only use it when the argument is demonstrably true, i.e., has already happened at least once.



  • @oheso said:

    It's clear in Office 2010, and it's far more clear in Office 2013. The 97% only open documents that other people e-mail to them. Word condescends to allow the few who actually want to create a document, and it's a rare bird indeed who has saved his own templates.

    Remember "Reading Mode"? You click on a document in an email and it's opened in a special mode that was supposed to enhance reading but somehow didn't represent what it would look like printed or what the original author saw. That was another obscure option deep in the preferences to turn that off. But if it wasn't on by default in new installations then nobody would have discovered it. (Another win for the new-features department.)



  • @Qwerty said:

    Remember "Reading Mode"?

     

     

    Hated it!

     


  • BINNED

    @Buttembly Coder said:

    I mostly just find it funny that a lot of the original discoverability / usability concepts; mimicking a desktop, naming things based off how one manipulate a print-media layout pre-computer, etc, are now all anachronisms to new computer users. Even terms like "cut" or "paste" are possibly anachronistic to an 18-year-old. In XX years, how many computing concepts will have naming conventions (or usage conventions) that are purely legacy?
    So in another 10 years we can expect the next generation's version of blakeyrat to show up complaining about icons that look like things that are only seen in computer museums? I can hardly wait.



  • @oheso said:

    @Qwerty said:

    Remember "Reading Mode"?

    Hated it!
    It's still there in Office 2013. I've been muttering under my breath about that lately too. I open word documents straight from attachments in Outlook. It knows the document is read-only, and starts in reading mode. I select some text in it and copy, then close... and it asks me if i want to save. Double fail. Firstly, it's read-only. Second, I didn't change anything... and I couldn't change anything even if I wanted to! It's read-only!

     


  • Considered Harmful

    @LoremIpsumDolorSitAmet said:

    @oheso said:

    @Qwerty said:

    Remember "Reading Mode"?

    Hated it!
    It's still there in Office 2013. I've been muttering under my breath about that lately too. I open word documents straight from attachments in Outlook. It knows the document is read-only, and starts in reading mode. I select some text in it and copy, then close... and it asks me if i want to save. Double fail. Firstly, it's read-only. Second, I didn't change anything... and I couldn't change anything even if I wanted to! It's read-only!

     

    What about all the changes you didn't make to normal.dot? You wouldn't want to lose those!


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Snooder said:

    Personally, I almost always start with a blank document and pretty much never use templates. If something needs to be in a templated form, I just open the most recent document of that type and hit "Save As" (which is also fucking hidden away). Often I'll even just open a blank document and copy paste in the relevant portions from that other document.
    You're missing a trick. Templates help your documents look good with only minimal effort. OK, you still need to provide some proper content too, but that's at least what you're usually supposed to be doing instead of dicking around with fonts and indents and shit like that.



  • @dkf said:

    @Snooder said:
    Personally, I almost always start with a blank document and pretty much never use templates. If something needs to be in a templated form, I just open the most recent document of that type and hit "Save As" (which is also fucking hidden away). Often I'll even just open a blank document and copy paste in the relevant portions from that other document.
    You're missing a trick. Templates help your documents look good with only minimal effort. OK, you still need to provide some proper content too, but that's at least what you're usually supposed to be doing instead of dicking around with fonts and indents and shit like that.


    What I mean is that instead of creating a template and selecting that template whenever I need a similar document, it's easier to just open the last document with the same style and edit it in place. Also helps by showing what information should be included in each section if it's been a while since I created that style of document last.

    I used to use templates quite a bit when I was younger, but over time I started to realize that it wasn't worth the effort. If I got a template from someone else, I'd usually end up spending the same amount of time dicking around with it to get it to look exactly as I want as I would if I'd started from scratch. And if I make the template myself, why not just re-use an existing document?


  • ♿ (Parody)

    @Snooder said:

    And if I make the template myself, why not just re-use an existing document?

    I tend to do the same thing. One thing to be careful about, though, is clearing the track changes history.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @Snooder said:
    And if I make the template myself, why not just re-use an existing document?

    I tend to do the same thing. One thing to be careful about, though, is clearing the track changes history.



    Heh. You wouldn't believe how many lawsuits have hinged on someone sending a word document without clearing the history metadata.



  •  Just because.

     



  • @anachostic said:

     Just because.

     



  • @HardwareGeek said:

    I am sure I am not the only one whose productivity dropped
    After 5 years or more of the Ribbon, it's still slowing me down.  I'm back to nearly normal speed for all the options I use a lot, but way slower for the less used ones.  The problem is that my possibly defective brain can't keep straight why buttons aren't where they were - Where's BOLD?  It was right here, but now it's "Columns"... what?

    (Example only - I use Ctrl-B for bold, duh).


Log in to reply