Microsoft abandons intuitive for complicated

Microsoft Office 2007 introduced the "ribbon", a change to the GUI that replaced the traditional menu bar with a dynamic, deep-feature, sliding set of options. This is a bigger change than first appears. It is a break with the original concept of the graphical user interface as originally touted by Microsoft.

When Microsoft introduced Windows, it made a point of advertising the "ease of use" and "intuitive" nature of the graphical interface. The GUI was superior to the old DOS programs (some of which were command-line and some which used block-character menus and windows). The Windows GUI was superior because it offered a consistent set of commands and was "intuitive", which most people took to mean as "could be used without training", as if humans had some pre-wired knowledge of the Windows menu bar.

Non-intuitive programs were those that were hard to use. The non-intuitive programs were the command-line DOS programs, the block-character graphic DOS programs which had their own command sets, and especially Unix programs. While one could be productive with these programs, productivity required deep knowledge of the programs that was gained only over time and with practice.

Windows programs, in contrast, were usable from day one. Anyone could sit down with Notepad and change the font and underline text. Anyone could use the calculator. The Windows GUI was clearly superior in that it allowed anyone to use it. (For managers and decision makers, read "anyone" and "a less talented and costly workforce".)

Microsoft was not alone in their infatuation with GUI. IBM tried it with the OS/2 Presentation Manager, yet failed. Apple bought into the GUI concept, and succeeded. But it was Microsoft that advertised the loudest. Microsoft was a big advocate of GUI, and it became the dominant method of interacting with the operating system. Software was installed with the GUI. Configuration options were set with the GUI. Security was set up with the GUI. All of Microsoft's tools for developers were designed for the GUI. All of Microsoft's training materials were designed around the GUI. Microsoft all but abandoned the command line. (Later, they quietly created command-line utilities for system administration, because they were necessary for efficient administration of multi-workstation environments.)

Not all programs were able to limit themselves to the simple menu in Notepad. Microsoft Office products (Word, Excel, Powerpoint, and such) required complex menus and configuration dialogs. Each new release brought larger and longer menus. Using these programs was hard, and a cottage industry for the training of users grew.

The latest version of Microsoft Office replaced the long, hard-to-navigate menus with the confusing, hard-to-search ribbon. One person recently told me that it was more effective and more efficient, once you learned how to use it.

Does anyone see the irony in that statement? Microsoft built the GUI (or stole it from Apple and IBM) to avoid the long lead times for effective use. They wanted people to use Windows immediately, so they told us that it was easy to use. Now, they need a complex menu that takes a long time to learn. 

Another person told me that Microsoft benefits from the ribbon, since once people learn it, they will be reluctant to switch to a different product. In other words, the ribbon is a lock-in device.

It's not surprising that Microsoft needs a complex menu for their Office products. The concepts in the data (words, cells, or slides) are complex concepts, much more sophisticated than the simple text in Notepad. You cannot make complex concepts simple by slapping a menu on top.

But here is the question: if I have to learn a large, complex menu (the Office ribbon), why should I learn Windows programs? Why not learn the whatever tool I want? Instead of Microsoft Word I can learn TEX (or LATEX) and get better control over my output. Instead of Microsoft Access I can learn MySQL.

By introducing the ribbon, Microsoft admitted that the concept of an intuitive program is a false one, or at least limited to trivial functionality. Complex programs are not intuitive; efficient use requires investment and time.