WORD!

Established products present additional challenges to User Experience Design. The central issue is how do we improve it without changing it.  There is impedance to change since users have "over learned"  the interface and change results in errors and a fairly significant re-learning process, usually more protracted than a new user would experience.  Microsoft designers have in the past few years done exactly that, changed Microsoft's office interface as described in this article.  This was a bold decision and has not been without its critics - see these comments on Amazon's Microsoft Office site.

Eric Lorenz discusses these issues in this entry from his log book.  He also discusses the quest for simplicity that may have motivated the changes, this was after we had discussed Maeda's, Laws of Simplicity, in the class.  I have mentioned Maeda's book in several posts and it is highly recommended.  Here's Eric's post:

During our lecture on 6/1/09, we covered Maeda’s “Laws of Simplicity”.  These Laws, and some of our other readings dealing with simplicity and complexity, have sparked some thoughts about two particular products on the market today that most of us come in contact with daily: Microsoft Office and the automobile. 

I brought up Microsoft Office during the lecture.  I was commenting on how the menu structure of the “new” 2007 version is considerably altered compared to the earlier versions, which had all been fairly consistent in design.  In my mind, this is a perfect example of the struggle between Consistency and organization.  The “what goes with what?” question has been answered well by Microsoft in the new version.  However, upon first inspection, the new version seems quite counter–intuitive and harder to navigate to existing users.  On an objective level, the new software is better organized and therefore offers improvement over the previous versions.  Because of its revamped organization, it is actually simpler: new users would probably find the 2007 version more intuitive, as they are not influenced by where the commands used to be located.  The menus are functionally consistent, if not version consistent.  I guess simplicity is in the eye of the beholder to some extent: Better organization may be friendlier for new users but the change of menus may actually seem to make the system more complex to confounded existing users. 

In this way, the gains in simplicity for new users are balanced with the learning and time difficulties for existing users.  (I wonder how Microsoft decides which group is more important?)  After all, most of the workforce does not receive formal training for a new version of MS Office.  Therefore we are forced to dive right in, which we know most likely costs extra time (and money) in the long run.  Along the same line, time penalties also result in user (and possibly their superiors’) frustration. 

In the end, I think Microsoft balanced its interests well because I believe they have done the right thing by improving the product first and foremost.  However, although the learning curve is probably not considered exceptionally steep for users’ of previous versions of the Microsoft Office suite, the impact is considerable because of the broadness of its effect as an organization’s entire workforce absorbs the time to adjust; not an insignificant event for something considered “productivity software.”

Personally, even though I was used to the old version and had been using this product for years, since I have become familiar with the new version I do prefer it.  I tend to be a logical person and like to have everything in its place, especially if it is a functionally organized place.  I was also well aware of the inconsistencies in the old version.  Even though the new version of Office is much different visually, I can appreciate the simpler organization because I see the difference between it and the (in my opinion) more complex old version. 

So what do you think, was MIcrosoft correct in its interface changes for the Office Suite?  Let us know what you think.  It will also be a great question to revisit.  Later.

Comments

[Megan]

I think that this is a very interesting discussion, and one that I have been thinking about since I finally made the switch to Office 2007 this summer. I have to admit, when I first used Office 2007 I was turned off by the vast changes both visually and organizationally, especially since I considered myself a fairly advanced user and had learned well where to find the sometimes hidden commands which I wanted to use. However, after beginning to use Word, then Excel, Power Point, and Access (which I hadn't used much in Office 2003), I would agree that Microsoft was fairly balanced in its interest of simplifying the interface as well as remaining consistent.

From Office 2003 to 2007, continuity was maintained with most keyboard shortcuts, which I think was a very smart move. For people like myself who rely on keyboard shortcuts to quickly and effectively edit documents and use specific functions, this is crucial. I have only encountered one annoying difference. Previously in word one could hit "Alt+F+V" to achieve a quick "print preview." Now, you have to hit "Alt+F+W+V." I'm sure there are others, but most of the common keyboard shortcuts are the same. Others which I previously used to insert equations were very long key sequences, I think it was Alt+O+I+M got you to the mathtype insert equation selection. This is an example of such embedded menu options which are now right there under the insert tab, ready and waiting.

When discussing continuity or consistency between Office programs, I find that switching from Word to Excel to PowerPoint etc is much simpler in 2007 than 2003, and will be a beneficial change for most users. Although the menus were mostly the same in 2003, there are much fewer differences in the interface between the 2007 versions.

For the new user, Office 2007 will be much easier than 2003. For the old user, like myself, there are a few "growing pains" and a little bit of time to transition, but I think that overall the new interface is much more elegant and logically organized.

[Carl Frederick II]

Most everyone has found the learning curve for the new Office 2007 interface a challenge. Specifically, Microsoft Word 2007 definitely has a learning curve.

When the bigger picture is explained that the program is better prepared for a touch screen interfaces, and making common tasks more efficient, then people realize there is a more worthwhile reason for the growing pain.

The new interface is also more responsive from a user perspective, in that many changes to the formatting can be seen right away as one moves across the different sections.

Yet, as a long time Microsoft Word user, and a prior MacWrite user, it has been painful to learn. There are still things that I could do better with the older version because the terrain of options was known so well. It's kind of like growing up in one town and moving to another, and learning again where things are.

I'd like to see the paperclip and other animated avatars re-appear somewhere, due to their family entertainment value.

Many free word processor programs operated similarly to paid tools like Microsoft Word. Changes to commercial paid products like Microsoft Word, means the free programs will need to consider interface changes themselves too.