Talk:Ribbon (computing)

"Microsoft claims"

"Microsoft claims that his will improve...". Is the word "claim" just a little bit weasely to anyone else?--91.84.69.180 (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think "claim" is pretty standard phrasing in this context. It would have been weasely if you replaced "claims" with "alleges".--66.92.218.124 (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keyboard accessibility

The ribbon in Office does not lack keyboard accessibility. Just press alt, and there you go... (84.31.63.81 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

08:22 Bnis 8h mit Ribbons (runtergedaldener Source) beschäftigt, gehe nun raus mit Hund, Getränke kaufen und leg mich um 10 Uhr hin.

Non-disclosure agreement

What is that BS about signing NDA to get Ribbon design guidelines? They are available for download right here: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx 71.117.4.238 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then what is this? "Microsoft Evaluation License: 2007 Microsoft Office System User Interface". In short, you need to agree to these terms to get the evaluation copy. Quoting the web page:

CONFIDENTIALITY. The Design Guidelines, and the terms of this Agreement, are Microsoft’s confidential information. You cannot disclose them to anyone else without Microsoft’s prior written approval. However, you may disclose them to your contractors who have a need to know as long as they also agree to abide by the terms of this agreement.

Sounds like a non-disclosure agreement to me. I'll cite this link in the article, thanks. -- intgr 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prior art needs citation if true, doubtful though

The claim that the ribbon may not be patentable because of prior art needs a credible citation. The Slashdot article on the licensing guidelines for the ribbon interface have a few posts from Slashdot visitors claiming its similar to something incorporated in an old version of 1-2-3. But if you read what they say is similar, its obvious that they aren't the same thing and wouldn't be viewed as the same thing legally (pressing a key leads to a horizontal menu in 1-2-3, versus a combination of a menu and a toolbar system in Office, come on). One person says its similar to whats implemented in Adobe products, but all Adobe products have is a toolbar that changes per task, something Microsoft is not attempting to patent. To make this claim in the article you have to cite an expert in patent law. You can't cite angry posters on Slashdot, who are mainly objecting because they hate the idea of patenting software features and interfaces in general, and have no concept as to what is patentable.

Yes its legitimate to point out some open source advocates are attacking Microsoft about this. But the way its presented in the article makes it sound like they have a point. Also, its not clear whether any credible open source advocates are pursuing this argument, or its just a bunch of Slashdot posters. People on forums and Slashdot often just think up any arguments they can to make any point they can, whether or not the arguments are credible. Wikipedia really can't appease every Slashdot poster's pet argument even if its wrong.

Please either cite a patent expert on the issue, and if you're just going to comment on open source advocates, a credible leader in open source advocacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianshapiro (talk • contribs)

True. The obvious problem here is that nobody has seen the patent yet. I'm not even sure when or if Microsoft is going to submit an application (this claim is still tagged as "citation needed" in the article). As prior art depends on how broad the patent is going to be, I wouldn't except to see any qualified "reviews" of it any time soon.

I wouldn't like to throw out the entire statement. The fact is, that it's being criticized, and is controversial. The practice of licensing a patent before even submitting an application is unusual at best, and that's what is actually being criticized. I do agree that Slashdot comments are not a reliable source, but it does document the general reactions from the community. As far as WP:POV is concerned, I don't see a problem.

What do you think? -- intgr 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems familiar...

It may just be me, especially since I haven't had a chance to play with 2007's version, but this interface seems rather familiar to what MicroStation uses. Am I kind of right or am I way off? Lady BlahDeBlah 22:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Long, long time ago?

<flame> I can not say but that this new cool Microsoft feature reminds me of macinosh one-menu for all applications design. It is also context driven (window). And this office logo is similar to something i saw once on macintosh keyboard...no, it was not made in Microsoft labs neither. And maybe they call it ribb...;) nah Microsoft has been original at least there(?). </flame> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calwaxfish (talk • contribs)

Please keep in mind that Wikipedia talk pages are for discussing the article, not for expressing your opinions about the subject. If you can't find any reliable sources to incorporate this into the article, it's irrelevant. Happy editing! -- intgr ^#%@! 11:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tab + "combobox" = ribbon . Tab as a elements grouped together, as seen on browser since opera(?). Combobox in a way its element is enlarged when possible. Well i think that rather than combobox better would be tab+menu = ribbon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kauldron (talk • contribs) 12:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

I have added the neutrality tag to the Controversy section in the article. Microsoft may be spreading FUD with the article, but the statement that they may not license the ribbon to free software is itself a load of FUD. 129.187.41.142 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the statement. I agree that it's purely speculation at this point. I don't think we're going to find out soon, given that there is no reason to agree to Microsoft's license in the first place (free software applications would have to re-implement the functionality anyway). PS: you're welcome to do such edits yourself. -- intgr ^#%@! 20:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to leave such possibly controversial edits to users that have been working on the article for a longer period of time, especially since IP edits are very often considered vandalism (even if it wasn't) and removed. The current paragraph is much better, thanks. 129.187.100.141 09:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

As I have said on the talk page of Office 2007, the official name is the Microsoft Office Fluent Interface. While commonly and unofficially referred to as the ribbon, the article title should change to reflect the proper name, even if it is to drop the "Microsoft Office" part - although I doubt we'd see other software with a similar UI unless it was licensed out by Microsoft. Danj205 05:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Expert is Needed

Fully aware I might be writing these lines in vain, I have the impression that ribbons, or how the concept is described in the article, have been around for years, notably in early 90ies file managers and a class of programs called trackers . Effectively, I don't think it's a Microsoft Office2007 innovation . Would be great to have expert opinion on this .

Always in good faith, 85.74.237.213 04:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an "expert" we just need a source comparing the functionality of this widget with something older. -- intgr [talk] 12:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

be in a GUI. open some menu. for each group of commands: (imagine you) change linear positionning of commands into circular (see pie_menu,fitts_law, const. distance,search_tree, balanced_tree - esp. avl_tree;). rotate it 90 degrees (it does not matter actually). voíla.

this is but a mere change in topology, nothing else. breaking of second level of hierarchy (counting from 1) you get basic commands + groups. it has been done by already mentioned toolboxes (usually grouped by tabs;). it is basically act of hoisting. i think it is just a "by removing one bit from heap, do you still have a heap? when you don't have heap?" - some greek philosopher was groking it.

for

some funny legal implications (IANAL) - but contains good informations (links) + documents some issues of ribbon ! http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1617

i hope it will make people to experiment and try to do _user_friendly_ applications. by that i do not mean graphics lumber but simple and sane yet powerful use.

innovation? didn't you ment invention? it clearly is innovation (kind of :) and it is not invention.

Cc..aa..ll (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cite for the "we're going to patent this" claim

Here is the link to a comment by an MS employee where it's stated they have pending patent(s) on the Ribbon concept, among other office UI things: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/11/21/licensing-the-2007-microsoft-office-user-interface.aspx#1123764

I was going to add the cite to the article myself but the tagging is way too complicated for me to figure out, so could someone else please do it? Thanks --67.160.118.193 (talk) 13:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]