Why did UI’s turn from practical to form over function?

E.g. Office 2003 vs Microsoft 365

Office 2003

It’s easy to remember where everything is with a toolbar and menu bar, which allows access to any option in one click and hold move.

Microsoft 365

Seriously? Big ribbon and massive padding wasting space, as well as the ribbon being clunky to use.

Why did this happen?

  • 9point6@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Weirdly as someone who has used both styles heavily, I’d say the ribbon is more practical than the old toolbars. There’s more contextual grouping and more functional given the tabs and search, plus the modern flat design is less distracting, which is what I’d want from a productivity application. Also for me two rows of toolbars & a menu is about the same height as the ribbon anyway, and you can collapse the ribbon if you want to use the space

  • scarabic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    I’m so tired of neck beards assuming that any spacing in a design is a waste, as if a good design packs every milimeter with stuff. Proper application of negative space is common in art and throughout design.

    • theherk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      Almost like Microsoft did a tremendous amount of user research aimed at improving the accessibility of the most commonly used features. I don’t use their products much, but the design has definitely improved over the years and extra padding is a big part of it.

  • satanmat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 month ago

    Funny story, before they did the 2007 redesigns, they asked users what they wanted to be added; 95% said features that were already in Office.

    The Ribbon was designed to make features more findable.

    Alas.