[OT] Microsoft Office's New UI Blazes Some New Trails for Us

[Troy Rollins]

On Oct 12, 2005, at 1:06 AM, Judy Perry wrote:

> But, respectfully, they all LOOK ALIKE.  You can spot them from a mile
> away.  They are fake; they not infrequently have nothing to do with the
> content which they exist presumably to advance.  They were chosen for
> being the least obnoxious of the predetermined lot.  Modifying them
> doesn't even come into play.

Less than creative, yes. "Fake"? How so? After all, they were designed 
by _someone_. Probably with more design skills than the typical user. 
When used, they still communicate thoughts and ideas, and due to 
templates being provided by professionals, they do it with better 
presentation than most casual users would do otherwise. Face it, 
without such tools, many people would just publish their thoughts and 
ideas looking like crap or not at all. Is the intent to weed out the 
"weak" by ensuring that the tools require professional design 
capability on the part of all users?

Not all people who have something to convey also have design skills to 
support that. As you've noted, even _with_ templates, they _still_ make 
poor design choices. What would make us think they would do any better 
without them? At least with them, they have a shot at a polished, if 
not unique, look.

It's true that most users will not use them as a launch-point, but 
rather a definition. So? What would those same users do otherwise? 
Probably nothing you would want to look at.

So, in effect, the templates provide the users with a design capability 
they would otherwise not have.

As software developers, don't we constantly provide capability the 
users would otherwise not have? Should we just tell them that using our 
software is "Fake", and they should just write their own? Oops. Maybe 
this list is not the right place to pose that question.  But you get 
the idea. ;-)

--
Troy
RPSystems, Ltd.
http://www.rpsystems.net