Re: Windows 3.1 to Windows 95

Subject: Re: Windows 3.1 to Windows 95
From: Mike Starr <mikestarr-techwr-l -at- writestarr -dot- com>
To: "techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 20:26:57 -0600

It seems to me that Microsoft devoted their efforts with Office 2007 to the casual user, failing to take into consideration the skilled users who rely on advanced functions. One of the things they did with the new Word 2007 interface was make the custom toolbars many of us have created for ourselves and others next to impossible to use. Thus the third-party tools that have been developed to restore the prior interface.

One of the mantras of technical communication is audience analysis which should also apply to software development. I'm of the opinion that Microsoft devoted their efforts to those who're not skilled with the tool and forgot about those of us who use it for a living.

Mike Starr WriteStarr Information Services
Technical Writer - Online Help Developer - Technical Illustrator
Graphic Designer - Desktop Publisher - MS Office Expert
(262) 694-1028 - mike -at- writestarr -dot- com -

quills -at- airmail -dot- net wrote:
> There wasn't that much of an outcry against Win95 since it was
> addition to and enhancements that were seen as improvements.
> The current brouhaha over Office 2007 is that the menu system was
> dropped entirely for icons. This has a bit of a problem as the icons
> aren't necessarily intuitive, nor are they necessarily grouped in
> similar ways that the menu system was. The navigation of the icon
> bars, and there are more than one, isn't very clear. There isn't
> documentation that accompanies the software that explains the change.
> And if you are in a company where the IT department distributes and
> installs software, you don't get any documentation other than the
> Help system. So it's not a good way to suddenly have a new software
> package.
> Imagine having it foisted upon you, on a production machine, and
> being expected to meet your deadlines while having to learn the
> package. Microsoft ignored reality, and expected miracles. They also
> assumed that everybody would know what they had done. To my way of
> thinking, the assumption worked exactly as most assumptions do,
> poorly, and "everybody" really only included the developers and
> testers at Microsoft.
> Scott

ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 2009 is your all-in-one authoring and publishing
solution. Author in Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word or
HTML and publish to the Web, Help systems or printed manuals.

Help & Manual 5: The complete help authoring tool for individual
authors and teams. Professional power, intuitive interface. Write
once, publish to 8 formats. Multi-user authoring and version control!

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:


RE: A doozy even for Word (Joe Armstrong): From: Cardimon, Craig
Windows 3.1 to Windows 95: From: Paul Hanson
Re: Windows 3.1 to Windows 95: From: quills

Previous by Author: Re: Is there a study on reading warnings, notes?
Next by Author: Re: Windows 3.1 to Windows 95
Previous by Thread: Re: Windows 3.1 to Windows 95
Next by Thread: RE: Windows 3.1 to Windows 95

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads