🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 24 Apr 2018 07:40:29 -0700, Peter Flass
<peter...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Apr 2018 15:31:32 -0400, Dan Espen <dan1...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Peter Flass <peter...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> 
>>>> JimP <solo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> After my employer left the caost after Katrina, I apllied for a number
>>>>> of jobs. Those that wanted a Word document of my resume, all wanted a
>>>>> different year version of Word to be used.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I used Open Office and submitted to each of them in the Word format
>>>>> they wanted.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Wow, that's interesting. What I can't understand, unless it's just poor
>>>> design and coding, is why they can't make the versions more compatible. If
>>>> you get a document in a new format and our version doesn't understand, why
>>>> the heck can't it just do something with it before it gives you the
>>>> message. In the simplest case, just render it as unformatted text.
>>>> Upward-compatibility of a kind is not all that difficult to achieve.
>>> 
>>> A cynical person might think they make the versions slightly
>>> incompatible to force their clients to upgrade to the latest version.
>> 
>> One of my devout MS Office users complained about the menus being
>> rearranged everytime there was an upgrade to it.
>> 
>
>This is what I don't get, with a lot of software, not just M$. Someone
>thinks they have a "better" idea, so they arbitrarily move things around.
>It seems that they don't realize that heavy users of a piece of software do
>things by reflex rather than looking at each menu item every time, so
>moving stuff around really messes things up for your most loyal customers.

Prior to Office 2007 the user interface was highly configurable. While
this was convenient for expert users it was a pain in the butt for
support people because they had know way of knowing what the user was
actually looking at.  Microsoft took most of that away with the
"ribbon" interface but now it's slowly coming back.