Especially when you can't customize them and can't even choose from a
limited selection (or use text instead) for commands that have no built-in
icon: instead, if you use a lot of obscure commands, you end up with a QAT
full of green balls.
--
Suzanne S. Barnhill
Microsoft MVP (Word)
Words into Type
Fairhope, Alabama USA
http://word.mvps.org
"Stefan Blom" wrote in message
...
I am not against icons. I am against being forced to use an interface
that *only* has icons.
Agreed. That is a huge limitation of the Quick Access Toolbar.
--
Stefan Blom
Microsoft Word MVP
"JBGM" wrote in message
...
Dear Yves, first of all, thanks for your energy answering comments in
this
post; I really appreciate your time and effort. Secondly, you are missing
the
point. Most experienced users remember shortcuts (I use them
all the time), but the problem comes when a user has to do an uncommon
activity... at that moment a user has to start browsing the icon
collection,
trying to figure out what each icon means, and the performance hit
ensues.
Contrary to your opinion, icons neither have intrinsic value, nor they
are
universal. You present the example of other cultures, but you do not have
to
go that far; just try teaching elderly people to user a computer, and
that
will shatter your perceptions of icons. There is plenty of research in
that
area. ANYWAY, icon use is not the issue... the point I am trying to make
is:
the compact and hierarchical organization of text menus offer an
efficient
way of presenting information for trained users. That was lost with the
ribbon approach, and after a two-year period, I (and others) still find
it
frustrating. Again, I reiterate, I am not against the ribbon; however, I
am
against the exclusive use of the current ribbon.