"Jay Freedman" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 19:22:11 -0600, "Beth Melton"
wrote:
I asked about SQM in regards to how they ascertained users didn't use
custom
toolbars and such and never really got an answer. I've discovered long ago
they key to obtain the answer you are seeking lies in "how" you ask your
question. So I kept asking essentially the same question but a little
differently each time. I finally asked the *right* question and found CEIP
doesn't record programmatic actions, only "user clicks". From that I
surmised add-ins/global templates that contain customized toolbars weren't
recorded. And, as you noted, if in Word 2002 you already customized your
toolbars for Normal.dot and simply used it for Word 2003 then your
customizations wouldn't be recorded since they were already present. All
provided, of course, if you even opted in to CEIP. I suspect those users
who
are knowledgeable enough to customize their toolbars are also those who
would refrain from opting in. (I know I didn't opt in initially.)
Besides that, there's the argument that Jonathan West has been
pressing for lo these many months, that one developer can make a
template containing customizations and macros that are then used by
hundreds or thousands of end users. SQM doesn't capture any of that.
I agree with this assessment as well. If you aren't making the modifications
yourself or then customizations aren't recorded. Not to mention if one does
customize their toolbars it's not something folks do daily -- it may be a
onetime occurrence.
Why
not redesign of the menus/toolbars which also enables the ability to set
specific standards. Doing so forces developers into using a specific
standard for UI customizations and that's not necessarily a "bad thing".
Agreed that enforcing a standard for UI customizations isn't a "bad
thing". But according to Jensen that consideration was secondary to
the overload of commands that would have made the menu/toolbar
paradigm unworkable. I'm not sure I completely buy that for 2007, but
I think the feeling was that they'd get the pain out of the way this
time so people will accept it better in the next version.
I heard that as well. I'm also recalling some discussions I had with some
softies regarding add-in difficulties and the need to create some type of
standards. Who knows what the prompted the decision but I think you're
right, they introduced it now for things to come in the future.
Two things that would make the QAT-primary approach easier to accept:
distinctive icons or text for all QAT buttons (no more anonymous green
circles), and the ability to use custom icons made from arbitrary
bitmaps (preferably for any command, but at least for macros).
I think that was a bad decision too and one I complained about endlessly.
(And filed a few "wishes" on). I can accept locking them for built-in
commands that have associated images, but a bunch of green circles are
useless. They should have enabled same customizations for commands without
icons as they did macros. Also, regarding custom images, doesn't the
difficulties with transparency have something to do with the inability to
use custom icons? There's a bit on this topic he
http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archiv...image-faq.aspx
~Beth Melton