[Peter T. Daniels]

? All the icons have labels beside or below them, unless your screen
is so narrow that the Ribbon's width is compressed; it continues to
show all commands by suppressing labels as necessary.

Moreover, the Ribbon is far _more_ hierarchically useful than the
menus were, since the tabs, "groups," and columns are always fully
visible. Whereas, by the time you've slid over to two or three layers
of nested menus, your cursor slips off the line it's investigating,
they all close up, and you have to go all the way back to the
beginning.

On Feb 24, 12:52*pm, JBGM wrote:
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. I am not against icons. I am against being forced to use an interface
that *only* has icons. 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.