A number of quibbles about things semi-confused in this article here:
1) Fluent UI is not Ribbon UI; I'm not sure why Fluent is mentioned in the article headline, other than an implication there might be unspoken patents in the Fluent Design System, and that's an indirect spook from the topic at hand.
2) Corel's violations of the Office Ribbon UI licensing terms clearly happened during the time in which the Office Ribbon UI licensing was enforced (that is, prior to the most general release/retiring from those terms in 2016).
3) The article author seems to have a hard time finding resources regarding the historic Office Ribbon licensing terms, but even just using Jensen's blog heavily linked in the article you can find a relatively detailed FAQ: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jensenh/2006/11/21/licensin...
4) The key violation of Corel for the licensing terms should be very obvious from Jensen's FAQ:
> There's only one limitation: if you are building a program which directly competes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the Microsoft applications with the new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free license.
"Fluent" was the official name for the new Office UI system introduced with Office 2007 (which included not only the ribbon, but other stuff like the new context menus/floating toolbar, new keyboard shortcut system, etc.) The name didn't really catch on and I think Microsoft stopped using it after a short time, but I guess they eventually reused it for the new design concept introduced with Windows Redstone.
Fluent UI is probably mentioned because "Microsoft Office Fluent user interface (UI)" (short: Fluent UI) used to mean Ribbon UI, long before the Fluent Design System existed.
Ribbon UI is very discoverable. I bet most people would have a better chance of picking up a feature-rich program such as AutoCAD nowadays than back in the time of menus and toolbars.
CAD packages are a good example, really. They tend to have tons of features, which are fairly easy to find with a ribbon, but also have lots of configurability (hideable toolbars) and speed features (radial menus) for power users. But the balance is hard to strike - if anything they tend to have too many ways of doing things, and not good enough defaults.
The current incarnation of Microsoft Office products' UI is a mess too. Buttons and search bars all over the chrome of the windows (what used to be the title bar), most of the old Alt+letter codes still working, and ribbon 'tabs' that bring up full-page menus (the File menu). My answer to your probably-rhetorical question is yes, you should use a ribbon design in a windowed app, to provide a baseline level of making the features easy-to-find. The difficult part is adding more powerful power-user features or most-used features without turning the interface into a big mess.
If the UI of an application involves a huge deeply nested menu of actions that directly modify the visual look of the data being worked on, then a Ribbon might be the right paradigm.
The Ribbon UI was a huge improvement to Excel and Word. I'm kind of mixed on how it has been used in other places.
Yes. As soon as it came out all of the non-computer people I know said, “wow, this is awesome”. No matter what you think about purity or other concepts of how things “should” be, the fact is it made using these programs far more accessible to the average user than they were before, and that’s really the point of computing.
Honestly I don't mind the ribbon UI. It might not be the best approach for all applications, but I think it's appropriate or at least not harmful in MS Office. It's not much different than a menu, functionally, but the persistence and contextual responsiveness I think adds something.
I use this software predominantly because of it’s superior user experience design, which involves a GUI that some would say is dated but most still agree it is great. I love everything about the GUI except the ribbon. Updating the GUI with Qt has not helped the ribbon’s case one bit.
It seems a typical side effect of ribbon application is extraneous options at ribbon’s reach which could very well be be tucked away in a preferences pane, and controls that could be more readily exposed tucked away in the ribbon. And, all of them are therefor now hard to find if not in daily use.
3ds Max users learned it serves one part of what we do decently, which is low level poly modeling where you keep switching between tools which have no great categorization and you know each of these tools like the back of your hand. Even then, most have abandoned the ribbon. And Explorer has nothing even slightly similar. The inconsistent widget display, interactivity, and functionality is a real issue.
If a user interface element can’t be reused, it defeats any usability you might gain from using it. It simply won’t be familiar - at least, not as familiar as it could/should be.
Actually the TL;DR should be "Yes, using one of this set of frameworks, and we won't tell you if any other framework can use it" since Microsoft declined to comment.
It's almost as if there is complete disregard for "prior art" when it comes to software patents. It's a bit ridiculous really. Microsoft shouldn't have gotten the patent and they shouldn't have won this case.
So keep in mind that what is patented is in the claims. Here's the first claim from one of the MS patents on the Ribbon UI:
----------------
1. A method for providing functionality from a software application by displaying an improved user interface at a display device, the method comprising:
organizing a plurality of software functionalities according to tasks to be performed by the software application, the tasks being identified textually by user interface tabs;
upon receiving an indication of a selection of a first user interface tab, providing a plurality of selectable controls associated with a first task, each selectable control being presented by a graphic representation and a textual representation;
grouping the plurality of selectable controls into logical groupings of the plurality of selectable controls, wherein each of the logical groupings combine a subset of functionalities associated with the selected first user interface tab;
dynamically adjusting a layout of at least one of the logical groupings to accommodate the user interface, wherein dynamically adjusting the layout of the at least one logical grouping comprises reducing a size of the graphical representation of at least one selectable control within the logical grouping eliminating the textual representation of at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping, and preserving the graphical representation associated with the at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping;
upon receiving an indication of a selection of a second user interface tab, providing in the user interface a plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under a second task associated with the second user interface tab;
after providing in the user interface the plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under the second task, receiving an indication of a selection of one of the additional selectable controls organized under the second task;
applying functionality associated with the selected additional selectable control to a selected object; and
when the second user interface tab is not selected in the user interface, providing in the user interface the plurality of selectable controls organized under the first task associated with the selected first user interface tab.
----------------
Does this exactly exist in the prior art? You can be sure that Corel looked. That is a, frankly, very narrow claim. It protects a rather well defined implementation, not a general idea of tab-based navigation. This is probably why they were only awarded ~$270k in damages. In patent litigation terms, that's a pittance. It doesn't even come close to paying for their attorneys to work on the case, i.e., MS lost money here. So the courts are definitely recognizing the very narrow nature of what is protected by their patents.
Edit: also keep in mind that wilfulness was found, which means treble damages. I'm a little unclear if the reported $278k number is factoring that in or not, but if it is, that means the actual damages found were 1/3 of that. Which is well into mere nuisance territory for just about any corporation. Heck, that's into efficient infringement territory for Corel, if they think that redesigning would cost more than that (aside from the wilfulness aspect). I guess what I'm getting at here is that this is not something to be up in arms about.
Also, check out what Corel actually did here.[1] That's a pretty obvious clone of MS Word if I ever saw it. Say what you will about patents, but this is egregious copying and I don't think it's wrong of MS to defend themselves here.
So Microsoft is a patent troll, just like Apple (who decided to sue Samsung for the 'slide to unlock'). On the bright side, I think most people don't like the 'ribbon' (I don't understand the difference with a normal tabbed UI anyway) pattern anyway.
[+] [-] WorldMaker|8 years ago|reply
1) Fluent UI is not Ribbon UI; I'm not sure why Fluent is mentioned in the article headline, other than an implication there might be unspoken patents in the Fluent Design System, and that's an indirect spook from the topic at hand.
2) Corel's violations of the Office Ribbon UI licensing terms clearly happened during the time in which the Office Ribbon UI licensing was enforced (that is, prior to the most general release/retiring from those terms in 2016).
3) The article author seems to have a hard time finding resources regarding the historic Office Ribbon licensing terms, but even just using Jensen's blog heavily linked in the article you can find a relatively detailed FAQ: https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/jensenh/2006/11/21/licensin...
4) The key violation of Corel for the licensing terms should be very obvious from Jensen's FAQ:
> There's only one limitation: if you are building a program which directly competes with Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook, or Access (the Microsoft applications with the new UI), you can't obtain the royalty-free license.
[+] [-] contextfree|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 1wd|8 years ago|reply
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff461922(v=offic...
[+] [-] cpburns2009|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rm445|8 years ago|reply
CAD packages are a good example, really. They tend to have tons of features, which are fairly easy to find with a ribbon, but also have lots of configurability (hideable toolbars) and speed features (radial menus) for power users. But the balance is hard to strike - if anything they tend to have too many ways of doing things, and not good enough defaults.
The current incarnation of Microsoft Office products' UI is a mess too. Buttons and search bars all over the chrome of the windows (what used to be the title bar), most of the old Alt+letter codes still working, and ribbon 'tabs' that bring up full-page menus (the File menu). My answer to your probably-rhetorical question is yes, you should use a ribbon design in a windowed app, to provide a baseline level of making the features easy-to-find. The difficult part is adding more powerful power-user features or most-used features without turning the interface into a big mess.
[+] [-] com2kid|8 years ago|reply
The Ribbon UI was a huge improvement to Excel and Word. I'm kind of mixed on how it has been used in other places.
[+] [-] orev|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patentatt|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] swiley|8 years ago|reply
Bad GUI design will eventually literally be against the law.
[+] [-] gt_|8 years ago|reply
I use this software predominantly because of it’s superior user experience design, which involves a GUI that some would say is dated but most still agree it is great. I love everything about the GUI except the ribbon. Updating the GUI with Qt has not helped the ribbon’s case one bit.
It seems a typical side effect of ribbon application is extraneous options at ribbon’s reach which could very well be be tucked away in a preferences pane, and controls that could be more readily exposed tucked away in the ribbon. And, all of them are therefor now hard to find if not in daily use.
3ds Max users learned it serves one part of what we do decently, which is low level poly modeling where you keep switching between tools which have no great categorization and you know each of these tools like the back of your hand. Even then, most have abandoned the ribbon. And Explorer has nothing even slightly similar. The inconsistent widget display, interactivity, and functionality is a real issue.
[+] [-] jaclaz|8 years ago|reply
Though not an headline, Batteridge Law applies nonetheless:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
even in the more blunt form:
WHY would anyone (outside Microsoft) actually want to use the ribbon interface?
[+] [-] oneeyedpigeon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Wofiel|8 years ago|reply
(TL;DR: Yes, using one of this set of frameworks)
[+] [-] klez|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lolikoisuru|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterGR|8 years ago|reply
Why not? What prior art are you thinking of, specifically?
[+] [-] patentatt|8 years ago|reply
----------------
1. A method for providing functionality from a software application by displaying an improved user interface at a display device, the method comprising:
organizing a plurality of software functionalities according to tasks to be performed by the software application, the tasks being identified textually by user interface tabs;
upon receiving an indication of a selection of a first user interface tab, providing a plurality of selectable controls associated with a first task, each selectable control being presented by a graphic representation and a textual representation;
grouping the plurality of selectable controls into logical groupings of the plurality of selectable controls, wherein each of the logical groupings combine a subset of functionalities associated with the selected first user interface tab;
dynamically adjusting a layout of at least one of the logical groupings to accommodate the user interface, wherein dynamically adjusting the layout of the at least one logical grouping comprises reducing a size of the graphical representation of at least one selectable control within the logical grouping eliminating the textual representation of at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping, and preserving the graphical representation associated with the at least one selectable control associated with the at least one logical grouping;
upon receiving an indication of a selection of a second user interface tab, providing in the user interface a plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under a second task associated with the second user interface tab;
after providing in the user interface the plurality of additional selectable controls for selecting functionalities organized under the second task, receiving an indication of a selection of one of the additional selectable controls organized under the second task;
applying functionality associated with the selected additional selectable control to a selected object; and
when the second user interface tab is not selected in the user interface, providing in the user interface the plurality of selectable controls organized under the first task associated with the selected first user interface tab.
----------------
Does this exactly exist in the prior art? You can be sure that Corel looked. That is a, frankly, very narrow claim. It protects a rather well defined implementation, not a general idea of tab-based navigation. This is probably why they were only awarded ~$270k in damages. In patent litigation terms, that's a pittance. It doesn't even come close to paying for their attorneys to work on the case, i.e., MS lost money here. So the courts are definitely recognizing the very narrow nature of what is protected by their patents.
Source: https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8255828_B2
Edit: also keep in mind that wilfulness was found, which means treble damages. I'm a little unclear if the reported $278k number is factoring that in or not, but if it is, that means the actual damages found were 1/3 of that. Which is well into mere nuisance territory for just about any corporation. Heck, that's into efficient infringement territory for Corel, if they think that redesigning would cost more than that (aside from the wilfulness aspect). I guess what I'm getting at here is that this is not something to be up in arms about.
Also, check out what Corel actually did here.[1] That's a pretty obvious clone of MS Word if I ever saw it. Say what you will about patents, but this is egregious copying and I don't think it's wrong of MS to defend themselves here.
1: https://www.techrepublic.com/blog/windows-and-office/review-...
[+] [-] KozmoNau7|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostgame|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] meuk|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oaiey|8 years ago|reply
They are playing the hard game with patents, but IMHO not troll style.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] chris_wot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] patentatt|8 years ago|reply
https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_8255828_B2
https://www.lens.org/lens/patent/US_7703036_B2
Source: http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/02/13/93710/id=93710/
[+] [-] OnlyRepliesToBS|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]