529
Why ODF and not OOXML - TDF Community Blog
blog.documentfoundation.orgMany interpreted the last article in this series as an attack on Microsoft for using the OOXML format against users’ interests. However, this was only one of my objectives, as I also wanted to raise users’ awareness of fake open-source software, such as OnlyOffice, which partners with Microsoft in a strategy to lock users in. Users are already aware of the advantages of standard, open formats because they access sites every day whose content is accessible thanks to the HTML format. This is a standard, open format that was first developed and then defended by its inventor, Tim Berners-Lee. He prevented Microsoft from transforming it into a proprietary format with Internet Explorer 6. This forced users to have two versions of a site: one in a standard format and one in a proprietary format. Fortunately, Microsoft’s strategy failed in the case of HTML because the W3C – unlike the ISO – never recognised the changes to the format “forced” by Internet Explorer as valid. This was because Internet Explorer did not display sites in the standard format correctly. Ultimately, this forced the company to develop a browser that complies with all standards, thus allowing users to choose their preferred browser
LO also has the ribbon interface. But not by default.
The Ribbon interface is terrible, though. The styles selector doesn’t fit the entire button, and it also doesn’t resize with your window size, remaining super tiny not capable of displaying three full options simultaneously.
Word at least got that right.
My preferred layout is Sidebar, but even there the style is just a regular dropdown. LibreOffice is fantastic, but they need to put some more work into UX.
Good. Those that want it can enable it. I don’t. Takes up too much screen space showing a lot of unnecessary icons
IIRC, the last time I used a new install of LO for the first time, it asked me which interface I preferred instead of defaulting to the old one.
True, but it is a purely aesthetic rearrangement of the menus. It doesn’t make it any more straightforward to navigate. Plus it doesn’t really function correctly on Windows (and it takes up just as much screen space).
It was a good step when they rolled it out about a decade ago, but they still haven’t done the work to make it better organized or show appropriate hierarchy.
And what do you think gui is?
As per my previous comment, it should offer reasonable use of screen space, visual hierarchy, and well-reasoned organization. Moving bad menus to a different arrangement on the screen doesn’t magically make them into good menus.
As a first step, it was a good move, although it was a decade late when it came out. They still haven’t done a major redesign another decade on.