News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Windows 9x and Word 9x at 800x600 resolution. Spacious. Comfy. Parent comment

Re:Windows 9x and Word 9x at 800x600 resolution. Spacious. C... by torstenvl on Tuesday July 11, 2023 @09:38PM (#36689464)
The computer display certainly could do a print layout in Word '97.

https://imgur.com/a/nKbXwva

And the issue isn't the content margins, it's the UI. There's no reason to have a paste button 3-4x the size of other buttons, for example.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Windows 9x and Word 9x at 800x600 resolution. Spacious. C... by tamrix on Tuesday July 11, 2023 @11:35PM (#36690191)
He clearly implys they didn't have the print layout as a default. So the original comparison is unfair.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Windows 9x and Word 9x at 800x600 resolution. Spacious. C... by kalleboo on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @01:12AM (#36690676)
> There's no reason to have a paste button 3-4x the size of other buttons, for example

When Microsoft created the ribbon layout, this was the tail-end of when they were still doing lots of user-research, by putting real users in labs and observing how well they did at common tasks.

So I believe them that having a paste button 3-4x bigger than the size of the other buttons is actually better for the majority of the users.

These days UIs are just all defined by the designer or developers personal preference, without any actual user testing ("personally I just use command-V, why would you even NEED a paste button??!!", "lets make all these icons tiny and gray and obscure because it looks cleaner!!")

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Windows 9x and Word 9x at 800x600 resolution. Spacious. C... by nirimda on Wednesday July 12, 2023 @09:50AM (#36694501)
Word 6.0 from Windows 3.11 had a print layout on 800x600. I recall it being presented as new at the time but I didn't have any prior experience to compare it against.
[ Parent | on HN ]