<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.techrepublic.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on 10 things that make software user-friendly ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-06-19T04:21:16-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I respectfully disagree.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3662791]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[It takes longer to find features, then remember where they are.  The user is bombarded with too many options of how to do the same thing.  Once I learn their damn ribbon layout, then yes, I might find it quicker to perform a function, but this does not detract from my frustration with Microsoft.  Once I have become comfortable with the ribbons, they will change it again.  What's next?  IMHO, the average user would like simple things to be simple.  A word processor should be simple, elegant and eloquent, not sloppily robust.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3662791]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksfrogman@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:20:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[A thought about Intuition.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3662766]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Something that is not intuitive, becomes more so if it builds on the foundation of what is already familiar to a user. Driving a car may not have been intuitive at age 15, but once I learned, I could drive other cars, because the steering wheel and foot pedals were in the same place.Microsoft needs to stop changing their already crappy software, but I know they cannot resist the desire to add more and more features the average user will not use.  The useful features and commands get buried in the mess, and become more difficult to find.  Microsoft Outlook 2010 is a prime example.  I just want to check my mail and write some replies.  I shouldn't have to sift through ribbons, tabs, and eye candy to find the send/receive button.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3662766]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[ksfrogman@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 20 Apr 2012 21:14:53 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[My apologies]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3363736]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I read the comment as an insult.  With your clarification, I do see your point, and understand it perfectly.  I think we're disagreeing more on interpretation than on substance.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3363736]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 26 Sep 2010 17:08:54 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Look]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3363676]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I was making a point, not an insult. Businesses would rather pay microsoft for their products, year after year rather use linux. That's why you (or anyone) would have trouble getting a pure linux job.Mentally deficient is an insult however. So I'm done with this conversation. Plus we're never gonna resolve this, so I say we just agree to disagree, no harm in that.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3363676]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[weston2k]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 26 Sep 2010 13:11:32 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Anything to get an insult in, eh?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3363637]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I'm all for accommodating the mentally deficient, but anybody who thinks you can get a tech support job that doesn't require any Windows work at all is, at best, only minimally sentient.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3363637]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:43:37 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[OK, but doesn't change the fact]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3363576]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[that your critism is 10 years out of date. If you use it at work so much and it's still so crap why don't you have a more up to date example than office 97?And doesn't it say a lot that you, even as a 10 year linux user can't get a job away from Microsoft?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3363576]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[weston2k]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 26 Sep 2010 04:35:32 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I said hadn't bought]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3362907]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I didn't say &quot;hadn't used.&quot;That you choose to misunderstand the point says much...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3362907]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 08:02:15 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Tell me about it]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3362910]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[@NickNielsenI soo hate it when this happens and it does happen to me with any USB drive (by any manufacturer so far) that is greater then 1TB in size.  I realize this is illogical in weston2ks world but at this stage of the game if a user is running a currently supported OS then they should be able to plug in a USB drive they bought since the OS tehy are using was released and have it work without a lot of hassle.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3362910]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[BlueCollarCritic]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 07:51:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Well...]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3362817]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[That explains why your previous critisism of MS on this thread is 10 years out of date!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3362817]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[weston2k]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 24 Sep 2010 06:03:35 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[That's the problem, then, isn't it?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3362460]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[...if you own a software company of ANY size why would you restict your design to someone elses standards? Unless you are interested in a level of interoperability of course.Microsoft obviously isn't interested in interoperability, not even with its own products.  I knew there was a reason I hadn't bought a Microsoft product (except for work) in the last 10 years.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3362460]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 10:18:52 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Everyone has missed my point]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3362270]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Who are the governing bodies to which he refers? That's just two fingers to them.I shouldn't have mentioned the multi-billion dollar aspect, if you own a software company of ANY size why would you restict your design to someone elses standards? Unless you are interested in a level of interoperability of course.Why oh why is it such a shocker that a paid-for piece of software like office doesn't follow standards that would encorage people to go down a different route other than paying for it.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3362270]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[weston2k]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 05:57:09 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Did anyone mention documentation?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361838]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Intuitive is great. However, there needs to be documentation. Of course this documentation needs to explain the features and how to use them. What is very important (and what seems to be missing from much documentation) is the documentation also needs to explain why one would want to use the features and how any feature interacts with other features.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361838]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Alchemist-Joat]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:29:39 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[It is not out-of-date]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361825]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[You may be able to save the file in .docx format, then open it using the compatibility pack with Word 2003, but what happens when you go back to 2007?  Did you lose formatting?  You probably did.  I've had problems with Word 2003 considering simple documents saved in .doc format by Word 2007 as &quot;corrupt&quot;. As a.portman notes, OpenOffice has no problems with them.Microsoft has been, and is, notorious for incrementally adjusting their &quot;standards&quot; without notice to, or consideration of, the end user of their software.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361825]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 10:25:21 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Not to get to product specific]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361751]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I think this is pretty far off the original thread, but OpenOffice has always been able to open and save in a wider range of file formats than MS Office of the same 'vintage'. That for years Word has not been able to open a Works document is just being rude to your customer base.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361751]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[a.portman@...]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 08:03:55 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[That works too :)]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361734]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[nt]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361734]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Slayer_]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 07:20:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[So, if you've got the muscle, it's OK to give two fingers to your users?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361668]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Yes, it is good for MS, but it costs the planet billions. Aren't we entitled to complain about bullies?]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361668]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Kim SJ]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 06:51:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[2 ignored issues]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361613]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[1. I can use my keyboard to navigate the entire app as well as execute any and all commands-- not in a fits &amp; starts mode of constantly having to go to the pointing device.  There is no reason I should ever have to use the pointing device unless I choose.2. Web apps should allow you to go back easy and effortlessly.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361613]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Excelmann]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 22 Sep 2010 04:46:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[No, it's not compliance, but it's also an out of date critism]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361417]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Purhaps MS is the common example of bad forward compatibility because so many people can relate to having that problem with MS software in the past. '97 and XP is a good example, but things have got better since then. I can write a file in 2007 and open in 2003 for example.I'm sure Open office probably has had the same problem, it's just because it's free, if you can't open a file, you just update.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3361417]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[weston2k]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 21 Sep 2010 15:25:51 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Better yet]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3360888]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Booted to Mint, found files hidden from Windows system.Deleted.Done.  ]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3360888]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[NickNielsen]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 22:45:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Developer's Showcase]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3360698]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This is another example of a developer trying to show off how &quot;smart&quot; they are rather than just making a product (either hardware or software) that just does what the user (who spent the money for the product) wants - reliably and as simply as possible.  One more reason to steer away from Western Digital.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.techrepublic.com/forum/discussions/102-336000-3360698]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[john3347]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Mon, 20 Sep 2010 14:59:51 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

