Couldn’t agree more, if you’re pitching Linux to a non-technical user, you need a gentler off-ramp, not a cliff dive. LibreOffice is a UI time capsule..more archaeology than productivity. Most millennials would think they’d accidentally opened a flight simulator.
I was confused about this because last time I used LibreOffice it wasn't that bad. Turns out, it's really just a normal UI? I guess the biggest difference is it doesn't conform to Microsoft's design but to call it a time capsule is a bit dramatic.
I think by default after fresh install it suggests the "old" layout akin to Office 2000, but you can just select "tabbed ribbon" and then it really isn't half bad.
You know we are living in crazy times when people actually actively ask for the ribbon interface instead of making fun of Microsoft for it. It's one of the worst things ever conceived in UI design.
Both have their issues but having 50 uncategorized icons (I just looked up default libre office ui screenshot and counted...) is something only a power user can love. They can keep their classic ui as an option.
Categorized ribbon is an improvement for most people. Especially new generations who simply can't enjoy the effect of shared conventions with other software.
I’m relieved to see I’m not alone. I expected my comment to be downvoted because speaking against LibreOffice triggers some people
> LibreOffice is a UI time capsule..more archaeology than productivity.
I agree. Seeing the comments here claiming the outdated UI is a good thing, actually, brings up one of the big problems with a lot of open source and/or Linux soecific software: The resistance to UI change is huge among die-hard users so the projects tend to get stuck in whatever UI language they had a decade ago when they started
When I introduce people to open source versions of different software I find myself starting with “The UI has a steep learning curve, but…”.
It would be so much easier if we could give people apps that were targeted at familiar UI patterns of today, even if it angers a vocal minority who want every UI to look like it came out of the 90s or early 2000s when they first discovered their love of computers.
>The resistance to UI change is huge among die-hard users so the projects tend to get stuck in whatever UI language they had a decade ago when they started
Oh, worse: stuck in whatever weird, half-baked UI decisions that were made because someone had a great idea that they did not test at all, or because they hated the industry standard approach that everyone else uses. It's no secret that Blender adoption exploded when they added normal menus, and then made right-click select an optional function, and then finally added an auto Maya-like interface option.
But that's one instance where we lucked out. Not just because they fixed it, but also because the thing that needed to be fixed was in users' face and obvious.
I don't think it's that people want a certain nostalgic UI. It's that most of these applications are built by volunteers, for free, and are already understaffed. From an individual's perspective, it's much more important, and possible, to fix bug #155 or implement a new feature than to try to overhaul the entire UI. In order to do that, you'd have to get everyone on board and everyone would have to agree with the changes. A lot of projects are too flat as organizations for this to go smoothly.
I'll grant that it's personal preference and OP should do what his customers prefer, but what you said is a good thing. UIs have sucked for some time now, so something which deliberately uses an older style is generally far superior.
