[nlawalker]

>> And it's not like Word gained many actually useful features during that time.

Then use the 10 year old version! Unless, of course, one of those few "actually useful features" is something you can't live without.

A lot of people use Word for a lot of use cases. The value of an added feature that someone needs always trumps the performance cost of adding it until the performance becomes so bad that it becomes the reason that other people stop using it.

[XorNot]

People who complain about bloat are usually complaining about features they don't use. Of course watch what happens when people start doing metrics and optimizing their UI for "common uses" - turns out you're optimizing for non-existent users (see: the Ribbon).

[JoeAltmaier]

The ribbon gets knocked a lot; but the median word processor user has zero experience. The ribbon gives them a fighting chance to find what they need. At the expense of 'expert users' with their idiomatic expectations.

[TeMPOraL]

Which is a problem because tools should be just that - tools. You don't make welders or soldering irons easy for people with zero experience. You make them effective and efficient tools, and then train people to use them. Heck, show me a single musical instrument giving zero-experienced users "a fighting chance to find what they need".

It's weird how new trends in UX design try to make a first-time user become a genius immediately after double-clicking on the program icon. The only way you can do that is by dumbing down the software to the point it can actually be comprehended this way - which makes it much less usable and effective as a tool.

[JoeAltmaier]

That's the expert talking. The tool is made for the most common case - a new hire meeting it for the first time. They're not gonna do a good job; but anything that can improve their performance, pays. Follow the money.