The Why of the New UI (Part 1)


This is the first in a series of entries in which I outline some of the reasons we decided to pursue a new user interface for Office 2007.


Any discussion about the graphical user interface of computers today has to start all the way back at the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) in the 1970s. An amazing and ultimately historic collection of brainpower came together to work on the Alto and later Star systems. A remarkable collection of technologies and concepts that are now commonplace were first incubated at PARC: WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get), the use of the mouse, the desktop metaphor (including folders and icons), overlapping windows, Ethernet, laser printing, and a number of the controls that now encompass the modern user interface: menus, scroll bars, edit controls, check boxes. This picture gives you some idea of what the Star interface looked like. (Some idiosyncrasies of the Star, such as the fact that you had to click on inactive windows in order to cause them to paint, are largely forgotten today.)



(Click to enlarge)


The Star was not a commercial success, and today many technology historians point out that Xerox did not do very much to protect the intellectual property they created. As a result, most people today think of Xerox as just a copier company despite the essential role PARC played in incubating the modern user interface.


Many of the influential contributors to the ideas behind the Star found their way to other companies, notably Microsoft and Apple. Apple was first to borrow and expand upon the ideas of the Star, first in the failed high-end Lisa system and then later in the Macintosh. Lisa standardized a number of designs that are still used in many modern user interfaces: the top-level menu bar, the concept of checking selected menu items and graying out those that are disabled. (The changes weren’t all good–some PARC ideas abandoned by Apple, such as proportional scroll bars, didn’t make their way back into the mainstream until Windows 95.) If you’re interested in a more detailed history with screenshots, Jeremy Reimer has an interesting site.


The Macintosh went on to to inherit much from the Star and Lisa and, of course, the Mac brand name carries on today. Microsoft worked with early Apple prototypes to develop Word 1.0, which shipped in 1984 with the original Mac. Multiplan and Chart were also under development for the 512K Mac, and they eventually shipped together in 1985 as Microsoft Excel 1.0: the first blockbuster retail program available for the Macintosh (and the stated reason many people purchased early Macs.) Here you can see pictures of early Microsoft productivity apps in Apple advertising from 1984


Thus, the roots of the early Microsoft Office programs were rooted in the Mac and of course, the user interface reflected that. As the Mac’s first and biggest provider of software (a title Microsoft still holds today), some of the UI decisions made in the original Macintosh were influenced by the needs of Microsoft’s development teams. While the extent to which it is admitted this happened varies widely depending on the personal account, it is safe to say that the programs were developed with an intimate understanding of the system and vice versa. Certainly, the basic outline of Office’s graphical user interface (especially the use of a top-level menu bar) has its roots in that first Macintosh version.


Next time, we visit “Ye Olde Museum of Office Past” and look at Word for Windows through the ages.

Comments (36)

  1. LarryOsterman says:

    Umm..  Microsoft Word first appeared for the PC in 1982 or 1983, by the time the Mac appeared, Microsoft Word was up to version 2.<something-or-other>.  I don’t believe a version of Word appeared for the Mac until about the same time as Excel shipped (if not later).

    I believe that Microsoft had significant involvement in the development of MacWrite however.

  2. Deja vu says:

    Is there some reason why you’re repeating what you’ve already written?

    You wrote the same thing almost word for word back in September: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2005/09/26/473950.aspx

    Surely there must be something new to write about?  I’d like to hear more about the QAT – is there a way to customize it once you add stuff to it (e.g., rearrange its content, etc), and how is this accomplished?  Also, what about internationalization support – how does the ribbon layout change for right-to-left languages like Hebrew?

  3. Aaron M. Hall says:

    Deja vu– Since you actually read the archives, might I recommend reading yesterday’s post for your answer? 🙂

  4. lol says:

    Gives another meaning to the word: feed-back =8)

  5. Larry, the PC and Mac version numbers are not always in step.  Word for DOS (aka Word 1.0) shipped in May of 1983 I believe.  But Word 1.0 for Mac, shipped a year or so later, bore no resemblance to Word for DOS and can hardly be called the same product.  There wasn’t any Word 2.0 for Mac – they skipped straight to 3.0 in an attempt to align the version numbers.  This was quickly, and rather expensively, followed by Word for Mac 3.01 and the concept of the "Service Pack" was born even if not yet by that name. 🙂

    -B-

  6. Brian says:

    Jensen,

    Great article. But I believe that NextStep had proportinal scroll bars before Win95. I know the Mac didn’t get them until OS8 or 8.5, I think.

    Brian

  7. Kazi says:

    My favorite article in this topic:

    The History of Human Computer Interaction

    http://www2.iicm.edu/cguetl/education/projects/mischitz/Seminar.htm

  8. phuong says:

    Xin chao, Minh den tu HL, minh mong muon duoc lam quen voi tat ca cac ban. Thanks you

  9. phuong says:

    Xin chao, Minh den tu HL, minh mong muon duoc lam quen voi tat ca cac ban. Thanks you

  10. MikeW2 says:

    I agree with a previous correspondent who asked why this was a repeat.

    Yes, I’d already read the previous article so I know that you are repeating yourself, but why not just post ONE message with a list of links to all those earlier articles and then either get on with some new stuff or just have a few days off.

    Now I have to check out every *new* (huh!?) article to see whether it’s a repeat or not.

    It’s unfortunate to need to complain to one of the few Microsoft Office 12 (2007 if you must) bloggers who have posted (often and well) since the start of this MS Office 2007 blogging effort.

    However I *was* there from the beginning and now you are just (tries several versions and finally goes for) "making me sad".

    How about a message entitled "***NEW STUFF*** when you finally stop posting your repeats?

    Mike Walsh

  11. This is the fifth part in my eight-part series of entries in which I outline some of the reasons we decided…

  12. Kathy says:

    Good design!

    [url=http://oioatfla.com/xigd/qyvf.html]My homepage[/url] | [url=http://qclmmmau.com/aceo/twda.html]Cool site[/url]

  13. Programming says:

    I&#39;m a big fan of incremental search . But incremental search isn&#39;t just for navigating large