Talk:Ribbon (computing)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Keyboard accessibility

The ribbon in Office does not lack keyboard accessibility. Just press alt, and there you go... (84.31.63.81 19:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Non-disclosure agreement

What is that BS about signing NDA to get Ribbon design guidelines? They are available for download right here: http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/office/aa973809.aspx 71.117.4.238 21:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Then what is this? "Microsoft Evaluation License: 2007 Microsoft Office System User Interface". In short, you need to agree to these terms to get the evaluation copy. Quoting the web page:

CONFIDENTIALITY. The Design Guidelines, and the terms of this Agreement, are Microsoft’s confidential information. You cannot disclose them to anyone else without Microsoft’s prior written approval. However, you may disclose them to your contractors who have a need to know as long as they also agree to abide by the terms of this agreement.

Sounds like a non-disclosure agreement to me. I'll cite this link in the article, thanks. -- intgr 00:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prior art needs citation if true, doubtful though

The claim that the ribbon may not be patentable because of prior art needs a credible citation. The Slashdot article on the licensing guidelines for the ribbon interface have a few posts from Slashdot visitors claiming its similar to something incorporated in an old version of 1-2-3. But if you read what they say is similar, its obvious that they aren't the same thing and wouldn't be viewed as the same thing legally (pressing a key leads to a horizontal menu in 1-2-3, versus a combination of a menu and a toolbar system in Office, come on). One person says its similar to whats implemented in Adobe products, but all Adobe products have is a toolbar that changes per task, something Microsoft is not attempting to patent. To make this claim in the article you have to cite an expert in patent law. You can't cite angry posters on Slashdot, who are mainly objecting because they hate the idea of patenting software features and interfaces in general, and have no concept as to what is patentable.

Yes its legitimate to point out some open source advocates are attacking Microsoft about this. But the way its presented in the article makes it sound like they have a point. Also, its not clear whether any credible open source advocates are pursuing this argument, or its just a bunch of Slashdot posters. People on forums and Slashdot often just think up any arguments they can to make any point they can, whether or not the arguments are credible. Wikipedia really can't appease every Slashdot poster's pet argument even if its wrong.

Please either cite a patent expert on the issue, and if you're just going to comment on open source advocates, a credible leader in open source advocacy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brianshapiro (talk • contribs).

True. The obvious problem here is that nobody has seen the patent yet. I'm not even sure when or if Microsoft is going to submit an application (this claim is still tagged as "citation needed" in the article). As prior art depends on how broad the patent is going to be, I wouldn't except to see any qualified "reviews" of it any time soon.

I wouldn't like to throw out the entire statement. The fact is, that it's being criticized, and is controversial. The practice of licensing a patent before even submitting an application is unusual at best, and that's what is actually being criticized. I do agree that Slashdot comments are not a reliable source, but it does document the general reactions from the community. As far as WP:POV is concerned, I don't see a problem.

What do you think? -- intgr 19:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)