I personally like Ribbon over rows and rows of small icons without labels. I think of Ribbons like tabs that organizes the buttons that makes sense together.
But I'm not a power Office user and that's just my preference.
The ribbon didn't replace rows and rows of small icons without labels. It replaced a hierarchical menu. Now, did the hierarchical menu have flaws? It did, insofar as it was rather forbidding to explore, and as a result, new users had trouble finding functionality by clicking around. That was the use case that the Ribbon sought to address.
What the designers of the ribbon did not understand was that users have other ways to find functionality. They could look up functionality on the Internet. There were even physical books which told you which specific menu to click on for a particular function.
What the ribbon did was instantly render all those resources useless. Moreover, by attempting to constantly surface different controls based upon the context of the current task, the ribbon made it extremely difficult to make new resources and tutorials. You could make a tutorial with screenshots, only to have users come to you with screens that look nothing like your screenshot, because they just happened to be highlighting a slightly different element.
On macOS, you get both the ribbon and the hierarchical menu.
Heaven help you if trying to navigate the "ribbon" on an iPhone though.
That said, I actually do like the simplified ribbon on Office for the web - once you figure out that it too is different.
I do kind of have a bone to pick about complaining about change for its own sake though. You could say the same -- all the earlier resources are useless - about the move from Windows NT to XP to 7 to 10 to 11 (we'll pretend 8 doesn't exist) when buying a new computer. Why not complain that your Active Desktop is missing, the desktop sidebar from Vista was a poor imitation and gone in just one release, Netscape Suite doesn't load webpages due to SSL errors and you can't publish webpages from your web browser like you used to, and you have to double-click folders to open them instead of single-clicking them like back in the old days of Windows ME? Sometimes change is just change and you have to adapt to the times.
Why not complain that your Active Desktop is missing, the desktop sidebar from Vista was a poor imitation and gone in just one release, Netscape Suite doesn't load webpages due to SSL errors and you can't publish webpages from your web browser like you used to, and you have to double-click folders to open them instead of single-clicking them like back in the old days of Windows ME?
I can and I do!
Sometimes change is just change and you have to adapt to the times.
That is exactly the kind of fatalistic attitude Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Apple, et. al. want you to have. "Oh there's nothing that can be done." "Change is inevitable." "I just need to go along and accept whatever scraps my corporate overlords deign to throw in my direction."
Corporations aren't natural phenomenona. They're not the sun, nor are they moon, nor are they the wind. They are composed of people, and those people can be persuaded to make different decisions if there is a sufficient outcry. Just look at Apple's proposal to enable client-side scanning for objectionable content. There was a huge outcry and Apple walked back its plans as a result.
In the case of the Ribbon, I think one of the factors leading to the success of Google Docs is the fact that it has the old-school hierarchical menu system that Office 2003 had, but which Microsoft refactored into the Ribbon with Office 2007. In a way, Google Docs was more familiar to Word users than Word itself, making it easy to switch.
Why didn't Word for Windows ever implement the Mac-like feature of a search box in the help menu? Start typing what you think the command's name is and then its location in the menu hierarchy is highlighted for you.
There's certainly a lot of use of it, but it's painfully obvious when they do so. I think with some more time and practice many studios could make it harder to tell the difference - but it might negate a lot of the cost savings (making more fluid animations rather than the very stiff ones commonly seen, taking advantage of squash/stretch so the movements don't seem so perfect like they were done using computer animation, etc.).
Some shows/movies make it work well enough because there's things other than the animation that keep you watching, some use it for walking/transition scenes where it's easier to "blend" it in since it's background to the dialogue most of the time; but I really wouldn't say the "2d animation look" is even close to being achieved in many cases right now. Again, not because I feel the tooling is incapable of it - but because doing it right would nullify the cost savings and defeating the purpose.
I used to use 1Password when they just sold the application at a fixed price and I handle all the synchronization between machines. That option is no longer available. I'm one of the users who left because of this.
Hmmm , I have a Mac and an iPhone and the fixed price application from circa 2015-16. They are still in sync via iCloud. I can see "Sync with Dropbox" and "Sync with WLAN server" in the settings. Did you mean any custom sync options that may have existed?
I just checked the data from https://covid19.who.int/ and Austria had 93 cases per 10,000 last week where as USA had 164 cases per 10,000. Which seems like a significant difference.
I don't know if Austria mandates masks but your last sentence doesn't seem to hold up according to WHO.
I know South Korea mandates masks and they had 5 cases per 10,000 last week. :)
The case numbers are meaningless due to differences in testing rates. They don't tell us anything reliable about which strategy is more effective. The actual infection numbers are way higher because most people never get tested. The only numbers that are even somewhat comparable between countries are hospitalizations and deaths.
Yes, Austria does, and it mandates FFP-2, which while not quite N95, is pretty close (roughly equivalent to the Korean KF94 standard - 94% filtering minimum, and they allow earloops and not just headbands, which generally fit a bit worse). Still lightyears better than cloth or a typical surgical.
640kb, not 64kb, is the value used in that apocryphal quote. A quick google search would have shown that. I wonder if there's a google copilot in the works for social media posts.
