Coach Wade

Intriguingly, the same woman that was responsible for the MS Office 2010 "Ribbon" fiasco was also the one who arbitrarily decided that Windows 8 didn't need a Start menu. She has since been relegated to "Chief Design Officer," a position with no actual authority or oversight. It seems that almost all companies have a problem understanding that users are not interested in having our workflow disrupted. We don't want layout changes. We don't want menus to move. We don't want "more efficiency." We're already using the product because it makes us efficient! If it didn't, we'd find another product. It seems common sense to me that if you're going to change the design of a product to such a degree that it alters the user's workflow, what you're essentially doing is asking the user to learn a new product. As a user, if you're going to force me to learn a new product, why are you assuming that it will be YOUR product and not an entirely different one?! For example, for years I used a particular video editing software. When they changed from a linear, storyboard, format to a non-linear pageview format, I simply stopped using them and bought another software. (They were demanding users pay for this upgrade, anyway.)

Because they're too busy not fixing bugs and rolling out useless junk like Work Chat.