> Outside of fundamentally better workflow improvements, most professional fields don't randomly change their tools. If you gave a professional artist a new pencil that had to be gripped differently for no reason, they'd throw it in the trash.
>
> But in software, we tolerate buggy tools that change all the time for no discernible reason. We tolerate software that simultaneously targets professionals and casual users, serving both segments poorly. We tolerate software that can't be customized or adapted for specific workflows. It's tough to put into words, but if you watch a musician or a painter interact with their tools, there's a very clear difference that emerges, and over time you start to realize how much better all of their stuff is.
>
> In most professional artistic settings, workflow changes only happen because they have a clear benefit -- drawing from your shoulder instead of your wrist, changing your embouchure if you play an instrument. And even in those fields, it's generally accepted that over time people will end up with very specialized setups that are very consistent and refined and that remain constant for years and years.
>
> Only in the software industry would someone tell me that my professional tools should change because change is inherently good. Only in commercial software would an elegant, consistent interface like Markdown that allowed me to build up decades of muscle memory until my computer was an extension of my fingers and I didn't need to think about the way I typed -- only in software would that be considered a bad thing.
There is middle ground between doing significant changes all the time and no changes in ~30 years.
I was working at a software company years back that was doing this significant interface change. I suggested we have an 'end goal' interface and breakdown changes into multiple releases over time, organised it so each version change is easier to adapt to and educates somewhat in the changes as they occur, but this approach got no traction. I still wonder if its the correct approach or its better to get it over with in one go and then try to be stable.
At least in my experience the “one and done” feels better, but make it so the new one is somehow faster or easier or something. (Not salesforce lightning, e.g.)
The other ends up feeling like death by a thousand cuts.
I’m a business owner and use Quickbooks online and a couple years ago they just flat out changed how they calculated taxes. When I reported the bug they just kept repeating how I could completely change my process to make it work, like they had released some new feature. But they really just broke shit, and refused to ever acknowledge it. There’s no way I was the only person reporting this. They obviously don’t care
So you are saying Quickbooks is trying to be the next SAP?
(for those who don't know/understand, the "joke" in the industry about SAP is that it's a perfect fit for you, so long as you are willing to change all your processes and workflows to fit SAP. And no, it's not really a joke)
To be fair, I think the 'joke' is that for a regular 7- to 9-figure injection of capital, SAP will do things your way. Until you realize it's easier to just change your whole business top to bottom to do things the SAP Way.
Was this in reference to payroll tax, cause I also got screwed on that from them. I paid for payroll but they didn't file any papers. They paid everything but never ever filed a 940 or 941. By the time government speed came around and the IRS notified me I was delinquent for 2 years. I ended paying 2-3k in fees, dropped there payroll that day. But sadly still suffer through their accounting.
I once offered to fix the tab order on an input form, so the cursor started in the right box. The manager of that team got very excited and asked me not to change anything, the team had got used to the keystrokes!
I've found that once a behavior is released in the wild, even a bug, people will build it into their workflows and rely on its presence. Frustrating but unavoidable.
> just using excel because it won’t change on them.
Are your accounting people quite young? Excel moves and changes stuff, though not on quite such an aggressive timeline. Modern Office is not like 1990s Office where you buy it and then it doesn't change unless you decide to change it.
This is fine, the universe's one constant is change, if we fight it we'll lose, but it's worth calling out that there will be change, just some of these outfits are taking the piss.
Excel is distinctly different from the rest of Office for a power user because while you're right that they've reorganized things (though only one real reorganization since at least Office 95, that's pretty good), the keyboard shortcuts have remained the same for literally my entire life. It's why Excel is nonstandard and weird compared to even other Office apps: Excel is the most this-is-for-work tool in Office, and they've been loath to break things for people like...well...me.
And I don't hate the ribbon interface, I think it's totally fine--but also, in Excel specifically, I almost never click a button on it.
QuickBooks's online version, on the other hand, has terrible discoverability and doesn't have standard keyboard controls.
> Are your accounting people quite young? Excel moves and changes stuff, though not on quite such an aggressive timeline.
Excel UI interface changes but it won't change your spreadsheet content, which is the core functionality Excel users care about.
I've been using 15 year old .xlsx files with no issues across Excel 2007, to 2021, and Excel online.
I've seen companies using files with an absurd amount of worksheets within the file, or with an absurd number of rows (up to the limit), and those haven't been broken.
And I don't remember transitioning from xls to xlsx to be that painful, but this might be untrue for people using some very specific features.
The chrome of Excel changes. The core product is COBOL like in its stability.
The problem with all of these enterprise web applications is that they all suck. I worked for a big government agency that transitioned from a mostly homegrown, mainframe 3270 based accounting system to PeopleSoft. The staff revolted.
We joked about the “Revenge of the Beancounters”, but looking at it, they were right. It took them 4-6 months to train a new person with the old system, but they were hyper-productive. With the new system, they actually needed to grow the staff because you couldn’t build out workflows that the business needed.
They did get some benefits, like improved payments and invoice tracking. (Which drove the business case) But the general financial operations suffered.
It is already many years ago since that I started to do certain jobs in Libre Office (back then it was still OpenOffice.org) even if I had MS Office. I mean, it was better at certain tasks and costed nothing.
In all fairness, back them I also had to use MS Office for certain other tasks, but luckily I don't need that anymore.
Now there is Confluence instead however to mangle our docs and waste our time.
EDIT: rather than downvoting, maybe you could engage? Following the thread back the question was about accountants using Excel and then someone weighed in that they use Libre/open office. I have never seen an accountant use libre office for accounts work, hence my question. Are you an accountant who moved from Excel because of whatever, or was your comment irrelevant?
I'm not, and I'm sure if I had to use Excel every day I would adapt. But both Windows and Office reached their peak at around 2003 and it's been downhill ever since. I quite liked Windows 2000 Pro as a desktop.
I'm sure he's not, I am one and I have to use excel though I also hate the ribbon but I just use excel 2010 + ubitmenu and will continue to use that version or similar until I can't anymore
I had used excel 2003 until I was forced to use win 10 at which point it barely functioned anymore (i.e., it worked great in win 7)
I still miss excel 2003, it has been downhill from there
As for accounting software, they all mostly stink though serve a purpose in larger companies where you need some degree of separation of duties to reduce (at least in appearance as much internal control is theatre) error/theft risk...
The Excel UI has changed once significantly in the past 2 decades with the addition of the Ribbon.
The Excel data format has changed once, significantly, in the past 2 decades (which was forced on MS and even though MS has tried to sabotage the openness of the new formats they were required to create, its still much better than the predecessors).
It’s hard to think of any other change that wasn’t just an addition (new formulas, higher column/row limits).
> Many companies have tons of desginers who need to prove they are needed, so they force change for the sake of change - at the cost of users.
That may be one part.
But another part is companies that need to demonstrate to their uses that a version change is a big change.
Microsoft is (im)famous for this: as far as I can tell, there has been little need for the constant UI churn in windows aside from convincing users that a new version is big enough to warrant that appellation (as opposed to a service pack/patch).
It might be like the thing at Google, where people want to get promoted and big changes or new launches are the only way up, regardless of the effect on user experience.
That’s just one leg of the stool. They used to be relentless at driving SQL Server Enterprise adoption. Now it’s shifted to M365 E5, plus accessory subscriptions. PowerBI, Viva and Copilot for whatever are the new legs.
Designers alone can't push through a change for the sake of change as their work relies entirely on user research. Even if they do have the research needed to prove a change is required, they also have to get developers on board.
So I don't know where this conspiracy theory comes from, but it's entirely unfounded unless you're talking about a designer like Jony Ive with the power to go through multiple obstacles with ease, in which case the change isn't happening to prove he's needed but because he has a different vision.
It's the case everywhere. A designer (in the context of software/hardware) does not work without user research, that is core to their work. Any position that does not require user research in design is titled differently these days.
They’re one step from just using excel because it won’t change on them.