>>Unfortunately, the option of how to save changes, explicit vs. implicit save, and our choice of command names has already been dictated. With a few specialized exceptions, we as Windows developers are expected to adhere to the GUI standards which Microsoft has laid down for us.
>
>I don't recall Microsoft offering any dicta on this issue. They certainly don't say "all apps must function just like Word." If that were so, they'd never be able to improve on Word's interface themselves!

When Microsoft chooses to "improve" on the Word interface, it will undoubtedly be in conjunction with "improvements" to the rest of Microsoft Office, Visual Studio, and Windows itself. And Microsoft does issue dictates on interface design: The GUI Design Guide, which can be found at

>
>>>If we were to unilaterally decide to change the Save As option to Copy File, the new user would be lost in an instant, and even the experienced user would wonder at the deviation from standards.
>
>The _newest_ user (one who'd never used a computer before) would not be confused in the least (in theory; that change would not be appropriate, in my opinion). But certainly, if you're going to deviate from the "current usage," you'd better have darn good reasons. I think Cooper presents some of those reasons.

By "new user", I am referring to a somewhat experienced Windows user (let's assume they've been using it at home or work for word processing, e-mail, and Web surfing, the most common apps for a novice) who is just sitting down to use your application. When they are confronted with a menu structure or series of commands which vary greatly from the other Windows apps they are familiar with, the learning curve becomes a brick wall.

>
>Standardization is good--it's one of the best things about Windows (anyone remember having to learn a new interface for every DOS program?). But it's not carved in stone. Computer programs are not as easy to use as they could be. The only way to change that is to think outside the box sometimes.

I'll grant you that many applications are not what one would call user-friendly. What I am saying is that, for better or worse, we are working in the shadow of Windows. Whatever innovations we choose to make in our user interface must still conform to the basics of the Windows standard. Actually, making your programs as similar to every other Windows app as possible should be a benefit. By conforming to the GUI standard, it frees us of the task of creating a clever and intuitive interface, and allows us to concentrate on creating better code underneath.

>
>>In the same heads-down manner, any dialogs which appear MUST have some sort of audio indicator, and if possible, should NOT have single-stroke hotkeys. Many is the time when I'll be typing away at something, a dialog from another application will appear silently,
>
>This is a perfect example of how Microsoft has changed its UI "standard." SetForegroundWindow() used to unilaterally bring any window to the top. In Windows 98, however, it just flashes the taskbar button. This is great! (Although some Microsoft products still seem to be able to violate this, somehow).

Is this a Windows-global setting, or does it need to be set for each Windows application? If it is global, please tell me where I can locate it. If I can turn off some of the dialogs that Outlook and the Print Manager sends my way, my life would be SO much easier. Don't post it in this thread; send it to me privately via e-mail.

>
>>When the next great paradigm shift occurs to the user interface, then we'll have room to be creative.
>
>But if we all just follow Microsoft, then that paradigm shift will never happen (unless it comes from Microsoft).

I think you just said it best yourself: any paradigm shift in the Windows user interface must come from Microsoft itself. Unless we are willing to create an application which does not have a Windows-standard interface, and have it branded as such, the best we can do is to poke and prod the 800-pound gorilla in Redmond with suggestions.

Bill