It definitely seems like a jump. Did they interview users? If so, why not reference that data? If not, why not? And what user data prompted them to create 203 buttons if some of the (far less than 200) commands they have now don't get used in more than 1% of user sessions?
I'd guess most Microsoft apps have hundreds of buttons as well. 99% of them are not shown by default but you can customise it to your own taste, that's why there are so many of them.
I think they've learned from the Office 2007 metrics and feedback. Also they have listed the reasons for choosing the ribbon over other approaches. I don't see a 'jump'.
>And what user data prompted them to create 203 buttons if some of the (far less than 200) commands they have now don't get used in more than 1% of user sessions?
You say that as if the 200 buttons were on one screen. They are spread out over different contexts and tabs. I believe they were trying to make the commands more discoverable from the previous versions.
I was only referencing the parent post about the 200 buttons, it's certainly true that they're available in ribbon form.
If the commands are things that were previously available and less discoverable, then that's one thing. However, I felt like it was a jump to go from having so few commands available menu to having around 200. Do they expect the new commands to be used frequently? Were they actually needed? That's what I was trying to ask.
