MaplePrimes - Questions, Posts, help, musings, answers ... all things Maple and math

Ask a Question

Create a Post

Featured Post

3437

Are there alternatives to Ribbon-Based GUIs

I was wondering whether MapleSoft has opted for an outdated concept. Here is Gemini's answer:

Yes, there are many alternatives to ribbon-based GUIs. The ribbon UI, while popular and effective for many applications (especially those with a large number of functions like Microsoft Office), isn't the only way to design an interface. Here are some common alternatives:

Traditional Menus and Toolbars: This is the classic approach seen in older software. A menu bar at the top provides access to all commands, while toolbars offer quick-access icons for the most common functions. Many applications, especially on Linux, still use this model. A variation is to allow the user to customize their toolbars.
Command Palettes: This is a popular approach in modern text editors and IDEs (like Visual Studio Code or Sublime Text). The user presses a keyboard shortcut to bring up a search bar that allows them to quickly find and execute any command in the application. This is highly efficient for power users who know what they're looking for.
Contextual Menus (Right-Click Menus): These menus appear when a user right-clicks on an element. They present a list of actions relevant to the selected item. This is a very common and intuitive way to provide functionality without cluttering the main interface.
Sidebar or Panel-Based Interfaces: This design uses a vertical panel, often on the left or right side of the screen, to display tools, options, or settings. This is often seen in design software, where the user can access layers, brushes, or properties from a dedicated panel.
Hamburger Menus: A three-line icon (the "hamburger") that, when clicked, reveals a menu of options. This is a very common design in mobile applications and is increasingly used in desktop web applications and software to save screen space.
Floating Toolbars/Heads-Up Display (HUD): These are toolbars that appear near the user's cursor or the selected object. This keeps the tools close to where the user is working, reducing mouse travel. This is a common pattern in creative applications like 3D modeling or video editing software.

The best choice depends on the type of application, the target user, and the platform. For applications with a huge number of features, a ribbon can be a good way to organize them visually. For applications with a more limited set of functions, or for a mobile-first design, a simpler approach is often better.

Nothing exciting new but the insight that Maple's GUI is a hybrid that adds to the ribbon other concepts. Since the Maple ribbon is young and not part of the training data set, I asked for a better GUI for Word instead:

A "better" GUI for Word is subjective, as different users have different needs. The current ribbon interface is great for discovering features, but it can also feel cluttered.

So, instead of just one idea, here are three different approaches that could improve the Word GUI for different types of users:

This GUI would learn from your habits. Instead of a static ribbon, the tabs and icons would change based on what you're doing.

Smart Ribbon: The ribbon would automatically switch to the most relevant tab. For example, if you highlight text, the "Home" tab would expand with formatting options like font size, bold, and color. If you're near a table, the "Table Design" and "Layout" tabs would appear instantly.
Contextual Command Palette: A simple keyboard shortcut (like Ctrl + K) would bring up a search bar in the middle of the screen. You could type "insert table of contents" or "change line spacing" and the command would execute without you having to hunt for it in the ribbon. This is a much faster option for power users.

This approach would strip away everything that isn't essential for a focused writing experience.

Floating Toolbar: When you start typing, the entire ribbon disappears. When you highlight text, a small, floating toolbar with only the most basic formatting options (bold, italic, font size, bullet points) appears right next to your cursor.
"Focus Mode" on Steroids: A dedicated "Focus Mode" would hide all menus, toolbars, and even the scroll bar. You would see only your document on a clean background. All advanced functions would be accessible through the command palette or a single-click button that temporarily brings back the full ribbon.

This design would let users build their own ideal workspace.

Customizable Side Panels: Instead of one giant ribbon, the GUI would be made of modular side panels that you could dock, undock, and resize. You could have a "Styles" panel on the left and a "Review" panel on the right, or a "References" panel that's only visible when you're working on a bibliography.
"My Tab": Users could create their own custom ribbon tab called "My Tab" and drag and drop their most-used commands into it. For example, a student might have "Footnote," "Citations," and "Table of Contents" all on one tab for easy access.

Each of these designs solves a different problem with the current ribbon. The Adaptive Interface helps you find what you need quickly, the Minimalist Interface promotes focus, and the Modular Interface gives you complete control over your workspace.

The highlighted passages point to areas that have been mentioned already in many comments on the GUI. However, there is one more that really stands in the way for me to work with the new GUI. It could be summarized as "Too many clicks". The former GUI (less intuitive, IMO) was in this respect much more optimzed for productivity.
For example, inserting a text passage or putting the cursor into a text passage implies that the user most likely desires formating options. With the new GUI it is required to click on the edit tab (after having clicked on the insert tab or even more clicky with the quick access bar, which is for this use case not really quick).

With the former GUI (having a larger quick acess bar) and a tool bar (in red)

only one click was required with substantially less mouse movement.

Personally I would switch to the new GUI with the following improvements

a quick access bar that is customizable
a smart ribbon that switches to the edit mode tab when the cursor is placed on editable text or a new text/input/document block is inserted

Having the functions that I use most frequently available in the quick access tool bar (highlighted in yellow) would allow me to minimize the ribbon with the same productivity and even more screen space as before.

Keyboard shortcuts that differ from standard OS shortcuts are not a viable alternative for me.

Overall, the direction with the new ribbon seems to be right to get new users productive faster. It seems to be a good choice without clear alternatives, and its graphical design aligns much better with the core values Maple provides.

However, becoming productive fast does not mean that the productivity is high. From this perspective the former GUI is not outdated yet. The workflow with it is much faster and more focussed on math and code.

Perhaps MapleSoft has solutions that will make the new GUI even more productive than the former GUI. This would be great!

August 09

5 0

Read Full Post

Featured Post

cneily

A New Approach to Solving Quadratic Equations

The need to solve quadratic equations never seems to disappear. Whether it is completing a physics problem, solving a differential equation, or performing equilibrium calculations in chemistry, quadratic equations are an integral part of all STEM-based disciplines.

Depending on the complexity of the quadratic equation, the typical 'guess-and-check' method taught in most high school classes can often be frustrating and time-consuming. Professor of mathematics Dr. Po-Shen Loh, in his new method shown here, recognizes some important properties of solutions to quadratic equations and integrates them into a more intuitive approach that students are much more likely to feel motivated by.

For example, consider the equation x^2 - 14x + 45 = 0. Most students are taught to first factor this equation by thinking of two numbers that multiply to 45 and add to -14. After trying multiple values, we would discover that those values are -5 and -9. We would use these values to factor the equation into the form (x-5)*(x-9) = 0. Setting each factor equal to zero, we would get x = 5 or x = 9. Equivalently, to solve for x more directly, we need two numbers that multiply to 45 and add to 14 (again, x = 5 and x = 9).

The only way to speed up this process of guess-and-check is to do enough similar problems until the guesses become second nature. Not to mention, this becomes exponentially more difficult as the coefficient on x^2 increases (for example, solving the equation 6x^2 + 7x - 20 = 0).

For the example above, Dr. Loh's method builds on a simple starting point:

(i) We know that the numbers (call them R and S) add to 14

(ii) We know that since the numbers add to 14, they must have a mean value of 14/2 = 7

(iii) If the two numbers have an average of 7, they must be an equal 'distance' (call this distance z) from 7

(iv) We can write the two numbers as R = 7+z and S = 7-z

(v) Since the numbers R and S multiply to 45, then (7+z)*(7-z) = 45 ⇒ 49 - z^2 = 45. In other words, z^2 = 4, so z = +2 or z = -2

(vi) The solution to the equation is then R = 7+2 = 9 and S = 7-2 = 5 (as we predicted)

We can generalize this idea for any complex coefficients a, b and c in the equation ax^2 + bx + c = 0 to actually prove the quadratic formula. However, using Dr. Loh's method on specific examples (as above) helps build intuition for why the quadratic formula works in the first place. Other proof methods such as completing the square are just as mathematically sound, but they do not utilize the mathematical instinct that makes solving a problem in mathematics so gratifying.

Although I am currently a student working for Maplesoft, I had not used Maple Learn extensively beforehand. Dr. Loh's idea of creating a more intuitive way to solve such a conventional problem inspired me to create a document in Maple Learn, linked here, outlining the steps above.

Learning new ways to solve a problem in mathematics is exciting, but it is often difficult to present in a way that is clear, visually-appealing and easy to create. Most online mathematical environments are difficult to navigate and typically lack visualizations to accompany an idea. With Maple Learn, it felt comforting to open a clean canvas where I was able to easily build a document in just a few hours that not only summarized the main ideas of this new method, but also showed the user why the method works using live animations and colour schemes (see some examples below).

I surprised myself (as well as my managers) by how quickly I was able to transfer all of my ideas into the document. I could also split related content into groups and use collapsible sections to keep the document uncluttered and easy to read.

I also took advantage of the freedom to explore other documents and directly reference them through hyperlinks.

Sometimes it can be difficult to follow a new concept without having some background information. Adding these references makes it simple for the reader to access supporting documents and ensure there are no knowledge gaps to be filled along the way. Once you make a document, you also have the option to publish it to your own gallery and make it public for others to use and learn from.

Maple Learn has been incredibly helpful for sharing the things that interest me the most. If you have something related to mathematics that excites you, try not to keep it to yourself. Consider using Maple Learn to share your ideas with the world and see your vision come to life!

Today

5 0

Read Full Post