This is the reason I don't envy the UI designers on products like MS Office. There are professionals who use products in the MS Office suite every day, but there are other users who only need to create the occasional spreadsheet or powerpoint. Even if you think Microsoft has done a poor job with the UI, one can't deny that reconciling the differences between casual and power users is a difficult job.
This is why Microsoft used to have multiple office suites, there was microsoft office which was everything and the kitchen sink, then you had Microsoft Works which was a stripped down simpler office suite, then you had wordpad for when you need something more than note pad but not a full office suite.
I understand why that seems like an appealing solution, but there are some pitfalls with creating multiple distinct UIs:
The most obvious pitfall is that more UIs = more work. There's the initial development, but it also increases the work every time you need to add something to the UI, and increases the likelihood of bugs. Microsoft could afford this increased cost, but it's not clear if it would be worth it.
Secondly, having multiple distinct UIs makes it difficult for someone to transition from a "casual user" to a "power user". If someone who has only used the "simple" UI switches to the "power" UI, they have to re-learn everything from scratch. Additionally, if there are any features limited to the "power" UI, it's extremely difficult for a "simple" UI user to discover those features even exist.
That doesn't mean that creating multiple UIs isn't ultimately the right solution for MS Office. It might be! But doing that comes with downsides, and I can understand why Microsoft doesn't want to go in that direction.
> They could just have a “quick edit” mode, a “read” mode and a “power user mode”.
Would the density of these interfaces increase or decrease? An actual power-user would master all the shortcuts and would prefer a zen experience where only the document is visible, with no widgets whatsoever.
