Outlook 2013 sucks! or Why I switched back to Outlook 2010
I don’t use Outlook as my primary email or calendar application but instead use Gmail and Google Calendar, but I do still use Outlook to manage my contacts. It’s just more convenient, or at least it was.
Yes, I know I can manage contacts in Gmail, but with a few quick keystrokes I can quickly pull up contact information in Outlook. <CTRL>-<SHIFT>-o to switch to Outlook (thanks to an AutoHotKey macro), <CTRL>-y c o <ENTER> to go to my contacts folder, and then the first few letters of the name of the contact I want to see, and presto! I have the information I need. I’ve typed these keystrokes thousands of times and been productive.
What do I keep in my Outlook contacts? Well, contact information (name, address, phone, email), of course, but also notes. Notes on who someone is or what I’ve last done for them. Also notes on my credit card numbers and passwords. Information I want at my fingertips.
Yes, I know about Gmail keyboard shortcuts and that I can type g c to go to contacts in Gmail and / to search, but I’m not really comfortable keeping stuff like credit card numbers in notes on contacts in Gmail. Moreover, when I pull up a contact in Outlook, there’s no pause, however brief, as “Loading...” flashes, and most importantly, Gmail doesn’t show the notes for a contact in the list that comes up. That alone is a deal breaker for me.
So I just upgraded to Microsoft Office 2013, and for the most part I like it well enough. Somewhat new look, a few new features, but I can still do my work.
Except for Outlook 2013.
The fuckers at Microsoft decided it’s more important for Outlook 2013 to look pretty than to be functional. How so? Take a look:
My contacts in Outlook 2010:
My contacts in Outlook 2013:
How a single contact looks in Outlook 2010 and in Outlook 2013:
As you can see, the idiots on Microsoft’s Outlook 2013 team decided that no one really needed to see notes. “Who uses notes?” they must have thought. “We’ll just hide the notes away and make them difficult to quickly get to.”
So, no, I won’t use Outlook 2013. I uninstalled it (but not the rest of Office 2013) and re-installed Outlook 2010.
Here’s a tip that I found for re-activating Office 2010 if you install it (or part of it) after Office 2013 has been installed. Open a DOS prompt, CD to C:\Program Files (x86)\Microsoft Office\Office 14, and then run this command: cscript ospp.vbs /act
Now I’ve got the best of both worlds — fancy new Office 2013 minus its sucky Outlook 2013 plus my old trusty Outlook 2010.
(And yes, I know I’m a whiner, but I haven’t whined about Microsoft since I got Office 2007.)
One last "whine about Microsoft Office 2007" post, this time a brief one about Excel 2007. Excel 2007 shares many of Word 2007's annoyances but has one particularly bothersome annoyance of its own.
I've used Excel for a long time, starting 22 years ago (God I'm old) when it was introduced on Macintosh. Editing formulas directly in the cell is something I've never adopted; I've always used the formula bar and think it makes seeing formulas easier, especially for longer ones.
Excel 2003 handles long formulas quite nicely, automatically extending its formula bar as much as needed to display the entire formula:
Of course Excel 2007 has to fuck this up. Microsoft's evil Excel developers, perhaps because they never actually use the product, have sagely decided that one needs only to see one line of a formula at a time, or that one has to sacrifice screen real estate all the time to accommodate longer formulas. They've gone out of their way to remove functionality that worked well in Excel 2003. Damn them to programming hell.
Today, during "whine about Microsoft Office 2007" week, I am whining about Outlook 2007. I didn't think I'd have to do this because Outlook 2007, unlike Word 2007 and Excel 2007 was not supposed to feature the infamous ribbon. Instead it still has the familiar File, Edit, View menus and even retained my custom toolbar when I started it up. Oh, but Microsoft is devious.
Just when I'm lured into thinking that everything will be okay with Outlook 2007, I go to do one of the main things I do with Outlook — read or send an e-mail message, schedule an appointment, look up contact info — and boom, bye bye, menus — hello, ribbon. Fuck! That means that yes, in Outlook 2007 also, I'll be learning new shortcuts.
What makes Outlook 2007 even worse is that Microsoft's evil developers, having pretended to retain the old 2003 menus, don't even bother to include the mocking "Office 2003 access key" feature that Word 2007 and Excel 2007 have. Damn them!
Attach a file in Outlook 2003
Attach a file in Outlook 2007
For example, very often when composing e-mail messages I attach files. In Outlook 2003, that's just <ALT>-I (insert), F (file). In Outlook 2007, you have to type <ALT>N (insert), AF (attach file). Not only different keystrokes but additional keystrokes. Ugh. Sorry, Microsoft, but I had enough and reclaimed my old shortcut. I wrote an AutoHotkey script that checks for whenever I press <ALT>-I in an Outlook e-mail window, intercepts it and types Outlook 2007's stupid new shortcut instead, actually saving me a keystroke.
Outlook 2003's conveniently located
Outlook 2007's obscurely placed reminder
Another common task, probably even more annoying now, is that whenever I create an appointment, I want to set a reminder for it. True, Outlook 2003 was a tad annoying in thinking that I'd want to be reminded only 15 minutes before an appointment, but setting the reminder to what I wanted was a simple <ALT>-R away. Outlook 2007 makes the assumption that I don't want to be reminded about appointments at all, hiding the reminder field away on the damned ribbon, accessible only after typing <ALT>-H, Q. Sure, that's not too hard to type, but I don't see that field (having hidden the space-grabbing ribbon) and thus am not reminded that I'd like to set an reminder, nor can I easily see if I set a reminder if I do go back to look at the details of an appointment.
And then there are tasks. Outlook can be a great tool for managing one's work, but Outlook 2007 doesn't want to make it easy. If you do different types of tasks or tasks for different projects, you might want to use categories, and in Outlook 2003, categories were only an <ALT>-G away (true for appointments and other items as well). Outlook 2007 does show already-assigned categories with nice colored bars, but to assign categories you have to type <ALT>-H, G and then arrow down to the category you want (and do this multiple times if you want to assign multiple categories), or, if you want to assign a category that Outlook doesn't display (it only shows 15) or if you want to assign multiple categories all at once, you have to type <ALT>-H, G, A.
And one last Outlook 2007 gripe, also related to tasks. I confess that I sometimes don't mark tasks complete the day I do the tasks. I still want to record the actual date completed, however, and in Outlook 2003, that was a simple jump to the details tab of a task (<CTRL>-<TAB>) where the first field was date completed. Well tasks don't have tabbed subscreens any more in Outlook 2007, so I have to learn a new shortcut, <ALT>H, L, to get to the same place.
Thanks, Microsoft, for working so hard to make my life easier.
Okay, Microsoft's stupidity means that I have to retract the good thing I said about them yesterday. I had been pleasantly surprised to discover a setting in Word 2007 that allows you to set cursor movement to "visual" in right-to-left languages such as Hebrew.
Well, guess what? It only works if you don't hold <SHIFT> down. If you do hold <SHIFT> down because you want to select some text, the cursor goes back to its old "logical" behavior, moving in the opposite direction from the way it moves without <SHIFT>. That is worse than having no changeable cursor movement setting at all. Ugh, ugh, ugh. I'm switching it back, so at least the cursor movement is consistent within a language. Damn you, Microsoft!
Okay, yes, this is turning out to be "whine about Microsoft" week, and I do have another complaint about Word 2007, but I also discovered something positive to balance it out a bit.
Something I do a lot in Word is adjust the spacing before and after paragraphs. Word 2007 still recognizes <ALT>-O, P to bring up the format paragraph dialogue box, but, as I abruptly discovered after my muscle memory kicked in, it no longer recognizes <ALT>-E to jump to the spacing after field in that dialogue box. For some reason, Microsoft in all its wisdom decided that no, the short cut for that field has to be <ALT>-F now, which would be annoying enough (yet another new keystroke to learn) but it doesn't work if you have support for right-to-left languages enabled because guess what? <ALT>-F is also the shortcut the brilliant Microsoft developers assigned to "Right-to-left" direction. Hello, you morons! We hapless users see After and press <ALT>-F and our text is suddenly the wrong direction. Fuck! I suppose that I should be glad that I can type <ALT>-B, <TAB> and get to the spacing after field by tabbing from the spacing before field. It seems the devious Microsoft developers haven't been able to force me to use the mouse just yet.
Speaking of support for right-to-left languages, my positive discovery in Word 2007 is related to that. If you're a regular reader, you know I've been taking Hebrew and as part of that had to figure out how to type in Hebrew. One quirk of mixing text from right-to-left and left-to-left languages in a single document is that when you use the left and right cursor keys sometimes pressing <LEFT ARROW> will move your cursor right and sometimes pressing <RIGHT ARROW> will move your cursor left (e.g., if you're editing LTR text in a paragraph marked RTL [say you have an English translation in the midst of a Hebrew paragraph]). I just figured that's the way it works and that it couldn't be changed, but nosing around Word 2007's advanced options,
I saw one that says "Cursor movement: Logical / Visual." Apparently to Microsoft's brilliant developers pressing <LEFT ARROW> and sometimes having the cursor move right is "logical," but at least they offer the option of having <LEFT ARROW> act "visually" and do what's advertised, i.e., move left. I don't know if this option is new to Office 2007 or not, but I like it.
Update: Ugh, I take back my praise of Word 2007's cursor movement setting.
Okay, this complaint about Office 2007 is really whiny, I'll admit, but the File Open/File Save dialogue boxes in Office 2007 are huge, 778x494 pixels or almost a third of my 1440x900 screen. The ones in Office 2003 were 601x392, so the new ones are 163% bigger and use another 10% of my screen. Why did I notice? Because I often want to name a file based on something in its contents, and I want to be able to see around the File Save dialogue box in order to see the contents while I'm naming the file. The bigger dialogue box isn't so maneuverable. Microsoft has a handy dandy window sizing icon in the corner of the dialogue box, but you can only make it yet bigger, not smaller. Gee, thanks, Microsoft for letting me control my workspace, not.
Word 2007 fears allayed and realized
Okay, having played with Word 2007 for less than a day, two fears of my fears about it are mostly allayed, and one is not.
The first fear was that Office 2007 would run significantly more slowly than Office 2003. The great conspiracy theory about computer software and hardware companies is that they're in cahoots to keep people always buying both new software and then new hardware. I don't know if hardware manufacturers such as Dell slip software companies such as Microsoft money under the table, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did because every time Microsoft adds features to its software, the software requires more power and thus people are motivated to buy new hardware. Vista is certainly all about this theory.
Word 2007's not horribly slow but this trick will speed it up a tad
So when I started up Word 2007, I was half expecting it to run more slowly than its predecessor. I was pleasantly surprised to see that Word 2007 starts up about as quickly as Word 2003.
Why on earth do I need
a pencil to dance on-screen
and count my words as I type?
And then I started typing. I'm a touch typist. I don't hunt and peck, I don't watch the keyboard, and often, if I'm working from a hard copy or from something in another window, I don't even look at the screen I'm typing in. I just expect that the computer will keep up with me, and usually it does. Not Word 2007. Sluggish, sluggish, sluggish. It didn't lose anything I typed, but it just felt mushy, like what in the world are you waiting on, Word 2007? And then I noticed it, the little pencil at the bottom of the screen, dancing as I typed. Type, type, type, dance, dance, dance. And next to it, a running count of how many words I've typed so far. Ugh, what a waste!
Luckily, this is one thing in Word 2007 that Microsoft permits users to customize. (More on the issue of customization later.) Right-click on the running word count in the status bar, select Word Count in the Customize Status Bar context menu that comes up, and poof! Word 2007 suddenly doesn't feel quite so sluggish. You can also turn off the dancing pencil — it's really Spelling and Grammar Check — and Word 2007 still checks as you type, marking up your document with its curvy red underlines as you go (which actually is useful).
Word 2007 doesn't steal too much space on my screen
My custom menu bar in Word 2003 (click to enlarge)
Now another fear about Office 2007 that I'd had was that the new-fangled ribbon would eat up a bunch of the real estate on my screen. Long ago, before Office 2003, before Office XP, I tweaked my menu bar and toolbars in Word and Excel to put everything on one row. I didn't like wasting blank space on the menu bar after the menus, and I didn't like wasting space by having two or three rows of toolbars below the menu bar, so I shortened some of the names of the menus, and I put the icons I used on the same row (Adobe didn't play well, wanting to have a PDF toolbar of its own, but I got around that too). So I was concerned last year to read reports about Office 2007's "fat-assed ribbon" and how much space it takes.
And sure enough, when I opened Word 2007, there was that damned fat-assed ribbon, taking up tons of space on my screen, looking ugly as hell, and, on top of that, not even customizable (unless you're a developer). But, Gott sei Dank, you can press <CTRL>-<F1> and the damned ribbon minimizes, and Word 2007 actually takes slightly less space on the screen (97 pixels vs. 105 pixels, measured from top of the window to the top of the page in print layout view).
Of course I've lost my customized toolbars and can no longer easily see information such as what the current style, font, or font size is.
So two significant fears are allayed but many more are not. The big one, of course, is that nothing can be customized, and it's pretty much true. It's no longer easy to customize things. It's not that I changed the menus in Word 2003 much (if I had, I'd be fucked when it comes to Word 2007 and its support of Word 2003 access key), but I did write some macros to do things like toggle smart quotes or easily switch between English and German, and I'd been able to add these functions to Word's menus. Not any more.
Well actually you can add macros to the Quick Access Bar, but Microsoft doesn't allow you to put a text label on them, only icons, and you don't get to pick the keyboard shortcuts. The first thing on the Quick Access Bar is <ALT>-1, the second <ALT>-2, etc., so I'm going to be learning new shortcuts, damn Microsoft!
Of course, Microsoft promised its Office 2003 power users that we wouldn't have to learn new shortcuts. Even though the Office 2003 menus would be gone, we'd still be able to type the keystrokes we'd learned to navigate the old menus, and they'd work in Office 2007 anyway. Well, as with so many promises in life, it's only half true (like when I was told I'd get ice cream after I got my tonsils out when all they had was jello). In Word 2007, when you press <ALT> and a Word 2003 menu shortcut, a fancy "Office 2003 access key" window pops up to acknowledge that yes, Word 2007 knows what you want to do and is ready to support you. But it's really there to mock you, not support you. Just because we're power users doesn't mean we navigated Word 2003's menus blindfolded — we still could see and didn't have to remember all the shortcuts by heart, but not in Word 2007 — if you don't remember the Word 2003 menus by heart, you're unworthy of using the old shortcuts!
And more importantly, Office 2007's support for Office 2003 access keys is severely limited. For example, something I do a lot in Word is set up tables, and in Word 2003, I'd press <ALT>-A, I, <ENTER> to insert a table. Press those keys in Word 2007, and the "Office 2003 access key" window laughs at you! You moron, you can't hit <ENTER> to select a Word 2003 menu item — you have to know the shortcut. So even though I've pressed <ALT>-A, I, <ENTER> a thousand times to insert tables, now I have to press <ALT>-A, I, T. Table properties? I always typed <ALT>-A, <UP ARROW>, <ENTER>. No more! You can't use arrow keys to navigate Word 2003 menus in Word 2007. Damn you, Microsoft!
And not only that, but I discovered the hard way that Office 2003 access keys ignores entire menus. Something I do often is Page Setup (<ALT>-F, U). What does <ALT>-F, U get me in Word 2007? Not even the mocking "Office 2003 access key" window. Nope, Microsoft lied when they said they were doing away with menus and replacing them with the ribbon. The File menu still exists in Word 2007, and <ALT>-F brings up Word 2007's File menu, not Word 2003's, and on Word 2007's file menu there is no page setup! Argh! No, in Word 2007, your only choice is to type <ALT;>-P (page layout), S, P.
Actually for page setup, you can also type <ALT;>-P (page layout), M (margins), A (custom margins). Nosing around after my handy dandy page setup shortcut keys no longer worked, I found the page layout ribbon, which includes a bunch of presets for various margins. So if I want 1-inch margins all around or half-inch margins all around, I might be able to get them more quickly than I could in Word 2003 (Half-inch margins in Word 2007? <ALT>-P (page layout), M (margins), <DOWN ARROW>, <DOWN ARROW>, <ENTER>. Half-inch margins in Word 2003? <ALT>-F, U, .5, <TAB>, .5, <TAB>, .5, <TAB>, .5, <ENTER>). The difference is that I didn't even have to think about it in Word 2003, and I do in Word 2007. Ugh, it's going to be a long process.
Office 2007 —
drive you crazy!
Okay, this will show I'm not bleeding edge, because all the cool kids ran into this when Office 2007 was in beta release, I'm sure (actually the über-cool kids missed it entirely because they don't run Windows), but I'm finally getting around to installing Office 2007. As many Office power users have been, I too have been reluctant to make the move because it changes completely the user interface with which I'm so familiar and moreover for fear that that latest incarnation of Microsoft's bloatware will run more slowly.
But the non-profit for which I do a lot of contract work was able to get Office 2007 Professional Plus for $20 a copy (I guess Microsoft figures if they practically give Office 2007 away, it'll help speed its adoption by corporate America), and so I ordered copies for them, downloaded the install and set it up on one workstation, and before I've even run the damned program, I've run into my first problem — after churning away for 45 minutes, the installer, with the progress bar at 90% completed, pops up a message saying it doesn't have sufficient privileges to stop the Machine Debug Manager service! I was running the install under the administrator login, so if that doesn't have sufficient privileges, nothign does! I tried stopping the service manually, but it showed as already shutting down, so all I could do was click Cancel, which then rolled back the install. Brilliant! Thanks, Microsoft!
So after rebooting the machine and then stopping the Machine Debug Manager service first, I was able to install the behemoth Microsoft Office 2007. What a pain!
If you've visited my classes page lately, you'll have noticed that I'm taking Hebrew this quarter.
Although it's not part of the class, I've spent some time figuring out how to set up my computer to type Hebrew. It wasn't all that difficult — you have to go to the Languages tab on the Regional and Language Options control panel, check "Install files for complex script and right-to-left languages," and then click "Details" where you can "Add" the "Hebrew" keyboard layout. You need your Windows XP installation CD. After a reboot, you'll see a new Language taskbar, and you'll be all set to type in Hebrew.
Before you reboot, though, you might want to activate some keyboard shortcuts to make switching between languages easier. You do that on "Key Settings" in the dialog box where you add keyboard layouts. Check "Switch input languages" and then choose whether you want to use CTRL + SHIFT or Left ALT + SHIFT to switch languages. If you don't do this when you first set up language support, or if you want to change this afterwards, you have to reboot for the changes to take effect (ugh @ Microsoft).
time I want
When I started I ended up with CTRL + SHIFT as the hotkey for switching languages, and I repeatedly found myself in Firefox with Hebrew turned on when I didn't want it. Finally I realized that's because CTRL + SHIFT + TAB is Firefox's shortcut for switching to the prior (next one to the left) tab, something I do all the time.
So I brought up language settings again, switched the hot key to Left ALT + SHIFT, rebooted, and was happier. But not completely happy. I don't think ALT + SHIFT is part of any other shortcut I use, but I still would find myself suddenly with Hebrew as the active keyboard layout when I hadn't intended for it to be. Not a horrible big deal. Look down at the language bar, confirm that yes, HE is showing, press Left ALT + SHIFT, see it switch to EN, backspace over stuff and start typing again.
But today, after a couple weeks of it, I figured I couldn't be the only person annoyed by it. One solution is simply to turn the hotkey off for switching languages, but that would mean having to use the mouse when I did want to type in Hebrew, not something I find acceptable (I really, really like being able to use the keyboard to do things). Luckily, after some determined Googling, I found that in fact Mike Matsnev (a student or a professor in the Computational Mathematics and Cybernetics department at Moscow State University) was so annoyed by all this that he wrote a utility that lets you set up any key to be the hotkey to toggle languages. I went one more time to language settings, turned off the hotkey, rebooted and then typed "lswitch 19", and presto, my Pause key, a key I never use for anything ever and won't accidentally hit, switches me between English and Hebrew. Beautiful!
Of course just because it's easy to switch between English and Hebrew keyboard layouts doesn't mean that it's easy to type in Hebrew. Besides the fact that I'm learning a whole new alphabet (alefbet)...
Sorry, while I'm on the subject of the Hebrew alefbet, if you're not familiar with it, you may have heard that it has only 22 letters. The English alphabet has 26 letters, you might say to yourself, how hard can it be to learn the Hebrew alefbet? Well whoever says Hebrew has only 22 letters is misleading you. First there are 5 letters that have a different form if they fall at the end of a word. Then there are 3 letters whose pronunciation changes if a dot is added to them. That makes 30 letters by my count. But these are just consonants. Modern Hebrew omits vowels. But if you're learning Hebrew, in particular Biblical Hebrew, which includes vowels, you have to learn additional "letters" or "points" (Niquid) for the vowels. There are over 16 combinations of those points for vowels. So by my count the alefbet has over 46 letters.
But that's not all. Just as some letters in English appear differently when printed as opposed to when written in cursive handwriting, so does Hebrew. To my mind (just now grappling with learning Hebrew), the differences between Hebrew printing and handwriting affect just about every letter, so that's almost double what I have to learn.
... I have to learn the Israeli keyboard layout, which is designed for the convenience of native speakers and typers of Hebrew, not for American English speakers. (For example, to type a Bet including its Dagesh dot, I have to type [with caps lock on] SHIFT-C SHIFT-=.) There are some helpful sites that have charts of how to type Hebrew, but I didn't find any that had everything. Plus I found a font for Hebrew handwriting, Shalom, which lets me prepare cheat sheets, etc., as they'd appear if I'd written them out. The deal with Shalom, however, is that it's mapped differently than the Israeli keyboard, with letters mapped to keys based on how they sound (to type a Daled in Shalom you press "d" instead of the "s" you'd press in the Israeli layout).
View the whole chart...
So I created a handy-dandy chart of my own that lists all the letters both typed and handwritten along with the English letters I have to type on my keyboard to get either print or handwriting. And the last column has the sound each letter makes. Nifty, huh?
I switched my default browser from Microsoft Internet Explorer to Mozilla Firefox the other day. I'm sticking with Firefox, but there are a couple features I miss about IE.
Much as web designers rant, however justifably, about how IE violates web standards, most of those complaints are about design, not user interface. Web developers have to use workarounds and take additional steps not so much to make their sites functional in all browsers but more to make their sites display the same for all browsers. Now you could argue that functionality is dependent on display, such as in the case of Eric Meyer's cool pure CSS menus, which simply don't work in IE, but for the most part the reason IE's rule breaking annoys so many designers is aesthetics.
IE's rule breaking obviously isn't of much concern to its many users. Sure, a few are switching because of concerns about IE's security. However, the vast majority of web surfers go about their business quite happily with IE. Some might call these people naïve, but surely a few count as power users who simply like some IE features.
And that's where I come to one feature I've found myself really missing just in a few days. I'm not talking about having to learn a new access key for the menu containing my bookmarks but rather a feature that impedes my work. Firefox's find text feature, though nifty (it finds as you type), is not as functional as that in IE because Firefox doesn't search inside <TEXTAREA> input boxes on forms. IE's does.
Why does that matter, you may ask. Well, this very blog, though not maintained with a blogging tool, is updated via a database and web forms. After I
type this entry up, I look at my blog in a browser, and I notice some mistake that I want to edit (say I misspelled "TEXTAREA" as "TXETAREA"). I go back
to the page with my form, and I could scroll down in the <TEXTAREA> until I see the word so I can fix it, or, in IE, I can type <CTRL>-F, type "TXETAREA" and hit <ENTER>. Boom, the word is highlighted, and I type my correction over it. In Firefox, I type /, type "TX" and it beeps at me to say there's no occurrence of "TX" on my page. Well, yes, there is, it's just inside the <TEXTAREA>.
Minor problem? Yes. Easy enough to work around? Yes. But features that help power users are important, which is why, for example, Firefox goes beyond IE's <CTRL>-<ENTER> for automatically adding the "www" and ".com" to a domain typed in the address bar to adding additional keyboard shortcuts for appending ".net" (<SHIFT>-<ENTER>) and ".org" (<CTRL>-<SHIFT>-<ENTER>). Your grandmother doesn't care about typing the URLs of non-profit organizations more quickly, but I do.
Copying and pasting, IE vs. Firefox
Perhaps a more important problem occurs when copying information from a browser window and pasting it into a Microsoft Office product such as Word or Excel. If I am using IE when I copy a table from a web site and paste it into an Excel worksheet, all the information is transferred nicely into individual cells, and all the formatting is the same. If I use Firefox, all the table's data ends up in one cell in Excel. Not user friendly at all. Should Mozilla care about
You can use any table, but here
's the one I used.
Sure, you have to resize some columns,
but the data is still tabular.
You might as well retype all the data.
(Pasting as text works somewhat better.)
supporting the patriarchy integration with standard business productivity products? They should if they want business people to use Firefox.
However, Mozilla does a lot of things better than Microsoft, and one thing is having a site, Bugzilla, on which users can report bugs or make feature requests. (Click here to vote for Mozilla fixing the copy/paste to Excel bug.) Microsoft may also have one (I didn't search for it, though, and didn't have to search for Mozilla's since they make its existence so clear), but Mozilla, as the underdog, has more reason to listen to its users. That's just one more reason to use Firefox instead of IE.