The new ribbon style user interface of recent Maple versions is well structured and visually much more appealing than the former user interface. Great for new users. However, I do not use the new Maple version for productive work because it is considerably slower to use: Much more clicks and mouse movements are involved than before, which breaks the flow.

To improve this situation, I thought about customizing the quick access toolbar with menu items that I need all the time. With Maple 2026 this suggestion has become a less viable solution because the quick access toolbar shrunk in size and moved to a screen location with low mouse activity (to get there fast, the mouse has to move back and forth like Speedy Gonzales). The tiny buttons in the toolbar are hard to distinguish and to hit in one go (a golfer might say “it's rare like an eagle”). If you disagree, try to write text and switch to non-executable math (to enter a symbol) and switch back to text and continue writing. Do the same with the former user interface (e.g. Maple 2024) and compare.

As a new suggestion I thought about adding a new tab "My Tab" to the ribbon that is customizable by the user. Here is what I would pick from the current ribbon items

(A subset from 4 out of 10 tabs: The Home, Insert, Edit and Help tab. The latter is less important)

I would probably also add these two items

although they do not fully replace the former buttons from the contextual tool bar

.

I use the above buttons from the former user interface allot in text passages to toggle between text and non-executable math. They are also useful to change the input mode of an empty document block (instead of inserting a new line with the desired input mode and deleting unwanted input lines). These buttons were introduced with Maple 2021 to improve usability, now they are gone and with it the ease of integrating math into text. With Maple 2026, I have to go back to using F5, which now “toggles” between three states (with the drawback that now in 1-D Math no indication of the state of the input mode is available on the user interface).

The above selection of menu items is my selection to work efficiently on textbook style Maple documents composed of explanatory text passages (including non-executable math) and Maple input and output. Other users would probably customize differently according to their needs.

A final remark about the undo function. Most software has undo on a top level. I do not understand why undo is not in the current quick access toolbar.

I strongly hope for productivity improvements that I can stop using Maple 2025.2 for Screen Readers (having the former user interface). Please do something to reduce mouse movements and clicks of frequently used interface functions. There is too much tab switching between the 3 most important tabs (Home, Insert, Edit) and too little functionality and ease of use of the quick access toolbar.

I would be interested to know which menu items other users would select.

A note on what I've been working on for the past while. Some of you may have seen the announcement on LinkedIn yesterday; this is for the home audience.

The question I've been chasing is the one that's underneath the Physics package, the dsolve / pdsolve formal methods and heuristics, the advanced Mathematical Functions and FunctionAdvisor, and most of what I've written for Maple over the years. How can mathematicians and physicists speed up significantly their work using Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) and at the same time trust the result a computer hands back? The new chapter is what happens when AI sits between the human and the CAS, and the answer to that, in my view, turns out to be a much harder problem than the AI hype suggests.

Why? Because AI is increasingly the driver of computational mathematics in research, engineering, and education. The Mathematica and Maple code those AIs increasingly depend on is the same code I spent decades building. And the unsolved problem isn't whether AI can do mathematics. It can. The problem is that an incorrect AI result arrives with the same confidence as a correct one.

On 100 challenging problems of undergraduate mathematics we tested, six independent state-of-the-art AIs returned mathematically equivalent answers on only 21% of them, and even within a single AI, repeated runs disagreed with themselves on 3% to 57% of the problems (details). The gap this validation crosses, between probabilistic inference and certified computation, is epistemological, not technological. It won't close with more training data. It needs validation across multiple AIs and multiple CAS, with no single engine having the final word.

ExaktAI addresses that gap. It guides AI through mathematical computation, validates each step against Maple and Mathematica, and delivers an executable document where you can audit, reproduce, and edit the result. The goal: to have AI-mathematics that is validated, where the human in the loop is non-negotiable.

ExaktAI is now well developed (TRL 6: System prototype demonstration in a simulated environment, on the ISED / Innovative Solutions Canada TRL scale). At the end an image. A Beta is scheduled for late summer / fall 2026; details at exaktai.ai.

In summary: ExaktAI is my present, and if you work on AI for mathematics and computer algebra, or the validation problem for AI, I'd love to hear your perspective.



Edgardo S. Cheb-Terrab
ExaktAI
Research Fellow Emeritus at Maplesoft.