@Anthony, great idea, though I don't see removing panel when no maximised windows doing much, and instead of a list on hover, I'd prefer a menu bar appear vertically on the title bar. Oh, and other system icons like mounted USB/partition smaller and statically fixed at the bottom would be great.
@Ed, wondering for a while now, but what the hell is Fitts's Law? Menus on title bar, period. On 29 April 2011 09:15, Toki Tahmid <oxw...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Anthony, great idea, though I don't see removing panel when no maximised > windows doing much, and instead of a list on hover, I'd prefer a menu bar > appear vertically on the title bar. Oh, and other system icons like mounted > USB/partition smaller and statically fixed at the bottom would be great. > > @Ed, wondering for a while now, but what the hell is Fitts's Law? Menus on > title bar, period. > > > On 29 April 2011 07:07, Ed Lin <edlin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Evan Huus <eapa...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 4:27 PM, Anthony Scire <aaaanto...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> 2. The menu bar should, in some way, still be built into its window. >> >> The way I propose is to have a button appear on the title bar, a-la >> >> Firefox 4. Hovering the mouse over this button will reveal the menu. >> >> Mouse actions on the "button" should be the same as any other part of >> >> the title bar, just that the mouse-over event will reveal the >> >> drop-down menus stacked vertically. The label on the button should be >> >> the same as currently appears in the global menu bar, i.e. "Firefox >> >> Web Browser". Then next to that, if the text is any different, the >> >> regular window title will appear. >> >> >> >> Hitting Alt should drop down this menu, as well. >> > >> > I'm not convinced about this. I know several people who aren't happy >> > with the FF4-style menus because it requires an extra click to access >> > anything (confused about the hover you mention - would the user have >> > to hover, wait, then move sideways without leaving the window to >> > access menus? seems finicky). Also, this would presumably face the >> > same discovery issues as the global menu does now, as documented in >> > the usability study. >> > >> > The current system is definitely a problem though. >> > >> Ah, the menubar again. >> >> Let me quickly outline the problem: >> >> There are very different kinds of users: >> >> #1 -the keyboard junkie: >> Never uses the mouse unless he has to, menubar must be accessible via >> keyboard. Most important function: It severs as a lookup table for all >> available combinations. After having used a particular application for >> a while and having memorized all relevant functions he'll prefer to >> keep the menubar hidden entirely. The placement of the menubar doesn't >> much matter that much to him. Making it optionally hidden and only >> showing it when pressing the alt key would be the perfect solution for >> this kind of user. >> >> #2-the eternal noob >> He loves nothing more than simple, predictable, repeatable and >> consistent. He doesn't care about speed and probably less about >> maximising screen estate. He'll use the menubar to cut and paste even >> though friends and family repeatedly explain how ctrl+x/v and even >> toolbar icons or the right-click context menu is so much faster. No, >> edit->paste is what he learned in his Windows Office 97 or earlier >> days and that's what he'll keep using till they rip the mouse from his >> cold, dead hands. >> The clear, simple, textual hierarchy gives him confidence and safety. >> So, don't mess with it! This includes replacing the menubar with a >> single menu button as proposed above. >> >> These are the two extremes I guess, there are many shades in between: >> >> #3-the hip >> he wants nice, flashy and modern. Usability comes second as longs the >> look is right He'll long for modern interfaces like he's used to from >> his smartphone and the modern browser he uses for facebook and youtube >> (there isn't much else he uses the computer for). He won't even notice >> if the menubar moves or is gone entirely as longs as the remaining >> interface is fun to use and exposes all required controls via nice >> buttons and icons. >> >> #4-the workaholic >> The OS and it's GUI are just another thing in the way of getting >> things done. Don't nag him while he's working! He'll work with a very >> few selected applications, email, word and a browser. On his portable >> device he wants to use all the screen estate for his work, not for >> fancy interface controls. Menubar or other interface elements, it >> doesn't really matter as longs as it gets the job done in the most >> efficient way. He'll complain loudly about any change but if it's for >> the better he'll soon calm down again and actually be very grateful. >> Give him a maximised Writer and Browser, no unnecessary bar and titles >> and he's happy. >> In his case the Firefox style menu button is a bad idea. It adds a >> whole additional hierarchy thereby increasing complexity and time to >> access typically by about one third, example: Edit->Paste would become >> Menu->Edit->Paste. >> >> Now let's see how we stack up. >> Unity improved things for the "hip" and the "workaholic". A new >> interface with Compiz effects and a certain Mac/iOS inspired look and >> feel is a win for the hipster. Compared to GNOME 2 Unity gets rid of >> three panels (60 pixels or so?) vertical space which results in more >> text/content visible for our workaholic. >> The keyboard junkie will appreciate the new keyboard friendly launcher >> and furthermore stay out of the menubar discussion that largely >> focuses on Fitts's Law and counting mouse clicks. Nothing he ever >> cared about. But why is it so prominently on the top of the screen if >> he never intends to make much use of it, why can't it be hidden as an >> option to maximise the rows visible in vim/emacs? >> As for our second guy: Doesn't look so good. Where is the menu gone? I >> can't find it! Up there you say? I still don't see anything. >> Also, if he uses a larger monitor he will no appreciate the longer >> traveling distance. >> Let me add here, the concept of a global menubar isn't only 20 odd >> years old and from a time where there was no multi-tasking! Back then >> monitors had less pixel than the average smartphone today! Sorry, but >> that's how I feel about the global menubar. >> >> I believe with a menubar-in-windows we can make happy every one of our >> four friends here. Let's see: >> >> #1: If it's in the window it can be hidden on a per application basis. >> The average cli user likely doesn't need a graphical menu in his >> terminals, but he'll probably want on in GIMP which he fires up every >> other month. A global menubar doesn't give him that flexibility. Well, >> he could ignore it's there but then it takes up screen estate and >> takes up a valuable screen edge as pointed out here: >> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-browser/+bug/749335 >> Such "power user" also is a likely candidate for using multiple >> high-res monitors, virtual desktops and multiple windows on each of >> them. As it's been pointed out repeatedly the global menubar together >> with the app-centric launcher slows multi-tasking at that level down. >> >> #2: If the global menubar was an exact copy of OS X he'd be happy. >> After a year relearning where to look for the menu :P >> Sure, it's even more consistent and predictable to have the menu >> visible at the same spot all the time. But such users (going by my >> field tests on OS X) are typical examples of clicking the menubar >> while having the wrong window in focus. If you take this into account >> the advantage becomes less. First you alienate these creatures of >> habit and then the advantage is tarnished by introducing new >> "instability" and dynamic into the interface and thereby a source of >> error and frustration. >> >> #3: Frankly, this is 2011 and people don't care so much about what OS >> everyone is running anymore, they want to get on the internet as fast >> as possible and use their favorite web services. Having fluid >> animations, nice color schemes, good support for web standards and >> social media they already use and finally well designed applications >> for frequent multimedia and work related tasks is much more important >> than such changes in the OS design. >> >> The global menu is only going to be a hindrance when going further and >> getting Unity onto touch devices or at least further merging tablet >> and computer interface design and more importantly what applications >> are going to run on them. Having no menubar dictated from the OS means >> each app developer has full freedom over how his app will behave. It >> can be "hybrid", suited for both touch and keyboard/mouse, it can make >> use of all screen edges in full screen mode and no unnecessary legacy >> menus need to be coded specifically for Unity (the only Linux DE with >> a global menubar). >> >> #4: There is no reason why having the menu in the windows needs to >> take up more screen estate. A good example, less known, is WebPositive >> in Haiku (give it a try, it's a small download and runs nicely in >> Virtualbox - just change the NIC to Intel 82540EM). Haiku is based on >> BeOS and I think BeOS in parts was inspired by Mac may also have >> inspired some parts of OS X. >> The Haiku desktop on a high level is very similar to Unity in several >> aspects: the main menu is in an upper corner, the launcher is on a >> side, and application-centric, windows can hide (in the case of Haiku: >> overlap) the launcher to maximize the available screen estate and the >> close botton is on the left side. >> >> But each window has it's own menu and titlebar (which is only as large >> as it needs to be, a bit like a tab). If you click on maximize in >> WebPositive, the browser, it will maximize the main window, overlap >> the launcher and remove the the titlebar. Window controls are moved >> into the same bar as the menubar and the menu itself obeys Fitts's law >> (or could, I didn't check that). >> Basically it's exactly the same as Firefox maximized in Unity without >> the title in the panel which is redundant in a tabbed browser. >> >> To sum it up: >> Menubar hover is bad, without it no screen estate is saved (in usual >> window arrangements) leaving only Fitts's Law as an argument for it >> (which you can only bring into play once made the targets visible all >> the time). I counter with a range of four distinct user cases that >> should squarely cover the whole Ubuntu userbase where each of them >> ultimately benefits more from moving the menu back into the window. >> Additionally this fixes the awkward case of having a non-maximized >> window on top of a maximized one, resolves the mouse hover discussion, >> reduces Unity specific patches for 3rd party software, eases the >> transition from GNOME to Unity (still relevant for the next LTS >> upgrade, those guys care about stable in terms of GUI and interface >> changes too, especially when it comes to enterprise workstations) and >> a host of other complaints and issues that I missed, forgot or that >> are yet to be discovered. >> >> Please let me know what you think. I hope you are still open to >> discussions about such a pervasive changes to Unity. >> >> Regards, >> Ed Lin >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana >> Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
