On 21/03/11 12:01, Mitja Pagon wrote: > First it's not all about choice, second if application has menus users > never use, should that application have menus at all? But that is not a > problem that should be solved on a "shell" level, it's up to > applications to improve their interfaces. Surely it *is* the responsibility of any shell developers to clean up the shell, rather than simple expose the bad UI 'choices' of application developers (or rather tool-kit developers). This is precisely what Unity's global-menu does, it exposes the menu toolbar for all applications which support it. This is *not* always appropriate. The menu toolbar is an efficient means of organising a large number of options (though it could be prettier). Which is excellent for applications like LibreOffice where a large number of menu items need (arguably) to be exposed. However for internet browsers, media players and similar applications the menu toolbar often serves as a /locus/ for advanced and rarely used menu options, whilst the more commonly used options are incorporated into the UI proper. Furthermore, Firefox 4.0's 'firefox button' is a very good example of how to fit a lot of menu options into a organised grid exposed by a single button. This, in my view, is a far more efficient means of exposing menus IMHO (it could even be well suited to LibreOffice). This approach has one further advantage for Unity; it merges (if implemented correctly) the application title and the global-menu into a single, compact panel item (a single /locus/ where the end-user can both identify which application is active, and access its menus). Kind Regards, Lee Hyde. -- "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" -- Dr. Jonas Stalk, on being asked who owned the patent for his polio vaccine
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature