There are several large, glaring, problems with the global menu as I see it: Menu's are outdated. It's clear from the last few years that menus as we know it are playing a more diminished role. Large amounts of applications simply don't use them as they are largely a crutch for poor UI design. Not that they should go entirely as programs like Photoshop pretty much couldn't do without them but for the bulk of end-user applications such as browsers (and even word processors) they are not exactly needed and the functionality can be exposed in alternative, superior, ways. What the global menu does is take this decision away from the application developer and basically says 'you are getting a menu, tough'. It wouldn't be too bad but do not forget that this decision will have ramifications for Ubuntu for at least a decade. Once it's in it'll define the UI and application development and changing it will probably cause a lot of breakages. The reason OSX still has a global menu imo is probably because of historical inertia – they can't change it as it will break too much. It's purposefully throwing a roadblock in the way of evolution – once it is in it can't get 'evolved' out as it is too ingrained. The second problem is one of scope and the user model. Tabs-on-top has been adopted as the default UI mechanism in browsers because the address bar belongs to the page, not the browser, and each page has it's own address bar. If you click on a tab it should only change things within the domain of the tab contents and the old style caused things outside the scope of the tab to change (address bar). Changing things outside of the defined window border as a result of actions inside the window border destroys the concept of having a program as a self contained unit and introduces uncertainty. You can't simply say 'the program is in this box' if various other parts of the OS UI change depending on the current application. The whole Fitt's Law argument is also largely invalid. The difference in targeting time for edge items and central items is not really significant. It is important to consider but should not be used to justify anything as just about every other argument carries more weight. I think it is just unfortunate it is one of the only usability 'rules' that has any form of empirical backing so gets given emphasis in every decision. Without the global menu tabs and the window decorations then gain this much vaunted space and although I do not have any empirical evidence I would hazard people use the decorations and tabs more than they use the menu. The last argument for the global menu 'We have all this space, lets jam something in it' is quite frankly disturbing. If there is lots of wasted slack space in a UI then it's an argument for removing the space, not filling it with rubbish. Looking at the top bar on stock Gnome, only about 15% is actually used for anything useful and commonly accessed. Putting the global menu at the top does not save space if the space does not need to be used. It's an argument for rethinking the layout, not for the global menu. Why not just condense it all in to one bar? To be honest there are few good reasons for the global menu and plenty of problems (touch, large monitors, multi monitors) that will seriously degrade the users experience. From: Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:57:21 -0600 To: giff g <giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx> Cc: <ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea There is no definitive fact that says that Google knows best. They have their preferences about UX, and Canonical has their's. Just because these two entities don't agree doesn't make one or the other right or wrong.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Most of Canonical's usability testing seems to indicate that it's easier to hit the Gobal menu. It's at the edge of the screen, so you only need to aim along one dimension. Plus, the first (Typically File) menu is in the exact same place every single time, even between a maximized vs. restored window. I've been using Unity since Alpha 3, and while the global menu isn't perfect, it is better than what we had before. Chrome and Firefox do it wrong, IMO. I use the global-menu firefox extension, and wish I could do that with Chrome. Cramming all of that menu into a single button is not ergonomic. The top panel displays a lot of information, including the menu, BFB, and indicators. most windows still have titlebars (Including Firefox 4). That won't be changing. Putting the menu there saves space because you don't need a menu bar or menu button anywhere else; it's all up there. The Show on hover is not great, usability wise, but there aren't a whole lot of viable alternatives. There have been some good exceptions, but with Unity at it's current state, I don't think it's realistic to try an reimplement that much code in such a short time. Your "Menus are outdated" arguement is invalid. There are lots of outdated items in the current Desktop Metaphor that are outdated, and revolution isn't the way to go there. Evolution keeps users much happier. 2011/4/4 giff g <giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx>
-- Ian Santopietro "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 |