[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

On 4/5/2011 3:02 PM, Andrew Laignel wrote:
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.
Exactly, I believe it should be up to the application developer to decide how their application behaves as much as possible. The OS level interface shouldn't get in its way and dictate more than necessary for true usability consistency.
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.
To add to that, browsers are also moving everything into the main window, like download, extension and bookmark manager which all come with their own different set of menus. Tabs on top makes the most sense here and that's why the upstream UI teams chose it.
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.
I disagree to some extent. In (always on) fullscreen applications the precious space really shouldn't be wasted with info only elements (like a titlebar) nor with elements that aren't used frequently or at all (a fallback menu that consits of File->Exit and nothing else)...
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?
The mentioned fallback menu is just that IMO. It should be removed for applications where it doesn't make sense.
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 <mailto:isantop@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:57:21 -0600
To: giff g <giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: <ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto: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.
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 <mailto:giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx>>

    > From: conscioususer@xxxxxxx <mailto:conscioususer@xxxxxxx>
    > To: ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:53:45 -0300
    > Subject: Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't
    such a great idea

    >

    > While I disagree with Mitja's tone (as usual), I agree with
    > his main point. Most of giff's points were based on general
    > assumptions backed up by little more than anecdotal evidence.
    > And anecdotal evidence is easily countered: less than a week
    > ago a user in this list mentioned how he had no problems with
    > using OSX in a large HD monitor, for example.

    I said as much and hoped I made it pretty clear that the
    points I rise are only opinions that matter to me and how I use
    computer interfaces.

    I also hinted at criticising how everything the Unity team is
    doing is
    based on personal experiences, anectotes, preference etc. instead of
    how it should be done: scientifically, with hard data and a large
    data set. Mozilla and Google know this and that's why I emphasized
    their browser UI and the testing that went into that.

    So in turn I'd expect that my opinions are accepted for what they are
    and well, pot and kettle (@Mitja)

    > The existence of things like DejaMenu is hardly convincing
    > evidence either, specially in the Linux ecosystem where there
    > are hacks for anything and everything.

    I agree but I also provided a reason why I'm bothering about
    this particular "hack": The defaults should be the best possible
    compromise, I provided some reasons why the defaults now aren't
    the best default - for large screens.

    > Also, giff mistakenly uses an old post about the original
    > Unity as an argument, ignoring the fact that netbooks are not
    > the primary target anymore, effectively invalidating some of
    > his points from the very beginning.

    I disagree. First of all I know that Unity is intended for all
    sorts of
    devices and form factors (hence the point 2 about Desktops).
    Secondly, that change in my eyes only aids my arguments:
    On small screens conflating titlebar and menubar and decreasing window
    hight is a worth trade-offs like multitasking and the eye focus
    problem
    doesn't exist. The fact that the global menu is seen as the best
    possible
    choice for 30 inch displays is what I argued against.

    Does that change invalidate the articles quoted?
    Netbooks are still an important target and so are other form-factors
    like tablets. More important than desktops simply because of market
    share and growth rate.

    Anyway the "net" centric computing will only increase, no matter
    what device you use.

    > The rest of the text is mostly questionable, with some apparent
    > contradictions, both internal (ex: emphasizing how unnecessary
    > the menu is, while complaining about the global menu making it
    > slow)

    Some parts of my post are probably a bit unstructured and could need
    some editing to clear up some points...

    In response to that apparent contradiction:
    When I talk about how the text menu is becoming obsolete I have
    native OS X applications in mind, modern "apps" written in Cocoa.
    Not "legacy" gtk2 programs that haven't seen an interface change in
    years or I have Windows 7 in mind, where IE, Office, built in programs
    like Wordpad and Paint switched to a menubar-less interface.
    KDE is toying with going into that direction as well I heard. Then
    Firefox and Chrome. Point 1) is my primary concern and that's why I
    filled a bug against it.

    Now, for those programs that really do need the menu and the
    menu has to be accessed frequently it's a different matter. In full
    screen application the menu should be at the top like Unity does.

    Generally, the valuable screen estate at the screen edges should be
    reserved for the most frequently accessed interface elements and
    not wasted with a large title bar for example (The office ribbon
    doesn't get this right).

    The lower screen edge is equally important and with Unity freeing it,
    it's up to the application developers to make clever use of it instead
    of for example waisting it with a statusbar nobody needs (because
    you always put a statusbar there, right? The statusbar is a good
    example. Up until Chrome ALL browsers had one, now they are
    all replacing it with temporary url previews. Just because it's
    old and
    tried doesn't mean it's "the best possible solution". I extend that
    to the concept of global menubars.)

    The problem with the global menu is that it's static, so even for
    those
    apps that don't need one it's there. It's taking up space and wasting
    the preciouse screen edge area. For those apps it is "unnecessary".

    The problem with "slowness" really only comes into play when
    talking about multi-tasking.

    > and external (ex: complaining how prominent it is, while
    > a lot of people are complaining about not being prominent
    > enough due to the show-on-hover).

    I didn't go into that and I think it's a separate issue altogether.
    But I don't see how that contradicts anything I said.

    Just take look at my Chromium and Firefox example:
    You don't need the window title and you don't need the menu.
    In either cases this is lost screen estate and tabs are harder to
    access than on Windows, KDE and Chrome OS.
    Hover or not changes nothing.

    But if you want my opinion on that specific issue:
    show-on-hover is a bad design, period. Most HIGs will agree with
    my opinion here...
    It's a noisy interface, not exactly discoverable and the main
    advantage of the menubar (items are in predictable places, use
    muscle memory) is lost. For full screen applications the window title
    isn't very necessary and for tabbed applications (which are
    numerous and
    probably growing, browsers, text editors, photo editors, file
    managers)
    and windows with an address/location bar it's not needed at all.

    > Overall, the points are not clear from a realistic point of
    > view. At the end of the day, it seems the main point of the
    > text is "menus will die someday, so let's pretend this day has
    > already arrived and move from there", which kinda... doesn't
    > work in real life. :)

    My main point is bug #749335
    Firefox and Chrome are not some day, they are now.
    For me the browser is the most frequently used applications
    and I deeply care about getting the best possible user experience
    there.

    Google who best know about hard data as opposed to opinions
    is writing a whole OS without a menubar. They do get UX.
    The way Ubuntu is positioning itself today and the way I predict
    how the OS landscape is going to be in the coming year I think
    Chrome OS is going to be replace a certain someone in bug #1.



    _______________________________________________
    Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
    <https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana>
    Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
    <mailto:ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
    <https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana>
    More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp




--
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 <http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234>
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana <https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana> Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana <https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp