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

[Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

giff g wrote on 04/04/11 16:24:
>
> Here are some reasons why I think the application menu in unity as it is now
> is a failed attempt at improving the user experience in Ubuntu.
>
> 1) Primary target of Ubuntu Unity are _net_books, accordingly the most
> important application is going to be the browser as repeatedly pointed out here:
> http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/383

That is no longer true. As Mark Shuttleworth announced at UDS Natty,
Unity is now targeted at all PCs with pointing devices, not just
netbooks.
<http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/10/shuttleworth-unity-shell-will-be-default-desktop-in-ubuntu-1104.ars>

> The two most relevant browsers for Ubuntu Unity ar e Firefox 4 and Chromium.
> Both do not need or have a classic menubar,

It is much easier to reopen a tab you closed recently, or to return to a
page you visited a few minutes ago, or to clear all browsing data, in
Chrome for Mac than in Chrome for Windows. Why? Because the Mac version
has a menu bar with items for those functions, while the Windows version
does not.

Making the menu bar optional is a legitimate choice for an OS, and
abandoning it altogether makes sense for a Web-only OS like Chrome OS
(though the menu bar in Google Docs will never be as pleasant to use as
native menus). But for any other OS, it has trade-offs.

>                                             instead both, when run in
> full screen mode (the layout that makes the most sense on small screens) put the
> tabs on top.

Sure, that's the next best thing for a browser to use that screen edge
for, if the OS isn't already using it for the menu bar.

> Why do they do that? Because tabs are the most frequently accessed
> interface elements of a browser chrome.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Back button has that honor.

>...
> The rationale for the way it works now strikes me
> as particularly unsatisfactory:
> from http://design.canonical.com/2010/05/menu-bar
>...
>> Tackling the corner cases
>> (...)
>> Many windows currently don’t have menus: for example, Open and Save
>> dialogs. For these, we’ll introduce a fallback set of minimal menus so that the
>> menu bar doesn’t look weirdly empty when those windows are focused.
>
> A "fallback" menu" so it doesn't look stupid?

Not just for that, of course. :-) It will also make the editing
functions (Cut, Copy, Paste) more accessible when the keyboard is
further away then the mouse is.

Over time, as more programs fill in the menu bar, it will solve other
design problems too. For example, for years Gnome has had a problem with
how to make changes in settings windows undoable. Where to put the Undo
command? With a menu bar, the answer is obvious: "Edit" > "Undo".

> I'd say introducing additional clutter, actually wasting screen estate,
> possibly confusing users by duplicating functionality for the sake of dubious
> consistency is stupid.

Menu bars have always partly duplicated functions available elsewhere.
This is for three main reasons.

1.  Exploration -- the menu hierarchy acts as a map for understanding
    what features are available in an application, even if some of them
    are also available elsewhere.

2.  Familiarity -- it can be easier to remember that "Print" is always
    in the "File" menu for any application where it's available at all,
    than to remember where (or whether) the Print button is in each
    application.

3.  Teaching -- the menus act as cheat sheets for the keyboard
    shortcuts.

> 2) Probably repeating what has been said already: What about large
> Desktop monitors? There is the trend away from Desktops to more portable devices
> but for those that still use Desktops at all: Desktop setups tend to get larger
> and more powerful all the time. Monitors have higher and higher resolutions and
> multi-monitor setups are becoming the norm. Accordingly the users themselves
> tend to be heavy multi-tasker. Given the hardware specs, fast SSDs and large
> scree resolutions nothing is in the way of the user, well except for the user
> interface.
>
> A bit of personal anecdotal evidence:
> I've been using OS X for a long time on small Laptop screens, then I got
> a large monitor and hooked it up. I noticed how the interface made less sense
> and was harder to use now that the menubar and a given window often were apart
> several inches. It's not so much about how far the mouse has to travel, it's
> about the visual focus: On a large screen and especially when using multiple
> screens one actually has to turn the head just to access a funct ion for the
> window you are currently working in.
>
> Apparently I wasn't the only one annoyed by that so someone already
> wrote a "solution": http://homepage.mac.com/khsu/DejaMenu/DejaMenu.html
>
> Are we going to need such hack in Ubuntu too?

No, because Ubuntu solves the same problem in a more sensible way, by
having a menu bar on each display.

>...
> 3)menu bar is so 1990s
> It's not just Firefox and Chrome. MS Office is just the most prominent
> application using the ribbon interface.

I addressed that point in the article you quoted: "The disadvantage is
that for an application of any complexity, trying to avoid a menu bar
just litters pull-down menus throughout the interface, and inconsistency
makes the overall mental model more complex. For example, in Microsoft
Word 2003, Microsoft Publisher 2003, and Microsoft Internet Explorer 6,
the 'Find' command was in the same menu in all three applications. But
in Microsoft Word 2007, Microsoft Publisher 2007, and Internet Explorer
7 and 8, that same command is in three different menus."

>                                         I think there is a broader trend away
> from the old plain menu bar interface design, especially given the trend with
> those newfangled fondleslabs.

If by "fondleslab" you mean "iPad", probably you're not the sort of
person who is aware that the iWork applications for iPad have fewer
features than their Mac counterparts -- partly because there is no menu
bar to put them in. (Multi-touch gestures take up a little of the slack,
but not much.)

That doesn't mean the iPad should have a menu bar. It should not,
because menus on a tablet would be too fiddly to use. Again, this means
trade-offs: tablet applications can be much easier to use, but can't
practically be as feature-rich as applications on pointing-device PCs.
Trying to use the same design for both form factors would leave you with
the worst of both worlds.

> Again, having used OS X for years, I notice how rarely I actually use the menu
> bar. For applications I use every day I know all the keyboard shortcuts I use
> anyway and for other applications, if they are designed really well, the
> interface elements in the window themselves, together with such great inventions
> like drag and drop and the context menu are all I need.

That's great, but people like you are rare and special. For many people,
remembering more than the most basic keyboard shortcuts is too much
bother. And for many, drag and drop is rather difficult (which is why
Mac menus themselves no longer require dragging, and why Windows and
Ubuntu menus never have).

>...
> Broadly speaking there are two kinds of applications: Simple "apps" that
> do one thing (and do it well, hopefully), those often have no menu at all, have
> one for consistency reasons (but as I said, I consider this dubious if it's just
> for some visual consistency but has absolutely nothing to do with usability
> consistency) or they have a menu for some few functions that make no sense to
> directly expose via the main window because you only access them maybe once to
> initially set up the application. For those a single menu button akin the one in
> Chrome is sufficient, there is no need for nested hierarchy.
>
> On OS X for example a lot of menus are filled with absolutely useless
> entries like cut and paste which everyone uses the keyboard or the
> context menu for or that duplicate all the icons on the window which
> again are faster to access via those icons or keyboard shortcuts.

"What we didn't know until we analyzed the data was that even though so
many people do use CTRL+V and do use 'Paste' on the context menu, the
toolbar button for Paste still gets clicked more than any other button.
The command is so incredibly popular that even though there are more
efficient ways of using it, many people do prefer to click the toolbar
button." <http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/04/07/570798.aspx>

Now, Apple's own applications (and, copying them, most other Mac
applications except Microsoft Office) avoid "Cut" and "Paste" toolbar
buttons. So, maybe it is true that "everyone uses the keyboard or the
context menu for" those commands, *on the Mac*. But for many of them,
the reason they will have learned the keyboard shortcuts in the first
place was because they were displayed in the "Edit" menu.

> The second kind of application is one that huge, with tons of functions
> and obviously a steep learning curve. Photoshop or GIMP are a good example,
> Office suites another. Here the limitations of the textual hierarchical menu
> become apparent again.
>
> In case you are  a "power user" of such application you probably forgot about
> the learning curve and don't have to think about how and where and why the
> interface works. But for casual or first time users the menubar is ill-suited.
> The ribbon interface is one way to improve the i nterface for such complicated
> applications, for said first time and casual users.

Yes it is, but at the expense of consistency between applications.
Probably there are several other designs that would be easier for
beginners too, which would similarly decrease long-term efficiency.

> Another option that doesn't upset the "pros" as much is what OS X does
> with the searchable menu.

That would be cool. But keep in mind that it only works if there are
menus to search! (Or if there is some other mechanism for applications
to expose a thesaurus of commands.)

> Given that menubars are becoming a legacy paradigm I wonder if it's such a
> great idea, when designing a new UI from scratch in 2011 one should make that
> menubar a prominent and static, always on, no way to opt out, no way to replace
> with more fitting things like tabs on top element.
>...

That's just an appeal to novelty.

Thanks for your otherwise thoughtful feedback.

- -- 
mpt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk2bN4sACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecos9ACdH7WpbsJWfnyWhyfcWRzpiOFM
DusAni5EBCDawVWobXOw2j6P4qp2bbtl
=oFER
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----