Re: [Ayatana] Global menu in Oneiric Ocelot (11.10)

[Ed Lin <edlin280@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 3:12 AM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad
<joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 27. mai 2011 01:47, Ed Lin wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you say it's misused?
>>
>> Because it's the most valuable space anywhere on the screen to put
>> interface elements
>
> I think application menus are important interface elements.
You said yourself:

" Most of the time, I have no use for the menus at all,
so why should they bother my eyes all the time? It's like a
waiter who sits down at your table waiting for you to ask for
something."



> http://ubuntuone.com/p/vqK/
> This is a normal day to day setup for me.

You should really give tiling WMs a try...
You have to realize that this sort of usage is not very common. You
just happen to benefit from Unity more by accident.


>> You got one thing backwards then: The most frequently used items
>> should be put at the screen edge
>
> What do you mean screen edge?
>Or do you mean the most
> common actions should be placed in the menu bar?
^^ This. Screen edge= infinitely wide target



> But if I think those ideas happen to be very clever, then
> by extension, I have to be stupid as well? I don't think that's
> productive. Stick to explanations of how they're bad instead.

Uh, no! You have your way of working in mind. That's very subjective
and personal. When you designing an interface that should be used by
200 million people you need to approach this very very differently. If
you don't you'd be stupid ;)

>> I'll reply with the current Unity menu in mind, not the a Mac OS like
>> menu...
>
> Good, because I happen to use Unity and not OS X.
Yeah, and the features that distinguish Unity from OS X sucks. Not an
opinion, a fact according to Ayatana's own usability testing!

>>>
>>> * It gives the desktop a much less technical feel.
>>
>> an illusion
>
> It's an illusion that the sound of the ocean has a calming effect
> on peoples nerves too then? Ok. Guess some illusions are good.
> What's your point?

The complexity of software is hidden at first glance, not completely
abstracted away as it should be. The fact that it is hidden makes it
actually even harder to use.

>>> * You would never need to read the title of a window and use
>>>   its menus at the same time.
>>
>> that's not the point, the point is new users don't even know where the
>> menu is and old users are slowed down.
>
> Old users would probably use the keyboard, wouldn't they? But
> I agree that the global menu should be made more easily
> discoverable to new users. How do you propose we do that?
> I haven't seen anything to convince me that the new approach
> is slower than the old one. None at all.

Hover needs to go. Simple. There is no other clean solution. If there
was OS X would have done so by now. They got some great designers, who
get payed for their work.

>>>
>>> * It conserves space on your screen.
>>
>> No it absolutely doesn't - the hover thing that is, I've already
>> explained that several times now) Apart form that it only conserves
>> space when you tile two or more windows (of the same app) above each
>> other. This so far is THE ONLY advantage of the menubar.
>
> I certainly don't agree with that at all. I demonstrated above
> that the extra space is indeed valuable. But the removal of
> four nearly identical menus is also very valuable, imho. I think
> it's more valuable to me than the extra space.

I always made that exception clear I think, as I did in this very
quote. However, please prove me wrong but this kind of setup is a
corner case with "heavy multi-taskers" that comes at the cost of
multi-tasking, so yeah, no further comment.

>>>
>>> * It reduces duplicate information.
>>
>> it also reduces non-duplicate information (apps opened side by side)
>
> I don't understand what you're trying to say.
Your screenshot: you can only access one menu at a time, to access
another you first need to switch the window, only then you can access
that menu.

>>>
>>> * It is more aesthetically pleasing.
>>
>> Yes, at the cost of usability.
>
> I keep telling you why I think that's not the case. You keep
> telling me it is.

Usability for you is not usability for the majority. I don't have mine
or your special user cases in mind. I'm always trying to see the
bigger picture. If I fail, please point it out.


> We already do and we have had that for a very long time now.
> People seem to like it too, being notified of emails on the same
> panel where they have the clock or their logout button or
> what have you. Mixing application information and system
> information in the top panel, has been done in Ubuntu since
> Warty. It's been done on Windows since '95 and in OS X since
> ... I don't even know.
 users)
Ok, you could also say mixing dynamic and static content...

Please see http://arstechnica.com/open-source/reviews/2011/05/riding-the-narwhal-ars-reviews-unity-in-ubuntu-1104.ars/3
and see what happens when you have a maximized window behind a
non-maximized window. It's such an ugly hack just to save some screen
estate (something that wasn't even necessary as I explained).

> I think I understand what you mean and how you feel, and I
> don't agree with you. I suppose that goes both ways, and
> that's fine. It's been a very interesting discussion and I've
> learned quite a bit.

Thanks, hope I don't come across to harsh but really I've been arguing
about this issue for at least a month now and I don't see any
development.

> As I said before, I agree that the global menu should be made
> more easily discoverable to new users. Let's figure out a way
> to do that?
Hover <-- kill it, with fire :P