User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111229 Thunderbird/9.0
GNOME programs (gedit, nautilus) and some Ubuntu programs
(software-center) follow this approach: menu bar with all options
and a toolbar with most used actions (in gedit, common edit
operations and in nautilus/software-center, navigation and search).
Those applications are single windowed (there are some dialogs, like
preferences, but not multiple windows).
ubuntuone-control-panel doesn't follow this guidelines. There is no
menubar, neither toolbar: only a tabbed window. Anyway, this is a
different kind of application.
Em 22-01-2012 14:06, Ian Santopietro escreveu:
Building on that, it was my understanding that every action
should be placed in the menu, but that frequently used actions
should be echoed in a button/toolbar.
In my spare time, I'm working on
creating a traditional windowed application that will have
a menubar. I find it important to integrate with Unity,
leading me to an important question: What behavior is the
best to adopt?
As I see it, there are three options:
I can have windows each have their own specific
menubar as needed and let Unity take it out and put
it in the top as is usual now.
I can push the application to use only one window
so that the menubar becomes a non-issue.
I can work on an application-wide menu.
And for the issues I see with these approaches:
This creates inconsistencies with the launcher
being per-application in its design. The launcher is
based on the application, not on its constituent
windows.
Not all applications can force their system into a
single window interface with the limitations of
current GTK technology. (At least to my own
satisfaction given the different models needed for
different aspects of the application.)
The way that Unity currently grabs the menubar
from applications is on a per-window basis. More or
less literally ripping the menubar from the
application. This makes any application-wide menu
feel like a hack personally.
I feel like it's obvious which approach I'd prefer, but
I'm interested in feedback in which scenario is the one
most in line with Ubuntu's future. I know that one of
the ultimate goals stated my MPT was to be able to
provide a default set of menus for every application.
Then again, we have one of the default applications
forgoing menus altogether (Ubuntu One Control Panel).
So which approach is condoned?
Additional question: What should the nomenclature of
menus be? Are we to adopt the inherited behavior for
classic GNOME applications where the first menu name
should be relevant to the application? (I.E. Rhythmbox's
first menu being named "Music", or Empathy's "Chat")
Or the adopt the newer GNOME behavior that will
appear when using an application on OS X? (I.E. The name
of the application being the first menu [in my opinion
alleviating some of the global menu design issues] found
in this link from another recent Ayatana
posting.)
I think this is one of the main problems in the unity
design. If you want to be shure you'll have to wait for the
HIG for Ubuntu.
Problem: They won't be finished or partly available in the
next few months.
What I would do:
It depends on the app you are planning...
But I would try to use one window and maybe some small
windows for settings. If you want to be really great you can
look up morphing windows, but I don't have any idea how thei
are working, just like the idea behind them
Also you have to reduce clutter.
If I have understand the idea behind the design of ubuntu:
Every action which is performed regullary should get a
button, things like settings or very rarely used actions
should be put in the menu, but as I said: it depends on the
app and on its complexity