unity-design team mailing list archive

[Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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

Ryan Peters wrote on 07/08/10 20:12:
>
> On 08/07/2010 08:46 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
>...
>> In this scenario someone is using (for example) Calculator, Banshee,
>> Empathy, Gmail, Amazon, CNN, Farmville, the Gundam AnimeSuki Forum,
>> and Hulu respectively. That they are using Firefox for 70% of these
>> things does not mean it is useful or informative for "Firefox" to
>> appear in the corner of the screen while doing them -- just as, for
>> example, "Gnome" or "Xorg" or "Ubuntu" or "GNU" or "Linux" shouldn't.
>> Taking up that much screen space with any of those brands may well be
>> good for their vendors, but it is not relevant to user goals.
>
> Of course it's relevant. People know they're in a web browser (whatever
> they'd call it, most likely "The Internet" or "The Fox-thing"). because
> they can go to different websites in it. They know that they use /only
> one application/ to do so.

How do you know they know that? Since you were mistaken last time, I
think the burden of proof is on you now. :-)

Since Safari 1.0 in 2003 and Firefox 1.0 in 2004, browser vendors have
increasingly competed on unobtrusiveness -- on how little they can
impose on your mental model. Browsers used to have branded throbbers,
now they don't. They used to have separate toolbars and address bars,
now they don't. They used to have large distinctive toolbar icons, now
they don't. They used to have status bars, now they usually don't. And
vendors have been experimenting with ways to let you extract Web sites
as standalone windows with no browser chrome at all. When you're using
applications like Amazon, Gmail, and Hulu, it's becoming less and less
obvious that you're using a browser to run them. (The "Firefox" button
is a big outlier from that pattern.)

>                             If they want options relevant to the
> application, they open the Application menu. Shoving it in a menu with
> other window-specific options would be unorganized and confusing (It
> isn't to you or me because we're used to it. Think of the new users or
> people like my mom, for example). After they figure out that GNOME has
> application-specific things in an application-specific place, they pick
> it up quickly and remember that. Unlike other menus that are structured
> differently for every application, the contents of the application menu
> are almost always the same. It makes more sense for "Preferences" to go
> under the "Application" menu than a "Tools" or "Edit" menu, doesn't it?

Yes, it does -- as I said, that's probably the best example of an
application-global item. But I think there are too few good examples to
warrant the menu's existence.

>...
>> If you have a document open in Microsoft Word and a spreadsheet open
>> in Microsoft Excel, and you choose "Quit" from Excel's application
>> menu on the Mac (or "Exit" from its Office button on Windows), the
>> spreadsheet will close. But if you had the same document open in
>> OpenOffice.org Writer, and the same spreadsheet open in OpenOffice.org
>> Calc, and you chose "Quit" from OpenOffice.org's app menu in Gnome
>> Shell, the spreadsheet would close, and -- surprise! -- the document
>> would close too.
>>
>> Why? Because Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel happen to be coded as
>> separate applications, but OpenOffice.org Writer and OpenOffice.org
>> Calc happen to be coded as a single application. Given how far off you
>> were in thinking people knew what a Web browser was, please excuse me
>> for not taking your word for it when you claim that people "know that
>> [OpenOffice.org] is all the same program".
>>
>> The app menu does not introduce this problem, but it does perpetuate
>> it and enshrine it. And "Quit" is given as the first example of an
>> item justifying the menu's existence at all.
>
> Bad example. The window still has a close document option (and if it
> isn't labeled as such it's a bug in the application itself, not GNOME).
> People will learn that the application menu quits everything (which is
> just as easy to learn how to use Windows or Mac, if not easier), and it
> is a very useful function to have. Might I note that GNOME Shell and
> OpenOffice.org are by no means "complete" and are open for bug reports.
> Reporting this to both would be a logical step to take.

That doesn't address my point at all. That "Close" exists does not
excuse the inconsistent redundancy (it makes it even less excusable),
it's nothing to do with how "complete" OpenOffice.org is (it's behaved
like this for over *ten years* now), and you're assuming the question of
what "quits everything" means.

>...
>>>             to reduce confusion among new users and making the
>>> desktop seem more integrated and organized.
>>
>> Those are new claims that you're making without evidence.
>
> Apparently you don't have problems finding things if your vision is
> cluttered with objects. I do. I like to have as little visual clutter
> as possible because the interface seems cleaner and it's easier to
> find what I'm looking for.

You're the one advocating an extra object. I'm advocating its abolition.

> Shell does this perfectly in my opinion, and compared to something
> like Ubuntu where all of the icons are shoved close together in one
> corner of the screen, it's a God-send (whose idea was it anyway to
> put icons for drastically different things all in one corner of the
> screen?).
>...

What do you mean by "the icons"? Icons for what?

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

iEYEARECAAYFAkxf3vYACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecoUtwCg0haRNvZng1KN+ROXOmaZgfir
CgMAniImbiK9N1d72Tbs9WihFs6XQmlv
=YULp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----