unity-design team mailing list archive

[Kévin PEIGNOT <winniemiel05@xxxxxxxxx>]

Le 05/04/2011 14:47, nick rundy a écrit :
> There are a lot of other applications that benefit from the additional
> space afforded by merging the titlebar and menubar into the panel
> besides the web-browser. Nautilus, media players, music players, word
> processors, e-mail clients, text editors, burning software, etc. Not
> all applications place tabs over the titlebar. Most applications waste
> enormous space by devoting a whole line to just a few menu items. Also
> please note that even if the web-browser places tabs over the titlebar
> it does not provide any additional vertical space when compared to
> Unity. For example, Unity has the 1.) panel, 2.) web-browser tabbar,
> and 3.) web-browser URL bar. A default install of Windows has the 1.)
> Windows taskbar, 2.) web-browser URL bar, and 3.) web-browser tabbar,
> and 4.) the titlebar if the tabs are not placed over it. Apple Mac is
> even worse. It has titlebar and a bottom Dock.
>
> Unity's design is the best of the three and the most useful for
> creating vertical space.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx
> To: ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:24:53 +0000
> Subject: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a
> great idea
>
> 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
> <http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/383%20>
>
> The two most relevant browsers for Ubuntu Unity are Firefox 4 and
> Chromium.
> Both do not need or have a classic menubar, instead both, when run in
> full screen
> mode (the layout that makes the most sense on small screens) put the
> tabs on top.
>
> Why do they do that? Because tabs are the most frequently accessed
> interface 
> elements of a browser chrome. At the screen edge they are easy and
> fast to access.
> Additionally it makes a lot of sense logically, metaphorically or
> mentally to use the tabs 
> as the hierarchically primary element.
>
> All interfaces that put a OS level "bars" at the upper screen edge
> limit the usability of 
> these two browsers, the menubar reduces the space available for web
> content 
> which is directly contradicting the explicit goal of Unity.
>
> I filled a bug for this here: 
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-browser/+bug/749335
> <https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-browser/+bug/749335%20>
> I think this can be solved by replacing the application menu with tabs
> in the panel
> without fundamentally departing from the design goals of Unity.
>
> The rationale for the way it works now strikes me
> as particularly unsatisfactory:
> from http://design.canonical.com/2010/05/menu-bar
> <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?
> I'd say introducing additional clutter, actually wasting screen
> estate, possibly confusing 
> users by duplicating functionality for the sake of dubious consistency
> is stupid.
>
> 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 function 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?
> At least I know there will always be a way to turn off the global menu
> unlike in a closed
> OS. But I'm here arguing to turn the "best" solution into the default
> option...
>
> The other problem, having multiple windows side by side but only one
> menu at a time, requiring 
> an additional click and more mouse (and head!) movement has been
> brought up elsewhere 
> sufficiently.
>
> 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 think there is a broader trend away from the old
> plain menu bar interface
> design, especially given the trend with those newfangled fondleslabs.
>
> 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.
> Not only the interface is prettier but those in-window manipulation
> makes more sense in terms 
> of workflow and metaphor: you directly interact with documents and
> files, the interface follows
> you (the mouse), related functions are next to each other, everything
> is in one focus area.
> Compare that with the application menu, it's at the top of the screen,
> basically in a separate 
> window, you already need to know a) the name of the function and b)
> where it is located.
> It's less intuitive and when it gets in the way of a workflow, it's
> slower, Fitts's law be dammed.
> Of course that only applies to what I called "well designed"
> applications and the whole problem
> of UI consistency doesn't exactly get easier.
>
> 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.
>
> 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 interface for such complicated applications, for said
> first time and casual users.
> Another option that doesn't upset the "pros" as much is what OS X does
> with the searchable 
> menu.
>
> 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.
>
> For natty it's to late now but I have hopes for oneiric, I guess user
> feedback will help my 
> cause ;) However unlike most users I am not afraid of change, in fact
> I welcome Unity.
> But I get the feeling some things were rushed and there wasn't enough
> usability testing, 
> feedback from real "users" and analysis. Well, just look at what
> Mozilla has done with 
> Firefox 4, there was extensive UI testing going on yet the reception
> of the final release 
> was very mixed. Getting the UI right the first time is pretty much
> impossible.
>
> I also worry that when released it will have some effect like KDE 4.0:
> an exodus to 
> alternatives and a long hard fight to get them back.
> In the end it's a good thing and everybody wins but at first it ain't
> going to be pretty.
>
> _______________________________________________ Mailing list:
> https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help :
> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
I agree that... For maximised windows.
    I still don't see why using a global menu on non-maximised windows.
Even for consistency it's useless : if the menu bar is in the panel
*just for maximised* windows, every windows will have it's menu just
over their body --> logical for most of end-users. Vertical space gain
is still here. You have less move to do with your mouse (imagine for
menus of a window in the bottom right corner...).
    If there is one good reason to have menus of un-maximised windows in
the panel, then explain it to me.

-- 
Kévin PEIGNOT -------------- Envoyé depuis thunderbird - Ubuntu 11.04