To be honest there are few good reasons for the global menu and plenty
of problems (touch, large monitors, multi monitors) that will
seriously degrade the users experience.
From: Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:isantop@xxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:57:21 -0600
To: giff g <giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
Cc: <ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such
a great idea
There is no definitive fact that says that Google knows best. They
have their preferences about UX, and Canonical has their's. Just
because these two entities don't agree doesn't make one or the other
right or wrong.
Most of Canonical's usability testing seems to indicate that it's
easier to hit the Gobal menu. It's at the edge of the screen, so you
only need to aim along one dimension. Plus, the first (Typically File)
menu is in the exact same place every single time, even between a
maximized vs. restored window. I've been using Unity since Alpha 3,
and while the global menu isn't perfect, it is better than what we had
before.
Chrome and Firefox do it wrong, IMO. I use the global-menu firefox
extension, and wish I could do that with Chrome. Cramming all of that
menu into a single button is not ergonomic.
The top panel displays a lot of information, including the menu, BFB,
and indicators. most windows still have titlebars (Including Firefox
4). That won't be changing. Putting the menu there saves space because
you don't need a menu bar or menu button anywhere else; it's all up
there. The Show on hover is not great, usability wise, but there
aren't a whole lot of viable alternatives. There have been some good
exceptions, but with Unity at it's current state, I don't think it's
realistic to try an reimplement that much code in such a short time.
Your "Menus are outdated" arguement is invalid. There are lots of
outdated items in the current Desktop Metaphor that are outdated, and
revolution isn't the way to go there. Evolution keeps users much happier.
2011/4/4 giff g <giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx>>
> From: conscioususer@xxxxxxx <mailto:conscioususer@xxxxxxx>
> To: ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:53:45 -0300
> Subject: Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't
such a great idea
>
> While I disagree with Mitja's tone (as usual), I agree with
> his main point. Most of giff's points were based on general
> assumptions backed up by little more than anecdotal evidence.
> And anecdotal evidence is easily countered: less than a week
> ago a user in this list mentioned how he had no problems with
> using OSX in a large HD monitor, for example.
I said as much and hoped I made it pretty clear that the
points I rise are only opinions that matter to me and how I use
computer interfaces.
I also hinted at criticising how everything the Unity team is
doing is
based on personal experiences, anectotes, preference etc. instead of
how it should be done: scientifically, with hard data and a large
data set. Mozilla and Google know this and that's why I emphasized
their browser UI and the testing that went into that.
So in turn I'd expect that my opinions are accepted for what they are
and well, pot and kettle (@Mitja)
> The existence of things like DejaMenu is hardly convincing
> evidence either, specially in the Linux ecosystem where there
> are hacks for anything and everything.
I agree but I also provided a reason why I'm bothering about
this particular "hack": The defaults should be the best possible
compromise, I provided some reasons why the defaults now aren't
the best default - for large screens.
> Also, giff mistakenly uses an old post about the original
> Unity as an argument, ignoring the fact that netbooks are not
> the primary target anymore, effectively invalidating some of
> his points from the very beginning.
I disagree. First of all I know that Unity is intended for all
sorts of
devices and form factors (hence the point 2 about Desktops).
Secondly, that change in my eyes only aids my arguments:
On small screens conflating titlebar and menubar and decreasing window
hight is a worth trade-offs like multitasking and the eye focus
problem
doesn't exist. The fact that the global menu is seen as the best
possible
choice for 30 inch displays is what I argued against.
Does that change invalidate the articles quoted?
Netbooks are still an important target and so are other form-factors
like tablets. More important than desktops simply because of market
share and growth rate.
Anyway the "net" centric computing will only increase, no matter
what device you use.
> The rest of the text is mostly questionable, with some apparent
> contradictions, both internal (ex: emphasizing how unnecessary
> the menu is, while complaining about the global menu making it
> slow)
Some parts of my post are probably a bit unstructured and could need
some editing to clear up some points...
In response to that apparent contradiction:
When I talk about how the text menu is becoming obsolete I have
native OS X applications in mind, modern "apps" written in Cocoa.
Not "legacy" gtk2 programs that haven't seen an interface change in
years or I have Windows 7 in mind, where IE, Office, built in programs
like Wordpad and Paint switched to a menubar-less interface.
KDE is toying with going into that direction as well I heard. Then
Firefox and Chrome. Point 1) is my primary concern and that's why I
filled a bug against it.
Now, for those programs that really do need the menu and the
menu has to be accessed frequently it's a different matter. In full
screen application the menu should be at the top like Unity does.
Generally, the valuable screen estate at the screen edges should be
reserved for the most frequently accessed interface elements and
not wasted with a large title bar for example (The office ribbon
doesn't get this right).
The lower screen edge is equally important and with Unity freeing it,
it's up to the application developers to make clever use of it instead
of for example waisting it with a statusbar nobody needs (because
you always put a statusbar there, right? The statusbar is a good
example. Up until Chrome ALL browsers had one, now they are
all replacing it with temporary url previews. Just because it's
old and
tried doesn't mean it's "the best possible solution". I extend that
to the concept of global menubars.)
The problem with the global menu is that it's static, so even for
those
apps that don't need one it's there. It's taking up space and wasting
the preciouse screen edge area. For those apps it is "unnecessary".
The problem with "slowness" really only comes into play when
talking about multi-tasking.
> and external (ex: complaining how prominent it is, while
> a lot of people are complaining about not being prominent
> enough due to the show-on-hover).
I didn't go into that and I think it's a separate issue altogether.
But I don't see how that contradicts anything I said.
Just take look at my Chromium and Firefox example:
You don't need the window title and you don't need the menu.
In either cases this is lost screen estate and tabs are harder to
access than on Windows, KDE and Chrome OS.
Hover or not changes nothing.
But if you want my opinion on that specific issue:
show-on-hover is a bad design, period. Most HIGs will agree with
my opinion here...
It's a noisy interface, not exactly discoverable and the main
advantage of the menubar (items are in predictable places, use
muscle memory) is lost. For full screen applications the window title
isn't very necessary and for tabbed applications (which are
numerous and
probably growing, browsers, text editors, photo editors, file
managers)
and windows with an address/location bar it's not needed at all.
> Overall, the points are not clear from a realistic point of
> view. At the end of the day, it seems the main point of the
> text is "menus will die someday, so let's pretend this day has
> already arrived and move from there", which kinda... doesn't
> work in real life. :)
My main point is bug #749335
Firefox and Chrome are not some day, they are now.
For me the browser is the most frequently used applications
and I deeply care about getting the best possible user experience
there.
Google who best know about hard data as opposed to opinions
is writing a whole OS without a menubar. They do get UX.
The way Ubuntu is positioning itself today and the way I predict
how the OS landscape is going to be in the coming year I think
Chrome OS is going to be replace a certain someone in bug #1.
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana>
Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana>
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
--
Ian Santopietro
"Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast
Ofer middangeard monnum sended"
Pa gur yv y porthaur?
Public GPG key (RSA):
http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234
<http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234>
_______________________________________________ Mailing list:
https://launchpad.net/~ayatana <https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana> Post
to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
<https://launchpad.net/%7Eayatana> More help :
https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp