unity-design team mailing list archive

[giff gill <giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 4/5/2011 5:38 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> giff g wrote on 04/04/11 16:24:
>>
>> 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
> 
> That is no longer true. As Mark Shuttleworth announced at UDS Natty,
> Unity is now targeted at all PCs with pointing devices, not just
> netbooks.
> <http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/10/shuttleworth-unity-shell-will-be-default-desktop-in-ubuntu-1104.ars>
> (...)
> That doesn't mean the iPad should have a menu bar. It should not,
> because menus on a tablet would be too fiddly to use. Again, this means
> trade-offs: tablet applications can be much easier to use, but can't
> practically be as feature-rich as applications on pointing-device PCs.
> Trying to use the same design for both form factors would leave you with
> the worst of both worlds.

I know, we already covered that above.
But I have to say, that's interesting. Unity was initially designed with
netbook formfactor and user case in mind and later extended to the
desktop. Still the fundamental design was kept 1:1, the same design for
different form factors.

One of my points is that I do not think a global menubar makes much
sense on a large monitor (20" and up).

>> The two most relevant browsers for Ubuntu Unity ar e Firefox 4 and Chromium.
>> Both do not need or have a classic menubar,
> 
> It is much easier to reopen a tab you closed recently, or to return to a
> page you visited a few minutes ago, or to clear all browsing data, in
> Chrome for Mac than in Chrome for Windows. Why? Because the Mac version
> has a menu bar with items for those functions, while the Windows version
> does not.

But there's the Fitt's Law trade-off. What do people access more often?
What if Chrome had two buttons instead of one, that equals about the
information density and depth of the Mac menu layout.

Funny thing but it used to have two buttons and later they were reduced
to one. I don't think that was done without any usability testing.
(Or there is a more sinister thing going on and Google doesn't want you
deleting their cookies...)

All these functions of course also have a keyboard shortcut which I know
and use so for my personal user case it's not a valid concern. The
problem here is that the global menu is OS level and can't be altered
with a simple setting or extension. I have no choice, just as I have no
choice in OS X but to use both Dock and Menubar although I often wished
I could replace or disable them in some way.

For _me_ this design means wasted space and the tabs are harder to
access because the tabs are pretty much the only chrome element of a
browser I use the mouse for.

> Actually, I'm pretty sure the Back button has that honor.

I guess so, I have a five button mouse so I use that but statistically
you are most likely right. So what would a clever UI developer do?
Simple, put the back-button next to the first tab at the top of the
screen. (MS Ribbon has something very similar where you can put the undo
function into the title-bar). The plain menubar doesn't allow that.


>> A "fallback" menu" so it doesn't look stupid?
> 
> Not just for that, of course. :-) It will also make the editing
> functions (Cut, Copy, Paste) more accessible when the keyboard is
> further away then the mouse is.

The context menu is even closer. So is a menu directly in the window in
multi-window mode.

> Over time, as more programs fill in the menu bar, it will solve other
> design problems too. For example, for years Gnome has had a problem with
> how to make changes in settings windows undoable. Where to put the Undo
> command? With a menu bar, the answer is obvious: "Edit" > "Undo".

They either already have a menubar directly in the window now and this
doesn't help solving anything or they now get a menubar with a single
relevant function which would be a waste of space and cumbersome to use
because it's nested. A dedicated single button is faster and more
discoverable and ctrl+z could have implemented a long time ago without
changing anything in the UI.


> 1.  Exploration -- the menu hierarchy acts as a map for understanding
>     what features are available in an application, even if some of them
>     are also available elsewhere.
> 3.  Teaching -- the menus act as cheat sheets for the keyboard
>     shortcuts.

Who said there shouldn't be an equivalent to these necessary UI functions?
Firefox and Chrome both have a menu-button that fulfills these tasks.

> 2.  Familiarity -- it can be easier to remember that "Print" is always
>     in the "File" menu for any application where it's available at all,
>     than to remember where (or whether) the Print button is in each
>     application.

The UI should be consistent were it makes sense (i.e. helps the user get
things done) but not for a blind sake of consistency.

I think like in your paste example from MS if an application has a
dedicated print button it will be uses more frequently than a nested
print command. Likewise I don't care at all as long as ctrl-p works
(give me consistent keyboard shortcuts and I'm happy).

> No, because Ubuntu solves the same problem in a more sensible way, by
> having a menu bar on each display.

That's good to hear but with a single 30 inch screen and a small window
in the lower right it's still a concern.
And of course the whole mutli-tasking thing.

> I addressed that point in the article you quoted: "The disadvantage is
> that for an application of any complexity, trying to avoid a menu bar
> just litters pull-down menus throughout the interface, and inconsistency
> makes the overall mental model more complex. For example, in Microsoft
> Word 2003, Microsoft Publisher 2003, and Microsoft Internet Explorer 6,
> the 'Find' command was in the same menu in all three applications. But
> in Microsoft Word 2007, Microsoft Publisher 2007, and Internet Explorer
> 7 and 8, that same command is in three different menus."

A lot of these menu-less microsoft applications still have the menubar.
It's only hidden by default unless you click the alt key.
They recognized that while for most users the new interface approach is
more suited there are still lots of users who prefer having the trusted
menu available, but it's clearly a "legacy" element.

MS has a tradition with inconsistent interfaces for no reasons.
(Well, one reason is probably the size of their company and the way
software is developed often quite independently in different teams,
reinventing the wheel over and over again).

However, having no main menu always in the same place doesn't
automatically mean a total mess and inconsistency. Take a look at the OS
X first party software. Yes, they do have a menu but I argue that's too
more for legacy reasons than a deliberate choice at this point.
As you might be aware OS X.next will introduce a new fullscreen mode
similar to what iOS apps look. No menubar there and it's apparently what
users want and what sells apps.

In OS X different programs work together seamlessly, they are integrated
with each other and the system like on no other OS. The UX is very
consistent even though the design of individual applications is very
different and completely tailored towards what functionality the user
expects.

UX consistency is much more than a global menu and Linux with all it's
different toolkits and separate developer communities is far from
achieving what a walled garden can today.

> That's great, but people like you are rare and special. For many people,
> remembering more than the most basic keyboard shortcuts is too much
> bother. And for many, drag and drop is rather difficult (which is why
> Mac menus themselves no longer require dragging, and why Windows and
> Ubuntu menus never have).

About drag and drop, Finder does not support cut and paste, the quickest
way to move stuff around is by opening two windows side by side and
dragging and dropping files and folders with the mouse. Very common user
case, not that I'm particularly fond of this behaviour.

I agree that general users don't use much keyboard shortcuts but power
users and especially long term *NIX users almost solely depend on the
keyboard. Those probably would prefer to be able to hide the menubar
altogether. Terminal emulators are a good example, the more advanced
ones come without a graphical menu.

> "What we didn't know until we analyzed the data was that even though so
> many people do use CTRL+V and do use 'Paste' on the context menu, the
> toolbar button for Paste still gets clicked more than any other button.
> The command is so incredibly popular that even though there are more
> efficient ways of using it, many people do prefer to click the toolbar
> button." <http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jensenh/archive/2006/04/07/570798.aspx>
>
Doesn't surprise me much, it's a single simple button, discoverable and
right there besides the text. Menu entries are hidden, require more
movement (hand and eyes) and require two clicks.

> Now, Apple's own applications (and, copying them, most other Mac
> applications except Microsoft Office) avoid "Cut" and "Paste" toolbar
> buttons. So, maybe it is true that "everyone uses the keyboard or the
> context menu for" those commands, *on the Mac*. But for many of them,
> the reason they will have learned the keyboard shortcuts in the first
> place was because they were displayed in the "Edit" menu.

That's a good point and text editors should have such menu and generally
applications should expose all functionality and keyboard shortcuts in a
way that makes it easy to discover. But does the menubar *need* to be
global, at the top and always visible?

>> 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.
>> ...
> 
> That's just an appeal to novelty.

I have my eyes on iOS and OS X lion and what I'm seeing there is a trend
not just temporary gimmickry.

> Thanks for your otherwise thoughtful feedback.

Thank you for the reply!
> - -- 
> mpt
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iEYEARECAAYFAk2bN4sACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecos9ACdH7WpbsJWfnyWhyfcWRzpiOFM
> DusAni5EBCDawVWobXOw2j6P4qp2bbtl
> =oFER
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp