unity-design team mailing list archive

[Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx>]

If Fitts's Law is applicable to mouse interaction, then screen-edge targets
are easier to hit than any target in a window (Like a menu button).
Likewise, a global menu on the edge of the screen is ideal, thus Unity does
demonstrate a good UI design. There are further issues, like menus hidden by
default, that don't fit well with the law's opinion on trained movements,
but that's a different discussion thread.

As to menu consistency, I definitely have to agree with you there. Ubuntu,
and Linux in general, is full of menu inconsistencies. There is some
coherence among the first-party apps, which is really the important thing;
I'm sure there are OS X apps that don't conform to the standards in place in
the Apple HIG. So the real question on that front is how to give developers
the incentive to adhere to a standard menu structure.

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 09:24, giff gill <giffgilll@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I've given the whole thing some more thought and I want to share my some
> observations.
>
> About consistency:
>
> A "forced" menubar for every application has a certain benefit, it
> forces developers to some extent to use at least one element in their
> application that follows a universal paradigm. But only to some extent.
>
> I noticed that the great thing about the OS X menubar isn't that it's
> always in the same place (it actually isn't, depending on how long the
> application name the "File" entry starts in different places). It's that
> different functions are always at exactly the same spot inside the
> hierarchical menu. Take the "Preferences" arguably one of the most
> accessed menu entries. In all OS X applications that have one it's at
> exactly the same spot (and it has the same keyboard combination!). Now
> compare that to Linux: Is it preferences, settings or options? Is it in
> the Edit menu, or Tools or was it Settings? Or even: Is it Quit, Close
> or Exit? The unity menubar is not going to solve this. "First party"
> Unity/GNOME applications got it right but once you install additional
> (especially non gtk) software it quickly becomes very inconsistent. My
> point is, the menubar doesn't guarantee consistency, you need a strict
> and clear HIG and the cooperation and will of the developers.
>
> The menuless Windows applications show how it should not be done. They
> follow 3 or 4 different guidelines that mostly make sense on their own
> (though the Wordpad/Paint Ribbon UI really is pretty bad, especially in
> regards keyboard/accessibility support and complexity vs
> functionality...) Then we have applications like Opera and Firefox that
> kind of copy new paradigms from MS but still manage to do their own
> thing only adding to the inconsistency.
>
> But all things considered it isn't that much of a problem, Windows 7 is
> well received and was lauded for being easier to use than XP (for new
> users at least) which had a pretty consistent menu based UX. In geneal
> the reduced set of exposed options works in favour of usability despite
> inconsistent paradigms and sometimes usability is improved because of
> the inconsistency as applications can make more dynamic use of screen
> estate and can choose more fitting layouts than the traditional
> title+menu+tool+status-bar.
>
> It would be nice to have a more consistent UI in a post menu-driven
> interface design but I'd argue it already is better that what we had
> before. (I know, Office Ribbon probably has just as many haters as fans
> but when looking at IE6 vs IE9 or even Chrome it's obvious.)
>
> OK, enough about Windows. It's a given that pretty much all graphical
> applications still have and need a hierarchical text based menu. But as
> we see with Chromium and Firefox they don't need a full, always visible
> menubar that takes up precious vertical space or gets in the way of
> Fitts's Law.
>
> As stated previously in the discussion the main function of the menu is
> to discover functions and to use it as a keyboard cheat-sheet. This
> function to me implies that it does not have to be a static interface
> element but is more of an integrated learning and help interface that
> you will need at the start of the learning curve but later on you might
> want to rely on other controls that are faster and more integrated in
> the workflow.
>
> I think one-button menus can be just as consistent and useful (I'm only
> talking about the case of simpler, low denisity applications) as long as
> they follow a consistent hierarchy. In Windows 7 the alt key often
> brings up a menu, sometimes as a full bar that slides in, in Media
> Player it's like a context menu. Both works for me, the problem really
> is if they can't make up their mind what functions should be put into
> what top level labels. The hidden alt key is of course no good in terms
> of discoverability, something like the big Chrome and shiny Ribbon top
> left "start menu" buttons however is.
>
> Unity top panel overflow:
>
> This is already a problem now with the application menu and the
> indicator applets. I've seen screenshots of 1024 wide displays where
> menus and info area overlap. This is specially a problem with languages
> other than English and large applications like GIMP and if people start
> adding more indicator items. (I had this problem even on a 1280 screen
> in OS X which lacks this obvious feature.)
>
> If the tabs on top model makes it into Unity this too is something we'd
> need to think about. The most obvious solution would be to deflate that
> area and only show the clock and little battery and wifi status icons
> for example, when you click on that it expands and covers menu
> entries/tabs, hitting super key/home button could expand it as well.
>
> About the future :)
>
> Unity today is mostly a replacement for Metacity and the GNOME panels.
> It still uses GNOME system settings, its file manager and many other
> tools that follow GNOME HIGs and paradigms that are decades old.
>
> I think this is going to change, it has to change to move the Unity
> concept along. I also think that the menubar will play a less important
> role in the future, Chrome OS, iOS and Android (Honeycomb) are the best
> proof I can offer. I'm convinced a dynamic and flexible approach to the
> panel bar will win in the long run.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> 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