unity-design team mailing list archive

[GonzO <gonzo@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 5:17 PM, ello <tenniswithshovels@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> How about this: the lenses are moved to the bottom so they are above
> Trash) and all three do not collapse, so they're always there? (Or the
> user, can remove them (without taking the guts of the dash with them))

I like it.


> > This problem is already solved by other programs, like OO.o and Chrome
> > and FF and...
> >
> The advantage they have is that the menus start on the left edge of the
> window; in your mockup, space is taken up by the program title and the
> window controls.

This is true, but I don't think it'll be THAT bad of a problem.
Especially not since the mock up does have a cut-off on how long a
title can be.

Although, truth be told, the more I think about it, the more I like
the "Opera Idea" (title of app is an obvious button that exposes the
pull-down menus vertically).  While it does have two drawbacks I *do
not* like -

1) The pull-down menus are semi-hidden by default (the button is visible)
2) It takes two clicks to get to "File" where it used to take one

- it also fixes every other problem there is with our current menu
implementation, short of going back to the "old way":

1) Its discoverable, another button next to three that already exist
2) Newer programs (Opera, FF, Chrome, IE) are doing this already, so
it isn't a shock
3) It leaves a bunch of space free in the window title area to grab for dragging
4) Vertical menus require less screen distance to scroll down as
opposed to across
5) Vertical menus will always be vertical and uniform, instead of how
it would be with an overflow (">>") button (first half horizontal,
remaining items vertical or on a new line)
6) This scales just fine to the current unity panel menu
implementation when maximized (though calls into question whether or
not an entire panel is necessary, instead of a more "wing panel" type
configuration.  Also, we *could* display the pull-downs as fully
exposed horizontally when maximized, but that would be inconsistent
and still suffer overflow problems with programs that have a lot of
menus.)

By my count (and, as always, IMO), that's six steps forward, and two
steps back - so, four steps forward, ahead of every other
implementation idea that either currently exists or has been proposed.
 Still, I'm torn, because while not _exactly_ hidden, I can't just
simply click on "File" like I used to.


> So, are you against it or not?  Stop pulling your punches and tell
> us! ;)

I *just can't decide*!  ;-)

Seriously, though, all of my complaints against Unity - which I think
gets it right 80% of the time - are really just one complaint over and
over again:

I want to use the programs on my computer, not play a series of mini-games.

- I have to mouse from window to menu bar and back, which is more
aggravating if you use small-ish windows snapped to the bottom of the
screen
- I had to find the menus via mouse-over hunt.
- Once I found them, I have to first expose them, then find the menu I
want to click on, then mouse over to it and click it
- The lenses move; they can be near the top/middle of the launcher, or
collapsed at the bottom, depending on how busy the launcher gets
- The launcher allows me to scroll down when it gets busy, but as soon
as my mouse leaves, it scrolls back up.  Think of how annoying that
would be if it applied to, say, a web page (or ANY other program that
scrolls), and then multiply it by a hundred (because of how often I
mouse in and away from the launcher)
- The very first thing I did was open a terminal; as soon as I did,
the launcher *vanished*
- The very next thing I did was grab my terminal and move it - and as
soon as I did, the launcher *came back* o.O
- When I maximized a window, it again vanished.  When I went to click
on the dash button (to find a configuration utility to make it *stop
playing peek-a-boo with me*), it _kind of halfway came back_, peeking
out further the closer my mouse got to the left edge of the screen

It's not unusable.  In fact, as soon as I (inasmuch as I could) made
the different elements stop moving around on me, its actually a really
slick experience, and I find myself doing stuff faster on it.
Generally, I really like Unity, which is the only reason I'm here.
But our first few minutes together elicited a response of "they can't
be serious with this, can they?"

(...and don't even get me started on Gnome 3.  G3 is a heroic effort,
and is stable, and is a new paradigm, and all that is complementary.
However, as useful UI's go, the only way it can get any more annoying
would be if it made me flick-and-swish a magic wand while speaking an
incantation.  (Remember, its Levio-SAH, not Levi-OH-sah.)  ;-))

I do not want these things in a UI.  I want to use programs on my
computer, not wonder where that icon I use ran off to, or poke around
different parts of the UI until the magic thing I want is revealed to
me through exploration.

It's one thing to want "clean and simple", and to design for smaller
screens and different inputs.  But its another entirely to make
everything so clean that what used to be just a single click on a word
is now a series of actions involving clicks, discoveries, and
gestures.  But I digress, and for too long.  Sorry about that.

--G