unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 27. mai 2011 01:47, Ed Lin wrote:
> > Why do you say it's misused?
> Because it's the most valuable space anywhere on the screen to put
> interface elements
I think application menus are important interface elements.
> (horizontal panels have the advantage of suiting text better, they are
> the larger screen eges and the top has the advantage over the bottom
> that it's where already most of the controls are, where people start
> looking for them, usually where the mouse needs to travel less far and
> usually it's got the better viewing angle)
Yes, I couldn't have said it better myself. Menus are text. When
they're not used, other text, like the title of the application if it's
maximized is displayed there instead. Currently, when the window
is not maximized, then only the name of the application is displayed.
I think that could be utilized better. For instance, my Thunderbird
shows "Thunderbird Mail/News" when it's not maximized and I'm
not working with menus. It has to be possible to find some more
useful text than that. I think stuff like that needs to grow with time.
> > No. Terminal windows were only meant as examples of small
> > windows. I often have two text editors on top of each other
> You can only do that on large monitors, 25 px (or something like that)
> don't matter *that much*.
That just isn't true. I do that on my 11" all the time, using
1366x768 resolution. And yes, 50 or 75px does matter. As a
demonstration, I made a screenshot for you:
http://ubuntuone.com/p/vqK/

This is a normal day to day setup for me. On the left side,
you're right. Having the menu visible wouldn't be a big deal.
It would mean reading more menus and less Python, but
other than that, it would be of no importance. On the right
side, though, it would mean having to remove something,
because those 75px actually do matter.
> > Yes, there might be a few exceptions, which is why I proposed
> > making it possible to choose not to use the global menu for
> > a single application/window. But it seem very unlikely to me that
> > you would ever have a complex application like you're describing
> > as a small window. Apps like that tend to be maximized, at least
> > vertically, because of those very toolbars that you mention. You
> > made a point of that yourself earlier. That means it would almost
> > always still be a short distance between the menu and toolbar.
> gedit has two bars, nautilus three, pretty much all windows have more
> than just the menu, except terminal.

You're absolutely right. That's why applications like Nautilus
tends to be maximized vertically. I don't agree that the tab
bar is a place where the users will look for application features
though. I think most users are beginning to get comfortable
with tabbed interfaces. But thanks for reminding me that I
don't ever use the toolbar buttons in gedit and therefore was
able to remove it. :)
> > That's easily answered. The toolbars are filled with the most
> > common actions. The menus contains all the other things,
> > the much less common actions. The calculator, for instance,
> > does indeed have a help menu. How often do _you_ use it?
> > It has some other menus too, but I only ever use the one to
> > change modes. And I do that from time to time, but not nearly
> > often enough for it to warrant a toolbar. So you see, there
> > is a big difference between hiding the menu and hiding the
> > toolbars. Granted, some applications provide a toolbar filled with
> > uncommon actions, just to have a toolbar. That's wrong, and
> > certainly both annoying and distracting, but that must be
> > fixed in each application. The toolbars should only ever contain
> > tools you do want available at all times. The rest should be
> > placed in menus and tucked away for when you want them.
> >
> > I'm not saying that nothing can be done to improve toolbars,
> > but I think it's a very different issue.
> You got one thing backwards then: The most frequently used items
> should be put at the screen edge
What do you mean screen edge? I mean that to be the
top of the screen, and that's what I'm advocating. Do you
think the menu bar should be moved back to the window,
but placed below the toolbar? Or do you mean the most
common actions should be placed in the menu bar? You
really lost me there.

> Not yours, but whoever is responsible for the more stupid ideas of Unity 1.0...
But if I think those ideas happen to be very clever, then
by extension, I have to be stupid as well? I don't think that's
productive. Stick to explanations of how they're bad instead.
> I'll reply with the current Unity menu in mind, not the a Mac OS like menu...
Good, because I happen to use Unity and not OS X.
> > * It gives the desktop a much less technical feel.
> an illusion
It's an illusion that the sound of the ocean has a calming effect
on peoples nerves too then? Ok. Guess some illusions are good.
What's your point?

> > * You would never need to read the title of a window and use
> >    its menus at the same time.
> that's not the point, the point is new users don't even know where the
> menu is and old users are slowed down.
Old users would probably use the keyboard, wouldn't they? But
I agree that the global menu should be made more easily
discoverable to new users. How do you propose we do that?
I haven't seen anything to convince me that the new approach
is slower than the old one. None at all.
> > * It conserves space on your screen.
> No it absolutely doesn't - the hover thing that is, I've already
> explained that several times now) Apart form that it only conserves
> space when you tile two or more windows (of the same app) above each
> other. This so far is THE ONLY advantage of the menubar.
I certainly don't agree with that at all. I demonstrated above
that the extra space is indeed valuable. But the removal of
four nearly identical menus is also very valuable, imho. I think
it's more valuable to me than the extra space.
> > * It reduces duplicate information.
> it also reduces non-duplicate information (apps opened side by side)
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
> > * It is more aesthetically pleasing.
> Yes, at the cost of usability.
I keep telling you why I think that's not the case. You keep
telling me it is.
> > * And (I almost forgot this one, actually): I do think it's more
> >   consistent to always have the menus at the same place.
> It's less consistent to have system level and application level
> elements within the same panel.
We already do and we have had that for a very long time now.
People seem to like it too, being notified of emails on the same
panel where they have the clock or their logout button or
what have you. Mixing application information and system
information in the top panel, has been done in Ubuntu since
Warty. It's been done on Windows since '95 and in OS X since
... I don't even know.
> It's less consistent to have a menu that always changes depending on
> which window you are in (it should be obvious, but it isn't to
> inexperience users)

I think I understand what you mean and how you feel, and I
don't agree with you. I suppose that goes both ways, and
that's fine. It's been a very interesting discussion and I've
learned quite a bit.

As I said before, I agree that the global menu should be made
more easily discoverable to new users. Let's figure out a way
to do that?


Jo-Erlend Schinstad