unity-design team mailing list archive

[Christian Rupp <christian@xxxxxxxx>]

Am 21.01.2012 00:39, schrieb Jonathan Meek:
> In my spare time, I'm working on creating a traditional windowed 
> application that will have a menubar. I find it important to integrate 
> with Unity, leading me to an important question: What behavior is the 
> best to adopt?
>
> As I see it, there are three options:
>
>  1. I can have windows each have their own specific menubar as needed
>     and let Unity take it out and put it in the top as is usual now.
>  2. I can push the application to use only one window so that the
>     menubar becomes a non-issue.
>  3. I can work on an application-wide menu.
>
> And for the issues I see with these approaches:
>
>  1. This creates inconsistencies with the launcher being
>     per-application in its design. The launcher is based on the
>     application, not on its constituent windows.
>  2. Not all applications can force their system into a single window
>     interface with the limitations of current GTK technology. (At
>     least to my own satisfaction given the different models needed for
>     different aspects of the application.)
>  3. The way that Unity currently grabs the menubar from applications
>     is on a per-window basis. More or less literally ripping the
>     menubar from the application. This makes any application-wide menu
>     feel like a hack personally.
>
> I feel like it's obvious which approach I'd prefer, but I'm interested 
> in feedback in which scenario is the one most in line with Ubuntu's 
> future. I know that one of the ultimate goals stated my MPT was to be 
> able to provide a default set of menus for every application. Then 
> again, we have one of the default applications forgoing menus 
> altogether (Ubuntu One Control Panel).
>
> So which approach is condoned?
>
> Additional question: What should the nomenclature of menus be? Are we 
> to adopt the inherited behavior for classic GNOME applications where 
> the first menu name should be relevant to the application? (I.E. 
> Rhythmbox's first menu being named "Music", or Empathy's "Chat")
>
> Or the adopt the newer GNOME behavior that will appear when using an 
> application on OS X? (I.E. The name of the application being the first 
> menu [in my opinion alleviating some of the global menu design issues] 
> found in this link 
> <http://developer.gnome.org/gtk3/3.3/GtkApplication.html> from another 
> recent Ayatana posting.)
>
> Thanks for your time.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> pMore help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
I think this is one of the main problems in the unity design. If you 
want to be shure you'll have to wait for the HIG for Ubuntu.
Problem: They won't be finished or partly available in the next few months.

What I would do:
It depends on the app you are planning...
But I would try to use one window and maybe some small windows for 
settings. If you want to be really great you can look up morphing 
windows, but I don't have any idea how thei are working, just like the 
idea behind them
Also you have to reduce clutter.
If I have understand the idea behind the design of ubuntu: Every action 
which is performed regullary should get a button, things like settings 
or very rarely used actions should be put in the menu, but as I said: it 
depends on the app and on its complexity

Sorry was in a hurry

Christian Rupp

/**/