You are making all sorts of false assumptions about how people use computers.
If you ever observed "regular" users you would know, that most don't use
keyboard shortcuts, some don't even know they exist. Furthermore, I've
personally once came across someone who didn't know they could right click.
There are drawback to global menus (especially as implemented in Unity) and
there are benefits, but calling them bad UI is just uninformed personal option.
And calling menus "oh so 1999" just makes you look silly and again uninformed.
Try reading some of the links you included and you will hopefully gain some
understanding of the subject you are talking about.
Cheers,
Mitja
----- "giff g" <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
The two most relevant browsers for Ubuntu Unity ar e Firefox 4 and Chromium.
Both do not need or have a classic menubar, instead both, when run in full
screen
mode (the layout that makes the most sense on small screens) put the tabs on
top.
>
Why do they do that? Because tabs are the most frequently accessed interface
elements of a browser chrome. At the screen edge they are easy and fast to
access.
Additionally it makes a lot of sense logically, metaphorically or mentally to
use the tabs
as the hierarchically primary element.
>
All interfaces that put a OS level "bars" at the upper screen edge limit the
usability of
these two browsers, the menubar reduces the space available for web content
which is directly contradicting the explicit goal of Unity.
>
I filled a bug for this here:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-browser/+bug/749335
I think this can be solved by replacing the application menu with tabs in the
panel
without fundamentally departing from the design goals of Unity.
>
The rationale for the way it works now strikes me as particularly
unsatisfactory:
from http://design.canonical.com/2010/05/menu-bar /
>
>Tackling the corner cases
>(...)
>Many windows currently don’t have menus: for example, Open and Save dialogs.
>For these, we’ll introduce a fallback set of minimal menus so that the menu
>bar
>doesn’t look weirdly empty when those windows are focused.
>
A "fallback" menu" so it doesn't look stupid?
I'd say introducing additional clutter, actually wasting screen estate,
possibly confusing
users by duplicating functionality for the sake of dubious consistency is
stupid.
>
2) Probably repeating what has been said already: What about large Desktop
monitors?
There is the trend away from Desktops to more portable devices but for those
that still use
Desktops at all: Desktop setups tend to get larger and more powerful all the
time. Monitors
have higher and higher resolutions and multi-monitor setups are becoming the
norm.
Accordingly the users themselves tend to be heavy multi-tasker. Given the
hardware specs,
fast SSDs and large scree resolutions nothing is in the way of the user, well
except for the
user interface.
>
A bit of personal anecdotal evidence: I've been using OS X for a long time on
small Laptop screens, then I got a large monitor
and hooked it up. I noticed how the interface made less sense and was
harder to use now that the menubar and a given window often were apart several
inches.
It's not so much about how far the mouse has to travel, it's about the visual
focus: On a
large screen and especially when using multiple screens one actually has to
turn the
head just to access a funct ion for the window you are currently working in.
>
Apparently I wasn't the only one annoyed by that so someone already wrote a
"solution":
http://homepage.mac.com/khsu/DejaMenu/DejaMenu.html
>
Are we going to need such hack in Ubuntu too?
At least I know there will always be a way to turn off the global menu unlike
in a closed
OS. But I'm here arguing to turn the "best" solution into the defau lt
option...
>
The other problem, having multiple windows side by side but only one menu at a
time, requiring
an additional click and more mouse (and head!) movement has been brought up
elsewhere
sufficiently.
>
3)menu bar is so 1990s
It's not just Firefox and Chrome. MS Office is just the most prominent
application using the
ribbon interface. I think there is a broader trend away from the old plain menu
bar interface
design, especially given the trend with those newfangled fondleslabs.
>
Again, having used OS X for years, I notice how rarely I actually use the menu
bar.
For applications I use every day I know all the keyboard shortcuts I use anyway
and for other
applications, if they are designed really well, the interface elements in the
window themselves,
together with such great inventions like drag and drop and the context menu are
all I need.
Not only the in terface is prettier but those in-window manipulation makes more
sense in terms
of workflow and metaphor: you directly interact with documents and files, the
interface follows
you (the mouse), related functions are next to each other, everything is in one
focus area.
Compare that with the application menu, it's at the top of the screen,
basically in a separate
window, you already need to know a) the name of the function and b) where it is
located.
It's less intuitive and when it gets in the way of a workflow, it's slower,
Fitts's law be dammed.
Of course that only applies to what I called "well designed" applications and
the whole problem
of UI consistency doesn't exactly get easier.
>
Broadly speaking there are two kinds of applications: Simple "apps" that do one
thing
(and do it well, hopefully), those often have no menu at all, have one for
consistency reasons
(but as I said, I consider this dubious if it's just for some visual
consistency but has absolutely
nothing to do with usability consistency) or they have a menu for some few
functions that
make no sense to directly expose via the main window because you only access
them maybe
once to initially set up the application. For those a single menu button akin
the one in Chrome
is sufficient, there is no need for nested hierarchy.
>
On OS X for example a lot of menus are filled with absolutely useless entries
like cut and paste
which everyone uses the keyboard or the context menu for or that duplicate all
the icons on the
window which again are faster to access via those icons or keyboard shortcuts.
>
The second kind of application is one that huge, with tons of functions and
obviously a steep
learning curve. Photoshop or GIMP are a good example, Office suites another.
Here the limitations of the textual hierarchical menu become apparent again.
>
In case you are a "power user" of such application you probably forgot about
the learning
curve and don't have to think about how and where and why the interface works.
But for
casual or first time users the menubar is ill-suited. The ribbon interface is
one way to
improve the i nterface for such complicated applications, for said first time
and casual users.
Another option that doesn't upset the "pros" as much is what OS X does with the
searchable
menu.
>
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.
>
For natty it's to late now but I have hopes for oneiric, I guess user feedback
will help my
cause ;) However unlike most users I am not afraid of change, in fact I welcome
Unity.
But I get the feeling some things were rushed and there wasn't enough usability
testing,
feedback from real "users" and analysis. Well, just look at what Mozilla has
done with
Firefox 4, there was extensive UI testing going on yet the reception of the
final release
was very mixed. Getting the UI right the first time is pretty much impossible.
>
I also worry that when released it will have some effect like KDE 4.0: an
exodus to
alternatives and a long hard fight to get them back.
In the end it's a good thing and everybody wins but at first it ain't going to
be pretty.
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to : [email protected]
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
