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 : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
