If Fitts's Law is applicable to mouse interaction, then screen-edge targets are easier to hit than any target in a window (Like a menu button). Likewise, a global menu on the edge of the screen is ideal, thus Unity does demonstrate a good UI design. There are further issues, like menus hidden by default, that don't fit well with the law's opinion on trained movements, but that's a different discussion thread.
As to menu consistency, I definitely have to agree with you there. Ubuntu, and Linux in general, is full of menu inconsistencies. There is some coherence among the first-party apps, which is really the important thing; I'm sure there are OS X apps that don't conform to the standards in place in the Apple HIG. So the real question on that front is how to give developers the incentive to adhere to a standard menu structure. On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 09:24, giff gill <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Ian Santopietro "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
