OT: Mark made my day!

[George Deka]

I think we need something in between, that does not waste screen real 
estate, see the editorial on osnews

what i propose is

|App Name |Menu Bar |Min Max Close|

Having a whole bar for the app name is a waste, and this would make us 
different and not just a copy.


my 2 cents
George

On 4/18/05, Eric Dunbar <eric.dunbar at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On 4/12/05, Cameron Hutchison <camh+ubuntu at xdna> wrote:
> > Once upon a time Thom Holwerda said...
> > > > 1. I disagree with this and happen to dislike macos style of menus. 
> I
> > > > also question there overall usablity (a bigger issue)
> > >
> > > Well, I happen to agree with him here for the full 100%. I've never 
> been
> > > fond of the
> > > "every-window-needs-to-have-a-menubar-for-no-reason-other-than-it's-
> > > the-current-paradigm-whether-it's-the-right-paradigm-or-not" ;).
> >
> > One problem with the menu-bar-at-the-top-of-the-screen paradigm is it
> > conflicts with a standard and common focus model that many X window
> > managers use - focus follows mouse. If you need to pass over other
> > windows to get to the menubar, the application for which you want to use
> > the menubar will lose focus and the menubar will change.
> 
> "Just because that's the way it's always been done" is a really bad
> idea for keeping something.
> 
> The menu-bar-at-top is the undisputed champion of menu bars for the
> majority (perhaps even vast majority) of computer users. Because <ta
> da> it uses a *fixed* target *and* it uses the *edge* of the screen.
> Occasionally you see other interface elements use the fixed target,
> edge-of-screen rule (most visibly the GNOME toolbar and Windows Start
> Menu). And, when it's used it makes mousing around the screen a much
> more efficient operation.
> 
> This is a GUI design problem that is beyond the scope of the Ubuntu
> designers for now (it's a serious problem in GUI design but Canonical
> has bigger fish to fry since "it works" (albeit less than optimally)
> and there are lots of things that aren't anywhere near "it works"
> (even if less than optimally)).
> 
> When I see Windows users "use" that GUI at work, I *consistently* see
> successful mouse use with the Start menu and the task switcher, and
> consistent *failures* to select menus on the first attempt (resulting
> in frustration) because menu-in-window offers a randomly located
> target (if not maximised) and a poor target if maximised (because it
> is not at the edge of the screen).
> 
> > Having used both click-to-focus and focus-follows-mouse, I find the
> > latter to be more useable and efficient. Click-to-focus also has the
> > problem of being modal. That first click in a window can have different
> > behaviour to a second click in exactly the same spot, depending on where
> > the focus is. Being a focus-follows-mouse person for most of my GUI
> > experience, I find click-to-focus unnerving - I always have to find a
> > benign spot to click when I want to change focus due to the cognitive
> > dissonance caused by clicking on something but have it do nothing.
> 
> Focus-follows-mouse is a "niche" market which will never catch on
> simply because it adds too much clutter to the computer using
> experience. And, the "exception" or "niche" should never be that which
> drives GUI design.
> 
> Please note, I am not, nor will I ever advocate the "niche" design NOT
> happen or be STOPPED. I merely argue that default(s) (design) must be
> targeted at the "lowest common denominator" OR at the "largest user
> group". The bulk of users will never set their preferences or install
> new software, EVEN ON LINUX. This is what OS designers in the case of
> Ubuntu are apparently targeting, and thus defaults must be sensible
> and usable by as many as possible -- an "advanced-user" (like someone
> who uses focus-follows-mouse or uses more than a three button mouse)
> will change defaults anyway. GUI and OS design should be about making
> the lives of the majority of users as easy as possible. What a
> minority do with their computers should not be the concern of
> designers.
> 
> For example, most people will not ever use focus-follows-mouse and,
> thus, focus-follows-mouse should never be default. Likewise, most
> people (NOT ALL) are ill-served by menu-in-window, and, thus it ought
> NOT be the default. If desired, fans of these paradigms ought to be
> able to turn them on, BUT, since they hinder most other users they
> should not be the default.
> 
> The way I work with mice would drive most people nuts -- I'd love it
> if I didn't have to configure Linux to do the things I want it to do,
> BUT if that were the case, few other people would enjoy the
> experience.
> 
> > I'm not arguing, just presenting another point of view.
> 
> Not arguing either ;)... Just pointing out the reasons (which, BTW,
> are backed by extensive research into the merits of menu-in-window vs.
> menu-at-top (m.a.t. wins hands down)) why menu-at-top is the better
> paradigm, even if that's not "the way it's always been [in the Windows
> world]".
> 
> There's one situation I can see *some* utility for menu-in-window and
> that's in a mega-, multi-screen situation... but, even there it seems
> like Mac users aren't poorly served by menu-at-top (you've still got a
> fixed target that never moves).
> 
> Although, even then I'm not sure since I NEVER, and I mean NEVER see
> Windows users use non-minimised windows at work -- it's simply too
> complex a task to try to click-on and navigate menus in a random
> location on the screen.
> 
> I myself find that I prefer to use the alt key to navigate menus in
> non-maximised windows on Windows computers than fight with their
> poorly designed menu-in-window system (and, I'm more computer-literate
> and interface-use capable than the overwhelming majority of my
> Windows-only peers (if you'll pardon my modesty :) :) :).
> 
> Granted, the menu-at-top paradigm poses its own problems in that the
> menu at the top of the screen does not necessarily belong to the
> window the user sees. (although, I see this happening to Windows-only
> users on Windows computers so it might simply be something about the
> typical Windows user <evil grin> ;-) However, this is a relatively
> minor problem since my experience is that people generally figure out
> what's going on fairly quickly.
> 
> Anyway, given that we've seen Microslop use their muscle power to sell
> poor software for twenty years (DOS was pretty damn bad from a user's
> POV) I'm not surprised that we're left with the legacy of their poor
> design decisions (the best solution/product does not necessarily mean
> it's the most popular solution/product).
> 
> Eric.
> 
> --
> ubuntu-devel mailing list
> ubuntu-devel at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
> 



-- 
<a href="http://spreadfirefox.com/community/?q=affiliates&id=82&t=1">Get 
Firefox!</a>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20050418/fd58d2c8/attachment.htm