On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 1:20 AM, Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schins...@gmail.com> wrote: > Den 27. aug. 2011 06:24, skrev André Oliva: >> >> Really I think its oversimplification of things. Not everyone wants an >> "elementary-style" OS GUI, really. Simply there is a limit in simplification >> of things. I simply don't understand the reason for oversimplification. >> People simply don't want fullscreen in every application they work. I >> remember that Unity was first created for space efficiency. But really, >> there is **a lot** of space now. Why hide important things like window >> controls and Ubuntu button? Things that are common for a lot of operating >> systems... >> > > Explain why it is oversimplifying to not show everything that can be shown? > Why are menus collapsed, for instance? Isn't that oversimplifying the UI? > How are people ever going to understand that menus can be used if they > aren't shown? Perhaps we should have blinking arrows pointing at them > and a voice that keeps repeating a message every fifteen minutes: > «You can click on menus to open them». That way people won't forget.
Hyperbole aside, I think an experiment like this would have two effects: 1) It would be very annoying, obviously. 2) People who stuck with it would use the menus A LOT. Blinking arrows and a repetitive voice are too much, but anything we can do to gently make new users aware of existing functionality (without overwhelming them) seems like a good thing. I believe the ideal situation when a user wants to perform a brand new task is for them to think: "Oh ya, I saw a button for that over here somewhere". They should already know how to do the task just by interacting with the interface in general. > No. You can keep using the word oversimplify as often as you like, but it > doesn't become anymore real. What I would like to hear, is a very good > explanation of why it is important to show buttons that cannot be used. I can really only think of two reasons. I'm not particularly convinced by either of them, but they do exist: 1) Aiming - When an element is hidden and you have to mouse over it to activate it, then it's very hard to know which part of a very large screen to mouse over in order to find it. This applies less to the window buttons (since they're always very top-left) but more to the menus. If I'm in an app with a lot of menus, and I want to go to menu X, I can't immediately find it. I have to make two motions: a vertical one to the menu bar and then a horizontal one along the menu bar to the menu I want. If I knew immediately where the desired menu was placed, I could make one, diagonal movement straight to it. 2) Discoverability - When a user isn't sure how to do something, they typically don't make any actions (including moving the mouse). They visually search the screen in its current state, looking for an element that seems related to their goal. I imagine that some small subset of new Ubuntu users, having maximized a window, would do this and never think to mouse over the window title at all. Sure, it's where the target element used to be, where it normally is, but it's clearly 'not there' anymore. > Because it really is not possible to click a button without having the mouse > close to where you're clicking. Your argument that the buttons need to be > visible because they are visible in Windows, is not a valid argument. First > of all, because they haven't always been that way. > > I think it's much more useful to see the title of the page you're currently > reading than it is to show me the buttons for eight hours a day, six days > a week. Do you really feel that a normal person won't be able to > remember that the buttons are always in the upper left corner? Then > how are they able to use the computer at all? I mean... They would > also forget where the button is to power on the computer. Remembering the purpose of an item you can see is a lot easier than remembering the location and purpose of something you can't see. Not that users aren't up to the task, but it does add one more piece of complexity. > However, remembering the title of the page you are reading, requires > much more mental capacity. Do you really disagree with that? No, but I would argue that knowing the full title of the current window is less frequently used than closing/maximizing/minimizing it. --- I'm honestly not 100% sure where I personally stand on this issue. I do like how clean the interface becomes for maximized windows in the new unity, but I'm also a little bit worried about the usability implications of that decision. Time will tell, I suppose. Evan _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp