Here are some reasons why I think the application menu in unity as it is nowis a failed attempt at improving the user experience in Ubuntu. 1) Primary target of Ubuntu Unity are _net_books, accordingly the most importantapplication 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 are Firefox 4 and Chromium.Both do not need or have a classic menubar, instead both, when run in full screenmode (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/749335I think this can be solved by replacing the application menu with tabs in the panelwithout 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. Monitorshave 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 monitorand hooked it up. I noticed how the interface made less sense and washarder 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 alarge screen and especially when using multiple screens one actually has to turn the head just to access a function 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 closedOS. But I'm here arguing to turn the "best" solution into the default 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 1990sIt'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 interfacedesign, 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 otherapplications, 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 interface 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 followsyou (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 problemof 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 thatmake no sense to directly expose via the main window because you only access them maybeonce 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 thewindow 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 learningcurve 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 toimprove the interface 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, whendesigning 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
