Le 05/04/2011 14:47, nick rundy a écrit : > There are a lot of other applications that benefit from the additional > space afforded by merging the titlebar and menubar into the panel > besides the web-browser. Nautilus, media players, music players, word > processors, e-mail clients, text editors, burning software, etc. Not > all applications place tabs over the titlebar. Most applications waste > enormous space by devoting a whole line to just a few menu items. Also > please note that even if the web-browser places tabs over the titlebar > it does not provide any additional vertical space when compared to > Unity. For example, Unity has the 1.) panel, 2.) web-browser tabbar, > and 3.) web-browser URL bar. A default install of Windows has the 1.) > Windows taskbar, 2.) web-browser URL bar, and 3.) web-browser tabbar, > and 4.) the titlebar if the tabs are not placed over it. Apple Mac is > even worse. It has titlebar and a bottom Dock. > > Unity's design is the best of the three and the most useful for > creating vertical space. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:24:53 +0000 > Subject: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a > great idea > > Here are some reasons why I think the application menu in unity as it > is now > is a failed attempt at improving the user experience in Ubuntu. > > 1) Primary target of Ubuntu Unity are _net_books, accordingly the most > important > application is going to be the browser as repeatedly pointed out here: > http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/383 > <http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/383%20> > > 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 screen > mode (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/749335 > <https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/chromium-browser/+bug/749335%20> > I think this can be solved by replacing the application menu with tabs > in the panel > without 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 > <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. Monitors > have 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 monitor > and hooked it up. I noticed how the interface made less sense and was > harder 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 a > large 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 closed > OS. 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 1990s > It'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 interface > design, 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 other > applications, 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 follows > you (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 problem > of 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 that > make no sense to directly expose via the main window because you only > access them maybe > once 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 the > window 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 learning > curve 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 to > improve 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, when > designing 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp I agree that... For maximised windows. I still don't see why using a global menu on non-maximised windows. Even for consistency it's useless : if the menu bar is in the panel *just for maximised* windows, every windows will have it's menu just over their body --> logical for most of end-users. Vertical space gain is still here. You have less move to do with your mouse (imagine for menus of a window in the bottom right corner...). If there is one good reason to have menus of un-maximised windows in the panel, then explain it to me.
-- Kévin PEIGNOT -------------- Envoyé depuis thunderbird - Ubuntu 11.04
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
