Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[giff gill]

On 4/7/2011 12:45 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> 
> Some of its benefits (faster, saves space, more predictable direction)
> lessen but don't go away entirely. The other benefits stay the same.

You didn't mention it introduces drawbacks as well. From my experience
using GNOME, OS X and Windows on the same 22" screen with very similar
tasks the global menubar is worse and not worth the benefits. I'm not
even sure what benefits you have in mind here.

Space
There is non saved, in fact some space is wasted if you were nitpicking.
Title bar and menubar are separate anyway in window mode. As long as the
window isn't as wide as the screen the global menu takes up space at the
top that is unneeded and unused (anything left of the Help menu). The
only space saving I can think of is if you stack windows on top of each
other, something I almost never do and I don't think that's a common
scenario outside tiling WMs.

More predictable location
I'd argue the contrary. Realitve to the mouse position probably
somewhere inside the window of the active application an in-window menu
is always at the same place. Not so the global menu in conjunction with
movable windows.
I don't think that's much of a difference anyway. Muscle memory _inside_
the menu (how far down you move) is more important.

Speed
Here it depends. If the window is near the top menubar (in the same
"focus area" as I called it - you don't have to move eyes/head from the
active window to the menu) the global menu is easier to hit.
This is not the case when the currently active area is somewhere down at
the right side of the screen. Also if you want to access a menu of a
non-active application it is with certainty slower.

What other benefits are there?


 > In a browser, the tabs, sure. But most other windows don't even have
tabs.

I agree, but does that mean we should negate these applications the
advantage of tabs on top? The main argument against this is consistency
but I argued previously why I don't think that's going to be a problem,
and if it is I'm convinced it's worth the trade off.


> The "History" menu alone is deeper and more information-dense than the
> spanner menu is.

The one-button Chrome menu only has a link to "History", no menu
beneath. It opens the a new "History" tab which is the layout you are
supposed to use, with search, details, scrollbar and all. Or make use of
the address box which searches the history as well.

A two button menulayout of Chrome 10 would consist of two completely
flat menus with 15 and 10 entries respectively, I'd argue the classic
Firefox menu bar with 7 top level menu labels with sub-entries ranging
from 4 to 11 and 8 sub-sub menus is slower, denser and less user
friendly and by extension slower to use. Don't have access to a Mac
version of Chrome right now and I imagine it's simpler but I doubt much
better than a two button in-window layout that it warrants reducing the
area available for web content by 20/24 pixels on a typical 576 high
netbook screen (with now way to opt out except full fullscreen) AND use
that area for infrequent accessed functions as opposed to the most
frequently accessed "bar" of the browser.


> I've long wondered why browsers don't make the Back button a narrow
> strip down the left edge of the screen. That would both be much faster
> to use *and* make visual sense.

Oh, but that wouldn't work on Unity. Familiar problem? :P
Opera uses that are for sliding in their left panel.


> The reason they haven't had menus up till now is, rather mundanely, that
> menus inside a dialog-like window look weird. Menus in a global menu bar
> don't.
> 
>>   which would be a waste of space and cumbersome to use
>> because it's nested. A dedicated single button is faster and more
>> discoverable and ctrl+z could have implemented a long time ago without
>> changing anything in the UI.
> 
> The reason for not having a dedicated single button was, again
> mundanely, that there was no consistent place to put it.
> 

I see that and it makes sense but it doesn't strike me as a particular
elegant or a reason for the use of a global menubar.

There is no reason not to design these GNOME system settings in a way
that allows such functions right from the main window in a logical and
more discoverable way than a menu where you first have to look through
if it even has that functions. Long term users might even never bother
to look and just assume nothing has changed and from my experience
really novice Mac users don't look through the menu either. If an
obvious and main function doesn't have a nice big icon on the window
they assume it's not there.



> What's the keyboard shortcut for going into full-screen mode in Chrome?
> And what are the keyboard shortcuts for making text smaller or larger?
> The menu-button can't tell you, because it's cramming multiple menu
> items into the same row, because it's trying to get by with a single menu.

Fullscreen is no issue because it tells you right after

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

giff gill wrote on 05/04/11 18:32:
>...
> But I have to say, that's interesting. Unity was initially designed
> with netbook formfactor and user case in mind and later extended to
> the desktop. Still the fundamental design was kept 1:1, the same
> design for different form factors.

I'm not sure (I can't find the specification), but I think there may be
some small differences in how the launcher behaves on netbooks.

> One of my points is that I do not think a global menubar makes much
> sense on a large monitor (20" and up).

Some of its benefits (faster, saves space, more predictable direction)
lessen but don't go away entirely. The other benefits stay the same.

>...
>> It is much easier to reopen a tab you closed recently, or to return to
>> a page you visited a few minutes ago, or to clear all browsing data,
>> in Chrome for Mac than in Chrome for Windows. Why? Because the Mac
>> version has a menu bar with items for those functions, while the
>> Windows version does not.
> 
> But there's the Fitt's Law trade-off. What do people access more often?

In a browser, the tabs, sure. But most other windows don't even have tabs.

> What if Chrome had two buttons instead of one, that equals about the
> information density and depth of the Mac menu layout.

The "History" menu alone is deeper and more information-dense than the
spanner menu is.

>...
>> Actually, I'm pretty sure the Back button has that honor.
> 
> I guess so, I have a five button mouse so I use that but statistically
> you are most likely right. So what would a clever UI developer do?
> Simple, put the back-button next to the first tab at the top of the
> screen. (MS Ribbon has something very similar where you can put the
> undo function into the title-bar). The plain menubar doesn't allow
> that.

I've long wondered why browsers don't make the Back button a narrow
strip down the left edge of the screen. That would both be much faster
to use *and* make visual sense.

>>> A "fallback" menu" so it doesn't look stupid?
>> 
>> Not just for that, of course. :-) It will also make the editing
>> functions (Cut, Copy, Paste) more accessible when the keyboard is
>> further away then the mouse is.
> 
> The context menu is even closer. So is a menu directly in the window in
> multi-window mode.

I was referring to the proximity of the input device, not the target
area. :-)

>> Over time, as more programs fill in the menu bar, it will solve other
>> design problems too. For example, for years Gnome has had a problem
>> with how to make changes in settings windows undoable. Where to put
>> the Undo command? With a menu bar, the answer is obvious: "Edit" >
>> "Undo".
> 
> They either already have a menubar directly in the window now and this
> doesn't help solving anything

The reason they haven't had menus up till now is, rather mundanely, that
menus inside a dialog-like window look weird. Menus in a global menu bar
don't.

>   or they now get a menubar with a single
> relevant function

It would also contain the standard suite of editing commands (Cut, Copy,
Paste, Delete, Select All).

>   which would be a waste of space and cumbersome to use
> because it's nested. A dedicated single button is faster and more
> discoverable and ctrl+z could have implemented a long time ago without
> changing anything in the UI.

The reason for not having a dedicated single button was, again
mundanely, that there was no consistent place to put it.

>> 1.  Exploration -- the menu hierarchy acts as a map for understanding
>> what features are available in an application, even if some of
>> them are also available elsewhere.
>> 3.  Teaching -- the menus act as cheat sheets for the keyboard
>> shortcuts.
> 
> Who said there shouldn't be an equivalent to these necessary UI
> functions? Firefox and Chrome both have a menu-button that fulfills
> these tasks.

What's the keyboard shortcut for going into full-screen mode in Chrome?
And what are the keyboard shortcuts for making text smaller or larger?
The menu-button can't tell you, because it's cramming multiple menu
items into the same row, because it's trying to get by with a single menu.

>> 2.  Familiarity -- it can be easier to remember that "Print" is always
>> in the "File" menu for any application where it's available at
>> all, than to remember where (or whether) the Print button is in
>> each application.
> 
> The UI should be consistent were it makes sense (i.e. helps the user
> get things done) but not for a blind sake of consistency.
> 
> I think like in your paste example from MS if an application has a
> dedicated print button it will be uses more frequently than a nested
> print command. Likewise I don't care at all as long as ctrl-p works
> (give me consistent keyboard shortcuts and I'm happy).

That may work for Microsoft Office, decked out as it is with ribbons and
buttons like a field marshal's u

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[frederik.nn...@gmail.com]

Hi mpt,

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:45, Matthew Paul Thomas  wrote:

> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Kévin PEIGNOT wrote on 05/04/11 14:04:
> >...
> > 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.
> >...
>
> 
>
> Cheers
>

is there a long term vision on where this will lead?
I'm happy we don't have those application menus in the window chrome
anymore, thanks to Ayatana.
On the long run, is there some sort of big picture we're moving towards, or
a masterplan of future window management?

especially on mobile platforms, videogame consoles and in professional
multimedia editing suites i see a trend towards: interaction with content
itself vs interaction with content containers (e.g. windows, frames,
workspaces).
Are we moving towards such a separation in desktop linux, too?

Understanding that would help me, and perhaps many other readers here, to
understand the single steps that are being made, such as the introduction of
global appmenus.
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Kévin PEIGNOT wrote on 05/04/11 14:04:
>...
> 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.
>...



Cheers
- -- 
mpt
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk2deZUACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecoixgCfc4vtFaypjKe6UF8GOCvJNzA1
WAMAoMKuGElmo03L/bfCZdCfz5pdNKeM
=IQjo
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Jeremy Nickurak]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 10:08, Ian Santopietro  wrote:

> 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.
>

One could argue that the menu isn't the best thing to be putting in a
high-priority location, if mainstream applications are starting to discard
the concept anyways.

One idea could be to use the application's toolbar or navigation/URL bar,
which is probably much more frequently used than a menu bar.

-- 
Jeremy Nickurak -= Email/XMPP: -= jer...@nickurak.ca =-
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Ian Santopietro]

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  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 a

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[giff gill]

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 import

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[giff gill]

On 4/5/2011 5:38 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> giff g wrote on 04/04/11 16:24:
>>
>> 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
> 
> That is no longer true. As Mark Shuttleworth announced at UDS Natty,
> Unity is now targeted at all PCs with pointing devices, not just
> netbooks.
> 
> (...)
> That doesn't mean the iPad should have a menu bar. It should not,
> because menus on a tablet would be too fiddly to use. Again, this means
> trade-offs: tablet applications can be much easier to use, but can't
> practically be as feature-rich as applications on pointing-device PCs.
> Trying to use the same design for both form factors would leave you with
> the worst of both worlds.

I know, we already covered that above.
But I have to say, that's interesting. Unity was initially designed with
netbook formfactor and user case in mind and later extended to the
desktop. Still the fundamental design was kept 1:1, the same design for
different form factors.

One of my points is that I do not think a global menubar makes much
sense on a large monitor (20" and up).

>> The two most relevant browsers for Ubuntu Unity ar e Firefox 4 and Chromium.
>> Both do not need or have a classic menubar,
> 
> It is much easier to reopen a tab you closed recently, or to return to a
> page you visited a few minutes ago, or to clear all browsing data, in
> Chrome for Mac than in Chrome for Windows. Why? Because the Mac version
> has a menu bar with items for those functions, while the Windows version
> does not.

But there's the Fitt's Law trade-off. What do people access more often?
What if Chrome had two buttons instead of one, that equals about the
information density and depth of the Mac menu layout.

Funny thing but it used to have two buttons and later they were reduced
to one. I don't think that was done without any usability testing.
(Or there is a more sinister thing going on and Google doesn't want you
deleting their cookies...)

All these functions of course also have a keyboard shortcut which I know
and use so for my personal user case it's not a valid concern. The
problem here is that the global menu is OS level and can't be altered
with a simple setting or extension. I have no choice, just as I have no
choice in OS X but to use both Dock and Menubar although I often wished
I could replace or disable them in some way.

For _me_ this design means wasted space and the tabs are harder to
access because the tabs are pretty much the only chrome element of a
browser I use the mouse for.

> Actually, I'm pretty sure the Back button has that honor.

I guess so, I have a five button mouse so I use that but statistically
you are most likely right. So what would a clever UI developer do?
Simple, put the back-button next to the first tab at the top of the
screen. (MS Ribbon has something very similar where you can put the undo
function into the title-bar). The plain menubar doesn't allow that.


>> A "fallback" menu" so it doesn't look stupid?
> 
> Not just for that, of course. :-) It will also make the editing
> functions (Cut, Copy, Paste) more accessible when the keyboard is
> further away then the mouse is.

The context menu is even closer. So is a menu directly in the window in
multi-window mode.

> Over time, as more programs fill in the menu bar, it will solve other
> design problems too. For example, for years Gnome has had a problem with
> how to make changes in settings windows undoable. Where to put the Undo
> command? With a menu bar, the answer is obvious: "Edit" > "Undo".

They either already have a menubar directly in the window now and this
doesn't help solving anything or they now get a menubar with a single
relevant function which would be a waste of space and cumbersome to use
because it's nested. A dedicated single button is faster and more
discoverable and ctrl+z could have implemented a long time ago without
changing anything in the UI.


> 1.  Exploration -- the menu hierarchy acts as a map for understanding
> what features are available in an application, even if some of them
> are also available elsewhere.
> 3.  Teaching -- the menus act as cheat sheets for the keyboard
> shortcuts.

Who said there shouldn't be an equivalent to these necessary UI functions?
Firefox and Chrome both have a menu-button that fulfills these tasks.

> 2.  Familiarity -- it can be easier to remember that "Print" is always
> in the "File" menu for any application where it's available at all,
> than to remember where (or whether) the Print bu

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

giff g wrote on 04/04/11 16:24:
>
> 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

That is no longer true. As Mark Shuttleworth announced at UDS Natty,
Unity is now targeted at all PCs with pointing devices, not just
netbooks.


> The two most relevant browsers for Ubuntu Unity ar e Firefox 4 and Chromium.
> Both do not need or have a classic menubar,

It is much easier to reopen a tab you closed recently, or to return to a
page you visited a few minutes ago, or to clear all browsing data, in
Chrome for Mac than in Chrome for Windows. Why? Because the Mac version
has a menu bar with items for those functions, while the Windows version
does not.

Making the menu bar optional is a legitimate choice for an OS, and
abandoning it altogether makes sense for a Web-only OS like Chrome OS
(though the menu bar in Google Docs will never be as pleasant to use as
native menus). But for any other OS, it has trade-offs.

> instead both, when run in
> full screen mode (the layout that makes the most sense on small screens) put 
> the
> tabs on top.

Sure, that's the next best thing for a browser to use that screen edge
for, if the OS isn't already using it for the menu bar.

> Why do they do that? Because tabs are the most frequently accessed
> interface elements of a browser chrome.

Actually, I'm pretty sure the Back button has that honor.

>...
> 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?

Not just for that, of course. :-) It will also make the editing
functions (Cut, Copy, Paste) more accessible when the keyboard is
further away then the mouse is.

Over time, as more programs fill in the menu bar, it will solve other
design problems too. For example, for years Gnome has had a problem with
how to make changes in settings windows undoable. Where to put the Undo
command? With a menu bar, the answer is obvious: "Edit" > "Undo".

> I'd say introducing additional clutter, actually wasting screen estate,
> possibly confusing users by duplicating functionality for the sake of dubious
> consistency is stupid.

Menu bars have always partly duplicated functions available elsewhere.
This is for three main reasons.

1.  Exploration -- the menu hierarchy acts as a map for understanding
what features are available in an application, even if some of them
are also available elsewhere.

2.  Familiarity -- it can be easier to remember that "Print" is always
in the "File" menu for any application where it's available at all,
than to remember where (or whether) the Print button is in each
application.

3.  Teaching -- the menus act as cheat sheets for the keyboard
shortcuts.

> 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 funct ion 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?

No, because Ubuntu solves the same problem in a more sensible way, by
having a menu bar on each display.

>...
> 3)menu bar is so 

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Andrew Laignel]

Actually you can stick the windows bar on the left and get pretty much the
same effect as unity.  Looking at my colleagues W7 machine (I have a Mac)
running Firefox 4, maximized it has tabs-on-top with no menu.  You can do
dock-on-the-left with OSX too.

I think the thinking behind the bar at the bottom however is it's easier and
less inconvenient to scroll vertically than horizontally.  Unity's design is
identical to OSX apart from the dock position so I don't see how it can be
attributed as being the best with OSX as the worst when the two are only
slightly superficially apart.

From:  nick rundy 
Date:  Tue, 5 Apr 2011 08:47:45 -0400
To:  , 
Subject:  Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a
great idea

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: giffgi...@hotmail.com
To: ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
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 don¹t have menus: for example, Open and Save dialogs.
>For these, we¹ll introduce a fallback set of minimal menus so that the menu bar
>doesn¹t 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 abo

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[giff gill]

On 4/5/2011 12:51 AM, Ian Santopietro wrote:

Even if they did break each other, changing the entire interface on a
per app basis isn't a good idea either, as that would create huge
inconsistencies. I don't think we need a placeholder menu for windows
that don't otherwise have a menu, but getting rid of the panel for
Firefox only would present huge usability concerns.
Firefox and Chrome already have a different interface: no menubar and no 
separate titlebar. It works just fine and they are on of the more easy 
to use applications with the right learning curve. I don't see any 
complains there, in fact especially Chrome is getting praise for its 
innovative and intuitive interface.


Something interesting I found, apparently this is what Unity looked like 
summer last year:

http://cdn2.techie-buzz.com/images/ricky/Workspace_1_034.png
Maybe a bit edgy but there you have it: An interface that adapts itself 
to whatever makes the most sense for the task at hand
(sure, a lot of wasted space there, tabs should be wider, icon+text or 
more tabs, settings whatever, but the idea is there, tabs on top, no 
fallback app menu nobody needs)

On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 23:57 +0200, giff gill wrote:

On 4/4/2011 10:57 PM, Ian Santopietro wrote:

There is no definitive fact that says that Google knows best. They
have their preferences about UX, and Canonical has their's. Just
because these two entities don't agree doesn't make one or the other
right or wrong.

Google knows about collecting data, lots of data, analysing it and
drawing the correct conclusion from it. That's what I meant by that,
sorry for the confusion.

It's not about disagreement here but the problem that menubar-on-top
breaks tabs-on-top.
It's not that different design choices disagree theoretically but it's a
factual conflict between the two paradigms that can't coexist without
getting into each others way.

Most of Canonical's usability testing seems to indicate that it's
easier to hit the Gobal menu. It's at the edge of the screen, so you
only need to aim along one dimension. Plus, the first (Typically File)
menu is in the exact same place every single time, even between a
maximized vs. restored window. I've been using Unity since Alpha 3,
and while the global menu isn't perfect, it is better than what we had
before.

Well, duh. That's what I'm talking about.
But why put the file menu into that privileged spot if it only contains
a fallback menu no one uses?

Chrome and Firefox do it wrong, IMO. I use the global-menu firefox
extension, and wish I could do that with Chrome. Cramming all of that
menu into a single button is not ergonomic.

It would be nice for example to directly address the tool menu with one
click, but probably those that do use these nested functions also tend
to be the ones who know and prefer keyboard shortcuts?
There's always room for improvement but the basic design choice of
Chromium, the simple minimalistic design clearly pays off in terms of
rising market share and general user satisfaction.

The top panel displays a lot of information, including the menu, BFB,
and indicators. most windows still have titlebars (Including Firefox 4).

It doesn't. At least not in Windows.latest which clearly is the primary
focus of the UI team.

That won't be changing. Putting the menu there saves space because you
don't need a menu bar or menu button anywhere else; it's all up there.
The Show on hover is not great, usability wise, but there aren't a
whole lot of viable alternatives. There have been some good
exceptions, but with Unity at it's current state, I don't think it's
realistic to try an reimplement that much code in such a short time.

I agreed that this design makes sense IF:
a) the screens is small (fullscreen, single task preferred)
AND
b) applications really need a menubar (not a fallback) and aren't served
better by tab bar on top.

It's great, I love it keep it. But don't make it default for user cases
that are served better by a different paradigm.

Your "Menus are outdated" arguement is invalid. There are lots of
outdated items in the current Desktop Metaphor that are outdated, and
revolution isn't the way to go there. Evolution keeps users much happier.

I beg to differ. I don't have one but apparently these tablet things are
all rage and people who do have them start to use them more than their PCs.
They als do seem happy with the new metaphor. It's no Desktop but last
time I checked it's still a graphical UI and Unity is going to support
touch input.

2011/4/4 giff gmailto:giffgi...@hotmail.com>>


 In response to that apparent contradiction:
 When I talk about how the text menu is becoming obsolete I have
 native OS X applications in mind, modern "apps" written in Cocoa.
 Not "legacy" gtk2 programs that haven't seen an interface change in
 years or I have Windows 7 in mind, where IE, Office, built in programs
 like Wordpad and Paint switched to a menubar-less interface.


I forgot quite a few applicati

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[giff gill]

On 4/5/2011 3:02 PM, Andrew Laignel wrote:
What the global menu does is take this decision away from the 
application developer and basically says 'you are getting a menu, 
tough'. It wouldn't be too bad but do not forget that this decision 
will have ramifications for Ubuntu for at least a decade. Once it's in 
it'll define the UI and application development and changing it will 
probably cause a lot of breakages. The reason OSX still has a global 
menu imo is probably because of historical inertia – they can't change 
it as it will break too much. It's purposefully throwing a roadblock 
in the way of evolution – once it is in it can't get 'evolved' out as 
it is too ingrained.


Exactly, I believe it should be up to the application developer to 
decide how their application behaves as much as possible. The OS level 
interface shouldn't get in its way and dictate more than necessary for 
true usability consistency.


The second problem is one of scope and the user model. Tabs-on-top has 
been adopted as the default UI mechanism in browsers because the 
address bar belongs to the page, not the browser, and each page has 
it's own address bar. If you click on a tab it should only change 
things within the domain of the tab contents and the old style caused 
things outside the scope of the tab to change (address bar). Changing 
things outside of the defined window border as a result of actions 
inside the window border destroys the concept of having a program as a 
self contained unit and introduces uncertainty. You can't simply say 
'the program is in this box' if various other parts of the OS UI 
change depending on the current application.


To add to that, browsers are also moving everything into the main 
window, like download, extension and bookmark manager which all come 
with their own different set of menus. Tabs on top makes the most sense 
here and that's why the upstream UI teams chose it.


The whole Fitt's Law argument is also largely invalid. The difference 
in targeting time for edge items and central items is not really 
significant. It is important to consider but should not be used to 
justify anything as just about every other argument carries more 
weight. I think it is just unfortunate it is one of the only usability 
'rules' that has any form of empirical backing so gets given emphasis 
in every decision. Without the global menu tabs and the window 
decorations then gain this much vaunted space and although I do not 
have any empirical evidence I would hazard people use the decorations 
and tabs more than they use the menu.


I disagree to some extent. In (always on) fullscreen applications the 
precious space really shouldn't be wasted with info only elements (like 
a titlebar) nor with elements that aren't used frequently or at all (a 
fallback menu that consits of File->Exit and nothing else)...


The last argument for the global menu 'We have all this space, lets 
jam something in it' is quite frankly disturbing. If there is lots of 
wasted slack space in a UI then it's an argument for removing the 
space, not filling it with rubbish. Looking at the top bar on stock 
Gnome, only about 15% is actually used for anything useful and 
commonly accessed. Putting the global menu at the top does not save 
space if the space does not need to be used. It's an argument for 
rethinking the layout, not for the global menu. Why not just condense 
it all in to one bar?


The mentioned fallback menu is just that IMO. It should be removed for 
applications where it doesn't make sense.
To be honest there are few good reasons for the global menu and plenty 
of problems (touch, large monitors, multi monitors) that will 
seriously degrade the users experience.


From: Ian Santopietro mailto:isan...@gmail.com>>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:57:21 -0600
To: giff g mailto:giffgi...@hotmail.com>>
Cc: mailto:ayatana@lists.launchpad.net>>
Subject: Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such 
a great idea


There is no definitive fact that says that Google knows best. They 
have their preferences about UX, and Canonical has their's. Just 
because these two entities don't agree doesn't make one or the other 
right or wrong.


Most of Canonical's usability testing seems to indicate that it's 
easier to hit the Gobal menu. It's at the edge of the screen, so you 
only need to aim along one dimension. Plus, the first (Typically File) 
menu is in the exact same place every single time, even between a 
maximized vs. restored window. I've been using Unity since Alpha 3, 
and while the global menu isn't perfect, it is better than what we had 
before.


Chrome and Firefox do it wrong, IMO. I use the global-menu firefox 
extension, and wish I could do that with Chrome. Cramming all of that 
menu into a singl

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[giff gill]

On 4/5/2011 2:47 PM, nick rundy wrote:

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.


In Windows I can put the taskbar to the right, 1.) tabbar, 2.) URL-bar. 
In fullscreen neither Firefox nor Chrome have a separate tittlebar. 
Additionally I get the benefit from speedy access to the tabs on the 
screen edge. Therefore Unity is worse for me.


I wholeheartedly agree that the default layout in Mac is the worst of 
the three. But I'm suggesting to make Unity the best by default: 1.) 
tabs 2.) URL and "taskbar" on the side by default.


Of course other applications are different but for example Nautilus 
could benefit from from a tabs on top design with simplified menu-items 
in the url-bar as well?


Again, I already said the titlebar+menubar in one makes sense for some 
applications, on small screens. But for Chromium and Firefox it doesn't 
and for large screens it doesn't either.



From: giffgi...@hotmail.com
To: ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:24:53 +
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.h

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Kévin PEIGNOT]

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: giffgi...@hotmail.com
> To: ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:24:53 +
> 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 actu

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Andrew Laignel]

There are several large, glaring, problems with the global menu as I see it:

Menu's are outdated.  It's clear from the last few years that menus as we
know it are playing a more diminished role.  Large amounts of applications
simply don't use them as they are largely a crutch for poor UI design.  Not
that they should go entirely as programs like Photoshop pretty much couldn't
do without them but for the bulk of end-user applications such as browsers
(and even word processors) they are not exactly needed and the functionality
can be exposed in alternative, superior, ways.

What the global menu does is take this decision away from the application
developer and basically says 'you are getting a menu, tough'.  It wouldn't
be too bad but do not forget that this decision will have ramifications for
Ubuntu for at least a decade.  Once it's in it'll define the UI and
application development and changing it will probably cause a lot of
breakages.  The reason OSX still has a global menu imo is probably because
of historical inertia ­ they can't change it as it will break too much.
It's purposefully throwing a roadblock in the way of evolution ­ once it is
in it can't get 'evolved' out as it is too ingrained.

The second problem is one of scope and the user model.  Tabs-on-top has been
adopted as the default UI mechanism in browsers because the address bar
belongs to the page, not the browser, and each page has it's own address
bar.  If you click on a tab it should only change things within the domain
of the tab contents and the old style caused things outside the scope of the
tab to change (address bar).  Changing things outside of the defined window
border as a result of actions inside the window border destroys the concept
of having a program as a self contained unit and introduces uncertainty.
You can't simply say 'the program is in this box' if various other parts of
the OS UI change depending on the current application.

The whole Fitt's Law argument is also largely invalid.  The difference in
targeting time for edge items and central items is not really significant.
It is important to consider but should not be used to justify anything as
just about every other argument carries more weight.  I think it is just
unfortunate it is one of the only usability 'rules' that has any form of
empirical backing so gets given emphasis in every decision.  Without the
global menu tabs and the window decorations then gain this much vaunted
space and although I do not have any empirical evidence I would hazard
people use the decorations and tabs more than they use the menu.

The last argument for the global menu 'We have all this space, lets jam
something in it' is quite frankly disturbing.  If there is lots of wasted
slack space in a UI then it's an argument for removing the space, not
filling it with rubbish.  Looking at the top bar on stock Gnome, only about
15% is actually used for anything useful and commonly accessed.  Putting the
global menu at the top does not save space if the space does not need to be
used.  It's an argument for rethinking the layout, not for the global menu.
Why not just condense it all in to one bar?

To be honest there are few good reasons for the global menu and plenty of
problems (touch, large monitors, multi monitors) that will seriously degrade
the users experience.

From:  Ian Santopietro 
Date:  Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:57:21 -0600
To:  giff g 
Cc:  
Subject:  Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a
great idea

There is no definitive fact that says that Google knows best. They have
their preferences about UX, and Canonical has their's. Just because these
two entities don't agree doesn't make one or the other right or wrong.

Most of Canonical's usability testing seems to indicate that it's easier to
hit the Gobal menu. It's at the edge of the screen, so you only need to aim
along one dimension. Plus, the first (Typically File) menu is in the exact
same place every single time, even between a maximized vs. restored window.
I've been using Unity since Alpha 3, and while the global menu isn't
perfect, it is better than what we had before.

Chrome and Firefox do it wrong, IMO. I use the global-menu firefox
extension, and wish I could do that with Chrome. Cramming all of that menu
into a single button is not ergonomic.

The top panel displays a lot of information, including the menu, BFB, and
indicators. most windows still have titlebars (Including Firefox 4). That
won't be changing. Putting the menu there saves space because you don't need
a menu bar or menu button anywhere else; it's all up there. The Show on
hover is not great, usability wise, but there aren't a whole lot of viable
alternatives. There have been some good exceptions, but with Unity at it's
current state, I don'

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Luke Benstead]

On 5 April 2011 13:47, nick rundy  wrote:
> 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.

I'd still give my right arm if there for an option to enable the
global menu for maximized windows only. That would be perfect for me.
Would patches for that be accepted?

Luke.

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[nick rundy]

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: giffgi...@hotmail.com
To: ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 15:24:53 +
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 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 app

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Ian Santopietro]

Google is excellent at collecting and analyzing data. However, the word
correct always means there's an opinion involved somewhere, and even if
most people believe an opinion to be correct, doesn't mean everyone
will.

Tabs on top and the Global Menu don't break each other, and aren't
nearly as mutually incompatible as you think. I use Firefox 4 with tabs
on top, along with the Unity Panel. Firefox still has a titlebar, even
with nothing else at the top of the screen (Menu turned off, no panel). 

Even if they did break each other, changing the entire interface on a
per app basis isn't a good idea either, as that would create huge
inconsistencies. I don't think we need a placeholder menu for windows
that don't otherwise have a menu, but getting rid of the panel for
Firefox only would present huge usability concerns.

On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 23:57 +0200, giff gill wrote:
> On 4/4/2011 10:57 PM, Ian Santopietro wrote:
> > There is no definitive fact that says that Google knows best. They 
> > have their preferences about UX, and Canonical has their's. Just 
> > because these two entities don't agree doesn't make one or the other 
> > right or wrong.
> Google knows about collecting data, lots of data, analysing it and 
> drawing the correct conclusion from it. That's what I meant by that, 
> sorry for the confusion.
> 
> It's not about disagreement here but the problem that menubar-on-top 
> breaks tabs-on-top.
> It's not that different design choices disagree theoretically but it's a 
> factual conflict between the two paradigms that can't coexist without 
> getting into each others way.
> > Most of Canonical's usability testing seems to indicate that it's 
> > easier to hit the Gobal menu. It's at the edge of the screen, so you 
> > only need to aim along one dimension. Plus, the first (Typically File) 
> > menu is in the exact same place every single time, even between a 
> > maximized vs. restored window. I've been using Unity since Alpha 3, 
> > and while the global menu isn't perfect, it is better than what we had 
> > before.
> Well, duh. That's what I'm talking about.
> But why put the file menu into that privileged spot if it only contains 
> a fallback menu no one uses?
> > Chrome and Firefox do it wrong, IMO. I use the global-menu firefox 
> > extension, and wish I could do that with Chrome. Cramming all of that 
> > menu into a single button is not ergonomic.
> It would be nice for example to directly address the tool menu with one 
> click, but probably those that do use these nested functions also tend 
> to be the ones who know and prefer keyboard shortcuts?
> There's always room for improvement but the basic design choice of 
> Chromium, the simple minimalistic design clearly pays off in terms of 
> rising market share and general user satisfaction.
> > The top panel displays a lot of information, including the menu, BFB, 
> > and indicators. most windows still have titlebars (Including Firefox 4).
> It doesn't. At least not in Windows.latest which clearly is the primary 
> focus of the UI team.
> > That won't be changing. Putting the menu there saves space because you 
> > don't need a menu bar or menu button anywhere else; it's all up there. 
> > The Show on hover is not great, usability wise, but there aren't a 
> > whole lot of viable alternatives. There have been some good 
> > exceptions, but with Unity at it's current state, I don't think it's 
> > realistic to try an reimplement that much code in such a short time.
> I agreed that this design makes sense IF:
> a) the screens is small (fullscreen, single task preferred)
> AND
> b) applications really need a menubar (not a fallback) and aren't served 
> better by tab bar on top.
> 
> It's great, I love it keep it. But don't make it default for user cases 
> that are served better by a different paradigm.
> > Your "Menus are outdated" arguement is invalid. There are lots of 
> > outdated items in the current Desktop Metaphor that are outdated, and 
> > revolution isn't the way to go there. Evolution keeps users much happier.
> I beg to differ. I don't have one but apparently these tablet things are 
> all rage and people who do have them start to use them more than their PCs.
> They als do seem happy with the new metaphor. It's no Desktop but last 
> time I checked it's still a graphical UI and Unity is going to support 
> touch input.
> > 2011/4/4 giff g mailto:giffgi...@hotmail.com>>
> >
> >
> > In response to that apparent contradiction:
> > When I talk about how the text menu is becoming obsolete I have
> > native OS X applications in mind, modern "apps" written in Cocoa.
> > Not "legacy" gtk2 programs that haven't seen an interface change in
> > years or I have Windows 7 in mind, where IE, Office, built in programs
> > like Wordpad and Paint switched to a menubar-less interface.
> >
> I forgot quite a few applications there. Windows Explorer, the image 
> viewer, the Windows Live suite, the media player. In fact

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[giff gill]

On 4/4/2011 10:57 PM, Ian Santopietro wrote:
There is no definitive fact that says that Google knows best. They 
have their preferences about UX, and Canonical has their's. Just 
because these two entities don't agree doesn't make one or the other 
right or wrong.
Google knows about collecting data, lots of data, analysing it and 
drawing the correct conclusion from it. That's what I meant by that, 
sorry for the confusion.


It's not about disagreement here but the problem that menubar-on-top 
breaks tabs-on-top.
It's not that different design choices disagree theoretically but it's a 
factual conflict between the two paradigms that can't coexist without 
getting into each others way.
Most of Canonical's usability testing seems to indicate that it's 
easier to hit the Gobal menu. It's at the edge of the screen, so you 
only need to aim along one dimension. Plus, the first (Typically File) 
menu is in the exact same place every single time, even between a 
maximized vs. restored window. I've been using Unity since Alpha 3, 
and while the global menu isn't perfect, it is better than what we had 
before.

Well, duh. That's what I'm talking about.
But why put the file menu into that privileged spot if it only contains 
a fallback menu no one uses?
Chrome and Firefox do it wrong, IMO. I use the global-menu firefox 
extension, and wish I could do that with Chrome. Cramming all of that 
menu into a single button is not ergonomic.
It would be nice for example to directly address the tool menu with one 
click, but probably those that do use these nested functions also tend 
to be the ones who know and prefer keyboard shortcuts?
There's always room for improvement but the basic design choice of 
Chromium, the simple minimalistic design clearly pays off in terms of 
rising market share and general user satisfaction.
The top panel displays a lot of information, including the menu, BFB, 
and indicators. most windows still have titlebars (Including Firefox 4).
It doesn't. At least not in Windows.latest which clearly is the primary 
focus of the UI team.
That won't be changing. Putting the menu there saves space because you 
don't need a menu bar or menu button anywhere else; it's all up there. 
The Show on hover is not great, usability wise, but there aren't a 
whole lot of viable alternatives. There have been some good 
exceptions, but with Unity at it's current state, I don't think it's 
realistic to try an reimplement that much code in such a short time.

I agreed that this design makes sense IF:
a) the screens is small (fullscreen, single task preferred)
AND
b) applications really need a menubar (not a fallback) and aren't served 
better by tab bar on top.


It's great, I love it keep it. But don't make it default for user cases 
that are served better by a different paradigm.
Your "Menus are outdated" arguement is invalid. There are lots of 
outdated items in the current Desktop Metaphor that are outdated, and 
revolution isn't the way to go there. Evolution keeps users much happier.
I beg to differ. I don't have one but apparently these tablet things are 
all rage and people who do have them start to use them more than their PCs.
They als do seem happy with the new metaphor. It's no Desktop but last 
time I checked it's still a graphical UI and Unity is going to support 
touch input.

2011/4/4 giff g mailto:giffgi...@hotmail.com>>


In response to that apparent contradiction:
When I talk about how the text menu is becoming obsolete I have
native OS X applications in mind, modern "apps" written in Cocoa.
Not "legacy" gtk2 programs that haven't seen an interface change in
years or I have Windows 7 in mind, where IE, Office, built in programs
like Wordpad and Paint switched to a menubar-less interface.

I forgot quite a few applications there. Windows Explorer, the image 
viewer, the Windows Live suite, the media player. In fact of all the 
popular first party programs notepad is the ONLY one with a menubar. 
That should give us something to think about.
I guess Apple also would love to get rid of their menubar given how Lion 
is impregnated with iOS design metaphors and their first party apps do 
just fine without ever having to touch the menubar (except for 
preferences and if you want to check what version you are running).


In the spirit of anecdotal evidence I actually met several people who 
never use the OS X menubar. If something isn't exposed in the main 
window they call me complaining how "it doesn't work". I tell them the 
function is right there in the preferences or somewhere obvious. Happens 
repeatedly.
The main problem clearly is that the menubar isn't anywhere near the 
center of their attention and it is always disappearing "mysteriously". 
Click on the desktop and Finder steals focus. No problem for single task 
fullscreen but that isn't the only valid mode of Unity, right?


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Pos

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Ian Santopietro]

There is no definitive fact that says that Google knows best. They have
their preferences about UX, and Canonical has their's. Just because these
two entities don't agree doesn't make one or the other right or wrong.

Most of Canonical's usability testing seems to indicate that it's easier to
hit the Gobal menu. It's at the edge of the screen, so you only need to aim
along one dimension. Plus, the first (Typically File) menu is in the exact
same place every single time, even between a maximized vs. restored window.
I've been using Unity since Alpha 3, and while the global menu isn't
perfect, it is better than what we had before.

Chrome and Firefox do it wrong, IMO. I use the global-menu firefox
extension, and wish I could do that with Chrome. Cramming all of that menu
into a single button is not ergonomic.

The top panel displays a lot of information, including the menu, BFB, and
indicators. most windows still have titlebars (Including Firefox 4). That
won't be changing. Putting the menu there saves space because you don't need
a menu bar or menu button anywhere else; it's all up there. The Show on
hover is not great, usability wise, but there aren't a whole lot of viable
alternatives. There have been some good exceptions, but with Unity at it's
current state, I don't think it's realistic to try an reimplement that much
code in such a short time.

Your "Menus are outdated" arguement is invalid. There are lots of outdated
items in the current Desktop Metaphor that are outdated, and revolution
isn't the way to go there. Evolution keeps users much happier.

2011/4/4 giff g 

>  > From: consciousu...@aol.com
> > To: ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
> > Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:53:45 -0300
> > Subject: Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a
> great idea
>
> >
>
> > While I disagree with Mitja's tone (as usual), I agree with
> > his main point. Most of giff's points were based on general
> > assumptions backed up by little more than anecdotal evidence.
> > And anecdotal evidence is easily countered: less than a week
> > ago a user in this list mentioned how he had no problems with
> > using OSX in a large HD monitor, for example.
>
> I said as much and hoped I made it pretty clear that the
> points I rise are only opinions that matter to me and how I use
> computer interfaces.
>
> I also hinted at criticising how everything the Unity team is doing is
> based on personal experiences, anectotes, preference etc. instead of
> how it should be done: scientifically, with hard data and a large
> data set. Mozilla and Google know this and that's why I emphasized
> their browser UI and the testing that went into that.
>
> So in turn I'd expect that my opinions are accepted for what they are
> and well, pot and kettle (@Mitja)
>
> > The existence of things like DejaMenu is hardly convincing
> > evidence either, specially in the Linux ecosystem where there
> > are hacks for anything and everything.
>
> I agree but I also provided a reason why I'm bothering about
> this particular "hack": The defaults should be the best possible
> compromise, I provided some reasons why the defaults now aren't
> the best default - for large screens.
>
> > Also, giff mistakenly uses an old post about the original
> > Unity as an argument, ignoring the fact that netbooks are not
> > the primary target anymore, effectively invalidating some of
> > his points from the very beginning.
>
> I disagree. First of all I know that Unity is intended for all sorts of
> devices and form factors (hence the point 2 about Desktops).
> Secondly, that change in my eyes only aids my arguments:
> On small screens conflating titlebar and menubar and decreasing window
> hight is a worth trade-offs like multitasking and the eye focus problem
> doesn't exist. The fact that the global menu is seen as the best possible
> choice for 30 inch displays is what I argued against.
>
> Does that change invalidate the articles quoted?
> Netbooks are still an important target and so are other form-factors
> like tablets. More important than desktops simply because of market
> share and growth rate.
>
> Anyway the "net" centric computing will only increase, no matter
> what device you use.
>
> > The rest of the text is mostly questionable, with some apparent
> > contradictions, both internal (ex: emphasizing how unnecessary
> > the menu is, while complaining about the global menu making it
> > slow)
>
> Some parts of my post are probably a bit unstructured and could need
> some editing to clear up some points...
>
> In response to that apparent 

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[giff g]

> From: consciousu...@aol.com
> To: ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 14:53:45 -0300
> Subject: Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great 
> idea
> 

> While I disagree with Mitja's tone (as usual), I agree with
> his main point. Most of giff's points were based on general
> assumptions backed up by little more than anecdotal evidence.
> And anecdotal evidence is easily countered: less than a week
> ago a user in this list mentioned how he had no problems with
> using OSX in a large HD monitor, for example.

I said as much and hoped I made it pretty clear that thepoints I rise are only 
opinions that matter to me and how I use computer interfaces.I also hinted at 
criticising how everything the Unity team is doing is based on personal 
experiences, anectotes, preference etc. instead of how it should be done: 
scientifically, with hard data and a largedata set. Mozilla and Google know 
this and that's why I emphasizedtheir browser UI and the testing that went into 
that.
So in turn I'd expect that my opinions are accepted for what they areand well, 
pot and kettle (@Mitja)
> The existence of things like DejaMenu is hardly convincing
> evidence either, specially in the Linux ecosystem where there
> are hacks for anything and everything.

I agree but I also provided a reason why I'm bothering about this particular 
"hack": The defaults should be the best possiblecompromise, I provided some 
reasons why the defaults now aren't the best default - for large screens.
> Also, giff mistakenly uses an old post about the original
> Unity as an argument, ignoring the fact that netbooks are not
> the primary target anymore, effectively invalidating some of
> his points from the very beginning.

I disagree. First of all I know that Unity is intended for all sorts of devices 
and form factors (hence the point 2 about Desktops). Secondly, that change in 
my eyes only aids my arguments:On small screens conflating titlebar and menubar 
and decreasing windowhight is a worth trade-offs like multitasking and the eye 
focus problemdoesn't exist. The fact that the global menu is seen as the best 
possible choice for 30 inch displays is what I argued against.
Does that change invalidate the articles quoted?Netbooks are still an important 
target and so are other form-factorslike tablets. More important than desktops 
simply because of marketshare and growth rate.
Anyway the "net" centric computing will only increase, no matterwhat device you 
use.
> The rest of the text is mostly questionable, with some apparent
> contradictions, both internal (ex: emphasizing how unnecessary
> the menu is, while complaining about the global menu making it
> slow)
Some parts of my post are probably a bit unstructured and could needsome 
editing to clear up some points...
In response to that apparent contradiction:When I talk about how the text menu 
is becoming obsolete I have native OS X applications in mind, modern "apps" 
written in Cocoa.Not "legacy" gtk2 programs that haven't seen an interface 
change in years or I have Windows 7 in mind, where IE, Office, built in 
programslike Wordpad and Paint switched to a menubar-less interface.KDE is 
toying with going into that direction as well I heard. Then Firefox and Chrome. 
Point 1) is my primary concern and that's why I filled a bug against it.
Now, for those programs that really do need the menu and the menu has to be 
accessed frequently it's a different matter. In full screen application the 
menu should be at the top like Unity does.
Generally, the valuable screen estate at the screen edges should be reserved 
for the most frequently accessed interface elements andnot wasted with a large 
title bar for example (The office ribbondoesn't get this right).
The lower screen edge is equally important and with Unity freeing it,it's up to 
the application developers to make clever use of it insteadof for example 
waisting it with a statusbar nobody needs (becauseyou always put a statusbar 
there, right? The statusbar is a goodexample. Up until Chrome ALL browsers had 
one, now they are all replacing it with temporary url previews. Just because 
it's old and tried doesn't mean it's "the best possible solution". I extend 
that to the concept of global menubars.)
The problem with the global menu is that it's static, so even for thoseapps 
that don't need one it's there. It's taking up space and wastingthe preciouse 
screen edge area. For those apps it is "unnecessary".
The problem with "slowness" really only comes into play when talking about 
multi-tasking.
> and external (ex: complaining how prominent it is, while
> a lot of people are complaining about not being prominent
> enough due to the show-on-hove

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Mitja Pagon]

- "Conscious User"  wrote: 

> While I disagree with Mitja's tone (as usual), 

That's a bit harsh, my tone is fine most of the time ;) I'll admit that people 
talking nonsense sometimes gets the best of me, but in most cases I try to be 
polite, if somewhat blunt. 


Cheers, 
Mitja 

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Conscious User]

Mitja Pagon a écrit:
> You are making all sorts of false assumptions about how people
> use computers. If you ever observed "regular" users you would know,
> that most don't use keyboard shortcuts, some don't even know they
> exist. Furthermore, I've personally once came across someone who
> didn't know they could right click.

> There are drawback to global menus (especially as implemented in
> Unity) and there are benefits, but calling them bad UI is just
> uninformed personal option.

> And calling menus "oh so 1999" just makes you look silly and again
> uninformed.

> Try reading some of the links you included and you will hopefully
> gain some understanding of the subject you are talking about.


While I disagree with Mitja's tone (as usual), I agree with
his main point. Most of giff's points were based on general
assumptions backed up by little more than anecdotal evidence.
And anecdotal evidence is easily countered: less than a week
ago a user in this list mentioned how he had no problems with
using OSX in a large HD monitor, for example.

The existence of things like DejaMenu is hardly convincing
evidence either, specially in the Linux ecosystem where there
are hacks for anything and everything.

Also, giff mistakenly uses an old post about the original
Unity as an argument, ignoring the fact that netbooks are not
the primary target anymore, effectively invalidating some of
his points from the very beginning.

The rest of the text is mostly questionable, with some apparent
contradictions, both internal (ex: emphasizing how unnecessary
the menu is, while complaining about the global menu making it
slow) and external (ex: complaining how prominent it is, while
a lot of people are complaining about not being prominent
enough due to the show-on-hover).

Overall, the points are not clear from a realistic point of
view. At the end of the day, it seems the main point of the
text is "menus will die someday, so let's pretend this day has
already arrived and move from there", which kinda... doesn't
work in real life. :)



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[Mitja Pagon]

You are making all sorts of false assumptions about how people use computers. 
If you ever observed "regular" users you would know, that most don't use 
keyboard shortcuts, some don't even know they exist. Furthermore, I've 
personally once came across someone who didn't know they could right click. 

There are drawback to global menus (especially as implemented in Unity) and 
there are benefits, but calling them bad UI is just uninformed personal option. 
And calling menus "oh so 1999" just makes you look silly and again uninformed. 

Try reading some of the links you included and you will hopefully gain some 
understanding of the subject you are talking about. 

Cheers, 
Mitja 


- "giff g"  wrote: 
> 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 

> 
The two most relevant browsers for Ubuntu Unity ar e 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 
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 / 

> 
>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 funct ion 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 defau lt 
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 
w

[Ayatana] why global menubar/application menu isn't such a great idea

[giff g]

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