Re: Ubuntu 11.04 and Unity
On May 10, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Tom Metro wrote: Jarod Wilson wrote: Another pro to consider: menus aren't duplicated needlessly across multiple instances of the same program. Visual duplication or resource duplication? Visual duplication, which is also a resource duplication (where said resource is on-screen real estate). Part of this has to do with how processes are launch... Two gnome terminal windows == two different applications, each with its own menu[*]. Two Terminal terminal windows on OS X is two windows of the same application. Although that may be imposed on OS X, on GNOME that's strictly up to the developer. Well, not strictly, if you're using $something (like DockbarX) that ends up grouping them together anyway. Firefox: one instance (normally) Chrome: multiple instances The terminal emulator I use, ROXTerm, supports either mode. Depending on the command line switches you use, you can have one instance with multiple windows, or start a new instance. (You can also have multiple tabs within a window.) So I don't think this implementation detail has much to do with the menu locations. I'm mostly thinking default gnome desktop config, out of the box here, you can obviously tweak the heck out of your desktop config, use non-default terminal emulators, non-default config options, etc. One menu bar instead of two. Now add a bunch more terminal windows and consider which one makes better use of screen real estate. Practically speaking, I don't really follow your usage scenario. Do you vertically stack terminal emulators? If so, then yes, extra menus add up. If not, then it seems irrelevant. (In a wide-screen world, vertical stacking is rare.) I run with 3 monitors. Primary monitor has two full-height terminal windows side-by-side, and at least one of the other monitors has a terminal window on it, sometimes both do. So three or four terminal windows, each with multiple tabs in them. In none of them do I really have any need for the menu bar. Default gnome-terminal settings, I'd have three or four useless menu bars, taking up screen real estate that is better utilized for another line or two of terminal text. Just wandering around my office though, I can see plenty of people with multiple terminal windows stacked both horizontally and vertically in a grid, sometimes with as many as ten terminal windows, most of them with menus still showing in all of those windows. ... ...I rarely ever have to go to the menu bar on any OS. Good point. For frequently used applications, I agree. But the whole point of menus are to provide a documentation crutch for infrequent operations or infrequent users. For the latter case, if you make the menus less convenient to use, then you impede the learning that leads to using the menus less. Meh. Top of the screen isn't all that inconvenient to me. Its always in the exact same place, so finding it with a simple muscle memory trained flick of the mouse/touchpad/whatever is rather quick. In some ways, that's superior to having to pay attention to what you're doing as you track the cursor on screen to an in-window menu. Sure, if you have a ton of pixels and are using an application two screens away, it could be a lot more movement required than an in-window menu, there *are* tradeoffs, but its hardly less convenient to me. -- Jarod Wilson ja...@wilsonet.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: Ubuntu 11.04 and Unity
On May 11, 2011, at 12:01 PM, Jarod Wilson wrote: Meh. Top of the screen isn't all that inconvenient to me. Its always in the exact same place, so finding it with a simple muscle memory trained flick of the mouse/touchpad/whatever is rather quick. This, in spades. Consistency is a hallmark of good UI design. I have yet to see an X desktop that manages to do it right. Convenience is nice to have -- the very definition of convenience -- but consistency should never be sacrificed. This is a lot of why I have come to hate every X desktop that I've ever used. Every one of them has some number of applications that discard consistency, usually because the developers think that standard UI elements aren't needed with the more convenient UIs that they have thrown together. They are wrong. --Rich P. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: Ubuntu 11.04 and Unity
On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:01:01PM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote: On May 10, 2011, at 8:57 PM, Tom Metro wrote: But the whole point of menus are to provide a documentation crutch for infrequent operations or infrequent users. For the latter case, if you make the menus less convenient to use, then you impede the learning that leads to using the menus less. Meh. Top of the screen isn't all that inconvenient to me. Its always in the exact same place, so finding it with a simple muscle memory trained flick of the mouse/touchpad/whatever is rather quick. In some ways, that's superior to having to pay attention to what you're doing as you track the cursor on screen to an in-window menu. That's the basic reasoning for the menu bar placement in the original Apple Human Interface Guidelines. The four corners of the screen are the easiest places to find with a mouse, since they require the least accuracy to get there. We are all highly trained geeks with finely tuned muscle memory from countless hours of FPS gaming, and it's no problem for us to shoot the pixel, but for normals* being able to jam the mouse toward the top of the table and always hit the menu bar is a huge plus. -b * also the elderly, people with disabilities, small children, etc. -- faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. john kenneth galbraith ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: Ubuntu 11.04 and Unity
On May 10, 2011, at 1:45 AM, Tom Metro wrote: ... I've also never liked the Mac-style menus on the top of the screen rather than in the window title bar. It strikes me as a UI decision that doesn't scale well. It was fine when the Mac meant the beige toaster with its 9 display, but when you're talking about 30 behemoths the menus are too far away from where you are working. Too much mouse movement, and too much confusion because they're so far away from the active window. Agreed. Pro: menus are in an absolutely positioned consistent place. Another pro to consider: menus aren't duplicated needlessly across multiple instances of the same program. Part of this has to do with how processes are launch in, say, gnome, vs. in Mac OS X. Two gnome terminal windows == two different applications, each with its own menu[*]. Two Terminal terminal windows on OS X is two windows of the same application. One menu bar instead of two. Now add a bunch more terminal windows and consider which one makes better use of screen real estate. Con: menus are not visually tied to what they impact; menus are inconveniently located at a distance from where you are working. Regardless of desktop OS and menu location, keyboard shortcuts and contextual menus ftw. At least in my case, I rarely ever have to go to the menu bar on any OS. [*] I actually have recollections of at least early versions of gnome-shell experimenting with someone grouping these such that they looked like just one application, but I haven't looked to see if that made it all the way to gnome 3. -- Jarod Wilson ja...@wilsonet.com ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: Ubuntu 11.04 and Unity
On 05/10/2011 11:17 AM, Jarod Wilson wrote: Another pro to consider: menus aren't duplicated needlessly across multiple instances of the same program. Part of this has to do with how processes are launch in, say, gnome, vs. in Mac OS X. Two gnome terminal windows == two different applications, each with its own menu[*]. Two Terminal terminal windows on OS X is two windows of the same application. One menu bar instead of two. Now add a bunch more terminal windows and consider which one makes better use of screen real estate. That would be more compelling if the major terminal programs (gnome-terminal, konsole) hadn't taken a tip from Powershell and started supporting tabbed instances. I only ever start one instance of gnome-terminal, then ctrl-shift-t until have my workspace. Or just turn off the menu bar (since I never use it on terminals anyway). Regardless of desktop OS and menu location, keyboard shortcuts and contextual menus ftw. At least in my case, I rarely ever have to go to the menu bar on any OS. Whole-heartedly agree for terminal-like applications. Some apps (gimp?) lend themselves to much heavier menu use. Maybe I'm just not very proficient in gimp, but I imagine it (or any other full-featured image-manipulation program) would be a PITA to use with MacOS-style menus... Matt ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: Ubuntu 11.04 and Unity
Jarod Wilson wrote: Another pro to consider: menus aren't duplicated needlessly across multiple instances of the same program. Visual duplication or resource duplication? Part of this has to do with how processes are launch... Two gnome terminal windows == two different applications, each with its own menu[*]. Two Terminal terminal windows on OS X is two windows of the same application. Although that may be imposed on OS X, on GNOME that's strictly up to the developer. Firefox: one instance (normally) Chrome: multiple instances The terminal emulator I use, ROXTerm, supports either mode. Depending on the command line switches you use, you can have one instance with multiple windows, or start a new instance. (You can also have multiple tabs within a window.) So I don't think this implementation detail has much to do with the menu locations. One menu bar instead of two. Now add a bunch more terminal windows and consider which one makes better use of screen real estate. Practically speaking, I don't really follow your usage scenario. Do you vertically stack terminal emulators? If so, then yes, extra menus add up. If not, then it seems irrelevant. (In a wide-screen world, vertical stacking is rare.) I'm not sure that even being able to turn off the menu bar is an option in many applications, at least, not without significant hackage. ROXTerm happens to let you turn it off, but I agree, it isn't a universal option. ...I rarely ever have to go to the menu bar on any OS. Good point. For frequently used applications, I agree. But the whole point of menus are to provide a documentation crutch for infrequent operations or infrequent users. For the latter case, if you make the menus less convenient to use, then you impede the learning that leads to using the menus less. [*] I actually have recollections of at least early versions of gnome-shell experimenting with someone grouping these such that they looked like just one application, but I haven't looked to see if that made it all the way to gnome 3. DockbarX does application grouping, independent of instance (i.e. it correctly groups FF windows together, as well as Chrome windows). -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA Enterprise solutions through open source. Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: Ubuntu 11.04 and Unity
On 5/9/2011 9:36 PM, Tom Metro wrote: Unity has approximately the same UI as GNOME 3, so I'm not sure why they diverged from that project. The comments on the above article say they'll be using GNOME 3 in 11.10. I think I could live with the side-bar dock. Most of us use wide screen displays with horizontal pixels to spare. But the application menu (perhaps good for a small screen or touch screen navigation) and the Mac-style window menus in the top bar seem more problematic. I like having things on the side rather than on the bottom; it's a much better use of the screen real estate on a widescreen display. I have a slight preference for the right side rather than the left; it seems less visually cluttered to me. One thing I've always found annoying about Gnome 2 is that you can't effectively move the taskbar to the side of the screen as you can in Windows -- yes you can put it there but it misbehaves in various annoying ways. So you're stuck with two vertical UI bars, which is two too many on a widescreen display. I HATE the Mac and Windows 7 style conflation of application shortcuts and icons for running applications; the separate taskbar and shortcut icons of older UIs like Gnome 2 (with shortcuts docked on the top bar) or the Windows Quick Launch toolbar work better for me. At least Windows 7 lets you put things back to the old way, though it's harder than it should be; on the Mac you're stuck, and you're also stuck with it on Ubuntu so long as you use Unity. (Gnome Classic, Kubuntu/KDE, and Xubuntu/XFCE are all possible alternatives.) I've also never liked the Mac-style menus on the top of the screen rather than in the window title bar. It strikes me as a UI decision that doesn't scale well. It was fine when the Mac meant the beige toaster with its 9 display, but when you're talking about 30 behemoths the menus are too far away from where you are working. Too much mouse movement, and too much confusion because they're so far away from the active window. And as somebody else pointed out, if you like focus follows mouse (I don't) it's completely broken if you move over another window on the way to the menu bar. Moving the window widgets over to the left (Mac style) instead of the right (Windows, KDE, older Gnome style) happened in Ubuntu 10.10 and it struck me as a gratuitous UI change then. (At least it's easy enough to undo in Gnome Classic; a bit harder in Unity.) Neither is inherently better but what you are used to is better than what you aren't used to. All in all, Canonical seems to be trying to make the UI more like the Mac and less like Windows. That strikes me as a poor move if they're trying to attract new users, because Windows is where the big pool of available people are and because the stability of Linux is less of a draw for people who are already on a Unix-based OS. Speaking of cool shortcuts -- I always like the KDE shortcuts of middle-click on the Maximize button to maximize only vertically and right-click to maximize only horizontally. They're just so useful (especially the vertical one; I often want my windows to be as tall as possible and getting it in one simple click is great); I never figured out why other window environments didn't copy them. Clearly that won't happen in Gnome 3, which has followed the recent fetish of clean UI and gotten rid of the Maximize button altogether. Another bad decision; I'd prefer to keep it and add the additional KDE capabilities. ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
Re: Ubuntu 11.04 and Unity
Mark? Dúlcey wrote: One thing I've always found annoying about Gnome 2 is that you can't effectively move the taskbar to the side of the screen as you can in Windows -- yes you can put it there but it misbehaves in various annoying ways. Try replacing the stock window list applet with a 3rd party alternative, like DockbarX. I just tried it with a left-side panel and it seems to work. Or was the misbehavior with other items on the panel? The real win would be getting rid of all horizontal panels. That could take more effort to pull off. I'm not sure how well the notification area, workspace switcher, and application menu behave when moved to a vertical panel. And even if they do behave, how comfortable that would be to use. So you're stuck with two vertical UI bars... There's absolutely no need to have two. The first thing I did when I switched to GNOME was to get rid of the Microsoft-inspired bottom panel. I moved the window selector to the top panel. Plenty of room on a wide screen. I HATE the Mac and Windows 7 style conflation of application shortcuts and icons for running applications; DockbarX supports that, but you don't need to use it. I make limited use of it. The visual feedback in DockbarX to distinguish a launcher from a running app is not as good as I'd like. I get the motivation behind this feature. If you are a simple user, you don't really care if the app is running or not, you just want it to appear. Once you become a slightly more sophisticated user, the distinction matters. If the UI can save real estate by combining the two operations, while still visually distinguishing them, then great. If not, then don't muddy the metaphor. I've also never liked the Mac-style menus on the top of the screen rather than in the window title bar. It strikes me as a UI decision that doesn't scale well. It was fine when the Mac meant the beige toaster with its 9 display, but when you're talking about 30 behemoths the menus are too far away from where you are working. Too much mouse movement, and too much confusion because they're so far away from the active window. Agreed. Pro: menus are in an absolutely positioned consistent place. Con: menus are not visually tied to what they impact; menus are inconveniently located at a distance from where you are working. Cons outweigh pros. The Windows XP-style task bar that ships by default on the bottom of the window is a similar fail. The user spends most of the time interacting with the middle to the top of application windows, yet to switch applications the mouse has to travel to the bottom of the screen? -Tom -- Tom Metro Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA Enterprise solutions through open source. Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/ ___ Discuss mailing list Discuss@blu.org http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
