Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th Nov 2007 15:46 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces This is the sixth article in a series on common usability and graphical user interface related terms [part I | part II | part III | part IV | part V]. On the internet, and especially in forum discussions like we all have here on OSNews, it is almost certain that in any given discussion, someone will most likely bring up usability and GUI related terms - things like spatial memory, widgets, consistency, Fitts' Law, and more. The aim of this series is to explain these terms, learn something about their origins, and finally rate their importance in the field of usability and (graphical) user interface design. In part VI, we focus on the dock.
Permalink for comment 285697
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: @google_ninja
by tupp on Wed 21st Nov 2007 03:44 UTC in reply to "RE: @google_ninja "
tupp
Member since:
2006-11-12

Mac Menu bar isn't detached from the application

Really?


the window itself isn't the window

If that statement were actually true, OSX might have a slightly bigger usability problem than the detached menu-bar.


just look at photoshop, dreamweaver, etc to look what apps looks alike, even those finder windows aren't applications by themselves why would you repeat one menu for each one?

With the menu-bar attached to the window, menus don't have to be repeated in multi-windowed applications -- look at how multi-windowed Photoshop is handled in Windows, look at how multi-windowed Gimp is handled in *nix. And even if a menu is repeated, there is no usability conflict, nor will the computer explode.


Giving the function remain the same, it should be on the same spot so users knows where to look for when they want to perform the action they want, in the same way that once you learn how to drive you do it automatically, no need to search for the wheel because things are where expected to.

Yes. Yes. The subject of spatial memory and conditioning has been covered ad nauseum in this thread (and elsewhere), and the Mac GUI does not have an advantage in that regard.


Given that where better to place it then on one of the edges of the screen where you can bump right into it with mouse?

Having the menu bar on the edge of its application window is better -- it prevents a lot of confusion/disorientation, which is usually more important than occasionally taking a split-second longer to hit an application menu.

Often, users interact with the content, window buttons and window borders more than the application menu. Application toolbars and palette buttons can get even more interaction. So, if you really want to take advantage of the "infinitely large" targets on the screen edge, put the toolbars and pallet buttons there (some *nix WMs/desktops allow this configuration with certain apps).

By the way, a target isn't easy to hit just because you put it on the edge of the screen -- try hitting on the edge of the screen an "infinitely large" target that is one pixel wide.


I don't want to go on your job but when invoking a title of 'product designer' without knowing even the fitt's law just makes me wonder how did that happen...

Please stop. The last thing that a forum such as OSNews needs is one more Mac fanboy incessantly barking the term "Fitts' Law" like a flipping, hyperactive Jack Russell Terrier.

Most Mac fanboys who reference Fitts' Law don't really understand usability nor the psycho-motor model postulated by Paul Fitts in 1954 (when there were no computer graphical interfaces).

The notion that the Mac menu-bars are detached at the top of the screen to "comply" with Fitts' Law is "BS." According to Fitts' law, distance to the target is also a direct function of the aiming precision required. So, with the Mac menu-bar always at the top of the screen, the targets are always the furthest distance away from the work -- an OSX detriment.

And if Apple was really concerned with making it easier to click on targets, it would enlarge the clicking area of more of its widgets, for instance, the click-able area of the "jelly-blobs" should encompass the full window border outside of the "jelly-blob."

Unlike OSX, some OSs/desktops/window-managers are actually designed to take advantage of the screen edge/corners, such as SymphonyOS's Mezzo desktop (note the corner and edge widgets in this screenshot): http://www.symphonyos.com/ss/sos-2007b.jpg


Photoshop is still different from Cinema4d from DreamWeaver, from iDVD, Pages... Things which are the same should remain the same and not implemented in multitude of ways just for the sake of it.

Okay.

Edited 2007-11-21 03:51

Reply Parent Score: 1