http://www.osnews.com/story/10327/The_Problem_with_Global_Menu_Bars Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Thu, 09 Jul 2009 21:11:56 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif http://www.osnews.com http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? i've been a long time linux-user and i've got myself a powerbook half a year ago of course i also tried OS-X (beside the obligatory linux ) and i found this one menubar quite a good idea, it's less waste of desktop-space.. it also makes all apps use quite the same HIG.. but if you don't like 'em i'm not gonna do anything about it, as long as you keep me liking 'em Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? One opinion and I can resepect it since you were kind enough to spell it out in a reasonable matter.

But, I disagree. I didn't start using a Mac until recently, and I actually much prefer the "application menu bar" since it frees up the rest of the application windows to be placed where I want, extra space on the screen isn't being taken up by toolbars and I still have access to the most important functions of the system.

Personally, the more I've used the Mac recently the more I've liked it. I've been using PCs since 1990s, and my first computer was an Apple //C+ so I think I have some experience qualification Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think it's more a matter of what you're used to. To me the Mac menu bar is more intuitive, it's omnipresent and contains the menus for the current application, and is always in the same place. You speak of moving targets, run multiple apps in Windows or Linux and each app's menu can be in a different location.
In other words, don't knock something based strictly on a lack of familiarity. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:03:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? One major problem with windowed menubars is small or narrow windows such as instant message programs. These programs commonly have alot of different options and functions they can do, but never have enough menu space. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree with the above posts, but I also find that all the menu items are always visable regarless of window size. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? beat me to it ;-) Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I really have to disagree with the editorial:

"Menu bars are a UI element that should not be used frequently. In dealing with basically any application, most of my time is spent manipulating the content, followed by using the tool bars, then lastly menubars."

This is precisely why global menu bars are far more preferrable. I would rather have one unused menu bar out of the way at the top of the screen, than a menu bar on top of each of my ten windows. 1 unused element is way better than one unused element for each window on the screen! That is one of the reasons I typically have 3x as many windows open on my Mac than on my PC. So to me, it's the per-window menu bar that is a holdover from the non-multitasking days. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I haven't used mac's much, but I've tinkered with this emac we have at work that sits in the corner collecting dust. For me it feels like more work bringing focus to a window and then trying to select it's menu items at the top of the screen. I guess they provide key bindings that could speed this up a bit, but moving the mouse cursor all over a 1280x1024 desktop feels like a big waste when I use the system. Just my opinion on the subject. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1) They place unwarranted emphasis on menu bars

I agree with this. However, I fail to see how having a global menu bar prevents you from having more emphasis on toolbars. In Word on OS X, I find myself making far more use of the floating palettes that I do the menu bar. I agree with your point that toolbars should hold commonly used items. But I fail to see how having a global menu bar affects that.

2) A global menu bar is disconnected from the task at hand....There is no quick way to tell without thinking which application the menu is functioning for.

This takes a little getting used to. However, it is easy to see which app has the global menu bar. The name is written in bold on the top left of the menu bar, making it easy to know which app currently has focus.

Can't comment on point 3 :-).

4) Global menus don't work well with multiple monitors.

This has more to do with the implementation of global menu bars on OS X than with that concept in general. There is nothing preventing you from having the menu bar on the second monitor, and this is a _major_ gripe I have with OS X at the moment. Complain to Apple. If enough people complain, perhaps they'll do something. Fortunately for me, I don't use a secondary monitor often.

5) This really only applies to GNU/Linux and Unix desktops, but having a global menu bar would be inconsistent.

Applies to Macs too. There are Java and X11 apps that don't follow this paradigm, and it affects the consistency of the desktop. Nothing that can really be done, aside from not using those apps.

6) Widgets must be dynamically changed. You essentially have a moving target.

This doesn't make sense and needs a more in depth explanation. What do you mean by widgets need to be dynamically changed? I fail to see how having a global menu bar will affect widgets. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I guess they provide key bindings that could speed this up a bit, but moving the mouse cursor all over a 1280x1024 desktop feels like a big waste when I use the system. Just my opinion on the subject."

I respect your opinion, but the argument is nonsense. Look at this screenie:

http://img100.echo.cx/img100/5352/screenshot8yt.png

How far away is the top Gnome bar from the menubar of FireFox?

Other than that; OSX relies heavily on keyboard shortcuts. I can't even remember the last time I actually used the menubar on any of my apps in OSX. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The strength of the global menu bar is that they present an infinitely high target for a user's mouse movement. However, I must firmly disagree with some of your points. I remember reading the human interface design (HID) studies Apple did in 1984. (I loved my Mac 128K!) If you read these HID reports, you'd understand that in actual practice, most users--not the geeks but most normal users--use a single application at a time maximimzed. Further, the single menu bar at the top creates an infinitely high target, since you cannot scroll past it. It was not about single or multiprocessing apps. With Switcher at the time, you still could run multiple apps.

On other menuing approaches, you must use much finer motor control to hit the menu. This represents a slow down in performance and a higher level of difficulty for the average user.

That's not to say that for power users, the global bar is a good idea. Frankly, I switch between both with ease. But separating the windowing functions from the app should give a user the ability to designate when and where they want the menu for their particular style. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree with some of his points, but I don't think a perfect menubar for every possible circumstance exists. All the menubars in every OS I've used have their problems, even the well designed variants found in NeXTSTEP and RISC OS.

IMO most of the time the benefits of a global menubar compensate for it's flaws. It allows for significantly faster access than a detached menubar, menus on the the global menubar are a much larger target (see Fitt's law). When combined with contextual menus and toolbars it seems at least as good as any other solution.

Even though I don't often use Mac OS I don't find it's menubar to be annoying or unintuitive. If it was possible to have a single menubar in Windows I'd probably switch to it. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'll have to disagree with the article. Mainly for what the previous posters said, takes up less space, etc. Also, if you are taking to long to find something in your menu bar, talk to the application developer, on the mac, there are guidlines and I always know where everything is, on first launch.

The other thing is that this paradigm really only works on a mac. In Os X, there isn't a seperate instance of each app like it is on Windows or Linux. Every time you launch an application in those OS's they launch a WHOLE nother app. This doesn't work with a global menubar at all. You can do this with kde and instantly see it doesn't provide the same usablity as Os X. This complents thier other paradigm of one process per app. And in my opinion works a ton better than having 5 mPlayer controllers on my screen because i opened 5 videos from the file manager.

Sure, its odd at first, when i first moved to Os X, i knew i had to adjust, but after about a month, i saw the strengths of these two different ways. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Have you ever heard of Fitt's Law? To summarize: the futher a target is, the longer it takes for a user to acquire it, and the smaller a target is, the longer it takes the user to acquire it. While having a "global" menu may mean that it is a bit further away, it also forms a much larger target (because you can over-shoot and go off the screen). In other words, the Macintosh menus are more accurate.

I think the problem that most people have with accuracy relates to nested menus. While I haven't read Apple's latest user interface guidelines, the old ones definitely said that nested menus were a faux pas.

Two of your points were directly tied to Unix environments (the widgets and the sloppy focus).

As for the context of the menu changing based upon the system's state: well you cannot even avoid that with window per-window menus: if the window is maximised the menu remains in the same position regardless of the application.

Worse yet, if the window is not maximised, the location of the menu is not predictable. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The application that comes to mind is the terminal emulator shipped with OSX. It's a small window and I frequently have lots of shells open. I have to move the mouse to the top of the screen just to open more shells since simply trying to launch the terminal emulator from the icon on the desktop more than once doesn't work. I usually keep the terminals near the bottom of the screen. This wouldn't be a problem provided I was familiar with the keybindings, but as new mac os user I find it to be a pain. But as I said earlier, that's just my opinion on it. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Try, when a terminal instance is focused, to press apple+n.

There, new terminal instance. There is no need at all to use the menubar .

To kill one instance, press apple+w. To kill the entire app, press apple+q. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "The application that comes to mind is the terminal emulator"

Umm.. command-n. And you're in a terminal, so i KNOW your hands are on the keyboard. And don't say "i'm not familiar with the keybindings", not only is this an OBVIOUS key command to get a new shell, its also written in the menu bar item NEW that you keep clicking.

I dare anyone to find me a Mac user that uses the menubar to open a new document, it just isn't done. Command-n is your friend. Apple chose the command button instead of the control button for a reason, its actually USEABLE, you dont have to shift your whole hand and use your pinky like you do with control. Mac users keep their thumb resting on the command key, and get tons more done way faster. Just ask one. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? the solution for the multiple monitors is to have multiple menus. apple has to implement something like that.

screen A has application X
screen B has application Y

then

menu on A should hold menu for X
menu on B should hold menu for Y Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I like that the Mac toolbar wastes less space than one toolbar in every window. For the same reason I almost always (except in my browser) turn the stupid toolbar off. Mostly a keystroke is the most efficient and easy to memorize, since they're consistent on the Mac.

OTOH some people are right that only rarely used stuff needs to be in the menu. I really like the NeXTStep/GNUstep menus, since you can detach part of it and keep it around like a toolpane on the Mac. Bummer that Apple didn't keep this feature!

The only big disadvantage is point 3: focus follows mouse is so incredibly cool (I'm used to the Mac click-ten-times-for-everything now, but still kindof miss it) and efficient if you do actual *work*. I think menus should come out of a button in the window, maybe Apple should add a blue button for the menu that pops up a NeXT-style menu

Well, maybe that's what I should code in 40 years when I'm retired. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? That's the windows way. Have one window with the toolbar on top and all open documents open inside that window. Ugh!

The X11 + Mac way is definitely nicer. Use the *window-manager* for managing all your windows, put them on all the screens you have, use multiple desktops, but don't run everything fullscreen and put all windows *in there*! Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? i agree with the author. i've never gotten used to the global menu bar..it is confusing, and any added benefit from the menubar being placed up top does not outweigh the extra time it always takes to ask myself if i'm in the correct application. and what's with the one-button mouse? anyway two big reasons why i haven't bought into mac.

ty Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Menu bars are a UI element that should not be used frequently.
Maybe for you, but others may disagree.

I think a really well designed menu system can aide someone in learning how to use the application. For example, when I'm learning how to use a new app, I just peruse the menu system to see what kind of
functionality is available.

Menus and toolbars provide a different command interface to the software. Some people find it easier to navigate the command system based on the textual hierarchical structure of the menu system, while others find the graphical nature of toolbars easier. The benefit of a menu system is that most of the software's functionality can be accessed through it while minimizing screen real-estate. Also, including keystroke combinations with the menu item text [think windows app] gives users the ability to learn how to access the most frequently functionality very quickly. Using CTRL+P[print] and CTRL+S[save] are faster and easier when editing a document then clicking a toolbar button or menu item [for me anyhow]. I personally feel that a well designed menu system with full keyboard support is the most efficient way of interacting with an app. That said, I think that the nouns[File] and verbs[Edit] used could be more intuitive. Not really an issue for us that know how to use the system and are familiar with the standards of an OS, but probably not very intuitive for new users. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I haven't used mac's much, but I've tinkered with this emac we have at work that sits in the corner collecting dust. For me it feels like more work bringing focus to a window and then trying to select it's menu items at the top of the screen. I guess they provide key bindings that could speed this up a bit, but moving the mouse cursor all over a 1280x1024 desktop feels like a big waste when I use the system. Just my opinion on the subject."

I have the same feeling about global menu bars. I run my desktop at 1600x1200 and if I'm using a program which is located on the lower part of the screen (I sometimes have several non-maximized windows that I'll work with at the same time) it takes me a lot longer to move my mouse up to the top of the screen to click on the menu and do something then it does when the menu is attached to the window.

Granted this is only an issue when the window I'm working with isn't maximized or located towards the upper left hand side of the screen (which is often with some programs and never with others).

There are advantages and disadvantages to having a global menu bar, much like everything else in the world. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This is precisely why global menu bars are far more preferrable. I would rather have one unused menu bar out of the way at the top of the screen, than a menu bar on top of each of my ten windows. 1 unused element is way better than one unused element for each window on the screen! That is one of the reasons I typically have 3x as many windows open on my Mac than on my PC. So to me, it's the per-window menu bar that is a holdover from the non-multitasking days.
You are forgetting that the top of the screen is the most important area of the whole screen. For ergonomic reasons, this should be at your eyelevel, and also because of Fitts law. I think the top of the screen should be rather used for something more common, like launching applications. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? All of the points in the article are good ones (except for the last one, which I don't understand).

Some additional thoughts on the subject.
Focus follows mouse is far more useful to me than menu on top. I would never sacrifice that feature.

I can't see how a menu in each window wastes space. In the focussed application, the menu bar takes up an equal or lesser amount of space if it is in the window, rather than on top (the window could be less than the full width of the screen. In unfocused windows, I'm not so interested in maximizing screen real estate. They're in the background because I'm not currently interested in them much.

Additionally, in OS X, it takes two clicks, widely spaced apart, to access the menu of an unfocused application. I have to click on the window to focus it, then move my mouse to the top to click on the menu. In KDE, I just move my mouse to the menu.

On the subject of small windows, I've never seen an application that was meant to be in a small window, but had a large menu bar. My instant messenger window (kopete) is quite narrow (~250 pixels) and has room for 4 top level menus. If your instant messenger needs more than about 5 menus, it's broken. In fact, I'd argue that for these small applications, a global menu bar is a huge waste of space. Instead of using up about 20x300 pixels, you are now using 20x1024 pixels since the top menu bar is the width of the screen.

I use OS X, and I've tried the menu on top thing with KDE, but it just doesn't work for me. Too many clicks, too much mouse movement. For the people spouting fitt's law, it's a tradeoff. I use the close button much more often than I use the menus, so I'd rather have that at the top of the screen. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have heard the arguments for the global menu, but by and large about the only argument that I ever hear that sounds compelling is the infinite height argument that you can overshoot the menu on height and get to the menu, but as many have pointed out the infrequent use of the menus and that most any common functions have memorable keybindings I don't find this as valueable as the proponents of the global menu think. Menus attached to individual program(a la windows and some unix GUIs) allows one to be in focus on one program and click on a menu in another inactive program that is visible next to the active windows by simply clicking on the menu of the other program. You don't need to bring your mouse to the inactive window to change the focus of the program and then go back to the menu at the top. I realize that you need a monitor capable of a good resolution for this is be too practical, but with high resolutions becoming commonplaces I think this would be a useless advatage for those using multiple programs at the same time. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? have to move the mouse to the top of the screen just to open more shells since simply trying to launch the terminal emulator from the icon on the desktop more than once doesn't work.

Mate, try ?N. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? And yes, menu bars are a very important of UIs. This does not mean they are commonly used so should not be put in the most accessable part of the screen. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? No unicode I meant apple-N (but others already said that)

Should try the Preview more often. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 22:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree with the article. The global menubar is a relic of yesteryears. It should be abandoned. The fitts law argument for its survival is exaggerated. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I completely despise the MacOS user interface. To me the only redeeming quality of the Mac is that you can run Linux on it. Otherwise they are only useful to prop doors open. A good part of that reason is because of that fucking obnoxious global menu bar. I despise that it serializes my workflow back into the anemic computing environment of 1985 where it was hard to run more than one program at a time. It makes the whole GUI modal. This wasn't so bad when you had a tiny monochrome screen but there is no way in hell that you could get me to switch backwards to that crap again. I cannot believe they left that in OS X when they made the more NeXTish change to the new OS.

Michael Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The amount of precision it takes to reach a specific pixel (or area) in some part of the screen is definitely much more than the one you need if you "only" has to roll to the top of the screen. If your mouse has good acceleration, this is just a matter of reflexively roll the mouse upwards and you're there; in the Windows/KDE/Etc. paradigm, you have to carefully reach the menu which is randombly placed in the screen, inside a window. Even worse, the menu could be too long and if the application is too close to the lower border the menu may display upwards generating more imprecision and confusion; if the menu is only a few elements long, it won't display upwards... so.. you get the idea.

People may be used to KDE style and Menu inside the window, but if you just think of it a little bit, even when not perfect, the OS X way is very usable too. I come from the Windows world and when switched I found the top menu bar quite adequate. It just takes a little bit of effort to get used. After 15 years of "the other way".

My 0,2¢ Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'll preface this by saying that I have NOT used an OS for any substantial amount of time that uses global menu bars, but I think I understand how it works and really see no point.

There are a lot of comments about screen real estate wasted by per application menu bars. Now I love every little bit of screen real estate(I run at 1600x1200 res), but it seems the more you like screen real estate, the farther your apps are going to be from the global menu bar. For instance, I have firefox and gaim open right now, gaim is in the upper right hand corner of my desktop, firefox in the upper left hand corner. Now for firefox's position, the global menu bar idea seems fine, at the moment, but for gaim on the other hand, if I have my mouse over gaim it's going to be quite a long way to the upper left side of the desktop. If I decided to open a term right now, it would end up in the lower right hand corner, really far from the global menu bar.

I also see a lot of references to fitt's law, which I understand from the thread says that the target area and the amount of distance to be traveled are both parts of the equation. So it seems counterproductive to be traveling over 1000px just to save 200x20 px from my gaim window and 20x1000 px(I'm obviously estimating all the pxs) from my firefox window just to gain a "greater" target area. Also this target area is only bigger for your mouse, due to the border. As far as you eyes are concerned, the target area is just about the same size, and for me at least, having the target area be bigger to click on than it already is doesn't make too much sense unless you're a klutz with a mouse or a drunk.

I see how this is a benifit to those who use one window in full screen mode, as it saves screen real estate there without any real hinderence. On the other hand though, for those people who really care about screen real estate, are you really running most of your apps full screen? Wouldn't that be a waste of screen real estate?

Maybe I don't understand completely because I haven't had a large amount of experience using global menu bars, but logically it just doesn't seem to add up. Maybe that's because I'm not a UI designer. Honestly though, I really can't find a reason I'd like to try it. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? In Os X, there isn't a seperate instance of each app like it is on Windows or Linux. Every time you launch an application in those OS's they launch a WHOLE nother app.

Not true. On Windows, try starting IE several times. You'll get a new window each time, but only a single process. Typical SDI behavior, office does this too. But if you start Media Player a second time, it only switches to the already opened instance, you get no new windows or processes. Single document, single window. Very newbie friendly, but a pain in the ass for the rest of us

Other apps can have several instances (processes) at the same time, cause this make sense for some power-user apps, like Total Commander. In that case, the Mediaplayer hand-holding behavior would just make the app less useful. You could of course implement a combination of SDI and MDI in such and app, to make it only ever use a single process, but that seems like a waste of time and effort for an app that is mostly used with only one instance anyway. Firefox is an example of this - multiple windows, each with multiple tabs. And you can't start more processes even if you try. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? which results in the menu bar being at the top of the screen and no being able to see the desktop, I think a universal menu bar is a good thing. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? just right click and select new shell (of ctrl-click if you like the 1 button mouse) Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Menu bars like that are leftovers from when Mac OS was primarily a single process operating system, and it should have been ditched long ago.
Intuition had a global menu bar, and the Amiga was a multitasking system from day 0.
In facts, when I first used Win 3.0 I found the per-window menu non practical and screenspace wasting.
Years passed and I get used to it also. But when I found myself in front of the Workbench on an Amiga emulator, or with Mac OS X, I found the global menu a refreshing experience.
Could be a very subjective thing, maybe.

Bye! Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? People who have never spent one minute doing a real usability test need to stop writing articles about what is or is not more usable. Just because you don't like it, doesn't make it unusable.

People (including you, yes you, right there, reading this post) are incredibly bad at judging their own performance. This is a fundamental fact that forms the basis for any non-crackpot psychological research. That means you personally have no authority to say whether or not somethine you use is more or less usable. Not to mention how your performance extrapolates to your peers, or to the population in general.

And a bit of advice, in the future if you want to be taken seriously when you're talking about usability, you probably won't want to mention how great "focus follows mouse" is. Sheesh, what a newbie. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If "no more info was sent", how can you really know if he wrote the article himself and isn't plagiarizing? Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'll vote global, although I admit it's personal. I've used Macs and Windows for many, many years, and the global menu bar feels way more productive to me.

I think that people who believe that local menu bars are faster to access are really missing the point - you don't move the mouse to a global menu bar, you 'throw' it. See The Humane Interface (Jef Raskin) for a mathematical proof. People who try global menus and say they have to move the mouse further are conditioned by their use of local menus.

The mouse-move-changes-focus is a red herring - the global menu bar could easily be made to change based on mouse focus, as it does now for input focus.

Re: comment by Anonymous

"I think the top of the screen should be rather used for something more common, like launching applications."

You launch application more often than you use commands in an applications? Surely, most users launch a few applications to perform a task, maybe adding an application or two as necessary. An interface should be designed for the majority of it's users, not a few power users. That's not to say it can't add features to accomodate power users, but the design must be for the average user. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? not bad. The problem in this topic is the adaptation of the user. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I like the global menu bar because it keeps all the items that I rarely use out of the way so that I can focus on my current task. In Safari for instance, I use keystrokes for new windows, new tabs or bookmarking. The only task that I tend to use the menu bar for is application preferences (I just realized that there is a preferences keystroke).

It also reinforces the fact that you are using one application of "Safari" with many windows instead of "Safari - OSNews.com - Exploring the Future of Computing" and a dozen other sites all as separate running applications. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? heh FFM was a funny comment.. I can just see my dad moving to the menu and all of a sudden the app he was using loses focus for some unknown reason :-)

I am a power user and I hate FFM. it is only good for accessing menu items on an unfocused window in a window based menu OS. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The major issue with the global menus is the fact that it sets the standard for where the focus is. For example, if you alt tab through applications, you only get one of the many potential windows of the application. Having the applications self-contained makes more sense in this regard because each window is essentially an application. I have never understood why Apple chose to use a direct manipulation metaphor with the file manager and drag and drop while completely destroying that metaphor with a global menu. With that said, I am not that familiar with OSX so I am sure there are options available that can be easily learned. It is always my pet peeve when on a mac. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You launch application more often than you use commands in an applications? Surely, most users launch a few applications to perform a task, maybe adding an application or two as necessary. An interface should be designed for the majority of it's users, not a few power users. That's not to say it can't add features to accomodate power users, but the design must be for the average user.
Most commands I use in an application are within toolbars or within the interface. In Firefox I use toolbars for back and forward, or interact with web pages directly. The only thing that is in the menus that isn't elsewhere is uncommon commands like opening files or help. I certainly use those uncommon commands less than launching applications. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm glad someone has taken the time to spell it out. There are a few other points that are worthy of mention (asides from the multiple monitor problem which is huge)

A) FITTs law has to be seen as being two-folded. First you have to make the menu selection and in that case, for a single-monitor the global menu wins; however, then you have to return to original place of focus and the more distance the mouse has to travel from your focus area the less likely you are going to be able to reliably return to it. Local bars win on the trip back. Further, I don't have to change my point of focus and that makes a huge difference. Otherwise, there is no point in having multiple, open windows to begin with.

B) On large desktops, the amount of mouse movement for a global bar is ridiculous. It is worse for multimonitor setups. The only time global wins always is when you only run apps full-screen -- but then local bars are equivalent to global bars.

C) Local bars can be improved vis-a-vis screen real-estate by having them hide when a window loses focus. In fact, all non document controls could be hidden leaving that much more useful information visible in a non focused window. As a matter of fact, when global bars are used, the preference seems to be to include larger toolbars in their place. Thus, no screen real-estate is actually saved but more focus and refocus work is required by the user.

In a palm top or limited screen area I'd prefer full-screen app windows with a "global" bar. On larger displays I prefer multiple windows with local bars. And, despite all the global bar supporters, the real reason to favour local bars is FITTs law just because you have to look at the whole interaction and not just the menu selection. Which leaves...

D) Perhaps the best menu bar is a context menu since it is always where you need it to be -- directly at the mouse pointer. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? While certainly not the ideal solution, top menu bars do provide a some value. They're more consistent than their Windows cousin. In Windows, to open a new IE window, I press ctrl-N. To close that window I press alt-F4. Suppose I'm going quickly though; open, close, open, close, close. What's happens when I close the last IE window and instinctively press ctrl-N to create a new one? I've close not the window, but the IE application, and open another application's window. Similarly, as open now behaves differently, so too does close, possibly bringing up the shutdown dialog. To use keyboard commands safely, I must keep track of my stack of windows and be aware of any implicit shifts in mode.

Top menus provide a distinction between the window and application metaphors. In Windows, what might be called a window can in fact be an application and the user needs to be aware of the subtle difference. While this may seem like old hat to most of us, it actually requires fair amount of mental acrobatics to move through such an environment without error. Perhaps not huge deal, but it does mean most Windows users don't take advantage of the keyboard, where many Mac users do.

This window and application separation also allows a clean way for applications to sit in the background. A mail or ftp application can remain running without keeping an open window. In Windows, a background app's only real option is to run in the taskbar, which isn't its intended purpose. Now a taskbar icon can either reflect some state of his machine or be a full fledged application. This requires even more mental overhead from the user. The misappropriation of taskbar is such a problem, a feature of Windows XP is hiding the myriad of icons.

You also don't see much of windows within windows on the Mac. More mental overhead. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "I cannot believe they left that in OS X when they made the more NeXTish change to the new OS."

NeXTSTEP had a global menubar too, the main difference is that it was vertical and movable.

Considering how little it's necessary to access the menubar (thanks to keyboard shortcuts, contextual menus and toolbars), I don't see what all the fuss it about. I find that needing to access the main menubar is quite rare, even in complex apps like Photoshop. The possition of the menubar doesn't significantly effect my workflow when I'm only using it a few times a day. Even if the global menubar was less efficient in some ways, I think the saved screen space makes it a better choice.

One of the reasons I like the Opera web browser on Windows is that it's an MDI app with a single menubar for all windows. That means that I can tile or cascade individual web page windows without them each having a menubar taking up space.

Actually, I've been meaning to hide the main Opera menubar. You can set it to appear as as a dropdown menu from a toolbar button and I don't use it enough to have it on screen all the time. 99.9%+ of the time all the controls I use are available from the toolbars, mouse gestures and contextual menus. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I can see the arguments for the idea that the top 20-odd pixels is a great place for something. I'm less convinced that it is the best place for an application-specific menu-bar I might use once an hour, rather than a desktop-wide taskbar I use several times an hour. The universal menubar on OSX bothers me a lot less than my inability to remember how to switch between application windows.

There is also a rather interesting problem I have with the OSX universal menu. It is possible to have an application open with control of the menu-bar, but no open or visible windows, and a different application with visible windows. While it does not happen often, it happens frequently enough to frustrate me.

People (including you, yes you, right there, reading this post) are incredibly bad at judging their own performance. This is a fundamental fact that forms the basis for any non-crackpot psychological research. That means you personally have no authority to say whether or not somethine you use is more or less usable. Not to mention how your performance extrapolates to your peers, or to the population in general.

Actually, I would argue the basis for any non-crackpot psychological research is the examination of human behavior. The interesting feature that people misjudge their own performance follows from that.

On the other hand, having acutally done usability testing, I'm increasingly skeptical of the claim that there are very many rules that apply to "the population in general." I suspect the only universal rule of usability is that you have to design for specific populations performing specific tasks in specific contexts. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 'system tray' instead of 'taskbar', sorry. Sun, 17 Apr 2005 23:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Perhaps Apple need to introduce 3 button mice like what the rest of the world has. The middle button could be used for instantly snapping the mouse to the menu bar and back to the focused application...of perhaps for popping the 'application context menu' much like how the right mouse button pops up a control/window specific context menu. Of course, this starts to overcomplicate matters which isn't consistent with Apple's design philosophy.

For the record, I vote for the global menu. At first it takes a bit of getting used to, but I prefer it. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Whatever Apple does is The Right Thing. A few years ago they used to argue that the Mac menu behaviour (menu disappears if you don't hold the mouse button) was much better than the Windows behaviour. Of course, nobody bought up the issue anymore after Apple copied the Windows behaviour... Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Almost forgot an obvious space cleanup for local bars:

E) integrate the menu bar into the application bar. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You launch application more often than you use commands in an applications? Surely, most users launch a few applications to perform a task, maybe adding an application or two as necessary. An interface should be designed for the majority of it's users, not a few power users. That's not to say it can't add features to accomodate power users, but the design must be for the average user.

I find it interesting that most desktop models do put the interface for launching applications at the bottom of the screen, another "throwable" location.

But I'm wondering if the invention of the mythical "average user" actually leads to less than optimal interfaces in many cases. Not that I see an answer to the problem, I just get very twitchy and nervous whenever the "average user" makes an appearance in these kinds of discussions. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I just wanted to note that you can set up KDE to use (a la Mac) global menus.

Best regards Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Single menu bar is very good in a lot of situations... Didn't like then until started using a Mac for work past year... but they look very sweet.
The major problem is when you need to access the menu bar from another app in the desk... then you have first to select this app and then click on the menu bar... not dificult, but VERY annoying for heavy multitask users...
There's also some editor/pro programs that does perform better with per-windows menu bars (well, not in ALL windows like GIMP...). Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think for maximised windows, global menu bars are great. But otherwise, they can be a bit cumbersome.





And I think any other comment isn't really much worth. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Pie menus with keyboard acceleration is the best, IMO.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pie_menu Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? would you just leave? you do nothing but spit venom. this entire discussion has been civil and you interject by claiming that Mac users are irrational fools for not agreeing with you. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This article really made no sense. The first point is silly, because a global menu bar doesn't put any more emphasis on menus than a lot of individual menu bars. It makes menus quicker to access, so you might use them more often, but the alternative is making them slower to access, which makes no sense! By that logic, the menubar should require a complex escape sequence to pull up... The second point makes no sense either. In all GUIs, there is an "active" (foreground) application. All global things go to the foreground application. Global things include menubars, keyboard inputs, mouse clicks, etc. Having the global menu target the focused app is no different from having keyboard input go to the focused app. MacOS is particularly rigorous about making the user consious of the foreground application. That's why Photoshop's toolbar windows dissapear when you unfocus the app. The third, fourht, and fifth points are implementation details, not flaws of the global menubar context in general. As for the last point, I don't have a clue what the author is trying to say there.

There are few things as objective in GUIs as the global menubar. Just do the math (plug numbers into Fitts' equations) and you can prove a quantitative superiority. The dislike of global menubars stems almost entirely from inertia, and from experience with braindead UIs like Windows that have a very sloppy concept of the currently-focused app. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This article really made no sense. The first point is silly, because a global menu bar doesn't put any more emphasis on menus than a lot of individual menu bars. It makes menus quicker to access, so you might use them more often, but the alternative is making them slower to access, which makes no sense!
That is the point, they should be put in a slower to use spot. The top of the screen is fundamentally the most accessable spot on the screen. This implies something useful and frequently used should be put here. Menus aren't used frequently. Menus contain all the common and uncommon tasks for an application.

In Firefox the common tasks like back and forward, and interacting with the web page is done without menus. No one uses a menu to go back or forward because it would be slower no matter where the menu is. Uncommon tasks like help or opening files are exclusive to menus, and thats really what menus are used for. Since menus are used infrequently, the space at the top of the screen should not be wasted by them. This is not saying menus are unimportant - they are very important - they are however not used frequently. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? theres soooo many innovations to do there!
the desktop ergonomics should take a look on the 3D modeling and animation softwares , coz their really complex appz made easy to use because of greats ideas. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? But it's not a fact that it is more usable. Considering Fitt's law actually has 5 hot spots, not just 4. That included the context menu, as it is used in Windows/Linux. It is just different... Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The context menu is rather different from the main menu. It's not supposed to hold a lot of entries, while the main menu is supposed to be a canonical listing of appliciation functionality. So it's not an choice between global menus and context menus, but a choice between global menus and per-window menus. Mathematically, it is a fact that global menus are better than per-window menus. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? @Anonymous

That is the point, they should be put in a slower to use spot. The top of the screen is fundamentally the most accessable spot on the screen. This implies something useful and frequently used should be put here. Menus aren't used frequently. Menus contain all the common and uncommon tasks for an application.

That's just your opinion. I use menus all the time, via keyboard shortcuts and the like. In fact, I can't count how many times I acccess the file menu in Firefox, etc. using "Alt + F" to bring up the menu and then arrowing to something I want to use.

I strongly disagree that menus aren't used often. When I'm in Photoshop I use them *a lot* for example... Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The global menu is confusing because you don't always know which window has focus.

If you want to change something in a window that doesn't have focus global menus go against Fitz law. You have to move the mouse all the way down and click on licq then move it all the way up and click on the menu.

I use the top pixels to change between windows (right click to lower, left click to focus). I normally have 10-15 windows open at a time so switching between windows is important. I use the left hand row of pixels to launch new apps. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I also see a lot of references to fitt's law, which I understand from the thread says that the target area and the amount of distance to be traveled are both parts of the equation.

Fitt's Law is defined as:

T = a + b log_2(D/W + 1)

Where T is total time, a and b are emperical constants, D is distance to target, and W is width of target in the axis of motion. This equation has been supported by decades of studies. The reason in-window menubars are fundementally flawed is because they are narrow in the axis of motion. Usually, 'W' is on the order of the height of text, which can be as little as 10-15 pixels. In a global menubar, 'W' is infinity, so even if having the menu at the top doubles 'D', it's still a win. In emperical studies, a Mac user acquires a menu item 5x faster than a Windows user. For people using an inaccurate pointing device, like a pointing-stick or touchpad (remember, nearly half of computers sold these days are laptops), this number is probably even bigger. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 00:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? There are few things as objective in GUIs as the global menubar.

Well, in my case it has to do with naughty habit of not accepting things on dogma. Or perhaps I should say that I'd be interested in research comparing the global menubar to the global taskbar, rather than the global menubar to the window menubar. I'd also like to point you to the fact that in some cases (kiosks, POS systems), any kind of a menubar, much less a global one, should be involved, so I would not call it an obvious truth for all application domains.

MacOS is particularly rigorous about making the user consious of the foreground application. That's why Photoshop's toolbar windows dissapear when you unfocus the app.

I've run into cases where I've been honestly confused about what the foreground application happens to be. This occurs when there is a foreground application with focus that does not happen to have a foreground window. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If you want to change something in a window that doesn't have focus global menus go against Fitz law.

Not if you do the math. An application is an enormous target (hundreds of pixels). That means you've got two fast motions (big 'W's in the above equation), instead of one slow motion (small 'W' in the above equation). Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Not if you do the math. An application is an enormous target (hundreds of pixels). That means you've got two fast motions (big 'W's in the above equation), instead of one slow motion (small 'W' in the above equation).

Assuming of course that the application (or the application window) is visible at all on the screen. Then you are faced with a situation of getting the menu (a big W or a small W depending on the desktop design) then getting the menu item (small W).

My apologies for the mispelling of your name BTW. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think I agree with the author, mostly for the dual monitor dilemma. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Well, in my case it has to do with naughty habit of not accepting things on dogma.

In professional fields, existing research is generally accepted, unless there is evidence that it is invalid. If you're going to claim that Fitt's Law is invalid, the onus is on you to prove it's invalidity. As for the other research you'd like to see --- Fitt's Law is an equation, and has nothing to do with menubars per se. Global menubars is just an application of that equation. There is no reason you can't have global menubars and a global taskbar --- there are four edges on each screen.

I've run into cases where I've been honestly confused about what the foreground application happens to be. This occurs when there is a foreground application with focus that does not happen to have a foreground window.

Such an app is badly designed, for reasons that have nothing to do with menus. In such an app, where does keyboard input go? The thing is, as long as we have keyboards, we will require the concept of a foreground application. Once we have the idea of a foreground application, we need to build a system consistent with it. Global menubars just fall out of that requirement. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? wow.. you continue to sunrise me. very unexpected of you I must say.

be careful though, some of these newbies on here might think you are a mac fanboy for supporting even a portion of the Mac side of things. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? In professional fields, existing research is generally accepted, unless there is evidence that it is invalid. If you're going to claim that Fitt's Law is invalid, the onus is on you to prove it's invalidity. As for the other research you'd like to see --- Fitt's Law is an equation, and has nothing to do with menubars per se. Global menubars is just an application of that equation. There is no reason you can't have global menubars and a global taskbar --- there are four edges on each screen.

I'm not arguing that Fitt's law is invalid. What I'm arguing is that it is not obvious that an application-specific menu is the best thing to put at that particular edge, given the debate as to how frequently that menu is used compared to other functions. (And also that what works best for one domain and population may not work best in another domain.)

Such an app is badly designed, for reasons that have nothing to do with menus. In such an app, where does keyboard input go? The thing is, as long as we have keyboards, we will require the concept of a foreground application. Once we have the idea of a foreground application, we need to build a system consistent with it. Global menubars just fall out of that requirement.

(From memory) the app I'm talking about is the Mac OSX terminal program. Unfortunately, the household powerbook is in Atlanta, so I can't play around and provide a screenshot of this at work. The question is, are there cases where it is reasonable for an application to have focus with no open windows? Or should the application not be active in the absence of open windows, or show a dummy window? I don't know the answer to this question, I just wanted to highlight an example of a case where OSX is not always obvious about which application has focus. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? remove the wax from your ears and listen up.....

none of your argument is relevant to this article. the argument in the article was about why WINDOW BASED menus are better than GLOAL menus.

if you want to discuss the relevancy of putting a menu at the top of the screen rather than some other interface element, write an article about it.

BTW.. there is nothing keeping an application menu from being added to Apple's global menubar. right now on the right side I have volume control, date, time, virtue VD control icon, GMailStatus, display controls and iChat status . no one says you cannot write an applet that creates an icon control item that lists the applications or open tasks, etc. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Oh, as another example, finder used to be one of those applications that could have focus with no visible open windows.

I would also like to add that another point of confusion I have with the OSX global menu is that I have a hard time getting used to global functions mixed with local functions. Now perhaps that's not a bad thing overall, but it still is one of those things that bug me when I'm switching between paradigms. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 01:58:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree. My only problem is that I like the infinite on the CLOSE BUTTON rather than the menu, so I stick with Winodws and linux... Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If you use the top edge for something other than a pull-down menu, then you push the application menu to another location. The left and right edges are problematic because of tradeoffs with readability and screen real estate. This makes the top of the window the next best choice.

Deciding what interface elements go in the best location is the easiest part of design. It's what to do with the interface elements that are not quite important enough to go in the best location that's the challenge. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Which is why I personally have always had difficulty using Macs - I don't use them often enough to adjust to their many quirks, and those quirks coming from the PC side of things just annoy me to the point I end up wanting to throw the machine out the window. This is simply one (of the many) quirks.

For most people it's hard enough to learn to use a computer. For them, having to RELEARN by switching to a different way of doing things frustrates them worse than a nube sitting down for the first time... For longtime users who are profficient on one platform, this effect is magnified a thousand fold... especially if said person has a stack of work they need to do, in which case there's no time for yet another learning curve.

Thinking back though, coming from the DOS world pre-GUI I remember sitting down at a MAC for the first time and going "Wow, this sucks. Completely counter-intuitive... and this is supposed to be EASIER to use?"

Matter of perspective. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree, about the menu bar not being good. I now own a mac, and have adjusted to it, but it's by no means a great thing.

I think its find for core OS things, make it sorta like the windows start menu as an access point to OS things, and have finder route into it. But apps should have their own tool/menubar. Apple could easily make an add-on to the GUI that allows menubars to let users have such an option. And if it was collapsable into the apps window, like they do now with options on the windows (not sure what you call that when you click the oval). But still retain the current menu bar function.

The big problem is simple. Were are not in 1986 any more. Any usability study from then, is totaly worthless today. At that time, a menu bar would have been the way to go without a doubt. Since pretty much everyone used one app at a time, at full screen. It just made sense then. But now this is not the case. Next to no one runs apps at full screen now, unless you are using some major app doing a specific thing. A normal user now has a 17 inch or bigger monitor, and runs at a res over 1024xwhatever. People now have a Browser window or 2 open, AIM windows open, some music app going, and so forth, none of these are full screen, and people switch back and forth non stop. This is where the global menu bar fails. You have to keap going all over the place to get to the menu. They just don't work when people have windows all over the place. And people are just going to keap having smaller and smaller windows relative to screen size, and more and more windows open at one time.

I'm sure if people did a really good test today, the global menu bar would tank. After all, companies like Microsoft have probably spent way more money studying these things then Apple, and most other companies had the advantage of going about things after Apple, and far as I know, none have done it the apple way. I think the reason is simple, the apple way is not better. But clearly if Apple contracted a new study done today, and it came back saying the menu bar was bad, there is no way they would get rid of it. It's the Apple way, they have 20 years into it, they would never get rid of it plain and simple.

People need to stop using random studies, especially any that are very old. in the past 5 years computers have changed a lot, they are now everywhere and nearly everyone uses them. It's a whole different world now and no study from the 80s could ever fit in today, computers are different, people are different, peoples experience around computers are different and people use computers for different things. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As the title says, I find the most awkward situation with the global menu bar is when you've closed every application. What do you do with it then?
The mac route is to turn it into a "Finder" menu IIRC, which is completely inexplicable - there isn't a Finder window in focus, yet the menu bars are acting like there is.
I know there's meant to be a "Finder" in the background that you've selected, but it's not obvious at all. If I close down all my apps on here, I don't suddenly find I've managed to activate a MySQL or DBUS background process.

It's all very well putting the menus at the top, but it does prevent you having the minimise, maximise and close buttons in the top corner which I don't think is a good thing. Of course in OSX the red X is nigh useless anyway so I guess that's not such a problem :-) Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? how can you access the menu bar using a keyboard shortcut in OSX ?

I know copy to clipboard is apple+c
I am not talkin abou that.

say I want to open the _Edit_ menu and view whats under it is that possible? Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Fitt's Law describes untrained movements, not movements that are executed after practice.

In other words it is irrelevant in quite short time. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Breaking down all of the arguments:

1. How is having 1 menu bar for everything placing unwarranted emphasis? I would think a menu bar in every window would place more emphasis on menu bars.

2. In OS X atleast, the menu bar tells you the name of the app you are working with.

3. Valid argument. (But not everyone likes focus follows mouse ;-)).

4. Valid argument and I cant really comment because Ive never tried using Dual Monitors on anything but a PC with Windows.

5. This is a problem with GNU/Linux and Unix not with global menu bars.

6. How is a menu in a moveable window a fixed target? Atleast you have some idea where the menu bar is and after some use you would probably remember where the widgets are anyways. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1. How is having 1 menu bar for everything placing unwarranted emphasis? I would think a menu bar in every window would place more emphasis on menu bars.
The menu is an infrequently used UI element (UI studies show this), yet the top of the screen is the most important part of the screen (Fitts law + ergonomics).

2. In OS X atleast, the menu bar tells you the name of the app you are working with.
Don't make me think.

6. How is a menu in a moveable window a fixed target? Atleast you have some idea where the menu bar is and after some use you would probably remember where the widgets are anyways.
This really is a minor issue, but with each window the menu bar resizes. Because this is in global space, not space local to the application it is confusing. It makes it hard to be able to quickly get to a certain window of an unfocused window. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? While I can see the appeal of a global menu bar on a single display system - it's out of the way, and realisticly not far from the application., I have to agree with the multi head complaints.

I use a triple headed system, and having to drag my mouse from the far right monitor, to the far left, where I keep my panels to leave the centre clear for whatever I'm focused on.

Although admitadly I tend to be using two full screened vim instances, and an IRC client most of the time, so it's not like I spend much time in menus anyway Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree, the single menu bar is not the way to go, its clumsy.
but i also agree we are using too much screen real estate.
windows should be done something like this

|Application Name |Menu Bar |Min,Max,Close|
The application name bar, is a waste as it is. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Fitt's Law has nothing to do with untrained movements. It describes movements in general. It's really annoying having a discussion when people refuse to spend 5 minutes looking up basic theory in Wikipedia. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 03:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? So after seeing Fitts law....it seems stupid as hell.

T = a + b log_2(D/W + 1)

so to figure out who is faster all you really need to do is fill in the value for D and W in X=D/W. Whatever has the lower value of x will be faster.

Now here is where this all starts to become ridiculous. If your distance is let's say a pixel and your target area with along the axis of motion is say 100 px or 10x that in reality it will take you the same amount of time to perform that action, but according to fits law that's not true. Having a 1000 px area to land in when moving one pixel is going to end up being 10x faster than moving into a 100 px area according to Fitt's law. Obviously this is incorrect. The same mistake happens when the target area becomes very small, hitting a 1 px area is going to take a hell of a lot longer to hit than a 10 px area, not depending that greatly on the distance. Moving the initial distance will be much faster than locating the one pixel.

So if we begin to get a little smart about this we will realise that when dealing with most desktops, 100px is going to be just about as easy to hit as anything over 100px, so sticking to the law (even knowing that it's dead wrong), and trying to make it work in the real world....Let us say that a global area has a hit box of 100 EFFECTIVE px.

Now for the setup of my enviroment, I have a gaim window open on a 1600x1200 desktop in the far right, the global menu has the button i'm seeking somewhere within the top 20 pixels of the screen, about 300 pixels off the left side. Now let's say my mouse is in the dead center of the gaim window, so about 1450 pixels in from the left and 300 pixels from the top. It's going to take somewhere around a distance of 1200 pixels to go from the center of the gaim window to the button on the global menu I want. And we are going to count the hit box as 100 pixels(this is probably bigger than will make a difference, and truely I'm not moving nearly as much vertically as I am horizontally which makes the hit box even smaller, but we are giving the global menu the benifit of the doubt here). Now to get back to the gaim window from the global menu it will take us again 1200 px distance to hit an effictive 100px hit box. That gives us: X=2400(trip both ways)/200(both hit boxes) or X=11 for the global menu bar.

Now let us do the exact same thing with a local gaim menu. I'm trying to reach less than 300 px up(but we will count it as 300 px to give the global menu the benifit of the doubt) and less than 150 left(we're doing the benifit of the doubt again), so this gives us about 335 px as the distance to the local menu. Now to get back we are going another 335 px to an effictive 100 px hitbox. That gives us x=670(trip both ways)/120(size of the two hitboxes) or a X Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? simply read original two papers instead of wikipedia.
It is annoying if someone something somewhere heard, but not quite. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The thing I really like about global menu bars - when used properly - is that they provide some decoupling between the concept of "application" and "current task". Ideally, in an OS X app, the menu bar is where you put all the stuff that either pertains to the application itself (save, help, etc.) or that could be used for every task/document/window in the application (edit, save, etc.). Anything that might apply to only a subset of the windows in an application or that is used often is then offloaded to that application's toolbars.

I've noticed that this conceptual separation of an application from tasks of that application is both the most fundamental difference between the Mac user interface and those of most other windowing systems. It's also sitting at the center of a whole mess of "Mac vs. XXX" debates - the way you can close all the windows in an app while still leaving that app open in Mac OS is another great example.

Methinks it lies at the heart of a lot of the issues raised in the article, too. For one, I think that global menu bars is only confusing if you are really used to a window-centric GUI - I had the same problem when I first switched to Macs about two years ago, and now I experience the same vertigo when I sit down at a Windows or Linux box after a long time without using either.
The same thing with the "disconnected from the task at hand" argument - now that I'm used to it, I don't feel that way because "the task at hand" often involves several windows from the same app (especially when I'm programming in XCode), so the task at hand isn't really tied to any one rectangle on the screen, anyway.

Focus follows mouse is largely a religious issue, and quite honestly , I don't think it's as sensible on OS X as it is in Windows or most X desktops for reasons that I won't go into here because this post is already running too long.

The multiple monitors is the one I'll really have to agree with wholeheartedly, and I'll even extend it to include large monitors. We have one of those newfangled Apple flat panels that's bigger than my TV at the office, and I gotta say, it's pretty annoying to have to move the mouse across what feels like four feet of screen space in order to get to the File menu. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The mac route is to turn it into a "Finder" menu IIRC, which is completely inexplicable - there isn't a Finder window in focus, yet the menu bars are acting like there is.

The whole desktop is a part of finder. It's just like a window except you can't change the size or move it around. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? There seems to be an assumption in this discussion that a dual monitor setup only means side-by-side. Another way to use a laptop with a desktop monitor is with the laptop on the desk and the second monitor on a stand above, giving you a "deeper" rather than "wider" screen. In this case, the global menu is still in an easy and consistent place to reach.

At the top. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:23:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Global menubars exist because back in the old days (you know, before Windows and windows) there were full-screen applications. The problem people had with full-screen apps is that it was totally unclear what the possible commands were. You needed a lot of training to use the program, which was a ridiculously high added expense.

Plus, that was in the VAR days of computers. Nobody wants to support that sort of infrastructure now.

Menubars came about in an attempt to make the scope of possible commands more apparent to an unskilled user. Skilled users could eventually use command keys, but most people started out using menus.

Fast-forward a few years, and well, that unskilled user doesn't really exist anymore in any meaningful way. In a generation, there won't be any more unskilled users, period. Dealing with those users has really prevented UI designers from making a richer UI - you always have to worry about Grandma. For users that have been computer-literate since they've been 5, maybe menubars are on the way out. Why not have the menu pop up when you right-click (like the Kensington mice do)?

The only real downside to menus-in-windows is it takes up real estate. But realistically, people have real estate to spare these days. Toolbars work better (or word buttons), but toolbars have a problem where if you don't know what the icon means, you're hosed (see Word 6).

The reason for the global menubar in the MacOS is that the application can be open without documents. It's always been unclear why that is, and it may be a remnant of the switcher days. It also provides a handy place to stash little things, like MenuMeters, airport status, battery state, etc. Windows uses the taskbar for the same thing, but that's just a reverse global menubar.

Maybe dashboard will let people come up with some creative off-menu ideas? Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I agree with everything said here. I never understood why some people (usually mac fanatics who blindly think EVERYTHING macs do is the best way to do it) find it so much easier. I've used macs a little bit and this has always been one of the more irritating features to me. It seems like I have to move my mouse a dispopotionate amount away from the app I'm using to get the menu bar when I need it.

One counter point though: Since menus are ment to hold the many not so common features, Having the menubar global means less screen space is dedicated to ALL menubars when more than one or two apps are open.

Also, I see no problem having this setup as an option in gnome or KDE for people who prefer it, or who are switching from a mac and find it more familiar. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Wow, the guy who write this article is an idiot. I love these newbies to Macs who are so used to the awful Windows "floating menubar" paradigm and think everything should be like that.

Usability studies have shown global menu bars to be faster for users. This is because you can just jam the mouse up to the top of the screen and access your menu. Windows users were found to be slower because they slow down their mouse cursor to pinpoint the floating menubar.

As for your comment that menus are given too much prominence, I don't know how else to say it, but what an idiotic comment. Of course your commands should be in menus. Otherwise, they'd be hidden away in right-click functionality or buried in a 20-button toolbar.

Sigh. The stuff about "changing widgets" didn't even make sense and wasn't applicable to Macs anyway.

Idiot! Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Amigas and other systems had global bars too and weren't single-process.

Has ANYONE here heard of Fitt's Law? It states that the edges of the screen are the fastest-accessed points with a mouse cursor, particularly the corners, because you can jam the cursor up to them without having to slow down.

Guess where the global menu bar is sitting?

This isn't just a Mac thing (never was exclusive to Macs), and there's a reason for having it.

Jeesh. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 05:51:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The author agrees that the top is the most important part of the screen. Hence the advocation to put something that is used more commonly there. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Wow, the guy who write this article is an idiot.

Do you have to insult someone for having an opinion?

Unfortunately many Mac fanatics (such as the guy above, though not all) take ANY criticism of the Mac as a personal offense and throw tantrums like this. It is nearly impossible to have a reasonable discussion with them. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:21:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I've never liked the global menu bars. I like how Windows and KDE does it by having everything in its own little window with no sharing going on of menus. The other thing that really bugs me about the Mac interface is how a program doesnt really take up the whole screen. With Photoshop, for example, on a Windows machine when you go full screen you have a grey background hiding anything thats open undernieth. On the Mac you see everything underneith and to me it just gets in the way. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? If I hear someone once again quoting Fitt's law I will go postal.
We mostly know about it. Some of us even read the papers, not just the fluff.

It's a law as in "a formula that fits quite well the empirical data of a phenomenon _in given conditions_". It's not about menu bars nor about usability of computers gui.
Those who like global menu bars have it as a pro argument, as in "it's faster to slam the mouse there".
Ok. So a global menu bar is usually faster to aquire. That's all Fitt's law tells you. Is faster to aquire==better? I don't think so, I think lots of other things come in play. Things like distracting the users, or giving good metaphores of the tasks at hand etc.

When I'm on my car I can speed much more than on bike, but it takes less time and effort to reach my working place at Uni by bike because there's no parking lot for researchers. Thus, time for the task is a function of many other (complicated) paramters and external conditions, though time=space/speed is a "law" and it's even more general than Fitt's law.

So please debate all you want about why you think global/local bar is the bee's knees, but stop with the silly idea that usability is a one-parameter formula. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Global menus are perfectly fit for some applications like photoshop or gimp, which have a lot of narrow windows and many first level menu items. As You can see in the gimp for windows, there is no good window to put a menu in.
Of course these are mostly advanced applications and the best place to put menu would be context menu - but it is imposible for mac apps, which are designed for 1-button mice.
So, for mac it may be the best solution, but only for mac.

For all those talking about Fitt's law - if You would be serious about it You would want to put up there something frequently used, like "global toolbar".

And some thoughts about newbie agument - it is true, that newbies mostly work with one app at a time, maximized. But they never "throw a mouse to the top" - they slowly and carefully place mouse cursor _in_the_middle_ of the menu item and then click. So the whole point of Fitt's law doesn't in fact apply. So for them difference between global menu and app's menu is none.

For gimp and the like best solutions for non-global-menu-desktops are in my opinion context menu and photoshop for windows style mdi. Mdi is also nice for separating its windows from the desktop and organizing them depending on semantics of the application and current job. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 06:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? As someone already mentioned, all these Fitt's law citers only take into account the time to acquire the target, not the total time to perform their action. Say I have a couple of small app windows near the bottom of the screen. If I need to select a menu option, do something in the window, select a menu option again, etc, I have to travel a lot more up and down with the mouse pointer than with a local menu bar. People who cite Fitt's law ignore that most of the time I want the pointer back near the active window after selecting the menu item, which usually takes longer with a global menu bar, especially on larger screens. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? At work, I currently work on a 2 screen Windows XP PC. To reduce the number of menubar, Windows uses the MDI windows system (application centric) : one app with multiple documents "inside". This is hell for me. Firstly, I hate this gray background you can't get rid off. Secondly, when you want to use this app on the two screens (or more), you have to extend it manually. The MDI system prevents you to have any document out of the mother window. If you want to see two documents simultaneously, your mother window must have enough surface to do this !!!! This case is not so uncommon, I often need to work on multiple images in Photoshop.
On mac this is different, MacOS is document centric. It means one document, one window. Very simple. Then I don't need anything special to work on multiple documents when I have multiple screens. I just drag and drop the right document in its right place. Much better, I can see document from other apps. Because under Windows, you fill desease when your app is not fullscreen (most of the time because it prevents you from accessing the whole menu bar).
Under MacOS the menu bar will EVER be fully accessible. That is very important, and it's always on the same place. You can drive your mouse there blindly, instead of spending your time to find where is the window you need.
Definitively, I do prefer the MacOS Menubar system. (I work everyday on both systems). Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? i switched recently to the mac, and in my opinion i disagree with most of what the author says. its SOOO much easier to have a global menu bar, than an individual one for each app. I wonder how many of these people who think otherwise, have really used a mac for more than a couple of hours.

and about the fitt law comments, i dont think its just for newbiews. So for me, yes, its really pratical being able to just slam the mouse to the top of the screen and be able to click and ...voilá, menu appears.

and i do use apps with lots of windows(photoshop). the global menu has proved itself one of the best things i get from the mac. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The whole desktop is a part of finder. It's just like a window except you can't change the size or move it around.
Yes, I know. My point was that that is not obvious - it's the freaking desktop! The menu bar at the top of the screen applies to the application in focus, *except* when there isn't one, then it picks on some seemingly random task to get some menus for.
It seems like a nasty hacky solution to that situation where you don't have anything to put into the menubar, rather than something put in by choice. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? A few points: my 'workstation' setup is an nvidia-twinview created 3200x1200 space; I use 4 virtual desktops and I hardly ever keep anything maximized. I find systems that involve a "start" like menu compltetely inoperable; and for similar reasons I dislike global menu bars. Here's why:

I shift between 3 different operating systems regularly and do not wish to internalize keyboard-shortcuts for any of them; any normal to power user would probably have a similar repitoir of keyboard shortcuts that I ever use (ctrl-c/x/z, alt-f4/f2), and I think the argument of "keyboard shortcuts!" is a poor one to make regarding the placement of menus.

Global menubar's might be "infinite height" as opposed to my normal windows, but I do not spend my time throwing my mouse around the room to get to menus. If I am at the bottom right and the menu is in the top left, I have to traverse 3200 pixels across and 1200 high; its a special case, but your global menu "usability" issue really becomes moot when you put the menu miles away from my pointer.

Secondly, global menus take your (the users) focus away from the application window where it *usually* is.

Another bad thing is that if I want to access another programs application menu, I have to focus it (which means clicking on it usually, unless I want to alt-tab cycle through ~10 application windows); if my mouse is headed there, why not show the menu bar there?

On top of this, the menu gets drawn and then I have to shift eye focus to the top, re-read all of the options, and pick out which one I want. If the menu was on the window I am clicking on in the first place and happens to be visible (which it very often is), I'd already have had time to look at all of the 1st level menu options and even have started moving my mouse towards the desired one.

Finally, I like having my mouse where my program is so i can manipulate content within it; If this happens to be far away from the top of the screen (or worse, far away to the side of where the menu will be), this makes it a large distance away.

There are some practical reasons for these types of menus, and it seems to fit some peoples way of working, but my way of working is totally different. I keep many small windows around the desktop, most in plain view (not obscuring eachother) as I find its much faster for me to move my eyes than it is to move my mouse or move focus.

Still; people uphold the apple way as a sort of knee jerk reaction recently, especially with regards to usability. I've seen a lot of cool ideas come out of the usability camp, but I'm not yet convinced its an exact science; or that what is done with the usability principles ends up benefiting it.

A classic example is the usability crowd's hatred of right click context menus. People are quick to bring up the corners of the screen as infinite spaces, but are always quick to forget about the fifth infinite space; the current position of the mouse.

Context-menu driven application menus, like XFCE/BlackBox/many *nix WM's work quite well regardless of resolution as long as you can find some desktop space lying around. A thing that I've found working at 3200x1200 is that MANY things in the usability bible from apple simply fall apart at high resolution; assumptions about spatial locality start to fail or become gray, and as we go on and get bigger and badder monitors with better resolutions, I think it'd be smart to re-examine some of these usability decisions from 1984 rather than just hold up apple's decisions as gospel. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Thank you! Someone who gets it!

All you Fitt's law fanatics, yes we know about Fitt's law too, yes it is faster to get at screen edges, no one is even arguing that. How about replying to some of the other points instead of harping on that?

Doesn't work for FFM, slow for multiple monitors, slow for accessing menu bars of inactive apps, wastes space for "small" apps with only one or two menus, uncommonly used function in easy to access area.

Right now I have my desktop (KDE) set up to have the close button for the maximized window in the top left corner, minimize in the top right, and workspace switcher in the bottom right (mousewheel over it to switch desktops. All the most common things I do with windows are immediately accessible.

What really gets my goat is people claiming users can't judge usability for themselves. I can and I do. I figure out what tasks I do the most, and I optimize my environment for them.

Look here for a labeled screenshot: http://www.ece.uvic.ca/~lspalteh/usability.png Mon, 18 Apr 2005 07:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I use a windows PC all day at work (.net dev) and a mac 80% the time at home with the other 20% being my xp pc so I think im pretty unbiased, and frankly I don't care either way about the stupid menus. They both have advantages and disadvantages.

The only valid whinges about the global menu IMO are the *current* multi monitor situation.. yeah it sucks, tell apple who knows what they'll come up with.

And people who cant live without focus follows mouse (freaks!) Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? and accessibility is what we are talking about here, isn't it? Of course,w e are talking 'bout usability too, but that's not the concern here.

I have my grunts with MacOS global menu bar, and I have my grunts with the per window menubar. (admittedly, I as an OS-Developer have already implemented per-windwo-menubars - simply imitating the best-known-behavior-for-me).

The former one is, in my opinion, a bit disturbing, as (for macOS, there is always the Apple-Menue, holding all the system wide settings - and there are all the application specific menues - which switch by changing the focus from one application to the other one. This can confuse the hell out of the average newbie - especially the ones coming from windows.

The per window-menues on the other hand bear the problem with them: there is less space to put stuff into the window canvas. You have to move your mouse around more carefully. They can equally confuse hell outta you - especially if the application programmer has not considered to include keyboard shortcuts (if you work with MAYA 3D, you will love them shortcuts - there are so many and they sometimes switch their contextual meaning).

I've found it troublesome for the first time, that - in MacOS, you don't dispose an application by merely closing the window - to grasp that it is still in memory, waiting for what to do - open a window, loading data etc. But ...

YOU GET USED TO IT.

(sorry for the shouting)

anyway: each one is entitled to his opinion and each one is entitled to publish this opinion. We are living in Democracy, and we are all grown ups who know how to talk together without humiliating each other.

Stay safe

PS: Still I like MacOS - the keeping the application loaded bears quite some speed up: you (from the os point of view) don't need to create process & thread management for that app, don't need to allocate memory from new on, and you don't need to murder the entire process structure upon exit - unless the user tells explicitly to "EXIT" the application. Honestly, what's quicker? allocating space for a window and a few controls or allocating Process structure, virtual memory, paging in memory, acquiring a few files (fd's) opening a few threads, initialisation etc ... (os developers know what I talk about) Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just to comment to a recent post, I bash the menu bar a good bit, and I have been using my mac for a good time, as i expect many others who criticize it. Not everyone caves to all things mac just because they own a mac.

Anyways, like others, people need to get off the Fitts law thing, it's dated and has little basis in a modern system. But the biggy that drives me nuts when people try to point to it as the best reason for menu bars is when people talk about throwing their mouse to the top of the screen and so forth. Few people do this. I've seen some people claim they whip the mouse to the top and even let go of it. Now come on, how many actual humans do you really think do this?

The simple matter is people today keep a hand on their mouse at all times except when entering text where both hands are needed. Just go to any computer lab full of people and you will see this. People use their mice very well, and don't go slamming them around all over the place. They have very good control, and move at a good clip, but nothing where over shooting something is a problem. Though targeting a corner becomes harder as people get bigger screens which move their focus to the center of the screen and corners/edges of the screen more out of their main field of view. Furthermore do you really think that people think about the top of the screen as something they can over shoot without worry? No they don't people still try to stop on the mark just the same. So again Fitts law becomes less important since they would have got the mouse there just the same as if the menu bar cut through the center of the screen.

People who Praise Fitts Law are the same who defend 1 button mice to no end. They are the ones who don't think people learn things over time, even if they aren't good with it at first. If your trying to get a 5 year old on a computer, sure they might have issue with it, but in time they will be fine, and of course the first question is why are you trying to get a 5 year old to use a computer. Then on the other hand you have older people, well, believe it or not, but they will catch on without much issue to. But at the same time, their will only be first time computer using old people for so long. We are running out of such people. Today its pretty hard to find a person under 50 who hasn't been using a computer for a long time, and all no new humans are going to grow up in a world without computers (this is not the place for a debate about 3rd world countries and so forth, not relevant to the point in the big picture) .

Any Usability study from pre very late 90s is invalid today. And Studies should be continually done to follow the evolution of people and computers. What is usable to people today will not be the same 5 years from now. This will be from peoples ways changing, and just things dating. Look at OS9, its a confusing land even to people who use OSX (if they only have used OS X). I can't stand Windows Classic, not that Luna changed windows much, but it changes things enough that going back to it drives me nuts to no end, plus it's ugly which is another huge aspect to usability. No interface will ever be found usable to the masses if they find it ugly to look at. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Firstly I'm a die hard Mac fan but this doesn't not mean I think that apple are always correct. For example the single mouse button is just ridicules, particularly now as there is so much more need for a right click. I'm terrible at spelling as you my notice in this post and so I'm using the right mouse button to correct my spelling all the time.

Anyway back to the subject at hand. I do believe that a global menu bar is a good idea on Mac OS X. I cannot see it working with any window manager which has follow mouse focus and and windows for the multiple instance reason.

It does greatly depend on the application. Document based applications such as any Office application work well with a global menu bar which I imagine is exactly the reason that MS have one menu bar for this application. But there are also applications which I use that really do need non-global menus, Matlab for example. When using matlab I don't want the menu bar of a graph to be in the global menu bar as it would make it even more cluttered. Now before you all say that it wasn't necessarily designed specifically to be this, way I know but it still happens to be useful.

The argument saying that using a global menu for a small application like a media player or IM app is wasteful is ridicules. These applications spend most of there time, not in focus and so not displaying there menu bar anyway.

Well I hope that makes sense. The bottom line is that it works well in my opinion with OS X but couldn't work with other OS's. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 09:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I use Ion3 WM and most frequently all my apps in fullscreen mode. So to me, it is like I have a global menubar, no window title bar and no frame around window: it save a lot of screen space! Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I have used both a Mac and a windows machine and can say that I prefer the whole GUI implementation on a Mac and in general Macs themselves.

The look and feel is far better and this also applies to the global menu bar.

the Mac implementation tends to focus people on making software that is functional and works as opposed to a snazzy skinned interface as is the thing with most window apps, especially those trying to hide the fact that they do not actually provide any benefit.

I also think you argued the 'for' point in your first statement when you stated that you rarely use menu bars, surely not havving them attached to every single window is a benefit to you! Mon, 18 Apr 2005 11:57:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Reading the above, it seems that preference of menu type is linked to the type of work done by the user.

If you rarely have more than a couple of windows open at a time, I think the Global Menu is generally considered to be the right way to go.

OTOH, if you have lots of windows open, the Application menu can be better. In this case, users don't seem to have a problem with the Global Menu itself, but with the relative difficulty of (a) shifting the focus to a different application before using the menu, and then (b) moving the pointer back to the focused application having used the menu.

I see two possible solutions:

1) Allow the user to select whether or not menus are global or application-specific. I guess the default would be global, as (I suppose) multiple-windows users are more likely to be "power-users", so are more likely to figure out how to change the setting.

2) Find a better way of achieving (a) and (b), above Ideas anyone?

Also, multi-monitor support is a must.

All in all, I think that there is still a long way to go when it comes to designing GUIs. Apart from the much-talked-about 3D initiatives, I think it would be great to see (optional) system wide support for a number of features that can only be found in individual applications. Here are some suggestions - most of which have implications for menu management. BTW - appologies to users of OSs that already support some of these:

1) Windows that can stick to each other and the screen edges.

2) Document windows that can be made to "stack", with tabs for moving through the stack.

3) MDI windows where the children can be dragged out of the parent container, so making them SDI windows.

4) Tear-off menus and tool-bars that can also be made to "stick" to other windows and screen edges.

5) In-built tools for switching between sets of preferences. These should include some useful pre-defined sets, designed for working with (a) one big document, (b) Side-by-side comparison, (c) complex tasks than needs lots of open apps. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? That's the windows way. Have one window with the toolbar on top and all open documents open inside that window. Ugh!

Maybe to you

Some of us prefer that way of doing things-- No-one can be truly right on this subject. Certain people will always prefer a certain.

I drive 23 miles to work down a load of manky A roads and through rough areas. Sometimes I like to take the 30 mile route down country roads and through nice areas

Efficiency isn't always best. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:27:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? A logical extension of this article is to check out the "Anti-Mac" article from the ACM site:
http://www.acm.org/cacm/AUG96/antimac.htm

The Mac interface, prior to OSX, was locked in a time warp from 15 years earlier. Personally, I have never used a worse interface -- but heh I've only got 22 years experience in computing.

Ok, Mac bigots, your turn to respond. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I did not even consider MacOS before OS X.

it just burns me when people use old Mac arguments against OS X (the global menu and single mouse button arguments are personal preferences and really there is no inherent problem with them unless you are bound to the other methods via a skin graft or something.) Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The thing about the single menubar on the mac that is SO fantastic is that there is NEVER any doubt about what application is in focus. You just look at the upper left hand corner of the screen and you'll know. You NEVER have to evaluate the contents of the application windows to determine what application is on top.

It also allows you to be incredibly, wonderfully sloppy about mouse placement. You can just slam your mouse to the top of the screen without even looking.

And having the finder come into focus when there are no applications open makes total sense. It's the most commonly used application.

I use Windows XP 5 days a week, 8 hours a day at work. I use my Mac at home for about an hour a day, perhaps more on weekends. I learned the Mac many years AFTER learning Windows, and I just find the Mac way to flow more naturally. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The new computing is mobile: laptops are quickly becoming desktop-replacements.
And on laptops, with only a trackpad or an IBM clit-mouse around, Fitt's law is still applicable.
I agree that no one "throws" a desktop mouse, people have just become too used to clicking where they mean to.
But on a laptop? Trackpads and IBM's nub-mice are just too imprecise for that, notice how no one can play an FPS with a trackpad?
On a laptop, I still "throw" the trackpad, and when I use "thinkpads", I just can't get used to the nub-mouse enough to be accurate, so I throw that too.
It still applies, just not everywhere. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Please stop the name calling! Its not needed.

I had so many great thoughts while i was reading through these posts, but there are so many(and im really tired) that i forgot most of it.

With that said, i think Fitts law is right for some instances, but not as much as some people claim. Its extremely true for screen corners. Thats why i have expose mapped to them, and will have spotlight on the 4th when Tiger comes.

Concerning the menu argument: maybe global menus is bad, but maybe this bad thing led to a good thing-pushing people towards keyboard shortcuts. I look at my windows xp machine at work, and none of the shortcuts are labeled(except for copy/paste/save/print) On the mac, almost everything in the menus has a labeled shortcut (at least for most of the apps). And.... I DONT USE the menubar! Honestly i haven't touched the menubar in forever, except for in photoshop. And the MDI in photoshop for windows is horrible, so i won't even talk about that. USING THE COMMAND KEY RATHER THAN CNRL/ALT (depending on some unknown rule that i can't figure out) IS FAR SUPERIOR. sorry for caps.

Oh, the comment about switching to apps that don't have a window open: If you switch to them in the dock, then it automagically does a command-n for you, so you don't even have to go to the menubar.

Why is everyone acting like there is no contextual menu on the mac? There is, period.

I agree about multiple monitor problem, only if you don't use keyboard shortcuts.

In what instance would you want to go to a different app to go immediately to the menu bar? I have never had to do that. Its always either dragging something into an app, or interacting with the main window. I don't see why people harp on this advantage when there doesn't seem like a reason to do what you all are describing.

What i find funny is that when i use my mac, i never NEVER have a window maximized all the way (which is where main-menu's supposedly have the advantage, according to posters). On the other hand, I and all my office pogues, work with windows maximized while at work on the PCs. And i constantly close my stuff on the PC to keep it stable and fast. Weird, huh?

goodnight from korea! Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I think that the suggestion that global menu bars derive from mac's days as a single-process machine is ill-founded because on the Amiga, they too had a global menu bar at the top of the screen and started out as a pre-emptively multitasking operating system with multiple processes and tasks, so the theory doesn't follow. I always found the global bar to be more useful than contextual menus that you have to hunt around on the screen to activate. The only problem with the Mac menu bar is that the menus handle pretty slowly. They are better with more responsiveness.

On the whole though, I think menu's of any kind are hard to navigate - you have to develop a skill for keeping your mouse pointer within a thin rectangular area so that you can get to a sub-menu and it often doesn't work out. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:50:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1) They place unwarranted emphasis on menu bars. Menu bars are a UI element that should not be used frequently. In dealing with basically any application, most of my time is spent manipulating the content, followed by using the tool bars, then lastly menubars. In my word processor most of my time is spent typing, followed by quick formating and saving from the toolbar. In my web browser I frequently interact with the webpage, use forward and back buttons, but how often do I need to use stuff from the menu bars? Its only on the odd occasion that I need to open a website from my harddrive or get help.

A menu item takes up no space when not activated, (on a mac anyways) is a quasi-mode which allows for gestures to be developed, and is the perfect place to stick 90% of the features of an app (the stuff that isnt used enough to justify the screen real-estate of a toolbar item.)

Toolbars should hold the most common tasks for quick access, while menus are good because they can hold a lot of commands to all the less used operations. Menus are slow and error prone. It usually takes quite a while to find what you are looking for, and, as with any nested structure, slight movements can put you in the wrong place especially with things as narrow as menus. Menus are an important part of UIs because they allow you to do uncommon tasks, but why make uncommon tasks available at the easiest to reach spot on the screen?

Toolbars are fantastic for quick access, but the more buttons on the bar, the less effective it is (both fittes and hicks laws apply to this). Menus should never be nested more then one level. The algorithm defining the buffer for a nested element is a straight line on every os other then the mac (where it is v shaped), so while a nested element is more error prone on other operating systems, it doesnt have to be. Since menus take up no space, menu entries should be more verbose then they are on non-mac systems, which increases discoverability (it is easy to tell what infrequently used features do simply from the title.)

2) A global menu bar is disconnected from the task at hand. It appears to be global, but functions local to what you are working on. If the focus is on the wrong window, for various reasons, it can lead to very confusing and potentially destructive behavior. This is just confusing, toolbars are attached to the application, isn't it inconsistent to not do the same with menu bars? There is no quick way to tell without thinking which application the menu is functioning for. If menus were connected directly to the task, this problem would not exist. Global menu bars were fine when most people were running one application, but in todays multitasking world it is a poor choice. Global menu bars appear to be a part of the OS by appearing globally, but confusingly function local to the application.

Actually, in todays multitasking world it makes alot more sense. Each and every problem you mention applies to contextual menus as well (i.e. right click). the only difference is that calling up a contextual menu is explicit, the menubar is implicit (kinda like the dashboard app that nat is working on.). The entire mac environment is built around application transparancy, you work with documents and the "application" environment is built into the os. I agree that without that, a global menu bar is a dumb idea, but i also think that having the os as a bucket for different application environments is a dumb idea, as it highlights the inhearent modality of applications rather then hide it.

3) Global menu bars don't work with focus follows mouse.

why not?

4) Global menus don't work well with multiple monitors. For a given application, you have two choices. First of all, you could put the menu always on the first monitor (like OSX). This means if you are using an application on the second monitor, you have to move your mouse to the first screen to use the menu. Confusing and inefficient. The second choice is to put a separate menu on each screen. This ends up being more efficient but just as confusing.

I dont know about you, but my second monitor alwas holds things that I just glance at now and then (such as bug reports, or specs). I know for artists (the main users of a dual head setup), the second monitor will hold the palletes, the main monitor holds the canvas. I am unaware of anyone who actually uses apps on both monitors simultaniously, but that may just be my own ignorance. as far as i know though, this is a non issue for real-world use.

5) This really only applies to GNU/Linux and Unix desktops, but having a global menu bar would be inconsistent. With Macs, Apple has control over the GUI. On GNU/Linux, there are dozens of toolkits floating around, and if one desktop environment switched to having menus at the top of the screen, there is no way that every toolkit would do the same. You would end up with a desktop with some applications having menus at the top of the screen, and others with them on the application.

Agreed 110%. A great example would be spatial nautilus. Fantastic if you have control over the directory structure (like in home), kinda falls apart when you start from /, and want to end in something 8 directories deep. Then there are things like maximize, which is totally and completely useless in a spatial environment. Its far more important to be consistant, and providing two different paradigms for two different sets of tasks is far worse then using the same one, even if it is less efficient. A global menubar in gnome would be disasterous as soon as you use a non-gnome app.

6) Widgets must be dynamically changed. You essentially have a moving target.

Again, a non-issue for the apple world, as developers follow the HIG like scripture. Menus will be similar, and the differences that do appear are the ones you would expect by shifting context. The big problem is that first application menu shifting sizes, but that can be fixed with fruitmenu.

------------------------------------------------

There are a great many reasons that the apple menu bar is a good idea. The reason it isnt used in unix is that microsoft didnt copy it when they did win95. the reason microsoft didnt copy it had nothing to do with if it was a good idea or not, and alot to do with the fact that apple has it patented. Testing has shown that apple users will be 1.5-2x faster with menus then windows users, as fittes law helps ALOT with gesture chunking. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? This article and its comments are nothing more than a bunch of "GNU/Linux" users who actually think a floating menubar, despite its slowdown of user speed, is a good idea.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a global menu bar other than you're not used to it after years of using Windows and the Linux desktops that have cloned it.

Get over it. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? My favorite part of all this, of course, is that if ANYONE defends the global menu bar, you guys say "Well, Mac fanatics always attack me when I give my opinion..."

Please. You offered criticism. People are pointing out what's wrong with that criticism. Nobody's a fanatic and nobody's attacking you.

FACTS:

1.) Usability tests showed users to be faster with a global menu bar.
2.) Fitt's Law
3.) Floating menu bars are confusing and space-wasting

Deal with it! Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Global menubar's might be "infinite height" as opposed to my normal windows, but I do not spend my time throwing my mouse around the room to get to menus. If I am at the bottom right and the menu is in the top left, I have to traverse 3200 pixels across and 1200 high; its a special case, but your global menu "usability" issue really becomes moot when you put the menu miles away from my pointer.

size is totally irrelivent because of fittes law. heres something i use alot to explain it. stick a launcher on any of the corners of gnome (i generally have a gnome-terminal launcher in the upper right hand corner). now, every time you want to open a terminal, dont take your eyes off what you are doing, and launch it. you will find you can hit it every time. by the end of the week, you wont even think about it anymore. that is because something that is infinate in size in two dimensions is virtually impossible to miss.

Secondly, global menus take your (the users) focus away from the application window where it *usually* is.


if the user shifts his attention to the menubar, or toolbar, or taskbar, or scrollbar, or anything other then the content, then his attention is off the task. it doesnt matter if it is in an application window or not, at least on a mac where the line between os and app is quite blurry.

Another bad thing is that if I want to access another programs application menu, I have to focus it (which means clicking on it usually, unless I want to alt-tab cycle through ~10 application windows); if my mouse is headed there, why not show the menu bar there?

unless you focus by clicking on the actual menubar, then the distance to the target is completely irrelivent, if your mouse is 20 pixels from the menubar, and 100 pixels from the top of the screen, the top of the screen will still be easier to hit. remember, this stuff isnt just people talking out of their ass, there has been a ton of studies on this.

On top of this, the menu gets drawn and then I have to shift eye focus to the top, re-read all of the options, and pick out which one I want. If the menu was on the window I am clicking on in the first place and happens to be visible (which it very often is), I'd already have had time to look at all of the 1st level menu options and even have started moving my mouse towards the desired one.

What your eyes are on, and what your attention is on are two different things. Raskin describes this as a "locus" of attention. If the user has profincy with the app, then he should be able to activate a commonly used menu item while still thinking about his task. That is the whole point of a gui, to allow the user to automate behaviors.

Finally, I like having my mouse where my program is so i can manipulate content within it; If this happens to be far away from the top of the screen (or worse, far away to the side of where the menu will be), this makes it a large distance away.

distance becomes irrelivent when you are talking about screen edges, and the screen area of your content should be way bigger then anything else, which makes it extremely easy to reaquire.

There are some practical reasons for these types of menus, and it seems to fit some peoples way of working, but my way of working is totally different. I keep many small windows around the desktop, most in plain view (not obscuring eachother) as I find its much faster for me to move my eyes than it is to move my mouse or move focus.

actually, that is the best arguement for a mac style window system. the best way to use windows style is to have every application maximized, and use the taskbar to switch between them. that way the menu location stays consistant.

Still; people uphold the apple way as a sort of knee jerk reaction recently, especially with regards to usability. I've seen a lot of cool ideas come out of the usability camp, but I'm not yet convinced its an exact science; or that what is done with the usability principles ends up benefiting it.

Usability principals should never be applied blindly, and it isnt some magic pixie dust you can just sprinkle on a project to make it usable. Good usability is a quantifiable science based on principals from cognitive psychology. You build the interface around the way we know the human brain operates when it is working on something. Design choices are made with that in mind, and are tested by scientific studies. Bad usability is done by a comitee of people who have (maybe) read a jakob nielson or don norman book, and think that good design can be done by anyone with a bit of common sense. theres a reason the ipod is a billion times more enjoyable then a zen, and none of that is because of tech specs.

A classic example is the usability crowd's hatred of right click context menus. People are quick to bring up the corners of the screen as infinite spaces, but are always quick to forget about the fifth infinite space; the current position of the mouse.

that isnt the usability crowd, that is the mac zealot crowd. the easiest cursor to hit is the one your mouse is currently over, its virtual size is infinate (in all directions), and is literally impossible to miss. anyone who disagrees with that really doesnt know what they are talking about.

Context-menu driven application menus, like XFCE/BlackBox/many *nix WM's work quite well regardless of resolution as long as you can find some desktop space lying around. A thing that I've found working at 3200x1200 is that MANY things in the usability bible from apple simply fall apart at high resolution; assumptions about spatial locality start to fail or become gray, and as we go on and get bigger and badder monitors with better resolutions, I think it'd be smart to re-examine some of these usability decisions from 1984 rather than just hold up apple's decisions as gospel.


I completely and totally agree. On the flipside, a great deal of fundamental usability research was done by apple in 1984, and most usability paradigms stem from microsoft (god awful) ripoff with win95. (and that isnt a troll, they have gotten *much* better over the years, but win95 was a copy without knowing what they were copying). The book shouldnt be held up as gospal, but at the same time shouldnt be thrown out the window. Stuff like reexamining win95 conventions in a non spatial environment would be a very good place to start. for example, why are there desktop objects (like the trash) in a non-spatial environment, where they will be obscured any time real work is done and an application is maximized? When was the last time you actually dragged files to the trash in a non-mac environment? why is the only place i have ever seen this addressed is with ubuntus trash applet? Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Your rant about Fitt's Law makes no sense. Fitt's law has nothing to do with UI's or learning. It has to do with hand-eye coordination. As humans have not evolved better hand-eye coordination in the last 20 years, any research done in the 80's regarding that subject is valid today. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? this gets bandied about alot, and very few people know what they are talking about. fittes law is not "A menu at the top of the screen is more efficient then one anywhere else". Fitts law is

T = a + blog2(D/W+1)

where

* T is the average time taken to complete the movement. (Traditionally, researchers have used the symbol MT for this, to mean movement time.)
* a and b are empirical constants, and can be determined by fitting a straight line to measured data.
* D is the distance from the starting point to the center of the target. (Traditionally, researchers have used the symbol A for this, to mean the amplitude of the movement.)
* W is the width of the target measured along the axis of motion. W can also be thought of as the allowed error tolerance in the final position, since the final point of the motion must fall within +/- W/2 of the target's centre.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts'_law)

the best laymans description ive seen is over at asktog, where he says:

Fitts's Law: The time to acquire a target is a function of the distance to and size of the target.

(http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html)

keep in mind, the tog is a genius, but he also has a massive chip on his shoulder over windows copying many of his ideas (and poorly), and loves to rag on it and microsoft in general. but that page is a great description and explination of what it is, and why its vital to take into account when designing an interface Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Mon, 18 Apr 2005 16:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Since the equation isn't linear, you can't do the addition trick to count both ways. You have to do each way seperately, and add up the two. For the first trip:

T = A + B log_2(1200/100 + 1) = A + 3.7 x B

For the first return:

T = A + B log_2(1200/100 + 1) = A + 3.7 x B

Total T = 2A + 7.4 x B

For the second trip:

T = A + B log_2(335/20 + 1) = A + 4.15 x B
T = A + B log_2(335/100.0 + 1) = A + 2.12 x B

Total T = 2A + 6.27 x B

Note that the global menu wins the initial motion, and only loses the return motion because we haven't accounted for mouse acceleration. I'd also point out that your scenario is rather convenient for the local menu. Most window systems cluster windows around the top-left corner, not the right-hand side. Think about your word processor, your web-browser, your text editor. How often do you have them on the right side of the screen? An AIM-type app is rather unique in that it's usually placed off to the side. I'm typing this on an Ubuntu machine, and just starting up a view random apps shows that metacity clusters them in the top-left corner. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:16:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? One menu bar on the current window and the other at the top of the screen would confuse any user- particularly Mac users!

One of the Java based programs I used had menus in the Window and I found that really funny and difficult to use on my Mac. It was readily fixed after I wrote to the author of the software.

As you can infer, I prefer global menus, except in the case of multiple monitors (need a choice in this situation as someone pointed).

I guess it is hard to adapt to new concepts when one gets used to doing things in a particular way.

My philosophy is 'less is more' or KISS (keep it simple stupid) and that is one of the reasons I like the Mac way-although Mac Os X has evolved to resemble Windows in many ways (to attract potential converts- I presume).

I have to admit that this has been one of the more civil debates (or nicely moderated in any case) I have read on Os News. I like many of the pro-Mac responses-didn't come across as fanatical.

Cheers! Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Really the key thing as to whether the Global menu bar works is down to the size of your screen. Run on a 12" powerbook, you're going to end up running most things full screen, so whether you've got a Global menu bar or not doesn't really make much difference. Run it on a larger 19"+ screen and the Global menu bar starts to become a mouse moving pain. Overall I'd vote for ditching it (and while they're at they should also sort out the stupid inability to resize your window by grabbing anything other than a tiny weeny bottom right hand bit of the window in questions frame). Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:26:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Yes, users are not the best judges of what is efficient. It might be hard for you to accept, but the fact that customer is not always right is quite well accepted in many fields. Doctors, for example, don't rely on patient self-diagnosis! The AskTog article has a quote that is spot-on: "(Don't bother to ask them whether they've slowed down. They'll tell you it sped them up. Only the stopwatch knows for sure.)" Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Non global menu bars are ugly-just my opinion. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Just checked my mac here at work (10.3.8).. Guess what? The top left corner doesnt do ANYTHING!

Wow. So much for fitt's law. They completely threw that out the window. Instead of making the apple menu accessible in the top left, they reserved that space for a rounded corner of the menu bar that does NOTHING.

Yes, apple had some good ideas wrt usability. But you're kidding yourselves if you think they still religiously follow them today.. THey've even given up some of the basics (consistency) in the name of flashy looks.

OS X is nice, but it's not automatically superior in usability to anything in particular. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Please, criticise my layout in the linked screenshot. I'd love to hear how the extensive control of the interface that I get in KDE has resulted in a sub-par environment.

Actually, contrast that screenshot to OS X. In OS X: top left corner, no action, top right corner, no action, bottom left and right, useless. The only place that OS X has any regard for fitt's law is the top edge and the dock. My screenshot shows considerably more efficient use of these valuable spaces.

Yes, not every user knows what's best for them, but that doesn't mean people can't optimize for themselves. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 17:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1) The top-left corner is one of the most easily accessible places on the system. Putting the close button there is dangerous, because it makes it easy to close the app, and fairly useless, because it's prime real-estate that could be used for something other than closing the window. Do you really close windows more often then you do anything inside them? The same thing with minimize and maximize.

2) Label-less icons are very hard to hit precisely. Toolbars should be big and have clearly labeled icons.

3) The menu-text is rather tight in the reading axis. Wider fonts (like Verdana), are easier to read.

4) The pager doesn't show window contents. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? First of all, apple didnt come up with fitts law, they were just one of the first computer ui designers to design with it in mind. Secondly, just because apple doesnt use all four corners doesnt make them any less valuable. As you have pointed out, apples design isnt what people should be following. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? and osx is probably the worst os apple has ever come out with in regards to usability, as anyone in the field will tell you. the arguement is that the exponential gain in functionality means that the additional complexity is unavoidable, which is of course the exact same thing that jef raskin was told when he first pitched the idea of a computer made for humans. technology wise, osx is a quantum leap forward from os9. usability wise, it is a huge step back. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1) I use close button more often then any single button in my system and it should be easly accesible. I open apps by clicking on documents or opening them from fast start dock, filer or system menu. I put trash applet in bottom-right corner, program menu in bottom-left. I use left border of the screen (except bottom-left corner) for easy access to the desktop (d&d and menu) and for changing virtual desks (with mouse wheel) and right border for scrolbar.

And with maximized windows global or not global doesn't make any difference (it is less then 10px). I could live with it, except it does not work with ffm, and ffm is just to useful for some tasks to get rid of it.

2) It clearly depends on user, and in most systems text labels are on by default, You turn them off when You decide they take too much space.

3) same as 2.

4) valid point. Basic KDE pager is broken, it does not show contents and does not allow to move windows between virtual desks, gnome's is better.

Still, mac don't use most of this important and accesible places on screen, so they are not that important anyway, right? They are only brought in front when mac-users defend global menu. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:41:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? How can you possibly use the close button m ore often than any other button? That'd mean you spend more time opening and closing apps than doing anything in them.

(2) doesn't depend on the user. Users *think* they take up too much space, but having text labels makes the targets bigger, which makes it more efficient to click on them.

(3) Same thing with 3. Users think small text is "more efficient", but studies show that open, wide fonts are much easier and faster to read.

As for your last point, the argument for a global menu has nothing to do with the Mac, except to the extent that the Mac uses it. The fact that the Mac makes other design mistakes is not really relevent here. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? 1) The top-left corner is one of the most easily accessible places on the system. Putting the close button there is dangerous, because it makes it easy to close the app, and fairly useless, because it's prime real-estate that could be used for something other than closing the window. Do you really close windows more often then you do anything inside them? The same thing with minimize and maximize.

The whole point of putting it there is to make it easy to close the app. I'm not spastic, so I don't close it by accident. And yes, I close windows very often.. Most of the apps I use are bound to keyboard shortcuts, so I've become a chronic opener and closer of applications because it's so easy.

2) Label-less icons are very hard to hit precisely. Toolbars should be big and have clearly labeled icons.

They should also get out of the way of my work and take up little screen space. Most toolbar icons have keyboard shortcuts, so I barely use them anyway.

3) The menu-text is rather tight in the reading axis. Wider fonts (like Verdana), are easier to read.

I suppose I could change that.. I've never had any problems reading standard times new roman 12 or whatever that is..

4) The pager doesn't show window contents.

I find that showing window contents doesn't actually help me. The pager is too small to make a tiny image of the contents useful, and I'm not making it bigger, because that would be a waste of screen space. A tiny screenshot, 20 pixels high, would just deceive me into thinking I could garner useful info by looking at. The basic shapes of the windows let me know that there are windows there, and mostly I remember what they are. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The only thing I miss from OS 9 is the ability to make buttons. I had a folder full of Aliases (shortcuts) in the form of buttons. A kind of launcher for my frequently used apps if you will. I still have a folder for this in OS X but alas, I have to click twice now. ...... ...... twice...... ...... I'm sorry.... ... I ... I have to go........ Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? How can you possibly use the close button m ore often than any other button? That'd mean you spend more time opening and closing apps than doing anything in them.

Not more often than any other button, but given the widgets that I can put up there, its high on the list. My choices are a menu bar, a close/maximize/minimize button, an application menu (the thing that comes up when you right click a window title bar), and the taskbar. I almost never use the menu bar, and everything else is already spread out in easy to access places, so I chose the close button in one corner, and minimize in the other. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I suppose I could change that.. I've never had any problems reading standard times new roman 12 or whatever that is...

Times New Roman 12pt is widely acknowledged to be a horrible font. You might not notice it slowing you down, but that's kind of my entire point. Until you measure it (and people spent a lot of time measuring this sort of thing), you can't know. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:20:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I haven't used mac's much, but I've tinkered with this emac we have at work that sits in the corner collecting dust. For me it feels like more work bringing focus to a window and then trying to select it's menu items at the top of the screen. I guess they provide key bindings that could speed this up a bit, but moving the mouse cursor all over a 1280x1024 desktop feels like a big waste when I use the system. Just my opinion on the subject.


The window usually is quite a large target to hit, so it should be quite simple to do that part. To move the mouse over the screen to hit the top menu is very little work as you can have accellerated mouse speed, and you would be at top very quick. The real work you don't have to do is to exactly position the mouse over the menu. The menubar attached to a window is very small area, and its easy to overshoot. The top window presents an infinit target, you can't miss it. You could google for Fitts law for more info on this. Or have a look at:

http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Until you measure it (and people spent a lot of time measuring this sort of thing), you can't know.

Which gets me into one of the aspects of these discussions that feel making me bang my head against the wall. The fact that people spent time measuring these things for one population and application domain in the past, does not necessarily mean that will be the best design for a different population and application domain in the future.

There are some major assumptions behind putting pull-down menus at the top of the screen that I have not seen addressed:

1: it assumes that the pull-down menu will the the primary mode through which the user will interact with the application, throughout the user's relationship with the software.
2: pull-down menus (in general) force the user to learn a complex taxonomy of functions.
3: there are cultural assumptions in regards to written language and directionality of language that are rarely acknowledged with the pull-down menu paradigm.
4: lots of assumptions about the physical abilities of the user. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Times New Roman is a bad font? Sources?

A quick google search turns up this:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/52/UK_font.htm
With a quote:
"The experimenters found that the participants perceived a difference in legibility between the fonts of which Times New Roman, Verdana and Georgia were most legible."

And another here:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/onlinetext.htm

Quote from conclusion:
"Several observations can be made regarding the examined font types. First, no significant differences in reading efficiency were detected between the font types at any size. There were, however, significant differences in reading time. Generally, Times and Arial were read faster than Courier, Schoolbook, and Georgia. Fonts at the 12-point size were read faster than fonts at the 10-point size."

Verdana was the most preferred font, but Times and others were faster to read. And you yourself say that user's preference should take second place to empirical measurements of efficiency. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:53:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? How can you possibly use the close button m ore often than any other button? That'd mean you spend more time opening and closing apps than doing anything in them.

That's easy. I open documents and apps in many different ways. I use them in many different ways. But I close them all the same. With FireFox - tabs, back button and maybe "disable styles" buttons I use more then "close", but in eclipse I don't have those, same with "pajączek" or the bat. Close button is universal. It may not be the same for mac, if You have to close apps through menu or key-shortcut (if I remember corectly, I was using macOS around wersion 8 or 7). So, as I said earlier - global menu may be best solution for macOS and still not that good for other systems.

(2) doesn't depend on the user. Users *think* they take up too much space, but having text labels makes the targets bigger, which makes it more efficient to click on them.

It is like with children - for 3 years old You have this big duplo bilding blocks. But children grow and after some practice it is convenient to use smaller ones. same with this - I have years of practice whith mouse and I can hit 4x4 px square with deadly accuracy. In most cases I use 16x16 icons and it is enaugh _for_me_. The only exception is back button in browser, which should be twice as big - I mostly hit it without looking and sometimes miss, which is annoying - any skin for FF with this one button bigger (longer)?

(3) Same thing with 3. Users think small text is "more efficient", but studies show that open, wide fonts are much easier and faster to read.

I love big text. I really do. But I only read them first few hundred times. Then big menu text gets in my way when I read other texts (block of program, for example). Thats why I prefer them as small as possible - best solution would be _single_ "menu" button on the toolbar with the rest inside.

It is just logical, if You think about it - big, werbal menus, big, werbal toolbars with tooltips are important for newbies, who know nothing about programs and have problems using a mouse. After some time people prefer less werbal toolbars, key-shortcuts and some strange behaviour like ffm (depends on application they use).

As for your last point, the argument for a global menu has nothing to do with the Mac, except to the extent that the Mac uses it. The fact that the Mac makes other design mistakes is not really relevent here.

ok. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 19:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Fitt's law has nothing to do with UI's or learning. It has to do with hand-eye coordination."

Do you understand how contradictory these sentences are (except GUI of course)? Coordination IS based on training.

It is funny, when someone based on knowledge from wikipedia is correcting everybody. You would be the only one in the world whose motoneuronal coordination can't be improved by training. My condolences. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 20:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Pie menus with keyboard acceleration is the best, IMO.


They are good if you have just a few menu items, but they are not so good if you have many, or need to have submenus. They are also a bit hard to use at the corners of the screen. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? First off, an observation from Tiger: Apple has taken Fitt's law into account and clicking in the upper-left corner now triggers the Apple menu. The Apple menu isn't drawn all the way in the corner (still has the same amount of whitespace) but the region in which you can click now extends all the way to the corner. The same goes for the new Spotlight widget in the upper-right.

I like the global menubar, but that may be partially because I've used Mac OS for year. (And GS/OS on the Apple IIgs before that.)

The top-of-the-screen menu bar does have one very useful aspect: an application may be running while it has no windows running. Yes, Windows users find this confusing (and seem to go to great lengths to kill off open applications) but it can be very useful. Say you're working with a document and you decide to close it and open a new one.

On the Mac I just hit two keyboard shortcuts: Command-W (to close the current document) and then Command-N (to create the new one). On a typical Windows application, closing the first window would cause the application to quit. I'd have to then go hunt down the application and open it again.

To do it on Windows w/o quitting the app, you have to first open the new window, then switch back to the old window and kill it. (If you use the mouse then you can close the window w/o switching to it, assuming the new window isn't covering the old window's close box, but I tend to use keyboard shortcuts for this.) That's a real pain, as it is not intuitive for me.

Before anyone jumps in and says "well, no one uses applications that way" .. well, I do, and I've noticed lots of "normal" users doing so too. It's a common pattern if you're working with normal office documents.

Plus there are lots of apps I like to keep running w/o having any windows open. There's no good way to do this on Windows. (either you end up with a minimized window taking up space in the taskbar, or an icon in the tray, or some nonstandard application-depending thing.) Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:24:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Ahh. Now that's a good point in favor of the global menu.. Good to hear that the corner business has been fixed in Tiger too. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I started using a PC in the DOS times and I hated Windows the first time it came out. I remember cursing: "Why do it take me so long to move all the *.dat files from directory A to B with all these 'intuitive' drag-and-drops?". Then I thought the global menu bar was the worst idea ever in a GUI and the Macs were so behind. But when I bought my first PowerBook I realized I liked this global menu bar; I find it much more convinient than any other interface I had come accross before . Times change... Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? So is the law of gravity if you are trying to fly.
Unfortunatly that doesn't affect its well tested
validity. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 21:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The top-of-the-screen menu bar does have one very useful aspect: an application may be running while it has no windows running. Yes, Windows users find this confusing (and seem to go to great lengths to kill off open applications) but it can be very useful.

Because it is confusing - You have app running without any visible sign of it running. And it takes memory, in some cases a lot of it.

Say you're working with a document and you decide to close it and open a new one.

In windows? try ctrl+w and ctrl+n
to quit app try ctrl+q

It works with most apps (photoshop, word, opera, FF, gimp, etc).
(correction: ctrl+q don't work with FF, some kind of bug, I suppose).

On a typical Windows application, closing the first window would cause the application to quit. I'd have to then go hunt down the application and open it again.

Try it again (ctrl+w + ctrl+n) - it works. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:00:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Fitt's law has nothing to do with UI's or learning. It has to do with hand-eye coordination."

Do you understand how contradictory these sentences are (except GUI of course)? Coordination IS based on training.


Slightly motorically challanged people, may have problems even in spite of training. There many things that affects our motorical abilities e.g. age, illness,... Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Slightly challenged people will do better after training. That goes with any of your "exceptions".

It does not change anything. This is not a comparison of two subjects, this is about one subject before anf after training, actuall reading of Fitt's would help Mon, 18 Apr 2005 22:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? While I'm a big Apple fan, I find a single menu bar that works well for the user can be as much a case of learned behaviour as much as it's a case of better design. Look Fitt's Law is great and all, but it cannot be the single source for the design and placement of interactive elements (whether it's software or hardware).

One good argument, I think, for window-located menu bars is basic functional locality; the expectation that elements relevant to the action/work being performed be in the same functional location of that action/work. Now, I don't disagree that Fitt's law says it's more difficult to locate the menu in the window than globally, except that we're not just locating things to click on here. We're also talking about behaviour and expectations of behaviour. When a menu item is selected the behaviour is expected to impact whatever is being worked on. From a functional locality standpoint, window-located-menus, maintains the simple paradigm that actions within the window affect it and actions outside of the window don't (yes, the system tray can violate functional locality).

Global menus require that you leave the window, which brings with it the inevitable need to determine what application the menu will affect, verify that it is focused (if there's a window at all), then make the menu selection. Yes, it may be easy to locate via Fitt's law, but Fitt's law is not the be all and end all of Interactive Design. There are many other things to consider (like functional locality and others) and tradeoffs to make. Apple erred on the side of being able to locate the menu bar. Others have made other tradeoffs (errors).

PS. Many people can learn to be productive with bad designs. doesn't mean the design is neccesarily the best one. Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:01:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? In Tiger, You'll have expose desktop, expose all windows, Dashboard, and spotlight in the corners!

You can't possibly have slicker corner use than what's offered in Tiger, sorry! Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:25:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Umm..if I didn't save it, I would be stupid! It is not destruvtive at all anyways. Programs have an "are you sure you want to close it", remember? Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Well, everyone knows that global menubars have downsides, like everything! The challenge is to weight up the pros and cons and then use what works best for you. Or at least that's how it would be if we'd have the choice.
It's important to realize that this could be implemented in a totally optional way, by using a similar approach to the freedesktop notification area spec. Toolkits or apps would be able to query for the existance of something that swallows the menu (it could be anything!) and if it's unavailable, they would simply manage it themselves. Enabling or disabling this feature would become as easy as to add or remove the appropriate applet.

Regarding point one, this is actually one of the reasons why I tend to be in favor of a global menubar. To me, it clearly de-emphasises the menus, because they are away from the area where I actually do the work.

Point two is not an issue for me, because as you said, menus should be avoided for regular tasks. IMO the importance of the menu is mostly to list available functions and to serve as a shortcut reference.

Point three is refuted by the fact that it would be optional. None of the popular desktops use focus follows mouse by default, so this should hardly be a huge problem for you (and those which do wouldn't have to provide a global menubar).

Point four doesn't sound unsolvable to me (put a menubar on each screen!).

Point five would be semi-solved by a freedesktop specification. Of course there could always be old or rare applications which don't support it, but the situation would not be worse than on OS X (in case both Gtk and Qt offer support for it).

Point six wouldn't be more of an issue than with the taskbar.

There are downsides to a global menubar and I'm not totally convinced that it's the best approach (right now my main reason to be in favor of it is, that it simply looks a lot better), but in any case I'd love to have a GNOME applet available for it. So let's stop arguing and start working, damn it. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 00:09:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? how can you access the menu bar using a keyboard shortcut in OSX ?

in Panther:

System Preferences, Keyboard & Mouse pane, Keyboard Shortcuts tab, then check the "Turn full keyboard access on or off" checkbox in the list box. Or press control-F1 to toggle it on/off instead. Afterwards, control-F2 opens a menu and as with practically everything else, you can start typing in the name of the menu item you want and the selection jumps to it. Only problem... control-F2 is hard to reach for, no? Thankfully you can customize all the keyboard shortcuts you want in that same preference pane. Change it to alt-m, control-j, whatever you want...

Similar to what someone mentioned before, when I first use a new Macintosh application, I systematically look through all of its menus to what its capabilities are. It doesn't take too long to do for most apps. I can't do that on Windows though, I have to actually try all the menu items and then right-click on every element to see if there's something hidden away in the contextual menu.

Personally I prefer not having a menu bar on my second monitor. I do my main stuff on my main monitor (naturally), and the second monitor holds logs or a Safari page or a live preview of what I'm writing... for example, I'm typing this in an external editor on my main monitor as I read through osnews on my second monitor.

About the single-button Mac mouse... sheesh, haven't enough people said to go out and spend $15 for a cheap USB mouse if you really mind that much? I started with a single-button mouse way back when, then I used a 2-button mouse with scroll wheel for about a year, and now I'm back to a one-button mouse. The Mac OS makes it so you don't NEED a multi-button mouse. It's completely supported but completely optional. My scrollwheel is space and shift-space, scroll wheel button is command-click, and right-click is control-click. When I use my computer, my left hand never leaves the keyboard anyway.

"The only thing I miss from OS 9 is the ability to make buttons"

Um... the Dock? Single-click is all it takes. That's what the Dock is: "a kind of launcher for my frequently used apps.

"Try it again (ctrl+w + ctrl+n) - it works."

I believed you for a moment there... until I tried it: I have nothing open, I click IE, I hit ctrl-w then ctrl-n, but nothing happens. I tried it in Windows Explorer too. Same thing. Please explain. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 01:32:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? whether or not humans evolved since the 80s is debatable, their has been a full generation since, so really, yes their has been some evolution going on.

But my point was as a technology is around people longer they get used to it, it becomes more natural and the ease/speed at which they interact with it improves greatly. A person who has never used a computer will have a rough go at it the first few days/weeks, but in a few years, they will be very efficient with it. This becomes more true with people who have only grown up in a world of computers. Their physical/mental abilities at using a computer is far greater then someone who hasn't used one. And people in general aren't going to go back in the opposite direction since computers are here to stay.

A law such as fitts law will not hold forever, it will only work for a while. Tweaks to it may keep it going longer, but in the end it just won't fit the way things are anymore. Same goes for laws like Moores law. They aren't laws, they are just patterns that fit for that bit of time, but as the world moves forwards they fall apart. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 02:39:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? The point of Fitt's law is not really about HCI interfaces, but about human perception, which is relatively conservative on regards to change. Bascially, what it says simply is that bigger targets are easier to hit with a pointing device. Certainly, the speed at which a person hits a target might improve, but the overall rule suggests that even expert users will hit a bigger target quicker than a smaller target.

While this suggests that the screen borders are ideal places to put an interface element. (Because they are easy to hit.) It does not say anything about WHICH interface elements should go where. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 02:47:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "Certainly, the speed at which a person hits a target might improve, but the overall rule suggests that even expert users will hit a bigger target quicker than a smaller target."

where did you get this impression? Definitely not from his (Fitt) work. There is clear assumption in Fitt's two articles. His law applies to untrained subject, unless you are willing to correct him or you have some experimental evidences you are simply wrong. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 03:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? training has very little to do with it. a mac user only has to "aim" the mouse in two directions, while a user of any other os needs to "aim" in four directions. with equal amounts of training, it would still be faster to do the one that requires less work. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 04:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? "training has very little to do with it. a mac user only has to "aim" the mouse in two directions, while a user of any other os needs to "aim" in four directions. with equal amounts of training, it would still be faster to do the one that requires less work"

Training does have something to do with it. A user trained in mouse use is more capable of acquiring arbitrary targets than an untrained user. Not surprising, really: an untrained typists is not as proficient as a trained typist, correct? All human motor-mechanical operations are learned and certainly those requiring fine motor skills. Fitt knew this.

Besides, aim alone is not everything. A large target that is far away can be just as difficult to use as a close-by small target. Returning to the original point of interest is MORE difficult the further you are also by Fitt's "law" (its not a law, of course, we just call it that out of laziness). So in general, Fitts law tells us a small something about user positioning ability and virtually nothing about user interaction other than inferred relative metrics (which are always in respect to the system design and capabilities)

For example, most people seem to neglect the fact that on a typical global bar (or whatever gizmo is put there such as an icon bar) on a multi-monitor setup, the bar exists on only one window. So if your monitors are side-by-side (which is terribly common) you lose at least one infinite plane (typically the right one). For most right handed mousers, it is already easier to move left-up then right-up, so this is significant in terms of interacting with the global bar. Again, there are many variables that can affect performance on a modern system.

The point: global menu bars have a very specific sort of system design in mind. They work best for single, full-screen apps on constrained screen sizes (and there, they are better than local bars by far -- this is, after all, what all the testing has shown). Otherwise, why are toolbars not put in place of the global bar (or another infinite surface) instead of below the application title bar? Surely, toolbars are used more often and so should benefit more from an infinite target, correct? It should be pretty obvious that the extra mouse miles required to acquire an infinite surface on a large desktop destroys this notion. Save for one: the current mouse pointer is the best (and unfortunately underutilized) of all the infinite surfaces.

Another point: no one seems to mention that people generally do not have any trouble acquiring the application title bar to move an open window. It would be unreasonable to assume that acquiring the menu should be very much more difficult (the 4 directions is a misnomer -- if you are working in an app then you at most must move two directions to the local menubar, same as for a global bar but closer.)

Here are some ideas: instead of being fixed in old paradigms of design, wouldn't it be cool if we could harness some of the new features of modern systems to enhance our interaction with it in ways not previously possible? So that depending on the type of gesture (direction, speed, landing "zone") the mouse either knew to "jump" (and stick) to the right place? Or perhaps have various objects magnify as they are approached to make their target momemtarily larger (like the Apple dock, but generally more useful)

Here are some tips for folks who posted in this thread:

-- bind a window close key (whatever appropriate for your OS) to a seldom used button on your modern mouse. I like putting it on the thumb button. I do find that users not trained for that will often accidently close windows -- but usually not more than once or twice; I do find it most useful on windows (shudder) with IE (shiver) where you may open 6 or 7 windows rapidly and close them just as rapidly. With a tabbed browser (again, no one seems to complain about acquiring a tab location!) middle clicking the tab to close it is generally a better option, IMO. Best of all, of course, is to learn the keyboard equivalents.

-- in windows (shudder) when you close an app window, you really do close the app (except for those strange close to tray apps). So if you really want to close your current work and start a new window, the usual thing to do is use File/Open (Alt-F O). That is, you simply "re-use" the window. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 05:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm all for utilizing all available infinite planes, but I feel that the screen edges belong to the maximized app that extends to those areas. Generally, this means your desktop so things that control your workspace are best placed there -- which is why launchers are there. The reason? You generally don't want to return to your last place of focus when manipulating your workspace so this one-way interaction takes the positive side of Fitt's law (acquiring the remote object).

Further, it is more intuitive -- every container is uniquely delineated and unchanging. For this reason, I tend to think the desktop should always own the screen edges. After all, modern systems are built on desktop metaphors so a user is most likely to associate the "monitor" with the "desktop". Not doing this leads to this typical windows behaviour: if you put an auto-hide bar on the left or right side of your desktop you will find that a maximized window occludes that edge--you can't acquire the destop edge to activate your launcher unless you un-maximize your application. I think that is terribly counter intuitive. Of course, if applications decided to use autohide bars it would probably make sense to have the windows like behaviour but of course that is a usability nightmare in anything but full-screen. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 06:08:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? You need to read Fitt's papers. Everybody is tossing around "Fitt's Law", evidently without understanding the basics. This law is not about computers obviously, computers have not existed in the times when he published his ideas. Unless you do really understand the basics of neurophysiology, this is only funny. Coordination is the result of training. I really don't care about computers, but most of the post here suggest a lot of ignorance, because people are disscussing a theory without even reading it. Wikipedia is not enough.
Fitt published his ideas in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. If you want to apply it to the computers that is fine, the Law will apply here too, but citing equations suggest only how far from this Law you are.
Your notion that it has nothing to do with training is only one more ignorrant statement. The fact that you are knowledgeable in GUI design does not mean that you automatically get Fitt's Law. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? putting the application menu first in OSX is a mistake in my opinion. It used to be that every program had File, Edit, View, and then some other random ones. That kept a large portion of the global menu fixed in the same place. Now, the app menu pushes the rest of the menus around depending on how long the apps' name is. I think a good way to fix this is either put the app menu in the middle of the global menubar, on the right side, or give it some fixed horizontal space that allows it to display about 12 characters at normal size, and then would scale down smoothly to fix this area if the name were larger.

Personally i think putting it in the middle would look cool, and be pretty functional. Can anyone write a haxie?

People complaining that MacOSX should give developers the option to switch between global and local menus should just stick with linux and stop pining. Thats one reason why linux is good- It provides lots of choices to satisfy people with custom needs and/or preferences. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Mac behavior is different than Windows or Linux.

All these folks who are used to Windows and Linux want the Mac to morph into Windows and Linux-like OS.

I suggest that you folk stick to what works for you and not mess around with Mac. What would then differentiate a Mac from Windows or Linux? Next you will be asking for the same viruses and trojans!

Although, I would agree that the Application menu can be shifted back to the right corner as it was in Classic. It still does not work for me in its current position. And 'quit' under file menu worked fine for me even though it meant quitting the application and not the file.

Global menu it is for me. Tue, 19 Apr 2005 15:12:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Personally, I thought the idea one developer had where you can have global menus as an OPTIONAL feature by placing them on a panel was pretty sweet, basically in gnome you'd have it as just another applet on your panel, that when used would turn off the menus in the individual windows. this gives best of both worlds, mac people get their way, and the rest of us do too. Fri, 22 Apr 2005 01:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? Why do I always find my self longing for them when I'm on a PC running either Linux or Windows?

I like having the menubar show what application is in focus.. and I always know where to find it. Applications have a tendency to take over the entire screen.

I like how KDE gives you the option to put the menu bar where ever you want it.

-Dennis Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments http://osnews.com/thread? http://osnews.com/thread? I'm driving my Mac for 10 years and the presence of the menubar is natural to me. It's not in the way, you cannot overshoot it, there are no n amount of menubars [where n is the amount of open windows].

I'm also using a nice Dell POS Win XP at work and I'm always trying to see the whole menu [I don't use that switch context with the mouse thing, it'd drive me crazy].
When I maximise the window, the menubar is on top, just as with the Mac.
Actually: here the Mac shows its finesse again. The Windows menubar is not set to infinite height. You actually see the title of your window above the menu so you can overshoot the menu to end up in the title bar. Not possible with the Mac.

I never have to worry what app is in focus: the top left corner lists the name of the active app [OS X of course]. The menu is your steady compass, you always know where to go to. Apple did a great job with that menu. Nobody has done anything significantly better.

That's not to say that when you like the Windows way better somehow you're a dimwit. Not at all. Live like you want to live, baby. I'm not judging you.

And to the power user with the Terminal window: Command n opens up a new document/window since forever. You should know that by now. Even Windows does that. Fri, 22 Apr 2005 15:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Anonymous) Comments