This is a response to the previous article on global menubars and why they are the preferred way to present menus as opposed to attaching them to floating windows.1.) They place unwarranted emphasis on menu bars.
On the contrary, emphasis on the menu bars is fully warranted, as these are where most of an application’s commands are listed. Menu items are the visual step up from typing input to the program directly and are nothing more than commands sent to the application. Because an application can contain so many commands, in a graphical environment the only logical place for these commands are in pulldown menus where they can be selected and executed. The only other locations for an application’s commands are in right-click contextual menus which hides functionality from the user, or displaying commands as a row of buttons on a toolbar which leads to monostrosities like Microsoft Office’s 20+ button extravanza. And the more toolbar buttons there are, the smaller they must be to fit, making them harder to hit with the cursor. Confusing and difficult to navigate.
It is hard to argue that a menubar shouldn’t be one of the most emphasized user interface elements as it is used the most often, and contains the application’s full command list.
2) A global menu bar is disconnected from the task at hand.
The global menu bar changes functionality based on which window has top focus, so it is always connected to the task at hand. If I click on an iTunes window behind Safari, iTunes will come to the forefront, the bolded application menu will read “iTunes,” and the menu items will change.
This is more of an issue regarding simply getting used to the location of the menubar. Mac users have no complaints about this feature. The global menubar is as attached to the topmost window as a floating menubar is; the location is simply different.
3) Global menu bars don’t work with focus follows mouse.
A lot of things don’t work with the focus-follows-mouse model. The issue of focus-follows-mouse is another discussion, and as few desktop environments are set up for this method of user input, there is no reason to address it here.
4) Global menus don’t work well with multiple monitors
The previous article stated that there were two options–have the global menu bar exist on the first screen, requiring the user to move the mouse to the first screen to access it. This is no different from attached menubars. For instance, Adobe Photoshop on Windows allows you to have its child windows situated on the second monitor. However, the parent window still contains the menubar, forcing you to move the mouse to the screen where the parent window is situated. The problem is no different.
The second option described was to have a seperate menu for each screen, which was “more efficient but just as confusing.” It’s unlikely a user equipped with a dual-monitor setup would be confused by this option, and at the least it is an option for the user to have, unlike floating menubars which are always attached to the parent window regardless.
5) This really only applies to GNU/Linux and Unix desktops, but having a global menu bar would be inconsistent.
This issue has nothing to do with the merits of global menubars themselves and everything to do with the human interface standards of the given platform. Any given interface model could be argued as being inconsistent on a platform that allows you to customize every given interface model.
6) Widgets must be dynamically changed. You essentially have a moving target.
I wasn’t sure what the author meant by this statement, and because systems like OS X have no dynamically changing widgets, and the Amiga had a fully skinnable GUI and a global menubar, I won’t address it. If the author was referring to the fact that the locations of menu items on the menubar change when you change focus to another application, the point is again moot because this is no different from changing focus in a floating menubar scenario where each application has a different menubar of its own. Each floating menubar is its own moving target, attached to the floating window and rarely in the same location.
Global menubars are simply another method of user input, and certainly a floating menubar may be preferred by those who have grown up with them. Having started computing on a Windows machine long ago, I too was introduced to GUIs through the floating menubar model. However, after I used a Macintosh, I came to prefer the global menubar model.
Mac users who are sat in front of Windows machines often shoot the mouse past the floating menubar and have to readjust their cursor. This is because Mac users are accustomed to driving the cursor up to the top of the screen and hitting the menu they want, which effectively has an infinite width due to being on the screen edge. A floating menubar requires the user to slow their hand and pinpoint the menu because there is no stopping point that prevents the cursor from missing them.
Usability studies have in fact been carried out comparing various platforms, and floating menubars were found to be slightly slower than global menubars (this point may be moot for users who simply use keyboard shortcuts regardless). Global menubars were generally regarded as easier to find as well because their location was static no matter the location of the application window, and there’s no way to drag any part of the menu off-screen and obscure it as with floating menubars.
Many people incorrectly assume that the global menubar of OS X is a holdover from the days of the original single-application MacOS, ignoring other multitasking systems like AmigaOS. There is also Fitt’s Law to consider. The fastest access points on a computer screen are the edges, particularly the corners. This explains Mac user behavior described above when they would drive the cursor up to the menu as fast as possible instead of slowing down to target as Windows users do. Global menubars also free up slightly more space for the main application windows, and they act as a convenient access point for other global information like the clock, speaker volume, recently accessed documents, and system preferences.
There are a lot of interface models out in the wild. But there is nothing inherently wrong with a global menubar; in fact, it has several advantages over the floating menubar system. In the end, it is up to user preference and what that person is accustomed to.
About the author:
I am an author at Slackers Guild and use a Linux system, two Windows PCs, and two Macs.
If you would like to see your thoughts or experiences with technology published, please consider writing an article for OSNews.
Fair enough some people like the menu bar inside windows. Others like it outside windows.
Why not giving the choice to users. It seems there is a dictatorship of those in favor of embedded menu bars.
I want choice.
So that guy could come up with 100 reasons why he thinks he is right, I still want the choice.
And please, please do not tell it’s difficult to implement! It’s not.
Rating: 1/10
On the contrary, emphasis on the menu bars is fully warranted, as these are where most of an application’s commands are listed.
How often do you use menu bars? I almost never do. Lets take a look at Firefox. Do you ever use the back, forward or refresh buttons from the menus? I highly doubt it. Menus contain basically all the functionality of an application. This means they are slow to use. Almost all the common functionality of an application can be found within toolbars and elsewhere in the UI. The only time menus are really used is for uncommon commands (in Firefox opening files from my hard drive or help). Because menus are used infrequently they should not be placed in a promenant location.
It is hard to argue that a menubar shouldn’t be one of the most emphasized user interface elements as it is used the most often, and contains the application’s full command list.
I use menus probably once a day in all my applications combined. I’ve done usability testing and found this is common for almost everyone. There is almost always a more efficient way at getting at commands than the menus so why should someone use them for common tasks? Answer: they won’t. People will only use the menus for uncommon tasks, and hence menus always will be used uncommonly.
Usability studys have shown menu bars are uncommonly used. I ask all you, why place an uncommonly used UI element in the place on the screen that is easiest to reach? Because of Fitts law and ergonomics, the top of the screen is the most important part of the screen. Why not put something that is commonly used there?
I don’t really like the global menu on OSX. It is a little clumsy (focus not following mouse).
But I am really not sure what all the fuss is about the Mac UI. It has some nice touches but is just slow in many instances. It seems that Apple simply refusing to progress in some areas. They have some no go areas. Like a simple standard tak bar, a multi-button mouse, etc.
The lack of MDI interfaces is also bad. Old or small simple apps don’t need MDI interfaces, but apps like Dreamweaver or an app like Kdevelop are much better using MDI. These apps are more like platforms or environments and it seems more consistent to use an MDI interface. It is also a big space saver.
Usability studies have in fact been carried out comparing various platforms, and floating menubars were found to be slightly slower than global menubars (this point may be moot for users who simply use keyboard shortcuts regardless).
Yes, they are faster to get to, but many of the same studies have shown an overall decrease in the users time to complete a task. Making it faster to get to the menu bars just means its faster to get to the menu bar. Why would you want to get to the menu bar faster though? Menu bars are used infrequently so putting something that is more frequently used at the top of the screen will speed up the users experience.
Hmmm…I’m not so sure I agree.
Most of the time when I work, my windows are maximized so I ‘in essence’ have a menu at the tip of the screen (ok, not at the very top, but very close).
WRT to Fitts’ law, I find that the title bar being at the top edge is useful as I use it to maximize/restore (using a doubleclick) my windows all the time.
When working with two or more non-maximized windows I think it would be very frustrating to have to click on window A (to bring it into focus) then go to the top of the screen to use the menu then have to click on window B (to being it into focus) and then have to go back to the top of the screen to use a menu.
So my point is, when working with one application at a time (maximized), the menu is already in a mac-like position. When working with multiple applications, you want the advantage of having your menu “close by” the mouse when you move between applications applications.
MDI is one of the most terrible UI elements imaginable. Its an excuse for massive inconsistency because they act as entirely different platforms.
Any app that uses an MDI interface is an example of go back, and try again.
Why not giving the choice to users. It seems there is a dictatorship of those in favor of embedded menu bars.
I want choice.
Agreed. It’s just like the CLI vs GUI installers – instead of fighting about it, why not give users the choice to use whichever they like? Of course, this seems to make too much sense for some people to grasp the concept.
I use a mac and I like the global menubar. But finally I think no menubar would be ideal. The menubar should appear at will, under the mouse pointer. A vertical pinnable menu (à la NeXT). That would solve all problems about moving the mouse, having one or two monitors, screen space, having a menubar without any windows open…
Btw, and off topic, wouldn’t it be logical for some apps to automatically open a window when you give them focus (Terminal).
I find menu bars inefficient whether they are global or per application, imho.
I much prefer the RISC OS style interface, where all operations are performed via pop-up menus.
This means the menu is already where the mouse is, so movement is minimal. You can also select menu items with the left mouse button to select and then close the menu, or select with the right button to select but keep the menu open, in case you wish to select another item.
This is especially efficient for selecting multiple tick items from menus, and far faster than having to open a dialogue box to tick items.
It also takes no screen space at all until you use the menu.
It would also work automatically with any kind of focus model or multiple screens.
I really hate when some else tells me what I’m doing is wrong based on their own ui studies, I could care less if its at the top, or on each window, they both have advantages. I used Macs for 10yrs, & Windows for 10yrs they both work well enough although in the early days I wouldn’t touch Windows till NT & multi big monitors.
One thing that bothers me is losing the damn cursor on my dual big monitor setup. When the Mac had a tiny monitor, a top menu made far more sense, a quick mouse stroke got you home which is what Apple studies relied on esp the Apple menu close to File/Edit.
On early Windows and all low res monitors, the Windows widgets were too big, used up all the real estate.
Now that my prefered resolution is atleast 1600, getting the mouse all the way to the top means more work even if the wall effect helps.
The old Mac used to have a wonderful color cursor that made it impossible to lose it. I haven’t seen that in years on Macs or Windows. The few Win cursors I’ve seen are ugly as hell. Does anyone know of a decent W2K color cursor that “colors” or “animates” after idle for a sec.
Ofcourse the BeOS menu bars & tabs were the best and you could stack em, push down etc since they learned from both sides.
Exactly what I want. I didn’t know RISC OS had that.
You can’t get away with it in High School. You sure can’t get away with it in College. Why would you try to get away with it here:
QUOTE YOUR SOURCES!
Simply saying “studies have shown” is NOT an acceptable argument point unless there is a source. How do we know this was not a study of mac users? 1 million monkeys in a room?
BTW – I like menubars on windows. I like the fact that the menu is WITH the application you’re working on. Very OO, in my opinion
“I use menus probably once a day in all my applications combined. I’ve done usability testing and found this is common for almost everyone. There is almost always a more efficient way at getting at commands than the menus so why should someone use them for common tasks? Answer: they won’t. People will only use the menus for uncommon tasks, and hence menus always will be used uncommonly.”
OK let’s say that statement is true. If menu bars are so useless why put one of these useless items on each every window? That needlessly takes up screen real estate with tools that are not getting used. It seams far more logical then to put a single menu at the top of the screen where it is mostly out of the way until needed.
D
I got news for ya…….I execute commands from the menu bar most of the time. It’s easier for me to remember words than to associate to pictures on icons.
I would use the toolbars if:
1) all applications allowed me to put labels under the icons
Few applications seem to have this feature.
2) all applications allowed me to configure the toolbars
with any commands that are available on the menus. Even when configurable tool bars are available, there are often commands available from the menubar that are not able to be added to the toolbar.
Does any know if anyone has ever done any studies correlating the way the a person uses a gui with whether they are primary verbel/aural vs whether they are primarily visual/spatial?
I’m pretty sure this horse has been beaten to death. But hey, who doesn’t want to bash away at the carcass anyway? This response doesn’t bring any new arguments that weren’t found in the original 170+ comments.
I’m just curious about one thing:
A lot of things don’t work with the focus-follows-mouse model.
What exactly doesn’t work with focus follows mouse? I love FFM, and use it on my home desktop all the time with no problems. It just saves me clicks. I wish windows had a way to use FFM (and no, tweakUI doesn’t count. It does FFM in the worst possible way).
Agreed. It’s just like the CLI vs GUI installers – instead of fighting about it, why not give users the choice to use whichever they like? Of course, this seems to make too much sense for some people to grasp the concept.
I agree. Except then people will bitch that there are too many configuration options. Look at KDE. Instead of imposing one way of working on people, it lets you choose. This brings countless “usability experts” out of the woodwork complaining about too many options. Luckily, they are not in charge of KDE, and I get to enjoy a desktop environment that is optimized around the way I work to an extent that is not possible in any other system.
OK let’s say that statement is true. If menu bars are so useless why put one of these useless items on each every window? That needlessly takes up screen real estate with tools that are not getting used. It seams far more logical then to put a single menu at the top of the screen where it is mostly out of the way until needed.
1. They are not useless. They are very important in fact. The thing is they are not commonly used.
2. The top of the screen is not out of the way. It is the most important part of the screen due to ergonomics and Fitt’s law.
3. Menu bars on each window take up hardly any room.
4. Combine uncommonly used UI element with easiest to use UI location and you have poor usability. Fact is there are UI elements used lots more than menu bars and it makes much more sence to put them at the top of the screen. Most people certainly launch new applications more than I use menu bars for example.
The problem with the global menubars is that they were designed back in the days and times of first Macintoches with 9 inch screens. At that time, MOST applications were run one at the time, they took most of the screen area, and the menubar was never too far.
Now, Fitt’s law or not, in 2005 I hate the idea of moving from working window in bottom right of my 24″ screen all the way up to the top to reach its menu. The target might be infinite, but it is bloody half way across the room. A colleague uses TWO monitors of that size, and there it is even worse, because the menubar attaches itself to ony one of the two screens, and if your work window is in the other one, you have to traverse TWO 24 inch monitors to reach the menu. A MAJOR waste of time.
The reason is obvious. By replacing menubars from all apps with one global, you unclutter the applications interface, because users are not disturbed with all possible options. And you get more free space on screen
They say on average someone has a program (one) maximized at any point… so why does it matter if have a global bar that changes based on which application I have maximized or a menu bar for each application (which is the only one shown if I have the program maximized.).
Also, in instances where I, say, pop open a smaller window (an IM) on top of another program to type a quick IM, it has it’s own menu which I can access quickly within the confines of that one small window. Why would I want the global menu bar (all the way on the top) to change?
I don’t see the real benefit of a global bar. Especially since I use one application at a time anyways. However, sometimes I like two programs showing and they each have their menu bar within the confines of what I’m focued on, which in my mind means the menu bar is *closer* than if it were a global bar.
You can simulate MDI in Mac OS X. Take a look at applications like MS Office, Adobe Illistrator, Safari, and Quicken. Apple lets you use COMMAND-~ to switch from the current window to the next window in the same application.
Also on MDI, why should each window in the application have the application menu? For applications like MS Office where you have 20+ menu bar buttons plus the menu, the work windows becomes so cluttered that the only way to work is to maximize the screen. You normally attach the menu bar to the global menu which cleans up all the sub-windows. You can attach a menu bar to each window in Mac OS X; so if it makes since to have muliple menu bars you can assign one to each window.
I want choice.
Agreed. Rather than have a vi vs. emacs war, why not let the user decide which they prefer?
A far more compelling argument than the first post
Theres a bunch of problems with going preference happy.
1) Consistancy
With any configuration change, it will require adjusting to the new interface. If you have a customized setup that took 3 hours to configure just the way you want it, it will only be that way on your machine, and you damn well better hope that your configuration will be forwards compatible and exportable, or any time the configuration is lost, you will have to either go through the process again, or rehabilitate yourself to a new interface, dropping your efficiency while you go through the learning process again.
2) User != Designer
Design isnt an artform, its a science. A trained designer will avoid many pitfalls that are not readily apparent, simply because he is trained. A user will base choices on subjective experience, which is rarely an accurate way of measuring the efficiency of a design. Not to mention that if the efficiency of an interface can be increased by a few arbitrary changes, the designer hasnt done a good job.
3) Monotony is a Good Thing
The more you do something, the more your brain will automate it, and you will be able to do it with less and less of your direct attention. Different operations that essentially do the same thing end up decreasing effinciency, as you are learning multiple tasks instead of just one. Allowing simply for a choice in the different ways to accomplish a task is the same as point 2, there are ways to measure such things, and if the designer is doing his job he will be able to show that one is better then another. (note: this can be outweighed if the task would require significantly more work to accomplish the same thing, which is a good argument for the presence of a cli. but this is a matter of judgement, and needs to be taken into consideration.)
—————————–
Preferences basically put the user into the role of the designer. Sometimes it cannot be avoided, and in those circumstances, choices should be well thought out before hand.
Another thing to keep in mind is that if you use something like linux for fun, chances are you are a total techie who enjoys fiddling, tweaking, and learning how things work. There is nothing wrong with that, but keep in mind you are both the exception, not the rule, and that chances are your efficiency will not be as good as on a well designed system.
Also, this is all from the jef raskin school of thought on such matters, there are other opinions out there on matters like configuration, or the balance between usability and functionality (jef would argue of course that functionality just makes the job harder, not impossible).
Now, Fitt’s law or not, in 2005 I hate the idea of moving from working window in bottom right of my 24″ screen all the way up to the top to reach its menu.
the funny thing is that people who actually use such systems disagree with you.
“I agree. Except then people will bitch that there are too many configuration options. Look at KDE. Instead of imposing one way of working on people, it lets you choose. This brings countless “usability experts” out of the woodwork complaining about too many options. Luckily, they are not in charge of KDE, and I get to enjoy a desktop environment that is optimized around the way I work to an extent that is not possible in any other system.”
It was KDE’s choice. And they always have the choice. They can ask themself; Do we’re losing user because of this? Instead, do we have a specific userbase that using it because of this?
Having choice does’nt means that we should have it in only one project. I would rather prefer an unbloat project that follow a strong phylosophy, but having the choice of more than one project.
I did work with both type of menu, and seriously it seems like people are scare of any change in their habits. Personally, I am dreaming of the day it will come to Linux/Gtk.
Still, I think that user must have the choice. Being said, I hope this article will motivate developpers to give what we do not have right now,a “choice” for those who prefer global menu.
Better still is to have the menu bar at the top (the real top pixels) of the screen, and a separate screen for each program.
What makes the Mac system confusing is that what looks like the same menu bar keeps changing its content. When each program has its own screen, then the same menu items are always in the same place.
I use menus all the time, including on a web browser. I find icons and tool bars very hard to memorise. They are full of abstract images that make no sense.
A good example of a GUI for a program with a very large number of commands, options and menu items is Lightwave. This is not like the standard Mac or PC menus, but it works well for this unusually big program.
That’s all i want. I mean all the stuff. I don’t want it strewn between a global menu and righ-click menu.
They say on average someone has a program (one) maximized at any point… so why does it matter if have a global bar that changes based on which application I have maximized or a menu bar for each application (which is the only one shown if I have the program maximized.).
the thing is the 20ish(assuming you dont have a panel at the top of your screen) pixel buffer that is the titlebar means that at most, the only advantage you gain from having stuff maximized is that the menubar isnt in a different place for each app. the other thing to remember is mac users dont maximize, they have a “zoom” button that will resize the window to fit as much of the content as possible.
Also, in instances where I, say, pop open a smaller window (an IM) on top of another program to type a quick IM, it has it’s own menu which I can access quickly within the confines of that one small window. Why would I want the global menu bar (all the way on the top) to change?
I *hate* spatial applications in a non spatial environment for starters. On windows and linux, i will not use one that doesnt have a tabbed window.
Apart from that, distance becomes irrelivent except in bizzare circumstances, like your im window being at the very bottom of a 20″ monitor at an insane resolution with mouse speed set to something slow.
I don’t see the real benefit of a global bar. Especially since I use one application at a time anyways. However, sometimes I like two programs showing and they each have their menu bar within the confines of what I’m focued on, which in my mind means the menu bar is *closer* than if it were a global bar.
Read that fittes law wiki, then read the linked askTog article at the bottom.
the funny thing is that people who actually use such systems disagree with you.
Well, that is a pretty broad and unjustified generalization, isn’t it? _I_ actually use such a system, and I fully agree with myself.
fittes law tells us that the easiest to hit pixel on the screen is the one right under the mouse, as that pixel has an infinite target size in both directions. The only problem is that sticking everything in there without a ton of hierarchical menus (which are a Bad Thing, and should be avoided when possible) would be quite tough for something like photoshop or visual studio.
Well, I apologize, from your wording it seemed like you were making the opinion on a system that didnt have a global menubar. My own personal experience with macs is from a LONG time ago, on a small monitor so I cant say for myself, but I have yet to find the mac user that complains about it (recent converts aside, AND I have asked quite a few people both online and in real life.)
Three years back or so, I was into 3D modelling and animation using the Alias|Wavefront Maya package. I ran with menu bars completely disabled all the time, because in the Maya UI, if you hold down [Space], the menubar (or rather a set of menubars – Maya has several modes of operation with different menubars) automatically appeared at the cursor location. When you release [Space], it dissapears. I found this _very_ fast and intuitive.
Of course, this works well in a 3D package because the [Space] key is normally not used for anything else. I don’t know how well it would work in other workflows. I think it was the fact that the [Space] key was so big, and you were operating it with your left hand that made it feel so intuitive.
I also worked some in the earlier versions of SoftImage 3D (not XSI), which also had a very nice approach, though SoftImage is a special case in a discussion like this, because the application had a complete UI widget set of its own, and ran in fullscreen mode. The menus in SoftImage were layed out as a stack of menu items running from the top of the screen to the bottom, so you would just drag the cursor to the left side of the screen and click. When you clicked, the cursor would “lock” itself inside the menu. This allowed you to move around in the menus and submenus quite violently. If you decided you didn’t really want to do anything, you’d press the right mouse button to escape the menu “prison”. This was also an extremely fast way of operating the menus. You never accidently “fell off” the menus with the cursor.
I think both Alias|Wavefront and SoftImage has done a lot of research into their UI, especially the menus, and I sure liked them.
I didn’t bother to look up how these both applications look and behave nowadays, but if you’re interested I’m sure they have screenshots on their respective websites.
Wow. This must have been 10 cents, at least!
Elvis
>(which are a Bad Thing, and should be avoided when
>possible) would be quite tough for something like
>photoshop or visual studio.
I am not saying shouldn’t have a main menu if you want, but i want the objects to have all their options avalable from the object. I don’t want print, for example, to be up in the file menu. If it has a lot of options then they will be hierarchical, but at least i know where they will be.
Hey, all. I agree that the best solution is to offer a choice for users. I simply wanted to respond to the previous article that suggested there was something inherently flawed with the global menubar, and offer reasons why it might be preferred.
I also wanted to address the incorrect meme going around suggesting the reason for the global menubar is that it is a holdover from the original Mac’s single-task operating system.
Obviously, my personal preference is for the global menubar. It feels faster and easier to use to me and most other Mac users. Your preference is up to you, but there is nothing wrong with the global menubar, and there are plenty of reasons to use it over the floating version, just as any interface model has its advantages and disadvantages. I detected a strange bias against them in the previous article and comment thread that flew in the face of every usability study and expert commentary on the subject.
Menus Vs Toolbars
Pictures aren’t as efficient at denoting actions as words are.
Words aren’t as efficient at describing things as pictures are.
There is no difference in most OSs between a “Menu” option and a toolbar button.
Think of the actions you perform- you move the mouse to a target, you press the button, you move the mouse some more, you press the button again, you maybe even need to return to the keyboard to complete the activity you were attempting to engage in.
One difference is in how the targets are presented- “menu” items are normally text listings, “toolbar buttons” are normally little pictures.
Another is that picture-label buttons (“toolbar buttons”), by being pictures not words, require knowledge of the result before use- they are always an a-posteriori learned response from trial-and-error. Text-label buttons (“menu titles”) *should* give a hint to the result of an action.
Text-label buttons are faster to learn for a new user, but not necessarily as pretty as picture-label buttons. For old-hands, then both methods will be equally quick, because of the amount of subsequent activity that the initial activation requires.
In the end, both are as fast as each-other- you work out what you want to do, you pattern-match against the display, you move the pointer to the target, you invoke the action. What we have is an argument over the contents of the hot-spots. 1) Should they contain discrete activities, or should they contain complex activities? 2) Should the complex activities be ‘commonly-used’ ones, or ‘important’ ones? 3) Should document windows have application commands attached to them?
If you have to use a picture-labelled button, then really, they should only be used for discrete actions with consistently assumed conditions (‘simple activities’). EG, “Save”, “Print”, “Open”, “Close”, “Launch Program”. Even then, they should be reprogrammable, and the assumed/stored conditions should be what you get in dialogues etc when you go “the long way round”.
The Big Screen Debate
You could buy big monitors years ago. The difference between then and now is resolution. Therefore, it’s the relative distance that you hand has to move in relation to the mouse pointer. This is mostly solved, I thought, through acceleration and amplification. Move slowly, and the mouse moves less distance than you do. Move quickly, and the mouse moves futher than you do.
A big movement slowly can be made to move the pointer across fewer pixels than a small movement quickly. This is down to the software controlling your input method, and is nothing to do with a global menu.
Launching Applications
Application launching is a symptom of the limitation of the computer-system, and not an end in itself. Ideally, if you had a super-duper-great computer, all your applications would already be running and ready for use, so you’d never need to launch them. You’d only need to select them as the active foreground application that you want to directly manipulate now. That would be an efficient use of at least one of the hot-zones…… Dock? Task-Bar? Side-tray? Expose?
Strange, all my toolbars have text and pictures.
Macs are weird. They have a global menu bar and the dialog buttons say “No | Yes” instead of “Yes | No”.
One more thing in Mac OS X. Menus look very similar. You _always_ have the Apple Menu and the Menu with the name of the program, and then mostly File, Edit, Window.
So in my opinion, this is another plus for the global menu bar, because, for example, preferences, are always at the same place. And you don’t need to search the menus to find it.
“Macs are weird. They have a global menu bar and the dialog buttons say “No | Yes” instead of “Yes | No”.”
Actually, that would go against HIG.
Mac dialogs describe the actions the buttons would take if you clicked them. Instead of No | Yes, it would be Cancel | Do This. This is so you aren’t forced to read the dialog to respond.
There are usability reasons for the “reversed” button order which is why GNOME also adopted it.
There are usability reasons for the “reversed” button order which is why GNOME also adopted it.
Out of curiosity, what are these?
My own personal experience with macs is from a LONG time ago, on a small monitor so I cant say for myself,
I am not a recent convert – I used a Mac Classic II (9 inch monitor and all) long ago. There it made perfect sense. I have been using multiple OSes since. I love the fact OS X is both a UNIX and just works and looks gorgeous. However, I bought a 24 inch monitor not because I am visually impaired, but in order to have multiple application windows on it simultaneously, side by side. Having a menu bar two foot away from my current application window is not a shining example of great workspace organization. That is all I wanted to say.
Out of curiosity, what are these?
Well, it has been shown that inconsistency forces users to concentrate on the task at hand instead of watching that cute blonde will clicking through the menus. So by changing their user interface to a standard that conflicted with all other Linux applications and with the standard the overwhelming majority of Linux users was used to, GNOME enabled us to view our Linux Desktop Experience with new eyes.
Even more fun because GTK doesn’t enforce standards but has to be implemented in each and every app in all places.
e.g. the server list in X-Chat has Connect-Connect in new tab-Close while the prefences menu uses Cancel-Ok.
GQView’s preferences (in the edit menu instead of the preferences menu btw.) offers me Apply-Cancel-Ok in the ergonomic Maybe-No-Yes order
while Gimp has its preferences in the file-menu and they only show Cancel-Ok but the Module Manager OTOH has Refresh-Close with a Load button centered one line above the rest.
Epiphany places the preferences in the edit menu like GQView but only with a close button, no going back for girly men, if you play around with the prefs in Epiphany you better be ready to face the consequences.
You see, lots and lots of variety, not as boring as other Desktop environments.
Regarding the button order, see here: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/2002-February/msg00317.ht…
There is also more on this issue in Apple’s HIG documentation.
As for someone on the first page of comments asking about links to usability studies regarding global menubars, Apple did extensive usability tests in 1981 when designing the original Lisa GUI. The reasons for the global menu are described in Apple’s HIG. Originally in development, Lisa’s menus were attached to the windows but were later moved to the top.
Screenshots of early GUI development here: http://www.folklore.org/StoryView.py?project=Macintosh&story=Busy_B…
Simply speaking, floating menubars force an application-centric model on the user while global menubars allow a document-centric model. The window you’re looking at on OS X is just a document window of the application. On Windows or other systems, the window you’re looking at is the application’s root parent window that contains the menubar and all toolbars, and any documents it has open are child windows in the application window. This leads to workarounds like with Adobe Photoshop, where they create their own “desktop” that children document and toolbar windows exist in but can’t be moved out of.
Incidentally, I’m not the only one to have written a response to the last article: http://kasei.us/archives/2005/04/18/menu_bar
Back when I used a 68000 Mac Portable running WriteNow I really appreciated the global menubar. Apart from keyboard shortcuts it was the only way to access the features of that app. Common tasks like changing font type/size had to be done using the main menu, today I’d use a dropdown on a toolbar. WriteNow had a very limited set of features so it’s menus weren’t bloated with hundreds of commands. The speed of the global menubar made it very efficient and pleasant to use even without toolbars.
But that was 15 years ago and today things are very different. Since the first article criticising the global menubar I’ve been watching how often I use menus.
In the Opera web browser I’ve only used the main menubar once in the past few days, and that was because I’d just installed a new version and wanted to change some preferences. All the commands I use are provided by toolbar buttons and contextual menus, mouse gestures provide another quick way of accessing commands.
In Word I used the menubar to initiate a mail merge, but most of process was completed using a wizard in the sidebar. Apart from that I didn’t touch the menus while creating about a dozen quite complex documents.
Using Photoshop I accessed the menus a few times, but 99% of the time I was using it’s comprehensive toolbars.
I can’t think of any applications where I use the menubar regularly.
Overall the main menubar just isn’t very important, even without memorising keyboard shortcuts there are usually faster alternatives. I’ve reduced the main menubar in Opera to a dropdown from a single toolbar button using a button from here: http://nontroppo.org/wiki/CustomButtons#menu It just isn’t important enough to have it take up a slice of valuable screen space in my browser. I wish I could do the same thing in most other apps, quick access to the main menubar isn’t something I miss.
Having said all that I still think that the Mac OS global menubar is far better than having a menu in each window. It isn’t really a problem with MDI apps since they’re generally run full screen anyway. But with SDI apps I hate seeing so much space wasted by such a little used feature appearing in multiple windows. At least with Mac OS there’s only ever one menubar taking up space.
Ideally there should be something more useful at the top of the screen. But I haven’t seen any other UIs use it for anything important, so it may as well have a menubar. At least with Mac OS part of the menubar is used as a status display or for useful things like virtual desktop switching.
What I’d really like to see is toolbars that use the edge of the screen. Why are there so many apps that put a few pixels of border between the toolbar buttons and the edge of the screen? More use of mouse gestures would be good too, there’s no problem with hitting a target when all it takes is a simple mouse movement.
“I can’t think of any applications where I use the menubar regularly.”
That’s all the more reason to have them all share one global space rather than duplicate themselves across multiple floating windows. If you rarely use them, that’s just wasted space, whereas with a global menubar, they’ll only ever take up that top row on the screen.
That’s all the more reason to have them all share one global space rather than duplicate themselves across multiple floating windows. If you rarely use them, that’s just wasted space, whereas with a global menubar, they’ll only ever take up that top row on the screen.
1. The top of the screen is not out of the way. It is the most important part of the screen due to ergonomics and Fitt’s law.
2. Menu bars on each window take up hardly any room.
Combine uncommonly used UI element with easiest to use UI location and you have poor usability. Fact is there are UI elements used lots more than menu bars and it makes much more sence to put them at the top of the screen. Most people certainly launch new applications more than I use menu bars for example.
man i don’t know who the hell this fitt guy is, but the top is not the most important part of mine screen
why do people make the argument that they never use menus, but don’t want them ALL the way across the screen because it takes forever to get to? And instead, they want these never used menus littered all over the screen in all of the windows they have open, so they can waste screen space, create confusing and unsightly clutter, and basically never get used?
Stop trying to rationalize your inferior UI, it just makes me want to donate money so you can get a mac and stop whining.
The sooner we realize disussing about the placing of menubars is stupid, the sooner we can move to something better. MacOsx is probably one of the best and fastest 2d interfaces ever created. Nothing comes close. Fact is, it’s a mix of old concepts. The sooner KDE and GNOME guys realize they have to break new ground instead of copying and filling the bag with choice of old crap, the sooner we can have the interface revolution everybody is waiting for. And it’s only from them that we can have something new, as the big names will never risk millions of users customed to the old keyb-mouse-windows approach. Please stop this mess altogether, discussing the placement of a menubar is pointless.
(Why MacOSX is the best 2d interface so far? simple: it’s made for work. When I work I usually spend at least 20 minutes into an application then switch (if I have to) to another. One task at a time. Even when I’m using two or more applications at the same time, I merely work with one and keep an eye over the other. I don’t work into two apps at the same time. When working with one app, the macos has the advantage because: Command keys are big and conveniently located where the ALT key is on the PC keyboard, making shortcuts much easier than, let’s say, the CTRL-crap windows uses. On the mac I can use shortcuts all the time. No menus no toolbars. When I can’t use a short cut, I usually go for the menu as the command usually are very complex and must used in sequence (I use a CAD program). Apart from the Fitt’s law (which is real: a maximized menubar is not the same as the global menu bar… the only windows app that comes close is Photoshop maximized-windows-borders-hidden) Another thing that work better in apple menus is the recognition of recieved command (aka menu blinking, more than one time I had to reissue commands in windows menus I took for executed) I hardly use toolbars (especially in windows, due to some bad programming sometimes I have to doubleclick on tools (one click to give focus, second to select tool)) BUT, as I said, LET’S MOVE ON GUYS! THIS THING IS OLD!!!!! DON’T TELL ME WE’RE STUCK IN THIS MUD! ISN’T THERE SOMETHING BETTER THAN THESE 2D INTERFACES? (And don’t say Avalon, please)
The best menubar is the circular menubar found in the Sims. It provides the functionality of a the a menubar relative to whatever you are clicking/using… It really is a context menu on steroids, in a way.
It sounds funny, but in standard context menus(right-click menus for non-mac people), a menu item gets progressively farther away from the mouse. A circular menu, where each item is an individual button around a circle around your mouse makes each item equally far away. Seems like there was a Mozilla extension for this a few years back.
Apple. with their lickable transulcent floaty-windows could make this both more attractive than the current menus and also improve the interface design by adopting htis.
Something like this:
http://www.trolltech.com/products/solutions/catalog/Widgets/qtpieme…
and these style windows, also found in Skype and other software: http://reelintelligence.com/BluePhoneElite/images/screen_callalert….
</dream>
circular menu that popup circular menu … and …
best circular menu, in my opinion, is the one found temple of elemental evil
http://www.atari.com/toee/screenpop.php?sys=pc&screen=1
but I dont think it is very usefull for a simple menu (~6 entry)
Have a non-modal floating palette with tabs for each set of like functions (mostly formatting tools.) Palette was also contextual, so clicking on different areas changed the series of tabs available.
The little that is left can be moved to a taskbar (in the wordprocessor, this was find and replace, spell check, cut and paste, open and save.)
Lotus still had drop-down menus but these were completely redundant. They could have been eliminated altogether!
Do you really think the Apple and Microsoft user interface units haven’t covered all this before? Do you really think these highly paid experts with a wealth of human-computer interaction research and data at their fingertips would take any of the ill-informed comments here seriously? Yeah right.
I’m an interface designer (no expert though) and I use both OS X and XP at work and XP at home. I don’t have any problems using either global menu bars or menus within windows although I believe global menus have a stronger case. I prefer OS X because the whole experience feels like a solid interface not one that feels like it has been plastered on.
And you use XP at home? Are you sadistic or something? At least explain that its for the games or something. I feel like I’m taking crazy pills!
I keep seeing people saying “Give us a choice!”, over and over, but I’ve yet to see a single post point out that KDE *DOES* (and has for some time) give the user a choice!
Desktop->Behavior->”Menu Bar at Top of Screen”
Choice (in this kind of stuff) is not good for the average user. I bet 90% of the users out there who are not ´power users´ or even interested in computers beyond a tool to get things done, couldn’t care less for these matters. In fact, giving those users a choice to pick up that, would confuse them, and at the same time, would give the whole OS an inconsistent look. People complaining about this is really ridiculous. Either learn the shortcuts, or get over with; accelerate your pointer if possible and stop crying about the menu being ´too far´. Too far is just a few pixles more for god’s sake. No OS is perfect. No car is either perfect. If you don’t like your pedals, you can’t change their location easily. That simple.
I keep seeing people saying “Give us a choice!”, over and over, but I’ve yet to see a single post point out that KDE *DOES* (and has for some time) give the user a choice!
Desktop->Behavior->”Menu Bar at Top of Screen”
Unless you run nothing but KDE apps that will give you a mix of apps that use the global menubar and others that have their own menubar. When running apps that don’t support it you get an unused menubar strip at the top of the screen. Horrible visual clutter and inconsistency that makes this feature almost totally useless.
1. The top of the screen is not out of the way. It is the most important part of the screen due to ergonomics and Fitt’s law.
That’s true, but it’s not like any other OSes use it for anything more important. It’s better to use it for a menubar than pretty much nothing at all, like in Windows.
2. Menu bars on each window take up hardly any room.
That’s true most of the time, but not when working with a number of small SDI windows. Quite often I find that the menus in Windows take up 3-4x as much screen space as the Mac menubar. Not a huge amount, but not totally inconsequential on a laptop screen. The use of toolbars in each window is a much worse problem.
You use arguments like “on my 24 ” monitor I like to have the menu bar where I need it – inside the window of the applcation I ‘m actuzally working with. I don’t want to move the mouse cursor all the way across the screen to reach the menue.”
I only agree with “menu bar at the spot where I’m currently working.” I myself work very much with context menues, as they are really bringing the bang for the buck. You have them quickly at hands.
the other arguments .. well, I use to give the mouse a hefty shove and voila, the cursor is at the other end of the screen in a sudden rush, so “time to move the mouse” what? Give the mouse a decent acceleration and spare you the trouble with moving over long distances if it only needs a wag out of the hand joint to have it there.
Stay safe.
PS: it is a question of getting used to something, not a question of “how good it is”. That all is subjective recoginition. That differs like clouds on the sky.
MDI is awful. Try using an MDI interface on multiple monitors especially with different resolutions. You either can’t or it’s awful. Also it covers up everything that the application is over which is annoying for multitasking. I personally will never use photoshop on windows unless I absolutely have to because the mac one does not use MDI.
RiskOS popup menus:
Popup menus are good for shortcuts to things that are in the window menu. They are awful without there being a window menu because they can change based on where you click in the window. This means that options can be hidden from the user and they will never know. Use Squeak sometime to see what that’s like. It’s awful.
When you care about the speed difference (if any) between a global menu bar and menubars attached to the window, you’re in need of a vacation, imo.
By the way, Fitt’s law doesn’t mean a thing when you first have to bring a window into focus before you can get to the menubar. Personally I found this very annoying when I tried out a global menu bar in KDE for a couple weeks. And don’t think most users have only one window open at the same time: e.g. IM chat, music app, browser, word processor. Hey they may even have a pdf paper open, or do you think that’s geek only terrain, sigh…
Fitt’s law doesn’t apply to Tablet PCs
Now, Fitt’s law or not, in 2005 I hate the idea of moving from working window in bottom right of my 24″ screen all the way up to the top to reach its menu. The target might be infinite, but it is bloody half way across the room. A colleague uses TWO monitors of that size, and there it is even worse, because the menubar attaches itself to ony one of the two screens, and if your work window is in the other one, you have to traverse TWO 24 inch monitors to reach the menu. A MAJOR waste of time.
People who have several full featured apps (not like, an app and a resource meter, or a mp3 player) at the same time side by side, must be punished anyway, for they are idiots. This is just.
There is an old law for governmental bodies, companies, etc that says: The amount of discussion spent on a particular topic is inversely proportional to its importance. For example, Congress will spend hours debating what kind of coffee pot to put in the lobby and pass billion dollar bills in a relatively short period of time.
It now looks like this law works with us computer folks. LOL
MDI is awful. Try using an MDI interface on multiple monitors especially with different resolutions. You either can’t or it’s awful. Also it covers up everything that the application is over which is annoying for multitasking. I personally will never use photoshop on windows unless I absolutely have to because the mac one does not use MDI.
MDI is certainly flawed and window management in Mac OS is obviously far better than in Windows. But to me MDI is the lesser of two evils when compared with Windows SDI; at least you generally get a single toolbar and menu for all MDI windows. That makes it easy to work on multiple documents in one app, even if it makes working with multiple apps a bit of a pain.
At work I’m only using a 19” monitor @1280×1024 so I really appreciate the space saved by MDI when viewing more than one document. At home with a couple of 21″ monitors giving me 3200×1200, SDI apps are more tolerable but still waste an annoying amount of vertical screen space.
RiskOS popup menus:
Popup menus are good for shortcuts to things that are in the window menu. They are awful without there being a window menu because they can change based on where you click in the window. This means that options can be hidden from the user and they will never know. Use Squeak sometime to see what that’s like. It’s awful.
You don’t know how RISC OS pop up menus actually work. They display a full menu for the document; unusable options are disabled but still visible, just like in a Mac/Windows menubar. For example, you can print or save a document by menu-clicking anywhere in the document window, but save/print selection would be greyed out if nothing was selected.
The only options that weren’t available through the popup menus are those that affect the application globally, rather than just being relevant to the specific document window. Commands for quitting the application, accessing help, opening recently used documents, etc. are accessed by menu-clicking on the application icon in the iconbar (the RISC OS equivalent of the Dock/Taskbar).
Overall the RISC OS menu system is closer to the NeXTSTEP global menu than anything else. The only real disadvantage is that it prevents the use of simple contextual menus like those in Mac OS/Windows. You really should try to use something before commenting on it.
People who have several full featured apps (not like, an app and a resource meter, or a mp3 player) at the same time side by side, must be punished anyway, for they are idiots. This is just.
I think the best for such a comment is to get moderated down, but I’ll answer it anyway. I am not a writer/spreadsheet monkey/ casual surfer to ACTIVELY do my work in only one application. I am doing computational biology and I need to simultaneously view graphical and dabular data from 3-4 different applications at a time. I am not the only one doing it and, no, tabbing through overlapping windows does not cut it. You REALLY think a 24″ widescreen LCD was designed to be used for one major application window at a time??? Can you even afford one, like some of us whom you call idiots?
In my previous post ’ should be ‘ and ” should be ”
Why can’t I copy and paste from MS Word to MS Internet Explorer without it messing up simple punctuation? It doesn’t happen when pasting into Opera, but that isn’t necessary as Opera has a spellchecker.
Maybe someone already mentioned this, but having a central place for all important system tasks/application tasks is nice.
Here’s a difference. On my Mac, I have my ‘system menu bar’ as the first item in the menubar. From this ONE place, I can shutdown, do any application menu command from my app, see this time, adjust speaker volume, run scripts from my script menu option. The only thing I can’t do is launch apps (that’s with the dock is for).
In Windows, you have your application menubar in the window and the system options in the start bar. All the your (time/speaker volume/etc) at the far right of the bar.
I prefer having my system menu in the same place as my application and status menus. The dock is reduced simply into a launcher and application status indicator. I can look at the top of my screen and navigate to the top to do most tasks.
I suppose I could reposition the ‘Windows’ bar at the top of the screen, ala Gnome. Not sure how to just make a slimmed down dock for windows that just has my quicklaunch and minimized windows. It can probably be done. If I could then I could stick this at the bottom. It would come pretty close to the functionality and positioning. But you’re still missing joinging the application menu with the global menu. A central place for all this stuff.
You said it your self.
It is the pushy “intelligence” of MS Word, which thinks it’s smarter then you and me. It exchanged your basic single and double quotes for the fancy typographical ones.
BTW, why do you type a comment in an word processor and then copy-paste it into a browser? I can’t find a rational reason for this.
MacOsx is probably one of the best and fastest 2d interfaces ever created.
Please the Mac UI is painfully slow. Anyone working with a large number of windows or apps open cannot possibly believe Mac is fast.
I think the Mac UI is nice for people who don’t really multi-task enough.
The Mac UI handles windows or tasks inconsistently. For example expose doesn’t show you minimized windows. Windows which are not minimized are not shown in the Dock. In Gnome I have a panel for all my tasks. I can open each almost instantly and don’t have to worry about whether or not the window is miniized. In Gnome I can minimize all the windows by clicking wone button. With the Mac I have to press F11 and then I can only do one thing on the desktop before all the windows fly back.
The lack of an MDI interface for apps like dreamweaver is making me want to dual boot my powerbook with Ubuntu or get rid of OSX all together.
When apple first started the Mac line and MacOS, they were working primarily with those small 7 inch screens. Back then the only efficient way to use the majority of apps was maximized windows, so the menu bar made sense. Now that screens are much bigger, resolutions are higher and the need to use maximized windows for efficiency is no longer there, the global menu is less relevant. Global menus can still be useful, and I personally, with the 2 Macs I’ve used, liked the Global menu bar, but it can sometimes take the menus too far away (or seemingly so) from an app when using regular windows.
It really is all a matter of what people are used to. Even then there are several people in my office who have a hard time with menus in general and menus are inefficient for them whether they’re global or app centric.
Completely agree with the article. Very nicely written.
I use both Mac and Windows-primarily a Mac user. I am with global menus. Less clutter, more efficiency. I always have to pause and check myself when working with multiple windows in Windows.
Give Mac/global menus an honest try (like Anand of Anandtech) before you diss it. There is a reason why people are so enamored with it.
It would be really sad if the Mac would completely morph into Windows-it is already doing that with shortcuts/aliases and widgets in its windows (except being on the opposite side) to attract PC users.
Cheers
“Modern” GUI themes w/ pastel title bars can make it a lot harder to tell which window has focus. This can be a real problem on OSX and bites me occasionally on XP as well. It’s nice to be able to glance at the top of the screen on OSX and see instantly which app is active. (With several Terminal’s open, I’ve trained my eye to quickly spot the blinking cursor.)
DISCLAIMER: I grew up on Macs (not counting 8-10 years before they existed) and strongly prefer the global menu bar from a pure usability standpoint. I roundly loathe both MDI and focus follows mouse.
BTW, why do you type a comment in an word processor and then copy-paste it into a browser? I can’t find a rational reason for this.
Spellchecking. I hate making stupid typing errors and not being able to edit my message. Normally I’m using Opera which has an integrated spellchecker, but as I was browsing with IE I thought I’d use Word to check the message before posting, obviously that was a mistake.
Pervasive spell checking is available in Mac OS X. Once you get used to it, its hard to live without and at times when certain Applications don’t take advantage of the system wide spell checker it can be inconvenient as you experience with Opera vs IE has shown you. I like Firefox on Mac OSX it has many great features but its misses the spell checker. Hopefully they’ll integrate this free feature in future Firefox on Mac OSX.
I think the Mac UI is nice for people who don’t really multi-task enough.
Personally I think that it’s UI the the best one around for multitasking. Certainly much better than Windows or Linux with their mix of MDI and SDI apps.
The Mac UI handles windows or tasks inconsistently. For example expose doesn’t show you minimized windows. Windows which are not minimized are not shown in the Dock.
This is entirely consistent, it’s just different to what you’re used to. Expose is meant to show windows that are open on the desktop, not ones that have been put to one side by minimising to the Dock.
If the Dock showed all open windows then it would quickly become too cluttered to be useful, just like the Windows taskbar before grouping of windows. You can access the windows of any running app through the Dock’s menus which isn’t really much different to the taskbar method.
The lack of an MDI interface for apps like dreamweaver is making me want to dual boot my powerbook with Ubuntu or get rid of OSX all together.I think the Mac UI is nice for people who don’t really multi-task enough.
I thought you said that you multitasked? MDI is the absolutely worst thing for multitasking since it pretty much forces you to run apps full screen. Mac window management combines the best features of MDI and SDI. It quickly allows you to bring all the windows of an app to the front, but doesn’t stop you from manipulating single windows. Dragging and dropping selections from an image editor to a app like Dreamweaver is practical on a Mac. It’s a pain on a PC unless you have two monitors, each with one of the apps displayed.
Personally I prefer MDI for big apps like Dreamweaver, Eclipse, etc, etc. These are more their own environment. For small apps like text editors SDI is nicer. Sometimes I combine the two. I’ll have a few text editor windows open which makes comparing side by side easier.
Having not grown up on Mac’s I find that some things are just clunky, other features are nice. But I think apple is unwillingly to take anything from Windows because they have a superiority complex.
Give Mac/global menus an honest try (like Anand of Anandtech) before you diss it. There is a reason why people are so enamored with it.
The single reason people are so “enamored” with the global menu bar, is that Apfel uses and propagates them. It fits nice with Apfels “think different” ideology. You wont find anyone who is enamored with the global menu bar and isnt at the same time some kind of a “think different” Apfel fanboy. There is nothing appealing on the global menu except the Company behind the system (and only to the fanboys of this company) and the fact of being different (but only for the sake of being different, and then defending the alleged “advantages” of this difference to death.)
Hows about every time you try and spout the same stuff about menubars never being used, you choose to use an application in your example that actually has commands that need doing? Firefox is not a good example in this case, as a browser is a very simple app taken from the point of view of commands to be issued to it. You should consider an application, such as abiword or open office. These exhibit the toolbar mess the article author talks about, and have many menu items which are used when working on documents.
The references to these usability studies are?
Were these studies done with a global menu bar, or with a menu bar attached to a window. If the later would it not be an expected outcome as the menu bar is harder to hit than the global one?
If the Dock showed all open windows then it would quickly become too cluttered to be useful, just like the Windows taskbar before grouping of windows. You can access the windows of any running app through the Dock’s menus which isn’t really much different to the taskbar method.
No you can’t because if the window is not minimized but behind another window then you have to click on the open app in the dock. But because you have like three windows for that app and the window you want is not in focus you have to find the right window.
I routinely have about 15 windows open in Linux or Windows and turn off the group option in Windows. I have no difficulty in finding what I am looking for. This is in fact the one aspect of the Gnome interface which is superior to KDE. You can have more space via an empty panel.
I thought you said that you multitasked? MDI is the absolutely worst thing for multitasking since it pretty much forces you to run apps full screen.
I use windows at work and often have dreamweaver and fireworks open (MDI apps). Depending on what is being done having the window maximized may or may not be more productive. At the same time I will have various browsers open. I will also have Outlook open and then a couple of notepad windows. If I need to batch resize a whole lot of images I use infranview. So yes I can have lots of things open. Depending on the app, SDI or MDI may be better.
SDI is just older and really better suited for simple apps. The world has moved on and created large apps which are really their own apps. Apple should let go and realise this. The ‘drawer’ functionality like ‘Mail’, ‘Textwrangler’ and other Cocoa apps use is at attempt at mimicking some of the benefits of MDI. But why not just adopt MDI where appropriate.
P.S. I like the drawer too. Especially in SKEdit which is a wonderful text editor.
The world has moved on and created large apps which are really their own apps.
Meant to says large apps that are really their own environments or platforms.
Then those mac apps are broken. yes and no are not appropriate labels for buttons. button labels should be verbs to give a clear indication of what clicking them will do.
They are great for short menus, but they fall apart in terms of usability when you have a large number of items, insert menu of abiword for instance, or your bookmarks menu in a browser.
I routinely have about 15 windows open in Linux or Windows and turn off the group option in Windows. I have no difficulty in finding what I am looking for. This is in fact the one aspect of the Gnome interface which is superior to KDE. You can have more space via an empty panel.
I find that the windows taskbar breaks down after about 20 things are open (which is around what I have open to do my job.). window grouping helps this alot, but i still need to increase the height of my toolbar, which makes it less efficient for the same reasons that the windows menus are inefficient (the whole fitts law thing). Its one of the biggest gripes I have with the os, and have been trying for ages to find a good solution.
I use windows at work and often have dreamweaver and fireworks open (MDI apps). Depending on what is being done having the window maximized may or may not be more productive. At the same time I will have various browsers open. I will also have Outlook open and then a couple of notepad windows. If I need to batch resize a whole lot of images I use infranview. So yes I can have lots of things open. Depending on the app, SDI or MDI may be better.
the idea behind MDI is basically a mac environment just for that app. take away the boxes of all the MDI apps, and you have a spatial interface.
SDI is just older and really better suited for simple apps. The world has moved on and created large apps which are really their own apps. Apple should let go and realise this. The ‘drawer’ functionality like ‘Mail’, ‘Textwrangler’ and other Cocoa apps use is at attempt at mimicking some of the benefits of MDI. But why not just adopt MDI where appropriate.
SDI is far better suited for working with multiple apps at the same time. The only benefit I have found to MDI is that on windows, you can have a decent amount of documents open in several apps and not have an unusable toolbar. what else would you see as a benefit?
Discussions like this one are usually funny because a lot of people are writing statements about things they don’t know of.
If you do it right, windows can handle activation by mouse quite nicely (you’ll have to fiddle with a couple of extra settings for it to work reasonable). You can also get the taskbar/systray and so on in the top if you want. That’s what I’ve been doing all the time I’ve been using “32”-bit Windows (9x og NT/2K). It works a lot better than the usual and very illogical placement in the bottom.
I would prefere a global menubar when using maximized applications – like FireFox and Thunderbird, as well as Lazarus. However, in other applications not running maximized I would prefere a local menu. They have never taken much space, it’s just a single line of text. Toolbars and stuff like that takes a lot of space – but either they’re turned off or you’re using small icons, or a large resolution or it’s maximized.
On a 17″ monitor running 1600*1200 I would be very annoyed if the menubar always was in top, when working in several minor windows placed all over the desktop. Especially when it’s down in the lower right corner.
Regarding the “Yes No Maybe” vs. “Maybe No Yes” it all depends on the direction of reading.
Many languages uses “from Top to Bottom” combined with “from Left to Right” – in this case “Forward” is in right direction as well as in down direction, and “Back” is in left direction and upper direction. And since all germanic languages uses the phrase: Yes No Maybe (as in “Do you want to this? Yes No Maybe” the most logical placement of buttons is: Yes No Maybe .. or Yes No Cancel
However if reading direction is opposite placement of buttons must equally be opposite.
Any possibility would be to use a “from Top to Bottom”-solution:
Yes
No
Maybe/Cancel
Usability research is pretty much useless, since the result of that research is the average of the average of the average. It gives a reasonable solution for everybody but it doesn’t give the optimal solution for anybody. So up yours with usability research. Give me my freedom of choice – and let me do my work the logically way. Thag you very buch
I totally agree with some of your points regarding Apples stubborness. The Dock does need work, for example.
Regarding MDI, however, you’re completly out to lunch. It just totally sucks. Especially for multitasking. The only strength of MDI is that it makes singletasking(muliple docs in one app) easier for people with ADHD, as they can maximize the MDI window and not be distracted by other screenobjects.
however, you’re completly out to lunch.
When I read that I had to laugh. I am sure many people agree with you
Maybe I have ADHD, I do get distracted by new mail notifications!
I believe the MDI is good for apps in which you have a lot of files open. In dreamweaver I routinely have 10+ files open. Having windows strewn all over the place would just be silly to me.
But when you need to compare files side by side MDI is not ideal for me. So generally I just use something notepad or kate on those files (even have the same file open in two different apps).
On the Mac I use a text editor called SKEdit which is very nice. It uses the drawer which to me is similar to an MDI interface because I can access any document from it. Now Dreamweaver on the Mac is terrible because I don’t think this is the kind of app that should be SDI. At least they should implement the drawer. I am not really a big fan of keyboard shortcuts except copy/paste etc. But I do like context menus. Maybe SDI in an app like Dreamweaver would be better for me if I used the keyboard shortcuts to toggle between windows, but you still have to cycle through them. I would much rather just click a tab.
Many PC users commenting here seem to want the iCandy of Os X (and the well designed Apple computers, albeit at the lowest price)- but want the OS to work exactly like Windows because that is what they are used to.
It is quite clear, if you need MDI stick with Windows or with a theme in Linux. Leave the Mac alone! You will get your iCandy in Longhorn in 2006.
Cheers
No you can’t because if the window is not minimized but behind another window then you have to click on the open app in the dock. But because you have like three windows for that app and the window you want is not in focus you have to find the right window.
If you bring up a contextual menu on the Dock icon the menu displays all open windows, you can easily select the one that you want.
I routinely have about 15 windows open in Linux or Windows and turn off the group option in Windows. I have no difficulty in finding what I am looking for. This is in fact the one aspect of the Gnome interface which is superior to KDE. You can have more space via an empty panel.
When working I regularly have over 50 windows open, multiple web pages, file manager windows, PDF documents, memos and notes, images etc. I suppose having every window displayed in the Dock would be fine if you only have 15 windows open, but it wouldn’t scale much further than that.
As it is the Dock can cope with hundreds of windows open in dozens of applications, a taskbar without grouping would have to fill half the screen to display them. The Dock lets you bring forward all the windows of an app or focus a single window, very versatile and elegant IMO.
I use windows at work and often have dreamweaver and fireworks open (MDI apps). Depending on what is being done having the window maximized may or may not be more productive.
With MDI every document is contained in one large window, IME this makes it a pain to work with two apps on screen at the same time. You can’t bring a single MDI sub-window to the front without the main MDI window and everything else it contains popping to the front. If you want to view a page in Dreamweaver next to a couple of images in Fireworks, you have to resize both the main MDI window and arrange sub-windows it contains so that they’re visible.
I’ve given up trying to work on MDI apps in that way, when I have to suffer them I maximise all the windows and use the taskbar or alt+tab to switch between them. That’s a waste of a large monitor and it definitely slows down my workflow when using a number of different apps to work on a project. Having two monitors makes it tolerable, but I still think MDI is terrible design.
In Mac OS I’d just bring the windows I want to the front using the Dock and all the others will stay in the background. Brilliant if you want to drag and drop or cut and paste between apps, or just for comparing documents open in different apps.
SDI is just older and really better suited for simple apps. The world has moved on and created large apps which are really their own apps. Apple should let go and realise this.
Yet Microsoft have moved away from MDI in recent years. Most MS Office apps are a messy and inconsistent mix of both MDI and SDI, created to work around the problems and limitations of MDI.
To me MDI feels like a nasty throwback to singletasking UIs, while Mac OS makes it easy to work with multiple applications,
But why not just adopt MDI where appropriate.
I’ve never seen a single case where MDI is appropriate, at best it’s the lesser of two evils when compared with Windows SDI. Can you give me an advantage of Windows MDI over Mac window management?
When working I regularly have over 50 windows open, multiple web pages, file manager windows, PDF documents, memos and notes, images etc. I suppose having every window displayed in the Dock would be fine if you only have 15 windows open, but it wouldn’t scale much further than that.
Yes I would pretty much have a similar amount. Like you say I have lots of file manager windows open, emails, etc, etc.
Anyway the point is an MDI app contains many pages in it. If I have 15 windows open many of them contain multiple documents. So you don’t have to worry about things getting two cluttered. MDI basically allows all the grouping to happen without slowing me down. I agree though MDI is not good for looking at documents side by side. Sometimes its okay, but generally MDI is most appropriate when you are only working in the single app. I use a seperate FTP client but Dreamweaver could do that for me, etc, etc. SDI seems more like a Unix mind set, “a single app for a single task”, which is fine sometimes. But getting back to my point I do use SDI apps when I want to view things side by side.
In Mac OS I’d just bring the windows I want to the front using the Dock and all the others will stay in the background. Brilliant if you want to drag and drop or cut and paste between apps, or just for comparing documents open in different apps.
It is funny how different people are. I find copying and pasting a real drag in the Mac. Oddly enough copying and pasting is done by the keyboard with me. If I want to drag and drop and the window is maximized I either just resize the window or drag into the task bar which then gives that window focus and drop in place. Like I said SDI is definitely the way to go for comparing. But I use both. File management is an SDI kind of thing. Again I really dislike the Mac’s Window management, just seems slow!
Thinking about it, I find that SDI makes it difficult to maximize my work space. Floating toolbars get in the way. By that I mean the work area often overlaps a toolbar or palette of some kind. I much prefer those things permanently rooted to some edge of the screen. Even better when they can expand and collapse. Seems faster and more efficient to me.
Lke I say I realise that SDI has a place. I use it, but MDI has its place. I know you don’t agree and maybe for you MDI is bad in every situation, but I know I am capable of working efficiently and for me that is mixing styles up as I see appropriate.
Sometimes its okay, but generally MDI is most appropriate when you are only working in the single app.
That’s the reason I hate it. Most of the time I’m not working in a single app, so being restricted my MDI is very annoying. If it had any advantages to make up for it’s limitations then that’d be fine, but personally I can’t see any advantages of MDI over Mac window management.
It is funny how different people are. I find copying and pasting a real drag in the Mac. Oddly enough copying and pasting is done by the keyboard with me. If I want to drag and drop and the window is maximized I either just resize the window or drag into the task bar which then gives that window focus and drop in place.
I have to do that when running Windows, but it’s much, much slower than having both windows visible on screen. Window management in general is faster when I can simply click on a window rather than having to find it in the Dock/taskbar. Without an MDI main window covering up all other windows I can usually see many of the documents I’m working on and click directly on them.
Again I really dislike the Mac’s Window management, just seems slow!
How is it slow? You haven’t given any reason why you find it slower than Windows window management.
Thinking about it, I find that SDI makes it difficult to maximize my work space. Floating toolbars get in the way. By that I mean the work area often overlaps a toolbar or palette of some kind. I much prefer those things permanently rooted to some edge of the screen. Even better when they can expand and collapse. Seems faster and more efficient to me.
That’s a problem for Windows SDI compared with Windows MDI, but I don’t see that problem in Mac OS apps. To me apps like Photoshop and Dreamweaver on Mac OS feel very similar to their Windows counterparts, but without the horrible window management problems caused by MDI.
The Mac versions don’t take up any more UI space, they tend to have the same toolbars as the windows versions. The main difference is that the document windows aren’t contained in a main window. That’s a big advantage for Mac OS IMO as it allows you to keep all the windows of an app together, with a single set of toolbars and menubar (like MDI), but still manipulate and layer individual windows of different apps.
To me Mac Window management gives the best of both worlds with few of the disadvantages of either SDI or MDI in Windows. So I find it hard to understand how anyone could see it as a disadvantage.
Lke I say I realise that SDI has a place. I use it, but MDI has its place. I know you don’t agree and maybe for you MDI is bad in every situation, but I know I am capable of working efficiently and for me that is mixing styles up as I see appropriate.
I don’t have a problem with your personal choice, but I really can’t understand it. I’ve used MDI apps for years, but I’ve yet to see any advantage over Mac Window management. Can you give me a couple of examples of why you prefer MDI?
“I use menus probably once a day in all my applications combined. I’ve done usability testing and found this is common for almost everyone. There is almost always a more efficient way at getting at commands than the menus so why should someone use them for common tasks? Answer: they won’t. People will only use the menus for uncommon tasks, and hence menus always will be used uncommonly. ”
I help people with their PC’s pretty much on a daily basis. And I can tell you from experience that most people rely very heavily on the menu bars. The typical computer user these days is doing email, browsing the internet, playing cards and other mundane tasks. These people do not care to learn keyboard shortcuts. They just want to be able to look at a menu and pick out what they want to do. Your analysis is dead wrong when comes to Mom or Pop or all the other people who do not use a computer to make a living.
Bill
windows and linux systems suffer from a horrible interface constraint regarding submenu selection that never ceases to drive me absolutely insane when trying to select from one.
The Macintosh allows a logarithmic motion of the mouse to select a submenu item, without disappearing the target submenu. This has been a feature of the MacOS since submenus first appeared on them.
On Win32/Linux however, submenu-item selection requires an excruciatingly precise left-right motion to position the cursor from the menu to the submenu before you can even start scrolling up and down the submenu.. any *slight* motion above or below the menuitem holding the submenu and boom, the submenu disappears, forcing the user to back-up and ‘try again’, usually more than once.
This is an extraordinary waste of my time and one of the primary reasons I have preferred the MacOS GUI to any other for longer than I care to think about.
MDI on Mac OS X? How about option-shift-H?
MDI-Application try to take over the job of the window manager; namely managing windows.
But that’s silly! Why not concentrate on the job at hand (writing letters, painting nice little pictures)? Let the window manager do it’s job.
Almost all applications using MDI make a very bad job. Remember the “old” MS Office? Horrible.
The only MDI interface I now use is tabbed browsing. Somehow it doesn’t get in the way.
I see the global menubar like a toolbox.
Let me try to explain that: Whenever you are working on a piece of wood or steel, you have the toolbox right beside you. It is not attached to the piece you are working on (compare to the per-window-menubar), it is always on the same place. But still there are woodworking tools and steelworking tools within it. You just have to open the right part of the box.
The global menubar is also a toolbar. It sits on the top of your screen and is easily accessible.
This global toolbox is intelligent; it knows what tools you need to work with the piece in front of you (the active document) and presents them. No hassle to find the right tools!
Now compare this to the per-window-toolbar: You have a toolbox(menubar) attached to every working chair or table (think: document) you are working on. That takes away an incredible amount of space. And it is silly; why not have everthing in one place?
This approach is very object oriented. The document-windows become objects, the menubar becomes the toolbox with all “methods” to available on the document.
That all breaks down with toolbars. You have applications like QuickTime and Safari completely breaking everything you say.