Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th May 2007 18:54 UTC
Gnome In the GNOME bugzilla, there is an ongoing discussion about whether or not to include a patch into the default GNOME installation which would enable GNOME to (optionally) have a global application menubar, similar to that of the Mac OS and KDE (in the latter it is optional and off by default). Installation instructions and .deb packages, as well as a 60-page (and counting) discussion of the patch, are available on the UbuntuForums. Read on for a poll on this issue.
Thread beginning with comment 241177
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Why?
by Eugenia on Thu 17th May 2007 19:09 UTC in reply to "Why?"
Member since:

The question you should be asking is this: "why not?"

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why?
by sbergman27 on Thu 17th May 2007 19:15 in reply to "RE: Why?"
sbergman27 Member since:

The question you should be asking is this: "why not?"

No. The question is "why?". Options should not be added to the UI needlessly. It must have a solid reason to be there.

I'm surprised that you, Eugenia, would look at it that way. I would have expected that including UI options without solid reason would go against your philosophy, as I understand it.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Why?
by Pseudo Cyborg on Thu 17th May 2007 20:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
Pseudo Cyborg Member since:

Options should not be added to the UI needlessly. It must have a solid reason to be there.

You're absolutely right. The reason is simple: I find it to be a UI enhancement. Changing the question to "why not" really makes a solid point. UI camps are divided on the issue, but it's a fairly equal division. It's times like that where having it as an option that's off by default is the best route.

The answer to "why" is very simple: because there are enough users out there that find it useful to warrant such inclusion as an option that's off by default.

"Why not" is brought up because so many are immensely and adamantly opposed and, quite frankly, for no reason other than that they don't particularly want it.

That's not to say that every option need be present in Gnome. This particular one, however, deserves a place.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Why?
by diegocg on Thu 17th May 2007 21:14 in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
diegocg Member since:

1) Because if you put the menues in a OSX-like menubar, then the windows doesn't needs to have enougth width to have them in the window. If you have used Adium, you have like 7 menues, or even more, in the OS-X menu bar. The Adium window design only could have 2 or 3. Having menues in a separate bar separes the menues design from the GUI design.

2) Microsoft have tried to design an interface that has the same objective (make the menu bar disappear from the window UI), the ribbon thing. The Apple approach looks cleaner IMO.

3) Cleaner window UI, due to 1)

4) It's easier to find the menues that way, they are always on top of the screen

4) Since all the windows share the same menu bar, you save screen space when you've multiple apps opened.

5) You can use it as "system" menu bar. This saves you from using the app launcher to find the "shutdown" function.

6) Because Apple is the most usable OS, they really care about usability and there must be some reason why they do it (sorry for the weak reasonement but it's true)

Disadvantage: The menues are separated so it's not directly obvious that they're related to the app you've opened. It's ver very easy to get used to it, though.

Edited 2007-05-17 21:16

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: Why?
by twenex on Fri 18th May 2007 08:10 in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
twenex Member since:

The question is "who chose to put application menus at the top of every window?" It's a waste of space.

Personally, as by now I have no doubt said many times here, I'm holding out for menus that disappear unless you click a mouse button.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Why?
by qortra on Thu 17th May 2007 19:17 in reply to "RE: Why?"
qortra Member since:

I'm sorry, I think "why" is very much the better question. For the last few years, Gnome has put a lot of effort to stripping its applications of excessive options and advanced settings. Some people might not like this, but it seems to be working for them. There has been a lot of positive response to a FOSS desktop environment with a minimalist interface, sane defaults, and large focus on HIG. Thus, they have to be very careful about adding options that allow users to change the core interface of the Desktop Environment.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Why?
by archiesteel on Thu 17th May 2007 19:30 in reply to "RE[2]: Why?"
archiesteel Member since:

Why? Because some people prefer it that way. I don't, but I can understand that some people do.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Why?
by Endica on Thu 17th May 2007 19:50 in reply to "RE: Why?"
Endica Member since:

The question you should be asking is this: "why not?"

Please explain how that is a better question to ask??

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Why?
by graigsmith on Fri 18th May 2007 22:36 in reply to "RE: Why?"
graigsmith Member since:

why not. because when windows aren't maximized they are confusing. controls that work for a program are off of the window. AND on the window. which is weird. either have the controls ON or off the window. why both? it just makes it confusing.

it's not my way of working, and i wouldn't want it as default.. but why not just have it as an option? it's always nice to have options. Especially with something as often used as the main gnome bar. It's just one of those things that MUST be configurable so that it can please any user.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Why?
by abraxas on Sat 19th May 2007 14:14 in reply to "RE: Why?"
abraxas Member since:

Because global menu bars suck on large screens or dual screens. They work very well on traditional screens but they have severe limitations on larger screen areas. It starts to take longer and longer to access the menu via mouse the larger the screen area gets. The global menu bar paradigm is failing now that technology is surpassing its usefulness.

Reply Parent Score: 2