Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 17th May 2007 18:54 UTC
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 241181
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-09
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.
Member since:2005-07-08
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
Member since:2005-08-31
7) It's been proven to be a faster method of using a menu. It's late and I can't remember the reference though. By having it at the top of the screen you can just move your mouse upwards without having to target a specific vertical space. Because the mouse is bounded by the screen that small bar becomes, in terms of hand movements needed, a much larger area.
The usability gurus seem to love it but personally I hate it.
Member since:2006-04-21
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
"The Internet is one of the most transformative technologies of our lifetimes. But for 2 out of every 3 people on earth, a fast, affordable Internet connection is still out of reach. And this is far from being a solved problem. There are many terrestrial challenges to Internet connectivity - jungles, archipelagos, mountains. There are also major cost challenges. Right now, for example, in most of the countries in the southern hemisphere, the cost of an Internet connection is more than a month's income. Solving these problems isn't simply a question of time: it requires looking at the problem of access from new angles. So today we're unveiling our latest moonshot from Google[x]: balloon-powered Internet access." Insane.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
"MineAssemble is a tiny bootable Minecraft clone written partly in x86 assembly. I made it first and foremost because a university assignment required me to implement a game in assembly for a computer systems course. Because I had never implemented anything more complex than a 'Hello World' bootloader before, I decided I wanted to learn about writing my own kernel code at the same time. Note that the goal of this project was not to write highly efficient hand-optimized assembly code, but rather to have fun and write code that balances readability and speed. This is primarily accomplished by proper commenting and consistent code structuring." Just cool.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
Jon Rubinstein, former CEO of Palm: "Well, I'm not sure I would have sold the company to HP. That's for sure. Talk about a waste. Not that I had any choice because when you sell a company you don't get to decide that. Obviously, the board and shareholders decide that. If we had known they were just going to shut it down and never really give it a chance to flourish, what would have been the point of selling the company? I think the deal we had with Verizon really hurt us, but who knew that at the time? These things are all hindsight."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 20:46 UTC
"And so it is with Dell's Alienware X51 R2, a small form factor gaming PC in console digs. It's shaped similar to Microsoft's Xbox 360 Slim, and though it's slightly larger than either a 360 or PlayStation 3, the X51 R2 would be right at home in a living room setting nestled next to a large screen TV. Indeed, it's adept at running Steam's Big Picture mode, and if your primary objective is to play games in the living room, go ahead and consider the X51 R2 a hybrid game console." This is obviously not the only machine like this - still, these are very valid console alternatives even for those that don't like being hunched over with a cramped WASD-claw. Also, PC gamers among us: could you get away with the $699 model for gaming?
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 17:32 UTC
From Bloomberg: "Microsoft, the world's largest software company, provides intelligence agencies with information about bugs in its popular software before it publicly releases a fix, according to two people familiar with the process. That information can be used to protect government computers and to access the computers of terrorists or military foes." The lid has officially been blown off.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:39 UTC
"The key takeaway we've reached (after two less than 24 hours playing with the iOS 7 Beta release) is this - every App must consider even basic updates to its UI to survive in a post-iOS 6 world." Great. Telling developers to update their entire application - user interface and behaviour alike - to target a look and behaviour that isn't final yet. Seems like potential for a lot of wasted work here.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 11:32 UTC
"Overall the app is really basic, and designed for on the go editing. Microsoft says it's not planning to create an iPad version, noting that tablet users can utilize the Office Web Apps instead. We'd like to see some additional options for editing, including more clear options for text formatting and the ability to insert and change images, but it's a solid attempt for something you're only really going to use for editing in emergencies." A resounding meh can be heard from all over the world.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 19:39 UTC
"Today, most people are using modern browsers that support the majority of the latest web technologies. Better yet, the usage of legacy browsers is declining significantly and newer browsers stay up to date automatically, which means the leading edge has become mainstream. Given these factors we've decided to retire Chrome Frame, and will cease support and updates for the product in January 2014." Eh.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:45 UTC
The Next Web: "First of all, many of the new icons were primarily designed by members of Apple's marketing and communications department, not the app design teams. From what we've heard, SVP of Design Jony Ive (also now Apple's head of Human Interaction) brought the print and web marketing design team in to set the look and color palette of the stock app icons. They then handed those off to the app design teams who did their own work on the 'interiors', with those palettes as a guide. We've also been hearing that there wasn't a whole lot of communication between the various teams behind say, Mail and Safari. And that there were multiple teams inside each group that were competing with various designs, leading to what some see as inconsistencies in icon design. Those may well be hammered out in days ahead." What. Reminds me of how Microsoft does (used to do?) things.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 11:43 UTC
"The German Parliament, the Bundestag, has introduced a joint motion against software patents. The resolution urges the German government to take steps to limit the granting of patents on computer programs. In the resolution, the Parliament says that patents on software restrict developers from exercising their copyright privileges, including the right to distribute their programs as Free Software. They promote the creation of monopolies in the software market, and hurt innovation and job creation." After New Zealand, we now have one of the most powerful economies in the world moving to ban software patents for all the reasons smart people have been outlining for years. also: "The government should also push to ensure that software is covered by copyright alone, and that patent offices (including the European Patent Office) stop granting patents on software." Germany is not a country the EU can ignore. Very good news, this.More News »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2005-07-24
"""
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.