Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 18th Nov 2007 15:46 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces This is the sixth article in a series on common usability and graphical user interface related terms [part I | part II | part III | part IV | part V]. On the internet, and especially in forum discussions like we all have here on OSNews, it is almost certain that in any given discussion, someone will most likely bring up usability and GUI related terms - things like spatial memory, widgets, consistency, Fitts' Law, and more. The aim of this series is to explain these terms, learn something about their origins, and finally rate their importance in the field of usability and (graphical) user interface design. In part VI, we focus on the dock.
Thread beginning with comment 285646
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: @google_ninja
by Pixie on Wed 21st Nov 2007 00:17 UTC in reply to "@google_ninja "
Pixie
Member since:
2005-09-30

As a product designer and as one who has extensively used Mac, Windows and Linux, I think that the Mac menu-bar being detached from the application window is a huge usability mistake.


Mac Menu bar isn't detached from the application, the window itself isn't the window, just look at photoshop, dreamweaver, etc to look what apps looks alike, even those finder windows aren't applications by themselves why would you repeat one menu for each one?

Giving the function remain the same, it should be on the same spot so users knows where to look for when they want to perform the action they want, in the same way that once you learn how to drive you do it automatically, no need to search for the wheel because things are where expected to. Given that where better to place it then on one of the edges of the screen where you can bump right into it with mouse?

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


In addition, having all applications look and act the same can also cause usability problems -- there are definitely times when a window interface needs to be different.


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

Edited 2007-11-21 00:31

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: @google_ninja
by tupp on Wed 21st Nov 2007 03:44 in reply to "RE: @google_ninja "
tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Mac Menu bar isn't detached from the application

Really?


the window itself isn't the window

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

Okay.

Edited 2007-11-21 03:51

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: @google_ninja
by Pixie on Wed 21st Nov 2007 11:11 in reply to "RE[2]: @google_ninja "
Pixie Member since:
2005-09-30

Where it reads:

the window itself isn't the window

should instead be read:
the window itself isn't the app.

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

Of course, it emulates the behavior of Mac...
BTW GIMP and usability even if at the same paragraph doesn't mix...

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


You know, Menu happens to be there already...


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

How do you know, you obviously doesn't use it.


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

No Mac fan boy, altough I've been using the menu system system since the dawn of the times (ie- Amiga) I know what feels better and Fitt's law just happen to show I'm right.

[p] So, with the Mac menu-bar always at the top of the screen, the targets are always the furthest distance away from the work -- an OSX detriment. [/q]

Although far it is reached faster, and it's not even me saying it, usability tests are...


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

My corners are working fine thank you very much, it only seems that you haven't work with all MacOSX has to offer...

cheers

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: @google_ninja
by phoenix on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 04:07 in reply to "RE: @google_ninja "
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

If you have a high resolution monitor, and a bunch of applications open all with the windows sized such that you can see and interact with a bunch of them, don't you get annoyed at having to go to the top of the screen to do things in the menus? I know I've been annoyed when playing with the demo Macs at the Apple stores here in town.

Having a nice, smallish window open in the bottom-right of a 1600x1200 or larger screen, wanting to activate something in the menu, and having to move both my eyes and my cursor out of the window to get to the menu is a royal PITA.

Put the menus in the window, right close by where the cursor is.

If you run all your windows/apps full-screen-ish, then it makes sense to put the menu bar at the top. But if you have many smallish windows all over the screen, it makes a lot more sense to put the menus in the window.

The Mac menu bar made sense on 9" screens when it first came out. It doesn't make as much sense on 22" screens nowadays.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: @google_ninja
by Pixie on Thu 22nd Nov 2007 20:19 in reply to "RE[2]: @google_ninja "
Pixie Member since:
2005-09-30

"I know I've been annoyed when playing with the demo Macs at the Apple stores here in town. "

Someone tries once the system then, all suddenly they all think they'd mastered it, as always had use one... do you know acceleration is? Your mouse has it...

"The Mac menu bar made sense on 9" screens when it first came out. It doesn't make as much sense on 22" screens nowadays."
No problem on my 22"...

Reply Parent Score: 1