Mac OS X users know when a product doesn’t quite “feel right”, and so do product reviewers. Despite the similarities that seem to exist between the Microsoft Windows 95/98/2000 and Windows XP user interfaces (UI) and the Aqua interface of Mac OS X, there are significant appearance and behavioral differences. A successful Windows to Mac OS X transition requires abandoning key elements of the Windows user experience in favor of the Mac OS X alternatives. This document outlines typical areas of concern when porting a Microsoft Windows application to Mac OS X, and provides guidance for transitioning to the Mac OS X UI.
Guide to User Experience Differences Between Windows & OSX
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
The MacOSX design is very pretty, i like it.
However:
9. Design Clear Dialogs
So what are those 3 round colored blobs in the top-left of the windows and dialogs??? are they maximize/minimize buttons? their’re not very clear, are they.
Before you answer that, what about the color blind people?, i have a color blind friend.
PS: my windows is orange, not grey (no i’m not color blind).
http://www.customize.org/details/17400
>my windows is orange, not grey
Yikes! My eyes hurt! (yes, my monitor gamma is ok)
how would you port a VB6 ptrogram to OSX?
Those three colors appear as different shades to color blind people, or so I’ve heard. They should provide an option to leave the mouseover symbols on though.
PS: Mine is brown (built-in Desert scheme with a darker desktop).
>how would you port a VB6 ptrogram to OSX?
You port it to Real Basic.
I agree with their philosphy on some things, and it’s good to set down more of rules than guidlines to keap things consistant. But if I was a developer and reading this coming from the windows side much of this would turn me off. The attitude of these guidelines is very “Apple way is god, MS way sucks” Some of there ideas on how to do it i find just wrong. I think this could turn many people off from porting an app. Some things just mad no sence like the power prefrence panel, they said the MS one looked clutter? how? their way will suck when you hit a tab and it jumps sizes to account for more stuff on the other tab. Also buy trying to make developers stick to doing everything one way they may be letting better ways be crushed. Things like tool bars on each app is very nice. Maybe if more apps were made this way it would be come more popular do to it’s greater usefullness. This can be done without destroying the look of apps. Things like consistant buttons and such are very important, but saying every app should work the mac way is not.
If the colour blind person can count to three, it should be no problem. I doubt that the blobs change their order.
and I have no truoble with the buttons. Most colorblind people can see some color, either high spectrum (blues & greens) or low spectrum (reds & yellows.) I can clearly see the red and yellow buttons, but the 3rd falls in the range of colors that I can’t distinguish.
And I thought that Mac users know how to save images properly…
Prog.
http://www.thirdangel.com/IcantWHAT.gif
The only thing that bugged me here (and always has) is the single menu bar at the top of the screen, for the folling reasons:
1. There is no physical connection to your window, so it’s not obvious that the menu bar applies to your app.
2. If you have a small window in the bottom right of your screen, you have a huge amount of mouse travel necessary to reach the File menu for example.
3. (somewhat related) Since there’s no main window for the app, people constantly close the last window and assume the app is closed, yet in fact leave it running. Back in school, the public labs used to have ten different applications sitting in the background using resources because closing the last window didn’t quit the app. The fact that a single menu bar at the top is your only indication that the app is open is broken. This is marginally better in MacOS X with the little arrow under the icon in the Dock, but that’s hardly an intuitive indication.
1. This is why you have these bold letters that spell the name of teh active application next to the Apple Menu. 😉 Finder, TextEdit, etc. Whichever app is running is VERY easy to see without selecting anything.
2. Keyboard shortcuts are there as an option if you choose.
3. That will vary with each application. Some apps are written to close teh entire application when closing. Some don’t its a developer call there. Occasionally I wish to close all windows and leave the application running. For example. Mail.app. I leave it open to check my mail yet have every window closed. In OS9 this might be an issue because the running apps had to be checked with a mouse click in the finder on the right. That has been addressed in OSX, and this stuff can be seen without selecting anything. I find the arrows simple and much better then the way in OS9 to see running apps as I can look at the screen and tell without selecting anything and the selected running application name is in bold letters showing you as well.
>Keyboard shortcuts are there as an option if you choose.
Not everyone is using or like using keyboard shortcuts. Personally, the only shortuts I use and want to use is for Cut/Copy/Paste. This is my usage style and I don’t have any plans to change it…
An OS should take care of all users.
>Some don’t its a developer call there
If the API allows the developer to make such a ‘mistake’, then the API and its design is at fault.
Personally, I agree with Daniel Switkin’s points 100%.
To a point I do as well. Just letting him know that some options are there. I can’t say if they are beign addressed or not. But it seems it is, looking at it now from what it was. That’s all I was pointing out.
This was a joke right? Theres no points in there its all completely bogus.. would someone find something truthful or useful in this and mention it?
Tip 1. We have an interface guidline.. err so thats not a tip and im sure MS has one 2.. Score osx 0
Tip 2 Interface Builder (IB) is the easiest and most effective way to build and prototype the Aqua UI for your application. .. Youd have to be an apple user not to notice this was invented 5 years ago by borland for pc. Score osx -1 (5 years behind)
Tip 3 Hire Professional Help. Is it that hard to make a good UI? I didnt think so .. besides as if youd ask Apple.. everyone knows the docks for show not use, the colour minimise buttons are for show the geneie is for show. Hardly anything of these “features” are desgined for useability. Score Osx -1 (this wasnt a point it was a failure of osx wasnt it?)
Tip 4 . Avoid Custom Controls-Again this isnt a point and certainly no difference between osx and winXP
Score OSx 0 (I cant find many custom controls in windows apps.. only ones where they need to be custom.)
Tip 5 Use A Single Menubar
This is only good if u can only use 1 application at once, besides seperating the applications menu from the application seems to be destroying the desktop metaphour isnt it? Do i all the titles of my papers on my desk cut off and so i can only see 1 and once.? Anyway its not a feature it slows me down.
Score Osx 0
Tip 6 Mac OS X Doesn’t Use MDI – The truth is when your working with 2 spreedsheets its natural to have them both in the same window.. if u want embedding try OLE and 10 years ago thank u very much. Thats REAL document central.. prob still works now i guess..
Score OSx 0 (For being so far behind with OLE)
Tip 7 Aqua Is In, Grey Is Out
Aqua has that brushed metal look thats inconsistanly over the place… how come carbon classic and coca applications look differnet?
Score 0 (This wasnt even close to being a point)
Tip 8 Design High-Quality Icons
Waho.. whats windows now 64×64 .. so osx is 128×128.. and im currently viewing icons in 32×32 and they are the right size. Oh please developers go and design bigger icons so if i zoom in with the mag glass they dont look pixelated .. or something
What the hello Osx Score 1 (Waho)
Tip 9 Design Clear Dialogs
Do u wish to save? yes or no.. or im an apple user so could u please restate the question.
Score Osx 0 (To ensure that consistent format, Mac OS X dialogs tend to use verbs as button titles. ) Tend.. as in not allways? Check out the min max buttons.. bad UI again.
Tip 10 Reconsider Toolbars
Note to apple “reconsider toolbars” …They rock .. get over it.
Score OSX -1
Tip 11 Mind Keyboard Shortcuts
Mind them .. cause u only have 1 mouse button useually ..and Mac os is really inconsistant and u cant get everywhere in macos with the keyboard.
Better move over to windows for keyboard use ey..
Score Osx 0
Tip 12. Use Clean Layout
A) the dialogue shouldnt change size when u change options
B) Hello Apple copying off ms.. look at it lol
Score Osx -1 (for copying then changing it slightly and complaingly the first was dubious.. hmm with all that space unfilled.. what other options does windows have that osx dosent (since theres no space left on the dialogue)
Tip 13. Avoid “Setup”
Hahahahahaha
mwahgahaha
Yer linux/unix dosent need things to be installed.. just copied.. and extensions.. u just drop them in your control panel.. sounds easy hahaha mwahaha.. Sorry guys ive used an apple before.. extensions oftern bring down Macos and the lack of install and uninstall is a pain when applications are more compex than a text editor. Try installing midi on os9.. ermm arg im screwed now.. its OMS freemidi hell!!! arrrrgggg id Die for add and remove.
Score OSx -1 (for making it outlike its a feature)
Tip 14. Use File Name Extensions
Yeah right.. um well im confused.. why dosent it just do it like windows?
Score Osx 0
Total Score OSX -4
Only apple can put up a page of failures and make its users believe its a reason they should switch.
Glenn
> Interface Builder (IB) is the easiest and most effective way to build and prototype the Aqua UI for your application. .. Youd have to be an apple user not to notice this was invented 5 years ago by borland for pc.
You are wrong here. MacOSX is based on NeXT. NeXT was the FIRST operating system that had the Interface Builder (it had the same name on NeXT too). Year 1988. In fact, when you read that NeXT was ahead of its time, it was exactly because of this reason.
I think that the rest of your comment is not too fair either.
3. (somewhat related) Since there’s no main window for the app, people constantly close the last window and assume the app is closed, yet in fact leave it running.
I’m glad someone points this out. I don’t quite know if this is a design error or tradeoff.
1. It’s true, the _current_ app is in bold. But my point is when you close the last window of something and click on the desktop, or any other window for example, it’s easy to forget you pushed an app into the background. In other words, it may say Finder up there and have no windows open, but you could have five apps in the background.
2. Keyboard shortcuts help a lot. But not every command is mapped to a shortcut, shortcuts differ between apps, and you will likely only learn the unique shortcuts for apps that you use all the time. On any other OS, you can explore the menu bar more easily even on a brand new app.
It seems like the idea of having a single menu bar comes more from historical reasons (back when a computer could only run a single app at a time well) than from an up-to-date design philosophy. It just bugged me that they passed it off as the latter.
PS – Eugenia, thanks for you support.
PPS – Should we tell them we’re friends and I used to work with your husband?
Argh. Why doesn’t Apple *require* developers to rely on metadata rather than filename extensions? There were a lot of great changes in OS X from OS 9, but file extension-based typing was not one of them. Grrr.
> PPS – Should we tell them we’re friends and I used to work with your husband?
Naah… let them think that I support you “just because I hate the Mac”.
Naa. no need for that from either of you. I have no problem with how you feel about the Mac. Thats your choice and I respect that. So you will never get flames from me. Different choices for different people. Simple as that.
1. That is what the arrows are under the dock show. You can SEE every app that is open.
I personally prefer the single menu. I commonly work with having Photoshop, Illustrator, BBEdit, and a few browsers open at the same time. So I will have Windows all over. I personally would rather have one loacation for my file-edit.view.etc… than trying to fine each one for each window all over my desktop. That is what I call consistancy for me.
I do have to agree with everyone about the brush metal. What drug were they on for that one. They should sell that and make extra money and lower the hardware prices.
LOL
Tip 1. We have an interface guidline.. err so thats not a tip and im sure MS has one 2.. Score osx 0
It says “Use the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines”. That’s a tip. Might even be a good one. I think MS has one too. I think you have to buy it though from MS Press.
Tip 2 Interface Builder (IB) is the easiest and most effective way to build and prototype the Aqua UI for your application. .. Youd have to be an apple user not to notice this was invented 5 years ago by borland for pc. Score osx -1 (5 years behind)
Covered by others. IB goes way back. And it is more than just dragging controls onto a form.
Tip 3 Hire Professional Help. Is it that hard to make a good UI? I didnt think so .. besides as if youd ask Apple.. everyone knows the docks for show not use, the colour minimise buttons are for show the geneie is for show. Hardly anything of these “features” are desgined for useability. Score Osx -1 (this wasnt a point it was a failure of osx wasnt it?)
Apparently it is, seeing as how many UIs suck, including some of Apple’s.
Tip 4 . Avoid Custom Controls-Again this isnt a point and certainly no difference between osx and winXP
Score OSx 0 (I cant find many custom controls in windows apps.. only ones where they need to be custom.)
You aren’t looking hard enough. They are everywhere. MS Office’s menus are all custom drawn. Outlook 2002 has at least two different custom scrollbars.
I was at my local Fry’s Electronics yesterday. They had a Sony Vaio hooked up to an Apple Cinema Display (sure was purty). For shits n giggles I opened all the media type apps bundled with the Vaio as well as a few MS bundles onesand left them there. I chose only those that had non standard Windows interfaces. There must have been 8 or nine apps up, none looked like a standard Windows app (titlebar, controls, etc).
(yes I have a strange sense of what is entertaining
Tip 5 Use A Single Menubar
This is only good if u can only use 1 application at once, besides seperating the applications menu from the application seems to be destroying the desktop metaphour isnt it? Do i all the titles of my papers on my desk cut off and so i can only see 1 and once.? Anyway its not a feature it slows me down.
Score Osx 0
I agree there are problems with the separate menubar design, but this is the Mac. The whole point of this article is to get you to make your app fit with the Mac way. When in Cupertino, do as the Cupertinians.
Tip 6 Mac OS X Doesn’t Use MDI – The truth is when your working with 2 spreedsheets its natural to have them both in the same window.. if u want embedding try OLE and 10 years ago thank u very much. Thats REAL document central.. prob still works now i guess..
Score OSx 0 (For being so far behind with OLE)
I work with about 5 separate excel spreadsheets along with Quickbooks and sometimes an Email message simultaeneously every day. I hate the MDI interface as implemted in Excel. Not having click-thru on inactive SS windows is a big part of it. The other is having to arrange 2 SS and QB so I can refer to all three at the same time. This a point I’d give to the Mac for it’s lighter document windows.
MDI has nothing to do with OLE. I never use OLE embedding, but agree that the Mac could use something of that nature. OpenDoc would have been it but Apple and IBM screwed the pooch on that one.
Tip 7 Aqua Is In, Grey Is Out
Aqua has that brushed metal look thats inconsistanly over the place… how come carbon classic and coca applications look differnet?
Score 0 (This wasnt even close to being a point)
I agree (boggle!). They should ditch the brushed metal look. They justify it in the HIG, but then apply it to apps with tenuous membership to that category of app (iChat?, AddressBook?)
Tip 8 Design High-Quality Icons
Waho.. whats windows now 64×64 .. so osx is 128×128.. and im currently viewing icons in 32×32 and they are the right size. Oh please developers go and design bigger icons so if i zoom in with the mag glass they dont look pixelated .. or something
What the hello Osx Score 1 (Waho)
Its the Aqua look. Conform or be cast out.
Tip 9 Design Clear Dialogs
Do u wish to save? yes or no.. or im an apple user so could u please restate the question.
Score Osx 0 (To ensure that consistent format, Mac OS X dialogs tend to use verbs as button titles. ) Tend.. as in not allways? Check out the min max buttons.. bad UI again.
Do you want to discard changes? Yes/No
Do you want to save changes? Yes/No
How many of you progams do one? How many do the other? Can you safely, reflexively click Yes or No without carefully reading the question?
Tip 10 Reconsider Toolbars
Note to apple “reconsider toolbars” …They rock .. get over it.
Score OSX -1
I like toolbars, but they can get out of hand. The more buttons you have, the harder it is to shoehorn individual differentiable icons into those bars.
Tip 11 Mind Keyboard Shortcuts
Mind them .. cause u only have 1 mouse button useually ..and Mac os is really inconsistant and u cant get everywhere in macos with the keyboard.
Better move over to windows for keyboard use ey..
Score Osx 0
Agreed, to some extent.
…
Bah. Someone else take over.
This is just an admission by apple that they are now far behind Windows and are now trying to con windows developers into dragging windows apps down to apples level !
They should ditch the brushed metal look. They justify it in the HIG, but then apply it to apps with tenuous membership to that category of app (iChat?, AddressBook?)
If you’re going to stray from the guidelines, you’re most likely trying to emulate an existing real-world interface. So you need to relieve some of this pressure by giving it a sanctioned outlet.
Use of verbs as button titles That’s fine if the use is in context with the question being asked. Asking a question “Do you want to do something?” simply requires a yes/no answer. Asking “What do you want to do?” requires giving verbs as choices ie save/don’t save. Apple’s approach doesn’t seem “intuitive”.
Toolbars I can’t think of many Windows toolbars that can’t be detached, thus turning them into Apple’s “palettes”, so I really can’t see the difference. And for a lot of users, movable palettes can add to the clutter on a desktop or application space.
Resizable dialogs Apple suggests this is verboten, but doesn’t use a representative example to show Windows’ mistakes. In fact, the Windows power settings dialog they use as an example appears to follow their guidelines. Select another power saving option and you are given further choices for monitors and hard disks, all without having to resize. I’d be interested to see how OS X provides the same functionality without resizing in dialog it shows.
Install wizards vs The Apple Way Wizards are a guided, intuitive (for the most part) way of installing applications. Drag and drop isn’t, simply because drag and drop can be used for so many other tasks. Am I copying this file, or am I installing something?
File extensions Ugh, what a kludge, and not good, intuitive UI practice either. Still, that’s what you get when you build on an OS that needs extensions.
Install wizards vs The Apple Way Wizards are a guided, intuitive (for the most part) way of installing applications. Drag and drop isn’t, simply because drag and drop can be used for so many other tasks. Am I copying this file, or am I installing something?
The idea is to (ideally) get rid of the concept of “Installing”. You want to use an app? Copy it from a CD or iDisk and use it. Maybe even use it right from the CD. Make a copy and give it to a friend (piracy issues aside). Not using the program much and need the disk space? Move it to secondary storage (CD-R, removeable disk). Installation routines and systems make all of this more complicated for the end user, not less.
Yes, drag and drop can be used for many tasks. That is a good thing. You only have to learn how to do it once, and it applies to so many other tasks.
Use of verbs as button titles That’s fine if the use is in context with the question being asked. Asking a question “Do you want to do something?” simply requires a yes/no answer. Asking “What do you want to do?” requires giving verbs as choices ie save/don’t save. Apple’s approach doesn’t seem “intuitive”.
Phrasing everything as for a Yes/No answer requires that you read the question, sometimes carefully. Summarizing the choices in the button texts allows the user to scan the possibilities quickly and, if necessary, resort to reading the question closely.
On OSNews the trolls usually make shorter rants. Just so you know for next time
Vince
>>Tip 8 Design High-Quality Icons
Waho.. whats windows now 64×64 .. so osx is 128×128.. and im currently viewing icons in 32×32 and they are the right
Like most of your “points”, you missed it completely. OSX meant better quality icons as in vector icons, not bitmap. Resizing (bigger OR smaller) will not diminish the quality. Take for example the trayicons in Windows, when you change the titlebar size (hence the size of the taskbar), the icons will look just plain disgusting. This also means there is no need for multiple resolutions of icons in icon files which is not future proof, such as what happened when winxp started to use another res 64×64. Vector pictures are a blessing, read it up.
Yes, drag and drop can be used for many tasks. That is a good thing. You only have to learn how to do it once, and it applies to so many other tasks.
The most common use for drag and drop is to move or copy files. It’s not intuitive for most users, Windows or Mac, to connect drag and drop to installing an app.
Phrasing everything as for a Yes/No answer requires that you read the question, sometimes carefully. Summarizing the choices in the button texts allows the user to scan the possibilities quickly and, if necessary, resort to reading the question closely.
It’s the difference between open and closed questioning. Yes/no (closed questioning) allows only two options. Save/don’t save (open) allows for many options, even if only two are presented (like the old joke about Mac dialogs needing another button labelled “Maybe”). And the concept of summarizing is contrary the “Status, Reason, Action” model required for OS X dialogs.
DCMonkey: It says “Use the Aqua Human Interface Guidelines”. That’s a tip. Might even be a good one. I think MS has one too. I think you have to buy it though from MS Press.
It is available on MSDN.
How many of you progams do one? How many do the other? Can you safely, reflexively click Yes or No without carefully reading the question?
OpenOffice.org is the only one that doesn’t do the latter, from all my apps. OOo isn’t exactly the best example of a Windows app, BTW.
Johan: Like most of your “points”, you missed it completely. OSX meant better quality icons as in vector icons, not bitmap
OS X’s icons aren’t vector, but rather bitmap. The icons are in various sizes and placed in a file. OS X then scales between sizes. There’s nothing vector about it.
I don’t think vector icons, as it is now, is good. For example, when you resize an 128×128 icon to 32×32, you loose a lot of information. But if you made the 32×32 icon, the vital information are kept.
There are lots of things I like about Mac OS X GUI, but there is one fundemental problem with it. There is only one menubar and this extremely confuses me. I am using computers for a very long time. Since I used the first time, Mac OS’s one menubar architecture always confused me. Closing the applications take an extra effort. By the way, this is very typical. Nobody closes these applications, they are running at the background. The dock helps a little bit, but still you need one extra step to really close the application. Another problem is that, when you have lots of windows I have to check the menubar and the window to make sure that I selected the right window. I think that apple’s this design decision is pretty bad, and it causes lots of confusion for the people. I am glad Linux and X Window doesn’t have such a problem. Luckily I don’t have to use macs that much.
To each their own. I haven’t had a problem neither have any of the other new users I’ve had try it out. No one UI can solve everyone’s problems. This is why we have a surplus of OSes, and WindowManagers. Pick what works for you and roll with it. Problem solved.
>> OS X’s icons aren’t vector, but rather bitmap.
You are right about this actually, there is so much misinformation flying thru the internet, i get confused (try searching for ‘osx vector icons’). They are bitmapped. But whatever resampling algorithm is used by Apple, it’s pretty darn nifty. Even if you set the dock to its smallest, the icons are still very identifiable.
>> I don’t think vector icons, as it is now, is good.
I believe that vector is the way to go. The whole point of it is so that you will never lose information no matter what the resolution.
Anyhows the argument’s moot. it’s not supported anyway.
Aha! There it is. The MS UI guidelines. I could swear they weren’t there last time I looked.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dn…
OpenOffice.org is the only one that doesn’t do the latter, from all my apps. OOo isn’t exactly the best example of a Windows app, BTW.
True, there aren’t any on my system at the moment (that I know of). I was actually refering to confirming a negative with a positive (ie: do you want to discard your changes yes/no?) when everyone else does the opposite. OO doesn’t appear to do this (it does have verb style buttons though). I’m quite used to Yes/No dialogs when they follow the conventions of everyone elses Yes/No dialogs, but I can see where Apple is coming from on this.
I think I was more projecting my disatisfaction with many Linux app ui’s into the discussion. Try playing with exit confirmation dialogs in GIMP, Dia and a GNOME2 HIG compliant app sometime to see what I mean.
I beg to differ with Daniel Switkin and Eugenia on the placement of the menu bars at the top of the screen.
I for one think it’s one of the strongest UI points on the MAC.
Given the way the menus are in Windows Apps, there is kinda a buffer zone between the menus amd the top of the window and also the top of your screen. This forces the user to slow down considerably as they approach the menus. You will never kinda realize this since you are so used to it, but just ask someone else to observe just how much you have to slow down to make sure you don’t over shoot the menus. As a speed test write something in word and make it fullscreen. Then notice how much faster you can access your menus.
With the MAC style menus, you don’t have to slow down to get to the menus. Just throw your mouse in the general direction and you can never miss the menus.
I think this point makes up for the amount of mouse travel that is involved even when your app is a small window at the bottom of the screen.
My 0.2c
Mayuresh
The most common use for drag and drop is to move or copy files. It’s not intuitive for most users, Windows or Mac, to connect drag and drop to installing an app.
Here’s how I “installed” OmniWeb on my Mac the other day – download the disk image – it mounted on my desktop. open the drive, copy the OmniWeb icon (which is actually a special type of folder containing all the app’s libraries and resources) from the drive to my desktop. Later, after deciding I wanted to keep the app, I moved the icon from my desktop to my Applications folder. When I decide to get rid of it, the “uninstall” is “drag the icon to trash”.
at no point is anything more than a copy or move required. which is why drag and drop is the recommended “installation” method.
I find the debate on MDI vs. SDI off the mark. I dont think there should be such a thing as either MDI or SDI on the OS level. Some applications benefit from an MDI interface greatly, simply because many of us have many such windows up at the same time. Web browsers and text/code editors are the most obvious examples I can think of.
On the other hand, having explorer/finder windows in an MDI interface is counter-intuitive and productive IMO. This also goes for other programs, like MS Word (which MS discovered in the X/XP release btw by going from MDI to SDI).
After migrating to mac this is perhaps the point with macs giving me the most annoyance – I would like a couple of my apps to be MDI, while the others can continue beeing SDI all they want. Too bad that Apple is so stubborn about SDI that it becomes more of a religious debate than a usability debate.
Vector pictures are a blessing, read it up.
I thought they were vector, except why do they have a res? I guess it would be nice.
Glenn
Yeah the point of the artical was supposed to be how to convert windows apps to mac, read more like a comparison trying to say mac was better UI and being wrong, to me.
About the verb non verb.. i really like windows way, but i cant say that having used windows more than mac i might be biased in what i feel is natural.
I think i like it.. Yes/NO
Or is that Like/Dislike
@ Glenn:
> Is it that hard to make a good UI? I didnt think so…
And that’s the #1 reason why there are so many really bad UI’s out there: Because every developer has his own idea on UI, and many developers have the arrogance to assume that they know better than those who actually studied the subject.
@ Brad:
> Also buy trying to make developers stick to doing
> everything one way they may be letting better ways
> be crushed.
The #1 rule of user interface design is consistency. You might think your UI is better than the standard. Either you are wrong – in which case you’ll make a fool of yourself and your software into a user’s nightmare. Or you are actually right – in which case the user will still be confused since your stuff works different from what he expects.
@ Daniel:
@ Daniel:
> The only thing that bugged me here (and always has)
> is the single menu bar at the top of the screen…
…which is actually the finest way to do it. It is just a shame that Microsoft came up with such a broken thing as per-window toolbars, and an even greater shame that KDE / Gnome just copied it unthinking.
> 2. If you have a small window in the bottom right of
> your screen, you have a huge amount of mouse travel
> necessary to reach the File menu for example.
It is a misconception that the *distance* is of any matter. What counts is how *easy* and *quick* you can reach a menu.
Question: What are the five points on-screen that you can reach fastest with your mouse pointer?
Answer: The four corners of the screen (one quick flick of the wrist and you’re there), plus the current position (which gave birth to pop-up menus).
A target on-screen has an x and a y coordinate. With a top-screen menubar, all you have to worry about is the x.
I can warmly recommend http://www.joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000057.html. It is an excerpt from Joel Spolski’s book on user interface design.
Because every developer has his own idea on UI, and many developers have the arrogance to assume that they know better than those who actually studied the subject.
I have a degree in IT with a focus on UI, also done postgraduate work in UI. Its not that hard when u are given a RAD tool and the OS provides basic good functionatliy like windows. Its ppl making bad copies of windows without understanding its design thats most annoying.
Glenn
Arg i didnt see u wrote this as well .. “It is just a shame that Microsoft came up with such a broken thing as per-window toolbars” NOOOOOO
The operating system is multi tasking, i can multi task.. we need menus for each program !
The Start bar is for managing your programs NOT FOR USING THEM. Imagine if it was a real desktop and u had a calculator and a notpad on your desk, would u really want to move your hand to the top of the desk then have a drop down menu which depends on which item u were last using.
DONT THINK SO
🙂
Hi Glen,
I do not share your education, being but a lowly Applied CS, but…
> Its not that hard when u are given a RAD tool…
…to create an UI that is *compliant*. That doesn’t make it good yet.
> …and the OS provides basic good functionatliy like
> windows.
Like a standard system wide file requester…
> Its ppl making bad copies of windows without
> understanding its design thats most annoying.
Ouch, ouch, *ouch*. I consider this blatant flamebait and will ignore it.
> The operating system is multi tasking, i can multi
> task… we need menus for each program !
Glenn, I claim that you missed most your lessons, or your teachers were really bad ones.
Your system, and yourself, might be able to multi-task to a certain extend. But the input focus of your desktop does certainly not multitask. There’s only one active window at a time, and as such, the connection active window – menu bar is unambiguous.
You did not dispel the criticism that per-window menu bars are a) more difficult to reach and b) waste on-screen real estate.
> The Start bar…
…was not what I was talking about, and comparing it to a MacOS (or AmigaOS, for that matter) menu bar shows that you haven’t used it beyond “giving it a try”.
> Imagine if it was a real desktop…
…then I wouldn’t have a Start bar at all, no folders in folders in folders, I could grab stuff lying *under* heaps of paper, and I cannot even start to guess my desktop’s size in pixels…
The desktop metaphor does carry you only that far. You should know that.
And all the world is not running at 1600×1200. Many UI decisions are best put to the test with old hardware (like, a 66 MHz 486 with little RAM running 640×400 at 16 colors on a 14″ screen).
Give it a try. Then ask the local Amiga user group to provide you with a “naked” A500. You might learn a thing or two about UI design there, although I do not claim Workbench to be superior in *all* aspects.
But there is a reason for that there’s a patent on the Amiga style menu bar, while there is none (AFAIK) on the Windows style, what with Microsoft (and Apple…) patenting whatever they can get their hands on.
> Many UI decisions are best put to the test with old
> hardware (like, a 66 MHz 486 with little RAM running
> 640×400 at 16 colors on a 14″ screen).
Oh, and don’t forget the old, dust-ridden, jerky mouse. You’ll *love* the single menu bar. 😀
There’s only one active window at a time, and as such, the connection active window – menu bar is unambiguous.
Whats ambiguous is the stupid placement of wierd menu items in the apple menu bar and other functions elsewhere (ie mostly with the program).
No UI manual says u need to have an apple menu bar. Each application has its own context and functionality and should be kept that way. Pls dont ignore my metaphor as it demonstrates how stupid this apple mentality is.
And it *is* stupid, it makes no sence what so ever.. EXCEPT this stupid mantra ppl who dont know much about ui say (actually only those on macs) that its faster to hit the edge of a screen.. or whats right under the mouse. This is bogus completely bogus.. lets have a select help race .. me with my small app in the middle of the screen and u with your menu at the top.. who wins.. ME
This is a vital point.
1)The menu bar at the top ISNT the fastest.
2)It makes no sence to the metaphor.
YES for my multitasking mind it is much faster to comprehend and use when each app has its own menu. (As well as SEE what im aiming at) Apple OS is like its users… single tasked. They open photoshop they finish they close it.. if they are advanced users they will even leave the app open and task switch .. oooh! Me ? i start 3-4 applications at once and as they pop up respond to them as they boot up, then useually manage onscreen all my tasks at once. After another few years using a computer try windows then, u might like it.
For your information i didnt miss many lectures, i got a grade of 6 (out of 7) for my third year UI subject. What did u get?
Notes:
a) more difficult to reach
Oh that means we should put everything at the top of the screen then hey? why not just get rid of the rest of the screen, by the way apple patented the top of the screen.. thats why u apple guys go over and over about it cause its apple marketing.. btw dont u think patenting the top of the screen is a bit rich?
b) waste on-screen real estate
bwahaha and your running osx
Solar: Your system, and yourself, might be able to multi-task to a certain extend. But the input focus of your desktop does certainly not multitask. There’s only one active window at a time, and as such, the connection active window – menu bar is unambiguous.
SO with that, you are saying that no GUI OS is an multitasking OS?
while there is none (AFAIK) on the Windows style, what with Microsoft (and Apple…) patenting whatever they can get their hands on.
Apple can’t patent the idea of placing menubars within Windows because it was IBM that came up with that idea, is OS/2 1.1 IIRC (Presentation Manager).
Solar: Oh, and don’t forget the old, dust-ridden, jerky mouse. You’ll *love* the single menu bar. 😀
Accessing the menu bar via keyboard from Windows and Mac OS is just as easy.
—
Menus: I like OS 9’s way. All the context menus are all on top, along with the rest of the menu options – OS X kills it, and by encouraging one button mouses, context menus aren’t that easy to get. The best one I think is Next/OpenStep’s idea of menus. That means no matter where you are in the document, just right click, and you get your menus.
Besides, I don’t find OS 9’s menu conuter productive, in which the application is closed when there isn’t any windows open. Always, remember, just type Command-Q, or click on File and Exit. Easy, no? Feel you got some background apps? Click on the window list on the egde of the menu bar to see what apps are open (now, how do I quit Finder… hehe).
But ultimately, I would pick Next as the winner for its UI, thought they could use some graphic designers to make it looks a little more nicer looking….
—
Windows camp and the Mac camp. Stop bashing each other. Guess what? Both UI SUCKs badly! Hahaha….
“Try playing with exit confirmation dialogs in GIMP, Dia and a GNOME2 HIG compliant app sometime to see what I mean.”
I play with those (but Dia) all the time and I don’t see what you mean.
“You did not dispel the criticism that per-window menu bars are a) more difficult to reach and b) waste on-screen real estate.”
I really don’t think they are easier to reach. Sure the size is endless in height but not in width so you have to carefully navigate anyway _and_ you get the huge disadvantage that they are usually far away from your window (unless you run everything maximized). Chances are also that you will have to travel more horizontal to reach the menu so the vertical height doesn’t help you _that_ much. I tried those with KDE for quite a while but found them to do nothing but slowing me down. Add to this the fact that you have to focus a window before you can see it’s menu.
The screen estate is a point but not really a problem anymore. Resolutions are getting bigger just as monitors, not smaller. While this is an advantage on old hardware, it isn’t anymore on modern hardware.
@ Glenn:
> And it *is* stupid, it makes no sence what so ever…
> EXCEPT this stupid mantra ppl who dont know much about
> ui say (actually only those on macs) that its faster
> to hit the edge of a screen.. or whats right under the
> mouse. This is bogus completely bogus..
Glenn, with every sentence like that above you discredit yourself as the professional you claim you are.
> lets have a select help race .. me with my small app
> in the middle of the screen and u with your menu at
> the top.. who wins.. ME This is a vital point.
No, that is like using RC5 as a benchmark for CPU comparison. A serious Computer *Scientist* would pitch two groups of equally mouse-(un)skilled people with no previous experience preference for one style or the other, and record the results.
Guess what? Such things have been done. Try talking to your lecturers, they might point you to a couple of good books to read. (Sounds like you need ’em.)
> 1)The menu bar at the top ISNT the fastest.
No, correct. The menu item right under your mouse pointer is.
> 2)It makes no sence to the metaphor.
I am amazed that they obviously still teach UI without telling the students that the whole desktop metaphor is *broken*, and that a metaphor is only good as long as it does not get into the way.
> YES for my multitasking mind it is much faster to
> comprehend and use when each app has its own menu.
Your mind isn’t multitasked… Take http://www.joelonsoftware.com/stories/storyReader$300/ – but you won’t read that, just like you didn’t read my first link, now did you?
But I see your point. Now tell you what: I never in my life used a Mac. I “grew up” on an Amiga, and you cannot possibly claim that this machine is *not* multitasking.
Three things:
– hitting the menu bar at the top of the screen was absolutely natural for me, made perfect sense, was smooth and didn’t disturb my workflow.
– until I got a gfx board and a 19″ screen, I was really happy that I was able to squeeze *more* windows on my 640×512 screen because they did *not* have their own menu bar.
– the *one* thing that hinders *my* “multitasking mind” most, on Windows, is the fact that I cannot activate a window without that window popping up to front.
Sheesh.
> Apple OS is like its users… single tasked.
And you are like far too many Windows users: Single minded.
> Me ? i start 3-4 applications at once and as they
> pop up respond to them as they boot up, then useually
> manage onscreen all my tasks at once.
Oh, you are such a hunk. Responding to apps as they boot up? Sorry, but I saw that feature on AmigaOS, I saw it on RiscOS and I was told it is possible on BeOS. I *know* this does not work on Windows.
And again, obviously opposed to you, I am *using* several OS every day. (WinNT, Win98SE, WinXP, Solaris 2.7, AmigaOS 3.5, Red Hat Linux 7.3.) I am not talking out of ignorance, but from experience.
> After another few years using a computer try windows
> then, u might like it.
Tell you what? With the exception of Linux, Windows has the worst UI I *ever* encountered; shame I am more or less forced to use it most. (I know this invites flames from *two* camps, but that’s my opinion, and I stand to it.)
> For your information i didnt miss many lectures, i
> got a grade of 6 (out of 7) for my third year UI
> subject.
Again, you are *such* a hunk. Go you.
> What did u get?
What’s this, “mine is bigger than yours”? Don’t play this game if you aren’t sure you’ll win…
> by the way apple patented the top of the screen..
And Amiga Inc. did the same with the context-sensitive right-click menu of theirs…
> thats why u apple guys go over and over about it
> cause its apple marketing..
Too bad I never layed hands on a Mac, is it?
Glenn, most of your post is empty trolling and flaming. The rest does not reflect too well on a university that gives you a 6 out of 7 for your third year UI subject.
BTW, is that UI subject available for reading somewhere? I would be interested to have a look at it.
@ Rayan:
> SO with that, you are saying that no GUI OS is an
> multitasking OS?
No, not at all. I am saying that, while your hardware might have 16 CPUs, the desktop metaphor has only one focus.
> Accessing the menu bar via keyboard from Windows and
> Mac OS is just as easy.
That’s a different ballgame and does not have anything to do with pro and con of menu bars.
@ Spark:
> The screen estate is a point but not really a problem
> anymore. Resolutions are getting bigger just as monitors,
> not smaller. While this is an advantage on old hardware,
> it isn’t anymore on modern hardware.
You can give laptops, web pads and other mobile devices only that much resolution before they get either unwieldly or the icons / fonts too tiny.
Besides, I absolutely loathe the approach that newer hardware makes up for shoddy software. Moore’s law is no excuse for a software engineer.
-Such things have been done-
I know and and other ppl have noted they support my theory not yours.
-I am amazed that they obviously still teach UI without telling the students that the whole desktop metaphor is *broken*-
I have a mind of my own thank u very much and am qualified to make my own mind up. Blaming your lack of understanding of my points to my teachers is the ultimate of hypocracy. Can u explain to me why you wish to take of some of the functions of your applation (calculator) and put them elsewhere?
Sorry about missing your link the first time i went back and read it .. and what a load of crap .. so much so your lucky i read the second link first otherwise i wouldnt have bothered. If u think this guy is the be all and end all u have to be kidding he knows like basic information nothering i didnt know before 1st year uni (ive had a computer since i was 9). I can and do multitask.. such as play the guitar and drive. (i have even done both at once in a traffic jam!)
cannot activate a window without that window popping up to front.
Install windows powertoys.. since windows 95 allows X windows style windows in windows. Its also just a reg key.
Responding to apps as the boot up.. Want me to record an AVI? perhaps u should find a real computer user and watch them. As my pc boots i click connect in irc, i start my mail program and open the inbox and set my messanger status to away open slashdot or osnews. By the time my sys is fully booted with my few sys tray icons all my apps are running ready to go.
What’s this, “mine is bigger than yours”? Don’t play this game if you aren’t sure you’ll win…
Yeah ill win
Thats why your quitting now hey? u wanna know why i mentioned it.. cause u asked 
I went to uq.edu.au couse is here http://www.uq.edu.au/student/courses2002/BInfTech.htm sorry they dont provide much detail online.. i did hci and advanced hci
“- the *one* thing that hinders *my* “multitasking mind” most, on Windows, is the fact that I cannot activate a window without that window popping up to front.”
Are you talking about MacOS or Amiga? There currently is some heated discussion about Metacity weither it should always raise windows when they are clicked or not. I can see the advantages of both but I think the advantages _not_ to raise the window (like you seem to prefer) outweight the disadvantages but I don’t know if it would be a large handicap for beginners. Amiga didn’t raise windows, only when clicking the titlebar, right? Does anyone know about MacOS?
“You can give laptops, web pads and other mobile devices only that much resolution before they get either unwieldly or the icons / fonts too tiny.”
Movile devices should use a customized application environment anyway.
Laptops are a good point though. I still don’t believe that this single advantage outweights all disadvantages.
“Besides, I absolutely loathe the approach that newer hardware makes up for shoddy software. Moore’s law is no excuse for a software engineer.”
Not my point either, I just think that application-attached menubars are more efficient/intuitive and screen estate would be the only valid reason not to use them.
Also the larger the resolutions and monitors get, the more of a hassle it is to reach the top left of the monitor for everytime you need the menu.
Let me explain my opinion in more detail:
Imagine my working window is in the center of a 1600×1200 screen and it’s 640×480 pixel large. To get to the top menu, I would have to move my mouse quite a lot. The argument for topmenus is the infinite depth. But now imagine that I have to move my mouse to the top left to reach the menu item, which is infinite high but not wide. I can’t really travel the mouse at fullspeed, because when I do, the mouse will directly glide more to the left, until it hits the corner. This means that I have to stop right there anyway or only move up once I hit the right width.
After trying both, I can clearly say that this is _not_ faster for me, whatever (old) statistics want to tell me.
It is also wrong that it’s always obvious which application is active. This is simply not true anymore in an environment where you can have several windows open while doing drag and drop between them, etc. I can again assure you that this _did_ irritate me and that I had to look for the currently active window. The name in the top left might help, but you can’t tell me that the visual connection of the menubar that is attached to the window I want to modify isn’t the most intuitive and effective. Especially when we are talking about several windows of the same type (imagine I want to change some layout detail of one file manager window).
This is of course all arguable and I’m not saying that my opinion must be true, I just don’t think that the opinion that menubars at the top of the screen are always better still holds true.
First off, all the UI research I know of has shown that the Mac-style menu bar is more efficient. In the early Lisa prototypes Apple had inside-the-window menu bars, but Apple changed to the single menu bar because of the research results. If anyone knows of UI research that says the opposite, I would like to hear about it.
Second, the single menu bar stays where it is when you resize windows. In Windows, if you shrink a window past a certain point the menu titles climb over each other as the menu bar resizes. That’s not right.
@ Spark:
> Are you talking about MacOS or Amiga?
As I said, I never used MacOS. Amiga has a rather similar approach to the menu bar, but it shows statistic information (free memory, important since AmigaOS does not support virtual memory swapping) when inactive, and gets activated by right-click.
(Sidenote to Glenn: Sure there are tools for this and that. I can make the AmigaOS menu bar into a pop-up menu – which is even quicker and more intuitive. I can make the inactive bar display the number of libraries, tasks, screens, current time, I can make windows pop to top merely by moving the mouse over them. I can make Windows behave differently. *I* can. My mother never heard about “Power Toys” or TweakUI. But I am getting agitated by the troll again…)
> Amiga didn’t raise windows, only when clicking the
> titlebar, right?
Nope. Clicking on title bar allows moving the window. The window has a special “depth control” gadget in the upper right edge (close gadget was top-left, which avoids accidental closing). Clicking on “depth” allows detailed sorting of the windows.
> Movile devices should use a customized application
> environment anyway.
Hmm… from a standpoint of today’s UIs, you are right. But I believe that a user shouldn’t have to adapt to a whole new UI just because he switches from desktop to web pad to PDA. There should be a common style guide across devices. And yet again Microsoft blew it (with WinCE)…
Menu per window wastes window space but menu at the top takes the user’s focus off of the task at hand.
Whenever I used Amiga, I used magic menus so I could have popups instead of top menus. I think this is the optimum menu fashion. Like has been discussed here, the quickest access is to the item under the mouse.
Context popup menus allow the user to not move the mouse very far and allow him to keep his focus on his work eg the current window.
First off, all the UI research I know of has shown that the Mac-style menu bar is more efficient.[…]
I would like to see this research paper. BTW, Lisa was for the age where screens were small, applications were basic, and multitasking is alien.
Whenever I used Amiga, I used magic menus so I could have popups instead of top menus. I think this is the optimum menu fashion. Like has been discussed here, the quickest access is to the item under the mouse.
Which is exactly my point. The menus are right there under the mouse pointers. Thank Next for that idea 😛
And people, stop calling others trolls. Glenn has a different opinion, isn’t he entitled to one?
> I would like to see this research paper
I can’t remember URLs for the research I’ve read on the topic, but there was a nice GOMS analysis in the Humane Interface by Jef Raskin which showed precisely why it is faster. There is also the matter of muscle memory, which can form with in-window menus, but not as efficiently.
“Try playing with exit confirmation dialogs in GIMP, Dia and a GNOME2 HIG compliant app sometime to see what I mean.”
I play with those (but Dia) all the time and I don’t see what you mean.
The GIMP dialog says “Changes were made to Untitled. Close anyway?” and has a Close and Cancel button. Close is default. Clicking the default action would cause you to loose data. This is the opposite of most other programs on all GUIs that I’m aware of. That it says close is a small consolation in this case. The exit confirmation dialog is so common many people I suspect click on the default action by reflex (or hit the enter key).
Dia has “This diagram has not been saved. Save changes now?” with Yes and No buttons. Yes is default. This is better, because the default action will not cause you to loose data.
However, they leave off the “Cancel” button present on other programs (Cancel = “Maybe” or “I’m not sure”) Thankfully the default WM on GNOME2 has a close button in the titlebar.
Note also that the dialog doesn’t mention which document is unsaved. This can be fun if you have multiple Dia documents open and have an unfortunate window arrangement or mis-click and bring the wrong doc window forward. KOffice has this problem too.
Gedit for GNOME 2 has the Mac style buttons Don’t Save, Cancel, and Save. Unambiguous as to thier meaning. Has an obvious option for the “I’m not sure” user. Default action is the safe one. Button order is consistent within GNOME2 (though not with other Linux/X apps. That could be a problem greater than the benefits of having the default in the easy to find lower right corner of the window)
Funny thing. I had all these windows open to transcribe the dialog messages. Now I want to close them all. I went to click the close button on a Dia doc window and it wont close. No message. You know why? There is an unanswered confirmation dialog somewhere on the screen. Even better, it doesn’t show up in the window list. In KOffice it does show up in the window list. You can also minimize it there, though I don’t know why you’d ever want to. The sane thing to do would have been to bring the conformation box forward. Linux UI desperately needs something like Aqua Sheets.
This kinda crap is what made me give up Linux as my primary desktop. I hope Gnome can bring some sanity to the Linux UI, but they can’t control/influence/change everything.
Ok then, the Dia dialog seems to be simply broken and not compliant to the HIG, I’m sure they will change that. I don’t think that the GIMP way is very bad though. It’s obvious what it does unless you click without thinking. Maybe it would be better to have save as default though.
Dialogs in GNOME 2 all don’t appear in the windowlist but they should always raise if you raise the application window.
I don’t know what sheets are. Are those dialogs but just placed on top of windows without window borders?
Ok then, the Dia dialog seems to be simply broken and not compliant to the HIG, I’m sure they will change that.
I think part of the problem is that Dia and The GIMP may be GTK+ apps but they aren’t really GNOME apps. It’ll be interesting to see if the respective devs can be convinced to conform to the Gnome HIG guidelines.
I don’t think that the GIMP way is very bad though. It’s obvious what it does unless you click without thinking.
But after years of using programs where the default action allows you to save the document, clicking the default button (or pressing enter) becomes reflexive. In fact I kept doing the opposite when testing these behaviors (clicking the non-default option) beacuse I was vey quickly opening and closing scratch documents. With The GIMP, I kept cancelling the dialog.
I don’t know what sheets are. Are those dialogs but just placed on top of windows without window borders?
No. they are a new feature of the MacOSX Aqua interface (also known as Document-modal dialogs). They are dialogs that stay attached to the titlebar of the document window they are associated with. Here is the relevant section from the Apple Aqua HIG:
http://developer.apple.com/techpubs/macosx/Essentials/AquaHIGuideli…
One thing I’ve noticed, that sheets make a more obviousthing to try, is that you can still edit other documents serviced by the same app as a document with its save confirmation sheet displayed. Most Linux and Windows programs I’ve used don’t seem to allow this, though I think a few GNOME apps do.
Here’s how I “installed” OmniWeb on my Mac the other day – download the disk image – it mounted on my desktop. open the drive, copy the OmniWeb icon (which is actually a special type of folder containing all the app’s libraries and resources) from the drive to my desktop. Later, after deciding I wanted to keep the app, I moved the icon from my desktop to my Applications folder. When I decide to get rid of it, the “uninstall” is “drag the icon to trash”.
Let’s see, you’ve just described at a minimum four discreet steps to “installing” your app. I could install Mozilla, Opera or even Netscape on a Windows box in two steps
1. Download
2. Run installer
I could even install a new version of IE in one step through Windows Update. So you tell me, which is more intuitive and easy to use? Which process do you think would be easier to explain to a novice user on either platform?
at no point is anything more than a copy or move required. which is why drag and drop is the recommended “installation” method.
Drag and drop is overimplemented on every platform. If it’s (ab)used for anything more than file copy/move operations, then you risk breaking the UI, simply because you introduce functionality that are inconsistent with it’s intended purpose. Just because Apple recommend it doesn’t make it good UI practice.
> Glenn has a different opinion, isn’t he entitled to one?
Sure he is, and I enjoy discussion on such topics, because from disagreement comes better understanding.
But there’s a difference between fielding an opinion and going “stupid bogus load of crap”, claiming that the point under your mouse isn’t the fastest to reach (pray tell, what *is* then?), boasting about the grades he had at university (hey Glenn, do you have a *job*? Are you actually *working* on UIs? Do you have actual *experience* in the field?) and that he’s able to play the guitar while he’s driving…
Perhaps “troll” was a bit harsh, since a troll does field flamebait on purpose, not out of ignorance. If Glenn would have argued about the mouse path required to *return* to the application, or whether most work is done on maximised windows or not, or about menu bars should / can be replaced by pop-ups… but claiming that he needs menu bars in each window because he has a “multitasking mind”, then enumerating what he’s firing up when he goes to play internet… sorry but I cannot take that serious.
But there’s a difference between fielding an opinion and going “stupid bogus load of crap”, claiming that the point under your mouse isn’t the fastest to reach (pray tell, what *is* then?)
It dosent matter who (unless your disabled), its faster to click on a menu item on a small window near the middle than to move the mouse to the top then drop down and select it. Whats bogus is this lie that everything has to be at the top (Its funny how most mac ppl dont mention how right under the mouse is the fastest spot.) Of course thats true .. just as true as that if something is near the mouse pointer its faster than at the top of the screen.
Im kinda annoyed the way u never answer any of my points and instead turn this into something about my ego. U asked for my Uni score if i remember correctly ? so u got it.. big deal. What did u score? what do u do for a living? If u arent the god of UI i mose well just ignore u hey ? (Im copying of your mentality here).
Its the issues that matter not the ppl who say them..
U still havent at all answered my note that each applications functionatlity is contextual to THAT app so obviously each menu belongs with each app. If u cant even see how natural that is and how artifical the apple way is.. and how it slows u down if your running more than one app i dont know what to say. Ive used macs and pcs for 14 years now and i know which i find much easier to manage 2 apps at once on. I know its easy to RUN 2 apps on mac and i do.. its just hard to MANAGE them both at the SAME TIME.
I run more than one app at once.. i see more than 1 window at once.. i see more than 1 toolbar at once.. i see more than 1 menu at once. I feel its stupid to take all the menus and put them together yet not do it for everything else.
Pls dont bother asking me about my work or uni.. its not relevant and once i respond u just say im bragging. ARG
Let’s see, you’ve just described at a minimum four discreet steps to “installing” your app. I could install Mozilla, Opera or even Netscape on a Windows box in two steps
1. Download
2. Run installer
firstly, “run installer” generally involves flipping through several pages of a wizard so it’s not necessarily a single step.
more importantly though, it’s not the number of steps that is important – it’s the understanding what is going on. the fact that you visit this site implies that you are technically aware. however, most computer users are not, and are also terrified of “breaking” the computer.
the point of the mac way is that the user is made aware of where they are putting the file – and they know that it is safe to “uninstall” by dragging to trash – because an app is “just a file”, and you delete it the same way you delete any other file.
Most of the users I meet when I’m visiting clients have no idea the windows control panel even exists – how are they expected to uninstall applications? how many times have you seen a computer with a Start Menu that runs over three screen heights because the user doesn’t know that it’s a simple folder you can organise any way you want? Mac users (under the old OS anyway) didn’t have that problem with their Apple Menus because to use the Apple Menu you dragged an dropped aliases into the relevant folder.
the point is that drag and drop on a mac is nothing more than move/copy functionality – installing an app is copying it to where you want it. altering your apple menu is moving an alias to where you want it. because it’s direct manipulation and the effects are immediate, users (not techies) are comfortable with it – whereas wizards appear like “magic” to them and leave them uncomfortable with “tinkering” with the system the way you or i do.
just MHO tho.
@ Glenn:
> its faster to click on a menu item on a small
> window near the middle than to move the mouse
> to the top then drop down and select it.
To make it precise: I claim that, all else being equal, on average it is easier *and* faster to select File / Save As from a top-screen menu bar than selecting File / Save As from a menu bar sitting below the current window title.
When we get into a decent and matter-of-factly discussion about his, I will look up some hard UI research data to back up my claim.
> just as true as that if something is near the mouse
> pointer its faster than at the top of the screen.
You only calculate distance here, not ease-to-reach, which factors into the speed and user experience.
> Im kinda annoyed the way u never answer any of my
> points and instead turn this into something about
> my ego.
Err, dito.
> U asked for my Uni score if i remember correctly ?
Nope.
> What did u score?
Doesn’t matter really since the Applied CS lectures did not include dedicated UI courses. But since you are so eager to know, I had a 1.4 average across all courses (1 best, 6 worst), this counting in the 3 I got in Excell…
> Its the issues that matter not the ppl who say them..
It’s the issues that matter, empirical proof for them and the way you bring ’em forward.
> U still havent at all answered my note that each
> applications functionatlity is contextual to THAT
> app so obviously each menu belongs with each app.
That is one point into the equation. Pop-up menus can solve much of that. Some way to visually emphasize the connection between active window and top-screen menu bar (“exploder” animation on right-click, to come up with an ad-hoc idea) might bring the best of two worlds together…?
Jumping to the conclusion that the current way to do it is best does not lead to improvements.
> If u cant even see how natural that is and how
> artifical the apple way is…
I see that the context of a menu is clearer the Windows way. But I am not sure at all that this outweights the *empirical* proof that a top-screen menu, or a pop-up menu, is faster to access.
> …and how it slows u down if your running more than
> one app i dont know what to say. Ive used macs and pcs
> for 14 years now and i know which i find much easier to
> manage 2 apps at once on.
Your experience tells you this, my experience tells me that. Forget the advocacy, try to understand. Don’t try to have people *adopt* your opinion, but try to have them *understand* it, while you try to *understand* theirs.
And it’s not about Mac vs. Windows either. It’s about the *concepts* behind them. Or am I mistaken and this is not the website about better solutions?
> dont bother asking me about my work or uni.. its not
> relevant…
Correct, unless you are a pro UI researcher / implementer.
You still don’t get it. Drag and drop install is bad UI practice because
1. There are no cues that differentiate the copying of an ordinary file, say a PDF, to the installation of an application.
2. There are very different consequences to the two actions, and these consequnces are not apparent to the user.
3. The combination of these two factors will confuse the user.
Wizards are a better (but not perfect) way of doing things because
1. An routine called “Setup” or “Install” tells a user exactly what to expect when it is invoked. The words, or maybe an iconic representation provide an immediate, intuitive affordance.
2. Users will intuitively know that running a routine called setup is very different to whatever else they may do on their computer. Additionally, well written routines provide the user with guidance and feedback to assist users who don’t grasp this.
Even Linux distros are starting to get this in the way that they are distributing packages. It seems to me that Apple are shooting themselves in the foot by adhering to a bad UI by rationalising that that’s the way “preferred by Mac users”.