[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde
Subject:    RE: New KDE2.0 widget theme preview screenshot
From:       Mosfet <mosfet () jorsm ! com>
Date:       1999-07-06 17:47:51
[Download RAW message or body]

Well, I do have to admit I usually am not selecting menu items on windows that
don't currently have focus so your main point doesn't effect my usability. I do
have *lots* of windows tho, and having one menubar decreases the real estate
needed for the individual windows. 

You usually have to move the mouse a little further tho. So I guess it will
take 600 milliseconds to get to the menu item instead to 500 ;-)

Also, and I think this is important - is the fact that the menu is always in
the same position no matter where the window is. This may sound irrelevant, but
when I am typing something and want to select a menu option I can move the
mouse to the correct location completely subconciously because it is always in
the exact same place. This does help believe it or not, it is a nice design. I
no longer even have to think about where to select my menu options. My brain
can be in total autopilot for that part of the interface. Not that embedding
menus in the window is a complex task or anything, but having it always in the
same place does have an advantage here IMHO. You talk about users wanting the
simplest approach, well for many users this is it.

I can see why Mac users love this feature. It really does grow on you and when
you have used it for awhile not having it in the same place does get really
annoying. 

Either way, KDE supports both so there is no problem for either of us.

Tue, 06 Jul 1999, Santiago Burbano wrote:
> On Tue, 06 Jul 1999, Mosfet wrote:
> >> You think this turned into a flame?? No, for a group of what seems to be
> >> primarily Linux users this was a relatively calm exchange ;-) Note I use
> Linux
> >> too...
> 
> >Of course, we can always try and make it a flame. :o)
> 
> ;-D   (I bet somebody will try to).
> 
> >I think it is arrogant to state that Mac menubars are bad GUI design.
> >The reason I think this is that Apple is using them a long, long time
> >now. And keeps using them. Apple has a history of _very_ good GUI
> >design. They always considered it very important. Well, Microsoft
> >does so as well, but in another way; they go for the features, not
> >for consitency. Which I call _bad_ GUI design.
> 
> That's not my point. My point is that it takes 2 mouse clicks and 1 move to
> drop down a menu option if the application I want is not currently active.
> The W95 way just takes 1 click as long as the option is visible. Worst case,
> if the option is not visible it takes the same as Mac way. Even if you use
> the focus-follows-mouse option, it is not as functional because it forces
> you to arrange your desktop so you won't pass over any other window in your
> way from the window to the menu (not always easy).
> 


> If I have two ways of doing the same thing, I always choose/like the
> shortest one (like anybody else). It's not a question of personal
> preferences, or some abstract design concept, it's just the plain laziness
> that works all around the world. Is it good design? Is it bad? I don't care,
> it's just __short__
> 

No, not like anyone else. KDE has gotten *great* response on the top oriented
menubar. Don't ask me why, but people (including me) really like it. 

> IMHO, consistency is not a question of where the menubar is, but what
its > elements are, how they behave, what shortcuts are available, etc. I agree
> that W95 lacks consistency (among many other things ;-) ), but not because
> it has a in-window menubar but because each application works differently
> and you can hardly use what you learnt in one app on another one. But this
> can also happen with an on-top menubar.
> 
> Anyway, there's another issue here (and I think KDE should learn from the
> experience). Traditionally, Mac's programming world has been very much
> smaller than Windows'. With fewer companies making software, it's easier to
> ensure consistency and set GUI standards. Windows world is bigger, with
> thousands of different companies producing applications. In this case,
> consistency is not just difficult, it's a miracle. Not all the blame of W9X
> inconsistency is for Micro$oft (although it's true that not even they are
> consistent with themselves). Some steps are being done to avoid this
> situation for KDE with the KDE-OK certification. I hope they will succeed or
> we'll end up with the same mess W9X is living in right now.
> 
> Santiago
> 
> 
> -- 
> Send posts to:  kde@lists.netcentral.net
>  Send all commands to:  kde-request@lists.netcentral.net
>   Put your command in the SUBJECT of the message:
>    "subscribe", "unsubscribe", "set digest on", or "set digest off"
> PLEASE READ THE ARCHIVED MESSAGES AT http://lists.kde.org/ BEFORE POSTING
> **********************************************************************
> This list is from your pals at NetCentral <http://www.netcentral.net/>
-- 
Daniel M. Duley - Unix developer & sys admin.
mosfet@kde.org
mosfet@jorsm.com
-- 
Send posts to:  kde@lists.netcentral.net
 Send all commands to:  kde-request@lists.netcentral.net
  Put your command in the SUBJECT of the message:
   "subscribe", "unsubscribe", "set digest on", or "set digest off"
PLEASE READ THE ARCHIVED MESSAGES AT http://lists.kde.org/ BEFORE POSTING
**********************************************************************
This list is from your pals at NetCentral <http://www.netcentral.net/>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]