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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Mac-menu is _not_ faster
From:       Michael Matz <matz () ifh ! de>
Date:       2000-04-28 20:18:55
[Download RAW message or body]

Hi, (beware answer to three mails)

On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Rik Hemsley wrote:
> > Then why has BeOS no Macmenubar?
> 
> I'd guess that they have tried to retain some similarities with MS Windows.
> Considering Free BeOS only installs from a Window box (initially), this
> seems to be their target group.

No. BeOS had these menubars from the beginning (OK, I know it only since
R3) where really Mac- and Amiga users where the target. Intel processors
were not even supported ;)

> > sth. like "If I add to a natural number another natural number, the result
> > is greater than both of them". Thats a law, and that's science. While UI
> Try adding 1 to 0xFFFFFFFF on a 32-bit box ;)

Guess why I said natural numbers. The thing on usual computers are not
natural numbers ;-)

> > that is not true. Nobody has proven anything besides me who proved by
> > counterexample that it is not faster in every case.
> Ok, but you invented your own method of measurement. I'm not saying it's
> wrong, but proving something like that involves reading a lot of HCI

Note that I haven't even tried to prove something but only gave an
counterexample to any general prove which was claimed to exist, saying mac
menus are five times faster. That does not deny there exists a thing which
proves that mac menus are faster under _some_ special circumstances.

> theory and learning how these sorts of tests are usually done, where
> possible flaws in the testing process would be ironed out.

But whatever these HCI scientist find, by other people it gets simplified
and applied to things they were not thought for, and then they claim "it
is". I could with the same argument as yours (you must read much stuff to
understand HCI design) claim that saying "mac menus are fast" is an
oversimplification made by people not having read that much books.

> very long list, so I'm inclined to say that making the jump is worth it.

That may well be (that it's worth a try). (see below)

On Fri, 28 Apr 2000, Rik Hemsley wrote:
> Sorry, but if you use shells, then you're not a target user. I think I'm
> right in saying that.

If you mean by target user, target user for the _default_ system (unable
or unwilling to dig into configuration), I agree.

> Again, if you use autoraise, you're not sitting with the vast majority
> of users (in our 'target group'), so you're a special case.

Huh? I think by your target group you mean users coming from windows (like
secretaries)... If mac menu is default they have to change their
behaviour. You seem to not find that desturbing (I also don't find that, I
think it's acceptable). But then why find you that changing the behaviour
for autoraise is _not_ acceptable.

So for the same reasons other propose mac style as default I would like to
see auto-raise as default and normal menus. Its faster, need fewer clicks
bla bla... I don't mean it really (then again, if I think about it ... ;)

But I would be interested why you think one is acceptable but the other
not.


Ciao,
Michael.

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