|
#9
| ||||
| ||||
| Quote:
__________________ Still wanting a MacBook, but my free iMac helps soften the pain |
|
#10
| ||||
| ||||
| I love that menu bar across the top. I miss it when I'm using windows at work. I even moved my windows taskbar and start menu to the top but It's not the same. |
|
#11
| ||||
| ||||
| The shared menu bar was created in 1983 when Mac (and Lisa) screens were very small. This was a tremendous real estate advantage over the menu that were embedded in the data windows. I am not sure that this is so much of an advantage today on 30" screens (for the fortunates who can afford it). Today's best menu is the contextual pop-up menu, which requires a 3 buttons mouse, because it is always available without moving the mouse. The other advantage of the shared menu is that it is always visible, making the navigation easier for beginners, but in this respect the Multifinder pull-down menu to switch between applications was a great feature that disappeared (and is not completely replaced by the more efficient but less visible -tab).
__________________ My current machine is an iMac Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz 24" with MacOS X 10.5. My Apples are here. My oldest Apple was born in 1977. GS/P/>SS d-(++) s+: a+ C+(C) U* P L+ E--- W++ N- o+ K? w O-- M++ V PS+ PE+ Y- PGP t+ 5 X+ R tv-- b+++ DI++ D+ G e+++ h---- r+++ y? Time is not changing, I'm just traveling through time. |
|
#12
| ||||
| ||||
| screen real estate was not the only reason for the shared menu bar, though. The main advantage is that users have less trouble hitting the right spot, because it's at the top edge of the screen. If the menu bar is 20 or more pixels _below_ the top, missing it is much easier.
__________________ MacBook Air 13" 1.6 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 80 GB HD. Mac OS X 10.5.5 MacBook 13" 1.83 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 160 GB HD. Mac OS X 10.5.5 Hackintosh Core2Duo 2.4 GHz, 2 GB RAM, 160 GB HD. Mac OS X 10.5.5 iPhone 3G 16 GB (v2.1), AppleTV 1G 40 GB (v2.1) Mac user since 1987, Apple Product Professional 2007, 2008. |
|
#13
| ||||
| ||||
| I agree.
__________________ My current machine is an iMac Core 2 Duo 2.16 GHz 24" with MacOS X 10.5. My Apples are here. My oldest Apple was born in 1977. GS/P/>SS d-(++) s+: a+ C+(C) U* P L+ E--- W++ N- o+ K? w O-- M++ V PS+ PE+ Y- PGP t+ 5 X+ R tv-- b+++ DI++ D+ G e+++ h---- r+++ y? Time is not changing, I'm just traveling through time. |
|
#14
| ||||
| ||||
| Right. The important thing about the menu bar is that it only takes 20 pixels of vertical space, but its effective size is infinite when related to physical (mouse/hand) space, since the cursor is anchored to the edge of the screen. One little flick of the mouse towards the top, and I KNOW I'm going to hit the menu bar, because I can't possibly overshoot it. It takes a lot less time to hit edge-anchored objects than floating ones. This is all in accordance with Fitt's Law, which states that the time to access an object is a function of the size of and distance to that object. In other words, if something is enormous or very close, it'll be easier to hit. Since anchored virtual objects are deceptively large when related to real-world space, they're much easier to access than floating objects, whose 'real' size is directly proportional to their 'virtual' (on-screen) size. Quote:
I disagree that contextual menus are the best choice today. I think contextual menus are very inefficient for general-purpose use, for a few reasons: 1. They're not always in the same place. You need to click on a particular object to get relevant options, and that object could be anywhere, and of any size. 2. Since you need to click on a particular object to see relevant options, there's no way to know all the options that are available without control-clicking on every object onscreen. On the other hand, the menu bar generally shows all options that it will ever show, and merely grays-out the ones that don't currently apply. 3. There are no visual cues to tell you which objects have contextual menu items. 4. Contextual menus can't hold as many items as the menu bar without becoming cumbersome. You can always use sub-menus, but then you're throwing efficiency right out the window. That said, a lot of these problems could be fixed if any company cared to. But Apple hasn't done it, and we all know that means it's not going to be done. I think CMs have a lot more room for improvement than the menu bar, actually.I like the way OS 8/9 treated contextual menus: as a shortcut. Unfortunately, OS X is heading in the direction of Windows, making some options only accessible through contextual menus. Bummer. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| menu bar | martinworswick | Mac OS X System & Mac Software | 14 | November 18th, 2004 09:38 PM |
| Help on Help Menu | chopper | Mac OS X System & Mac Software | 1 | April 11th, 2004 12:40 AM |
| iChat menu bar menu opens chat rooms ... | boi | Mac OS X System & Mac Software | 4 | December 8th, 2002 04:25 PM |
| menu extras in Jag and Menu Extra Enabler | ksignorini | Mac OS X System & Mac Software | 3 | September 5th, 2002 10:26 PM |
| Do you ever use the help menu? | Izzy | Mac OS X System & Mac Software | 10 | May 14th, 2002 12:24 AM |