Slashdot Mirror

on this, but Win 8 is probably a better fit for inexperienced users than anything else out there right now.

Please remember that it's for usability it's better to go with testing with multiple users than opinion since what seems to an technology expert to be good for a beginner might not actually be. In this case the testing has been done and a summary is avialable.

having two environments on a single device is a prescription for usability problems for several reasons

• Users have to learn and remember where to go for which features
• [..]
• Switching between environments increases the interaction cost of using multiple features.
• [etc... ]

Read the full report to get the rest. Basically added to an interface which has been designed for graphic effect rather than usability:

the new look sacrifices usability on the altar of looking different than traditional GUIs

this all adds up to a system which will take much longer to learn and have much higher training costs than other UIs which exist currently, including Windows 7.

So use the desktop interface then. It's still there.

You should have a look at this usability report which will help you understand it better. Basic summary: applications are written for either the desktop or the Metro interface. Where the apps are written for a particular interface you have to use that interface to use the app. There are some places where two different apps have the same name on both sides (for example "Internet Explorer" exists as both a Metro and a Desktop app) but you can see that they are separate from the way that they don't show the same Window list. Imagine the confusion which can happen if you use "Metro Internet Explorer" started from another metro app and then a desktop app also opens "Classic Internet Explorer".

All this confusiion adds up to an interface which very much slows down and confuses the user.

Have you used Windows 8 for more than 30 seconds in a store? I'm using it right now on a 6-year-old laptop. Windows 8 is just fine. It's certainly superior to IOS in every imaginable way.

I'm guessing you haven't used it much on a tablet Have a look at what the usability testers have to say ("modern UI is a new codeword for Microsoft's Metro interface

The available advice on designing for the "modern UI style" seems to guide designers to create applications with extraordinarily low information density. See, for example

The tablet version of Windows 8 introduces a bunch of complicated gestures that are easy to get wrong and thus dramatically reduce the UI's learnability.

Oh no.. that's not what I was looking for. I guess the visual design must be better than iOS:

The Windows 8 UI is completely flat in what used to be called the "Metro" style and is now called the "Modern UI." There's no pseudo-3D or lighting model to cast subtle shadows that indicate what's clickable

Maybe it's the new powerful features they added over Windows 7?

One of the worst aspects of Windows 8 for power users is that the product's very name has become a misnomer. "Windows" no longer supports multiple windows on the screen

Maybe the sacrifice is worth it because it improves the desktop version?

. On a regular PC, Windows 8 is Mr. Hyde: a monster that terrorizes poor office workers and strangles their productivity.

My only disappointment with the Surface is its low resolution. I've been rocking 1920x1200 for 6 years, and just got 2560x1440 on the desktop. I don't want to go backwards.

For most people it seems that the main disappointment is the low quality of the apps, even where there are any available, and the lack of responsiveness of those apps compared to the swishy interface. Given this, the only thing surface is really good for is acting as a video player. In that role, the low resolution screen is probably less important than in other roles.

Is it true that you cannot have multiple Windows open in Windows 8?

That would seem to be a deal breaker for a lot of people.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/windows-8.html

"Lack of Multiple Windows = Memory Overload for Complex Tasks

One of the worst aspects of Windows 8 for power users is that the product's very name has become a misnomer. "Windows" no longer supports multiple windows on the screen. Win8 does have an option to temporarily show a second area in a small part of the screen, but none of our test users were able to make this work. Also, the main UI restricts users to a single window, so the product ought to be renamed "Microsoft Window."

First, get written specifications from a town official who has the authority to approve the results. The specifications should indicate the sources of content and how the town expects the Web site to be hosted. The specifications should be testable; that is, it should be possible to determine whether or not the result indeed implements what was wanted. You definitely do not want to put in any effort that will then be rejected. If you get a negative response, you want to point to the specification as justification for what you created.

Second, read what experts have said about proper Web design. The most important thing is to adhere to W3C specifications; see http://www.w3.org/. That way, any problems by end-users in viewing the result can be attributed to the users' browsers and not to your creation. Also peruse Jacob Nielsen's Web site at http://www.useit.com/, especially his http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html and http://www.useit.com/homepageusability/guidelines.html. While the Viewable with Any Browser Campaign at http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/index.html is somewhat dated, much of it is still relevant. Finally, there are my own "Professional" Web Developers at http://www.rossde.com/internet/Webdevelopers.html (where I dissect the errors committed by professional Web developers) and My Web Page Design Criteria at http://www.rossde.com/internet/web_design.html (where I describe how I design my own Web pages). In my "Professional" Web Developers, pay special attention to Accessibility to make sure you do not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. My two Web pages that I cite here contain links to external Web sites with more information that may prove quite valuable.

Third, test your results. Use the W3C validators. Use http://validator.w3.org/ to make sure you have no HTML/XHTML errors. Use http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ to make sure you have not CSS errors.

First, get written specifications from a town official who has the authority to approve the results. The specifications should indicate the sources of content and how the town expects the Web site to be hosted. The specifications should be testable; that is, it should be possible to determine whether or not the result indeed implements what was wanted. You definitely do not want to put in any effort that will then be rejected. If you get a negative response, you want to point to the specification as justification for what you created.

Second, read what experts have said about proper Web design. The most important thing is to adhere to W3C specifications; see http://www.w3.org/. That way, any problems by end-users in viewing the result can be attributed to the users' browsers and not to your creation. Also peruse Jacob Nielsen's Web site at http://www.useit.com/, especially his http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html and http://www.useit.com/homepageusability/guidelines.html. While the Viewable with Any Browser Campaign at http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/index.html is somewhat dated, much of it is still relevant. Finally, there are my own "Professional" Web Developers at http://www.rossde.com/internet/Webdevelopers.html (where I dissect the errors committed by professional Web developers) and My Web Page Design Criteria at http://www.rossde.com/internet/web_design.html (where I describe how I design my own Web pages). In my "Professional" Web Developers, pay special attention to Accessibility to make sure you do not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. My two Web pages that I cite here contain links to external Web sites with more information that may prove quite valuable.

Third, test your results. Use the W3C validators. Use http://validator.w3.org/ to make sure you have no HTML/XHTML errors. Use http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ to make sure you have not CSS errors.

First, get written specifications from a town official who has the authority to approve the results. The specifications should indicate the sources of content and how the town expects the Web site to be hosted. The specifications should be testable; that is, it should be possible to determine whether or not the result indeed implements what was wanted. You definitely do not want to put in any effort that will then be rejected. If you get a negative response, you want to point to the specification as justification for what you created.

Second, read what experts have said about proper Web design. The most important thing is to adhere to W3C specifications; see http://www.w3.org/. That way, any problems by end-users in viewing the result can be attributed to the users' browsers and not to your creation. Also peruse Jacob Nielsen's Web site at http://www.useit.com/, especially his http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html and http://www.useit.com/homepageusability/guidelines.html. While the Viewable with Any Browser Campaign at http://www.anybrowser.org/campaign/index.html is somewhat dated, much of it is still relevant. Finally, there are my own "Professional" Web Developers at http://www.rossde.com/internet/Webdevelopers.html (where I dissect the errors committed by professional Web developers) and My Web Page Design Criteria at http://www.rossde.com/internet/web_design.html (where I describe how I design my own Web pages). In my "Professional" Web Developers, pay special attention to Accessibility to make sure you do not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. My two Web pages that I cite here contain links to external Web sites with more information that may prove quite valuable.

Third, test your results. Use the W3C validators. Use http://validator.w3.org/ to make sure you have no HTML/XHTML errors. Use http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/ to make sure you have not CSS errors.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/windows-8.html

Even Jakob Nielsen says that Windows 8 usability is "dissapointing". People should not be jumping to buy it, at least if they are rational. Maybe with new devices and computers if it comes forced in they will get it, but the upgrade, specially for traditional desktops, won't get them something easier to use (for the same tasks they were used to).

It could be a golden opportunity for both alternative Windows desktops environments/addons (i.e. Stardock) and Linux (both for traditional desktops and the new touch enabled ones if i.e. KDE plasma active delivers a good experience).

• Wikipedia's explanation of the term Above The Fold (the counterpart to "Below The Fold")
• Jakob Nielsen's take on scrolling and Web design. Basically, he used to say "don't make your users scroll," but now he believes that the fold should be used to prioritize the content on the page. Which is what Apple did.

What kind of web sites would you get if Megan Garber married Jakob Nielsen?

1) PDF should be used for printing only. Anything else is a misuse of the format.

4) You are flatly wrong if you think all windows software costs money, and the repo system is only better if (a) it actually has what you need and (b) you can figure out how to use it. Otherwise, it's of no use at all.

5) If OSX were like Linux and had 50 different versions each of which required its own set of knowledge and technical skills, that would certainly reduce its usability.

But how can you know that Swype entered the correct English word if the password entry field covers it up with asterisks or other similar glyphs?

Maybe your screen is wide, but what about phones consuming the RSS feed?
Besides, people only read the first 11 characters, so short is sweet.

Now, mulls may not be the best word in this particular situation, but to rule it out in all situations is silly.

Maybe your screen is wide, but what about phones consuming the RSS feed?
Besides, people only read the first 11 characters, so short is sweet.

Now, mulls may not be the best word in this particular situation, but to rule it out in all situations is silly.

Usability does not come from gradients and curved corners.

Graphic design and usability are two different disciplines. Anyone who wants a good introduction to usability could easily do worse than reading Jakob Nielsen's Alertbox column. (I hesitate to call it a blog for several reasons, not least because it predates the coining of the term!)

This is actually well explained....

The voice-operated computer in Star Trek is an even more egregious example of designing an audience interface rather than a user interface. Spoken commands and spoken responses make it easy for the audience to follow the action, but it's a very inefficient way of controlling a complex system.

In predictions about computing's future, voice interaction is a perennial favorite — it probably even beats 3D, which is the other top contender for most over-hyped UI technology. While voice has its place, it's even less suitable than 3D for most everyday interactions because it's a less data-rich channel and it's harder to specify something in words than to choose it on a graphical display.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/film-ui-bloopers.html

Of course it does make sense to be possible activate or deactivate auto-destruct when running in halls but really, many of the Star Trek voice commands and questions are like La Forge asks computer "Does beam penetrate the mass of the rock?" or something else what anyone could see right away by looking the screen on front of them.

The Inmates are running the asylum.

I highly recommend this book. It puts forward the case for user-centred design and describes some basic but effective techniques.

Some of the technology in the examples is a bit dated, however the experiences of using bad interfaces is still fresh.

Nielsen's heuristics should also be referred to constantly in user interface design: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/heuristic_list.html

Sign up for Jakob Neilsen's Alertbox and read his past postings.

The Design of Everyday Things

Don't Make Me Think

Web Form Design

Designing with the Mind in Mind: Simple Guide to Understanding User Interface Design Rule

All of the books by Edward Tufte

Information Dashboard Design

Various resources available from Juice Analytics

here's an interesting article that suggests you get a great deal of benefit from usability testing with just 5 users:

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20000319.html

http://www.useit.com/

I guess I could excuse dropping Synaptic if it weren't part of a disturbing trend.

The point is: defaults matter.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/defaults.html

This was supposed to be the entire point of Ubuntu in the first place. If your preferred configuration is just a setting away, then why not just run Debian and make the 10 or 20 adjustments you need?

Ubuntu forums discussion on defaults

From a usability point of view the URL has been criticized from at least 1999, mostly due to influx of machine generated addresses on dynamic web pages. Since that time, the url has only become more obfuscated, so it would seem that the URL bar has reached a point where it should go away.

OTOH there is a security issue. The URL does provide a means of knowing where one is on the web. Of course with embedded content, the URL can lie, but that is more about bad and intentionally fraudulent behavior, not abou the URL. The URL also allows user a means to get from one place to another without an intervening service or sanctioned links. This freedom can cut into revenue.

Really, if the URL can be turned off and on, then that is about user choice for a simpler interface. If the URL cannot be turned back on, then that is about the browser wanting to control the user experience, probably to maximize tracking data and ad data. For a consumer browser like Firefox and Chrome and IE, it would make sense for the URL to be turned off by default. These are browser used by the masses who don't know what URL stands for, doesn't understand what it means, and doesn't care if Google or whomever tracks their every move. I would just be surprised to see Mozilla do it.

For me, yes, I would rather have an external app. Specifically, I want PDFs to download and NOT open automatically. I want them to go to my downloads folder and I will open them at my own discretion. If I want to open it instantly after downloading, I can use the browser's download manager to open it with an extra click.

Why, you ask? Because I am one of those who still feels that PDFs are not fit for human consumption. Outside of pre-press and raster image printing work, PDF is a terrible file format. In their lust to own as much of the computing market as possible, Adobe has pushed PDF well beyond its original, intended use and into areas that are better served by plain text, RTF or HTML pages. Hell, I loathe the Word .doc format, but I find it preferable to PDF.

The link above gives more reasons for why I don't want to deal with PDFs unless I have to. And that article is eight years old; things have only gotten worse since. I sure don't want them loading automatically in my browser.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/independence-day-interoperability-blooper.html

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/film-ui-bloopers.html

What I really want to know is what happened to sci-fi driving our desire/quest for new tech. Think the flip-up communicator from Star Trek, long before the flip phone came on the scene. When's the last time you watched a sci-fi movie and thought to yourself (about the tech), "That's a good idea. Somebody should invent that."

P.S. For similar impossibilities, check out the book Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/independence-day-interoperability-blooper.html

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/film-ui-bloopers.html

What I really want to know is what happened to sci-fi driving our desire/quest for new tech. Think the flip-up communicator from Star Trek, long before the flip phone came on the scene. When's the last time you watched a sci-fi movie and thought to yourself (about the tech), "That's a good idea. Somebody should invent that."

P.S. For similar impossibilities, check out the book Insultingly Stupid Movie Physics.

I believe Steve Jobs referred to Macs using a car metaphor (must be a Slashdot regular). He said that Macs (or PCs more broadly) were like trucks. Most people won't need that amount of utility/capability (they drive cars), but a certain chunk of us will (we drive F-150s). Macs/PCs will still be around to serve that market, even if it shrinks in comparison with tablets (iCrap as you so eloquently put it).

If I had to guess that the ratio toward which Mac vs. iCrap would converge, I would guess that it would reflect the 90-9-1 rule. Probably 10% will want a full featured PC of varying power, while the other 90% will be happy with something that gives them access to the net/media and performs their daily tasks (email, basic text editing, MyTwitFace, music).

http://www.useit.com/

There, did it for you. Long Live Jakob Nielsen! His work should be made Gospel.

Yes, a very ugly website, but that is not the point. What matters is the essence. He is not there to impress people with visuals but to communicate valuable research and findings without being personally bogged down with achieving the perfect layout himself. His followers are not the public (or the common mediocre webdesigners) - but the best professionals in the industry ever. Ask any real pro.

Note, he does advocate sites to be pleasant looking. He acknowledge his own to be an exception. Read his footnote.

http://www.useit.com/

There, did it for you. Long Live Jakob Nielsen! His work should be made Gospel.

Yes, a very ugly website, but that is not the point. What matters is the essence. He is not there to impress people with visuals but to communicate valuable research and findings without being personally bogged down with achieving the perfect layout himself. His followers are not the public (or the common mediocre webdesigners) - but the best professionals in the industry ever. Ask any real pro.

Note, he does advocate sites to be pleasant looking. He acknowledge his own to be an exception. Read his footnote.

And I quickly found one killer bug: if a password element doesn't meet its constraints, it outputs the currently-entered password to the screen in plaintext

Not a bug. Password masking itself is the bug.

I get the feeling this is what's going on. On all three sites there's a left panel, a right panel, the middle goodies, and a series of links at the top. This seems to be a fairly standard layout. I don't understand the language and maybe there's more clutter than what I'm seeing, but that seems like a fairly straightforward layout. Research in the past shows most people pay attention to the middle and are more likely to look to the right than the left, which you can see in more modern websites(like youtube, google, battle net, etc). Other than the american sites I've seen ditching the left panel, the Japanese layout is the same. It also seems that a lot of sites ditching the left panel are doing so to draw in a larger mobile crowd as well.

For us to know .jp sites are 'cluttered' we need some sort of comparison to other country's sites. Similarly, for us to know Japanese culture is minimalistic we need a comparison to other cultures, and examples of minimalistic Japanese culture, and none of these issues are covered. I just can't take this article seriously since there's no data other than the author's opinion on what a cluttered site is. What even constitutes a cluttered site? What's the boundary between cluttered and not cluttered? Are all Japanese sites cluttered? 90%? 80%?... How many American sites are cluttered? British? German? French? Is the clutter happening on mainstream pages or barely visited pages? Is the clutter happening on professionally designed pages or pages thrown together by Joe Schmoe(he's not a talented web designer at all)?

No data and all conjecture makes me a sad panda.

Call it a "passphrase." Ban that other word.

Can you type a password as long as the comment that you just posted, without typos, the first time, blind? All you'd see is

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Quoting Jakob Nielsen:

Usability suffers when users type in passwords and the only feedback they get is a row of bullets. Typically, masking passwords doesn't even increase security, but it does cost you business due to login failures.

It is unfortunate and possibly ironic that in a discussion about passwords, Slashdot labels an illustration of a common problem with long passwords as "Filter error: Please use fewer 'junk' characters." If asterisks are 'junk' characters restricted in comments, then why does Slashdot display such junk characters when the user is entering a password?

Why not use a system of using simple phrases, including spaces and punctuation.

Because you can't check for typos, in turn because it turns into asterisks when you type it. Jakob Nielsen explains.

There are some studies about what people actually SEE on web pages at http://www.useit.com/

Don't let the site's plainness and 1996 colours put you off, it's got a LOT of good info.

Nah, $2-$5 is micropayments. [...] I have no idea where you got $0.05 from.

Get off my lawn:

http://web.archive.org/web/19970601153143/http://www.millicent.digital.com/ (as low as 1/10th cent)
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20011223.html ("In addition to true micro-payments, some sites might have midi-payments ranging from 20 cents to a dollar, and perhaps even maxi-payments of several dollars.")

Sorry, but I regularly purchase $2 to $5 items on my credit card. Calling that a micropayment is ridiculous.

Studies have been done before, I believe that's what AC is alluding to. This is VERY old news. Here's an article about a university of York study from 2004 that came to the same conclusion:
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040412.html

There are even older stories. I'm just at work and have boss aggro.

I'm pretty sure I remember coming across a news piece that said exactly this a good 10-20 years ago..

Yep, it's old news. Here's an article from 2004, about some research done in the UK: http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20040412.html

Here's the summary of the paper at ACM.org: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=993187

You can find also find the PDF.

I know I'm not the only person to get hung up on the feasibility of inter-operating with alien technology. He could have used cross-compiling, but that assumes the aliens were using some known CPU instruction set that was native to Earth.

So if, as you put it, "IT'S A PHONE", why do people care so much about running lame applications on their phone? I think the whole 'apps' feature is incredible overrated, indeed some unscientific surveys confirmed this: iPhone app usability.

From the article:
In the first part of each session, we asked users to walk us through their own iPhone apps. We frequently heard comments such as, "I downloaded this because [it sounded cool/a friend recommended it], but I haven't had time to try it." Users also often said something like, "I used this a few times right after I downloaded it, but I'm not using it anymore -- I just haven't gotten around to deleting it."

People are just buying these things because someone told them it was cool. I use my phone for, I dont know, COMMUNICATION PURPOSES? Calling, texting, and possibly email, those are the important features.

Make them opt-in optional software patches with disclaimers. There, fixed.

Nobody reads on the web* (especially disclaimers), MS would still be blamed.

* http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9710a.html

lol- have a quick look at the link this gibbon proffers - it's from the nielsen school of aesthetics thats fer sure.

separated at birth? http://www.useit.com/ & http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Web%20Design/feed.html

dude if you know whats best for you and the internet then please stay away from web design. seriously.

It's obvious to anyone willing to think about it for more than 30 seconds that a new user interaction requires a new design. The author of this article starts out first trying to blame "flash" for this, then briefly retracts the statement saying that apps could be designed for touchscreens. Then he goes through a series of ways to try to map mouse UI design onto touchscreen UI design (which he admits doesn't work). He's close, but rejecting option one because "it just isn't going to happen" is hasty.

This isn't a "Flash" problem. Flash is a programming language and can adapt to any UI if programmer and tool developer choose to. This is a fundamental UI design problem. Usability and UI Guru Jakob Nielsen posted an article about this very topic a couple weeks ago. One of the more interesting points he made was when GUI's first came out, app designers just slapped a GUI on top of the old mainframe app. A fundamental mistake that we know didn't work.

The problem is very real, and it's a good thing to point out. The ONLY solution to this problem (at least if you want to make the apps usable on touchscreens) is to either redesign the UI to work with both mice and touchscreens (likely a bad option), or have to separate versions of the UI for mice and touchscreens. Depending on how the app was written, this can mean either an entire re-write if the app didn't separate out the UI from the rest of the app, or simply coding up a new UI layer that interacts with the existing layers in the app.

The one distinction I'd like to make though is this isn't a technological problem at all and can't be solved through technology. It's a business and re-training problem where re-coding the UI and learning the new UI design skills has to be worth it, business wise. In the long run, touchscreen are going to be an important part of new UI design. It's actually the first real competitor since the mouse became common 20 years ago. 20 years is a long time (especially in computing), so it shouldn't be surprising we need to re-think a lot of the UI interaction that's been designed for mice for the last 20 years.

Having two different modes, one mode that you rarely use (since one rarely shuts off the engine when the car is moving), probably led to even more confusion. Jakob Nielsen, the modeless zealout, must really be having a field-day with this.

News Flash bro.

You may not like/need Flash, but a lot of people like it, maybe most.

Why don't you check out the current Ars Technica poll on how many people would like to have Flash on the iPad:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/01/poll-technica-do-you-want-flash-on-the-ipad.ars

And yes, Flash is a gaming platform unparalleled on the browser. You may not like Flash games, but a lot of people do. Flash has also ushered back the golden age of game development in the 80s where you could have just 1-3 people teams pumping out fun games, unlike in the late 90's to early 2000s before the explosion of casual gaming where to push out a game in the industry meant spending millions of dollars with tens to hundreds of developers per project, and it was all 3D, 3D, 3D and idea rehashes.

The ease with which authors can ties together together animation, illustration, design, sound & interaction on Flash is has no equal. Not everyone is a developer and that's why HTML5 will not kill Flash.

Coding slick GUIs and programmatic animation ain't an easy task and designers/animators/multimedia artists without programming backgrounds can't pull those off easily. Flash changed that.

H.264 video is also here now with YouTube, but Mozilla Foundation ain't willing to pony up for the proprietary codec so don't expect to see an H.264 bundled video player on Firefox soon. These HTML5 in-browser media players ain't as easy to reskin and meld with other interactive elements as Flash though so you can go stay in your bland Jakob Nielsen-esque world for all everyone else cares.

Btw, re: Flash's sub-par performance on the Mac, it's not all Adobe's fault. See this post from Lee Brimelow of Adobe (scroll down to comment #62):

http://theflashblog.com/?p=1703
"Apple is not cooperating in our attempts to improve the performance of the Flash Player on the Mac. Microsoft is, and in FP 10.1 we cut the CPU utilization in half for watching video. Same with other mobile device manufactures. We would love to work with Apple to do the same but they are making a strategic decision not too so that they can increase their revenue. Hey thats business. Another thing to note is that the site you showed is filled with Flash and just because it takes up a lot of CPU doesnt mean that kids will not want to play with it. Give people the option is what Im saying."

It is a humorous world in how Microsoft is much more open than Apple.

Eye tracking has been used for useability studies for quite some time. http://www.useit.com/alertbox/

don't woosh me, bro...

That's because PDF should only be used for printing. If you are reading PDFs on your computer monitor, somebody screwed up.

http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20021223_05_mistake.gif

This is your second wall-o-text... maybe take a hint?

Consistency and standards: Users should not have to wonder whether different words, situations, or actions mean the same thing. Follow platform conventions.

Recognition rather than recall: Minimize the user's memory load by making objects, actions, and options visible. The user should not have to remember information from one part of the dialogue to another. Instructions for use of the system should be visible or easily retrievable whenever appropriate.

From the above, getting rid of menus is going to generally screw with consistency and ability to recognize operations (I really hated how Office use to hide menu items that weren't used recently)

Granted he also recommended minimalistic design when too many options are not warranted--such as a dialog with too many options available to achieve simple things.

Personally, I use Adblock Plus and NoScript at home, because all that blinky-wiggly-flashy crap is too distracting and ruins my enjoyment of reading articles online. However, even if no one used Adblock Plus or NoScript or Flashblock, advertisers are still screwed. Why?

Because people have learned to ignore ads. See the following articles by Usability guru Jakob Nielsen:

Fancy Formatting, Fancy Words = Looks Like a Promotion = Ignored, and
Banner Blindness: Old and New Findings

That's why ads are more and more intrusive: because advertisers have, like an incompetent pet owner, trained users NOT to look at graphical banners and sidebar ads. (I wish they'd figure out they've trained people to auto-close pop-ups, pop-unders and sliding windows, too). They've trained users to the point where users will overlook content that resembles an ad.

Advertisers: You're doing it wrong.

Personally, I use Adblock Plus and NoScript at home, because all that blinky-wiggly-flashy crap is too distracting and ruins my enjoyment of reading articles online. However, even if no one used Adblock Plus or NoScript or Flashblock, advertisers are still screwed. Why?

Because people have learned to ignore ads. See the following articles by Usability guru Jakob Nielsen:

Fancy Formatting, Fancy Words = Looks Like a Promotion = Ignored, and
Banner Blindness: Old and New Findings

That's why ads are more and more intrusive: because advertisers have, like an incompetent pet owner, trained users NOT to look at graphical banners and sidebar ads. (I wish they'd figure out they've trained people to auto-close pop-ups, pop-unders and sliding windows, too). They've trained users to the point where users will overlook content that resembles an ad.

Advertisers: You're doing it wrong.