Slashdot Mirror
Alternatives to Icons and Start Menus?
Cibressus Lybir asks: "We've had icons, folders and menu's for a long time. I currently use two monitors, both filled to the brim with icons and several drawers on each desktop. My Start Menu, on my Windows machine is never used, because it's flimsy and too hard to navigate around. In movies you always see cool 3D desktops with stuff flying around and some kind of cool gesture or spoken word used to start up applications. The future will only bring more applications, more icons, and more time spent navigating around launching your programs. What are your ideas for the future of desktops? How can we rid our selves of the icon jungles that we call our GUI's?"
all you have to do is type the name of the program you want to run... wait
A utility called PaneKiller serves as an add on for your Windows Task bar. You can directory surf, detach views (like KDE), plus much more. This utility helped me alot when I coded for a living.
PaneKiller
try http://www.truelaunchbar.com/
*rushes to patent office*
How can we rid our selves of the icon jungles that we call our GUI's?"
Easy - drag everything to the Recycle Bin. Right-click on it and select 'Empty Recycle Bin'
Problem solved.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
The concept of lifestreams seems interesting and is an approage really different from the "classic" desktop.
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
Just how many different apps do you really use on a day to say basis? If you have an icon jungle on your desktop/start menu its your fault.
Make folders, taking advantage of the hierarchical filesystem. Put things you use very often on the quicklaunch . I have "Show Desktop", IE, K++ Kazaa, Firebird, and Winamp.
On my actual desktop I have the standard windows icons, links to games I'm currently playing, and development tools I'm currently using. I hardly ever even use the Start Menu.
Believe it or not, aside from all the eye candy, there isnt anything inherently better about a 3D desktop environment. A lot of people have difficulty reasoning in 3D you know.
There's a reason why we've been "stuck" with 2D since forever, it works, and if its not broken, dont fix it. Backwards compatibility is essential for usability, so more often than not "innovation" in the field of user interfaces is actually a no-no.
I currently use two monitors, both filled to the brim with icons and several drawers on each desktop.
How on earth do you get any work done with all that clutter?
Call me a minimalist, but I like my desktop clean when it's not filled with programs that I'm currently using. I would totally hate having things zoom around in 3D. Too distracting.
But then again, I know what's on my computer, and what programs I want to run, and when. YMMV.
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
More and more often, I start programs with start-run. Then I type the name of the program to run it (or drop to DOS, change directory, and fire the program from within DOS).
The installs of programs tend to splatter the desktop with icons. The start menu is even worse, with most programs giving themselves a mess of icons, so when you try to run it, there is too much chance of clicking the Uninstall icon by mistake. Bypassing the GUI sometimes is a lot more efficient.
This especially becomes apparent if you are doing similar/identical tasks on different machines. This is where the GUI fails as a way just to run apps. The desktops and start menus between two machines are typically very different from each other.
There is always Windows Explorer, but it is slow to load and unintuitive: I can have a Windows app fired from within DOS by the time I am halfway through the tedious navigation process "squint and click and wait and find stuff that has moved since the last time I looked" in Windows Explorer.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Have an output-only connector implanted in the brain (make it one-way wireless and have it run on body heat, perhaps); remembering or thinking of opening an application or document will cause the computer to launch the appropriate application. Output is still put onto a screen (or holographic projecter...) so that input (and thus the capability of "hacking" the human mind) is that much more difficult.
Or, failing that, the system used in Minority Report would be good. I liked the hands- and gestures-based management of the computer, recalling data, literally shoving it aside, calling up the needed information/documents/applications through hand gestures... it'd be nice, and much more intuitive than the current desktop and directory interface we have nowadays.
~UP
Eat the Path.
OK so I have a small cheat sheet taped to the monitors to remind me of the infrequently used combinations but I remember most of them.
I have NO icons on my windows desktop as I think it looks horrible, they're always covered by various app windows anyway - and it seems that people with dozens of icons spend ages looking for the one they want. Most of the time I'm not using the mouse so it makes me quicker getting work done.
I hereby inform you that I have NOT been required to provide any decryption keys.
and start talking to it.
(In Scottish accent) "Hello Computer"
This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
The problem I and probably many other people have with the Windows Start button is that it just pops up a list of (almost) all of your installed programs. While I do fancy the alphebetical organization for quickly finding programs, it takes a second to get your bearings.
KDE and some other window managers organize applications by their function. This probably won't save you time when you know exactly what program you're looking for, but it can be helpful if you are looking for say, a midi player, but you don't know what its called. It also saves the confusion of having your whole screen fill up with application names at once.
As far as new age 3D menus go, I don't think that they'll end up saving you time. It may look cool in movies, but thats because its not exciting to watch a movie hacker sit in front of some xterms for an hour hacking, while it is exiting to watch them blast through firewalls using cyber missles. I think that the best advance will be better voice recognition. Even now, it probably wouldn't be too hard to patch together a system that could respond to "Computer, Open Office" (You decide whether thats Open office, or OpenOffice.)
This message is encrypted with Quad ROT-13 to protect the author's copyright under the DMCA.
(Playing along that the statement isn't a wild exaggeration): What a horrible future that would be! As it stands, I think that many people only manually run a small subset of programs installed on their computer, and possess extraordinarily poor organizational skills.
(1) small subset of programs
I doubt that the vast majority of the public uses Adobe's Acrobat Reader with such frequency as to warrant putting an application shortcut on the computer's desktop. Same with Winamp, with it's dual quicklaunch and desktop shortcuts. In fact, many programs install multiple ways of running the program, but it invariably includes the desktop. This includes applications that are only used as viewers and players, such as QuickTime (what college student actually runs the application and browses to the file instead of double-clicking on the file in the first place?).
(2) poor organizational skills
My Physics professor's desktop is overflowing with application shortcuts and URL shortcuts. Worse, he stores documents on the desktop! And so do a number of people I know. With the people I've had contact with, this is invariably a sign of a lack of organizational skill: they'd rather not have to deal with understanding how their files are stored. Thus, for internet downloads, they just click on the up arrow until they've found the Desktop, and then save the file there. For Corel Wordperfect, they just save it in My Documents, which eventually becomes a 2-foot-deep ocean of documents.
Thus, I don't think that the desktop has to be the ugly mess that it usually ends up as. I think it's a fundamental weakness of the users, not the system.
And good heavens, a 3-dimensionally navigable filesystem?! Didn't you see Jurassic Park? It takes like 5 excrutiatingly long, edge-of-your-seat minutes to get to anything! Like that door lock! No thanks, I rather use Bash and tab-completion. No velociraptors for me, thanks.
I would think that you'd give your computer the finger after it reboots.
I completely agree with you: start menus are a pain in the ass. Every program takes a dump in there during installation, and it's pretty hard to come up with a good organizational system.
I use a simple program called kbstart on my Win2000 box. It's awesome. Although most aspects of UNIX aren't designed for usability, tool abbreviations are. It's much easier to type ALT-ENTER to bring up my kbstart prompt and type "PS". The alternative would be to do Start: Programs: Adobe Photoshop 6.
So I guess I'm saying, as far as launching goes, the future of GUI's is... no GUI :)
--You could try using Ratpoison and screen. Of course, there are a number of projects that seek to change the way various information is handled/presented/etc. See, for example, Chandler, Haystack,Gnome Storage, and WinFS. These all seem to be addressing the fundamental problem of managing ever growing amounts of information on personal computers.
Computer monitors make "interfacing" with a computer far less engrossing, immersive, and enjoyable than it could be. I don't want to use just 20% of my visual field to absorb, manipulate, and express information. I want to be immersed in the computer environment. It boggles my mind that 3D gamers haven't started demanding nice head mounted displays. The technology exists for a display that wraps around to use your total visual field, and such a display would be amazing for games and all computing. On a less revolutionary note: I think a 3D desktop does work. For example if you ever tried out a 3D chat environment such as activeworlds.com it is very cool. You can be walking around town and click on billboards and signs to open web pages or teleport to new worlds. Using a 3D world to organize information is very compelling in my opinion.
www.wisdomproject.net The open source think tank.
Take a look at this attempt at a 3D desktop. http://www.3dtop.com/what.htm Don't know if I would use it all the time, but it's an interesting idea.
Litestep can be used as a replacement for Windows Explorer or in addition to it if you want. It is completely (and I mean completely) customizable and has alot of modules out there to control winamp, virtual desktops, and other things. Litestep
What the hell are drawers? Are you using GEM ?
"Is there some replacement for the dining room table? My dining room table is full of mail and bills and dirty dishes.
I'm wondering if there some kind of 3D replacement, perhaps a series of dining room tables stacked on top of each other. I'm thinking there must be an eaiser way to find bills and mail and dishes when I need them..."
Sheesh. Clean it up, get organized. Those icons don't put themselves on the desktop...well, ok, some of them do...but not those other ones...you put them there, just clean them up.
Or make a folder called "Rug", and sweep them all under it.
What were you expecting?
My first thought is that there's something wrong with the way you work, and that you you haven't figured out how to organize your Start menu. Assuming that's not the case though... :)
I've had some fun reconfiguring my Windows desktop using using Samurize. It won't give you a 3D interface or a voice commands or any of that, but it does allow you to provide links to your important applications in a different way. For the true geek, it also allows the embedding of various graphs and system monitors.
Numerous screenshots are available on the site, but they may not all be work-appropriate, so browse wisely (the main page is perfectly safe).
Surprised nobody had mentioned this one yet...
www.lighttek.com/talisman.htm
I've been watching its progress for years now and am pretty impressed, although it does take some time to get set up for your own personal tastes. Not for those who want to install and instantly use....
We're used to the word icon meaning that little bitmap on a desktop or menu. But in the larger sense, something iconic is a visual symbol, a graphic representation of a larger idea. In my field, architecture, when something is iconic we mean that it someone has used a shortcut to communicate some greater idea. A city hall may choose to represent being a seat of power by suggesting the form of a chair. Or a window may tell us it is floating within a wall by it's odd or angular placement within a building elevation.
The desktop environment icon serves as the visual handle for some object like a document, an application or an action. To say that we can find some new paradigm other than an icon doesn't solve the basic problem that humans need handles on things to understand and use them. Granted, there may be another clever re-interpretation of the desktop metaphor, but we'll still need the same handles. And because visual perception is the first means humans have to approach something, I doubt anything non-visual will serve the purpose as well. Let's just say that if we want to replace icons on the GUI, the replacement concept would need to be provable on road signs, transportation graphics, automobile controls... you get the idea.
(Let me just add at this point, that the inevitable humorous comments in the thread regarding the command line actually outline one way people do communication in the real world: voice. Typing at the command line is equivalent to verbal communication. But we can see the failing of this in a real world situation: road signs use shapes and color to communicate more than written text. Sure we need road names and specific situational info to be spelled out, but if every stop sign and light was only verbal, there would be a lot more accidents.)
Personally, I think real improvements could be made on the desktop metaphor. We walk around in 3D environments every day and get feedback by moving through spacial environments. While I'll be the first to condemn first-person game-like 3D navigation, I think there's quite a large area of exploration that is untouched.
For example, we navigate through a book by proceeding from page to page. These pages are numbered, too. And we have a table of contents. But did you know that a large percentage of people actually read magazines backwards? They defy the entire designed navigation structure for a spacial comfort. (It's arguably easier for a right-hander to flip a magazine from back to front.) You also have a sense of where you are in a book by the visual ques offered by the number of pages on either side of your present position. And you get a sense of the book's content and quality by it's heft, it's font, line spacing, margin widths and general graphic tone.
So why can't a computing environment use more and more types of visual ques?
I think the huge barrier to a new approach is the amount of coordination and effort required. Face it, most projects in my desktop environment are doing well just to have a picture, let alone one that also follows rules of purpose, frequency of use, tone, or anything else social that helps us to navigate the real world. We are appalled when menus re-organize themselves by use, but perhaps an environment that adjusts itself to my "position" more capably could rely on some of the same types of spatial input I get from the real world.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
I use ObjectBar, a little taskbar reskinning program by Stardock. Its part of a greater suit of programs called ObjectDesktop, that basically includes a whole bunch of Windows-skinning programs. I don't use them though, they're kind of resource intensive. Object Bar is bad enough, but the functionality it gives me is irreplacable.
:)
What I did for myself was take an existing theme (Developer link and orignal shot), and rework it to what I liked. Its quite nice IMO Combined with sysmetrix (system data program), it gives me pretty much everything I need. I've got a thin bar at the bottom with Sysmetrix stacked ontop (and skinned to match seamlessly). On that bar, I've got 4 menus: System (Run, Find, Regedit, Console, Logoff, Reboot, Shutdown, etc), Settings (Win Update, Add/Remove progs, Display and System properties, Control panel shortcut, etc), Drives (HDs, CDs, floppies, MyDocs, etc, all with popup lists of their content), and LAN (network settings and access to other comps on the network). I've also got two shortcuts I use a lot (My Computer and Firebird), and the local time.
Of course, above this I have sysmetrix which i've tricked out to the nuts. It gives me CPU usage, CPU speed, RAM load, swap/virt mem loads, temperatures (CPU, CPU diode, case, outside), HD space, Network load (plus transfer rate and total data transfered), one click mail (checks for me every 10 min) and trash access, Win Uptime, and longformat date with three different timezones (GMT/EST/PST - i'm MST, which is on the bar below) and more!
Then i've got my popup sidebar, which shows pretty much everything else. Its got the systray and current applications (since its vertical, I can stack tons more programs into it. Plus, the width of the bar scales with program names, to a point). Then i've got a section with personalized shortcut menus, that I absolutely love. Its got primary menus (Games, Media, Utility, etc) that slide out into sub categories (Unreal Tournament, Media, Utilities, etc) that have drop down lists of commonly used programs. It gives me access to pretty much any program on my HD, but its sorted by program type rather than name, which is something I hate about the start menu. Speaking of which, the start menu popup sits above my own menus, just incase I ever need it (which isn't often). The best thing about the menu though, is that I can change anything I want. Sometimes, if i'm working on a project, i'll give it its own shortcut or side menu. I can drop in links to relevant programs, have popups to certain folders on my HD, etc. Very handy, and it only takes a few minutes to set up (templates are your friend!)
The thing I find lacking about traditional "Start" menus or other pre-defined ways of accessing a system is that they're made by someone else. The best system will always be one made by you, because you know what information you need at your fingertips. So all you really need to do is find a customizable way of organizing things (for your OS), and then go crazy. Yeah, it can take a while to get everything working just right, but the end result is so worth it. Not having to deal with the hassles and frustrations of finding a program or piece of info is priceless IMO, so I look at any time customizing my desktop as an investment.
That said, alternative interfaces would be pretty damned cool. I know it was mentioned in a previous post, but the way Minority Report worked (hand gestures) was very, very cool. I think adding more physical interfaces to our computers will be the next big step. Hell, i'm already addicted to mouse gestures in Fir
There's this thing for windows called "MCL", that is, "Mike's Command-Line" :)
It rolls up to a small button in the corner of your screen, and when you click it, you can type out whatever command you want- it has basic macro ability, etc. I'd love this sort of thing in Linux, it would be great to have it combined with full scripting support, bash-completion, etc. Still, in windows it is good enough. I enjoy typing a letter or two, getting what I want, and having MCL roll back up to a tiny dot I dont need to care about.
I dont tend to use it anymore, though. Mostly I just have everything I use frequently start automatically at boot
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Pros:
Menu system. Totally owns. In fact, I'd say the BlackBox/FluxBox/WMaker menu system is the best of all the desktop envs and window managers from all operating systems put together.
Minimalistic. I love minimalism and a clean interface.
Cons:
Lack of a good intuitive general configuration system. KDE's, GNOMES, and XFCE's are far more comprehensive
Iconified window system, imho, is inferior to a taskbar/systemtray.
If you're interested on where I stand now, recently I've been using XFCE and GNOME a lot. Currently I'm running GNOME, but with Nautilus cut out of the picture. I use Rox as my desktop/file manager in GNOME.
But what's the ultimate answer to alternatives to icons and menus? There is none. They're proven to work great. You just gotta find a gui setup that works for you and stick with it. That's why there's so many operating systems, desktop envs, and window managers to choose from. There is no holy grail of them all, it's all personal preference.
You're right, I wouldn't steal a car. But if it were possible, I sure as hell would download one!
My tips:
Clean up your desktop.
Several years ago, I found a tool called WinKey, allowing to create a huge ammount of keyboard shortcuts that do not interfer with application-specific hotkeys. Imagine a keyboard that has 80 or 100 extra buttons for applications. Weird? Useful! Just hold down the Windows key and type almost any other key to start one of your 50 most used applications.
My current shortcut mappings are:
Windows-A = ACDSee
Windows-C = cmd.exe (DOS-Box)
Windows-G = http://www.google.com/
Windows-I = Internet Explorer
Windows-N = better than Netscape: Mozilla (Windows-M is used to minimize all windows and can't be used)
Windows-Shift-N = the original Netscape 4.7 - less frequently used, so the shortcut is more complicated
Windows-O = Opera
Windows-P = Putty Menu (selfmade)
Windows-Q = Quirk for Ultraedit (Windows-U is used by usability tools and can't be used)
Windows-V = VNC viewer
Windows-W = WS_FTP
Windows-X = access the Exchange server: Mozilla Mail!
(You are not limited to letters: Numers, arrows and F-keys also work, and you can combine with Shift, Alt and Ctrl.)
And of course, I use some of the standard hardcoded shortcuts:
Windows-E = File Explorer ;-)
Windows-M = Minimize all Windows
Windows-Shift-M = undo Minimize
Windows-R = Run command
Windows-Break = Break Windows using the System Properties
Windows-F = Find files or folders
Less frequently used:
Windows-D = Show Desktop
Windows-Tab = Switch Tasks in the taskbar
Windows-F1 = Windows Help Windows-U = Utility Manager (Windows 2000) - starts Narrator and other usability tools (Winkey does not know this shortcut)
Executive summary: Click count reduction and mouse movement reduction by using short ways for frequently executed tasks. (This is very similar to what packers like winzip do. See also "poor Huffman coding" in Apocalypse 5.)
Tux2000
Denken hilft.
I currently use two monitors, both filled to the brim with icons and several drawers on each desktop.
I think you are the problem. You need to organize yourself better. If two monitors are full of icons, then I have to wonder why you consider all of them so worthwhile you can't remove some of them.
I've walked by coworkers's desks and seen Windows desktops with icons lined up all the way to the right of the screen. This isn't a rarity. I can't understand how people work this way.
Organization and priority is the key. You've got four basic spots to put stuff. Menu, panel, desktop and folders. Put your applications in the menu, with links to your five most frequently used programs on the panel. The menu should be organized by category and frequency of use. Don't accept the default locations, use the menu editor! The desktop should not contain any applications at all. It should contains icons for drives, devices and projects. The latter is the key. Organize your computing into projects, and put all your data into hierarchical folders. There's also the fifth possibility of "the command line". There's no reason for non-GUI programs to be in your menu system. For instance, I use "tidy" all the time, but have never once considered making an icon for it. If you use KDE, the Alt-F2 key is your friend.
Finally, dump anything you don't use. Do you really need icons for five different music players, six different text editors, and a handful of CD burners and rippers? Do you have a document you're finished creating? Take it off the desktop and file it away!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
Add a new directory called %USERPROFILE%/quickstart to your PATH, then make a directory called "quickstart" underneath your profile (i.e. C:\documents and settings\administrator\quickstart). Create a shortcut to that in your QuickLanch menu as well.
You can drag whatever shortcuts you want in there... make batch scripts in there too. Then you can call them from anywhere with the Windows Key + R combo, or you can open it inside quicklaunch and run stuff that way (even use drag+drop)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Not one of those customizations of the xp desktop, but a new way to think the interactions between apps, files, devices and actions.
The gui sucks right now, but the concept is interresting and refreshing.
segusoland
What I have done is create a secondary Toolbar (right-click on toolbar, select Toolbars/New Toolbar), and make the only contents your Quick Launch. Set the icon size to large, and dock it at the top of the screen. I put all of my most-used apps there, and if you set it to always be on top, you don't worry about maximizing windows on top of it.
Hi-Technical Excellent Taste and Flavor!
A verb oriented interface. A very interesting looking app, with a radically different paradigm.
HomePage and Screenshots