Why Apple Makes a One-Button Mouse

IdiotOnMyLeft writes "There is a short article at Gear Live that tries to explain why Apple still sticks with a one-button mouse. It points out the fact that although it is perfectly possible to use a two-button mouse on a Mac for 7 years now, developers are forced to rethink their design approach and can't flood the right-click menu. No article of this kind would be complete without mentioning that users get confused with two buttons. There's a rumor that John Carmack once asked Steve Jobs what would happen if they'd put one more key on the keyboard."

Comments

Mice

[Anonymous Coward]

No article of this kind would be complete without mentioning that users get confused with two buttons

I know (from experience) that it takes no more than five minutes to explain left- and right-clicking to a three-year-old child.

Apple must consider their customers to be mental defects. (Not that that's necessarily wrong, but it's just... wrong.)

Re:Mice

[Anonymous Coward]

Three year old children aren't the problem. I know from experience that it takes no more than ten minutes to teach a three year old child perl.

The problem is 48 year olds, who it can take many years to force into their heads no, you just press the left mouse button, the button on the right does something different, don't do it, and to whom the idea of "copy and paste" will never be explained.

Re:Mice

[Anonymous Coward]

Given that you can plug in a cheap two button mouse and be running in 10 seconds, what conclusions should we draw about you? Your expertise in Worl of Warcraft aside, I mean.

Re:Mice

[stew77]

Confusing the left and the right mouse button is as hard as confusing your index and your middle finger. If you then call one "action" button and the other "menu" button, label them appropriately - how is dealing with two mouse buttons any harder than dealing with 12 buttons on a touch-tone phone?

Re:Mice

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent might have been rated as "funny", but it is a fact.

One of the reasons my brother and I decided to recommend my mother an iMac is because of the fact that you are able to do most things with one mouse button. She just cannot see the difference between left and right mouse buttons. She is not retarded at all, but she is not used to computers. Since MacOS can work with only one mouse button, that's something else to worry about whenever she uses the machine or we are teaching her to do so.

Anyways, if you have an interface that needs two mouse buttons to do most tasks, there is something wrong with your interface.

Re:Mice

[forkazoo]

Indeed. I work IT, and that includes user support. I still have to explain to people when to click, and when to right-click, and yes, when I say click I really mean the normal click, which is on the left. Except for the users who are both idiots and south paws, in which case the normal click is on the right, and the context click is on the left. And, heaven forbid I have to deal with a southpaw idiot who has a 5 button mouse... We are pretty good about who gets the 5 button mice, but somethimes an idiots mouse breaks, and the 5 buttons are all we have to replace them with!

When I say "right click" I mean the button that is left of center, but not the far left on the side, okay?

All that said, it royally pisses me off that I don't have three mouse buttons and a scroll wheel on my iBook!

Re:Mice

[SpamJunkie]

The problem is spatial differences and the human mind. As fast as you can, do the following: raise your right hand. A significant number of people will either pause to figure out which is their right or raise their left hand in error. Makes you wonder how many people that correctly raise their right hand do so accidentally.

Our minds are not perfect and it takes a lot of learning, error and experience to handle left/right button clicks quickly. Most people would rather just work than build up the experience to use a multi-button mouse effectively. An example of this is the number of experienced computer users that type with hunt-and-peck.

And that's also the reason why people have trouble with multi-button mice and not phones: people do not look at the mouse while they use it.

Re:Mice

[Doctor_Jest]

No, that's a Windows computer. Try getting right-click to work when Explorer's "thinking" about something. Then the damn thing flashes the context menu all over the place. :) Now that's a fun and happily ergonomic way to use an OS.

Everyone's such a troll about this whole thing.... It WAS funny, but still. It's getting old. So what? One button? Who cares? How many people still use the pack-in mouse they got with their Wintel PC? If they did, there'd certainly be no market for replacement mice would there? Look at the aisle in CompUSA.. SOMEONE'S buying replacement mice. And they're not just "like the one they got with their Dell", either. They're fancy wireless optical monstrosities with 20 buttons.

If you don't like the Mac mouse, go spend $19 on an MS cordless optical.

*shrug* I still use my G4 pack-in mouse. My G5's got a nice optical cordless, simply because the cord kept tangling.

Seriously, though... give it a rest with the one button thing. It's an OLD joke.... that has been lame for years....

Re:Mice

[Anonymous Coward]

the argument of confusion is absolute bullshit. there are over 100 keys on the keyboard and mac users need to know how to type, using 2 hands, and 10 fingers!

least confusion: binary input, controlled by jumping up and down

Re:Mice

[cbirdsong64]

There is absolutely no reason for my mother to attempt to understand quantum physics. There are plenty of reasons for her to use a computer. Bad comparison.

Re:Mice

[Amiga Trombone]

And yet, every time I use the Mac at work, it's an exercise in frustration. Part of it is the unfamiliarity with the way to do things on a Mac (bass-ackwards, it seems, is the rule of the day), but part of it is sheer torture (font handling, for instance). And every time I use it, I find myself trying to use the one-button mouse as though it were a two-button mouse.

That's the whole problem. To a neophyte computer user, a one-button mouse may well be easier to manage than a two (or more) button mouse. Problem is, how many neophyte computer users are left? Most people have some computer experience, and for better or worse, it's usually on a Windows machine with a two-button mouse. Like it or not, Windows is the lingua franca of personal computers. Telling users that a one-button mouse is simpler is like telling me Esperanto is easier than English. That may well be true, in a technical sense, but since I already speak English, and all my friends speak English, and everyone who posts on Slashdot speaks English, having to learn to speak Esperanto wouldn't make my life any simpler.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love my (several) Mac notebooks, but the fact is that through my experience with Windows and X-based Unix user interfaces I'm accustomed to interacting with the user interface in a certain way out of habit, and when I go for the non-existent right-mouse button and it isn't there, it's a bit of a jarring experience. I understand that Apple doesn't want developers to become reliant on the second mouse button, and I'm fine with that. I also recognize that you can get a mouse with as many buttons as you like, which is also fine.

My problem is with their notebooks, which, while you can get an external mouse for them, that doesn't really solve the problem. Unfortunately, a number of situations you're going to use a notebook in (such as on a train, waiting in an airport, or lying on your couch with your feet in the air) make using an external mouse a royal pain in the ass. Why don't they just make the trackpad/mouse assembly user replacable so third parties can accomodate the needs of people who want a multi-button mouse on a notebook?

Re:Mice

[Have Blue]

Sure, if you want to go back to the days where only "professionals" could use computers and the only computers in the world were incredibly expensive mainframes locked away in university labs and corporate data processing centers.

Re:Mice

[riscthis]

If you then call one "action" button and the other "menu" button, label them appropriately - how is dealing with two mouse buttons any harder than dealing with 12 buttons on a touch-tone phone?

Reminds me of what Acorn did with Risc OS back in 1987 (or 1988, around then). The machine shipped with a three button mouse, the buttons were documented as Select, Menu and Adjust.

Select did normal selection and clicking duties, Menu brought up the context menu where available, and Adjust did either the inverse of the Select button (e.g. if you're scrolling with the down button of the scrollbar in a window, pressing Adjust would scroll up -- perfect if you'd overshot a bit when scrolling) or "special" selection duties such as multi-select in the filer.

I don't ever recall reading about any confusion regarding which button did what -- it was just accepted, and was pretty intuitive.

Re:Mice

[mabinogi]

that's exactly right - but you're forgetting that it's the 50 year olds on their way to prostate exams that like to THINK they're "hip" 20 somethings. So showing the 20 somethings in the ads is exactly the way to get the baby boomers.

A bit like how books aimed at 10 - 13 year olds will have 15 -18 year old protagonists.

Re:Mice

[Monkey Angst]

Problem is, how many neophyte computer users are left?

I work tech support, and I had the same question for the first couple of weeks of this job.

In this, as in most things :), Slashdot users have a skewed perspective. They know computers, inside and out, and it is a fair assumption that many if not all of the people they know know computers inside and out. But there are a lot of people out there -- even (and this shocked me) young people -- who don't have the first clue about how to use the machine.

Do I think the one-button mouse is necessarily more appropriate for them? Well, I'm not really in a position to say. The company I work for only makes one-button mice. So I won't comment.

Re:Mice

[Total_Wimp]

The real reason is that if Apple went to a 2 button mouse, then Jobs would have to eat some crow and admit he was wrong.

The problem is that it's not just Jobs at this point. He has throngs of appologists ready to blast every possible argument for more than one button. The level of group-think with these people is just increadible.

HEY, MAC FOLK, YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THE MOTHER SHIP TELLS YOU! THINK DIFFERENTly! THINK FOR YOURSELVES!

Great, now they'll lable me a troll for daring to disagree. Goodbye Karma.

TW - Brand new owner of a used iBook with OS X that I sincerely wish had two buttons built into the trackpad.

Re:Mice

[clambake]

She just cannot see the difference between left and right mouse buttons.

I hope to God that she isn't allowed to drive!

Re:Mice

[violajack]

"if you have an interface that needs two mouse buttons to do most tasks, there is something wrong with your interface"

Remove the word mouse, and change buttons to pedals, and then explain to me how you operate your car. Do you press Ctrl-pedal to brake?

Sometimes having seperate buttons for seperate jobs is a good thing. I wonder if some of these complaints of people who can't comprehend the difference comes from knowledgeable users who simply don't understand how to describe things in terms an adult novice can understand. Teaching an adult is very different from teaching a young child. (I teach violin to each of those categories, and they are both quite capable, but in different ways.)

My mom has no problem with two buttons, and the last time she used computers (before last year) was when you controlled them with punch cards.

I always thought the reason was

[deft]

more to do with differentiating the apple than anything else. Man, they love to be apple users, and 2 buttons... "thats a windows crazy thing. we know better!"

Look, I'll tell you why they use a one-button mous

[Anonymous Coward]

Because when your grandmother uses Windows, she clicks the left and the right button at the same time. Watch her the next time she's using the computer-- really, she does this. She doesn't understand there's a difference.

You, you are smart enough to understand the left and right buttons do different things. You aren't apparently smart enough to understand control-clicking, but that's ok. However, since you are smart enough to understand the right mouse button, you are also smart enough to understand that you can buy a two-button mouse. So if your computer comes with a one button mouse, this is not a problem for you. Your grandmother however does not even understand the right mouse button is a button, so if her computer came with a three button mouse she does not have the option of going and getting a one button mouse.

Apple wants to sell computers that are usable by both you and your grandmother.

Re:Single button rules

[Ark42]

Isn't it pretty common to have buttons that do one thing when clicked and do a different thing whe clicked and held down for a short duration? I seem to remember Photoshop on Macs working like that for most of the tools. Honestly I went years using Photoshop before I realized there were more options hidden there. The same menus could be found by right-clicking in the Windows version.

Single button?

[PincheGab]

Users have had the chance to learn how to right-click for a long time... Unless the implication is that Apple's market share is full of people who can't handle two mouse buttons.

Anyway, the numbers tell the story... If Windows has 90% of the market share and Windows uses two mouse buttons, then at the very least having two mouse buttons is not an impediment to computer usability.

To be honest, this sounds more like a years-long pissing match ("I insist, two buttons on a mouse will destroy the world!") than anything of real substance.

Re:Single button?

[MBCook]

When I was a kid I used Macs exclusivly for years, and having a single button mouse never hurt me or slowed me down.

When I switched to Windows (in the 3.1 days), I had a two buttom mouse, and it wasn't bad. I seem to remember that the second button didn't really DO anything untill Windows 95 came out, but that could be wrong.

But let's talk about normal people. Let's talk about my parrents. With me in the house, we have had computers the whole time. And they use them. They like them. They surf the 'net, look at Ebay, and use e-mail and such. But what do they think of the right mouse button? I use it all the time, I find it a great time saver. They avoid it. They have no idea what it does (despite occasional attempts to teach them). In fact, they avoid the scroll wheel (an even BETTER time saver) too. They don't scroll with it. They don't click it. It's confusing. When they first had to use a two button mouse, weird things happened when they used the right mouse button, it didn't do what they expected (click, open program, etc). So they learned an easy lesson: NEVER CLICK IT. Ever. They don't touch that scroll wheel either for much the same reason (they never tried, they had already learned not to touch the other buttons). They have next to no idea what it's for. It's just there.

My parrents are quite smart (my mom has a PhD and my father has many degrees and has been a CIO). But what about other people I know? As a computer-literate kid (and nerd), I'm the person everyone comes to for help with their computers (installing things, fixing things, teaching them things). They range from people terrified by computers who have to think for 5 minutes before they do anything incase they do something wrong, to people who have a very good idea what they are doing and only need me when things go REALLY wrong. And in all the years I've been doing this in all the places I've lived, almost NO ONE uses the right mouse button. Just one or two. 99% of them have learned to just avoid it.

As much as we nerds like to complain, Apple knows what it's doing. If you feel limited by having only one button, you can buy a multibutton mouse and it works INSTANTLY. If not, you can use the one button. They have the right idea, trust me.

Now my only complaint is with Apple laptops, where you would have to carry a mouse to use the right button (I know about the command-click, that's not the point; and there is software that will let you tap a corner to work like a right click). What I would really like would be for there to be two contact switches under the button on Apple's laptop. It would work just like it does now. It's one solid button, and it works like one button. BUT if you know what you are doing, there is a "secret" option in the OS that interprets things differently. Click the left half of the button, you get a left click. Click the right half of the button, you get a right click. And if you accidently click both at once, that's a left click (just to make things easier). That would give the laptop's a second button, but you'd have to enable it and know what you were doing, so Aunt Tillie wouldn't have to deal with two buttons. I would LOVE this.

But that's a minor complaint. It'll never stop me from buying an Apple laptop.

Apple has it right!

Re:Single button?

[sg3000]

> So they learned an easy lesson: NEVER CLICK IT. Ever. They
> don't touch that scroll wheel either for much the same reason
> (they never tried, they had already learned not to touch the
> other buttons). They have next to no idea what it's for. It's just
> there.

> My parrents are quite smart (my mom has a PhD and my
> father has many degrees and has been a CIO).

Agreed. It's not that they're not smart; oftentimes, it's that they don't care to learn it. My boss is like this. He's smart -- West Point grad, engineering degree, MBA, etc. And he doesn't quite grasp all the details about his computer. The reason is that he doesn't care enough about the computer to learn everything about it. He's a "mainstream user" when it comes to computers, so he's very pragmatic. "What will the computer allow me to do?" That question does not involve him learning much more than the basics. He thought it was cute that I could control my PowerBook using my cell phone using Bluetooth and Salling Clicker, but for him, the benefits weren't important enough for him to care. However, when he got his Blackberry, the benefits of a Bluetooth headset were obvious -- no fumbling for a corded head set. He was willing to put the effort into learning the buttons for the beneift.

My wife's like that too. She's easily smarter than me, but she doesn't care to learn about all the cool stuff she can do with her Mac.

So it's not that the user isn't intelligent enough to learn about the computer (and that second mouse button). It's that the user is pragmatic. If they can do everything they care to do with their computer and never touch the extra mouse buttons or whatever, then they're happy.

Apple has been very good lately about understanding this pragmatism. Many computer enthusiasts see a feature Apple introduces (like Dashboard, for example), and says, well conceptually that's similar to a virtual desktop. The difference is that Apple is structuring the feature so that pragmatic mainstream users can use it simply enough that the benefits significantly outweigh the efforts of learning how to use the feature (and remembering about it when you need it).

It's a hard concept for technology enthusiasts to understand, but it's an important one.

Mice versus razor battle.

[Anonymous Coward]

Gillete came out with a triple blade razor (Mach 3). Then Schick came out with a four blade design (Schick quattro).

Are we going to have a button wars on mice??

I'm happy with two buttons and a scroll wheel on my mouse. I've tried some of the pre-existing mouse designs with more buttons buyt wasn't impressed. Either someone invent something radically cooler or the two buttons/scroll wheel design seems fine to me. Especially since i have a keyboard.

I would however like a touchscreen interface on my cell phone. I have big fingers so the touch screen will have to figure out where the center of my finger is.

Main Reason: Simplicity

[reporter]

I am old enough to have read several "Byte" magazine articles about the Macintosh when it first debuted in 1984. The justification for the 1-button mouse was that the Apple engineers wanted the operation of the pointer to be as simple as possible. They felt that having 2 buttons would confuse the user since she would need to remember the specific functions associated with each button.

Although you and I actually would prefer 3 buttons on the contraption, we are not the typical tech-ignorant consumer. The typical consumer more closely resembles the folks in Florida in 2000. They could not understand even simple instructions on how to complete a paper voting ballot. Sometimes, the sheer ignorance in society can shock us tech-savvy folks who have no hope of ever dating a gorgeous blonde babe.

So, let me get this straight

[daveschroeder]

An article completely unrelated with Apple or anyone who works for Apple in any way writes its own justification for Apple shipping a one-button mouse standard, and this article gets flooded with comments essentially along the lines of "Apple sucks" because they ship a one-button mouse, even though you can use ANY USB or Bluetooth multi-button/scroll mouse/trackpad/trackball on earth, and they all function by default with no drivers for left/right/scroll (and center where applicable, e.g., X11), and Apple even sells NUMEROUS multi-button mice and speciality input devices right on the Apple online store and in all of its retail stores, and Apple just announced what will likely be their highest volume computer ever, which does NOT ship with a mouse, meaning you're free to choose any mouse you please, and the right button functionality will instantly work across the whole OS and all applications, which has supported this for years?

With the introduction of the Mac mini, Apple is implicitly getting AWAY from shipping a one-button mouse, since the computer comes with no mouse at all!

So, is there a problem because Apple doesn't make its own branded two button mouse? Maybe we should bash Dell for Logitech making its mice, then! Or is this simply just another opportunity to bash Apple? Frankly, the assertion that it forces developers to actually THINK about shit they're butting into contextual menus instead of just flooding them with crap is a perfectly reasonable one.

Is sure is a good thing, then...

[daveschroeder]

...that you can use any USB or Bluetooth (if your computer is equipped) mouse or input device on earth, for as little as $5, and they will instantly work for left/right/center/scroll without any additional drivers or configuration of any kind, or even any requirement that you have any kind of administrative privileges. Sounds like your employer sucks if they won't get you a mouse...(not to mention you could use that same three-button mouse with scroll wheel with WoW on a Mac, too, or any other application).

The rest of your message is a nice anti-Mac troll, though. D- for effort, F for creativity.

Re:Is sure is a good thing, then...

[daveschroeder]

Look at Photoshop for a really good example of this as the right-button still doesn't do anything particularly useful in the Windows version, which is a side effect of the Mac heritage.

How is this Apple's fault, when the OS has natively supported two button mice for the better part of a decade? How many major Photoshop releases have there been in this time? This would almost be akin to Photoshop still being a 16-bit application, because Windows was once 16-bit in the past, but then blaming it on Microsoft's "heritage".

Again, how is this Apple's fault, in recent times, i.e., the last 7 or so years? Additionally, your Photoshop argument falls down because 1.) control-click has worked for right-click functionality for years, meaning that Adobe could have added full contextual menu capability at any time, and still have expected customers to get full functionality without expecting or requiring them to have a multi-button mouse, and 2.) hundreds of other applications, including Mac OS itself, take sensible, full advantage of a second mouse button or scroll wheel, and have for years. Think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Answer: it's not Apple's fault. Also, Maya is not used by any statistically significant portion of the Mac's userbase, so that's a really poor example. The design is simple: excluding fringe examples like Maya, applications should full work with a one-button mouse. But, if you would like, you can add a two-button mouse, or a scroll wheel mouse or three-button mouse, and instantly take advantage of added functionality with no drivers, configuration, or modification of any kind.

I don't think it's me who's trolling here, "buddy", but nice try.

Re:Is sure is a good thing, then...

[AKnightCowboy]

...that you can use any USB or Bluetooth (if your computer is equipped) mouse or input device on earth, for as little as $5, and they will instantly work for left/right/center/scroll without any additional drivers or configuration of any kind, or even any requirement that you have any kind of administrative privileges.

The problem is that doesn't help Powerbook or iBook users who are stuck with a trackpad with a single button for clicks. Sure, I can attack an external mouse to my laptop but then suddenly I have yet another thing to haul around and they're not exactly easy to use when you're sitting on a bus with the laptop balanced on your legs.

Re:Is sure is a good thing, then...

[Gob Blesh It]

If you're spending $6,999 on Maya, I don't think the additional purchase of a a three-button mouse is going to break your budget. Maybe you could even splurge on a deluxe four-button mouse with a scroll wheel and leather grip, unless you think that extra $20 is really going to set you back.

Re:Is sure is a good thing, then...

[BobPaul]

Again, how is this Apple's fault, in recent times, i.e., the last 7 or so years?

Has Apple sold Macs with two mouse buttons for the last 7 years?

Most of the web was using IE for much less than 7 years, and look how many IE only websites there were just a few years ago.

It would only stand to reason that application developement would be the same as web developement. You write applications for what your user base is using. If your user base is primarly windows or *nix, you'll probably use the right mouse button a lot, and then when porting, expect mac users to have to Ctrl+Click (an inconvienient modifier, IMO)

If your user base is mostly Mac, then you'll probably almost completely igore the right mouse button, maybe putting a few things in there for those users who don't see Ctrl+Click as so much of a pain, but definately not providing the same rich context menu support you would if you expected everyone to be right clicking.

It really is Apple's fault. It's not MacOS's fault (it's supported right click for over 7 years) but it is definately Apple's fault for not selling Macs with the right button.

That said, as one who teaches computing classes at his local college (Dreamweaver, MS Office, iMovie, etc etc) older than average students (40s, 50s, etc) and students very new to computers have much more trouble with the concept of right clicking than, say, my 4 year old cousin has, and I find it rather irksome that some features in MS Office products can only be reached via the context menu. But then developers expect Windows users to have a right mouse button...

Re:Is sure is a good thing, then...

[rbochan]

How is this Apple's fault, when the OS has natively supported two button mice for the better part of a decade?

Replace "Apple" with "Microsoft" and "mouse" with firewall" and ask that question again...

How are wide open ports Microsoft's fault when Microsoft Windows has natively supported using a firewall for the better part of a decade?

Re:Is sure is a good thing, then...

[93 Escort Wagon]

"The problem is that doesn't help Powerbook or iBook users who are stuck with a trackpad with a single button for clicks."

I don't disagree with your point, but having used both PC and Apple laptops I must say that I don't find having to use the ctrl key in conjunction with the trackpad any more difficult than using a multi-button trackpad. Both are, in my opinion, equally annoying. The trackpad itself works reasonably well (and I do turn on the "tap acts as a click" functionality), but I've yet to see a laptop where the button placement lends itself to ease of use.

Re:Is sure is a good thing, then...

[siskbc]

We all know perfectly well that the role assumed by the second, third etc mouse buttons on other platforms has always been mapped to Apple's COMMAND, OPTION and CONTROL modifier keys. You may find modifier keys difficult, but the rest of the fucking universe can manage them quite well after 30mins Windows unlearning.

Yes, we do. And it's a hell of a lot more awkward than actually just clicking with the right button. Mixing mouse and keyboard is a design flaw. I have a powerbook, and that's my (nearly) sole complaint.

Re:Confused!!

[TheRaven64]

Using a touchscreen is easy on a UI designed for a single button. Using one on a UI designed for 2-3 button mice is painful.

Look

[Anonymous Coward]

Because certain people are purposefully ignorant about computers. It doesn't matter how simple it is. My mother cannot handle a two button mouse. She's convinced "oh, I can't use computers", and it becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. Anything that I have to explain to her, is not retained. She just instantly forgets it until the next time it comes up and I have to explain it again.

If Apple dropped the option of the one-button mouse like you people seem to be demanding, my job of tech supporting relatives would get just that much harder. "It isn't letting me check my email! I click the button and nothing happens!" "You're pressing the wrong side of the mouse... again..."

Re:Look

[I Be Hatin']

Because certain people are purposefully ignorant about computers.

Moreover, I think some of them take this ignorance as a mark of pride. Being able to say "computers and I don't get along" gives them something to relate to other people with, similar to "did you see 'Survivor' last night?", but more universal. Strangely, when they find that their ignorance is something that helps them relate to people, they tend to foster and exaggerate it.

Re:Look

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to say this, but you should probably set her up with a goddamn pen and pad of paper, and throw the computer out.

It's just like in business: you have to ask the question, is the benefit of this worth the hassle of it?

I'd pay the extra $5...

[sirReal.83.]

While I won't judge Apple for refusing to ship a 3-button mouse, I will say it's the one thing that keeps me from buying one of their laptops. When I'm using X applications, the PRIMARY buffer is my best friend. Copying text via simple selection and pasting just by clicking the middle mouse button does actually help me work faster.

And please don't tell me that I can just plug in a USB mouse. My Apple-owning friends have suggested that, but it's really not a solution. I want a laptop for portability, not for lugging around external devices to compensate for poor design decisions on the part of the manufacturer.

I'd pay the extra $5 for some more buttons. A wheel would be cool, but I'd settle for 3 plain buttons, like the Thinkpads have. I'd also like to have the option of using a nipple for pointing instead of a touchpad because it just feels better to me, but that's another discussion...

It has the opposite effect.

[cbreaker]

"Apple's got the right idea. Ship a single button mouse to make sure that developers don't start hiding things in the contextual menu, but support multiple button mice out of the box with no need for drivers. "

Because most people don't have multi-button mice on Macs, developers don't put as much effort into right-clicking then they would if it were standard equipment.

So you end up with a system where you just don't have as much flexibility with the mouse as you would with a Windows or Linux GUI. Why put all the effort into making proper context menus when most people won't even see them?

"However, I'm sure some people will still complain about the single button mouse. Some people are just looking for nits to pick, and they're looking for excuses to deride Macs, though not necessarily reasons."

That's crap. It's not just a "nitpick" it's a valid complaint. Because Apple has this quest to "be different" it just lowers the usability of their system.

Re:It has the opposite effect.

[AddressException]

[i]Why put all the effort into making proper context menus when most people won't even see them?[/i]

That's the WHOLE POINT! The user can't see the options until they start right clicking everything!

Not burying functionality into invisible menus is good UI design. Context menus should replicate functionality that can be accessed through visible controls.

Re:It has the opposite effect.

[kid zeus]

Why is it so difficult to understand that the one-button default is great for those older new-computer-users (I deal with my 75 year old aunt on the phone and my near-60 parents as their computer phone-support all the time)? And then what is so tough about figuring out that if you aren't one of those new users, you can pick up a 5 dollar multi-button mouse? That is if you don't already have one from your old computer. The one-button mouse complaint isn't a valid complaint. Period. Get a life, move on, worry about things that actually are broken. This whole thing has got to be the least educated, most moronic complaint about a computer manufacturer I have ever heard. Forcing developers to actually think about their UI and streamline it is brilliant. It's actually considered a design imperative by anyone who knows anything about design. I wish other companies took a lesson from Apple in this respect.

Re:It has the opposite effect.

[Moofie]

The difference is, Apple "enforces" this user interface guideline by making it impossible for developers to rely on the existence of the right mouse button.

Yes, the user interface guidelines you cite all suggest that contextual menus shouldn't be the only way to do things. Apple is the only designer to force the issue.

And, as somebody who gets to explain left mouse button vs. right mouse button all day, I think they're absolutely right.

Re:Confused!!

[JeffTL]

Well, a touchscreen (be it stylus or finger optimized) is a specialized case of one-button mouse, just like tapping a touchpad for those who use that feature.

It'd be a lot easier to use a touchscreen Mac than a touchscreen Windows or GNOME/KDE box, because they don't make touchscreens where you can right-click.

I imagine an interface optimized for one-button use also has applications in accessibility to disabled users.

Is that so?

[waldoj]

If Windows has 90% of the market share and Windows uses two mouse buttons, then at the very least having two mouse buttons is not an impediment to computer usability.

If Windows has 90% of the market share and Windows crashes a lot, then at the very least crashing a lot is not an impediment to computer usability.

If Windows has 90% of the market share and Windows is prone to viruses and spyware, then at the very least being prone to viruses and spyware is not an impediment to computer usability.

If Windows has 90% of the market share and Windows applications' user interface standards vary wildly, then at the very least user interface is not an impediment to computer usability.

If Windows has 90% of the market share and Windows only works when you stuff carrots up your nose, then at the very least the carrot-stuffing requirement is not an impediment to computer usability.

-Waldo Jaquith

Re:Is that so?

[Anonymous Coward]

given that Apple has damn all market share, it follows that crippling price IS an impediment to computer usability....

Re:Laptops

[MoneyT]

because two buttons on a trackpad is obnoxiously uncomfortable, and because the keyboard is right there next to the trackpad so it's perfectly reasonable to use the modifier keys and the mouse at the same time.

But if it's really killing you, there's also sidetrack.

I call shinanigans.

[cbreaker]

Show me an example of some application somewhere that ONLY has an option in a context menu and nowhere else.

What happens on a mac, is that the menus on the top bar get cluttered to hell with option because most people won't ever see context menus. So you can look at it either way.

Re:I call shinanigans.

[Gob Blesh It]

Uh, isn't your post logically self-defeating? First paragraph, paraphrased: "Even on PCs, contextual menus duplicate options available elsewhere." Second paragraph, paraphrased: "Duplicating options means the menubar gets cluttered." But somehow this last point only applies to Macs.

Can you explain what you mean by this?

No more than five minutes?

[danielsfca2]

> I know (from experience) that it takes no more than five minutes to explain left- and right-clicking to a three-year-old child.

Okay, I'll bite.
I know (from experience) that it takes at least six years to explain left- and right-clicking to my father, who was 57 in 1999 when he got his first Windows PC. Ever since he found the right button, he has insisted on using it for literally everything, all the time, for no reason at all. Everything that you or I would just click on, he right-clicks, moves the mouse the requisite six inches up to the top menu choice, "Open," and clicks. No amount of explaining will do. He just will not use the left button. Every time I give him instructions and use the verb "click," he asks me, "Right or left click?"

So don't pretend that just because you told your three-year-old, "Only use this button," that everyone else has the luxury of such obedience from users. Many users (yes, PC users) have asked me repeatedly, "Right or left click?" because to them, it's simply not self-explanatory. They don't really understand what a context menu is, let alone the rule that "the right button always makes a context menu appear." My father would waste a lot less of his time if I plugged in an Apple USB mouse to his PC (it works, I tried it.) Of course, it'd be impossible to do certain things, but it's poor software design that requires two mouse buttons. There's nothing wrong with having the option, though. When I'm at my desk, I use a Microsoft Intellimouse Explorer with five buttons. But the right-button is probably my least-used one. When I'm not at my desk (which is usually), I rarely reach for the control key to bring up a context menu. It just doesn't come up.

It's really a pretty unfair comparison to be making. Most cheap PC vendors (Dell, Gateway, etc) were still distributing mice with balls up until a year or two ago. No actual geek uses the mouse that came with his computer. (Heck, no real geek even buys a pre-built PC for that matter.) So why bitch about the Apple mouse? Even if the Apple mouse had two buttons, you'd replace it for the cool MS or Logitech one anyway, for gaming or whatever. The OS supports the context menu. But it also, as a rule, gives you another way to do anything you can do in a context menu. And that has to be a Good Thing.

Re:No more than five minutes?

[dn15]

What you say makes sense to you and me, but you have to realize that computers are detached from the real world of elevator buttons. In other words, for normal people computers are not a part of the real world. They're some crazy alternate reality where two buttons on a mouse are confusing, or people can't find their Start menu when you try to help them over the phone, or they can't set up their own computer even when all the ports and cables are color-coded and can only fit in one place anyway. It's a world that the average person believes they'll never understand and so they don't try to understand.

Re:No more than five minutes?

[HexRei]

How is it that most non-retarded humans can grasp the idea of a brake pedal AND a gas pedal, but your father can't handle two mouse buttons? ;)

Re:No more than five minutes?

[LakeSolon]

So my own Dad has is about the same age, and has been using Macs for about the same time (First a G3 Powerbook, now a flat panel iMac). He has gotten quite comfortable with it, and for a while I was using it sometimes as well. I didn't want to mess up what's in his dock and what files were on his desktop when I used it so I turned off the auto-login for his account and showed him the login screen.

Then one day he tells me "I can't log in to the iMac". "What's it doing?". "I click login and nothing happens." So I go and have a look at it. "Here, let me try". So I type in his user/pass and click login. Having just watched me do the exact same thing he did, he's amazed it works. So I log back out and watch him try it. User. Pass. Click login. Just like he said he did. And just like he said happened before: Nothing.

Then I noticed something. I'd left one of my Logitech MX500 mice plugged in. I'd been using the machine to write up some code at one point and wanted the scroll wheel. He'd been right-clicking on the login button.

He asked "So what button do I click?". I unplugged my MX500, plugged in the Apple (its-all-one-button) mouse and said "This One".

So. There you have it. A perfect example of someone who's been using macs for years that never had to think about a second mouse button and where adding one only caused problems. He wasn't missing any capabilities of the machine or its software (He wasn't using Maya, though ::snicker::), and if I hadn't happened to be around would have genuinely thought the machine was broken.

In that video of Jobs demoing NeXT he says one of their usability tests is wether executives can learn the software without reading the manual. The one-button mouse is an extremely obvious-to-use device. Slide it around on the pad and you'll quickly catch on to the correlation between it and the mouse pointer. Then just push on it to interact with whatever you're pointing at.

Oh ya... and I can't stand it when user interfaces consist entirely of 'right click on it!'. It's a really, really, really, horrible way to interact with things and I've had to deal with many applications that worked this way in Windows. They're rare on a Mac, and usually evidence of a poorly ported application.

~Lake

The two button system works, and it works well.

[Anonymous Coward]

The meanings of the two buttons are: "do the default action" and "select another action".

These meanings are straightforward, universal concepts. I don't know of any cases where the buttons are used inconsistently in the Windows interface, so, essentially, they represent a simple, perfectly regular, universally-understandable "grammar" for communicating to a computer.

People get confused between the two buttons for the same reason that young children sometimes get "left" and "right" mixed up -- they don't have enough practice and experience with it. That's natural, and is an acceptable cost required in order to communicate with computers. (Just as memorizing vocabularly and grammar is an acceptable cost required to communicate with humans.)

It's worth wondering if 3 buttons would be better than 2. But I doubt it. 2 buttons are perfect to represent the natural duality between the concepts of "do the default action" and "select another action". But having 3 buttons doesn't correspond to any universal, natural 3-option system that I know of.

Re:Look, I'll tell you why they use a one-button m

[yorkpaddy]

The problem with control-click is that its not ergonomically correct. I hate applications that make me use the mouse and keyboard at the same time (I realize sometimes its necessary). Having to use one hand on the mouse and one on the keyboard is annoying. Keyboard shortcuts are good for the same reason, you can do all the work with the keyboard, and not have to move to the mouse and then back to the keyboard.

First draw the conclusion, then justify it

[John Jorsett]

This sounds like one of those arguments where you take a position, THEN figure out why. Reminds me of the arguments over Reverse Polish Notation at the dawn of the calculator age. ("Fewer keystrokes!" "Ahh you're full of crap; look at this carefully-concocted example that requires MORE keystrokes in RPN." "Yeah, but in the general case you need X% fewer keystrokes. And you need calculator real estate for those stupid paren keys." "Who the hell's anal enough to give a crap about how many times they hit a calculator key anyway?" Repeat until the end of time ...)

Figure out how many mouse buttons you like, buy a mouse with that many, and shut the hell up about it.

/grumble

Yes.

[cbreaker]

You shouldn't have to buy extra equipment to get the basic functionality like a scroll wheel.

Because most macs won't have a multi button mouse, developers won't put the amount of effort into context menus that they do on a Windows system.

Your mac mini arguement is stupid.

Context menus are great and all the apps I use make great use of them. Instead of flooding the main menu bar's drop-downs with crap, they can move some of those item-specific options into sub-menus to keep it clean, meanwhile making them top option in context menus.

Defending the one-button mouse is like defending the Iraq war. It's an exercise in futility.

Two Words: Touch Screens

[mitchell_pgh]

Perhaps it's just me, but the one button mouse lends itself to a touch screens much better then a two button mouse. Try to right click with your index finger.

Re:Look, I'll tell you why they use a one-button m

[bigdavex]

So if your computer comes with a one button mouse, this is not a problem for you. Your grandmother however does not even understand the right mouse button is a button, so if her computer came with a three button mouse she does not have the option of going and getting a one button mouse.

I'm looking at my Logitech mouse, and it seems to me that this isn't Grandma's fault. The mouse buttons seem designed to look like one button. They're the same color. There's no outline to delineate where one starts and the other begins. They look like one damn button with a crack in it.

Indeed...

[Anonymous Coward]

She just instantly forgets it until the next time it comes up and I have to explain it again.
...and then if you try to make them actually remember what you told them before, they get pissed and accuse you of being snotty and unhelpful. Well, in my case, anyway.

I have no problem with ignorance. Ignorance can be correct. It's stubborn, deliberate ignorance that makes me want to swing their heads against a wall.

Re:Indeed...

[yuri benjamin]

Ah, just wait until you're 50. You'll probably have the same problem learning how to use the hypergizmo interface they've come up with by then.

Sorry. I'm not buying that. I know 50 year olds, 60 year olds and 70 year olds who have picked up computers in their later years and are willing to learn. Yes, they do struggle, but that's different from the stubborn type that refuse to learn.

I was helping one old guy, and he kept asking questions and writing stuff down in a battered old notebook. Sometimes he would flick back through the pages and ask to clarify something someone else had told him.
It was hard for him - with the old memory cells not being what they used to be, but boy did he try - and the notebook helped.
He also loved to demonstrate what he had learned so far.
I think he's in his sixties , and never owned a computer until a few years ago. Retired truck driver so not exactly a techie type (but I bet he could fix a diesel motor with one hand tied behind his back).

Respect for one's elders does not include putting up with self-limiting stubbornness - and not all seniors are that stubborn.

User vs. System Font Directory

[HotButteredHampster]

Every user has their own font directory, ~/Library/Fonts. These are fonts that only they have access to. The system font directory, /Library/Fonts is shared by all users.

HBH

One button is justifiable, no scroller is just NIH

[SEE]

Nine years after Microsoft invented it, there's no justification for Mac mice to not have a scroll wheel (or capacitve strip, or IBM trackstick scroller, or rocker switch, any of the other alternative scroll devices that have been tried since 1996) on either mouse or the left side of the keyboard.

The on-side-of-window click-and-move scroller is a vastly inferior interface. It's simply inexcusable for Macs to have a crippled scrolling interface by default. Make a mouse with an unclickable scroll wheel and only one button, if one button is better -- but drop the Not Invented Here blinders and admit that Microsoft actually had a good idea.

Re:Macs

[Brian Brian]

(Not aimed at parent) Everytime I read, or hear, that some computer geek finds OS X "frustrating" or "difficult to use" or any complaint, a voice in my head always questions the ability of that person. I use Linux, Windows, and OS X back and forth for years and never have problems moving between them. Certainly there are aspects of each I like or dislike, but I never find one so much of a hassle as to complain - OK Windows is the worst. Maybe I am lucky and my constant moving between platforms has made it easy for me. But if you are a real geek, I don't understand how you get so locked in and fixated on one platform.

Re:One button is justifiable, no scroller is just

[harveyswik]

::Looks down at his Apple keyboard::

Up Arrow, Down Arrow, Up Arrow, Down Arrow

That seems to work fine and is on the keyboard. (Albiet on the right side but so what...) I can also hit the space bar to progress one page in Safari, just like pine.

Most of the time I just use the scroll wheel on my IntelliMouse. ::shrugs::

Re:NeXT used a 3 button-mouse!

[bonch]

Here's what absolutely kills me here, folks. I think very few people at this point would argue that a one-button mouse is somehow more intuitive or user-friendly than a 2 button mouse.

And that is where your point falls apart, because you would be wrong. You're thinking too much like an experience computer user who posts on Slashdot. To everyone else, it's never obvious what left-clicking and right-clicking actually do.

Do you have multiple accelerator pedals on your car, one for each direction you can go? No, you have one, and when you need to turn you steer the wheel left or right.

There's no "madness" to it; you're just unable to see things outside your own perspective, something of an epidemic these days it seems. As for NeXT, of course it shipped with two-button mice, because NeXT was targetted to high-end enterprise and development users who would have a need for it. Ever looked at the price of a NeXT cube from that era?

It's a design principle.

[TheLittleJetson]

If your user base is mostly Mac, then you'll probably almost completely igore the right mouse button, maybe putting a few things in there for those users who don't see Ctrl+Click as so much of a pain, but definately not providing the same rich context menu support you would if you expected everyone to be right clicking.

No, there's a difference... I think you've stumbled upon it on the end of your post. [Most] Mac developers don't ignore the right mouse button. That would be foolish, it's really useful! However, because the default configuration of the platform is ONE button, they do not link a feature to the right mouse button which can not be found elsewhere. This just ensures good design. The right mouse button is there for speeding up a task, but it shouldn't be something a program depends on. Much like nobody would use a keyboard accelerator (Command-Q, Alt-X, etc...) without having a visible UI component that does the same thing. It's role is a time-saver, and this helps keep it that way.

Re:On this topic, you may be interested in...

[Anonymous Coward]

That's pretty odd logic you're using. A PowerBook runs at $1500 to $3000. If you are willing to shell out that kind of money for a computer you want, who the hell gives a flying %&*# about $15? That's 0.5% to 1% of the price, less than sales tax unless you live in a state that lacks that, or buy it out-of-state. How anyone can say "well, I'd get a Mac if only they had feature xxxxx, and no way in hell will I spend $20 to et that..." Yes, Macs aren't perfect, no computer is, but to let that little quantity of money stand between you and the computer you want, is just absurd. I bought SideTrack and love it. Hell, I spent $15 on a program for accessing and arranging my NetFlix account, just so I don't have to deal with their awful queue interface.

MOD PARENT UP!

[CptNerd]

Of all the times not to have mod points...

I can't agree more with this poster and the parent. Look at early cars, look at early radios, look at early televisions. There were lots of things that needed to be adjusted, fiddled with, watched, etc. Ultimately the interfaces were simplified to the minimal complexity necessary to do whatever one wanted to do with the mechanism. Apple takes the time to do the analysis of what people want to do with their computers, and simplifies the interfaces until they allow the user to do as much as possible while requiring minimal learning and minimal ongoing effort.

Making the simpler interfaces allows people to do the task they set out to do, rather than spend time making the computer work. Having a minimal interface also allows new users who, as you say, have a lot of "mental baggage" to more easily learn the computer.

Making something complex is easy, making something simple is hard...

Re:NeXT used a 3 button-mouse!

[UOZaphod]

Do you have multiple accelerator pedals on your car, one for each direction you can go?

Nope, but there are at least two pedals down there... accelerator and brake. If you have a manual transmission then there are three pedals.

I don't see too many arguments from people for single pedal cars based the idea that two (or, heaven forbid, three) pedals are confusing.

Re:Because...

[geoffspear]

It's really time to upgrade that pre-USB laptop, or quit whining about how the newest peripherals don't work with it.

Re:I hate to say this but...

[earthtoandy]

and you don't think 'ok this is a waste of time' when you do anything else in windows? I do like my scroll wheel on my logitech but on a mac i also rely on the keyboard. Keyboard being used in conjunction with a mouse is way more productive than just scrolling away or p[laying with contextual menus

Re:Doesn't anyone here do usability studies?

[kiddailey]

My comment had nothing to do with Apple and your post should have been moderated as a troll.

I was talking about how it's evident via my own experience with usability testing that there is a signficant number of people who still have some difficulty using the mouse and that a good portion of the posts here seem to be ignoring that fact.

As far as the rest of your post goes goes... Yes, we all know computers are complex things. And every one of those issues you mentioned also applies to every other OS on the planet.

What's your point?

Any fool can make things bigger

[momus_radar]

To be honest, the only people I ever hear complain about Apple's mice, or anything Apple-design related, are geeks.

Geeks seem to have a problem accepting that somebody would want to use anything on or with a computer in a different manner than they do.

--
Any fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius-and a lot of courage-to move in the opposite direction. --Albert Einstein

Bullshit

[danila]

I suspect this is really bullshit. Those developers that want to pollute the interface with useless functions can rely on Cmd+click, which is basically the same as the right click, only more cumbersome. And those developers that understand the value of usability follow the Human Interface Guidelines voluntarily and then boast about it on their websites.

The real reason is that there is no compelling reason to change the official Apple policy, because everyone can get a 2-button mouse and everyone can use cmd+click, but there is a strong reason not to change anything, because Apple would look stupid for sticking so much to a stupid design decision.

Of Mice and Men...

[SnowDog74]

OS X Font management sucks?

Three words: Font Book, motherfucker.

Yeah, fuck Windows and its font aliasing that looks like it's on a British dental plan... Jaggies so horrible, you could put someone's eye out with MS Word.

Three More Words: Color Sync, bitch.

I'd like to see proper color separations prepared on a PC that actually deliver imaging on a monitor true to a PANTONE color wheel... Sorry, pal, ain't gonna happen.

Add to that, Apple displays are SWOP Certified.

You know what's more.. have you ever tried inserting a special character into HTML on Windows?

Three More Words: Option Button, stupid.

That's right, all your umlauts, em-dashes, en-dashes, accents, carats, etc. etc. ad infinitum... easily inserted into HTML or posted on a form without crawling back to that horrid, sloppy bastard of a word processor just to use the "Insert character" menu to go scrambling for a symbol.

Let's see...

Font Smoothing below 8pt:

OS X - check

Windows - no dice

Organized Font Manager:

OS X - Font Book

Windows - Buy Adobe ATM or a $700 app that has it

True SWOP-certified color and color profiles:

OS X - You betcha

Windows - Productivity? Who wants that in an OS?

A few last things for everyone bemoaning OS X font management, one-button mice, or the lack of a mechanical eject button on the DVD-ROM drive... Aside from all of the aforementioned that makes an OS X desktop look picturesque, compared to the Windows desktop that looks like some retard used a buggy version of MS paint with a palette consisting exclusively of garish colors and absolutely no opacity control...

Pages is the streamlined publishing beauty that MS Word wishes it could be... and for everyone who has ever wanted to kill the guy who insists on using the stupidest animations and sound effects Powerpoint can provide, Keynote is Michelangelo by comparison.

All OS X GUI objects have an embedded alpha channel... Being able to manage continuously variable levels of transparency, OS X has a depth of field in the desktop that all versions of Windows can only have wet dreams about.

This may seem superfluous to the wannabe-geeks who simultaneously believe that Windows has real administration capabilities (I'm sorry... did I miss something or did Windows become a UNIX-based platform?)... but if you're going to stare at a screen for more than eight hours a day, it helps if looking at text and images doesn't feel like razor blades are being tossed at your eyeballs.

Lastly, Core Audio, Core Image and Core Video... Core Audio, facilitating almost zero ms latency sampling, is already destroying any hopes of Windows being taken seriously by audio professionals. Core Image and Core Video will do the same to Bill Gates' dream of Windows and Windows Media being multimedia reference standards. Core Image may also spell doom for Adobe, whose After Effects & Premiere market share is already being destroyed by Apple's Shake, Motion and Final Cut Pro... but Core Image will eventually put in the hands of OS X itself, an enormous amount of realtime bitmap filtering that requires rendering time in Photoshop.

The gloves are off, and Apple, in their most profitable, highest-revenue, highest stock price since the 1980s, is poised for their next greatest trick...

Apple's next big move may very well be to combine the strengths of Quicktime 7 (specifically the H.264 codec) and Core Video to deliver HD-quality movies via an online store as the sequel to the hit iTunes Music Store that proved that, yes, indeed, people will pay for music downloads if it means they don't have to sift through countless half-corrupt Mp3s in a nonintuitive interface that has absolutely no browsing or track preview functionality.

It'll be a real slap in the face to Microsoft, the PC industry and the army of DMCA-minded attorneys at the MPAA if Apple reveals that, as a recent Slashdot article speculated, that the Mac Mini was all-along the proverbial trojan horse that would infiltrate millions of homes to facilitate and popularize internet-based movie distribution.