Yes, there are issues when you're using multiple screens. That doesn't mean the law doesn't apply. In your particular case, I would suggest you re-arrange the virtual position of your two screens (not the physical position).
Advanced modes are a bad idea, because "Advanced" doesn't tell you anything about what's hidden behind it. If you're looking for something, you'll always have to check out the advanced mode; you don't know if what you're looking for is hidden there. Group things in a way that the user can see what each group contains; don't group things by arbitrary rules, such as "beginners probably will not want to see this."
I fundamentally disagree with using poor usability as a way to discourage users from doing what they want.
Hopefully I did not give the impression that this is what I was suggesting:-)
I'm not suggesting that we should discourage users from what they want. I'm suggesting that we should not show them that the option is available at all. Most users don't actually know what they want, or what's best for them (see the discussion about the menu inside windows, which users seem to want, even though actual usability tests consistently show they're slower). It's the UI designers job to figure out the best solution, and provide it to the user. That is not poor usability, it's good usability.
You may not like (or even accept) what I'm about to tell you, but your problem is that you're used to an inferior system. Windows as "logically self-contained units" are a dumb idea (and it lead to UI idiocies like windows containing other windows). Maximizing windows is also a dumb idea (and by the way, it's not true that you can't do it on a Mac; option-click on the "zoom to fit" button will maximize a window - however, there's rarely a reason to do so). Unless you use something like IntelliJ, there is really no reason to maximize windows. It's a waste of space, and it prevents you from seeing windows below your current window.
If you use a Mac, get used to multitasking. Don't maximize windows; zoom them to fit their content, and then work with more than one window at the same time. If you don't want to, fine, maximize your windows if you have to (and as I said, you can), but don't pretend that Windows is superior.
The dock menu is an additional way to access things you might want to access while not currently in the application, not the only way.
Hey! That's choice! How about that! That's just what I just suggested, an additional way, along with (say) a pop up menu for the foreground application.
No, it's not choice, it's a different mode. You will notice that few applications replicate their menu structure in the Dock menu; that's because you access it when you're in a different mode.
(Don't tell me... you've written one of those applications where the only options in the dock menus are Keep in Dock, Show at Login, Open in Finder, Hide, and Quit?)
The dock menu is an additional way to access things you might want to access while not currently in the application, not the only way. It's not obvious enough, and using it as the only way to access something is on par to hiding features in a context menu (which a lot of Windows devs do because everyone has a second mouse button, see your last point).
I think menu bars were a mistake from the start.
Possibly, but they aren't going away, so debating it is somewhat pointless. Yeah, having menus appear where your mouse is might be a great idea, but we don't have it. We can either have the menu in windows (as in Windows) or on the top of the Screen. The second option is probably not the best possible option, but it's definitely a whole lot better than the first.
UI designers should be ashamed of themselves if they don't have the cojones to look into themselves and admit that sometimes, just maybe, they're humans and not gods and it's even possible for them to be mistaken.
Don't disagree. This just isn't one of these cases.
Fitts Law doesn't fit what Apple's doing...
But of course it does. First of all, the Apple menu is in the top left edge, even though it doesn't look that way. Try it. Second, the menu bar at the top of the screen has, unlike the one at the top of the window, infinite height. For a short bit of time, I had my laptop configured that going up with the mouse pointer moves it to the projector (it seems logical, the projector image is on top of the laptop screen). It's astonishing how hard to use the menu suddenly became, because I was so used to overshooting the target. The menu bar does adhere to Fitt's law, and people do make use of this feature.
Twenty years later they've finally given up on the single button mouse, in a kind of horrible passive-aggressive way, but we're still stuck with the damned menu bar.
This is another issue I'll have to disagree with you on.
They all have dock icons, and dock icons have menus.
If that is your solution, I can rest my case.
It's not your job to shove a worse solution for me down my throat, just because you think it's the best one.
Actually, this is exactly my job; I think it's even what my card says, minus the personal insults:-)
You only find this surprising because you're not used to it because not a lot of people who are responsible for UI on Windows and Linux actually take care of their responsibility. It's always easier to go with preferences, or with what the majority likes best. This is a cop-out, and UI designers should be ashamed of themselves if they don't have the cojones to stand up for their applications and implement the best solution.
Also, "the best solution" has got nothing to do with what I think. This is science; the best UI solution for any given issue can be found using proper application of theory (see Fitt's law), usability tests and UI iterations.
Sadly, I have to admit that the new R&C didn't even hold me long enough to finish the demo. I was looking forward so much to it, only to find it's really nothing new, apart from the looks:-(
Super Mario Sunshine was the same way after about half the game, but at least it introduced the water cannon, which made the first half of the game fresh even for people who already played through Mario 64. Galaxy introduces a whole host of new things, so I have high hopes for this; maybe I'll make it over the 50% mark this time:-)
I wish Insomniac would at least take a few ideas from Mario if they have none of their own... And make the levels wider. If I can see a whole huge city, give me the option of going there, don't make me follow a narrow path through the level!
Yeah, Apple could have had some kind of support for Mac OS 9, even on Intel computers. On the other hand, maybe the willingness to drop stuff is part of why Apple is ahead of Microsoft in the OS game...
I've just written about this: Don't make preferences until you absolutely have to. Furthermore, it wouldn't work: Many Mac applications have no windows. Why would, say, an unzip application need a Window? Unless you unzip an actual file, there's no need to show a window; so where would you put the menu bar? What about applications that have small windows, but wide menus?
It's also worth pointing out that Microsoft itself often violates this guideline (in at least one case in a Mac version of one of their apps, incredibly).
I second. Most users can't even figure out how to manage one desktop.
Maybe more desktops will actually help them manage their stuff, not hinder them? I think the lack of interest in virtual desktops is due to the crappy UI they generally have. Let's see whether OS X makes a difference and people start using them; it wouldn't be the first time Apple took a well-known idea and turned it into something normal people actually could use.
Which I personally still think was a great, great idea. More than once, Balloon Help told me why a menu item I needed was greyed out, or what exactle a Preferences checkbox did. To this day, I'm somewhat unclear on why they removed it; I'm guessing support by third-party apps unfortunately was just too poor.
Which leads me to another nit. About three years ago, I worked on a.NET application, and Visual Studio actually did not allow me to have tool tips for disabled controls, which kind of made the whole thing extremely useless. Why, Microsoft! WHY!
It should also be noted that Flash performance on Mac OS X is somewhat crappy (which may be one of the reasons why the iPhone never got Flash to begin with), so you'd expect Windows to have the upper hand in this comparison.
"Go to your Apple Menu, select System Preferences. Now click on "Sharing" and on "Remote Access." Click "Start." Tell me the number it says at the bottom of your window. Okay, now wait 10 minutes.":-)
But that's the point: Normal users aren't really supposed to figure this out. As a software developer and UI designer, it's part of my job to make sure every UI decision doesn't result in a new preference. 90% of the time, preferences are cop-outs: If the design team can't decide on what solution is best, they make it a checkbox. Don't do that. It's your job to figure out the best solution, don't burden the user with it.
What Apple does is the right thing: Make what they think is best default. Don't make preference for it. But if somebody absolutely needs to have his Dock look different, give him a way that does not involve changing the actual application resources.
Ratchet & Clank are the *best* platformer games out there.
R&C is more of a third-person shooter than a platformer. If you want platforming, try a Mario game.
This is a fun exercise: play the first R&C game. Then play the last one for the PS2. Compare the visuals.
Yeah, do that. I'll wait. Done? Now compare the gameplay. That's the result of a competent programming team which knows how to take advantage of some great hardware, but has no vision at all. It's the same damn game, just this time, it sports gorgeous graphics.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, there are issues when you're using multiple screens. That doesn't mean the law doesn't apply. In your particular case, I would suggest you re-arrange the virtual position of your two screens (not the physical position).
I wasn't entirely serious. The new R&C is a solid game. Not innovative at all, but certainly not lacking in gameplay quality.
Advanced modes are a bad idea, because "Advanced" doesn't tell you anything about what's hidden behind it. If you're looking for something, you'll always have to check out the advanced mode; you don't know if what you're looking for is hidden there. Group things in a way that the user can see what each group contains; don't group things by arbitrary rules, such as "beginners probably will not want to see this."
I fundamentally disagree with using poor usability as a way to discourage users from doing what they want.Hopefully I did not give the impression that this is what I was suggesting :-)
I'm not suggesting that we should discourage users from what they want. I'm suggesting that we should not show them that the option is available at all. Most users don't actually know what they want, or what's best for them (see the discussion about the menu inside windows, which users seem to want, even though actual usability tests consistently show they're slower). It's the UI designers job to figure out the best solution, and provide it to the user. That is not poor usability, it's good usability.
You may not like (or even accept) what I'm about to tell you, but your problem is that you're used to an inferior system. Windows as "logically self-contained units" are a dumb idea (and it lead to UI idiocies like windows containing other windows). Maximizing windows is also a dumb idea (and by the way, it's not true that you can't do it on a Mac; option-click on the "zoom to fit" button will maximize a window - however, there's rarely a reason to do so). Unless you use something like IntelliJ, there is really no reason to maximize windows. It's a waste of space, and it prevents you from seeing windows below your current window.
If you use a Mac, get used to multitasking. Don't maximize windows; zoom them to fit their content, and then work with more than one window at the same time. If you don't want to, fine, maximize your windows if you have to (and as I said, you can), but don't pretend that Windows is superior.
No, it's not choice, it's a different mode. You will notice that few applications replicate their menu structure in the Dock menu; that's because you access it when you're in a different mode.
Unsurprisingly, it is, from an UI pov. Except Ubuntu, that is quite okay; not least because they got rid of most preferences.
Can't quite remember what it was; something with table formatting in Microsoft Word. Haven't used Word since then.
The dock menu is an additional way to access things you might want to access while not currently in the application, not the only way. It's not obvious enough, and using it as the only way to access something is on par to hiding features in a context menu (which a lot of Windows devs do because everyone has a second mouse button, see your last point).
Possibly, but they aren't going away, so debating it is somewhat pointless. Yeah, having menus appear where your mouse is might be a great idea, but we don't have it. We can either have the menu in windows (as in Windows) or on the top of the Screen. The second option is probably not the best possible option, but it's definitely a whole lot better than the first.
Don't disagree. This just isn't one of these cases.
But of course it does. First of all, the Apple menu is in the top left edge, even though it doesn't look that way. Try it. Second, the menu bar at the top of the screen has, unlike the one at the top of the window, infinite height. For a short bit of time, I had my laptop configured that going up with the mouse pointer moves it to the projector (it seems logical, the projector image is on top of the laptop screen). It's astonishing how hard to use the menu suddenly became, because I was so used to overshooting the target. The menu bar does adhere to Fitt's law, and people do make use of this feature.
This is another issue I'll have to disagree with you on.
If that is your solution, I can rest my case.
Actually, this is exactly my job; I think it's even what my card says, minus the personal insults :-)
You only find this surprising because you're not used to it because not a lot of people who are responsible for UI on Windows and Linux actually take care of their responsibility. It's always easier to go with preferences, or with what the majority likes best. This is a cop-out, and UI designers should be ashamed of themselves if they don't have the cojones to stand up for their applications and implement the best solution.
Also, "the best solution" has got nothing to do with what I think. This is science; the best UI solution for any given issue can be found using proper application of theory (see Fitt's law), usability tests and UI iterations.
Sadly, I have to admit that the new R&C didn't even hold me long enough to finish the demo. I was looking forward so much to it, only to find it's really nothing new, apart from the looks :-(
:-)
Super Mario Sunshine was the same way after about half the game, but at least it introduced the water cannon, which made the first half of the game fresh even for people who already played through Mario 64. Galaxy introduces a whole host of new things, so I have high hopes for this; maybe I'll make it over the 50% mark this time
I wish Insomniac would at least take a few ideas from Mario if they have none of their own... And make the levels wider. If I can see a whole huge city, give me the option of going there, don't make me follow a narrow path through the level!
Yeah, Apple could have had some kind of support for Mac OS 9, even on Intel computers. On the other hand, maybe the willingness to drop stuff is part of why Apple is ahead of Microsoft in the OS game...
A lot of stuff changed behind the scenes. I predict you'll see dozens of Leopard-only apps appear within less than a month.
I've just written about this: Don't make preferences until you absolutely have to. Furthermore, it wouldn't work: Many Mac applications have no windows. Why would, say, an unzip application need a Window? Unless you unzip an actual file, there's no need to show a window; so where would you put the menu bar? What about applications that have small windows, but wide menus?
It just makes no sense.
I think you're missing the reason why the menu bar on the Mac is where it is, namely Fitt's law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts'_law
http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html
The menu bar on top of the screen is faster, despite being further away from the curser than the menu bar on top of the window.
It's also worth pointing out that Microsoft itself often violates this guideline (in at least one case in a Mac version of one of their apps, incredibly).
Maybe more desktops will actually help them manage their stuff, not hinder them? I think the lack of interest in virtual desktops is due to the crappy UI they generally have. Let's see whether OS X makes a difference and people start using them; it wouldn't be the first time Apple took a well-known idea and turned it into something normal people actually could use.
Which I personally still think was a great, great idea. More than once, Balloon Help told me why a menu item I needed was greyed out, or what exactle a Preferences checkbox did. To this day, I'm somewhat unclear on why they removed it; I'm guessing support by third-party apps unfortunately was just too poor.
.NET application, and Visual Studio actually did not allow me to have tool tips for disabled controls, which kind of made the whole thing extremely useless. Why, Microsoft! WHY!
Which leads me to another nit. About three years ago, I worked on a
I find it fascinating how little some people know about Macs :-)
It should also be noted that Flash performance on Mac OS X is somewhat crappy (which may be one of the reasons why the iPhone never got Flash to begin with), so you'd expect Windows to have the upper hand in this comparison.
"Go to your Apple Menu, select System Preferences. Now click on "Sharing" and on "Remote Access." Click "Start." Tell me the number it says at the bottom of your window. Okay, now wait 10 minutes." :-)
But that's the point: Normal users aren't really supposed to figure this out. As a software developer and UI designer, it's part of my job to make sure every UI decision doesn't result in a new preference. 90% of the time, preferences are cop-outs: If the design team can't decide on what solution is best, they make it a checkbox. Don't do that. It's your job to figure out the best solution, don't burden the user with it.
What Apple does is the right thing: Make what they think is best default. Don't make preference for it. But if somebody absolutely needs to have his Dock look different, give him a way that does not involve changing the actual application resources.
It's the first cell phone I've ever owned that I don't hate with a passion. And I've owned a ton of cell phones; Nokias, Palms, Symbian phones...
Uhm. Shrek 2 is not a Pixar movie. It's from DreamWorks.
R&C is more of a third-person shooter than a platformer. If you want platforming, try a Mario game.
Yeah, do that. I'll wait. Done? Now compare the gameplay. That's the result of a competent programming team which knows how to take advantage of some great hardware, but has no vision at all. It's the same damn game, just this time, it sports gorgeous graphics.
Got anything to back up that last sentence?
Play the game this /. post is about.