Why imitate IE?
Hans-Peter Fischer
this bug:
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108099
From what I see there it seems that Mozilla will miss the chance of
getting a UI that is better than what Windows users have got used to.
Mozilla will have all the oddities that make Windows novices frown, if
not despair.
First, there will be a "File" menu. Which file? In the browser window
this can only be the file that is currently loaded, right? But when you
open that menu you will find options referring to windows (New -
Navigator Window), to the connection status (Work Offline) or to the
Mozilla application as a whole (Exit).
Then there will be an "Edit" menu of course. Edit what? The only item I
would expect to find in this menu would be one that opens the current
page in Composer. But that item is under "File". What I get instead is
an item relating to Mozilla's configuration (Preferences...) and two
related to searching. And selecting isn't "editing" either.
Then there is the "View" menu. It contains further configuration options
(Show/Hide, Apply Theme) as well as a wild mixture of imperatives and
nouns (Show Images, Use Stylesheet, Text Size, Character Coding) that
makes you wonder whether "View" itself is an imperative or a noun.
And then there will be a "Tools" menu. Is "Search the Web..." a tool?
Pass me that Drive the Nails in, please.
But perhaps I'd better shut up and hope that we won't get a "Click here
to begin" message or a button with a floppy on it for saving things to
hard disc.
HP
P.S. If I were you I'd consider Lancer's suggestions.
--
Des derf net wohr sei, des is die Härte,
wo kemman die bloß olle her, warum gibts sovui Gstörde?
(Georg Ringsgwandl)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Jonas Jørgensen
> P.S. If I were you I'd consider Lancer's suggestions.
[Followup-To n.p.m.ui]
People who files bugs proposing changing Bugzilla's name to "ShitZilla"
cannot be taken seriously. If you wish to make *serious* suggestions
based on his suggestions, feel free to do so.
--
"This posting is probably produced by one of my cats stepping on the
keys. No, I don't have an infinite number of cats."
- Martin....@wavehh.hanse.de
Hans-Peter Fischer
> But perhaps I'd better shut up and hope that we won't get a "Click here
> to begin" message or a button with a floppy on it for saving things to
> hard disc.
Good grief! I've just noticed that Mozilla already *has* that button...
--
Jeden Morgen, mein Brot zu verdienen,
fahre ich zum Markt, wo Lügen gekauft werden.
Hoffnungsvoll reihe ich mich ein unter die Verkäufer.
(Bertold Brecht)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> First, there will be a "File" menu. Which file?
Doesn't matter. Interface Guidelines say a "File" menu is required for a
good app.
> In the browser window
> this can only be the file that is currently loaded, right? But when you
> open that menu you will find options referring to windows (New -
> Navigator Window), to the connection status (Work Offline) or to the
> Mozilla application as a whole (Exit).
Which is all typical for an application. Look at the MS office series,
look at FileMaker, look at AutoCAD, TextPad, Painter, Photoshop, ...
Except the "Work Offline" stuff, which might get moved.
> Then there will be an "Edit" menu of course. Edit what?
See above. Each app should have an edit menu.
> The only item I
> would expect to find in this menu would be one that opens the current
> page in Composer. But that item is under "File".
Because you're gonna edit a *file* ;-)
> What I get instead is
> an item relating to Mozilla's configuration (Preferences...) and two
> related to searching. And selecting isn't "editing" either.
Apple apparently disagreed with you back in the early 80's.
> Then there is the "View" menu. It contains further configuration options
> (Show/Hide, Apply Theme) as well as a wild mixture of imperatives and
> nouns (Show Images, Use Stylesheet, Text Size, Character Coding) that
> makes you wonder whether "View" itself is an imperative or a noun.
Both.
> And then there will be a "Tools" menu. Is "Search the Web..." a tool?
Yes. It is.
> Pass me that Drive the Nails in, please.
>
> But perhaps I'd better shut up and hope that we won't get a "Click here
> to begin" message or a button with a floppy on it for saving things to
> hard disc.
>
> P.S. If I were you I'd consider Lancer's suggestions.
And if I were you, I would read at least one GUI Guideline document.
Several are actually linked in the Mozilla default bookmarks.
--
Regards,
Sören Kuklau ('Chucker')
chucker-AT-web-DOT-de
Patrick Gallagher
> Hans-Peter Fischer wrote:
>
>> But perhaps I'd better shut up and hope that we won't get a "Click
>> here to begin" message or a button with a floppy on it for saving
>> things to hard disc.
>
>
> Good grief! I've just noticed that Mozilla already *has* that button...
>
>
If you look through those menus, and the menus of other web browsers,
you'll find that a good number of those features and options are
standard across all of them.
It imitates a standard user interface which everyone with a modicum of
computer experience - be it with Mac, Windows, Linux, or Unix (inside or
outside of a GUI - even text browsers have variations on these options)
can navigate with a degree of ease.
Essentially, Mozilla is using an interface which is consistent with all
manner of programs, and which exposes the most used and needed features.
One thing Mozilla does that most other programs don't is hands you the
means to remove things you don't want, or change the things you do want.
Moz doesn't imitate IE at all, other than that they both browse the
internet - it merely offers a standard, efficient User Interface.
Patrick
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
What exactly is the beef? Every Program, even web browsers since I've
owned my first Mac, and worked on PC's when I was a Computer Tech for a
school system, has started with a File menu, and and Edit menu. On
Communicator and Navigator 3 there was a tools menu as well.
Even The Finder On the Mac OS from 6.0.1 to 9.2.2 uses a File menu and
a Edit menu and even a View menu. If memory serves me right (and it may
not be <grin>) windows 3.1.1 and below had File and Edit menus as well.
Changing to something different would be like using wheel made out
stones again :-/
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/america/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/message/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
Henri Sivonen
Hans-Peter Fischer <dev....@heidenheim.com> wrote:
> First, there will be a "File" menu. Which file?
It is for filing operations like saving etc. It is one of the menus that
all apps are expected to have. See Apple's Human Interface Guidelines
and subsequent Windows UI guidelines.
> or to the Mozilla application as a whole (Exit).
Perhaps Mac OS X is what you need. :-) On OS X, Quit is in the "Mozilla"
menu--not in the "File" menu.
> Then there will be an "Edit" menu of course. Edit what?
It is for compatibility with apps that allow to modify the documents you
view. Also, when you are editing a form field, the usual editing
commands (Copy, Cut, Paste, Select All) can be found in the Edit menu.
> What I get instead is
> an item relating to Mozilla's configuration (Preferences...) and two
> related to searching. And selecting isn't "editing" either.
File and Edit are the usual menus and Preferences had to go somewhere.
Edit menu is the usual place on Mac OS Classic and, consequently, on
Windows. It is even codified in the Mac OS 8 Human Interface Guideline
addenum.
Again, you probably want to switch to Mac OS X. On OS X,
"Preferences..." is in the "Mozilla" menu.
> Then there is the "View" menu. It contains further configuration options
> (Show/Hide, Apply Theme) as well as a wild mixture of imperatives and
> nouns (Show Images, Use Stylesheet, Text Size, Character Coding) that
> makes you wonder whether "View" itself is an imperative or a noun.
Altering the text size and image display has something to do with
Viewing.
--
Henri Sivonen
hsiv...@niksula.hut.fi
http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/
Hans-Peter Fischer
> If you look through those menus, and the menus of other web browsers,
> you'll find that a good number of those features and options are
> standard across all of them.
>
> It imitates a standard user interface which everyone with a modicum of
> computer experience - be it with Mac, Windows, Linux, or Unix (inside or
> outside of a GUI - even text browsers have variations on these options)
> can navigate with a degree of ease.
>
> Essentially, Mozilla is using an interface which is consistent with all
> manner of programs, and which exposes the most used and needed features.
Apparently all that you and other people who replied can say in defence
of the present menu configuration is "It has always been like that" and
"Others are doing it the same way". I would have expected this kind of
arguments from an office clerk preparing for retirement. (Sorry!)
I know that File and Edit menus have existed at least since the early
days of DOS. They had their place in edit.com, but File and Edit etc.
are no longer appropriate as headings for the various items modern apps
place in these popup menus. I think the "standard" should be logic and
common sense - especially for an open source project - rather than the
conventions kept alive by some closed source software dinosaurs.
Every day there are thousands of people using a computer for the first
time in their life. If you think the present "standard" makes it easier
for them you have never witnesses a Windows novice struggling with his
software. If experienced users get along with it better that's just
because they got used to the quirks of their standard UIs (many of them
so successfully, in fact, that they don't even realize the quirks any
longer).
I believe users will happily switch over to a different solution - if
only it is more logical. And if they have a minimum flexibility of mind
left, of course.
HP
--
Arme Maus,
komm, ruh' dich aus
auf der Datenbank.
(Georg Ringsgwandl)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Hans-Peter Fischer
> On 4/15/2002 8:01 PM, Hans-Peter Fischer apparently wrote exactly the
> following:
>
>> First, there will be a "File" menu. Which file?
>
>
> Doesn't matter. Interface Guidelines say a "File" menu is required for a
> good app.
Does matter, unless the user is required to read the Interface
Guidelines first and then stop thinking.
>> In the browser window this can only be the file that is currently
>> loaded, right? But when you open that menu you will find options
>> referring to windows (New - Navigator Window), to the connection
>> status (Work Offline) or to the Mozilla application as a whole (Exit).
>
>
> Which is all typical for an application. Look at the MS office series,
> look at FileMaker, look at AutoCAD, TextPad, Painter, Photoshop, ...
So what? The point isn't whether its "typical" but whether it's good.
>> Then there will be an "Edit" menu of course. Edit what?
>
>
> See above. Each app should have an edit menu.
If you and the Guidelines say so...
>> The only item I would expect to find in this menu would be one that
>> opens the current page in Composer. But that item is under "File".
>
>
> Because you're gonna edit a *file* ;-)
I know that. You've missed my point.
>> What I get instead is an item relating to Mozilla's configuration
>> (Preferences...) and two related to searching. And selecting isn't
>> "editing" either.
>
>
> Apple apparently disagreed with you back in the early 80's.
Can't help it. They weren't the only one.
>> Then there is the "View" menu. It contains further configuration
>> options (Show/Hide, Apply Theme) as well as a wild mixture of
>> imperatives and nouns (Show Images, Use Stylesheet, Text Size,
>> Character Coding) that makes you wonder whether "View" itself is an
>> imperative or a noun.
>
>
> Both.
At the same time? Or does it change its meaning according to which item
you are looking at?
>> And then there will be a "Tools" menu. Is "Search the Web..." a tool?
>
>
> Yes. It is.
OK then, give me two. Two searchthewebs will find more than one.
>> P.S. If I were you I'd consider Lancer's suggestions.
>
>
> And if I were you, I would read at least one GUI Guideline document.
What for? I bet the documents only describe what is and not why it
should be like that. How about presenting some arguments yourself?
> Several are actually linked in the Mozilla default bookmarks.
The default bookmarks are always the first thing I remove. :-)
--
If I ever be king and I get a crown
then it will surely be made of Maschendrahtzaun.
(Stefan Raab)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Patrick Gallagher
> Patrick Gallagher wrote:
>
>> If you look through those menus, and the menus of other web browsers,
>> you'll find that a good number of those features and options are
>> standard across all of them.
>>
>> It imitates a standard user interface which everyone with a modicum
>> of computer experience - be it with Mac, Windows, Linux, or Unix
>> (inside or outside of a GUI - even text browsers have variations on
>> these options) can navigate with a degree of ease.
>>
>> Essentially, Mozilla is using an interface which is consistent with
>> all manner of programs, and which exposes the most used and needed
>> features.
>
>
> Apparently all that you and other people who replied can say in
> defence of the present menu configuration is "It has always been like
> that" and "Others are doing it the same way". I would have expected
> this kind of arguments from an office clerk preparing for retirement.
> (Sorry!)
>
> I know that File and Edit menus have existed at least since the early
> days of DOS. They had their place in edit.com, but File and Edit etc.
> are no longer appropriate as headings for the various items modern
> apps place in these popup menus. I think the "standard" should be
> logic and common sense - especially for an open source project -
> rather than the conventions kept alive by some closed source software
> dinosaurs.
Those menus are very logical. Items under the file menu deal with
supported files (opening, manipulating, closing, sending to other
people) and program files (new instances, exiting)
The items under those menus are essential components of any good program.
> Every day there are thousands of people using a computer for the first
> time in their life. If you think the present "standard" makes it
> easier for them you have never witnesses a Windows novice struggling
> with his software. If experienced users get along with it better
> that's just because they got used to the quirks of their standard UIs
> (many of them so successfully, in fact, that they don't even realize
> the quirks any longer).
It's a good UI - the fact that people learn them as fast as they do is a
testament to how good. We could eliminate the GUI entirely and go for a
command line driven interface, but that would take people months to
learn instead of just a few hours.
> I believe users will happily switch over to a different solution - if
> only it is more logical. And if they have a minimum flexibility of
> mind left, of course.
what's the solution? What, exactly, would you replace the current system
with
how, in your world, would you tell Mozilla to open a local file in a
browser window? How would you tell it to copy text you've selected? How
does it send a web page via e-mail?
how would you tell it to open a new browser window? or let it know what
you want for a default homepage? or get to your preferences?
what are you going to name your menus, and what options will you have in
them? or are you just going to add a bunch of icons to a huge toolbar -
or are toolbars passe too?
Patrick
Reid
the menus, or do away with them altogether, for some users it would be the
same as if GM put the ignition switch in the glove box on its next
generation of vehicles.
Reid
Garth Wallace
> Soeren Kuklau wrote:
>
>> On 4/15/2002 8:01 PM, Hans-Peter Fischer apparently wrote exactly the
>> following:
>>
>>> First, there will be a "File" menu. Which file?
>>
>> Doesn't matter. Interface Guidelines say a "File" menu is required for
>> a good app.
>
> Does matter, unless the user is required to read the Interface
> Guidelines first and then stop thinking.
>
>>> In the browser window this can only be the file that is currently
>>> loaded, right? But when you open that menu you will find options
>>> referring to windows (New - Navigator Window), to the connection
>>> status (Work Offline) or to the Mozilla application as a whole (Exit).
>>
>> Which is all typical for an application. Look at the MS office series,
>> look at FileMaker, look at AutoCAD, TextPad, Painter, Photoshop, ...
>
> So what? The point isn't whether its "typical" but whether it's good.
Actually, consistency with other apps is an important consideration for
GUI design. The more functions are in familiar places, the less time it
takes to learn how to use the app.
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> Soeren Kuklau wrote:
>> Several are actually linked in the Mozilla default bookmarks.
> The default bookmarks are always the first thing I remove. :-)
Let me guess, you're using Mozilla for personal use. Well then, you have
the wrong product. Mozilla releases are for QA, and only for QA. That's
why there are the menus "Debug" and "QA" (ooh!), that's why there are so
many QA-related bookmarks, that's why it doesn't matter whether the
splash screen is ugly or not.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Hans-Peter Fischer wrote:
------------snip----------------------
> I believe users will happily switch over to a different solution - if
> only it is more logical. And if they have a minimum flexibility of mind
> left, of course.
>
> HP
And what new standard would you suggest?
Henri Sivonen
Hans-Peter Fischer <dev....@heidenheim.com> wrote:
> Apparently all that you and other people who replied can say in defence
> of the present menu configuration is "It has always been like that" and
> "Others are doing it the same way". I would have expected this kind of
> arguments from an office clerk preparing for retirement. (Sorry!)
Consistency is believed to be good for usability.
Johnny Yen
news:hsivonen-0D8945...@tron.sci.fi...
> In article <3CBC5BE3...@heidenheim.com>,
> Hans-Peter Fischer <dev....@heidenheim.com> wrote:
>
> > Apparently all that you and other people who replied can say in defence
> > of the present menu configuration is "It has always been like that" and
> > "Others are doing it the same way". I would have expected this kind of
> > arguments from an office clerk preparing for retirement. (Sorry!)
>
> Consistency is believed to be good for usability.
>
You guys use "consistancy" only when it's conveniant. If Moz were
"consistant", they would have followed IE's lead and supported everything
*it* does. Just for consistancy, Moz would have had all the options that
4.7+ had. Just for consitancy, Moz would have supported all the tags that
4.7+ did. Moz, however, took the high road and went with *standards* (not a
bad thing), and (to a lesser extent) it's programmers own idiosycratic
layout.. So, you're talking out of both sides of your mouth when you say
*consistancy*. (just an observation...)
jY
Chris Hoess
> (Playing devil's advocate)
> You guys use "consistancy" only when it's conveniant. If Moz were
> "consistant", they would have followed IE's lead and supported everything
> *it* does.
Consistency in UI != consistency in everything else. The comparison is
silly.
--
Chris Hoess
Hans-Peter Fischer
>
> And what new standard would you suggest?
I wouldn't suggest any standard. Every app should have the UI that best
suits its purpose.
But you and Patrick obviously haven't read the bug report I linked to in
my first message. Lancer (whom we all duly detest ;-) made a comment
there suggesting a rearrangement of the menus. While I do not agree with
every detail of his suggestion (I think his scheme can be further
simplified) I do think that it would make a good starting point for an
improvement of the current situation.
Just an example:
Lancer suggests replacing the File menu by one entitled "Mozilla" that
would contain all the items related to the Mozilla application in
general (except for New Message etc., which I consider superfluous in
the browser).
Now, are you guys going to tell me that the user would have a problem
finding Mozilla's configuration options under "Mozilla" and that it is
more logical and intuitive to look for them in three different menus
labelled "File", "Edit" and "View"?
HP
--
The world has enough for everyone's need but not enough for everyone's
greed.
(Gandhi)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Hans-Peter Fischer
> Those menus are very logical. Items under the file menu deal with
> supported files (opening, manipulating, closing, sending to other
> people) and program files (new instances, exiting)
Yes, in some way everything has to do with files. So let's put
everything under "File". Very logical.
> It's a good UI - the fact that people learn them as fast as they do is a
> testament to how good. We could eliminate the GUI entirely and go for a
> command line driven interface, but that would take people months to
> learn instead of just a few hours.
Just look Windows users over the shoulder and you will notice how often
they have to open various menus before they find the item they were
looking for. Also experienced users. It happens to me too although I've
had to use Windows apps for almost 20 years.
Since menu titles have lost their meanings the menus have become
passe-partout containers where you can put almost anything anywhere.
Have a look at the File menu in FrameMaker, for instance. Perhaps it
takes too much fantasy for you to imagine there might be a better way?
> what's the solution? What, exactly, would you replace the current system
> with
[...]
See my reply to Phillip.
--
Nur tote Fische schwimmen mit dem Strom.
(anon.)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Hans-Peter Fischer
It's the other way around. Having the ignition switch in the glove box
isn't logical. My whole point is that logic should be the standard. Moz
and most other apps have the ignition switch in the glove box now, and
people are whining "Please leave it in there because that's where we've
always looked for it."
HP
--
Las penas y las vaquitas
se van por la misma senda.
Las penas son de nosotros,
las vaquitas son ajenas.
(Atahualpa Yupanqui)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
DeMoN LaG
news:3CBDB563...@heidenheim.com, on 17 Apr 2002:
> finding Mozilla's configuration options under "Mozilla" and that
> it is more logical and intuitive to look for them in three
> different menus labelled "File", "Edit" and "View"?
I have so many programs already that you do Edit, Preferences, or
Edit, Settings, etc, that if it *weren't* there, I wouldn't know
where to look. Xnews has it's settings in Special, Setup Xnews. It
took me FOREVER to find it. As long as I've used Xnews, I'm still
lost with it's menu's:
Server, Folder, Group, Article, View, Filter, Transfer, Special,
Window, Help
Completely lost. It's a non standard setup. It's taken me well over
6 months of playing with it and I still don't know where a lot of
things are. Can't say that about Mozilla. I know where everything
is, cause it's so similar to almost every other app out there.
--
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: de_on-lag@co_cast.net
_ = m
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>
>>
>> And what new standard would you suggest?
>
>
> I wouldn't suggest any standard. Every app should have the UI that best
> suits its purpose.
That might sound good for you. But most major apps share a partially
common UI, and the benefit is consistency.
> But you and Patrick obviously haven't read the bug report I linked to in
> my first message.
I have.
> Lancer (whom we all duly detest ;-) made a comment
> there suggesting a rearrangement of the menus. While I do not agree with
> every detail of his suggestion (I think his scheme can be further
> simplified) I do think that it would make a good starting point for an
> improvement of the current situation.
I thought so too when I first read it (which was just after he filed it).
> Just an example:
> Lancer suggests replacing the File menu by one entitled "Mozilla" that
> would contain all the items related to the Mozilla application in
> general (except for New Message etc., which I consider superfluous in
> the browser).
Look, someone (Henri, I believe) has already pointed out that on Mac OS
X, items such as "Preferences" and "Quit" are shown in an additional
menu called "Mozilla", which is essential for any Mac OS X application
(i.e., if you create an app called "foobar", there will always be a
"foobar" menu right next to the apple menu). That means, Mozilla
followed the Mac OS X specs closely, at least in this case.
For Mac OS classic and Win32 though, it is normal that "Preferences" is
either in "File" or in "Exit". It is normal that there is no "Mozilla"
menu (well, in Mac OS classic, there's the app menu on the very right
that is called "Mozilla" in this case, but an app cannot store its own
menu items there.), and it is normal that there is a "Quit" menu item on
Macintosh and an "Exit" menu item on Windows32. In the German version of
a Mac application, the "File" menu should be called "Ablage" because
that is *normal*, whereas on Win32, Microsoft decided "Datei" would be a
better translation, which is why a German Mozilla has an "Ablage" menu
on Mac OS classic and X, and a "Datei" menu on Win32.
All these examples are supposed to show you that our main aim here is
consistency.
> Now, are you guys going to tell me that the user would have a problem
> finding Mozilla's configuration options under "Mozilla" and that it is
> more logical and intuitive to look for them in three different menus
> labelled "File", "Edit" and "View"?
"Preferences" should always be under either "File" or "Edit" (the specs
say "Edit", I think, but some apps use "File" for whatever reason).
"View" shall define the presentation of the application UI towards the
user. Which it does.
Martin Fritsche
> I have so many programs already that you do Edit, Preferences, or
> Edit, Settings, etc, that if it *weren't* there, I wouldn't know
> where to look.
> Completely lost. It's a non standard setup. It's taken me well over
> 6 months of playing with it and I still don't know where a lot of
> things are. Can't say that about Mozilla. I know where everything
> is, cause it's so similar to almost every other app out there.
I think the question here is: Is it good to keep a broken design because
nearly everyone else also uses it? Or would it be better to create a
good design even if people are not used to it?
I agree with Hans-Peter. The UI we are used to is not very good. The
difference between Undo, Copy, Paste and Preferences... is very big. So
why are they all under Edit? That's not logical.
Why are Stop and Reload at View? Why not at Go?
Even if everyone is used at it, they are also used at MS-HTML. Anyone
here wants to implement <marquee>? Mozilla is not for end-users so where
is the problem creating a new menu structure?
--
Everyone who sends advertisement to me agrees to pay a fee of 10 Euro.
Patrick Gallagher
> because nearly everyone else also uses it? Or would it be better to
> create a good design even if people are not used to it?
but what makes it broken? It all makes sense.
> I agree with Hans-Peter. The UI we are used to is not very good. The
> difference between Undo, Copy, Paste and Preferences... is very big.
Not really - undo, copy and paste are content editing tools, Preferences
is editing how you want content displayed (web content, and program content)
Find is for finding content
Seems to me, everything under edit is either for finding or editing
content, and the display of content.
> So why are they all under Edit? That's not logical.
sure it is.
> Why are Stop and Reload at View? Why not at Go?
You're going to go to Stop? Go is for telling the browser where to go -
you can go forward, you can go back, you can go home... but you don't go
reload or go stop
View is completely appropriate for Stop and Reload - it affects your
view of a webpage either by refreshing content, or stopping foirther
content from loading.
> Even if everyone is used at it, they are also used at MS-HTML. Anyone
> here wants to implement <marquee>? Mozilla is not for end-users so
> where is the problem creating a new menu structure?
This is irrelevant. The menuing system in mozilla not only follows a
logical organization, it also provides an interface consistent with the
vast majority of computer programs and platforms. This is not a MS
defined system, although they do make use of it in a very similar
fashion (IE has a slightly different organization of the menu items -
for instance, brower options are under the tools menu instead of the
edit menu).
A new menu structure why? To confuse people with something new and
exciting - "Look ma! It'll take you days to find anything with this
piece of software!"
You may be right about the system not being perfect, but changing
everything this late in the game would be suicide - if an app isn't
intuative and easy to figure out (part of which is being consistant with
what people already know) it'll never be used. Kind of like the QWERTY
keybord - everyone knows it's an awful layout, but learning DVORAK,
which makes much more sense, is more than the majority of people are
willing to do. Unlike QWERTY, the menu system in Moz isn't designed to
slow people down - which dramatic UI changes would do quite nicely.
Patrick
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Martin Fritsche wrote:
---------------snip----------------
> I agree with Hans-Peter. The UI we are used to is not very good. The
> difference between Undo, Copy, Paste and Preferences... is very big. So
> why are they all under Edit? That's not logical.
> Why are Stop and Reload at View? Why not at Go?
Just think of the Logic. Most people here don't think i am very logical
but consider any way:
If you make a change and then decide to remove it using Undo. Its a form
of "editing".
If you "copy" something its a form of editing.
If you "paste" something its a form of editing
If you changing anything in the preferences its a form of Editing, you
are editing the preferences.
If you open a new page in composer that's altering a File.
> Even if everyone is used at it, they are also used at MS-HTML. Anyone
> here wants to implement <marquee>? Mozilla is not for end-users so where
> is the problem creating a new menu structure?
I wouldn't want to see Marquee in an email unless its in a group related
to creating webpages using Java, Jvascript and html such as <secnews.netscape.com/netscape.test.multimedia>.
Brian Heinrich
Although I'm not entirely sure I agree with Sören, what he's suggesting
does make some sense. No app is going to have an entirely logical or
intuitable interface, and some are going to be better than others -- or
will be at least for some people.
Realistically, from what I've read in this thread, it seems like the
best one can do is a) find a reasonable degree of consistency with
native menuing systems, b) within that, try to deploy menu items as
logically and intuitably as possible.
That strikes me as being one hell of an undertaking. Mozilla has its
weirdnesses and quirk; so does IE; so do Adobe's apps; so does
QuarkXPress; &c. Never the less, a few minutes of playing with the
menus (and I'm one of those people who believes that first thing one
should do when running a new app is familiarise oneself with the
interface) is generally enough to get the sense of how things have been
set up.
As for Hans-Peter's comment that Windows users can be baffled by
menuing, to some extent it is a valid comment, but there /are/ people
out there who aren't great visual learners or who have problems with
certain kinds of patterns: I've seen people who've used a given app on
a daily basis for several years /still/ fumbling with the menu system.
That's not necessarily a problem of bad UI design; it has to do with the
fact that any design, no matter how well thought-out, isn't going to
accommodate every possible user.
I'm OK with the Mozilla UI; even when certain items have been added, &c,
it hasn't been a chore for me to adjust. And, for me, Edit |
Preferences makes a lot more sense than Tools | Options; then again, I'm
used to finding those under one of the first two sets of drop-downs, so
moving them elsewhere (let alone renaming them) is going to seem
illogical and counter-intuitive to me. But that doesn't mean that I
didn't adjust to IE's quirks; I just had to remember that what I wanted
wasn't where I expected it to be and wasn't named what I expected it to
be named.
BTW, it might just be my monitor resolution and the default Windows font
for these things, but I always want to read the subject of this thread
as 'Why irritate IE?'. . . .
Brian
--
I'm not paranoid; just . . . concerned. . . .
-- Some guy named Mark, whose last name I never did learn
Peter Trudelle
> I think the question here is: Is it good to keep a broken design
> because nearly everyone else also uses it? Or would it be better to
> create a good design even if people are not used to it?
That depends on how 'broken' it is. Perhaps it is really good enough,
and there is insufficient motivation to learn to use something better.
> The UI we are used to is not very good. The difference between Undo,
> Copy, Paste and Preferences... is very big. So why are they all under
> Edit? That's not logical.
No, it isn't very good, but once you've been 'editing' prefs for a few
years, logic doesn't matter much. I won't defend it though, because it
is just what people are accustomed to, there need not be any logic to
it. You could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that several alternate
keyboards are ergonomically superior to the QWERTY models 99% of us are
using, but in 125 years of trying, none of them have any significant
adoption. If you'd like to come up with a Dvorak UI, I'm sure you can
rearrange things more optimally, but I think we can do more good overall
by considering fundamental, structural changes, and whole new
applications and approaches. Sure, they'll require some relearning too,
but but they can also be worth it.
Peter
Matt
If people already don't know where everything is, then they wouldn't
know enough to complain if it was changed, would they?
Martin Fritsche
> Not really - undo, copy and paste are content editing tools, Preferences
> is editing how you want content displayed (web content, and program
> content)
> Find is for finding content
But not *editing*.
And Edit Page... is under File not under Edit. OK you edit a file but
Preferences... also edits a file. Fomr Manager, Cookie Manager, Image
Manager... also edit files. And you can change settings there. So why
aren't they near Preferences... in a menu called Settings?
> Seems to me, everything under edit is either for finding or editing
> content, and the display of content.
But shouldn't items for the display of content be under view?
> You're going to go to Stop? Go is for telling the browser where to go -
> you can go forward, you can go back, you can go home... but you don't go
> reload or go stop
I controll where it goes there. Stop tells him to stop going to
somewhere. It does *not* tell him to stop show me something.
> This is irrelevant. The menuing system in mozilla not only follows a
> logical organization, it also provides an interface consistent with the
> vast majority of computer programs and platforms. This is not a MS
> defined system, although they do make use of it in a very similar
> fashion (IE has a slightly different organization of the menu items -
> for instance, brower options are under the tools menu instead of the
> edit menu).
It's not important to me if MS uses something or not. But I think it is
stupid to keep a broken thing because others also do it.
> A new menu structure why? To confuse people with something new and
> exciting - "Look ma! It'll take you days to find anything with this
> piece of software!"
No, a new structure to say: "Look, everything is exactly there where you
would expect it." There a millions of people who are not used to this
broken design because they don't use it very often. In a (normal)
kitchen you find similar things at the same place. You put knifes, forks
and spoons together because they are similar even if you would not use a
knife and a spoon together very often. Who would put knifes and plates
in one box?
> You may be right about the system not being perfect, but changing
> everything this late in the game would be suicide
This late? Hey, Mozilla is at 0.9.9. Or do you mean this late in
"computer time"? OK. Don't improve anything, people could get confused.
Don't be innovative.
640K of RAM is enough.
Colour? Who needs that? A green and black screen is very nice.
What this strange thing called _graphical_ user interface? Where can I
enter a command? I'm confused.
Eh, what's that silver thing here? For data storage? It doesn't look
like a punched tape.
> - if an app isn't
> intuative and easy to figure out (part of which is being consistant with
> what people already know) it'll never be used.
Having the Cookie Manager far away from Preferences... is not intuitive.
Nor is having Apply Theme next to Page Info.
> Unlike QWERTY, the menu system in Moz isn't designed to
> slow people down - which dramatic UI changes would do quite nicely.
No, sorry. Most people would not be slowed down to find Preferences...
and all Manager items in a Settings menu. Would you?
Bamm Gabriana
> Preferences... also edits a file. Fomr Manager, Cookie Manager, Image
> Manager... also edit files. And you can change settings there. So why
> aren't they near Preferences... in a menu called Settings?
Because the word File in the File menu refers to the currently
loaded file, or items to choose the currently loaded file.
Edit File belongs here because it is an action on the currently
loaded file.
The Edit menu refers to anything done to the content of the
current file. That's why search belongs here.
It is true that Preferences is out of place here; it was put
here in reference to the name Edit. Other applications put
the prefs under tools.
But the reason it stays here is because Netscape users have
been accustomed to using Edit|Preferences and Netscape 6.5
(to be based on Mozilla 1.0) is being packaged as a
replacement for Netscape Communicator.
Let me say that these conventions are not Microsoft inventions.
In the early days of computers programs invented their own
menu systems depending on what the author views as logical.
The current system is a result of years of experience of
various software companies and has proven to be the most
intuitive to users, yup, even new users.
Martin Fritsche
> The Edit menu refers to anything done to the content of the
> current file. That's why search belongs here.
Use Style and Character Coding are also done to the content of the
current file. But they are not in Edit.
> It is true that Preferences is out of place here; it was put
> here in reference to the name Edit. Other applications put
> the prefs under tools.
>
> But the reason it stays here is because Netscape users have
> been accustomed to using Edit|Preferences and Netscape 6.5
> (to be based on Mozilla 1.0) is being packaged as a
> replacement for Netscape Communicator.
If Netscape doesn't like it, they could change it. Or make a radiobox to
switch between menu styles.
> Let me say that these conventions are not Microsoft inventions.
What hast that to do with?
> In the early days of computers programs invented their own
> menu systems depending on what the author views as logical.
>
> The current system is a result of years of experience of
> various software companies and has proven to be the most
> intuitive to users, yup, even new users.
Sorry, the Managers under Tools don't exist for years. So they can't
have proven to be more intuitive than under a Settings menu.
Gervase Markham
> isn't logical. My whole point is that logic should be the standard. Moz
> and most other apps have the ignition switch in the glove box now, and
> people are whining "Please leave it in there because that's where we've
> always looked for it."
If every vehicle on the planet had the ignition switch in the glove box,
there would be a strong argument for leaving it there on new cars,
certainly.
Gerv
--
"Anyway. It's very simple. If someone like David Baron sent us a patch,
we'd accept it. If someone like you sent us a patch, we would not."
-- Hixie, after a request for clarification of mozilla/browser's README.
Ian Davey
> Bamm Gabriana wrote:
>
>> The Edit menu refers to anything done to the content of the
>> current file. That's why search belongs here.
>
>
> Use Style and Character Coding are also done to the content of the
> current file. But they are not in Edit.
They do nothing to the content of the current file, merely change your
view of it. Which is why, I'd assume, they're under the View menu. The
majority of items in the Edit menu involve editing/selection within the
current document. That doesn't apply to either Use Style or Character
Coding. I wouldn't have thought this is that difficult to grasp.
>> It is true that Preferences is out of place here; it was put
>> here in reference to the name Edit. Other applications put
>> the prefs under tools.
>>
>> But the reason it stays here is because Netscape users have
>> been accustomed to using Edit|Preferences and Netscape 6.5
>> (to be based on Mozilla 1.0) is being packaged as a
>> replacement for Netscape Communicator.
>
>> The current system is a result of years of experience of
>> various software companies and has proven to be the most
>> intuitive to users, yup, even new users.
>
>
> Sorry, the Managers under Tools don't exist for years. So they can't
> have proven to be more intuitive than under a Settings menu.
How would the javascript console make sense under a Settings Menu?
Everything in the tools menu currently makes sense (finally). It's a
much better arrangement than it was previously.
ian.
Christian Biesinger
> Mozilla is not for end-users so where
> is the problem creating a new menu structure?
*sigh*
Read http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$156
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin
Martin Fritsche
> They do nothing to the content of the current file, merely change your
> view of it.
Same does Find in This Page...
> How would the javascript console make sense under a Settings Menu?
> Everything in the tools menu currently makes sense (finally). It's a
> much better arrangement than it was previously.
Did I mention the javascript console? No. I mentioned the Managers. I
use them to change the settings of accepting cookis, images... So they
are IMHO very close to Preferences...
Between I think Use Style should be moved to the bar currently called
"Site Navigation Bar". No one notices that he can choose between styles
if he has to open two menus to look for it.
Martin Fritsche
> Read http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$156
Look at http://www.mozilla.org/releases/
"We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only!
... That, of course, is the whole reason we make these binaries available."
Gervase Markham
I have two comments on that article.
> Yeah, well, they're not Mozilla, they're something else, like
"Netscape", right?
>
> Nope. Netscape calls its binaries "Netscape", and Beonex calls
theirs "Beonex", > but most distributors call theirs "Mozilla". In many
of them, the only thing which > has been changed from the Mozilla trunk
is the default home page.
This is true; and it's a problem. It's something that should change. In
an ideal world, everyone who distributed Mozilla would do so under their
own brand, and referring users to their own support channels.
> Why do people try to claim that Mozilla isn't for end users?
>
> Sometimes they're trying to make the lack of a particular feature
(such as a
> spell-checker, for example) seem less important than it really is.
But usually
> they're trying to make Mozilla more complicated or geeky than it
should be.
Usually, they are trying to say "Go away and stop bothering us with your
support questions." :-)
"Mozilla is not for end-users" is a short-hand for "The Mozilla binaries
from ftp.mozilla.org are not for end users." So, if someone says
"Mozilla is not for end-users", then substitute in that alternative
sentence. If what they are saying no longer makes any sense, then they
have the wrong idea and are making a false argument.
So:
"Mozilla is not for end users. So the Mozilla project doesn't need a
spelling-checker."
->
"The Mozilla binaries from ftp.mozilla.org are not for end users. So the
Mozilla project doesn't need a spelling-checker."
Makes no sense.
"Mozilla is not for end users. So I'm not going to answer your support
question."
->
"The Mozilla binaries from ftp.mozilla.org are not for end users. So I'm
not going to answer your support question."
Makes perfect sense.
Gerv
Christian Biesinger
>> Read http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$156
>
>
> I have two comments on that article.
Don't complain at me, complain at mpt :)
Ian Davey
> Ian Davey wrote:
>
>> They do nothing to the content of the current file, merely change your
>> view of it.
>
>
> Same does Find in This Page...
No, find in page creates a selection and scrolls the viewport down to it.
>> How would the javascript console make sense under a Settings Menu?
>> Everything in the tools menu currently makes sense (finally). It's a
>> much better arrangement than it was previously.
>
>
> Did I mention the javascript console? No. I mentioned the Managers. I
> use them to change the settings of accepting cookis, images... So they
> are IMHO very close to Preferences...
So you are suggesting a Tools menu and a Settings menu? I find them very
discoverable under Tools (it's the first place I look each time),
whereas before I tended to have to search for them. I don't see what
advantage a Settings menu would have, other that cluttering the toolbar
with yet another menu, as Tools defines them just as well. Settings
would have inconsistances as well, things like "Form Manager -> Fill in
Form" have nothing to do with settings.
> Between I think Use Style should be moved to the bar currently called
> "Site Navigation Bar". No one notices that he can choose between styles
> if he has to open two menus to look for it.
This could definately be made more discoverable, and personally I think it
should be remembered on a site by site basis (though that may be on the
table as a future enhancement).
ian.
Hans-Peter Fischer
> The
> majority of items in the Edit menu involve editing/selection within the
> current document. That doesn't apply to either Use Style or Character
> Coding. I wouldn't have thought this is that difficult to grasp.
What you and several other people don't grasp is that you *can't* edit
the current document in the browser, however hard you may try. I guess
the authors of the page you are viewing would be quite surprised if
*you* started editing *their* page. A browser is essentially a *viewer*,
not an editor, although the Mozilla browser pretends to be one by having
an Edit menu, which is misleading unless you are one of those
"experienced users" who know (and accept) that menu names don't mean a
thing.
HP
--
Je vais bien merci je vous en prie.
(Godard: Alphaville)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Hans-Peter Fischer
> but consider any way:
>
> If you make a change and then decide to remove it using Undo. Its a form
> of "editing".
> If you "copy" something its a form of editing.
> If you "paste" something its a form of editing
> If you changing anything in the preferences its a form of Editing, you
> are editing the preferences.
>
> If you open a new page in composer that's altering a File.
Quite right. "Edit" has a place in Composer, but not in the browser
where you can't edit content.
As far as "Preferences" is concerned, you don't go there in order to
edit a file but to change your settings, as Martin rightly pointed out.
If the purpose was editing, this item would open prefs.js as plain text.
Anyway, my impression is that the terminology of some people here (I'm
not thinking primarily of you) is so blurred that it's useless to carry
on this discussion.
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> What you and several other people don't grasp is that you *can't* edit
> the current document in the browser, however hard you may try. I guess
> the authors of the page you are viewing would be quite surprised if
> *you* started editing *their* page. A browser is essentially a *viewer*,
> not an editor, although the Mozilla browser pretends to be one by having
> an Edit menu, which is misleading unless you are one of those
> "experienced users" who know (and accept) that menu names don't mean a
> thing.
Do you know any browser that doesn't have an edit menu (other than minor
browsers and *text* browser, duh)? If you had had a problem with this
behaviour in the first place, why didn't you complain at Tim
Berners-Lee? Or to Spyglass/Mosaic?
Martin Fritsche
> Do you know any browser that doesn't have an edit menu (other than minor
> browsers and *text* browser, duh)?
Millions of flies eat shit...
You know when the car was invented it had neither doors nor a ceiling.
Do you think that should have been kept?
Travis Crump
> What you and several other people don't grasp is that you *can't* edit
> the current document in the browser, however hard you may try.
Sure you can. I read fiction online that is meant to be in a frame, but
I what it to take up the whole screen so I don't have to scroll as much.
So first I click on View this frame only. But it still doesn't take
up the whole width because it is in a 40% table. So I *edit* the
document to make the table width 100% by typing:
javascript:(function(){
document.getElementsByTagName("table")[0].setAttribute("width", "100%");
})();
in the location bar(actually I have it bookmarked, but same difference).
I fail to see how this doesn't count as editing the document.
Bamm Gabriana
off under Tools rather than Edit?
That is what the conventions say.
ratman
application that you find in any of the currently popular operating
systems. this is another example of things we chose to adopt somewhere
along the way, for perhaps a good reason initially, that we continue to
carry around with us like vestigial organs (like your appendix, say)
now that they serve no purpose other than confusion.
however, poking a finger in mozilla's eye is not the way to resolve
something like this, unfortunately. as it is, mozilla is fighting an
uphill battle when it comes to the browser market. if we were to use
"logical" menu bars, which new computer users and less computer-savvy
individuals would find unfamiliar, we would have to count on these
low-patience users to be willing to learn and become familiarized with a
whole new menu structure before they even choose to use mozilla because
it is a superior browser. this is unlikely at best.
consider also that mozilla isn't trully and fully "open-source", in that
its creators are not intended as the pricipal users. there is an
element of corporate logic that must be applied, which boils down to the
simple phrase "don't rock the boat". unfortunately, taking the high
road isn't an option for the bottom rung of the corporate world.
nice try, though.
Brian Heinrich
I could deal with it there (after all, I survived two years of IE/OE),
but my own experience with various apps inclines me to look under one of
the first two menus for preference-related items.
In other words: It wouldn't kill me if someone decided to move it, but
I'm /quite/ happy with it where it is.
'Sides, wouldn't putting it under Tools be a bit /too/ much like
imitating IE?
lancer
>
> ... A browser is essentially a *viewer*...
>
> HP
I believe, Mozilla could advance very more fastest and better, if it has
such a pragmatic UI; If Mozilla has an idea like that in mind, when
designing its UI.
If i were a famous journalist; i would not write for a bad quality
newspaper.
/.lancer
lancer
lancer
> On 4/15/2002 8:01 PM, Hans-Peter Fischer apparently wrote exactly the
> following:
> > First, there will be a "File" menu. Which file?
>
> Doesn't matter. Interface Guidelines say a "File" menu is required for a
> good app.
>
> > In the browser window
> > this can only be the file that is currently loaded, right? But when you
> > open that menu you will find options referring to windows (New -
> > Navigator Window), to the connection status (Work Offline) or to the
> > Mozilla application as a whole (Exit).
>
> Which is all typical for an application. Look at the MS office series,
> look at FileMaker, look at AutoCAD, TextPad, Painter, Photoshop, ...
>
Open Photoshop and try to find the so standard item 'Delete' into the [Edit]
Menu. The item is there, but it has other name.
> Except the "Work Offline" stuff, which might get moved.
>
> > Then there will be an "Edit" menu of course. Edit what?
>
> See above. Each app should have an edit menu.
>
> > The only item I
> > would expect to find in this menu would be one that opens the current
> > page in Composer. But that item is under "File".
>
> Because you're gonna edit a *file* ;-)
>
> > What I get instead is
> > an item relating to Mozilla's configuration (Preferences...) and two
> > related to searching. And selecting isn't "editing" either.
>
> Apple apparently disagreed with you back in the early 80's.
>
> > Then there is the "View" menu. It contains further configuration options
> > (Show/Hide, Apply Theme) as well as a wild mixture of imperatives and
> > nouns (Show Images, Use Stylesheet, Text Size, Character Coding) that
> > makes you wonder whether "View" itself is an imperative or a noun.
>
> Both.
>
> > And then there will be a "Tools" menu. Is "Search the Web..." a tool?
>
> Yes. It is.
>
> > Pass me that Drive the Nails in, please.
> >
> > But perhaps I'd better shut up and hope that we won't get a "Click here
> > to begin" message or a button with a floppy on it for saving things to
> > hard disc.
> >
> > P.S. If I were you I'd consider Lancer's suggestions.
>
> And if I were you, I would read at least one GUI Guideline document.
> Several are actually linked in the Mozilla default bookmarks.
Ian Davey
> Ian Davey wrote:
>
>> The majority of items in the Edit menu involve editing/selection
>> within the current document. That doesn't apply to either Use Style or
>> Character Coding. I wouldn't have thought this is that difficult to
>> grasp.
>
>
> What you and several other people don't grasp is that you *can't* edit
> the current document in the browser, however hard you may try. I guess
Have you never seen a form? Stick the cursor in a text field and see
what happens. That is where the edit menu is most relevant.
ian.
Bamm Gabriana
> Menu. The item is there, but it has other name.
That's because you "Clear" an image but you "Delete" text.
Windows Paint also has a Clear command.
Bamm Gabriana
> the current document in the browser, however hard you may try. I guess
> the authors of the page you are viewing would be quite surprised if
> *you* started editing *their* page. A browser is essentially a *viewer*,
> not an editor, although the Mozilla browser pretends to be one by having
> an Edit menu, which is misleading unless you are one of those
> "experienced users" who know (and accept) that menu names don't mean a
> thing.
That's because Navigator, Mail and Composer should have the
same set of menus. Some menus are grayed out depending on
which app you are using.
In fact, all apps should have a similar set of menus, with
minor variations. The menus not needed will be grayed out.
Your method makes it easier to learn a single app. But the
consistency approach makes it easier to learn several apps.
In fact, the theory behind this is that once you have grown
familiar with a few apps, it will be easier to learn any
app.
Your approach takes us back to the 80's, when authors would
design a user interface that is consistent within the app,
making it easy to learn. But the user starts a new learning
curve the moment he begins using something else.
The consistency approach has gained widespread acceptance
because it works, and was, in the opinion of many computer
experts, one of the reasons of the success of desktop
computers.
lancer
"Bamm Gabriana" escribió
>
> That's because you "Clear" an image but you "Delete" text.
>
Do you like the cheese?
> Windows Paint also has a Clear command.
>
Mine hasnt (...is in spanish, it has "borrar" which translate is "delete",
not "clear")
Bamm Gabriana
> not "clear")
Interesting... in my language, Tagalog, erase is "bura".
Must have borrowed it from Spanish then.
Gervase Markham
> Soeren Kuklau wrote:
>
>> Do you know any browser that doesn't have an edit menu (other than
>> minor browsers and *text* browser, duh)?
>
> Millions of flies eat shit...
That's because it's a good thing for flies to do.
Gerv
Gervase Markham
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>>> Read http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$156
>>
>> I have two comments on that article.
>
> Don't complain at me, complain at mpt :)
I have. I don't think he agrees with me. I was merely making the points
to anyone who saw this thread and read it.
Gerv
Hans-Peter Fischer
> Have you never seen a form?
I suppose I have. That's the kind of thing where you enter your credit
card number and send it to AOL, right?
> Stick the cursor in a text field and see
> what happens.
I suppose it blinks.
> That is where the edit menu is most relevant.
OK then, let's put the items you need for forms into "Page". That's
where all the page-related stuff could go. Then we can drop Edit, and
/voilà/ - one menu less. /Vive la clarté./
(Just testing /italics/ ;-)
HP
--
Nur tote Fische schwimmen mit dem Strom.
(anon.)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Hans-Peter Fischer
> Your approach takes us back to the 80's, when authors would
> design a user interface that is consistent within the app,
> making it easy to learn. But the user starts a new learning
> curve the moment he begins using something else.
Maybe the difference between you and me in this respect is that I don't
mind starting a new learning curve. I'm learning all the time, and I
enjoy it, especially when what I learn makes sense (which unfortunately
isn't the case with Mozilla's current menu scheme).
HP
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
(anon.)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Patrick Gallagher
> Bamm Gabriana wrote:
>
>> Your approach takes us back to the 80's, when authors would
>> design a user interface that is consistent within the app,
>> making it easy to learn. But the user starts a new learning
>> curve the moment he begins using something else.
>
>
> Maybe the difference between you and me in this respect is that I
> don't mind starting a new learning curve. I'm learning all the time,
> and I enjoy it, especially when what I learn makes sense (which
> unfortunately isn't the case with Mozilla's current menu scheme).
>
> HP
>
>
Personally, I'd rather learn something new, like the actual functions of
a new program. The interface being consistent with the majority of
programs allows me to dive right into the way a program works, rather
than figuring out where my menu options are before starting out. As a
long-time Mozilla user, I'd continue to use Moz even with new menus - a
lot of computer newbies would close it and head straight for explorer if
the consistent UI wasn't there.
Now, just for kicks - why not change your own version with a menu scheme
you think would make more sense, and upload it somewhere for people to
test out. You could wait until the 1.0 API freeze, and make a moz skin
called "New Menus That Make Sense" with a reorganization of the menu
items into new and wonderful menus. Or maybe "MenuTastica!"
if you're right, lots of people will use your skin and prove your point :)
Patrick
Hans-Peter Fischer
> a
> lot of computer newbies would close it and head straight for explorer if
> the consistent UI wasn't there.
Now that argument has been brought up a lot in this thread - at least
about 10 times or so - but no one has backed it up with some evidence so
far. You are just *assuming* that people wouldn't accept a different UI.
Maybe all the people around me are atypical, but all the people *I* know
would happily switch over to something simpler, if there was such an
alternative.
I think you all forget two things:
1. IE users who try Mozilla will look for something _new_ and
_different_. The people reluctant to change will stick to IE.
2. The people who are new to the Internet will choose the simpler
solution when being offered two alternatives, e. g. on an ISP's CD.
> Now, just for kicks - why not change your own version with a menu scheme
> you think would make more sense, and upload it somewhere for people to
> test out. You could wait until the 1.0 API freeze, and make a moz skin
> called "New Menus That Make Sense" with a reorganization of the menu
> items into new and wonderful menus. Or maybe "MenuTastica!"
>
> if you're right, lots of people will use your skin and prove your point :)
If I started improving Mozilla the way I liked to I would have to change
several other things, too, like removing the sidebar and tabbed browsing
and similar bloat. ;-)
HP
--
Jeden Morgen, mein Brot zu verdienen,
fahre ich zum Markt, wo Lügen gekauft werden.
Hoffnungsvoll reihe ich mich ein unter die Verkäufer.
(Bertold Brecht)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> Millions of flies eat shit...
Fine, let's start repeating old sayings.
I guess you're also for scrapping the Win32 version of Mozilla, because
it's just too useual to create a Win32 version of a cross-platform app.
> You know when the car was invented it had neither doors nor a ceiling.
> Do you think that should have been kept?
Good comparison </irony>
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> OK then, let's put the items you need for forms into "Page". That's
> where all the page-related stuff could go. Then we can drop Edit, and
> /voilà/ - one menu less. /Vive la clarté./
Yeah, and how about a menu for images, for frames, for objects, for java
applets, not to forget each one for <div>s and <span>s.
Martin Fritsche
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> Why didn't you just write, that you are not interested in understanding?
What you want is a new menu structure. Now then, show us what you want
it to look like. Patch your Mozilla and make screenshots of it, or just
draw sketches of it.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Hans-Peter Fischer wrote:
----------------snip---------------
> > Now, just for kicks - why not change your own version with a menu scheme
> > you think would make more sense, and upload it somewhere for people to
> > test out. You could wait until the 1.0 API freeze, and make a moz skin
> > called "New Menus That Make Sense" with a reorganization of the menu
> > items into new and wonderful menus. Or maybe "MenuTastica!"
> >
> > if you're right, lots of people will use your skin and prove your point :)
>
> If I started improving Mozilla the way I liked to I would have to change
> several other things, too, like removing the sidebar and tabbed browsing
> and similar bloat. ;-)
>
> HP
Ahh! A person after my own heart. I don't like the sidebar (never have
since it was introduced in Communicator 4.0 was called 3-pane mode back
then). Looks too much like IE.
IF I wanted to use IE I would have on a regular basis, a long time ago.
I don't want Netscape to look anything like IE.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phillip M. Jones, CET |MEMBER:VPEA (LIFE) ETA-I, NESDA,ISCET, Sterling
616 Liberty Street |Who's Who. PHONE:276-632-5045, FAX:276-632-0868
Martinsville Va 24112-1809 |pjo...@kimbanet.com, ICQ11269732, AIM pjonescet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it's "fixed", don't "break it"!
mailto:pjo...@kimbanet.com
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/america/default.htm>
<http://www.kimbanet.com/~pjones/message/default.htm>
<http://home.kimbanet.com/~pjones/birthday/index.htm>
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
> Do you think that should have been kept?
<irony>Good comparison</irony>
Soeren Kuklau
the following:
HUH???
Garth Wallace
> ---------------snip--------------
>
>>You know when the car was invented it had neither doors nor a ceiling.
>>Do you think that should have been kept?
>
> <irony>Good comparison</irony>
How is that ironic? Have you been listening to Alanis Morrissette again?
lancer
i believe what Sören Kuklau is trying to say, is that the Mozilla UI is
ironic.
Or, may be that Alanis Morrissette is who should design the Mozilla user
interface.
Rich Doughty
>
> since it was introduced in Communicator 4.0 was called 3-pane mode back
> then). Looks too much like IE.
>
> IF I wanted to use IE I would have on a regular basis, a long time ago.
> I don't want Netscape to look anything like IE.
>
how can you moan about bloat when you're sig is 14 lines long?
;-)
- Rich
Hans-Peter Fischer
> On 4/20/2002 4:03 PM, Martin Fritsche apparently wrote exactly the
> following:
>
>> Why didn't you just write, that you are not interested in understanding?
>
>
> What you want is a new menu structure. Now then, show us what you want
> it to look like. Patch your Mozilla and make screenshots of it, or just
> draw sketches of it.
>
Is there a chance that his ideas would be accepted? If not that would be
futile.
HP
--
Cuando vayas a los campos,
no te apartes del camino,
que puedes pisar el sueño
de los abuelos dormidos.
(Atahualpa Yupanqui)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
lancer
> Soeren Kuklau wrote:
>
>> On 4/20/2002 4:03 PM, Martin Fritsche apparently wrote exactly the
>> following:
>>
>>> Why didn't you just write, that you are not interested in understanding?
>>
>>
>>
>> What you want is a new menu structure. Now then, show us what you want
>> it to look like. Patch your Mozilla and make screenshots of it, or
>> just draw sketches of it.
>>
>
> Is there a chance that his ideas would be accepted? If not that would be
> futile.
>
> HP
>
No.
Because in Mozilla there are only kids pretending to be evolved humans.
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> Is there a chance that his ideas would be accepted?
Yes.
Soeren Kuklau
> No.
> Because in Mozilla there are only kids pretending to be evolved humans.
Like you. "ShitZilla" comes to my mind.
lancer
> On 4/21/2002 4:02 PM, lancer apparently wrote exactly the following:
>
>> No.
>> Because in Mozilla there are only kids pretending to be evolved humans.
>
>
> Like you. "ShitZilla" comes to my mind.
>
What's wrong with that?
lancer
> On 4/21/2002 3:30 PM, Hans-Peter Fischer apparently wrote exactly the
> following:
>
>> Is there a chance that his ideas would be accepted?
>
>
> Yes.
>
Nah...
Brian Heinrich
Because, after a stunt like that, it makes it very hard to take anything
you say or suggest seriously -- not matter how good your ideas might in
fact be.
Brian
--
I'm not paranoid; just . . . concerned. . . .
-- Some guy named Mark, whose last name I never did learn
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.
Has nothing to do with bloat. (Doubt my sig line is more than a a few k
long as its all text.).
Has to do with adding that $%&^# third pane that waste screen width on a
small monitor. Thank goodness Communicator had the good sense to add the
Location menubar in two pane mode so that switching from inbox folder,
to newsgroups could be done without need of that third pane. I still say
having to use that third pane makes Mozilla/N6 be a copy of IE.
Ocassionally I have to use IE, but each time i use it it infuriates me.
I don't want Mozilla/N6 infuriating me as well.
Soeren Kuklau
the following:
> Has nothing to do with bloat. (Doubt my sig line is more than a a few k
> long as its all text.).
Which is already wayyyyyy too much.
Soeren Kuklau
> lancer wrote:
>> Soeren Kuklau wrote:
>>> On 4/21/2002 4:02 PM, lancer apparently wrote exactly the following:
>>>> No.
>>>> Because in Mozilla there are only kids pretending to be evolved humans.
>>> Like you. "ShitZilla" comes to my mind.
>> What's wrong with that?
> Because, after a stunt like that, it makes it very hard to take anything
> you say or suggest seriously -- not matter how good your ideas might in
> fact be.
Exactly.
lancer
> lancer wrote:
>
>> Soeren Kuklau wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/21/2002 4:02 PM, lancer apparently wrote exactly the following:
>>>
>>>> No.
>>>> Because in Mozilla there are only kids pretending to be evolved humans.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Like you. "ShitZilla" comes to my mind.
>>>
>>
>> What's wrong with that?
>>
>
> Because, after a stunt like that, it makes it very hard to take anything
> you say or suggest seriously -- not matter how good your ideas might in
> fact be.
>
> Brian
>
·_ ¿Why stunt?
·_ None took seriusly the bugs i filed Before the shitzilla bug.
I think it was because they are bugs related with the USER interface
design of the browser ...If Mozilla dont take seriously to the USER,
the USER is not going to take seriously to Mozilla -- and the USER is
not only those kids who wants to visit the disneyworld website, are the
mozilla developers who are using the browser too.
·_ ...
Soeren Kuklau
> ·_ ¿Why stunt?
Uh. Yeah. Why not?
> ·_ None took seriusly the bugs i filed Before the shitzilla bug.
I actually did, for a while. But the way you misbehaved...
> I think it was because they are bugs related with the USER interface
> design of the browser ...If Mozilla dont take seriously to the USER,
> the USER is not going to take seriously to Mozilla -- and the USER is
> not only those kids who wants to visit the disneyworld website, are the
> mozilla developers who are using the browser too.
>
> ·_ ...
#´23ß9´*--/+
Rupert James
>> long as its all text.).
>
>
> Which is already wayyyyyy too much.
I think he meant bytes.
--
Regards
Rupert James
--
Remove lid to reply.
Rich Doughty
>
> Has nothing to do with bloat. (Doubt my sig line is more than a a few k
> long as its all text.).
>
637 bytes if you're interested.
the problem is that 14 lines is about half a screen of cruft in the
average newsreader.
Matthew Thomas
>...
> That's because Navigator, Mail and Composer should have the
> same set of menus. Some menus are grayed out depending on
> which app you are using.
>
> In fact, all apps should have a similar set of menus, with
> minor variations. The menus not needed will be grayed out.
>...
That's what I've wanted to see for a long time.
File Edit View Bookmarks Tools Help (Navigator)
File Edit View Message Tools Help (mail/news)
File Edit View Format Tools Help (Composer)
File Edit View Chat Tools Help (Chatzilla)
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla UI Design component default assignee thing
<http://mpt.phrasewise.com/>
Matthew Thomas
>...
> http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=108099
>
> From what I see there it seems that Mozilla will miss the chance of
> getting a UI that is better than what Windows users have got used to.
Correct, though perhaps not in the way that you meant. Windows users
have got used to Internet Explorer. Mozilla's menus are different from
Internet Explorer in ways that are unusual and/or cluttersome, rather
than ways which are obviously better.
>...
> First, there will be a "File" menu. Which file? In the browser window
> this can only be the file that is currently loaded, right? But when
> you open that menu you will find options referring to windows (New -
> Navigator Window),
I explained the reason for this, in this group, just over two years ago
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=38DD13DC.2B6DC1A%40student.canterbury.ac.nz>.
(Start from the second item in the bulleted list.)
> to the connection status (Work Offline)
The connection status currently applies to the Mozilla application as a
whole. I hope that in the future it will apply just to the current window.
> or to the
> Mozilla application as a whole (Exit).
I regard the existence of the `Exit' menu item as a bug.
> Then there will be an "Edit" menu of course. Edit what? The only item
> I would expect to find in this menu would be one that opens the
> current page in Composer.
No, the `Edit' menu is for items which select and/or manipulate things
inside the file, such as text and graphics.
> But that item is under "File".
The `File' menu is for items which manipulate the file as a whole, such
as editing the file in Composer.
> What I get
> instead is an item relating to Mozilla's configuration
> (Preferences...)
When Apple were deciding to where to put `Preferences...', they had a
choice of `File', `Edit', or `Help', since those were the three menus
which any program *always* had. `Edit' > `Preferences...' isn't
supremely logical, but it's considerably better than either `File' >
`Preferences...' or `Help > `Preferences'. (OS X puts `Preferences...'
in a separate application menu at the beginning of the menu bar, but
that menu causes `File' and `Edit' to jump about evilly depending on
which window is frontmost, so it's worse overall.)
> and two related to searching.
Items which select and/or manipulate things inside the file.
> And selecting isn't
> "editing" either.
It's related more to editing than to anything else.
> Then there is the "View" menu. It contains further configuration
> options (Show/Hide,
Showing and hiding large chunks of chrome is hardly a configuration
option. Especially since it's a per-window setting.
> Apply Theme)
I regard the existence of the `Apply Theme' item as a glitz-induced bug.
> as well as a wild mixture of
> imperatives and nouns (Show Images, Use Stylesheet, Text Size,
> Character Coding)
When full zooming is implemented, `Text Zoom' will be able to become
just `Zoom'. And `Page Info' and `Page Source' could be merged into
`File' > `Properties', as in other Windows programs (or `File' > `Get
Info', as in other Mac OS programs). That would leave `Character Coding'
as the only noun remaining in the `View' menu -- but that particular
submenu has far worse problems than the part of speech used by its title.
> that makes you wonder whether "View" itself is an
> imperative or a noun.
>...
Like `File' and `Edit', `View' is a verb.
Followups set.
Matthew Thomas
>
> Christian Biesinger wrote:
> >
> > Gervase Markham wrote:
> > >
> > > > Read http://mpt.phrasewise.com/stories/storyReader$156
> > >
> > > I have two comments on that article.
> >
> > Don't complain at me, complain at mpt :)
>
> I have. I don't think he agrees with me. I was merely making the
> points to anyone who saw this thread and read it.
>...
As far as I know, the only thing Gerv and I disagree on in that article
is that Gerv thinks all Mozilla distributors should rename Mozilla to
something else, to deflect support questions away from *.mozilla.org.
I think such rebranding would be more confusing than useful, for a
number of reasons.
(1) The majority of support questions are going to have the same answer
no matter which distribution is used. In the event that your Mozilla
distributor can't help with your particular question, having a large
number of differently-named brands would make it much harder to
search the Net for answers to your problem.
(2) Finding stuff like Mozilla PSM RPMs would obviously become more
difficult if the filename didn't necessarily start with `mozilla'.
(3) Having Mozilla called by dozens of different names would dilute
Mozilla's mindshare, and current mindshare leads to future market
share (no matter which particular distributor is issuing the
browsers).
(4) Finally, expecting distributors to rebrand Mozilla is not a solution
which scales. If Linux distributors had to rebrand all the programs
which they distributed, they'd spend all their time renaming things
(`mandrake-mv /usr/bin/bash /usr/bin/mandrake-bash' ...) and fixing
broken shell scripts, rather than contributing code and making
money.
Matthew Thomas
>...
> I know that File and Edit menus have existed at least since the early
> days of DOS.
No, they've existed since the Apple Lisa in 1983.
> They had their place in edit.com, but File and Edit etc. are no longer
> appropriate as headings for the various items modern apps place in
> these popup menus. I think the "standard" should be logic and
> common sense - especially for an open source project - rather than the
> conventions kept alive by some closed source software dinosaurs.
>...
> I believe users will happily switch over to a different solution - if
> only it is more logical. And if they have a minimum flexibility of
> mind left, of course.
Well, go on then. Show us your different solution. Spec it out, like
Klein Duijmpje did with his Ami menu structure two years ago
<http://home.zonnet.nl/p.duijm/ami/>.
Remember, your structure needs to be twice as usable as the current
File/Edit/View arrangement, in order for it to be worth users learning
two structures -- the one used in Mozilla, and the one used everywhere
else -- instead of one. (Not that I'm putting you under any pressure, or anything.)
I'm trying not to sound condescending here, because you're reminding me
of how I was three years ago -- when I thought it would be a super idea
to chuck out all the existing UI conventions on Windows and Mac OS,
because everyone would want to use this amazing new cross-platform
Mozilla 5.0 no matter how weird it was. (Alas, Netscape's UI designers
had a milder form of the same syndrome at the time, which delayed the
appearance of the Classic theme and led to the existence of the sidebar
and our current borked toolbar arrangement.)
Eventually, however, we learned that major interface conventions are for
the operating system to lay down, not individual applications (unless
those applications have truly massive market share, like Microsoft
Office and MSIE for Windows). Most people use only one operating system
on personal computers, so they don't mind arbitrary differences between
operating systems, but they *do* mind arbitrary differences between
programs on the same operating system. If you want a `Mozilla' menu,
install Mac OS X. If you can't or won't use OS X, take up the idea with
your friendly operating system vendor. Mozilla is *not* an operating
system, and its popularity will continue to be inversely proportional to
the extent which it tries to be one.
So you're not the first to suggest ditching of `File', `Edit', `View',
and friends, and replacing them with something which would cause grief
to a million Windows users who find that Alt+F+C doesn't close the
window any more. If we give you enough rope, you'll either hang
yourself, or reel yourself in like Klein Duijmpe did: originally he had
a `Page' menu and all sorts of weirdnesses, but if you look at his
structure now
<http://home.zonnet.nl/p.duijm/ami/navigator/centric/>you'll see it
begins with -- wait for it -- `File', `Edit', and `View'.
I look forward to seeing this new structure, as it's difficult to
comment usefully on it while it's not spelled out in detail.
Follow-ups set.
Brian Heinrich
'Stunt' was being polite; what you did was unnecessarily crass and crude.
If you've been following the rest of this thread, you'll have noticed
that not everyone is entirely happy with the UI or the menu structure.
From what I understand, there are plans to work more on the flexibility
of the UI, but that's gonna be post 1.0.0.
Menu structure is a bit weird, since it seems to be more clearly linked
in to OS than anything. It might be a bit goofy, but I still find it
easier to find my way around the Mozilla menu structure than around IE's
menu structure. And I've yet to come across an app that has a purely
logical menu structure.
(BTW, one thing I /do/ like is that Moz' Edit | Preferences is a /lot/
easier to move about in than is IE's Tools | Options, as well as the
fact that it gives the user considerably more control. And since what a
lot of a browser does is related to reading, I like the idea that I can
set prefs for different encodings for not only a general font but also
for some font sizing that makes /some/ sort of sense (px rather than
'medium', 'smaller', &c) /and/ for the five generic font families.)
I guess the same suggestion would hold that was made to Hans-Peter (I
think) -- with the same codicils MTP made -- : design your own skin,
mess with the menus if you like, and then present it to people to see
what they might think. From what little I've seen, you seem to have a
decent sense of graphic design, which puts you one-up on a lot of people.
Were you to do something like that, then people would be able to judge
more fairly of your ideas.
Johnny Yen
news:3CBEAFF5...@mozilla.org...
> > It's the other way around. Having the ignition switch in the glove box
> > isn't logical. My whole point is that logic should be the standard. Moz
> > and most other apps have the ignition switch in the glove box now, and
> > people are whining "Please leave it in there because that's where we've
> > always looked for it."
>
> If every vehicle on the planet had the ignition switch in the glove box,
> there would be a strong argument for leaving it there on new cars,
> certainly.
>
> Gerv
For what it's worth, SAAB's ignition switch is between the seats, aft of the
shifter.
No one seems to be suggesting *subtle* changes to make the menu structure
better. Seems to me most all Windows progs have preferences under Tools.
How about a few tweaks up front so's not to scare anyone off?
jy
Hans-Peter Fischer
> On 4/21/2002 3:30 PM, Hans-Peter Fischer apparently wrote exactly the
> following:
>
>> Is there a chance that his ideas would be accepted?
>
>
> Yes.
>
LOL
--
Wer tötet oder töten läßt,
will selber tot sein.
(Christoph Schlingensief)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Hans-Peter Fischer
>
> That's what I've wanted to see for a long time.
>
> File Edit View Bookmarks Tools Help (Navigator)
> File Edit View Message Tools Help (mail/news)
> File Edit View Format Tools Help (Composer)
> File Edit View Chat Tools Help (Chatzilla)
>
And that's what I want to see in Navigator:
[Mozilla] [Web] [Page] [Bookmarks] [Tools] [Help]
BTW, why do you also have "Bookmarks" and not "Favorites"? You will
confuse your users. ;-)
--
Jeden Morgen, mein Brot zu verdienen,
fahre ich zum Markt, wo Lügen gekauft werden.
Hoffnungsvoll reihe ich mich ein unter die Verkäufer.
(Bertold Brecht)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Hans-Peter Fischer
If you don't want to sound condescending you should stick to facts. All
of what you're saying are unfounded assumptions that have been made here
before. Do you really expect me to discuss shallow statements like "your
structure needs to be twice as usable ..."? (How do you know that? Why
twice and not 1.8 times? What are the criteria for "usable"?) The only
"facts" I can extract from your message are that you know what will
happen in the future and that you know what the rest of the world thinks
and wants.
Excuse me, but I already got a glimpse of your analytical skills a
couple of weeks ago when I read your remark that Windows users have
"definitely" higher UI standards than Linux users. (LOL)
I think you are doing yourself a disservice by interspersing the good
ideas that you certainly have sometimes with remarks like that.
HP
Hans-Peter Fischer
> No, the `Edit' menu is for items which select and/or manipulate things
> inside the file, such as text and graphics.
>
>
>> But that item is under "File".
>
>
> The `File' menu is for items which manipulate the file as a whole, such
> as editing the file in Composer.
So "the `Edit' menu is for items which [...] manipulate things inside
the file" and "the `File' menu is for items [...] such as editing the
file". Now if _that_ isn't a sharp dividing line... (LOL)
> Like `File' and `Edit', `View' is a verb.
Please go and tell Microsoft. Their German translation of File, Edit and
View has always been Datei (noun) - Bearbeiten (verb) - Ansicht (noun).
HP
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
(anon.)
::: http://www.hei-news.de/ :::
Patrick Gallagher
> All of what you're saying are unfounded assumptions that have been
> made here before. Do you really expect me to discuss shallow
> statements like "your structure needs to be twice as usable ..."? (How
> do you know that? Why twice and not 1.8 times? What are the criteria
> for "usable"?) The only "facts" I can extract from your message are
> that you know what will happen in the future and that you know what
> the rest of the world thinks and wants.
>
> Excuse me, but I already got a glimpse of your analytical skills a
> couple of weeks ago when I read your remark that Windows users have
> "definitely" higher UI standards than Linux users. (LOL)
>
> I think you are doing yourself a disservice by interspersing the good
> ideas that you certainly have sometimes with remarks like that.
>
> HP
Why don't you design your perfect UI, make it available, and find out
whether you're right or not? Seems to me if it catches on, it'll prove
your point - if not, at least you'll know how people react to it.
Obviously people disagree with your idea that mozilla should break so
vastly with convention *and* they're right that the operating system
defines the conventions to be used in the software - consistency across
a system is very important to a lot of people (ie. Windows Users).
As far as the idea that windows users have higher UI standards, I
wouldn't put it that way - Windows users NEED more UI polish than Linux
users - usually if you've gotten to the point where you can keep a linux
system running, the UI polish is secondary to the functionality.
Patrick
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> Soeren Kuklau wrote:
>> On 4/21/2002 3:30 PM, Hans-Peter Fischer apparently wrote exactly the
>> following:
>>> Is there a chance that his ideas would be accepted?
>> Yes.
> LOL
Hmm well. 1. You asked a question. 2. I gave a simple, brief answer. 3.
You're laughing.
What kind of answer did you expect? "Maybe"?
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> Soeren Kuklau wrote:
>> On 4/21/2002 3:30 PM, Hans-Peter Fischer apparently wrote exactly the
>> following:
>>> Is there a chance that his ideas would be accepted?
>> Yes.
> LOL
Hmm well. 1. You asked a question. 2. I gave a simple, brief answer. 3.
You're laughing.
What kind of answer did you expect? "Maybe"?
--
Soeren Kuklau
following:
> Soeren Kuklau wrote:
>> On 4/21/2002 3:30 PM, Hans-Peter Fischer apparently wrote exactly the
>> following:
>>> Is there a chance that his ideas would be accepted?
>> Yes.
> LOL
So... what answer did you expect? Something more detailed? A "No" (which
would be wrong)? NO answer at all?
Soeren Kuklau
> Bamm Gabriana wrote:
>>...
>>That's because Navigator, Mail and Composer should have the
>>same set of menus. Some menus are grayed out depending on
>>which app you are using.
>>
>>In fact, all apps should have a similar set of menus, with
>>minor variations. The menus not needed will be grayed out.
>>...
> That's what I've wanted to see for a long time.
>
> File Edit View Bookmarks Tools Help (Navigator)
> File Edit View Message Tools Help (mail/news)
> File Edit View Format Tools Help (Composer)
> File Edit View Chat Tools Help (Chatzilla)
Sounds interesting. Wouldn't that clutter up menus 1-3 and 5-6 a little
though?