3 ms·

I don't like the macOS-style global menu, it gets confusing when you have multiple windows open on the screen. But I do agree that a menubar is a great option f

I don't like the macOS-style global menu, it gets confusing when you have multiple windows open on the screen. But I do agree that a menubar is a great option for a lot of applications. That being said there are also a lot of applications where the menu is used rarely enough that exposing the first level of menus isn't worth the screen space. In this case I think a hamburger menu is fine. For example in Firefox I rarely use the menu. Most things I do are keyboard shortcuts, or the couple of things I have moved to the toolbar. And I often wish I could see more at the same time. I think the main issue with Firefox is that the menu is basically impossible for a new user to find. I believe the only ways to bring it up (on Linux at least) is tapping Alt or Alt-<m> where m is a mnemonic that you would have needed to see the menu before to know. I guess this is their way of slowing killing it off in favour of their hamburger menu, but I find the hamburger menu has way less options and is way harder to browse. It feels more like a place for frequent options rather than a full menu. As much hate as there is for 3-level menus the actual browsing UX was quite good.

cestith 5y ago
I've been tempted to campaign for an OS menu at the very top and an application menu for the current application just below that. Of course, I've also considered making a desktop environment where every application gets its own virtual desktop and part of the OS menu is a scrollbox for the open applications, so maybe take my minority opinions with a grain of salt.
jj00 5y ago
I agree with the global menu. At least Ubuntu (maybe more) gives you the option to switch between the two. I may be wrong, but I believe it's document-focused vs application-focused? I think people who like the global menu tend to be single application users (window maximized). If you like to have a lot of smaller windows open on your desktop, then a global menu gets annoying. I also think today's larger screens (for desktop) is affecting the argument that user's find it easier to get to the menu if it's at the top of the screen.
NwtnsMthd 5y ago
The global menu was a reasonable idea for its time. It seems it's main selling points are that it's easy to find and requires less precision with a pointing device. It seems to work well when you have one, maybe two windows open. But the idea falls flat on its face when you have multiple screens with multiple windows, which window does the menu belong to and why is it detached from my current working context? As most of us have grown up using some sort of pointing device, the argument for speed and accuracy has also lost some relevance.
- rbreaves 5y ago
  I use multiple monitors with global menus all the time and I have never been confused by which app a global menu is associated with unless I walked away and come back and 2 or more windows are not overlapping or dimmed in some way. In reality there are too many context clues and we, as humans, can only interact with one application at a time. Any argument against global menus are really unfounded - the only argument that holds any water at all is one of what you are used to. People at the end of the day just want to use what they are already used to - whether global menus are superior or inferior is really moot because most people aren't going to get past the "what they are used to part" and will deride it largely on that alone. This is coming from a Windows user that only started to use macOS after like 10 years of Windows usage and no really liking the global menu, or one click mouse and numerous other things about the Mac, but gave it a shot any ways as initially it drew me with its nice looks, but then the UNIX underpinnings & POSIX compliance kept me with the platform. I wasn't even looking for UNIX or POSIX either at the time - but it is now an invaluable part of my workflow, as are global menus and Cmd key positioned for my thumb, not my pinky. I wrote https://kinto.sh https://kinto.sh to help bring over the shortcut keys I am used to as well to Linux and Windows.
  - zxzax 5y ago
    >Any argument against global menus are really unfounded I disagree, for an example: global menus do not work well at all with focus-follows-mouse. It's not really possible to design a good system that has both. I've seen various attempts to try to make focus-follows-mouse work on macOS, and the usability is very poor. Similarly, you will have bad usability trying to plug global menus into a system that isn't really focused around the concept of menus. But I think you're right that in the end it doesn't really matter, someone can get used to doing it either way.
rbreaves 5y ago
This is why I like Waterfox - it is Firefox but with a global menu added back in.
DannyB2 5y ago
Others here address how global menus aren't confusing. I'll point out a different advantage. Having the menu bar stuck at the very top of the screen makes it possible to just "zoom" the mouse pointer rapidly to the top. The pointer cannot go off the top of the screen, so you're on the menu bar and can immediately click the button and begin sliding the mouse pointer across the menus to see each one drop down as the pointer crosses it. This seems subtle, but you wouldn't believe how much faster it is than having menus on windows. In addition, all of those menu bars on all of those windows are using up valuable screen real estate space. That global menu bar instantly changes to the menu bar of the front most window when you bring a different window to the front.
- kevincox 5y ago
  The global menu does have the aiming advantage. The sapce advantage is mixed. If you have windows side-by side (which seems more common than stacked vertically) per-window is actually better as often the global menu doesn't take up the full width of the screen. Changing to the active window is actually a downside. It means that I need to activate a window before I can open the menu. Especially if the window is not at the top of the screen it can make a lot of travel distance to do those two clicks. There are definitely pros and cons to both options.

cestith 5y ago

I've been tempted to campaign for an OS menu at the very top and an application menu for the current application just below that. Of course, I've also considered making a desktop environment where every application gets its own virtual desktop and part of the OS menu is a scrollbox for the open applications, so maybe take my minority opinions with a grain of salt.

jj00 5y ago

I agree with the global menu. At least Ubuntu (maybe more) gives you the option to switch between the two. I may be wrong, but I believe it's document-focused vs application-focused? I think people who like the global menu tend to be single application users (window maximized). If you like to have a lot of smaller windows open on your desktop, then a global menu gets annoying. I also think today's larger screens (for desktop) is affecting the argument that user's find it easier to get to the menu if it's at the top of the screen.

NwtnsMthd 5y ago

The global menu was a reasonable idea for its time. It seems it's main selling points are that it's easy to find and requires less precision with a pointing device. It seems to work well when you have one, maybe two windows open. But the idea falls flat on its face when you have multiple screens with multiple windows, which window does the menu belong to and why is it detached from my current working context? As most of us have grown up using some sort of pointing device, the argument for speed and accuracy has also lost some relevance.

rbreaves 5y ago
I use multiple monitors with global menus all the time and I have never been confused by which app a global menu is associated with unless I walked away and come back and 2 or more windows are not overlapping or dimmed in some way. In reality there are too many context clues and we, as humans, can only interact with one application at a time. Any argument against global menus are really unfounded - the only argument that holds any water at all is one of what you are used to. People at the end of the day just want to use what they are already used to - whether global menus are superior or inferior is really moot because most people aren't going to get past the "what they are used to part" and will deride it largely on that alone. This is coming from a Windows user that only started to use macOS after like 10 years of Windows usage and no really liking the global menu, or one click mouse and numerous other things about the Mac, but gave it a shot any ways as initially it drew me with its nice looks, but then the UNIX underpinnings & POSIX compliance kept me with the platform. I wasn't even looking for UNIX or POSIX either at the time - but it is now an invaluable part of my workflow, as are global menus and Cmd key positioned for my thumb, not my pinky. I wrote https://kinto.sh https://kinto.sh to help bring over the shortcut keys I am used to as well to Linux and Windows.
- zxzax 5y ago
  >Any argument against global menus are really unfounded I disagree, for an example: global menus do not work well at all with focus-follows-mouse. It's not really possible to design a good system that has both. I've seen various attempts to try to make focus-follows-mouse work on macOS, and the usability is very poor. Similarly, you will have bad usability trying to plug global menus into a system that isn't really focused around the concept of menus. But I think you're right that in the end it doesn't really matter, someone can get used to doing it either way.

rbreaves 5y ago

This is why I like Waterfox - it is Firefox but with a global menu added back in.

DannyB2 5y ago

Others here address how global menus aren't confusing. I'll point out a different advantage. Having the menu bar stuck at the very top of the screen makes it possible to just "zoom" the mouse pointer rapidly to the top. The pointer cannot go off the top of the screen, so you're on the menu bar and can immediately click the button and begin sliding the mouse pointer across the menus to see each one drop down as the pointer crosses it. This seems subtle, but you wouldn't believe how much faster it is than having menus on windows. In addition, all of those menu bars on all of those windows are using up valuable screen real estate space. That global menu bar instantly changes to the menu bar of the front most window when you bring a different window to the front.

kevincox 5y ago
The global menu does have the aiming advantage. The sapce advantage is mixed. If you have windows side-by side (which seems more common than stacked vertically) per-window is actually better as often the global menu doesn't take up the full width of the screen. Changing to the active window is actually a downside. It means that I need to activate a window before I can open the menu. Especially if the window is not at the top of the screen it can make a lot of travel distance to do those two clicks. There are definitely pros and cons to both options.