3 ms·
> Apple studied this on a 512x342 1-bit display, on a machine architecturally incapable of multitasking more than one app at a time. It's just not relevant anym
by awj 15y ago
> Apple studied this on a 512x342 1-bit display, on a machine architecturally incapable of multitasking more than one app at a time. It's just not relevant anymore, sorry.
... how do these technology changes render their results irrelevant? The menu bar problem sits at the point where a user's ability to aim the mouse in physical space on the screen interacts with how the menu is represented in physical space on the screen. I don't see how any of the changes you've listed affect that problem, except for screen resolution, which only seems to make it worse by shrinking the physical size of click targets.
- SimHacker 15y agoIf anything, technological changes have made it easier to hit the target, because mice no longer have physical balls that get jammed with dirt, and they are much more accurate. The kid you're replying to has probably never had to pick the black ring of scum off of the wheel inside a Mac mouse, when it stops responding to movements.
- awj 15y agoI have had to do this. Although I'm absolutely thankful that those days are over, I'm not convinced higher precision mouse control alleviates enough of the problem.
- pkamb 15y agoIt's now more of an argument over the usefulness of the menubar, not which is easier to hit. Of course the Mac menu bar is easier to hit. The question to ask is why do we need a menubar at all? By not having a global menubar, Windows has permitted the development of infinite-width tabs-on-top in Chrome, the Office Ribbon, getting rid of the menubar entirely in Windows Explorer, etc. It's impossible to do things like that in OS X, because we're stuck with a menubar from the 1980s.