3 ms·
Except he presided over an OS that shunned the evolution that every other OS arrived at: Menus belong on applications' main frames, not glued to the top of the
by ShadowBanThis01 3y ago
Except he presided over an OS that shunned the evolution that every other OS arrived at: Menus belong on applications' main frames, not glued to the top of the monitor screen.
This is why Mac apps have a long history of barfing out an irritating flotilla of windows all over the place. Mac OS turns the entire screen into the client area of ONE application, whereas other GUIs can treat the desktop as an infinite workspace.
The welcome move to single-window applications on the Mac has made the blunder of the single menu even more obvious, as users minimize an application and think they're resuming work on the previous one... only to find that the menu is still owned by the application they have dismissed. Absurd and dumb.
- ChrisLTD 3y agoMenus at the top of the screen provide consistency between applications. You don't have to wonder if an application's menu items are behind a hamburger menu, or missing entirely (I'm looking at you Obsidian for Windows). Also, having menus (or anything else really) at the edges of the screen make it easier to move to with a mouse. You can throw your mouse cursor toward the edge without worrying about the distance, because it will stop at the edge. This makes menu items easier to click on.
- ShadowBanThis01 3y ago"Menus at the top of the screen provide consistency between applications. You don't have to wonder if an application's menu items are behind a hamburger menu" Menus' consistency has nothing to do with where they are positioned. You're talking about bad design. You can just as easily have dumb, non-standard affordances at the top of the screen... you see it on iOS all the time. And the "slamming the cursor" argument is countered by having to move the cursor much farther, especially on large monitors with lots of real estate. Not to mention that vanishingly few users actually do this.