4 ms·

> Why do all of the above have ...? No clue. The "..." convention is used when menu options open a dialog box rather than just immediately doing the action.

paulddraper 7mo ago
+1 This has been true for, what, 30 years?
- plorkyeran 7mo ago
  At least 40 years, since it was already present in Windows 1.0 (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-SuAaYDZIk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-SuAaYDZIk for an example).
  - marssaxman 7mo ago
    The original Macintosh software also did this, back in 1984. From the Apple Human Interface Guidelines, published in 1986: "The application dims an item when the user can't choose it. If the user moves the pointer over a dimmed item, that item isn't highlighted." There may well have been prior art, but that's as far back as my knowledge goes.
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
TonyTrapp 7mo ago
Specifically, it means that more information is required to complete the task (e.g. requesting the filename for saving a file). If the action is literally about opening that dialog (e.g. something like "Show Properties"), the ellipsis is not needed.
- layer8 7mo ago
  The practical use is that the user knows they will still have the opportunity to back out of the operation, and not commit to it by the first click. I don’t think “will need more input” is that useful as an information by itself.
  - hunter2_ 7mo ago
    At first I was going to say that the opportunity to back out and the need for more input are identical: if the dialog consists only of a button to proceed and a button to back out, the user needs to choose one of those as input, and eliminating that need for input means eliminating the opportunity to back out. But now I'm thinking that a need and an opportunity are very distinct. For example, browsers used to present a Save dialog during a download: was there a need for input? No, accepting the default filename works, and based on that, they no longer offer the opportunity to choose a filename. Thus, "..." indicates the opportunity, even if there is no true need.
    - layer8 7mo ago
      In addition, if you consider a "Print" dialog, it would be conceivable that it only provides a print preview, but no further inputs, and has only command buttons "Print" and "Cancel". In that case, I still think the menu item should be "Print…" with an ellipsis, despite the lack of further input. Conversely, you might conceivably have a command that requires additional input, but where the dialog box taking the input doesn't offer the option to cancel the operation. In that case, I would consider an ellipsis misleading, even though a lack of ellipsis might be confusing as well if the command doesn't make sense without additional input.
ndespres 7mo ago
Some of these complaints feel like they aren’t specific to Firefox at all, but are UI conventions that used to be ubiquitous and no longer are, much to the chagrin of those of us of a certain age. He also rails against menu items that are greyed out and unusable, where to me that’s a very useful indicator that the action isn’t available here but that I’m looking in the right place. When I want to click a menu item and find it greyed out, that tells me something. But when I want to click a menu item and it’s not there at all, I’m confused. Did a developer move it somewhere else? Did the name of the action change? Am I losing my touch?
- vanschelven 7mo ago
  Indeed both the "..." and "disabling over removing" were in the windows 95 UI manual
  - jrmg 7mo ago
    Also macOS in its various guises, for decades.
  - quesera 7mo ago
    They were original in the 1984 Macintosh OS (before it had a name), and published in the first edition (1987) of the Apple Human Interface Guidelines. Just two of the things Microsoft copied successfully. :)
    - zinekeller 7mo ago
      Eh, they were definitely from Xerox (so it would be unclear since that both Windows and the Mac System Software derived some of their UI elements from Xerox experiments)
      - quesera 7mo ago
        The Alto? I don't think that's accurate. Only 2000 devices ever shipped, and I used one at my parent's workplace back in the day. But I would have been far too young to remember that detail. It may well have been kicking around PARC before Jobs made the deal with Xerox. But I can't find any images that show either of those UI elements, pre-Lisa.
lucianbr 7mo ago
This particular line serves only to highlight the author's limited knowledge. I wonder what they meant by it. Also greyed out options have a point, they only seem "fucking useless" if you don't know it.
- mmsc 7mo ago
  You're right, I didn't know about what that "..." meant. It's kind of obvious what I meant though: "I don't know why all of these have ..." I've added that information to the post. The greyed out options have no point because 99.99% of the links I click are already clean. Like so many of the other privacy enhancing options, just provide an option to "clean links automatically."
  - plorkyeran 7mo ago
    Link "cleaning" will sometimes just break a link entirely since it's a heuristic-based thing that removes query parameters that appear to be nonfunctional tracking parameters. Doing it by default would be setting up users for the occasional very bad experience.
  - lucianbr 7mo ago
    Did you really make a blog post to tell the world that you don't know some things? That's not usual. If that is true, the only conclusion is that you should learn those things, and I'm not sure what I am supposed to get from reading it. I think, or at least the way it reads to me is that you believe Firefox devs are wrong. This is what it looks like you meant. You believe the "..." is wrong to be there, and it should be removed. Which I do not agree with, and in any case we should first consider the "..." conventional meaning and only then we can maybe get to the conclusion that it should be removed. That it should be removed because you don't know why it is there is not reasonable, not to me. In my humble opinion you should reflect a bit more on what you actually meant to say by this and also other points in the post. > The greyed out options have no point because 99.99% of the links I click are already clean. Frankly that's nonsense. They obviously have a point, and the fact you disagree with the point is something completely different. Firefox isn't specifically made for you. I appreciate the greyed out options in general, it helps me know they are there and that they may become available under some conditions.
CamperBob2 7mo ago
The article's author doesn't appear to be particularly tech-literate. I flagged the post on the grounds that it doesn't meet HN standards in general.
- Joshuas_Mom 7mo ago
  [flagged]
- paulddraper 7mo ago
  It's strange, because they do know about:config....
Zopieux 7mo ago
I feel old. Every single millennial versed into computers knows about this convention, which I think probably comes from Windows, back when they paid their employees to care.
- Narishma 7mo ago
  It was already there in the original Mac, and is probably older than that.
eviks 7mo ago
How would a user learn about this convention?

paulddraper 7mo ago

+1 This has been true for, what, 30 years?

plorkyeran 7mo ago
At least 40 years, since it was already present in Windows 1.0 (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-SuAaYDZIk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-SuAaYDZIk for an example).
- marssaxman 7mo ago
  The original Macintosh software also did this, back in 1984. From the Apple Human Interface Guidelines, published in 1986: "The application dims an item when the user can't choose it. If the user moves the pointer over a dimmed item, that item isn't highlighted." There may well have been prior art, but that's as far back as my knowledge goes.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

TonyTrapp 7mo ago

Specifically, it means that more information is required to complete the task (e.g. requesting the filename for saving a file). If the action is literally about opening that dialog (e.g. something like "Show Properties"), the ellipsis is not needed.

layer8 7mo ago
The practical use is that the user knows they will still have the opportunity to back out of the operation, and not commit to it by the first click. I don’t think “will need more input” is that useful as an information by itself.
- hunter2_ 7mo ago
  At first I was going to say that the opportunity to back out and the need for more input are identical: if the dialog consists only of a button to proceed and a button to back out, the user needs to choose one of those as input, and eliminating that need for input means eliminating the opportunity to back out. But now I'm thinking that a need and an opportunity are very distinct. For example, browsers used to present a Save dialog during a download: was there a need for input? No, accepting the default filename works, and based on that, they no longer offer the opportunity to choose a filename. Thus, "..." indicates the opportunity, even if there is no true need.
  - layer8 7mo ago
    In addition, if you consider a "Print" dialog, it would be conceivable that it only provides a print preview, but no further inputs, and has only command buttons "Print" and "Cancel". In that case, I still think the menu item should be "Print…" with an ellipsis, despite the lack of further input. Conversely, you might conceivably have a command that requires additional input, but where the dialog box taking the input doesn't offer the option to cancel the operation. In that case, I would consider an ellipsis misleading, even though a lack of ellipsis might be confusing as well if the command doesn't make sense without additional input.

ndespres 7mo ago

Some of these complaints feel like they aren’t specific to Firefox at all, but are UI conventions that used to be ubiquitous and no longer are, much to the chagrin of those of us of a certain age. He also rails against menu items that are greyed out and unusable, where to me that’s a very useful indicator that the action isn’t available here but that I’m looking in the right place. When I want to click a menu item and find it greyed out, that tells me something. But when I want to click a menu item and it’s not there at all, I’m confused. Did a developer move it somewhere else? Did the name of the action change? Am I losing my touch?

vanschelven 7mo ago
Indeed both the "..." and "disabling over removing" were in the windows 95 UI manual
- jrmg 7mo ago
  Also macOS in its various guises, for decades.
- quesera 7mo ago
  They were original in the 1984 Macintosh OS (before it had a name), and published in the first edition (1987) of the Apple Human Interface Guidelines. Just two of the things Microsoft copied successfully. :)
  - zinekeller 7mo ago
    Eh, they were definitely from Xerox (so it would be unclear since that both Windows and the Mac System Software derived some of their UI elements from Xerox experiments)
    - quesera 7mo ago
      The Alto? I don't think that's accurate. Only 2000 devices ever shipped, and I used one at my parent's workplace back in the day. But I would have been far too young to remember that detail. It may well have been kicking around PARC before Jobs made the deal with Xerox. But I can't find any images that show either of those UI elements, pre-Lisa.

lucianbr 7mo ago

This particular line serves only to highlight the author's limited knowledge. I wonder what they meant by it. Also greyed out options have a point, they only seem "fucking useless" if you don't know it.

mmsc 7mo ago
You're right, I didn't know about what that "..." meant. It's kind of obvious what I meant though: "I don't know why all of these have ..." I've added that information to the post. The greyed out options have no point because 99.99% of the links I click are already clean. Like so many of the other privacy enhancing options, just provide an option to "clean links automatically."
- plorkyeran 7mo ago
  Link "cleaning" will sometimes just break a link entirely since it's a heuristic-based thing that removes query parameters that appear to be nonfunctional tracking parameters. Doing it by default would be setting up users for the occasional very bad experience.
- lucianbr 7mo ago
  Did you really make a blog post to tell the world that you don't know some things? That's not usual. If that is true, the only conclusion is that you should learn those things, and I'm not sure what I am supposed to get from reading it. I think, or at least the way it reads to me is that you believe Firefox devs are wrong. This is what it looks like you meant. You believe the "..." is wrong to be there, and it should be removed. Which I do not agree with, and in any case we should first consider the "..." conventional meaning and only then we can maybe get to the conclusion that it should be removed. That it should be removed because you don't know why it is there is not reasonable, not to me. In my humble opinion you should reflect a bit more on what you actually meant to say by this and also other points in the post. > The greyed out options have no point because 99.99% of the links I click are already clean. Frankly that's nonsense. They obviously have a point, and the fact you disagree with the point is something completely different. Firefox isn't specifically made for you. I appreciate the greyed out options in general, it helps me know they are there and that they may become available under some conditions.

CamperBob2 7mo ago

The article's author doesn't appear to be particularly tech-literate. I flagged the post on the grounds that it doesn't meet HN standards in general.

Joshuas_Mom 7mo ago
[flagged]
paulddraper 7mo ago
It's strange, because they do know about:config....

Zopieux 7mo ago

I feel old. Every single millennial versed into computers knows about this convention, which I think probably comes from Windows, back when they paid their employees to care.

Narishma 7mo ago
It was already there in the original Mac, and is probably older than that.

eviks 7mo ago

How would a user learn about this convention?