kurash@carr.dartmouth.edu (Mark Valence) (07/05/90)
Dear Netters: Here is a part of a conversation a friend and I are having about menu items that change in different contexts. I'm sure there are opinions out there - could you make yours public? Hopefully the following excerpt will get the juices flowing: My friend wrote: By the way, menu items that change (like 'Clean Up Selection' versus 'Clean Up Window' [in the Finder]) are a bad idea (regardless of the blessings of Apple interface police). I replied: I disagree. I use both versions of that function, and I know when the item will change. There's even a third variation that is activated by holding the option key down. I see three ways around the problem (the problem being changing menu items): 1) add two more menu items for a total of three, each specifying a different clean-up function (could be hierarchical). 2) one menu item, and you always clean up everything in the window. this is how it used to be (in real old Finders). 3) one menu item with a modal dialog box. Why I don't like these solutions: 1) menus would grow quite long, which is bad. Microsoft knows this, and gives you the option (in Word) of having long or short menus. 2) As I said before, I use all three versions of the function, and wouldn't like to see one unavailable. 3) puke. So, I like changing items, if they do useful things, and the basic function remains the same. [...stuff...] Also, notice that a menu item that changes does NOT have a key equivalent. The user must go to the menu, look at the item (and notice that it has changed), and then decide if that is what is desired. What are your reasons for not liking changing menus? (It's not fair to say they just feel wrong :) Mark.
kassover@minerva.crd.ge.com (David Kassover) (07/06/90)
In article <23043@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> kurash@carr (Mark Valence) writes: ... >What are your reasons for not liking changing menus? (It's not >fair to say they just feel wrong :) Changing menu items a la "Clean up Selection/Clean up Window", or grayed out items are ok, IMHO. Once one is aware that that kind of thing can happen, and on which menus, one can live with it. On the other hand, just the other day a colleague was complaining about menus whose items showed up in a different order, depending on what the software ('s developers) thought was the next logical choice. I dislike this intensely. (Although giving the user hooks to customize some menus according to the USER's pattern of work seems to be a reasonable feature, on the face of it) -- David Kassover "Proper technique helps protect you against kassover@ra.crd.ge.com sharp weapons and dull judges." kassover@crd.ge.com F. Collins Fencing: Worlds Oldest Modern Sport
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (07/06/90)
In article <23043@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> kurash@carr (Mark Valence) writes: > >By the way, menu items that change (like 'Clean Up Selection' versus >'Clean Up Window' [in the Finder]) are a bad idea (regardless of the I disagree in this case. There is no essential difference between the two commands (both clean up some set of icons). Adding the description of what is being cleaned up simply clarifies the situation. Another example is the Undo menu item. I think adding the same of the command being undone, and changing the name of the item to Redo (when appropriate) is useful for letting the user know what's going on. >Also, notice that a menu item that changes does NOT have a key The Undo item does have a key equivalent. Provided that the essential function of the command doesn't change, then there's no reason to prohibit a command key equivalent. It would be a bad idea to change one command into another, unrelated command. One should judge the situation based on whether the menu organization is good, rather than on whether the name of the item changes. Changing the name of a menu item alone, doesn't turn a good menu organization into a bad one. -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 46-B Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
rmh@apple.com (Rick Holzgrafe) (07/06/90)
In article <23043@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> kurash@carr.dartmouth.edu (Mark Valence) writes: > What are your reasons for not liking changing menus? Menus, like much of the Mac interface, should let the user use "muscle memory". This means that a function should always appear in the same place. (When was the last time you had to either think about, or look for, the "Open" command in any application?) Another tenet of the User Interface Thought Police: don't startle the user. Capriciously changing menu items are surprising and confusing. On the other hand, these are not reasons to make *all* menu items constant. You just have to avoid moving things around too much, or replacing items with surprisingly different items. I see nothing wrong with changing the text of a menu item to reflect a sensible option or variant, and neither do the Thought Police. The Finder "Clean Up" command is a good example. > (It's not fair to say they just feel wrong :) Yes it is! This has been the hardest lesson for me to learn at Apple. No matter how logical or sensible I think an interface is, if too many users "just don't like it" then the users are right and I'm wrong. "It feels wrong" is another way to say "it's not intuitive to me". Disclaimer: you can always find a few people to complain about anything. If you looked hard enough, you could probably find someone who doesn't like chocolate ice cream. Just beware when *lots* of folks are complaining. :-) ========================================================================== Rick Holzgrafe | {sun,voder,nsc,mtxinu,dual}!apple!rmh Software Engineer | AppleLink HOLZGRAFE1 rmh@apple.com Apple Computer, Inc. | "All opinions expressed are mine, and do 20525 Mariani Ave. MS: 77-A | not necessarily represent those of my Cupertino, CA 95014 | employer, Apple Computer Inc."
kurash@carr.dartmouth.edu (Mark Valence) (07/07/90)
In article <8997@goofy.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >In article <23043@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> kurash@carr (Mark Valence) writes: >> >>By the way, menu items that change (like 'Clean Up Selection' versus >>'Clean Up Window' [in the Finder]) are a bad idea (regardless of the Actually, I didn't write this - you've taken me out of context. Ah, who cares. >I disagree in this case. There is no essential difference between the two >commands (both clean up some set of icons). Adding the description of what >is being cleaned up simply clarifies the situation. As my original posting states, I also disagree, but for different reasons. First of all, I do see an 'essential difference'. In the case of 'Clean Up' the changing item does not just 'clarify'. It can actually be changed by clicking i nthe appropriate place. I'm sure every Finder-retentive Mac user (like me) has been frustrated by this item - you go to clean your window up and - damn, forgot to unselect. >Another example is the Undo menu item. I think adding the same of the >command being undone, and changing the name of the item to Redo (when >appropriate) is useful for letting the user know what's going on. Couldn't agree more, in this case the change IS just clarifying - you can change it by further editting, but it's only there to tell you exactly what will be Undone. >>Also, notice that a menu item that changes does NOT have a key > >The Undo item does have a key equivalent. Provided that the essential >function of the command doesn't change, then there's no reason to prohibit a >command key equivalent. I stand corrected. Still my above opinions in mind, this command equiv is slightly different than one for clean-up. >It would be a bad idea to change one command into another, unrelated >command. One should judge the situation based on whether the menu >organization is good, rather than on whether the name of the item changes. >Changing the name of a menu item alone, doesn't turn a good menu >organization into a bad one. Sound advice, indeed. >-- > Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist > Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 46-B Cupertino, CA 95014 > AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM > UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr Just playing devil's advocate. Mark.
Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk (Chris Holt) (07/07/90)
In article <23043@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> kurash@carr (Mark Valence) writes: >My friend wrote: >By the way, menu items that change (like 'Clean Up Selection' versus >'Clean Up Window' [in the Finder]) are a bad idea (regardless of the >blessings of Apple interface police). > >What are your reasons for not liking changing menus? (It's not >fair to say they just feel wrong :) Why do I prefer modeless editors? So I don't have to remember so much contextual information. What I really want is a wysiwyg editor for menus, so I can just edit items, insert new ones, and delete (or hide) others, without leaving the main system. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chris.Holt@newcastle.ac.uk Computing Lab, U of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Algebraic expression is something that is to be surpassed..."
lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) (07/07/90)
In article <23058@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> kurash@carr (Mark Valence) writes: > >Actually, I didn't write this - you've taken me out of context. Ah, who cares. Sorry about that. >As my original posting states, I also disagree, but for different reasons. >First of all, I do see an 'essential difference'. In the case of 'Clean Up' >the changing item does not just 'clarify'. It can actually be changed I would argue that in both cases Clean Up cleans up the selection. If no icons are selected, then the selection is the active window. The Finder is consistent in this respect. If you have no icon selected in the frontmost window, and choose the Get Info command, you get info about the frontmost window. The same goes for Open. >Mac user (like me) has been frustrated by this item - you go to clean >your window up and - damn, forgot to unselect. That's true of any command that takes a selection as a parameter. You make a text selection to do a Copy and forget to select the last character of a word. -- Larry Rosenstein, Object Specialist Apple Computer, Inc. 20525 Mariani Ave, MS 46-B Cupertino, CA 95014 AppleLink:Rosenstein1 domain:lsr@Apple.COM UUCP:{sun,voder,nsc,decwrl}!apple!lsr
murat@farcomp.UUCP (Murat Konar) (07/10/90)
In article <8997@goofy.Apple.COM> lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) writes: >In article <23043@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> kurash@carr (Mark Valence) writes: >> >>By the way, menu items that change (like 'Clean Up Selection' versus >>'Clean Up Window' [in the Finder]) are a bad idea (regardless of the > >I disagree in this case. There is no essential difference between the two >commands (both clean up some set of icons). Adding the description of what Me too. The case of changing menus that really irritates me is when there is a menu item like "Show Something" that changes to "Hide Something" when the something is shown. I think it's because unlike cases like "Undo Something" or "Cleanup Window" where the first word is the same, Show/Hide menu items change the first word. I much prefer implementations that either have seperate Show and Hide items or have a single item with a check mark. -- ____________________________________________________________________ Have a day. :^| Murat N. Konar murat@farcomp.UUCP -or- farcomp!murat@apple.com
tim@efi.com (Tim Maroney) (07/10/90)
In article <23058@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> kurash@carr (Mark Valence) writes: >As my original posting states, I also disagree, but for different reasons. >First of all, I do see an 'essential difference'. In the case of 'Clean Up' >the changing item does not just 'clarify'. It can actually be changed >by clicking i nthe appropriate place. I'm sure every Finder-retentive >Mac user (like me) has been frustrated by this item - you go to clean >your window up and - damn, forgot to unselect. Very true. This is a good example of modal behavior that should be avoided at all costs. As Inside Mac says (I-28), "Being in a mode makes future actions contingent upon past ones, restricts the behavior of familiar objects and commands, and may make habitual actions cause unexpected results." The variable Clean Up item has all these problems, and variable menu items in general always risk them. Undo is inherently a command that is based on past actions, so it's all right to have its menu item be modal. Other familiar examples, however, are not so clearly permissible. Clean Up is right out of there; it doesn't have any saving graces that would make it a permissible modalism. Check the list of excuses for modality in IM I-28-29, and you won't find anything that's even in the ballpark. A more applicable statement is: "If you yield to the [modal] temptation too frequently, however, users will consider spending time with your application a chore rather than a satisfying experience." (IM I-28) This is a perfect description of the constant annoyance of having to deselect before Cleaning Up. Show/Hide Clipboard is also problematic -- which one will come up if the clipboard is visible, but not frontmost? What if the clipboard is neither frontmost nor visible, but is still "potentially visible" because it is hidden by other windows in front? I think it is better to make the item invariant. It should always be Show Clipboard, and it should always make the clipboard window the frontmost visible window. If the clipboard window is already visible and frontmost, the menu item should be either disabled, or a no-operation. There are already a menu operation (File:Close), a different mouse operation (close box), and a keyboard shortcut (Command-W for Close) to get rid of a frontmost clipboard window. Adding menu modality is a "neat trick" that is gratifying to the programmer but doesn't help the user, and it will cause frustration if the user's assumptions about the menu item don't match the programmer's. Menu items should very rarely vary. HyperCard is one of the worst offenders, with respect to menu items like "Import Paint". Finder is a runner-up in the contest for most gratuitously modal menus, with Clean Up Selection. Unfortunately, these things acquire momentum and it is probably too late to do anything about them now.
sthomas@library.adelaide.edu.au (Steve Thomas) (07/23/90)
In article <1990Jul9.233133.7372@efi.com> tim@efi.com (Tim Maroney) writes: > >Menu items should very rarely vary. HyperCard is one of the worst >offenders, with respect to menu items like "Import Paint". I don't see any way around this for Hypercard: there's just not enough room in a standard menu bar for all the Hypercard menus at once. In any case, I would far rather see only options of relevance at any one time, even at the 'risk' of having menus change. There's no point handing me a box of nails when I'm holding a screwdriver. -- /* Steve Thomas, Barr Smith Library, University of Adelaide */ /* Only a sick society needs disclaimers. Of course, that's only my opinion. */