<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div id="smartTemplate4-quoteHeader">
<style type="text/css"> #newHeader { font-size: x-small; } #newHeader b { font-weight:bold; color: #990033; } </style>
<div id="newHeader"> <b>To: </b>"tb-planning"<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org"><tb-planning@mozilla.org></a>
<br>
<b>From: </b>"Kent James"<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:kent@caspia.com"><kent@caspia.com></a><br>
<b>Sent: </b>Friday, 14/09/12 18:49:06 18:49 GMT Daylight Time
{GMT DT} +0100 [Week 37]<br>
<b>Subject:</b>Philosophy of minimal disturbance of existing
users </div>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:50536E12.5040105@caspia.com" type="cite">As
another user interface issue, I just tried some new Daily runs,
and immediately notice that my menus are gone.
<br>
<br>
That forces a dramatic change in the way that I am used to
working. </blockquote>
This is a good example where I do not understand that there is a
proper planning for user interface changes. While this probably
doesn't affect the majority of developers (who use Mac or Linux with
Unity, so they always display a menu anyway) I think the impact to
the majority of (windows) users is obvious immediately. I wouldn't
necessarily call this step an "innovative" one as it really doesn't
add any value, but makes a lot of features harder to discover
especially for the normal windows user, who expects to find both
less often used and important features in the menu, if they cannot
be found in obvious places in the User Interface. <br>
<br>
I believe for a beginner the discoverability of features is even
more important than presenting a "clean" user interface. Likewise,
for most of the experienced users this will present itself like a
regression.<br>
<br>
The menu items, since they are text only can both easily be ignored
and easily parsed, so I simply do not see the advantage in removing
them by default, other than a purely "esthetic" kick for the
designers. If we cannot afford to run UAT then let us try to look at
these extreme changes with a more critical eye, and ask what do we
want to achieve? <br>
<br>
Is the main goal to make a purely abstract "non-obtrusive" user
interface that "fits in well" with other applications?<br>
<br>
Is the goal to make Thunderbird easier to use?<br>
<br>
That the discussion of these seems to be done mainly on the level of
bugs which introduced these features, a clear decision path isn't
apparent to me, and this worries me.<br>
<br>
If we have resources that give a rationale on this change can they
please at least be published here, so we can "see the light"?<br>
<br>
As a power user I sometimes disable the menus to see what it feels
like, and I am usually relying on knowing the menu shortcuts by
heart so I can bring them up quickly. Still it is sometimes nicer to
do a command with the mouse and a lot of less advanced users would
probably use this tried and tested method for pulling down commands
from the menu; they will simply be stumped by this. So by
introducing "simplicity" we actually add complexity for our users. <br>
<br>
If this about saving vertical space (which is always a good argument
with mail) the alternative might be to move the menu items into the
caption bar, as this is a largely unused area, and the (on average 6
to 8) menu items could share that space with the system menu, window
caption and the sizing buttons.<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Why not instead adopt a philosophy of
minimal disturbance of existing users? Couldn't we instead enable
the menubar by default for existing users, and only disable it by
default for new users?
<br>
</blockquote>
+1 for this thought. Long term users probably know about the
possibility to hide the menu bar, so to them hiding it on upgrade
might feel like unnecessary "nannying".<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">And follow that through when possible for
all user interface changes that have a major impact on existing
users?
<br>
</blockquote>
(as if to prove my argument, I just had trouble to call up paste as
quotation, as I had hidden the menu bar :) )<br>
<br>
again +1 - user interfaces are developed in a certain way for a
reason, if we develop new ones (or use existing ones in unusual
ways) we should really, very critically scrutinize these changes for
their "net value". Is it easier to use? Does the change empower or
disempower the user? Does it work as expected? <br>
<br>
As an example, the "click-hold" feature on the back / forward
buttons on the Firefox browser in order to remove the
"""unnecessary""" dropdown chevrons is a good example for such a
{IMO not very well thought out} "improvement". A chevron shows there
is a menu below, is easy to understand as it is an active area,
doesn't require to learn a special new click method etc.<br>
<br>
I am not against innovation, if we could replace the menu with a
more functional widget (e.g. Microsoft Ribbon, anyway?) I would be
all for investigating this change, but you can only go so far in
"cleaning up" the UI without loosing features or taking control away
from users.<br>
<br>
cheers<br>
Axel<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:50536E12.5040105@caspia.com" type="cite">While
I understand the reasons behind it, and probably agree with them,
for the typical user who had gotten used to doing things a certain
way, this is just an annoyance. Today may not be the day that I
really wanted to stop what I was doing, and figure out how to turn
the menus back on. The reaction of most existing users, IMHO, is
going to be a mild round of cussing at the arrogance of developers
who are constantly pushing change on users who really don't want
it. (Now I've been the guy getting cussed at in the past, and
there are times that change is needed, I understand that).
<br>
<br>
Why not instead adopt a philosophy of minimal disturbance of
existing users? Couldn't we instead enable the menubar by default
for existing users, and only disable it by default for new users?
<br>
<br>
And follow that through when possible for all user interface
changes that have a major impact on existing users?
<br>
<br>
:rkent
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
tb-planning mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:tb-planning@mozilla.org">tb-planning@mozilla.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning">https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/tb-planning</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<div class="st4originalSignature"></div>
<div id="smartTemplate4-template">Hello Kent,
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<style type="text/css">
.myName:hover { font-size:13pt; text-shadow: 3px 3px 4px rgba(200,250,200,0.7);}
</style>
<div id="testSignature" style="width: 65%; padding: 0.8em 1.2em;
font:x-small verdana; color: #444; box-shadow: 4px 4px 9px -2px
rgba(0,0,0,0.65); border-radius: 1em; padding: 0.4em 2em;
border: 1px dashed #444; background: rgb(230,240,163);
background: linear-gradient(to bottom, rgba(230,240,163,1)
0%,rgba(210,230,56,1) 50%,rgba(195,216,37,1)
51%,rgba(219,240,67,1) 100%); background:
-moz-linear-gradient(top, rgba(230,240,163,1) 0%,
rgba(210,230,56,1) 50%, rgba(195,216,37,1) 51%,
rgba(219,240,67,1) 100%);">
<b class="myName" style="text-shadow: 1px 1px 2px
#DDD;cursor:pointer;-moz-transition-property:font-size;
-moz-transition-duration: 0.5s;">Axel Grude</b> [T]
<br>
Software Developer
<br>
Thunderbird Add-ons Developer
<span style="color:#666666; font-size:xx-small">(QuickFolders,
quickFilters, QuickPasswords, Zombie Keys, SmartTemplate4)</span>
<br>
AMO Editor </div>
</div>
</body>
</html>