I think it makes the desktop look very unbalanced now that the menu bar is transparent. The dock stands out way too much now so that it's obtrusive. It looks very stupid on the side - what is it, an anti-gravity table?
The transparent text on the menu bar is worse IMO. When something negatively affects usability then it's just wrong.
Dock is too solid? Perhaps they are going to have customizable transparency like objectdock.
Menubar is too transparent. You will probably be able to customize the transparency just like menushade.
So what does anyone think about the fact that this comes right out of Sun's Looking Glass demo?
Did an Apple designer just see it, and say "cool", or does it suggest anything more?
You can achieve that look (and tons more) with Vista and a $20 program called objectdock by stardock software. And yes, they do have oogly shelf docks as well (without reflections).
If you can't have a folder, just stacks, that would kind of suck I think.
Taken from a MacWorld article:
If you drag a folder to the Dock, a new icon called a Stack?which looks, cleverly enough, like a stack of icons?is added to the Dock; click on this icon and the contents of the folder appear as a fanned-out column of high-resolution thumbnail icons and file names. (If there are 10 or more items in the folder, the files appear on a translucent grid instead.) Click on any item to open it.
I know that there has been much talk of this sorta 3D Dock implying a greater move to a 3D UI in the future. However noone has given any ideas on what this just might be. It may be impotant to note that Apple has been dropped a small cue to possible further intentions. I don't know if this was first brought to my attention on this webpage or somewhere else but I think it is best to quote apple itself:
"Apple Computer is seeking software engineers to help us build the next generation of iWork.
For this position, we are seeking an engineer to work on 3D specific features"
No this is not directly related to the UI of MAC OS X as a whole but it implies that 3D will be moving more and more into the MAC platform. The job page also says that they are looking for this position to pertain to the user interface. To read the entire apple job posting visit go here: http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...&CurrentPage=1
Just thought I would add my two cents.
it's pretty obvious that the 3D interface Apple is moving towards is found in the Looking Glass paradigm. LG is basically a 3D UI space and the background image is actually meant to be perceived as a distant thing with the windows existing as objects suspended in space. LG windows roll on all axis. even the Leopard drop shadows are more feathered to indicate greater depth. believe this is why the Leopard menu bar is now a translucent, ethereal bar, making it better fit into the new depth environment. i suspect that the menu bar may eventually become a thing of the past and become replaced with something else.
it's pretty obvious that the 3D interface Apple is moving towards is found in the Looking Glass paradigm. LG is basically a 3D UI space and the background image is actually meant to be perceived as a distant thing with the windows existing as objects suspended in space. LG windows roll on all axis. even the Leopard drop shadows are more feathered to indicate greater depth. believe this is why the Leopard menu bar is now a translucent, ethereal bar, making it better fit into the new depth environment. i suspect that the menu bar may eventually become a thing of the past and become replaced with something else.
Okay, so I was going to post a link to some great screenshots Thinksecret posted of the Leopard release, but the site now seems to be down in a serious way. Makes me wonder if they were smitten by Uncle "you did WHAT to your NDA?!" steve's RDF beam of righteous anger®.
Anyway, the impression that I got from those screenshots matches the idea that Apple is trying to create a more 3D UI paradigm, which is actually more consistent with the metaphor the desktop creates with more than one window/ app open on top of one another. It's clear from TS's screen shots of the new drop shadows that the perceived depth of the desktop has indeed been increased considerably.
Addabox, I've thought about some of your reservations and also about some of the dock mockups that have been posted, and I'm wondering if the problem is not actually the dock, but the icons. Except for the trash, the icons sitting on the dock are glaringly 2D and they seriously clash with the 3D shelf design. I'm thinking Apple's next step (possibly under way right now will be redesigned, 3D icons and some kind of basic 3D-ifier for 3rd party icons that haven't been corrected yet.
Also, I see someone beat me to linking to that iWork employee story, which I saw over at MacRumors yesterday and found extremely incongruous until I read through this thread and some of these ideas clicked. Given that interesting ad, I would say that the concerns about Apple's lack of direction on this issue may well be unfounded.
P.S. I'm reserving judgement on the transparent menu bar until I see how it reacts to different backgrounds- S.J. mentioned something in the keynote about it changing based on the picture in the back so I think this may be something more than just a Vista-esque effect.
P.P.S. The more I think about this stuff, the more I get the feeling that Apple is really not advertising all the real features of Leopard. Simple things that will probably make a big difference in usability seem to abound.
I know that there has been much talk of this sorta 3D Dock implying a greater move to a 3D UI in the future. However noone has given any ideas on what this just might be. It may be impotant to note that Apple has been dropped a small cue to possible further intentions. I don't know if this was first brought to my attention on this webpage or somewhere else but I think it is best to quote apple itself:
"Apple Computer is seeking software engineers to help us build the next generation of iWork.
For this position, we are seeking an engineer to work on 3D specific features"
No this is not directly related to the UI of MAC OS X as a whole but it implies that 3D will be moving more and more into the MAC platform. The job page also says that they are looking for this position to pertain to the user interface. To read the entire apple job posting visit go here: http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...&CurrentPage=1
P.S. I'm reserving judgement on the transparent menu bar until I see how it reacts to different backgrounds- S.J. mentioned something in the keynote about it changing based on the picture in the back so I think this may be something more than just a Vista-esque effect.
P.P.S. The more I think about this stuff, the more I get the feeling that Apple is really not advertising all the real features of Leopard. Simple things that will probably make a big difference in usability seem to abound.
i got thinking about the menu bar the other day because, i have to admit, it looks like the 'odd man out' of the new interface/desktop. it's the only transparent thing on it! so i began wondering whether i was understanding it the wrong way, so i started thinking about it within the 3D paradigm instead. essentially the menu bar no longer fits and making it semi-apparent/chameleoned/sorta-there was the compromise. i don't think this has anything to do with Vistaization at all - they had to solve the problem and make it fit somehow. technically it's Apples achilles heel in the 3D transition. historically the menu bar has been totally tied to Apple's interface design philosphy from the get go. changing that is gonna be a difficult one. we still have the Macintosh HD icon due to popular demand even though it was not really intended on OsX. so it stays there, a remnant of the past.
Looking Glass, by the way, has no such bar across the top of the UI. instead it adopts the Windows style of menu controls placed upon the UI windows themselves. ironically this better suits the 3D paradigm... will this become the way of the future for OsX also? makes me wonder once again... they did create a dock after all.
as for 3D icons, i agree totally. it's reasonable that icons need some sort of perspective added to them. CoreAnimation utilizes skew transformations to enhance the illusion of depth. i'm sure in future it will be applied to everything.
i suspect that the menu bar may eventually become a thing of the past and become replaced with something else.
That idea crossed my mind too but I can't see it happening. The only way it could is by putting the menus inside each application window but one of the defining interface features of the Mac is that they don't do that because it doesn't adhere to Fitt's law. It basically forces you to need a maximize function.
I would love it if we could just have one item - either a dock or a menu bar - but I can't see any way to combine them besides embedding the application icons inside the menu, which cuts down the space you have for menu items dramatically. It then ends up like the Windows taskbar but worse because you'd have application-specific menu items.
The transparent menu bar looks incomplete. Some of the menu icons such as the battery indicator and airport signal indicator have opaque white filling it in, and it looks pretty bad. The spotlight icon doesn't suffer from this, but even that icon is less functional than the Tiger version with the blue circle behind it. At lease when it had that blue behind it, it was an easy target for your mouse and stood out from the other items up there. Now, not only do we have to contend with the degraded visibility of menu items, but it's that much harder to hit with the cursor.
That idea crossed my mind too but I can't see it happening. The only way it could is by putting the menus inside each application window but one of the defining interface features of the Mac is that they don't do that because it doesn't adhere to Fitt's law. It basically forces you to need a maximize function.
I would love it if we could just have one item - either a dock or a menu bar - but I can't see any way to combine them besides embedding the application icons inside the menu, which cuts down the space you have for menu items dramatically. It then ends up like the Windows taskbar but worse because you'd have application-specific menu items.
It would be cool if the menu bar could be made to disappear like the Dock can. Voila, a pristine desktop (if you have all icons in Stacks instead of scattered all over the desktop).
That idea crossed my mind too but I can't see it happening. The only way it could is by putting the menus inside each application window but one of the defining interface features of the Mac is that they don't do that because it doesn't adhere to Fitt's law. It basically forces you to need a maximize function.
Mmm...I'm not sure that the top menu bar really fullfills the intent of designing to Fitt's law anymore. When D becomes large and you end up with multiple submovements (even with mouse acceleration*) to get to the menu bar the effects of an infinite W are lessened wrt to time T vs one where interaction occurs as part of only one movement.
Of course sticking the menu at the top of a window that could be equally far away as the top menubar is not better because it exhibits both small target area and large distance.
Perhaps RMB should now activate the menubar as a popup with the first menu item as the context sensitive menu for whatever actions are most relevant to the task at hand (i.e. the current menu that appears when you hit RMB) and the remaining columns are the usual menus from the main menu bar at top of the screen. The location is optimal under Fitts because its zero distance and effectively infinite width.
Then time to menu item is then soley under Accot/Zhai's steering law. You can also replicate infinite W by setting the top of the floating menubar impassable while the context menu is active (deactivate by clicking RMB again...or if I recall correctly releasing RMB under windows which is sub-optimal if RMB must be held down. Can't check at the moment...I'm running OSX ) to decrease hit time by making in effect the topmost tunnel of near infinite width (i.e. traversal errors in the up direction do not affect outcome).
That implementation must be tested somewhere but no paper pops to mind...maybe in the original Accot's paper? It seems fairly obvious.
Did that make sense or did I just get Bonus Points in Step 2?
Vinea
* On a 30" ACD I can't get to the menubar in one gesture with my current mouse acceleration. I can't always get that on a 20" display either. When the menubar is on the wrong monitor...
Mmm...I'm not sure that the top menu bar really fullfills the intent of designing to Fitt's law anymore. When D becomes large and you end up with multiple submovements (even with mouse acceleration*) to get to the menu bar the effects of an infinite W are lessened wrt to time T vs one where interaction occurs as part of only one movement.
Yeah the current menu system isn't ideal at all these days. We have too many options and it takes way too long to scroll down lists. There needs to be more of a random access system where we can reach the command that we already know we want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Perhaps RMB should now activate the menubar as a popup with the first menu item as the context sensitive menu for whatever actions are most relevant to the task at hand (i.e. the current menu that appears when you hit RMB) and the remaining columns are the usual menus from the main menu bar at top of the screen. The location is optimal under Fitts because its zero distance and effectively infinite width.
That would probably work as long as the contextual menu was placed in between menus otherwise it would need to wrap around. They could use a grid system like they do in Maya's hotbox but I think people are better at remembering where things are in a linear menu and a hotbox wouldn't block the vertical movement but it decreases D. When the mouse was near the bottom of the screen in both cases, the menus would go up though. But I think that there's a way round this.
What if instead of a menubar, it popped up a grid of scroll boxes like in itunes. This way you don't even have to open the menus to see what's in them and you can jump straight to the item you want very quickly. The height would be adjustable to what you preferred and if the mouse was at the bottom, it still fits the grid as close to the bottom as the height allows. If you hit save as, it wouldn't even have to open another box as it could turn into a Finder view.
As you say, put the contextual menu as close to the mouse position, block the movement vertically (actually you wouldn't have to as the menus are open) and use RMB to close. You wouldn't even need nested menus with a scrollbar because they are long enough to accommodate as many options as you need (possibly indented). To get round items being cramped, the menu your mouse was hovering over could expand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
On a 30" ACD I can't get to the menubar in one gesture with my current mouse acceleration. I can't always get that on a 20" display either. When the menubar is on the wrong monitor...
Dual and large displays completely kill the current menu system for sure. I wish Apple would give an option to mirror their menus on second displays.
Comments
I think it makes the desktop look very unbalanced now that the menu bar is transparent. The dock stands out way too much now so that it's obtrusive. It looks very stupid on the side - what is it, an anti-gravity table?
The transparent text on the menu bar is worse IMO. When something negatively affects usability then it's just wrong.
Dock is too solid? Perhaps they are going to have customizable transparency like objectdock.
Menubar is too transparent. You will probably be able to customize the transparency just like menushade.
So what does anyone think about the fact that this comes right out of Sun's Looking Glass demo?
Did an Apple designer just see it, and say "cool", or does it suggest anything more?
You can achieve that look (and tons more) with Vista and a $20 program called objectdock by stardock software. And yes, they do have oogly shelf docks as well (without reflections).
Well I hope you're assumption is wrong
If you can't have a folder, just stacks, that would kind of suck I think.
Taken from a MacWorld article:
If you drag a folder to the Dock, a new icon called a Stack?which looks, cleverly enough, like a stack of icons?is added to the Dock; click on this icon and the contents of the folder appear as a fanned-out column of high-resolution thumbnail icons and file names. (If there are 10 or more items in the folder, the files appear on a translucent grid instead.) Click on any item to open it.
I know that there has been much talk of this sorta 3D Dock implying a greater move to a 3D UI in the future. However noone has given any ideas on what this just might be. It may be impotant to note that Apple has been dropped a small cue to possible further intentions. I don't know if this was first brought to my attention on this webpage or somewhere else but I think it is best to quote apple itself:
"Apple Computer is seeking software engineers to help us build the next generation of iWork.
For this position, we are seeking an engineer to work on 3D specific features"
No this is not directly related to the UI of MAC OS X as a whole but it implies that 3D will be moving more and more into the MAC platform. The job page also says that they are looking for this position to pertain to the user interface. To read the entire apple job posting visit go here: http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...&CurrentPage=1
Just thought I would add my two cents.
it's pretty obvious that the 3D interface Apple is moving towards is found in the Looking Glass paradigm. LG is basically a 3D UI space and the background image is actually meant to be perceived as a distant thing with the windows existing as objects suspended in space. LG windows roll on all axis. even the Leopard drop shadows are more feathered to indicate greater depth. believe this is why the Leopard menu bar is now a translucent, ethereal bar, making it better fit into the new depth environment. i suspect that the menu bar may eventually become a thing of the past and become replaced with something else.
it's pretty obvious that the 3D interface Apple is moving towards is found in the Looking Glass paradigm. LG is basically a 3D UI space and the background image is actually meant to be perceived as a distant thing with the windows existing as objects suspended in space. LG windows roll on all axis. even the Leopard drop shadows are more feathered to indicate greater depth. believe this is why the Leopard menu bar is now a translucent, ethereal bar, making it better fit into the new depth environment. i suspect that the menu bar may eventually become a thing of the past and become replaced with something else.
Okay, so I was going to post a link to some great screenshots Thinksecret posted of the Leopard release, but the site now seems to be down in a serious way. Makes me wonder if they were smitten by Uncle "you did WHAT to your NDA?!" steve's RDF beam of righteous anger®.
Anyway, the impression that I got from those screenshots matches the idea that Apple is trying to create a more 3D UI paradigm, which is actually more consistent with the metaphor the desktop creates with more than one window/ app open on top of one another. It's clear from TS's screen shots of the new drop shadows that the perceived depth of the desktop has indeed been increased considerably.
Addabox, I've thought about some of your reservations and also about some of the dock mockups that have been posted, and I'm wondering if the problem is not actually the dock, but the icons. Except for the trash, the icons sitting on the dock are glaringly 2D and they seriously clash with the 3D shelf design. I'm thinking Apple's next step (possibly under way right now will be redesigned, 3D icons and some kind of basic 3D-ifier for 3rd party icons that haven't been corrected yet.
Also, I see someone beat me to linking to that iWork employee story, which I saw over at MacRumors yesterday and found extremely incongruous until I read through this thread and some of these ideas clicked. Given that interesting ad, I would say that the concerns about Apple's lack of direction on this issue may well be unfounded.
P.S. I'm reserving judgement on the transparent menu bar until I see how it reacts to different backgrounds- S.J. mentioned something in the keynote about it changing based on the picture in the back so I think this may be something more than just a Vista-esque effect.
P.P.S. The more I think about this stuff, the more I get the feeling that Apple is really not advertising all the real features of Leopard. Simple things that will probably make a big difference in usability seem to abound.
I know that there has been much talk of this sorta 3D Dock implying a greater move to a 3D UI in the future. However noone has given any ideas on what this just might be. It may be impotant to note that Apple has been dropped a small cue to possible further intentions. I don't know if this was first brought to my attention on this webpage or somewhere else but I think it is best to quote apple itself:
"Apple Computer is seeking software engineers to help us build the next generation of iWork.
For this position, we are seeking an engineer to work on 3D specific features"
No this is not directly related to the UI of MAC OS X as a whole but it implies that 3D will be moving more and more into the MAC platform. The job page also says that they are looking for this position to pertain to the user interface. To read the entire apple job posting visit go here: http://jobs.apple.com/index.ajs?BID=...&CurrentPage=1
Just thought I would add my two cents.
Excellent point.
P.S. I'm reserving judgement on the transparent menu bar until I see how it reacts to different backgrounds- S.J. mentioned something in the keynote about it changing based on the picture in the back so I think this may be something more than just a Vista-esque effect.
P.P.S. The more I think about this stuff, the more I get the feeling that Apple is really not advertising all the real features of Leopard. Simple things that will probably make a big difference in usability seem to abound.
i got thinking about the menu bar the other day because, i have to admit, it looks like the 'odd man out' of the new interface/desktop. it's the only transparent thing on it! so i began wondering whether i was understanding it the wrong way, so i started thinking about it within the 3D paradigm instead. essentially the menu bar no longer fits and making it semi-apparent/chameleoned/sorta-there was the compromise. i don't think this has anything to do with Vistaization at all - they had to solve the problem and make it fit somehow. technically it's Apples achilles heel in the 3D transition. historically the menu bar has been totally tied to Apple's interface design philosphy from the get go. changing that is gonna be a difficult one. we still have the Macintosh HD icon due to popular demand even though it was not really intended on OsX. so it stays there, a remnant of the past.
Looking Glass, by the way, has no such bar across the top of the UI. instead it adopts the Windows style of menu controls placed upon the UI windows themselves. ironically this better suits the 3D paradigm... will this become the way of the future for OsX also? makes me wonder once again... they did create a dock after all.
as for 3D icons, i agree totally. it's reasonable that icons need some sort of perspective added to them. CoreAnimation utilizes skew transformations to enhance the illusion of depth. i'm sure in future it will be applied to everything.
Imagine the frustration when the screen goes holographic.
You've obviously never heard of sarcasm then. Go look it up.
Sebastian
nice try at covering up.. well poor try tbh.. but no, you weren't being sarcastic, you were being a smartass..
i suspect that the menu bar may eventually become a thing of the past and become replaced with something else.
That idea crossed my mind too but I can't see it happening. The only way it could is by putting the menus inside each application window but one of the defining interface features of the Mac is that they don't do that because it doesn't adhere to Fitt's law. It basically forces you to need a maximize function.
I would love it if we could just have one item - either a dock or a menu bar - but I can't see any way to combine them besides embedding the application icons inside the menu, which cuts down the space you have for menu items dramatically. It then ends up like the Windows taskbar but worse because you'd have application-specific menu items.
That idea crossed my mind too but I can't see it happening. The only way it could is by putting the menus inside each application window but one of the defining interface features of the Mac is that they don't do that because it doesn't adhere to Fitt's law. It basically forces you to need a maximize function.
I would love it if we could just have one item - either a dock or a menu bar - but I can't see any way to combine them besides embedding the application icons inside the menu, which cuts down the space you have for menu items dramatically. It then ends up like the Windows taskbar but worse because you'd have application-specific menu items.
It would be cool if the menu bar could be made to disappear like the Dock can. Voila, a pristine desktop (if you have all icons in Stacks instead of scattered all over the desktop).
All this panic over a 2.5D environment simulating 3D space.
Imagine the frustration when the screen goes holographic.
No frustration at all, that would be a 3D space where a 3D UI is appropriate.
That idea crossed my mind too but I can't see it happening. The only way it could is by putting the menus inside each application window but one of the defining interface features of the Mac is that they don't do that because it doesn't adhere to Fitt's law. It basically forces you to need a maximize function.
Mmm...I'm not sure that the top menu bar really fullfills the intent of designing to Fitt's law anymore. When D becomes large and you end up with multiple submovements (even with mouse acceleration*) to get to the menu bar the effects of an infinite W are lessened wrt to time T vs one where interaction occurs as part of only one movement.
Of course sticking the menu at the top of a window that could be equally far away as the top menubar is not better because it exhibits both small target area and large distance.
Perhaps RMB should now activate the menubar as a popup with the first menu item as the context sensitive menu for whatever actions are most relevant to the task at hand (i.e. the current menu that appears when you hit RMB) and the remaining columns are the usual menus from the main menu bar at top of the screen. The location is optimal under Fitts because its zero distance and effectively infinite width.
Then time to menu item is then soley under Accot/Zhai's steering law. You can also replicate infinite W by setting the top of the floating menubar impassable while the context menu is active (deactivate by clicking RMB again...or if I recall correctly releasing RMB under windows which is sub-optimal if RMB must be held down. Can't check at the moment...I'm running OSX
That implementation must be tested somewhere but no paper pops to mind...maybe in the original Accot's paper? It seems fairly obvious.
Did that make sense or did I just get Bonus Points in Step 2?
Vinea
* On a 30" ACD I can't get to the menubar in one gesture with my current mouse acceleration. I can't always get that on a 20" display either. When the menubar is on the wrong monitor...
Mmm...I'm not sure that the top menu bar really fullfills the intent of designing to Fitt's law anymore. When D becomes large and you end up with multiple submovements (even with mouse acceleration*) to get to the menu bar the effects of an infinite W are lessened wrt to time T vs one where interaction occurs as part of only one movement.
Yeah the current menu system isn't ideal at all these days. We have too many options and it takes way too long to scroll down lists. There needs to be more of a random access system where we can reach the command that we already know we want.
Perhaps RMB should now activate the menubar as a popup with the first menu item as the context sensitive menu for whatever actions are most relevant to the task at hand (i.e. the current menu that appears when you hit RMB) and the remaining columns are the usual menus from the main menu bar at top of the screen. The location is optimal under Fitts because its zero distance and effectively infinite width.
That would probably work as long as the contextual menu was placed in between menus otherwise it would need to wrap around. They could use a grid system like they do in Maya's hotbox but I think people are better at remembering where things are in a linear menu and a hotbox wouldn't block the vertical movement but it decreases D. When the mouse was near the bottom of the screen in both cases, the menus would go up though. But I think that there's a way round this.
What if instead of a menubar, it popped up a grid of scroll boxes like in itunes. This way you don't even have to open the menus to see what's in them and you can jump straight to the item you want very quickly. The height would be adjustable to what you preferred and if the mouse was at the bottom, it still fits the grid as close to the bottom as the height allows. If you hit save as, it wouldn't even have to open another box as it could turn into a Finder view.
As you say, put the contextual menu as close to the mouse position, block the movement vertically (actually you wouldn't have to as the menus are open) and use RMB to close. You wouldn't even need nested menus with a scrollbar because they are long enough to accommodate as many options as you need (possibly indented). To get round items being cramped, the menu your mouse was hovering over could expand.
On a 30" ACD I can't get to the menubar in one gesture with my current mouse acceleration. I can't always get that on a 20" display either. When the menubar is on the wrong monitor...
Dual and large displays completely kill the current menu system for sure. I wish Apple would give an option to mirror their menus on second displays.
Or keep the transparency but when you move the cursor to the top of the screen, it becomes opaque.
+++