So, if anything, the "choice is good" argument is in favor of Apple sticking to one-button mice...
Exactly!
First let me state that an individual's preferences for using two button mice is quite resonable. However, the whiners complaining about the 1-button, first-party mouse get annoying.
While nearly everyone here has no difficulty using multi-button mice, a significant proportion of all users do have difficulty. To claim otherwise is to demonstrate ignorance or at least a very insular, homogenous, and atypical group of friends.
Yet apple isn't catering to only the single button crowd. In my opinion, the greatest benefit of shipping machines with a one button mouse is that interface designers must make their GUIs work for both one and two button mice. The alternative is to ship two button mice. However, designers would soon start taking the easy way out, relying heavily on contextual menus.
Contextual menus aren't inherently bad but they do pose problems to users new to an interface. They rely on random exploration of an interface, clicking on everything to find functionality. However, when functionality is guaranteed to ALSO be in a menu bar, it is elementary to do a complete walk or an exhaustive search of all available features. No wondering whether functionality is available in a program, if it isn't visible in the list of commands (the menu bar) then it isn't possible.
Apple realizes that developers almost always go back and provide duplicate functionality via contextual menus. The opposite isn't true. Developers are less likely to transfer contextual menu commands to a visible location in the interface after that functionality is already available in popup menus.
The single-button, stock mouse is the lesser of two evils. Yes, it forces many users to purchase a 20 dollar accessory from a third party. Yet, it ensure that OS X software will be based on the principle of recognition rather than that of recall. Users only have to recognize the name of an available command from a list, a list that is always in the same location. They don't need to recall which random pixel to click on to get otherwise hidden functionality.
What Blutooth mice are out there, other than Apple's one-button one?
I've been looking and I can only find M$'s Intellimouse Explorer- which isn't Mac compatible
The Logitech MX900 just came out. It's basically the same as the MX500 (corded) or MX700 (RF), except it uses Bluetooth. I don't know if it's Mac-compatible or not, and it is very pricey ($100!).
These products are outrageously expensive. I can get a kensington 5 button wired moust for 20 dollars where as teh apple mouse cost 49. STUPID. Same goes for the wireless 69 dollars what a POS. 50 bucks for mx700 thats a wireless MULTIBUTTON mouse wiht cradle and rechargeable battery. Gee thats a tough choice.
I have no intention of getting the Apple mouse/KB but you can't compare $20 mice to Apple's regardless of # of buttons, etc. Apple uses a higher end plastic, thicker application. I could squeeze and break most mice in my hand, maybe even my MX300, but I'll be damned if I'd have to throw the Apple mouse into a wall to break it. You get what you pay for with Apple, unfortunately, it's just without 2nd button and scroll.
To return to topic: I think AtAT hit on the reason Apple released these things (which I, even as a one-button-mouse-preferring person, still don't completely understand).
Remember the "Traffic" ad, where the back of a stuffed-to-the-gills PC was compared to the back of an iMac? I think the idea here is that this gets rid of cords. I can see the aesthetic appeal, and I understand that Steve in particular hates them. However, I don't hate them enough to give up the USB ports and swap batteries in my keyboard at intervals that are just long enough to catch me off guard when they come up (one more use for iCal!). If the mouse tracks erratically, that's a deal-breaker too. I love the smooth, crisp tracking of the Apple mouse I have.
Apple can convince me, after the fact, that they can surmount difficulties I considered crippling, and think of uses and appeal that I hadn't imagined. However, after this particular fact, I still can't see why you'd want these things, unless you had a desk with an iCurve and you just wanted to plunk your 'Book down and start working without plugging anything in. Just keep a good stock of AAs handy.
For a desktop, though... you'd have to have Steve's level of wirephobia, I think.
Apple designs its systems to function logically. The user sees a pointer on the screen. The pointer imitates a real life object. If you are actually holding a pointer, you can either 'tap' a surface or not tap a surface. You can't tap something two different ways. 'Right-clicking' is completely artificial, and therefore it complicates things.
Same thing applies to a scroll wheel. If you are looking at a web page, you can either click and drag the scoll bar or press the arrow keys. Either way makes sense. Moving a wheel on the mouse does not apply to any real-world scenario, it's another artificial action.
These methods lack functionality but offer simplicity. That's Apple's philosophy. Deal with it.
The banner clearly states that the keyboard and mouse are POWERED by Bluetooth! They therefore don't require a battery...
Refund! Refund
That's good, that is good!
Ummmm about the one button thing. There is one single reason why it is now just plain wrong. EVERYONE has a PC. it is a "saturated" market. everyone has had a computer. And it had a two button mouse with a wheel. So it is actually HARDER for most people to get used to a one button mouse and control clicking! Idiotic. Form over function.
SonOfSylvanus you are right! I am looking for a Bluetooth mouse WITHOUT a base, eating a USB port and making a mess. I have internal Bluetooth on my PB 12". Does anyone know of a BT mouse that isn't M$ that will work with OS X and has two or more (even nicer) buttons and wheel and no receiver? Thanks. I'm surprised Logitech doesn't make one without the receiver.
Apple designs its systems to function logically. The user sees a pointer on the screen. The pointer imitates a real life object. If you are actually holding a pointer, you can either 'tap' a surface or not tap a surface. You can't tap something two different ways. 'Right-clicking' is completely artificial, and therefore it complicates things.
Same thing applies to a scroll wheel. If you are looking at a web page, you can either click and drag the scoll bar or press the arrow keys. Either way makes sense. Moving a wheel on the mouse does not apply to any real-world scenario, it's another artificial action.
These methods lack functionality but offer simplicity. That's Apple's philosophy. Deal with it.
For such a young member that sounds profound. Well said. I may not agree, but it certainly explains AAPL.
Ummmm about the one button thing. There is one single reason why it is now just plain wrong. EVERYONE has a PC. it is a "saturated" market. everyone has had a computer. And it had a two button mouse with a wheel.
The Logitech MX900 just came out. It's basically the same as the MX500 (corded) or MX700 (RF), except it uses Bluetooth. I don't know if it's Mac-compatible or not, and it is very pricey ($100!).
Thanks Luca
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
SonOfSylvanus you are right! I am looking for a Bluetooth mouse WITHOUT a base, eating a USB port and making a mess. I have internal Bluetooth on my PB 12". Does anyone know of a BT mouse that isn't M$ that will work with OS X and has two or more (even nicer) buttons and wheel and no receiver?
It's damn annoying innit? Yeah, my new 15" PB will have built in bluetooth - but I can't find ANY compatible bluetooth mouse other than Apple's one-button offering to use with it. Let alone a well-designed one with styling that matches the AliBook.
Quote:
Originally posted by Aquatic
I'm surprised Logitech doesn't make one without the receiver.
Where's the sense in having to get your other hand involved to press TWO buttons (Control and the left mouse button) for a menu or the arrow keys to scroll when a simple movement from one of your fingers which is already in a perfect place (ie, waiting patiently on the mouse) could do it in an instant?
Quote:
Originally posted by Francisco_G
'Right-clicking' is completely artificial, and therefore it complicates things
So let's use 2 hands and 2 buttons to get a menu up then instead of 1......marvellous
Francisco_G, interesting point, but I think it's flawed. Saying that the mouse pointer is like an object that represents where your hand is, and clicking is like tapping, just makes the case stronger for multi-button mice. There are so many ways your hand can interact with a flat surface below it - you can tap it with any combination of one, two, three, four or five fingers, you can slap your palm down, you can punch it, you can gently rub the surface, and so on. They all achieve different functions which most people know fairly well. I mean, most people know that tapping a desk with your fingertip will make a quieter noise than slapping it with your palm, and most people know that punching the desk with your knuckles isn't a great idea. On the other hand, mouse gestures are much more similar to each other than that so it takes some getting used to. It would be interesting if there was a mouse that left-clicked when you tap it and right-clicked when you slap it. That would be easier to learn. On the other hand, what if tapping with your index finger was dramatically different from tapping with your middle finger? It would take some getting used to but you'd get the hang of it.
Okay, I'm not really sure of the point I'm trying to make but I think I'm at least bringing some food for thought into the conversation.
Where's the sense in having to get your other hand involved to press TWO buttons (Control and the left mouse button) for a menu or the arrow keys to scroll when a simple movement from one of your fingers which is already in a perfect place (ie, waiting patiently on the mouse) could do it in an instant?
So let's use 2 hands and 2 buttons to get a menu up then instead of 1......marvellous
I have hesitated to get into this debate...again, but I must chime in here.
What the two-button freaks don't seem to understand is that on the Mac platform, you don't really need contextual menus. I can't remember the last time I used one and I use a Mac for many hours each day. I understand that they can be useful if you like that kind of thing. The problem is, if Apple were to discontinue the single-button mouse, software designers would quickly start thinking of new uses for contextual menus and a second button, severely altering the simplicity of using a Mac. Mac software would soon be just like Windows software and that would suck!
Francisco_G, interesting point, but I think it's flawed. Saying that the mouse pointer is like an object that represents where your hand is, and clicking is like tapping, just makes the case stronger for multi-button mice. There are so many ways your hand can interact with a flat surface below it [...]
This is true, and it highlights one of the subtle but crucial points in the one-button-mouse argument: The argument is not that less expressiveness is better, it's that the range of expressiveness that a mouse can have intuitively and ergonomically is sharply limited, and multibutton mice stumble over those limits. Your fingers are simply not designed to be used the way a two-button-scroll-wheel mouse expects them to be used. The current no-button mouse is ideal ergonomically in that it doesn't require one finger per button . You can (and I do sometimes, since both my hands are generally on the keyboard) just reach over and slap it, or at least use several fingers to press down to click. It's a lot more comfortable, and "dragging" is a bit more intuitive because it's what you're doing to the mouse (instead of holding one finger down). Also, mouse movement tends to be a large-muscle movement (unless you're killing your wrists, in which case you should stop), and that means no precision for things like gestures.
If someone can come up with an input device that more effectively harnesses the astonishing expressive range of the hand and the fingers, that would certainly improve things and obviate the need for multibutton mice. (We have something like that already: the stylus. )
Unfortunately, the tradeoff for having a hugely expressive and subtle input device is that you have to have a highly sophisticated and accurate machinery to parse its input. Mice, on the other hand, are simple and unambiguous and much easier to support.
iDave, that's possible, but on the other hand your claim that you don't need contextual menus on the Mac is not really true. Sure, you can get by without them, but it makes things much easier. If you see an object that you want to do something to, just right-click it and now you know everything you can do to that object instead of having to highlight it and then search all the menubars for what you want to do. iChat should have more contextual menus. You should be able to right click someone to get their profile, block them, ignore them, warn them, add them to your buddy list, invite them to a chat, and so on. Right now I think some of those are available in contextual menus and some aren't.
I think it would be good to have plenty of contextual menus all over, but also to make sure everything is accessible without having to use them. Just like the issue of Apple supplying a two button mouse instead of a one, it comes down to a matter of choice.
It seems that some people are purposely ignoring the most convincing justifications for shipping a one-button mouse as standard. Apple isn't asserting that a single button is best for all or even most users.
By shipping a mouse with one button, Apple is ensuring that software developers must pay close attention to UI design minutia that is too frequently overlooked. It is preferable for interfaces to emphasize recognition over recall. Contextual menus are invisible and require users to randomly click on things to discover the full functionality available. The menu bar is always in the same location and provides an easy and exhaustive search of available functionality.
This isn't to say that the menu bar is better than contextual menus. Rather, that the omission of either is sure to make an interface ill-suited for many users or scenarios.
The problem is that it is hard for developers to succinctly present features in visible locations. If not done properly it is immediately obvious that the organization is poorly thought out. This leads developers to just stick things in contextual menus and many features never find a proper home. It's the easy way out. They intend to properly organize things later but then never get around to it.
This phenomenon is much more noticeable in windows software. Programs force you to randomly right-click on everything just to discover what the program is capable of. If an object isn't visible, you can't discover valid actions that can be performed on that object. When new features are added with an upgrade, they may go undiscovered for quite a while.
Many websites suffer from similar problems with feature/content discovery. Navigation loops and redundant content leave users wondering if what they want is completely unavailable or merely undiscovered.
Apple knows that developers are computer geeks who will spend the 5 minutes necessary to make existing functionality quickly available through contextual menus. Yet these same developers are less likely to spend the hours necessary to move functionality in the other direction, to buttons or the exhaustive list of the menu bar. Since the menu bar houses many times the number of commands as a contextual menu, it is hard to organize. Developers tend to cut corners at crunch time and if they knew everyone had a two-button mouse, they could safely cut this corner.
A stock one button mouse ensures that our interfaces will continue to be based upon visible widgets. Apple knows that developers will still provide contextual menus for more quicker access to functionality.
The single button also ensures that users, incapable of properly using multiple buttons, will still be able to use software without any reconfiguration. Yes, it truly is mind boggling that the majority of users never use contextual menus. It ranks right up there with how everyone uses the mouse to click search after typing something into a search field. Why not just hit return/enter? It just seems stupid right? But no matter how many times you explain the shortcut, some people will still never use it.
The question is: is the 20 bucks for a third party mouse worth the more polished and thought out interface that defines the Mac experience?
In my opinion, yes. I use a five-button kenningston with a scroll wheel. My apple pro mouse sits in a box in the basement. Yet, I still appreciate that the stock one-button mouse forces better UI design.
Comments
What Blutooth mice are out there, other than Apple's one-button one?
I've been looking and I can only find M$'s Intellimouse Explorer- which isn't Mac compatible
Originally posted by Amorph
So, if anything, the "choice is good" argument is in favor of Apple sticking to one-button mice...
Exactly!
First let me state that an individual's preferences for using two button mice is quite resonable. However, the whiners complaining about the 1-button, first-party mouse get annoying.
While nearly everyone here has no difficulty using multi-button mice, a significant proportion of all users do have difficulty. To claim otherwise is to demonstrate ignorance or at least a very insular, homogenous, and atypical group of friends.
Yet apple isn't catering to only the single button crowd. In my opinion, the greatest benefit of shipping machines with a one button mouse is that interface designers must make their GUIs work for both one and two button mice. The alternative is to ship two button mice. However, designers would soon start taking the easy way out, relying heavily on contextual menus.
Contextual menus aren't inherently bad but they do pose problems to users new to an interface. They rely on random exploration of an interface, clicking on everything to find functionality. However, when functionality is guaranteed to ALSO be in a menu bar, it is elementary to do a complete walk or an exhaustive search of all available features. No wondering whether functionality is available in a program, if it isn't visible in the list of commands (the menu bar) then it isn't possible.
Apple realizes that developers almost always go back and provide duplicate functionality via contextual menus. The opposite isn't true. Developers are less likely to transfer contextual menu commands to a visible location in the interface after that functionality is already available in popup menus.
The single-button, stock mouse is the lesser of two evils. Yes, it forces many users to purchase a 20 dollar accessory from a third party. Yet, it ensure that OS X software will be based on the principle of recognition rather than that of recall. Users only have to recognize the name of an available command from a list, a list that is always in the same location. They don't need to recall which random pixel to click on to get otherwise hidden functionality.
Originally posted by SonOfSylvanus
Guys,
What Blutooth mice are out there, other than Apple's one-button one?
I've been looking and I can only find M$'s Intellimouse Explorer- which isn't Mac compatible
The Logitech MX900 just came out. It's basically the same as the MX500 (corded) or MX700 (RF), except it uses Bluetooth. I don't know if it's Mac-compatible or not, and it is very pricey ($100!).
Originally posted by O and A
These products are outrageously expensive. I can get a kensington 5 button wired moust for 20 dollars where as teh apple mouse cost 49. STUPID. Same goes for the wireless 69 dollars what a POS. 50 bucks for mx700 thats a wireless MULTIBUTTON mouse wiht cradle and rechargeable battery. Gee thats a tough choice.
I have no intention of getting the Apple mouse/KB but you can't compare $20 mice to Apple's regardless of # of buttons, etc. Apple uses a higher end plastic, thicker application. I could squeeze and break most mice in my hand, maybe even my MX300, but I'll be damned if I'd have to throw the Apple mouse into a wall to break it. You get what you pay for with Apple, unfortunately, it's just without 2nd button and scroll.
Remember the "Traffic" ad, where the back of a stuffed-to-the-gills PC was compared to the back of an iMac? I think the idea here is that this gets rid of cords. I can see the aesthetic appeal, and I understand that Steve in particular hates them. However, I don't hate them enough to give up the USB ports and swap batteries in my keyboard at intervals that are just long enough to catch me off guard when they come up (one more use for iCal!). If the mouse tracks erratically, that's a deal-breaker too. I love the smooth, crisp tracking of the Apple mouse I have.
Apple can convince me, after the fact, that they can surmount difficulties I considered crippling, and think of uses and appeal that I hadn't imagined. However, after this particular fact, I still can't see why you'd want these things, unless you had a desk with an iCurve and you just wanted to plunk your 'Book down and start working without plugging anything in. Just keep a good stock of AAs handy.
For a desktop, though... you'd have to have Steve's level of wirephobia, I think.
Same thing applies to a scroll wheel. If you are looking at a web page, you can either click and drag the scoll bar or press the arrow keys. Either way makes sense. Moving a wheel on the mouse does not apply to any real-world scenario, it's another artificial action.
These methods lack functionality but offer simplicity. That's Apple's philosophy. Deal with it.
No mention of Mac OS X compatibility though.
It figures.
Well, obviously you didn't read specs properly!
The banner clearly states that the keyboard and mouse are POWERED by Bluetooth! They therefore don't require a battery...
Refund! Refund
That's good, that is good!
Ummmm about the one button thing. There is one single reason why it is now just plain wrong. EVERYONE has a PC. it is a "saturated" market. everyone has had a computer. And it had a two button mouse with a wheel. So it is actually HARDER for most people to get used to a one button mouse and control clicking! Idiotic. Form over function.
SonOfSylvanus you are right! I am looking for a Bluetooth mouse WITHOUT a base, eating a USB port and making a mess. I have internal Bluetooth on my PB 12". Does anyone know of a BT mouse that isn't M$ that will work with OS X and has two or more (even nicer) buttons and wheel and no receiver? Thanks. I'm surprised Logitech doesn't make one without the receiver.
Originally posted by Francisco_G
Apple designs its systems to function logically. The user sees a pointer on the screen. The pointer imitates a real life object. If you are actually holding a pointer, you can either 'tap' a surface or not tap a surface. You can't tap something two different ways. 'Right-clicking' is completely artificial, and therefore it complicates things.
Same thing applies to a scroll wheel. If you are looking at a web page, you can either click and drag the scoll bar or press the arrow keys. Either way makes sense. Moving a wheel on the mouse does not apply to any real-world scenario, it's another artificial action.
These methods lack functionality but offer simplicity. That's Apple's philosophy. Deal with it.
For such a young member that sounds profound. Well said. I may not agree, but it certainly explains AAPL.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Ummmm about the one button thing. There is one single reason why it is now just plain wrong. EVERYONE has a PC. it is a "saturated" market. everyone has had a computer. And it had a two button mouse with a wheel.
Not me. Not mine.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
The Logitech MX900 just came out. It's basically the same as the MX500 (corded) or MX700 (RF), except it uses Bluetooth. I don't know if it's Mac-compatible or not, and it is very pricey ($100!).
Thanks Luca
Originally posted by Aquatic
SonOfSylvanus you are right! I am looking for a Bluetooth mouse WITHOUT a base, eating a USB port and making a mess. I have internal Bluetooth on my PB 12". Does anyone know of a BT mouse that isn't M$ that will work with OS X and has two or more (even nicer) buttons and wheel and no receiver?
It's damn annoying innit? Yeah, my new 15" PB will have built in bluetooth - but I can't find ANY compatible bluetooth mouse other than Apple's one-button offering to use with it. Let alone a well-designed one with styling that matches the AliBook.
Originally posted by Aquatic
I'm surprised Logitech doesn't make one without the receiver.
Hell Yeah...
Originally posted by Francisco_G
That's Apple's philosophy. Deal with it.
Well it's a lousy philosophy then.
Where's the sense in having to get your other hand involved to press TWO buttons (Control and the left mouse button) for a menu or the arrow keys to scroll when a simple movement from one of your fingers which is already in a perfect place (ie, waiting patiently on the mouse) could do it in an instant?
Originally posted by Francisco_G
'Right-clicking' is completely artificial, and therefore it complicates things
So let's use 2 hands and 2 buttons to get a menu up then instead of 1......marvellous
Okay, I'm not really sure of the point I'm trying to make but I think I'm at least bringing some food for thought into the conversation.
Originally posted by Ernest eMac
Well it's a lousy philosophy then.
Where's the sense in having to get your other hand involved to press TWO buttons (Control and the left mouse button) for a menu or the arrow keys to scroll when a simple movement from one of your fingers which is already in a perfect place (ie, waiting patiently on the mouse) could do it in an instant?
So let's use 2 hands and 2 buttons to get a menu up then instead of 1......marvellous
I have hesitated to get into this debate...again, but I must chime in here.
What the two-button freaks don't seem to understand is that on the Mac platform, you don't really need contextual menus. I can't remember the last time I used one and I use a Mac for many hours each day. I understand that they can be useful if you like that kind of thing. The problem is, if Apple were to discontinue the single-button mouse, software designers would quickly start thinking of new uses for contextual menus and a second button, severely altering the simplicity of using a Mac. Mac software would soon be just like Windows software and that would suck!
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Francisco_G, interesting point, but I think it's flawed. Saying that the mouse pointer is like an object that represents where your hand is, and clicking is like tapping, just makes the case stronger for multi-button mice. There are so many ways your hand can interact with a flat surface below it [...]
This is true, and it highlights one of the subtle but crucial points in the one-button-mouse argument: The argument is not that less expressiveness is better, it's that the range of expressiveness that a mouse can have intuitively and ergonomically is sharply limited, and multibutton mice stumble over those limits. Your fingers are simply not designed to be used the way a two-button-scroll-wheel mouse expects them to be used. The current no-button mouse is ideal ergonomically in that it doesn't require one finger per button . You can (and I do sometimes, since both my hands are generally on the keyboard) just reach over and slap it, or at least use several fingers to press down to click. It's a lot more comfortable, and "dragging" is a bit more intuitive because it's what you're doing to the mouse (instead of holding one finger down). Also, mouse movement tends to be a large-muscle movement (unless you're killing your wrists, in which case you should stop), and that means no precision for things like gestures.
If someone can come up with an input device that more effectively harnesses the astonishing expressive range of the hand and the fingers, that would certainly improve things and obviate the need for multibutton mice. (We have something like that already: the stylus.
Unfortunately, the tradeoff for having a hugely expressive and subtle input device is that you have to have a highly sophisticated and accurate machinery to parse its input. Mice, on the other hand, are simple and unambiguous and much easier to support.
I think it would be good to have plenty of contextual menus all over, but also to make sure everything is accessible without having to use them. Just like the issue of Apple supplying a two button mouse instead of a one, it comes down to a matter of choice.
It seems that some people are purposely ignoring the most convincing justifications for shipping a one-button mouse as standard. Apple isn't asserting that a single button is best for all or even most users.
By shipping a mouse with one button, Apple is ensuring that software developers must pay close attention to UI design minutia that is too frequently overlooked. It is preferable for interfaces to emphasize recognition over recall. Contextual menus are invisible and require users to randomly click on things to discover the full functionality available. The menu bar is always in the same location and provides an easy and exhaustive search of available functionality.
This isn't to say that the menu bar is better than contextual menus. Rather, that the omission of either is sure to make an interface ill-suited for many users or scenarios.
The problem is that it is hard for developers to succinctly present features in visible locations. If not done properly it is immediately obvious that the organization is poorly thought out. This leads developers to just stick things in contextual menus and many features never find a proper home. It's the easy way out. They intend to properly organize things later but then never get around to it.
This phenomenon is much more noticeable in windows software. Programs force you to randomly right-click on everything just to discover what the program is capable of. If an object isn't visible, you can't discover valid actions that can be performed on that object. When new features are added with an upgrade, they may go undiscovered for quite a while.
Many websites suffer from similar problems with feature/content discovery. Navigation loops and redundant content leave users wondering if what they want is completely unavailable or merely undiscovered.
Apple knows that developers are computer geeks who will spend the 5 minutes necessary to make existing functionality quickly available through contextual menus. Yet these same developers are less likely to spend the hours necessary to move functionality in the other direction, to buttons or the exhaustive list of the menu bar. Since the menu bar houses many times the number of commands as a contextual menu, it is hard to organize. Developers tend to cut corners at crunch time and if they knew everyone had a two-button mouse, they could safely cut this corner.
A stock one button mouse ensures that our interfaces will continue to be based upon visible widgets. Apple knows that developers will still provide contextual menus for more quicker access to functionality.
The single button also ensures that users, incapable of properly using multiple buttons, will still be able to use software without any reconfiguration. Yes, it truly is mind boggling that the majority of users never use contextual menus. It ranks right up there with how everyone uses the mouse to click search after typing something into a search field. Why not just hit return/enter? It just seems stupid right? But no matter how many times you explain the shortcut, some people will still never use it.
The question is: is the 20 bucks for a third party mouse worth the more polished and thought out interface that defines the Mac experience?
In my opinion, yes. I use a five-button kenningston with a scroll wheel. My apple pro mouse sits in a box in the basement. Yet, I still appreciate that the stock one-button mouse forces better UI design.