A one button mouse is a joke. Apple's mice have been jokes for years, and have fueled a Mac mouse industry for those who throw out the "Pro" mouse. And guess what? 90% of replacement Mac mice are >1 button! So the argument that people can't figure out more than one button is bogus.
And note that for every instance of bad two button mouse design, one can find another instance where two buttons makes interacting with the computer faster and more enjoyable. Keeping a one button mouse to defend against bad software development is foolish. It's like sticking with a CRT because one's afraid of a dead pixel.
1. The one-button mouse is not a joke. It's a pointing device you and many others don't like, but many do.
2. Did you just make up that "90% of replacement Mac mice are >1 button" claim? Is that an estimation, a guess or do you have a source? I don't doubt you could be right on that figure. I guess it could be even higher than 90% but I think it's important to teach people not to fabricate stats on the fly or at least indicate it's a guess, an estimation or a documented stat, etc.
3. More buttons on my mouse wouldn't make my experience that much more enjoyable so that's relative.
4. I can take a dead pixel. Heck, my PowerBook has more than one I guess. But bad "software development" or bad "UI interaction" is not OK. If a standard one-button mouse helps in the slightest way to enforce good "UI development" practices, then I'm all for it.
D'oh, you're right, it doesn't work on a per-selection basis. Cmd-; goes to the next misspelled word in the text field. The closest thing is to bring up the Spelling box with Cmd-:, then place the cursor before the misspelled word, and hit Cmd-;, or 'Find Next'. If it triggers a misspelling, it will give you the same options in the box as you get in the contextual menu. I *guess* technically that is the same as the right-click, but...
I always select the word (double-click) then command-;
They key commands are pretty insane - I pride myself on knowing a lot of them, but today came accross the cmd-opt-ctrl-eject combos for sleeping, restarting, and shutting down.
What gets me is that Apple is shipping keybaords with help buttons that do NOTHING! Why put a help button on your keyboard if the OS expects Cmd-? for help viewer? Or F13 and F14 which control brightness on iMacs and Apple displays, why not silk screen these on the keyboards, so what if someone has a third party monitor. I have an iMac G5 and would appreciatea keybaord made for it -- by Apple (isn't that a crazy idea?)
And to comment on the Airport Updates, they are not touch 802.11n standard -- nah, I think g will be the way for a few more years, rather I think they will combine "Airtunes" functionality in the big Base Station with a 1/8" mini-optical/analog plug - why let the express have a cool feature that the big daddy of the airport family doesn't have?
He wasn't arguing that he prefers to use a one-button mouse. Instead, he prefers using a platform which ships a one-button mouse as default. It forces developers to not hide things only in contextual menus.
Efficiency is good. That's why Apple supports multiple buttons.
Discoverablility is good. That's why Apples ship with a single-button mouse as default.
There is merit in both.
Yes, but if Apple shipped a two-button mouse, nobody could "hide" anything in the contextual menus, because they would be no more difficult to access than the normal menus. Point and click simplicity. It's only bad GUI design on a Mac because Apple ships a single button mouse.
This argument that Apple should ship deficient hardware because it promotes good GUI design smacks of Apple apologism. Hardware doesn't promote good GUI design, good design principles promote good GUI design.
JD, I really suggest you do some investigation into UI research before relaying an opinion like that publicly. It might save you some embarrassment.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it false. cf: evolution and fundamentalists.
'Hiding' is in reference to that fact that prior to clicking the right mouse button, there is *NO* visual indication that there is any functionality present. With left-clicking, you have menus, buttons, and other *visible* items giving immediate feedback to the user of "these are the things you can do". This is called discoverability and is one of the basic principles of good UI design. Contextual menus don't do that. They are hidden, ie, non-visible, ie non-direct, ie, harder to find. If a developer places some functionality *only* in a contextual menu, they have created a poor UI for that functionality. If they choose to place a *secondary* accessor to that functionality in a contextual menu (or keystroke), then they have scaled their UI for efficiency, but retained the discoverability principle. That's good UI. That's what shipping a single button mouse as default enforces at the developer end.
However, I get the feeling that I utterly wasted my time typing the above explanation.
JD, I really suggest you do some investigation into UI research before relaying an opinion like that publicly. It might save you some embarrassment.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it false. cf: evolution and fundamentalists.
'Hiding' is in reference to that fact that prior to clicking the right mouse button, there is *NO* visual indication that there is any functionality present. With left-clicking, you have menus, buttons, and other *visible* items giving immediate feedback to the user of "these are the things you can do". This is called discoverability and is one of the basic principles of good UI design. Contextual menus don't do that. They are hidden, ie, non-visible, ie non-direct, ie, harder to find. If a developer places some functionality *only* in a contextual menu, they have created a poor UI for that functionality. If they choose to place a *secondary* accessor to that functionality in a contextual menu (or keystroke), then they have scaled their UI for efficiency, but retained the discoverability principle. That's good UI. That's what shipping a single button mouse as default enforces at the developer end.
However, I get the feeling that I utterly wasted my time typing the above explanation.
It's good to see somebody with some sense and knowledge. I don't know any apps that do not hide at least one thing in a contextual menu.
You cannot draw any meaningful conclusion from a statement like "90% of replacement mice for macs are 2-button." If you're going to replace a mac mouse with a 3rd party mouse, you'd have a very hard time finding a 3rd party mouse at all. There are two reasons for this:
1.) the BEST one-button mouse in existance actually comes with the computer! YOu can't compete against a free peripheral that offers same/better performance -- the market is too small and the replacement market is even smaller.
2.) 3rd party makers sell mice primarily to the windows market. That's the only market where they can compete and make money. In light of reason 1, the best business case is to make windows mice that also work on a mac (which Apple takes care of anyway.)
Therefore, "replacement" mice are bound to be 2 button jobs 90+% of the time - they are the only non OEM options out there.
Consider that, Macally had some limited success with one button in the days of the puck. People didn't get it (the puck) and some of those bought more conventional one button mice. We haven't seen a one button 3rd party offering since Apple's optical simply because there is no need, and therefore no market opportunity.
I really love the one button, I use it every day with my PB. I have the Logitech MX 1000, which is too big to travel with. I have the Logitech V500 wich is a pain in the ass to hold. I have the Apple Wireless, which skips bumps and tracks horribly. I have a regular mouse that works fine, but has 25 feet of cord to it. I have a knsington mouse that tracks fine, but I have to reset it evrytime I reconnect it. Point not one damn mouse out there works well every day but the one button jobber.
I agree with EVERYONE that more button enhance functionality! Why not keep the design just like it is and add a second detent to the button. You know, like when you roll down you window at the drive-thru. First detent, rolls some, second detent automatically rolls all the way down. I never remember anyone bitching, saying that that design is too complicated.....
The first detent can be click, the second detent can be right click. Also, the control key can be used for custom configurations.
I also use keyboard short cuts for copy and paste and such, SO NO 500 button mouses to do every damn thing under the sun!
I really love the one button, I use it every day with my PB. I have the Logitech MX 1000, which is too big to travel with. I have the Logitech V500 wich is a pain in the ass to hold. I have the Apple Wireless, which skips bumps and tracks horribly. I have a regular mouse that works fine, but has 25 feet of cord to it. I have a knsington mouse that tracks fine, but I have to reset it evrytime I reconnect it. Point not one damn mouse out there works well every day but the one button jobber.
I agree with EVERYONE that more button enhance functionality! Why not keep the design just like it is and add a second detent to the button. You know, like when you roll down you window at the drive-thru. First detent, rolls some, second detent automatically rolls all the way down. I never remember anyone bitching, saying that that design is too complicated.....
The first detent can be click, the second detent can be right click. Also, the control key can be used for custom configurations.
I also use keyboard short cuts for copy and paste and such, SO NO 500 button mouses to do every damn thing under the sun!
That's like the click and hold idea. Click once for a click and hold it for a right click. BUT it should be a mouse feature not a UI design. As in the app thinks the hold is a right click. Although a scroll wheel is more important IMO.
I really love the one button, I use it every day with my PB. I have the Logitech MX 1000, which is too big to travel with. I have the Logitech V500 wich is a pain in the ass to hold. I have the Apple Wireless, which skips bumps and tracks horribly. I have a regular mouse that works fine, but has 25 feet of cord to it. I have a knsington mouse that tracks fine, but I have to reset it evrytime I reconnect it. Point not one damn mouse out there works well every day but the one button jobber.
I agree with EVERYONE that more button enhance functionality! Why not keep the design just like it is and add a second detent to the button. You know, like when you roll down you window at the drive-thru. First detent, rolls some, second detent automatically rolls all the way down. I never remember anyone bitching, saying that that design is too complicated.....
The first detent can be click, the second detent can be right click. Also, the control key can be used for custom configurations.
I also use keyboard short cuts for copy and paste and such, SO NO 500 button mouses to do every damn thing under the sun!
Yes, I quoted myself and there is probably a law against that...
I think that a 2 detent jobber with some kind of scroll aparatus would be perfect...
I don't like mice with forward and back buttons, because using those buttons usually undoes whatever you just did...
I DO AGREE THAT APPLE NEEDS TO GET ALL OF IT APPS DOING THE SAME THINGS WITH EITHER ACTION BUTTONS OR CONTROL CLICKS OR ALL MENU ITEMS...WHATEVER.. I personally don't care about the action buttons one way or the other
Since this is a mouse thread, I would love to see a really good, accurate BT mouse. One that you can use evrey day that doesn't have annoying lag, or that skips your cursor to the other side of the screen for no reason...
For those of you who are "throwing away your one-button mouse," how about donating them to my high school?
I fought and fought just to get Macs in my classroom six years ago and we could always use a few extra mice just in case something goes wrong. From what I heard, my school district (Akron Public Schools) wants to totally push Macs out of the district to "save money on support" despite my Macs being rock solid compared to the crappy Gateways that are always broken down, riddled with viruses and spyware. They buy that crap because they get a deal and the IT people love their job security.
Donate your working one-button Apple Pro Mouse by dropping me an email:
Four pages of discussion about mice and only a few posts about Airports. What changes do you think will happen, and when? I'm really itching to order stuff from the Apple Store but I want to save in shipping, and I could use a wireless access point..
JD, I really suggest you do some investigation into UI research before relaying an opinion like that publicly. It might save you some embarrassment.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it false. cf: evolution and fundamentalists.
'Hiding' is in reference to that fact that prior to clicking the right mouse button, there is *NO* visual indication that there is any functionality present. With left-clicking, you have menus, buttons, and other *visible* items giving immediate feedback to the user of "these are the things you can do". This is called discoverability and is one of the basic principles of good UI design. Contextual menus don't do that. They are hidden, ie, non-visible, ie non-direct, ie, harder to find. If a developer places some functionality *only* in a contextual menu, they have created a poor UI for that functionality. If they choose to place a *secondary* accessor to that functionality in a contextual menu (or keystroke), then they have scaled their UI for efficiency, but retained the discoverability principle. That's good UI. That's what shipping a single button mouse as default enforces at the developer end.
However, I get the feeling that I utterly wasted my time typing the above explanation.
Kickaha, I have to come in here to share Junkyard Dawg?s ?embarrassment?, because honestly, his posting was just spot-on. The more I read in this thread about this argument of ?discoverability?, the more convinced I am that JD understands it, and you and all the other menu bar fans are labouring under a delusion. You?re all stating that actions on a menu bar are ?discoverable? and actions on a context menu are ?hidden?, as though that was an obvious truth. I don?t think it is. Here?s why...
You have an object on screen that you want to perform an action on. Two ways to do it; a) the context menu, or b) the menu bar. Method a): right-click the object. The program knows what the object is, and displays a context menu with actions appropriate to the object. Method b): left-click the object, move the cursor up to the menu bar, and click again on the menu item (out of probably half-a-dozen or so items) that you think has the action you need. If you get it wrong, as I do frequently, shuttle the mouse from side to side until you get it right. Now to my mind, method a is a lot more ?discoverable? than method b.
OK, you do need to know that you can right-click to pull up a context menu, but on the Windows platform, that is becoming more and more an accepted convention. And that?s happening because it?s very convenient. A string of menu bar items and a plethora of toolbars can be really bewildering - very often it?s not obvious what you need to click on. Much easier to just right-click on something, and let the program throw up a list of appropriate actions. The concept is easily understood, even by beginners.
I?ve taught people to use MS Word. This is the sort of thing that happens very often: they?ve got some text selected that they want to copy. I say ?ok, copy, it?s on the menu bar under edit?. They look at the screen. Along the top are the words ?File Edit View etc.? Under that are a couple of rows of buttons. They?ve no idea where to click; they don?t know what a menu bar is. More importantly, they don?t realise that if they click on the words at the top, a list of other words will appear underneath. And why should they? It?s not intuitively obvious; you just learn it by experience. The same way that Windows users learn about right-clicking.
I actually hate menu bars. I?ve seen so many programs trying to fit their various options around this straight-jacket format of ?File, Edit, View, whatever? when it just doesn?t apply, and it makes it really difficult to find things. I bet a lot of applications could do without a menu bar altogether. Mine does.
Yes Kickaha, I am one of your despised developers! I?ve just brought out a little font management program for Windows. You?d probably hate it, as it breaks the guidelines all over the place. Not only is there no menu bar, but lots of areas on the screen don?t look at first glance as if they?re clickable, although they are. And what will put it completely beyond the pale is that there are things you can only do with a right-click. But I challenge anyone (even you, Kickaha, if you know anyone with a PC) to play with it for half an hour and then tell me it isn?t a quicker, easier way to do things. If I?d stuck to the guidelines, I?d never have developed it. If anyone is interested, there?s a free trial version on my website www.fontrainbow.com.
This thread has given me a good deal of food for thought, as I intend to bring out an Apple version for my sins. I?ll need to make adjustments of course, but what I certainly won?t be doing is putting in a menu bar just to fit in with some clunky convention.
[BYes Kickaha, I am one of your despised developers! I?ve just brought out a little font management program for Windows. You?d probably hate it, as it breaks the guidelines all over the place. Not only is there no menu bar, but lots of areas on the screen don?t look at first glance as if they?re clickable, although they are. And what will put it completely beyond the pale is that there are things you can only do with a right-click. But I challenge anyone (even you, Kickaha, if you know anyone with a PC) to play with it for half an hour and then tell me it isn?t a quicker, easier way to do things. If I?d stuck to the guidelines, I?d never have developed it. If anyone is interested, there?s a free trial version on my website www.fontrainbow.com.
This thread has given me a good deal of food for thought, as I intend to bring out an Apple version for my sins. I?ll need to make adjustments of course, but what I certainly won?t be doing is putting in a menu bar just to fit in with some clunky convention. [/B]
I assume that you have a manual, no matter how short, that explains these clickable ares.
Just what the world needs, another small font program. How many is that now? Three dozen, four?
Well, I hope that yours is really better, because I've tried many, and they are all the same, and they aren't very good.
I'm waiting for yours. I hope it's really better. All authors say that.
Though I do agree about the right click. Only after a Mac comes with a 2 button mouse as standard, however, will you be right about that on a Mac though. Right now not enough Mac users are used to the convention. Clicking the control key is easy to ignore, or forget.
Interesting UI, that's for sure. I can't say I like it, at all, sorry.
You may want to look at FontBook which comes included with every Mac before putting effort into porting that. I think you'll find that what your app does, FontBook does also, including much of the filtering. And I think you'd be hard pressed to outdo the built in Unicode-aware Character Palette that all apps have access to. In any case, maybe they'll give you some ideas.
One thing you'll find on moving to the Mac though, if you do... you have to work rather hard to *not* have a menu bar, and choosing not to have one will put you in for a world of hurt with the dev tools. Your choice of course, but there's simply no reason not to have a menu bar for most apps.
And I'm sorry, but your app's UI hasn't exactly led me to change my mind regarding single button mice. In fact, it's rather strengthened my opinion.
I assume that you have a manual, no matter how short, that explains these clickable ares.
Just what the world needs, another small font program. How many is that now? Three dozen, four?
Well, I hope that yours is really better, because I've tried many, and they are all the same, and they aren't very good.
I'm waiting for yours. I hope it's really better. All authors say that.
Though I do agree about the right click. Only after a Mac comes with a 2 button mouse as standard, however, will you be right about that on a Mac though. Right now not enough Mac users are used to the convention. Clicking the option key is easy to ignore, or forget.
Ha! It's way more than four dozen - if you really look you can find hundreds. I'm hoping to get mine on the Apple by the end of the year and yes, there is a help system where it's all explained. It certainly won't "be like all the rest" - that would be pointless.
Apple's stance just seems odd - why allow for a 2 button mouse in the OS and not supply one as standard kit? If they did, then Mac users could make the same step forward that Windows users did years ago.
why allow for a 2 button mouse in the OS and not supply one as standard kit?
The simple and tragic answer might be that this forces developers to simplify their user interfaces so that they don't hide essential features under a context menu.
Comments
Originally posted by Junkyard Dawg
A one button mouse is a joke. Apple's mice have been jokes for years, and have fueled a Mac mouse industry for those who throw out the "Pro" mouse. And guess what? 90% of replacement Mac mice are >1 button! So the argument that people can't figure out more than one button is bogus.
And note that for every instance of bad two button mouse design, one can find another instance where two buttons makes interacting with the computer faster and more enjoyable. Keeping a one button mouse to defend against bad software development is foolish. It's like sticking with a CRT because one's afraid of a dead pixel.
1. The one-button mouse is not a joke. It's a pointing device you and many others don't like, but many do.
2. Did you just make up that "90% of replacement Mac mice are >1 button" claim? Is that an estimation, a guess or do you have a source? I don't doubt you could be right on that figure. I guess it could be even higher than 90% but I think it's important to teach people not to fabricate stats on the fly or at least indicate it's a guess, an estimation or a documented stat, etc.
3. More buttons on my mouse wouldn't make my experience that much more enjoyable so that's relative.
4. I can take a dead pixel. Heck, my PowerBook has more than one I guess. But bad "software development" or bad "UI interaction" is not OK. If a standard one-button mouse helps in the slightest way to enforce good "UI development" practices, then I'm all for it.
Originally posted by Kickaha
D'oh, you're right, it doesn't work on a per-selection basis. Cmd-; goes to the next misspelled word in the text field. The closest thing is to bring up the Spelling box with Cmd-:, then place the cursor before the misspelled word, and hit Cmd-;, or 'Find Next'. If it triggers a misspelling, it will give you the same options in the box as you get in the contextual menu. I *guess* technically that is the same as the right-click, but...
I always select the word (double-click) then command-;
*shrug*
What gets me is that Apple is shipping keybaords with help buttons that do NOTHING! Why put a help button on your keyboard if the OS expects Cmd-? for help viewer? Or F13 and F14 which control brightness on iMacs and Apple displays, why not silk screen these on the keyboards, so what if someone has a third party monitor. I have an iMac G5 and would appreciatea keybaord made for it -- by Apple (isn't that a crazy idea?)
And to comment on the Airport Updates, they are not touch 802.11n standard -- nah, I think g will be the way for a few more years, rather I think they will combine "Airtunes" functionality in the big Base Station with a 1/8" mini-optical/analog plug - why let the express have a cool feature that the big daddy of the airport family doesn't have?
Originally posted by dfiler
You still don't get it?
He wasn't arguing that he prefers to use a one-button mouse. Instead, he prefers using a platform which ships a one-button mouse as default. It forces developers to not hide things only in contextual menus.
Efficiency is good. That's why Apple supports multiple buttons.
Discoverablility is good. That's why Apples ship with a single-button mouse as default.
There is merit in both.
Yes, but if Apple shipped a two-button mouse, nobody could "hide" anything in the contextual menus, because they would be no more difficult to access than the normal menus. Point and click simplicity. It's only bad GUI design on a Mac because Apple ships a single button mouse.
This argument that Apple should ship deficient hardware because it promotes good GUI design smacks of Apple apologism. Hardware doesn't promote good GUI design, good design principles promote good GUI design.
JD, I really suggest you do some investigation into UI research before relaying an opinion like that publicly. It might save you some embarrassment.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it false. cf: evolution and fundamentalists.
'Hiding' is in reference to that fact that prior to clicking the right mouse button, there is *NO* visual indication that there is any functionality present. With left-clicking, you have menus, buttons, and other *visible* items giving immediate feedback to the user of "these are the things you can do". This is called discoverability and is one of the basic principles of good UI design. Contextual menus don't do that. They are hidden, ie, non-visible, ie non-direct, ie, harder to find. If a developer places some functionality *only* in a contextual menu, they have created a poor UI for that functionality. If they choose to place a *secondary* accessor to that functionality in a contextual menu (or keystroke), then they have scaled their UI for efficiency, but retained the discoverability principle. That's good UI. That's what shipping a single button mouse as default enforces at the developer end.
However, I get the feeling that I utterly wasted my time typing the above explanation.
Originally posted by Kickaha
JD, I really suggest you do some investigation into UI research before relaying an opinion like that publicly. It might save you some embarrassment.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it false. cf: evolution and fundamentalists.
'Hiding' is in reference to that fact that prior to clicking the right mouse button, there is *NO* visual indication that there is any functionality present. With left-clicking, you have menus, buttons, and other *visible* items giving immediate feedback to the user of "these are the things you can do". This is called discoverability and is one of the basic principles of good UI design. Contextual menus don't do that. They are hidden, ie, non-visible, ie non-direct, ie, harder to find. If a developer places some functionality *only* in a contextual menu, they have created a poor UI for that functionality. If they choose to place a *secondary* accessor to that functionality in a contextual menu (or keystroke), then they have scaled their UI for efficiency, but retained the discoverability principle. That's good UI. That's what shipping a single button mouse as default enforces at the developer end.
However, I get the feeling that I utterly wasted my time typing the above explanation.
It's good to see somebody with some sense and knowledge. I don't know any apps that do not hide at least one thing in a contextual menu.
1.) the BEST one-button mouse in existance actually comes with the computer! YOu can't compete against a free peripheral that offers same/better performance -- the market is too small and the replacement market is even smaller.
2.) 3rd party makers sell mice primarily to the windows market. That's the only market where they can compete and make money. In light of reason 1, the best business case is to make windows mice that also work on a mac (which Apple takes care of anyway.)
Therefore, "replacement" mice are bound to be 2 button jobs 90+% of the time - they are the only non OEM options out there.
Consider that, Macally had some limited success with one button in the days of the puck. People didn't get it (the puck) and some of those bought more conventional one button mice. We haven't seen a one button 3rd party offering since Apple's optical simply because there is no need, and therefore no market opportunity.
I really love the one button, I use it every day with my PB. I have the Logitech MX 1000, which is too big to travel with. I have the Logitech V500 wich is a pain in the ass to hold. I have the Apple Wireless, which skips bumps and tracks horribly. I have a regular mouse that works fine, but has 25 feet of cord to it. I have a knsington mouse that tracks fine, but I have to reset it evrytime I reconnect it. Point not one damn mouse out there works well every day but the one button jobber.
I agree with EVERYONE that more button enhance functionality! Why not keep the design just like it is and add a second detent to the button. You know, like when you roll down you window at the drive-thru. First detent, rolls some, second detent automatically rolls all the way down. I never remember anyone bitching, saying that that design is too complicated.....
The first detent can be click, the second detent can be right click. Also, the control key can be used for custom configurations.
I also use keyboard short cuts for copy and paste and such, SO NO 500 button mouses to do every damn thing under the sun!
Originally posted by pbaker05
I have an idea!!!!!!!
I really love the one button, I use it every day with my PB. I have the Logitech MX 1000, which is too big to travel with. I have the Logitech V500 wich is a pain in the ass to hold. I have the Apple Wireless, which skips bumps and tracks horribly. I have a regular mouse that works fine, but has 25 feet of cord to it. I have a knsington mouse that tracks fine, but I have to reset it evrytime I reconnect it. Point not one damn mouse out there works well every day but the one button jobber.
I agree with EVERYONE that more button enhance functionality! Why not keep the design just like it is and add a second detent to the button. You know, like when you roll down you window at the drive-thru. First detent, rolls some, second detent automatically rolls all the way down. I never remember anyone bitching, saying that that design is too complicated.....
The first detent can be click, the second detent can be right click. Also, the control key can be used for custom configurations.
I also use keyboard short cuts for copy and paste and such, SO NO 500 button mouses to do every damn thing under the sun!
That's like the click and hold idea. Click once for a click and hold it for a right click. BUT it should be a mouse feature not a UI design. As in the app thinks the hold is a right click. Although a scroll wheel is more important IMO.
The whole idea behind one button is that things are supposed to be easy enough that you don't *need* a second button!
Long live the one-button Apple Pro Mouse.
I really love the one button, I use it every day with my PB. I have the Logitech MX 1000, which is too big to travel with. I have the Logitech V500 wich is a pain in the ass to hold. I have the Apple Wireless, which skips bumps and tracks horribly. I have a regular mouse that works fine, but has 25 feet of cord to it. I have a knsington mouse that tracks fine, but I have to reset it evrytime I reconnect it. Point not one damn mouse out there works well every day but the one button jobber.
I agree with EVERYONE that more button enhance functionality! Why not keep the design just like it is and add a second detent to the button. You know, like when you roll down you window at the drive-thru. First detent, rolls some, second detent automatically rolls all the way down. I never remember anyone bitching, saying that that design is too complicated.....
The first detent can be click, the second detent can be right click. Also, the control key can be used for custom configurations.
I also use keyboard short cuts for copy and paste and such, SO NO 500 button mouses to do every damn thing under the sun!
Yes, I quoted myself and there is probably a law against that...
I think that a 2 detent jobber with some kind of scroll aparatus would be perfect...
I don't like mice with forward and back buttons, because using those buttons usually undoes whatever you just did...
I DO AGREE THAT APPLE NEEDS TO GET ALL OF IT APPS DOING THE SAME THINGS WITH EITHER ACTION BUTTONS OR CONTROL CLICKS OR ALL MENU ITEMS...WHATEVER.. I personally don't care about the action buttons one way or the other
Since this is a mouse thread, I would love to see a really good, accurate BT mouse. One that you can use evrey day that doesn't have annoying lag, or that skips your cursor to the other side of the screen for no reason...
Originally posted by zeus423
I've happily used a one-button mouse since I started using a Mac back in '87. I have no desire to use a two-button mouse.
The whole idea behind one button is that things are supposed to be easy enough that you don't *need* a second button!
Long live the one-button Apple Pro Mouse.
I SECOND THAT! In fact, I should go out and buy one right now...
I fought and fought just to get Macs in my classroom six years ago and we could always use a few extra mice just in case something goes wrong. From what I heard, my school district (Akron Public Schools) wants to totally push Macs out of the district to "save money on support" despite my Macs being rock solid compared to the crappy Gateways that are always broken down, riddled with viruses and spyware. They buy that crap because they get a deal and the IT people love their job security.
Donate your working one-button Apple Pro Mouse by dropping me an email:
[email protected]
Thanks!!!
Or streaming video.
but I would be happy with streaming the same music to multiple speakers.
Originally posted by Kickaha
JD, I really suggest you do some investigation into UI research before relaying an opinion like that publicly. It might save you some embarrassment.
Just because you don't understand it, doesn't make it false. cf: evolution and fundamentalists.
'Hiding' is in reference to that fact that prior to clicking the right mouse button, there is *NO* visual indication that there is any functionality present. With left-clicking, you have menus, buttons, and other *visible* items giving immediate feedback to the user of "these are the things you can do". This is called discoverability and is one of the basic principles of good UI design. Contextual menus don't do that. They are hidden, ie, non-visible, ie non-direct, ie, harder to find. If a developer places some functionality *only* in a contextual menu, they have created a poor UI for that functionality. If they choose to place a *secondary* accessor to that functionality in a contextual menu (or keystroke), then they have scaled their UI for efficiency, but retained the discoverability principle. That's good UI. That's what shipping a single button mouse as default enforces at the developer end.
However, I get the feeling that I utterly wasted my time typing the above explanation.
Kickaha, I have to come in here to share Junkyard Dawg?s ?embarrassment?, because honestly, his posting was just spot-on. The more I read in this thread about this argument of ?discoverability?, the more convinced I am that JD understands it, and you and all the other menu bar fans are labouring under a delusion. You?re all stating that actions on a menu bar are ?discoverable? and actions on a context menu are ?hidden?, as though that was an obvious truth. I don?t think it is. Here?s why...
You have an object on screen that you want to perform an action on. Two ways to do it; a) the context menu, or b) the menu bar. Method a): right-click the object. The program knows what the object is, and displays a context menu with actions appropriate to the object. Method b): left-click the object, move the cursor up to the menu bar, and click again on the menu item (out of probably half-a-dozen or so items) that you think has the action you need. If you get it wrong, as I do frequently, shuttle the mouse from side to side until you get it right. Now to my mind, method a is a lot more ?discoverable? than method b.
OK, you do need to know that you can right-click to pull up a context menu, but on the Windows platform, that is becoming more and more an accepted convention. And that?s happening because it?s very convenient. A string of menu bar items and a plethora of toolbars can be really bewildering - very often it?s not obvious what you need to click on. Much easier to just right-click on something, and let the program throw up a list of appropriate actions. The concept is easily understood, even by beginners.
I?ve taught people to use MS Word. This is the sort of thing that happens very often: they?ve got some text selected that they want to copy. I say ?ok, copy, it?s on the menu bar under edit?. They look at the screen. Along the top are the words ?File Edit View etc.? Under that are a couple of rows of buttons. They?ve no idea where to click; they don?t know what a menu bar is. More importantly, they don?t realise that if they click on the words at the top, a list of other words will appear underneath. And why should they? It?s not intuitively obvious; you just learn it by experience. The same way that Windows users learn about right-clicking.
I actually hate menu bars. I?ve seen so many programs trying to fit their various options around this straight-jacket format of ?File, Edit, View, whatever? when it just doesn?t apply, and it makes it really difficult to find things. I bet a lot of applications could do without a menu bar altogether. Mine does.
Yes Kickaha, I am one of your despised developers! I?ve just brought out a little font management program for Windows. You?d probably hate it, as it breaks the guidelines all over the place. Not only is there no menu bar, but lots of areas on the screen don?t look at first glance as if they?re clickable, although they are. And what will put it completely beyond the pale is that there are things you can only do with a right-click. But I challenge anyone (even you, Kickaha, if you know anyone with a PC) to play with it for half an hour and then tell me it isn?t a quicker, easier way to do things. If I?d stuck to the guidelines, I?d never have developed it. If anyone is interested, there?s a free trial version on my website www.fontrainbow.com.
This thread has given me a good deal of food for thought, as I intend to bring out an Apple version for my sins. I?ll need to make adjustments of course, but what I certainly won?t be doing is putting in a menu bar just to fit in with some clunky convention.
Originally posted by RainbowGuy
[BYes Kickaha, I am one of your despised developers! I?ve just brought out a little font management program for Windows. You?d probably hate it, as it breaks the guidelines all over the place. Not only is there no menu bar, but lots of areas on the screen don?t look at first glance as if they?re clickable, although they are. And what will put it completely beyond the pale is that there are things you can only do with a right-click. But I challenge anyone (even you, Kickaha, if you know anyone with a PC) to play with it for half an hour and then tell me it isn?t a quicker, easier way to do things. If I?d stuck to the guidelines, I?d never have developed it. If anyone is interested, there?s a free trial version on my website www.fontrainbow.com.
This thread has given me a good deal of food for thought, as I intend to bring out an Apple version for my sins. I?ll need to make adjustments of course, but what I certainly won?t be doing is putting in a menu bar just to fit in with some clunky convention. [/B]
I assume that you have a manual, no matter how short, that explains these clickable ares.
Just what the world needs, another small font program. How many is that now? Three dozen, four?
Well, I hope that yours is really better, because I've tried many, and they are all the same, and they aren't very good.
I'm waiting for yours. I hope it's really better. All authors say that.
Though I do agree about the right click. Only after a Mac comes with a 2 button mouse as standard, however, will you be right about that on a Mac though. Right now not enough Mac users are used to the convention. Clicking the control key is easy to ignore, or forget.
Oops! Edited to correct option for control key.
Interesting UI, that's for sure. I can't say I like it, at all, sorry.
You may want to look at FontBook which comes included with every Mac before putting effort into porting that. I think you'll find that what your app does, FontBook does also, including much of the filtering. And I think you'd be hard pressed to outdo the built in Unicode-aware Character Palette that all apps have access to. In any case, maybe they'll give you some ideas.
One thing you'll find on moving to the Mac though, if you do... you have to work rather hard to *not* have a menu bar, and choosing not to have one will put you in for a world of hurt with the dev tools. Your choice of course, but there's simply no reason not to have a menu bar for most apps.
And I'm sorry, but your app's UI hasn't exactly led me to change my mind regarding single button mice. In fact, it's rather strengthened my opinion.
Originally posted by melgross
I assume that you have a manual, no matter how short, that explains these clickable ares.
Just what the world needs, another small font program. How many is that now? Three dozen, four?
Well, I hope that yours is really better, because I've tried many, and they are all the same, and they aren't very good.
I'm waiting for yours. I hope it's really better. All authors say that.
Though I do agree about the right click. Only after a Mac comes with a 2 button mouse as standard, however, will you be right about that on a Mac though. Right now not enough Mac users are used to the convention. Clicking the option key is easy to ignore, or forget.
Ha! It's way more than four dozen - if you really look you can find hundreds. I'm hoping to get mine on the Apple by the end of the year and yes, there is a help system where it's all explained. It certainly won't "be like all the rest" - that would be pointless.
Apple's stance just seems odd - why allow for a 2 button mouse in the OS and not supply one as standard kit? If they did, then Mac users could make the same step forward that Windows users did years ago.
Originally posted by RainbowGuy
why allow for a 2 button mouse in the OS and not supply one as standard kit?
The simple and tragic answer might be that this forces developers to simplify their user interfaces so that they don't hide essential features under a context menu.