<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Tim Rowledge wrote:<br>
<blockquote cite="mid4b512b084d.rowledge@Gravious.shaw.ca" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Rob Lally <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:smalltalk@roblally.plus.com"><smalltalk@roblally.plus.com></a> wrote:</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">ne of the things that stands out as being different in Squeak from
other environments is the avoidance of traditional 'drop-down
top-of-the-screen' menu bars.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->Hardly 'traditional'. Mac uses top-of-screen, an idiom that stopped
working well as soon as multitasking came in and became ludicrous with
large screens. Window uses top-of-window menubars, which doesn't give
the advantages originally claimed for the Mac style and takes up screen
rea estate to little effect. RISC OS doesn't use menubars at all,
preferring a popup menu tree with context sensitivity and various unix
window managers do all sorts of things including mixing all
possibilities at once.</pre>
</blockquote>
Early UI's used them. Most current UI's use them. Anyone designing a
new UI would probably use them - then again Croquet hasn't, and it is
the most recent UI I can think of. Most computers built with mice over
the last couple of decades have an OS that supports them in most, if
not all, of their applications.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid4b512b084d.rowledge@Gravious.shaw.ca" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Why has the community avoided them?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->I'd like to think because context related popup menus are understood to
be better. After all, they _are_ the original and traditional manner.</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">What are the problems associated with them?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->See decent UI textbooks.</pre>
</blockquote>
Decent UI textbooks all recomend having menu bars, context sensitive
popup menus and keyboard shortcuts, ideally providing three ways to
access any functionality. Of these menu bars are generally considered
considered most important, particularly for novices.<br>
<blockquote cite="mid4b512b084d.rowledge@Gravious.shaw.ca" type="cite">
<pre wrap=""></pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Does anyone feel the the Squeak environment is diminished by their
absence? What advantages are there to not having them?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->It only matters if you are keen on 'platform compliance' rather than
'good UI'. And that depends on the market for your work - sometimes
platform compliance is utterly crucial, sometimes it simply doesn't
matter.</pre>
</blockquote>
Anyone interested in 'platform compliance' is unlikely to find their
home in Squeak. Unless perhaps Squeak can grow to be the emacs of the
21st century and update the old 'emacs is my operating system' chestnut.<br>
<br>
It matters very much if you are interested in 'good UI', as I know many
of the Squeak contributers over the years are and have been. Usability
is not a matter of 'platform compliance' it is a matter of
understanding human behaviour and and activity. Since my audience for
Squeak applications is .. me .. the user interface for them doesn't
matter that much. Actually the applications themselves don't matter
that much since they will in all probablity take much longer to write
than the effort they will save. I want to understand Squeak because
that understanding will benefit me and make me better at everything
else I do. The design and development of the UI framework is one of the
areas I hope to learn from.<br>
<br>
Rob.<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>