Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!Apple.COM!lsr From: lsr@Apple.COM (Larry Rosenstein) Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system Subject: Re: System 7 talk: Hierarchial Apple Menus Message-ID: <8691@goofy.Apple.COM> Date: 14 Jun 90 19:49:10 GMT Sender: usenet@Apple.COM Organization: Future Stuff, Apple Computer, Inc. Lines: 129 References:<68207@cc.utah.edu> <8655@goofy.Apple.COM> <13407@wpi.wpi.edu> <41889@apple.Apple.COM> <69651@cc.utah.edu> In article <69651@cc.utah.edu> TJACOBS@cc.utah.edu writes: > Was the booing for hierarchical menus in general or for them in the Apple > menu? I think the replys so far indicate it was the former. I wasn't there, so I don't know the exact story. > is that there are good things to use them for and bad things to use them I object to hierarchical menus because I find them difficult to use. I haven't met a hierarchical menu that I liked. > ical by nature. If your going to have folders in the menu why not have them > actin a similar manner to how a folder does? I think you are taking too technical a view. If there are 10 icon in the Apple Menu folder, there are 10 items in the Apple menu. Selecting an item from the menu does the same thing as selecting the icon and opening it. It happens that folder do something different when opened than an application. That's because they are a different kind of object. > Real folders in the Apple menu folder show as hierarchial, aliased folders > show as just the folder. I don't like this idea because it makes an artificial distinction between aliases and the real thing. It also puts restrictions on where you can use aliases, which defeats their purpose. > I don't see whats so complicated. Either the folder is hierarchical or not. > Sure there needs to be a mechanism, just because there is doesn't mean it It's one added mechanism in a system that already introduces a lot of new mechanisms. > That would be true if the window were already open and in view, which is > probably not the norm. One of the points I made above is that if you don't > have to switch to the Finder it saves time. If the window is open, it doesn't have to be in view, because selecting it from the Apple menu will make it visible. If it was in view, you could double click on the icon directly. And you don't necessarily have to put the folder away. Your description of the test using HierDA, indicates that it wasn't a trivial task. (You mentioned that you overshot the item, for example.) And you are an experienced user of hierarchical menus. You won't be able to do a fair test with System 7, because it's only an alpha version, and that version is known to be very slow. > do a fair test have 28 items in the folder and use SuperClocks timmer. You I would like to see some info about how many things people keep in their Apple menu (or OnCue menu). I have 18 in mine, of which I use 11 regularly. > menu she saw the sub menu pop out and she said it was additional items to > choose from. Plenty easy enough for the new user. It's one thing to explain what the triangle means. There's also the question of how well an inexperienced user can use them, and in the case of the hierarchical Apple menu explaining how to control whether a folder appears with a hierarchical menu or not. >If the feature helps organize things and speeds computer use, would you want >to add it? It's impossible to say without being explicit. The System 7 Apple menu was a simple generalization of the existing DA menu. It's not a "free" improvement because you have to explain the connection between the Apple menu folder and the menu itself. But it also ties in with the change that reduces the difference between DAs and applications. People have asked for the ability to popup a menu annywhere on the screen that duplicates the menu bar and lets you select an item from a hierarchical menu. But when someone tested this interface they found it was slower than having the menu bar at the top of the screen, even on a large monitor. (See the CHI 1990 Proceedings.) > If you're talking about the apple menu as the tool then what System 7 does to > it is add more features! Now you can launch applications directly from the System 7 removes the distinction between DAs and applications. Therefore, it doesn't make sense to limit the Apple menu to just DAs. (In a sense the concept of a DA is gone from System 7. DAs are just applications that are written in a special way.) It is a natural extension to include applications in the menu. The new concept is that the way to configure the menu is to put icons in a special folder. That is a new feature. It isn't necessary that folders be allowed in the Apple menu. After all they aren't launched in the same way that applications & DAs are. In this case, I think it makes sense to include them because it eliminates a set of special cases. And if new kinds of objects get added to the Finder, there's no question about whether then can be put into the Apple menu. > I claim Apple is making > the Apple menu a short-cut center in addition to the "About", "Controls", I agree that the Apple menu is a short-cut center. What I disagree with is the idea that a menu containing 40 items (regardless of how they are organized) can be considered a short-cut. > to the MF menu under the silly guise of needing that icon to be a menu. Perhaps > the real reason is to simplify the Apple menu to make way for the new stuf! I think one reason is to move things out of the Apple menu, so that it can accommodate more shortcuts. But putting the applications into their own menu also allows us to get rid of the hidden feature of setting aside all but the current application's windows. I agree that the implementation in the alpha version is weak, and I think the Human Interface people are working on it. Larry Rosenstein, Apple Computer, Inc. Object Specialist Internet: lsr@Apple.com UUCP: {nsc, sun}!apple!lsr AppleLink: Rosenstein1