On 2022-09-13 at 08:23 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote:
I'd disagree. Many GNOME applications have been doing so for ages as it saves screen estate. See attachments for examples of main windows. Cheers, andre
It does save screen estate,* but results in a less intuitive interface. A menu bar provides a clear separation of the actions in sections (menus) described by its title. You usually pick the right menu on first attempt (admittedly, that may be because we have been using programs for many years with a similar convention of menus File, Edit, View… so perhaps a new computer user would not be that used to find Open functions in the File menu), whereas I find that the single-menu systems replacing them to be a mixture where it's not clear where the function you are looking for will be placed. I am looking at gedit as a representative application. All the manus seem to have been merged in the hamburguer menu, with most entries at the first level, but some becoming submenus. You have the save menu in the Title bar, but save as in the menu. Cut, Copy and Paste are gone, you need to know about the contextual menu to find such entries (advanced users won't use them, but newbies do use such menus/toolbar icons) There are open and save buttons in the title bar, which make sense as they are likely to be the most used functions of a text editor. At the same time, those buttons may not be used at all for users that learned tte shortcuts Ctrl-O and Ctrl-S (precisely because these are so common, it makes sense to learn them), but I guess they might be needed for discoverability. I don't see a benefit over having them in a classic toolbar. though. (*) The savings are not as big as might be expected, though, since the title bar, which could otherwise be relatively small, then increases their size enormously (grows bigger than a toolbar) in order to host all those controls. See the attachment comparing gedit and pluma side- by-side. Kind regards
Attachment:
gedit-and-pluma.png
Description: PNG image
