Re: The relationship between Desktop and Panel

["Dan Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

>If my own father made it, i'd call it a clumsy-ass hack, because it is. :)
>Its a poorly derived, poorly thought-out method of supplying the user with
>quick access to documents/programs. Its logically inconsistant, sloppy,
>naturally prone to disorganization, and becomes less and less useful as
>the more things are added to it. You call this a good thing? :)


"Any interface is abusable, but not every interface is usable." --Kaminsky's
First Law Of User Interfaces

You state that the Start Menu is poorly derived and poorly thought ought.  I
agree that the default implementation of contents that have been placed in
it *STINK*.  Even though Microsoft *demands* the user have the right and
ability to place each app *upon installation* into a specific and
appropriate folder, it turns out that's not enough--nobody takes the effort
to set up folders.  I'd say that this is an example of what Russel worries
about--lots of theory, not enough testing.  Testing would have showed nobody
bothers to set up their own categories, at least almost nobody.

Logically inconsistent?  Apps without supporting entries(uninstall scripts)
get placed directly into Programs, while apps with support get placed in a
folder entitled with the company name.  I'd say 90% go in with a company.
Any inconsistencies that occur are because of a flaw with the style sheet,
not with the start menu itself.  When you get down to it, the real problem
with the menu itself is that there's no brain-dead easy way for the user to
access \WINDOWS\START MENU\.

Every single flaw with the Start Menu above is straight out of the
implementation bugs.  Marketing thought companies should have an opportunity
to "credit themselves" with writing an app.  Because of this one marketing
demand, the Start Menu got thrashed and thrashed hard.

If GTK+ is used to make a logically inconsistent app, it's not the fault of
GTK+!

> [Mimicry is bad, MacOS did it better]

"Everything which is consistent between applications should be accessable
consistently between applications."  --Kaminsky's Second Law Of User
Interfaces

Before you accuse Microsoft of "stealing" and "mimicing", take a good hard
look in the mirror.

Isn't this the same post you're praising the AmigaTOOLS interface with?  Are
you telling me you've never looked at BeOS, or NeXT, or Macintosh, and
thought "Lets take the best of all this and make it even better!"

Oops, I forgot when you're studying prior art, it's research, but when
Microsoft studies prior art, it's theft and plaigarism.

Don't be so hypocritical.  You know that wonderful /proc filesystem?
"Stolen" from Plan 9.  Do you think Linus invented most of the concepts that
make Linux so great?  Hell no, he built off the shoulders of those who had
come before, as have all of us who have worked on Linux.  Lets say Microsoft
started leveling charges against FVWM95, saying it's a total ripoff and
there was no thought behind it and blah blah blah blah blah?  Wouldn't we
say that was BS; that Microsoft can't really claim any ownership on a UI
concept?

Microsoft's start menu lets you right click on any entry in 98. This is my
single favorite new feature.  Should they be able to get a patent on it?  Of
course not!  As time goes on, everybody builds off of eachother's designs.

That's how it should be.  Even for the "Evil Empire".

Oh, and about that "Apple Menu", let me describe what a PAIN IN THE ASS it
is to add items to the apple menu.  First of all, installing a new app
doesn't always or even often add it to the Apple menu, so you get to hunt
throught the directory structure.  Supposing you find the app you're looking
for, you get the joyous adventure of making a shortcut, opening up Hard
Drive:System:Apple Menu Items, and then drag-and-dropping the shortcut in.

Note, by default, NOTHING goes into the apple menu, so ANY tiem you want
easy access to a new program, it's a minute of your life.

Sorry if I got a little bit testy :-)   It's just that Microsoft's business
practices are so awful that I think complaining about their UI stuff is akin
to totally missing the point.

>Its a fact Microsoft rips off ideas from

>other platforms, then juggles the idea just-so-slightly to avoid the legal
>hassles. If you dont believe me, I can site you examples of this that go
>back as far as 1986.


I can cite examples of computer programmers building off eachother from the
beginning of computer programs.  Are you saying this is a bad thing?

Are you saying there should be no /proc filesystem, cuz someone else did it
first?

Not so easy when it's tossed back at you, is it.

>>
>> What's interesting about all the above is that they refer to filler bugs,
>> not concept bugs.  The GNOME interface can be made absolutely awful in
much
>> the same way that the Start menu can; it's just that it won't screw up
like
>> that by default.
>>
>
>The style guide will likely suggest a "default" look and feel which can be
>subsequently modified by the user.


So you agree with what I said above?

>[Start menu becomes a mess]

Implementation.  Users turn out too lazy to say where a new app should go on
install.

> [How AmigaTOOLS works]

Looks alot like how you can put foo.bat inside of the start menu, anywhere
you like, using the well known folder interface.