Re: Location of menu bar
- From: "P. Sture" <paul.sture.nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 11:54:40 +0100
In article <barmar-56689B.00420813122007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Barry Margolin <barmar@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <121220070602260544%nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
by having a fixed menubar at the top of the screen, the menubar is
'infinitely tall' and is easy to hit with the mouse. having multiple
rows of menus or icons requires precise aim, and it's easy to
overshoot.
If this is true, then why do so many apps have toolbars? They're
usually at the top of the window, but the above logic suggests that they
should be at the top of the screen. Toolbars are those "multiple rows
of menus or icons" that you suggest are hard to use.
Numbers and Pages (Apple apps) being prime examples.
There are a few applications that have a freestanding toolbar that hugs
the menu bar and appears when the application is active, e.g. all the MS
Office apps. The main justification I can see for this style is that
the toolbars have so much stuff in them that it would be a pain to steal
that much space away from each window.
Office 97 was where I first came across that feature and it did save
valuable screen estate. The drawback with leaving it running permanently
was that it used valuable RAM, when that was still expensive.
--
Paul Sture
Sue's OpenVMS bookmarks:
http://eisner.encompasserve.org/~sture/ovms-bookmarks.html
.
- References:
- Location of menu bar
- From: JF Mezei
- Re: Location of menu bar
- From: nospam
- Re: Location of menu bar
- From: Barry Margolin
- Location of menu bar
- Prev by Date: Re: Handheld that works well with Macs
- Next by Date: Re: Location of menu bar
- Previous by thread: Re: Location of menu bar
- Next by thread: Re: Location of menu bar
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
