Remix clone Hacker News

new | show | ask | jobs Github

▲

dartharva 20 hours ago

Current interfaces are generally a lot more simpler than those ones though?

Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces?

▲

MyPasswordSucks 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Current interfaces are generally a lot more simpler than those ones though?

Unless and until you need to do something that isn't one of the three or four basic functions.

> Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces?

A perfectly-designed window menu is going to be simpler than a perfectly-designed iPad interface. There's only so much you can really have access to in iPad/Android-land, and any functionality that can't be encompassed with tap/long-tap/tap-and-drag is going to require a drastic break from the ordinary functionality. With window-menus, since you're already using window-menus for lots of stuff, it's not as drastic a break from the routine.

Now, I was careful to say "perfectly-designed" for each, because around the edges it can absolutely be a bit of a pain (my favorite go-to example is finding a "preferences" menu, which in Windows software can be in any of File > Preferences, Edit > Preferences, Tools > Preferences, or Options > Preferences - among many other options; and sometimes there's even a separate "Settings" menu with different options buried somewhere else), but even so, more often than not, window-menus still win by virtue of flexibility.

▲

zozbot234 18 hours ago | parent [-]

Touch-screen interfaces today are anything but "perfectly designed". The most effective and most easily controlled UX action on a touch-screen is a swipe, so if complex interactions are a priority you should pick something like pie-menus throughout. The basic idea is that what takes multiple clicks on a mouse should ideally take only a single swipe motion (with confirmation for destructive actions) on a touchscreen.

	▲	MyPasswordSucks 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Touch-screen interfaces today are anything but "perfectly designed". I don't disagree. However, a mouse will always be more versatile than a touchscreen. There's a finite theoretical ceiling for touchscreens that's well underneath that of mice. Even looking beyond the completely-obvious fact that there's no real way to distinguish between "point" and "drag" on a touchscreen (other than "did this start on a draggable element", which is far from ideal), two fingers and a thumb can readily control five separate buttons plus a scrollwheel, and I can add even more buttons to a mouse. I can't add more fingers for touchscreens.

▲

gjvc 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Current interfaces are generally a lot more simpler than those ones though?

Are you saying those elaborate 90s style window menus are somehow simpler than iPad interfaces?

"simpler" == "easier to find the feature you need", not "fewer gui items to click"

Also, do you realise you attempting an apples to pears comparison?

▲

dartharva 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> Also, do you realise you attempting an apples to pears comparison?

Compare with current-gen GNOME then.

> "simpler" == "easier to find the feature you need", not "fewer gui items to click"

The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime.

	▲	trinix912 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> The tabbed ribbon design of post-07 Microsoft Office apps is a LOT simpler by that definition than the traditional menu based one before it, and so are a lot of modern interfaces across various applications and OS's. Neat tabs and toolbars > oblong menus, anytime. Not when the menus were 15-20 entires with occasional icons and the ribbon is 50+ icons of various sizes (and hidden functionalities - the little group corner arrows). "Easier" also implies easy visual parsing.