▲ | marginalia_nu 4 days ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Traditionally you'd put that in a menu still, just a horizontal one that displays the top version of the hierarchy. This allows you to skip one click, and doesn't significantly eat into the ample screen space. Perhaps the biggest problem with the hamburger menu is that there is absolutely zero convention for what you put in there, or in which order. You don't know what you'll find in the menu unless you click it. With the old top menu, there were a set of conventions for this; roughly where specific options went, and in which order, and even which hotkeys you'd press to activate the menus. This means that even in an application you were completely unfamiliar with (even hideously complex ones such as an IDE or 3d modelling software), you could fairly easily navigate the application. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
▲ | tadfisher 4 days ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I like the hamburger menus, because they are usually one-level deep and contain very few items. I cannot tell you how many times I want to go into an app's settings, and it takes longer than 20 seconds; some have it in File, some in Edit, others in random menus like "Tools". Further still, the damned menu item itself could be named Settings, Preferences, Options, whatever. Even further, looking at Gimp here, Preferences is one of 25 menu items that I need to scan through. This is not good UX, this is Stockholm Syndrome. Contrast with Gnome apps: Hamburger -> Preferences, invariably, never takes longer than three seconds to find it. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|