[cszar2001]

Anyone heard of circular menues on a Mac?
A non-Mac user asked me today and I couldn`t come up with an answer.
Is it possible under Panther? or was it a feature previous Operating Systems offered?

[Judge_Fire]

You mean a contextual menu that pops up around the mouse pointer, in a pie-like fashion?

There might have been a few attempts at that in the System 6 - 7 days (when they also toyed with circular windows- stupid QuickDraw demo gimmick, but worked).

Some applications have rolled their own, like the 'hotbox' in Maya, but the OS has no such formatting available in the contextual menu. See the PieMenus site for some pointers.

It's a UI concept that might or might not be revisited by Apple at some point. It depends on how much their willing to drift into the direction of 'even more direct manipulation' of objects, compared to the current, slightly lacking scheme.

J

[ginoledesma]

This is called a "radial-menu" in Neverwinter Nights.



Its basically presenting the relevant actions around the selected object. As to how much better this is over a standard contextual menu is up for debate. I don't remember seeing this for Mac OS X, or even Mac OS 8.x or 9.x.

[mitchell_pgh]

While "cool" it's never going to happen.

Too far away from the mainstream...

[cszar2001]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
While "cool" it's never going to happen.

Too far away from the mainstream...

Therefore Apple would be the only one capable of introducing it-am I right?
I�d love it-that`s for sure.

[Slayer-X]

I can't imagine where that would be useful in anything other than a game. MAYBE MAYBE in a 3-D rendering program where you are inserting objects or something, but as for things like Finder and other office and illustrative software, I think it would be a hinderance to productivity.

[cszar2001]

Originally posted by Slayer-X:
I can't imagine where that would be useful in anything other than a game. MAYBE MAYBE in a 3-D rendering program where you are inserting objects or something, but as for things like Finder and other office and illustrative software, I think it would be a hinderance to productivity.

I would like to see it for short menus-just "copy", "paste", "cut", "save as", ...-5 or 6 options would suffice.
Fast and efficient.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by cszar2001:
I would like to see it for short menus-just "copy", "paste", "cut", "save as", ...-5 or 6 options would suffice.
Fast and efficient.

I just don't think it's going to happen. Rounded corners are one thing, but a circular window would simply waste space.

Apple wouldn't even bother trying to bring it out because it would fair horribly (and that's me being nice).

[Chuckit]

Incidentally, for anyone wanting to see an example of a desktop environment that implements this idea, check out Squeak. Personally, I think the icons-as-menu-items idea is kind of hard to use � not very intuitive.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Incidentally, for anyone wanting to see an example of a desktop environment that implements this idea, check out Squeak. Personally, I think the icons-as-menu-items idea is kind of hard to use � not very intuitive.

I hope that is a horrible, horrible joke.

We shouldn't make something circular just to make it circular...

[dfiler]

Circular or pie menus can be very useful for certain tasks. However, most users aren't involved with tasks for which pie menus would be the optimal interface. These menus are closely related to the concept of gesture interfaces; the idea that a series of vectors can be used to initiate a particular task. This tends to be most suited to non-modal interfaces with just a handful of operations that could possibly be performed on any object. Gestures are also useful for invoking non-transitive commands, commands that don't act on a particular object. And finally, gestures are most useful for data input, the most popular example being handwriting.

A disadvantage of pie menus (gesture interfaces with visual clues) is that they don't combine well with labeled commands. When more than a half dozen commands are used on a regular basis, users depend on visually scanning a particular area of the screen in order to find the functionality that they desire. A non-vertically aligned list always slows visual scanning and decreases reading comprehension. Thus, if any of the menu items require text labels, then pie menus are likely not the best choice.

For over two decades now, pie menus have been investigated and used by many in academia and commercial software development. They definitely haven�t been overlooked. You can find them in many games and a handful of drawing programs. It seems that for once, the software industry properly investigated a new interface and then utilized it in only the most appropriate places.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by dfiler:
For over two decades now, pie menus have been investigated and used by many in academia and commercial software development. They definitely haven�t been overlooked. You can find them in many games and a handful of drawing programs. It seems that for once, the software industry properly investigated a new interface and then utilized it in only the most appropriate places.

Exactly.

This seems to be something people don't get: a lot of "gee whiz" interface concepts (pie menus and piles being two famous examples) look great on paper but don't work in reality, except in a few narrow situations (like games). To bring them into the core of the OS would only invite their abuse, thus making the overall Mac interface worse, not better.

This is also why Apple has never shipped a two-button mouse, even though the software supports them for people who want to use them.

[Rickster]

I'm note sure they're even appropriate in some of the places where they're used... NWN's radial menus can be a pain to navigate sometimes, especially in combat or other time-sensitive situations (and there are only so many QuickBar slots).

[spauldingg]

I bought a mouse back in os 8/9 days that came with software that used a round menu interface. It was cool for about a minute, then it was a navigation, labeling, long time to draw, friggen nightmare. Wish I could get a screenshot, but I'm sure it's long gone. Just like that mouse

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by cszar2001:
Anyone heard of circular menues on a Mac?
A non-Mac user asked me today and I couldn`t come up with an answer.
Is it possible under Panther? or was it a feature previous Operating Systems offered?

What you are all forgetting is that apple planned this as as a Copland feature (I think it was Copland could have been Pink).

You could rip the menus off the menu bar (like you could with the application menu) and and the apple menu would be bullseye, the other menus would wrap around it.

I have seen several real screenshots of this, they must be floating around somewhere.

They showed these menus with the Apple Gismo and Hi-Tech themes.
I liked the idea, but in reality it was a bit of gimick.

I would like to see something like this implemented with contextual menus, a smaller selection is much more suited to this menu type.

[monkeybrain]

Apple sought of uses a pie menu in the included chess program. Click and hold on the edge of the board for a bevel-like menu to appear, allowing you to move the camera around.

[ginoledesma]

It takes a little bit longer for me to learn radial/circular/pie menus than the standard contextual menu, especially since each item in the menu is represented with an icon, rather than a text label.

I'm trying to image gargantuan-sized icons, however, much like how command-tab (application switching) brings to the front huge icons of apps you can switch to. Now if you were to say, click a folder, then have its "actions" wrap around it (cut/copy/archive/rename/etc), I think it wouldn't be that bad an implementation, though it doesn't really serve much functionality/advantage over the current implementation, aside from just eye-candy.

I'd much rather have a contextual-menu + key-stroke combo. That makes me more productive.

[headbirth]

Actually, I would rather see more use of contextual palettes ... i.e. palettes that pop-up under your mouse until you have made your tool selection or modification and then disappears ... Photoshop has some of this, but not nearly enough.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by moonmonkey:
You could rip the menus off the menu bar (like you could with the application menu) and and the apple menu would be bullseye, the other menus would wrap around it.

I think I've seen what you're talking about, but that's not quite the same thing. In your example, only the menubar was round. When you click on one of the menus, it came up as a regular flat menu, like popup menu buttons do today.

Essentially, it was just a way to reposition the menubar; it wasn't really radial menus.

[shortcipher]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Exactly.


This is also why Apple has never shipped a two-button mouse, even though the software supports them for people who want to use them.

This is arguably not a "Good Thing", single button mice are great for new users, but most people don't remain novices for very long, whereupon a 2 button mouse is a lot more powerful. Apple is deliberately pandering to first time users, whilst ignoring the majority of us who can easily cope with a 2 button mouse. It's something of a misnomer that Apple's single button mice are actually better than multi-button models (not that they're all that bad you understand), a lot of very clever people in the interface design world have known this for years.

[flagstone]

This is drifting off the "Mac OS X" topic a bit, but for those who want to see circular menus in action, there are plug-ins for Mozilla/Netscape that provide this functionality. I tried them out briefly but dropped them in favor of just plain-old mouse gestures (the radial menu IMO was just a labelled form of gestures, and I never needed more than a couple of gestures anyway, so the muscle memory was quickly learned).

[zen jihad]

Radial-menus would help a lot in an OS. The mouse gestures/radial-menus in Firefox really take navigation a step up.

Apple's motion sounds like they might be experimenting in this, but who knows if they'll think of bring this into the OS.

[RooneyX]

Maya has menus that pop around the cursor.

[-Q-]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
Radial-menus would help a lot in an OS. The mouse gestures/radial-menus in Firefox really take navigation a step up.

I really don't think so. The main experience I've had with them has been NWN and, like Rickster said, they can be rather difficult to navigate. I'm not sure how useful these truly can be, or how they can be more useful than a standard contextual menu...

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by -Q-:
I really don't think so. The main experience I've had with them has been NWN and, like Rickster said, they can be rather difficult to navigate. I'm not sure how useful these truly can be, or how they can be more useful than a standard contextual menu...

Because you can decide on the context you want, without having to be explicitly in context.

You soon overcome the initial learning curve, and once there, the benefits can be worthwhile.

In the context of them being used through an OS' GUI, they might prove unwieldly; but in certain applications, like Motion, Maya, etc. they really do help the workflow issue by the reduction in mouse movements.

Case in point. Firefox has a wonderful radial-menu/mouse gestures extension. Once you understand how it works, contextual menus are cumbersome, since you need to be in context to for them to function.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by shortcipher:
This is arguably not a "Good Thing", single button mice are great for new users...

Indeed, but don't forget: everyone is, or was, a new user at some point or another. It is the only common denominator.

The problem is, developers often forget that, and don't consider the new user in their interface unless some outside influence forces them to do so. It's a natural inclination; you want to assume that everyone using the software will think the way you do about how computers work, and have roughly the same level of skill. I've fallen into this very trap myself, when I've worked on Windows interfaces. The one-button mouse, among other things, forces developers to take these things into consideration.

but most people don't remain novices for very long, whereupon a 2 button mouse is a lot more powerful.

Actually, there you're wrong. Most people remain novices their whole lives.

Becoming a power-user is not a function of how many years you've been using computers. It's a kind of growth that you have to take on yourself. Most people don't choose to do that, because they don't need to and shouldn't have to. They're content with their basic Web browsing and e-mail; they need nothing more, and so they never grow beyond it. They have -as they see it- far better things to do with their time.

And as for those of us who do grow beyond that stage, we can get a two-button mouse and continue from there. Nothing is preventing them from doing this. You can't even say this is a bid for Apple to get more money from its users, because you couldn't buy a two-button mouse from Apple even if you wanted to: Apple doesn't make them.

I almost wonder if that's actually part of the reason that Apple has never made two-button mice as an add-on: they want to avoid the appearance of simply trying to get more money out of their users. Granted, this would be uncharacteristic for Apple, but there you have it.

Apple is deliberately pandering to first time users, whilst ignoring the majority of us who can easily cope with a 2 button mouse.

Actually, studies have shown that the majority of users cannot cope with a two-button mouse, if the second button is used for anything other than shortcuts.

It's something of a misnomer that Apple's single button mice are actually better than multi-button models (not that they're all that bad you understand), a lot of very clever people in the interface design world have known this for years.

Yes, and when you plunk them down in front of a computer with multibutton mice by default, they, too, fall into the same traps. Tog himself -considered the Great God Of Interface by AHIG-fundamentalists everywhere- has fallen into it.

You cannot enforce good interface when you allow bad interface to exist by default. Apple knows this. I use a four-button trackball myself, but I would never develop on my Mac with it; I always go back to the one-button mouse for that. It helps force me to look from the perspective of the new user.

[zen jihad]

The one-button mouse metaphor is only good as far as the user is only aware of it. Give them a 3 button one, and they'll make the same progress learning it as they would with the one-button mouse.

[dfiler]

The one-button mouse metaphor is only good as far as the user is only aware of it. Give them a 3 button one, and they'll make the same progress learning it as they would with the one-button mouse.

This is seriously out of touch with the reality of a typical user's skill level.

Sure, I use a five button mosue. But I appreciate the fact that Mac software MUST be built to work with a single button mouse because of the stock apple mouse. This makes it far less likely that developers will lazily stick everything in contextual menus. Instead, users are allowed to explore ALL functionality with a simple sequential search.

Wow... I think I should can responses like this because I've been posting them for over a decade now...

The motivation for a stock single button mouse is clear. It is also completely unrelated to the optimal number of buttons for nearly all patrons of these fora.

[zen jihad]

Originally posted by dfiler:
This is seriously out of touch with the reality of a typical user's skill level.

Sure, I use a five button mosue. But I appreciate the fact that Mac software MUST be built to work with a single button mouse because of the stock apple mouse. This makes it far less likely that developers will lazily stick everything in contextual menus. Instead, users are allowed to explore ALL functionality with a simple sequential search.

You can't define a user's skill level., it changes as the user progresses, and adopts new methods of working.

Some software would be impossible to use with one mouse button, but even then, I'm sure most developers don't write software in mind for the 10-button/joystick controler user.

[blue]

Logitech used to have a 'web wheel' which poped up if you pressed the wheel button...maybe that's it?

[Millennium]

Originally posted by zen jihad:
You can't define a user's skill level., it changes as the user progresses, and adopts new methods of working.

The hole in your argument is that you assume that all users progress and adopt new methods of working as time goes by. Many -perhaps most- do not. They stick with what they were taught, and never bother (or actively avoid) trying to learn new methods unless it is absolutely unavoidable. After all, why should they? Most users have an "if it's not broken, don't fix it" mentality; as long as the methods they know continue to do what they need to do, they won't seek out anything else.

Some software would be impossible to use with one mouse button, but even then, I'm sure most developers don't write software in mind for the 10-button/joystick controler user.

One piece of software that's unusable with a single mouse button is too many. This is what it means to have good interface.

[moonmonkey]

like this:



From Forum http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=212168

[Ibson]

Check out this from Apple: http://developer.apple.com/samplecod.../StarMenu.html
It's vaguely circular and shows how impractical such menus can be.

[Graymalkin]

Radial menus have never caught on with UI designers because they are not really Fittsically correct. If a context menu has multiple items x distance away from the cursor you calculate their time-to-hit using Fitts' law. With rectangular context menus the effective distance from the cursor's position is effectively zero for the first item and grows very slowly down the menu due to MacOS's menu handling algorithm. With a radial menu all the items have the same time-to-hit value and none of them are zero. Ergo it is impossible to make the most used function in the menu be the easiest item to hit with the cursor.

While they are a cool idea on paper it is exceedingly tough to make them really work in a normal environment.

[moonmonkey]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
Radial menus have never caught on with UI designers because they are not really Fittsically correct. If a context menu has multiple items x distance away from the cursor you calculate their time-to-hit using Fitts' law. With rectangular context menus the effective distance from the cursor's position is effectively zero for the first item and grows very slowly down the menu due to MacOS's menu handling algorithm. With a radial menu all the items have the same time-to-hit value and none of them are zero. Ergo it is impossible to make the most used function in the menu be the easiest item to hit with the cursor.

While they are a cool idea on paper it is exceedingly tough to make them really work in a normal environment.

But the most used functions are not closer to the cursor in OSX, who uses "open"?

Surley this all depends on where the centre of the curcle is? If it is on the cursor, then all the items are an equal distance from the cursor. If the centre is to the side (like the mockup) then the usability law still applies.