[Mageia-dev] freedesktop spec and categories

Sat Feb 26 02:09:04 CET 2011

Michael Scherer a écrit :
+>
+> Le jeudi 24 février 2011 à 20:30 +0200, Anssi Hannula a écrit :
+>> On 24.02.2011 18:57, Tux99 wrote:
+>>>
+>>>
+>>> Quote: Michael Scherer wrote on Thu, 24 February 2011 13:27
+>>>>
+>>>> Le jeudi 24 février 2011 à 10:06 +0100, Samuel Verschelde a écrit :
+>>>>>
+>>>>> I don't think so. Several Mandriva releases ago, there was no such
+>>>>> "More"
+>>>>> entry, but real sub-categories in the menu. Then it changed for
+>>>>> what we have
+>>>>> now, but that wasn't a change in the .desktop files, rather a menu
+>>>>>
+>>>>> configuration. I guess that was a decision meant to bring
+>>>>> "simplicity",
+>>>>
+>>>> Yes, and that's a choice that can be backed by several studies on the
+>>>> subject, the working memory have been estimated to be 7 chunks of
+>>>> information ( between 5 and 9 is a wildly accepted range ). I remember
+>>>> having seen a studie saying that it was less than this, but I cannot
+>>>> find it ( and it was on slashdot, so this may have been wrong ).
+>>>>
+>>>> So presenting only ~7 chunks of information ( ie ~7 items in menu ) is
+>>>> better according to the current cognitive model used, such as this one
+>>>> :
+>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_information_processor_model
+
+What these studies refer to is how much information the average person 
+can keep in short-term memory.  Many such studies seem to indicate 3-5 
+items (depending on the person), others give as much as 7-9.
+The variance is probably related to the complexity of information used 
+in the study, or how it was presented.  (And maybe also whether the 
+subjects were fully awake at the time :) )
+
+This doesn't relate to menu display, which is related to the ability to 
+find what one wants in reading a list.
+By default the Mandriva menus are displayed in alphabetical order, which 
+is useful to anyone familiar with the latin alphabet.
+
+In the past (it could have been "Mandrake" or even "RedHat"), when there 
+were too many items in a menu page to display in a single column, the 
+overflow items were displayed in a second column.  I don't remember if 
+that was a special configuration, but I found it much better than the 
+scrolling that we can encounter otherwise, when there are too many items 
+for one column.
+And certainly much better than an additional submenu.
+I see this overflow column concept as being much like tabbed browsing. 
+Until one has seen it, it can be difficult to appreciate the advantage. 
+But once one has tried it, it becomes almost essential.
+
+>> Eh, isn't that a reason to switch *back* to the two-level system, not to
+>> keep the current system?
+>
+> I do not think so. What chunk of informations do you take in account ?
+>
+>> I have about 15-30 entries in everyone of Internet, Office, Audio/Video,
+>> Tools, Tools->System submenus.
+>
+> By submenu, you mean the "more" submenu ? I fail to understand what do
+> you have exactly, can you provides a screenshot ?
+
+Those menus all all submenus (or submenus of submenus) of the main menu 
+page.  (Levels 2 and 3, if you prefer.)
+
+>> With a two-level system it would be considerably less and closer to the
+>> ~7 you mention.
+>
+> Depend, what is the process that you are wanting to improve ?
+> ( and closer is not good enough, even if 15 is nearer to 7 than 20,
+> that's still too much and a different process is used ( according to
+> studies ))
+
+I don't know of any study that says that 7 or 9 is too many items for a 
+_menu_.  Very few menu pages have that few items.
+However, I do see a disadvantage of having to scroll a menu with too 
+many items for one fully visible column.  Whence my suggestion of 
+reverting to the 2-column (or overflow column) menu display as described 
+above.
+
+my 2 cents :)
+-- 
+André
+