Menu layout - Cleanup/Improvement

[narayan]

Although another paragraph in the User Manual might help to clarify things, I view that as less satisfactory than fixing the program nits.

That's exactly what I feel: Some menu items are a little misplaced; and just explaining will not make the users entirely comfortable.

The menu requires some clean up:

First, the names "Folder Groups" and "Custom Groups" are too similar; and the user may mix them up (that is, he will tend to open them both to look for what he wants, rather than unerringly land on the desired option directly.)

Secondly, a "folder group" is nothing but a set of bookmarks which are loaded in tabs of a folder pane. That is exact equivalent to a "bookmark folder" in tabbed browsers (e.g. IE7, Mozilla/Firefox). Therefore, it should be renamed as "tab set" (or equivalent) and moved to the Bookmarks menu. In other words, the "folder group" is not related to Customize menu at all.

Similarly, the "Custom group" does not belong to "Customize" menu: It should be moved to the View| Arrange by menus. This menu already has the "show in groups" menu. The "show in custom groups" menu should be listed right below it.

Probably Nikos put these menus in Customize menu because there are organize options. But if we follow the browsers' example, the Organize option should be put in the respective menus only.

[ScottWall]

That's exactly what I feel: Some menu items are a little misplaced; and just explaining will not make the users entirely comfortable.

The menu requires some clean up:

I feel that the menu requires extensive cleanup to be intuitive. Whenever I am looking for a menu item that I haven't used for a while, it always takes a few attempts before I find the right menu. This is probably because Nikos used Micro$oft explorer as a model for the menu system which was a blunder in my opinion. This menu layout is suitable for applications like M$ Word, but not for a file manager. In an ideal menu layout, each menu should have an obvious and unique intent and each menu item should fit neatly into a single menu.

Here are a few suggestions in addition to Narayan's:

• - move Settings items from Actions menu to Customize menu
  - move Options from Tools menu to Customize menu
  - move New Tab to either View or Window menu
  - move Exit and Close from the File menu to the Window menu, moving the Window menu to the extreme left as Exit is typically in the left-most position
  - include all file operations in the File menu. i.e., move Set Comment ... Shred from Actions to File.
  - perhaps create a Folder menu that would contain the File-Browse and Tools-Folder operations
  - perhaps rename the Edit menu to Clipboard and include in it any item that affects the clipboard and move Copy to..., Move to... and Queue status somewhere else, maybe File.

There are other improvements that could be made, but these are the most obvious.

[narayan]

I agree.

[Thracx]

I agree as well.

When I read ScottWall's post about having to spend a few seconds to find the right Menu for the action he wants, a big "I-know-what-you're-talking-about" siren went off.  I don't use a few great X² features nearly as often as I should because they can be hard to find, or in the case of the 'Customize' options, because they are somewhat confusing.

Also, take note of Lin's other point that causes some confusion - when opening a X² instance or using the layout/folder groups, it often opens a sub-folder seemingly unexpected.  For example, when I do a File -> Clone+browse, I'd expect an exact replica of my current X² instance.  However, I end up with what looks a lot like it but the tab with the 'focus' has opened the selected sub-folder.  I recall it taking me a few minutes to figure out that X² wasn't broken, and it was just me not knowing about this auto-open sub-folder issue.  I don't remember all the cases where this happens (probably by design most of the time), but I know it's probably the main reason why it took me a while to grasp what 'Folder groups' and 'Layouts' were and why I don't use them that much anymore.

However, all of this seems to require a reasonably significant Menu/naming re-design, which may or may not be what Nikos would think to be best for his user-base as a whole.

[snakebyte]

I found the current menu layout of x2 affecting my productivity hence menu++ was born. Till menus are fixed in xplorer2 you can try using menu++ as a temporary solution.

[Mr.Pleasant]

There are two things here quite different. One is the menu layout, the other is the folder groups/save layout.
As for the menu, there are some things that might be better, but I don't agree with all the things Scottwall proposes. For instance, having 'File' on the extreme left, and close/exit within 'File', is so universal that it shouldn't be changed, imo.
On the other hand, the Customize menuhas some weaknesses, with the almost double more.../organize... items. The rest is covered by narayan's first post in this thread. I agree with him in this.

The 'save layout' feature is a different thing. I do think it might be a powerful feature, but I don't use it, because I don't get to master it.
Because of its name I used to think it was something like the custom folder group, except that it is applicable to the complete application and not just for one pane. But it rather seems to be something like a second (or third/4th etc.) 'instance', 'session' or 'environment' of x2, that saves a great part of its settings in a separate place. From that point on, this instance evolves separate from the default instance.
But if 'evolving' is correct, then 'save layout' is wrong terminology. Both 'save' and 'layout' suggest fixation: some state to which you can return. This is not the case, unless you have switched off 'save settings on exit'. But this is not standard. And even if you've switched it off, it opens with the opened or focussed folder in the active pane of the layout from which you activate the other layout. So this part of the layout isn't saved in any case. I wonder if this behaviour is useful anyway: maybe someone knows of a way to use it properly.

For me to use 'save layout', I would either need some very strong examples of its use, so I can learn how to use it in a more productive way. The other possibility would be to work on its usability. I'm thinking of a way in which I'm told which instance (layout, or whatever you call it) of x2 is currently active. Like: the name of the current instance in the titlebar. Or a dropdown menu in a toolbar that makes it possible to switch instances, like you switch paragraph styles in a word processor. In that scenario, opened or focussed folders shouldn't be transferred to the other instance, and the terminology should change. I would choose something like 'create new instance' (or session/environment), instead of 'save layout'

[narayan]

Actually ScottWall has made a very astute observation there:

We see the close and Exit options in the File menu in MS Office applications, Acrobat reader, GIMP/PhotoShop, etc. That placement is appropriate in those applications, because they are essentially file readers/editors; where one window shows (and acts on-) one document at a time. So, it is appropriate to talk about that one file. That's why the menus are named after "file" (File>open, file>close, file>Save, etc.).

On the other hand, this concept is not applicable to x2; because x2 is not attached to (or associated with-) "files": It handles several different types of entities, such as files, archives, folders, disks and computers. Also, it (usually) has several tabs, each of which is focused on one entity (not necessarily a file). Furthermore, it could have several entities selected in each of these tabs. Therefore it is irrelevant to talk about "file" as if that's what x2 is supposed to handle.

In fact, the only file-related menus are F3 and F4. All other commands are meant for folders as well. Therefore the "file" menu itself is not justified! (The logic being that a menu is created if you have several commands of that type. For example, if you have many selection-related commands, they should get clubbed under a common menu header called "Select".)

Note that comparison with Windows Explorer is also a little misplaced, because the Explorer has only one pane; and no tabs. (But even there the focus could be on a folder, while the menu talks about "file".)

****
One more proposed correction in the menu system: The "Mark" menu can be renamed "Select"; because that's what it does.

Note that the term "mark" has a different connotation, such as 'mark for deletion' (as in email applications). Usually a "mark" is a permanent flag associated with the item, which can be set independently of the selection status of an item. But x2 does not use such a marking system. Then why call a plain verb "select" by another name?

[QT-Pro]

- move Settings items from Actions menu to Customize menu
- move Options from Tools menu to Customize menu

Sorry but I do not agree. The settings items are exactly where I would expect to find them however, I have a beef with these which I will come to in a moment.

In most other programs, the Options are always found in the Tools menu so it's instinctive to look there first. One can say "yes but Xplorer2 is not like other programs" but making it so different only serves to create confusion ....IMHO.

Coming back to the settings. Yesterday I created 2 user commands. Both worked fine. I have the option to save settings on exit checked yet when I reopened the program today my user commands were no longer there. Perhaps I have not fully understood the functionality of save settings on exit? I have since recreated them and manually saved the settings from the Actions menu. After restarting the program they remained, thankfully.

[narayan]

Well, Office 2007 has changed all its earlier GUI patterns. Users of earlier versions cannot use it by habit. But surely they will adjust soon, and enjoy a higher level of productivity.

And that's the way it should be: Make the GUI as logical as possible. Habits will change soon to adjust to the new GUI.

And I hear the next version of Office is slated to be even more radically different. So we will not have even the current benchmark.

[QT-Pro]

You can cite Office as being different, as you can for plenty of other programs, but there can be no denying that the majority place their Options under the Tools menu. Therefore, like it or not, one instinctively goes to the Tools menu when searching for Options.

Anyway, this is just the opinion of one customer and my opinion may be worth zilch. In the end Nikos will decide how he wants his program to be laid out. However, I repeat, "easy" sells to everyone, "complex" sells to a limited few. That's something worth bearing in mind when authoring a software project.

[ScottWall]

but there can be no denying that the majority place their Options under the Tools menu. Therefore, like it or not, one instinctively goes to the Tools menu when searching for Options

Then, perhaps the Customize menu should be a submenu of Tools. In the end, all customization should be under one menu so that it's functionality is obvious and intuitive. Also, this emphasizes to users what customizations are possible. They don't need to wonder if the customization that they are looking for is under a different menu.

Quote:
- move Settings items from Actions menu to Customize menu
...
Sorry but I do not agree. The settings items are exactly where I would expect to find them...

I am completely baffled why you would expect to find the Settings items in the Actions menu. Most applications do not have an Actions menu and most of the other items in the Actions menu pertain to file operations.  I fail to see any logic in its placement here. Perhaps, you expect to find them there because that is what you have become accustomed to. But, like narayan said, I'm sure that you will find that if menus are logically laid out then it is easy to adapt to them.

For instance, having 'File' on the extreme left, and close/exit within 'File', is so universal that it shouldn't be changed, imo.

Most applications are file-based so this makes sense. However, x2 has already set the precedence of breaking this 'universal' expectation in the window opened by the Tools - Folder Statistics menu item. This window only has a single 'Actions' menu. There are other applications that also do not have the File menu on the extreme left, SyncBack for example.

[QT-Pro]

Then, perhaps the Customize menu should be a submenu of Tools. In the end, all customization should be under one menu so that it's functionality is obvious and intuitive. Also, this emphasizes to users what customizations are possible. They don't need to wonder if the customization that they are looking for is under a different menu.

You just hit the nail on the head. I could not think of a better solution!

In answer to your comment concerning the Actions menu, I agree that I see the settings as being logically placed there simply because there is an Actions menu. In hindsight, I would eliminate the Actions menu and place all settings under the Tools menu. That to me would be the most logical place to find them. In fact, I would go further and make them a part of the Options sub-menu, perhaps as a separate tab.

[ScottWall]

In hindsight, I would eliminate the Actions menu and place all settings under the Tools menu. That to me would be the most logical place to find them. In fact, I would go further and make them a part of the Options sub-menu, perhaps as a separate tab.

Sounds good to me!
I would love to see the demise of the Actions menu, considering that, basically, all menu items are 'actions'. The title of the 'Actions' menu could just as easily have been called 'Menu' without any loss of meaning.

[narayan]

Customization is already there at the highest level of menus. There is no need to hide it in Tools menu.

The tools>options menu may be a habit (formed by M$ applications), but it is a bad habit, nonetheless.

Which of the following conveys that customization options are in that menu?
"options of tools..."
"Tool options..."

None of the above!

BTW some applications place the options dialog in Edit>Preferences menu. That's a very appropriate placement.

Of course, x2 has a separate Customize menu, thanks to its high customizability. That also is appropriate.

[QT-Pro]

narayan, everyone has the right to their opinion. Scotwall and I share an opinion which differs from yours but that does not mean yours is wrong. We are just sharing ideas, nothing more than that.

Which of the following conveys that customization options are in that menu?
"options of tools..."
"Tool options..."

None of the above!

Historically, most applications place their program configuration section under the Tools menu. Granted, it was probably M$ who started the trend. Note I said "most applications" as opposed to "all applications". To me, the following all mean basically the same thing:
- Options
- Configuration
- Preferences
- Customization
- Parameters

The whole lot can be integrated into the same window. Scotwall and I can argue that they should be under the Tools menu because we are used to the way things have been with other programs but we are merely trying to apply logic in the given situation. I would however admit that if Nikos were to abolish both the Actions and Tools menus in favor of a sole Customize menu I am sure that nobody would be in the dark as to where to look for anything to do with the configuration of the program.

What do you think about that possibility?