Those pesky buttons
Canonical
on 10 March 2010
Tags: Design
Many of you have been asking for some correspondence regarding the button position in the window manager.
Here it is.
At Ubuntu we have a golden opportunity not only to make our OS as good as the competition but to make it better. The button position discussion and analysis started with:
- Why do Mac OS and Windows have the buttons where they do?
- What was the functional reason behind the Mac OS choice (or the Windows position for that matter)?
- Why, when most application menus are top left should the window controls go top right?
- Why, when we read left to right is the most destructive action first?
- Are we smoking crack to think that the learning curve for getting used to a new position is ever going to be worth any real or perceived benefit of new positions?
As part of a major theme update it felt appropriate to ask these questions.
After the internal debate and analysis (which went something like the picture below) we decided to put this version in the theme and to use it. I have had it running on my machine with the buttons in this order since before the Portland sprint (first week of February?) and I am quite used to it.
Is it better or worse?
It is quite hard to tell. The theme has been in the alpha since Friday. Now that you have had a chance to use it what do you think?
Personally, I would have the max and min on the left and close on the right.
Talk to us today
Interested in running Ubuntu in your organisation?
Newsletter signup
Related posts
Visual Testing: GitHub Actions Migration & Test Optimisation
What is Visual Testing? Visual testing analyses the visual appearance of a user interface. Snapshots of pages are taken to create a “baseline”, or the current...
Let’s talk open design
Why aren’t there more design contributions in open source? Help us find out!
Canonical’s recipe for High Performance Computing
In essence, High Performance Computing (HPC) is quite simple. Speed and scale. In practice, the concept is quite complex and hard to achieve. It is not...