Hacker News

points by dpark 3 days ago | 0 comments

> we lost the menu bar and replaced it with "mobile first" designs

What does this mean? I use lots of apps that still have a menu bar.

Some apps eschew it, like browsers, but not because they are “mobile first”, but because they are trying to maximize screen space.

[–] drnick1 3 days ago

> Some apps eschew it, like browsers, but not because they are “mobile first”, but because they are trying to maximize screen space.

I don't think this is true. If anything, we see more oversized buttons and empty space nowadays. It's as if developers forgot that PC users have keyboards and mice. Remember, display resolutions and monitors were a lot smaller back then, and making space count was arguably more important 20 years ago than it is today.

[–] dpark 3 days ago

Two things can both be true. An app can create more space around controls and get rid of the menu bar to save space.

The space also really has nothing to do with “mobile first”. It’s for touch screens (and also modern aesthetic that avoids crowded controls).

To be clear, I am not saying that all apps are optimizing for saving screen space. I was specifically talking about browsers, which are broadly optimized to give as much area as possible to the content.

[–] xp84 3 days ago

You’re getting closer… “crowded” and “cluttered” are the most taboo words in the “UX” charlatans’ holy book. It’s so scary to them that they’ll sacrifice anything to avoid even a possible accusation of “crowdedness.”

It was a mildly useful point of view when they were designing things meant to be the first computer program someone might ever use. Like Microsoft Bob or Apple “At Ease.” But it’s idiotic to have things following that dogma as the only interface to tools that people need to use daily and will become expert users of.

To think some of us nerds complained about the Luna theme of XP as too “Fisher Price.” Fisher Price products look like industrial control panels compared to today’s contemporary operating systems and apps.

[–] Melatonic 3 days ago

Smaller screen also means your menu bar has to be larger relative to the total screen size to be readable though. Assuming something like the standard going from 15" or 17" CRT to 24" LCD

[–] Narishma 3 days ago

> but because they are trying to maximize screen space

If that was the case they wouldn't put giant margins around every UI element and dead space everywhere.

[–] dpark 3 days ago

My browser doesn’t have a bunch of dead space. No footer. One line for controls. Tabs have been collapsed into the title bar.

[–] kasabali 3 days ago

Compare latest Chrome to version 30 or something and toolbars are almost double the height.

[–] Geezus_42 2 days ago

Use a different browser?

[–] Narishma 2 days ago

All modern browsers are the same in this regard.

[–] Geezus_42 23 hours ago

I don't have that problem on Firefox. I set it to compact mode and it's fine.

[–] Narishma 18 hours ago

There is no compact mode anymore, they removed it years ago.

[–] gregglain 3 days ago

I loathe mobile first design, seems to me it's "mobile matters, on other devices just deal with it.".

The Wells Fargo website screams this for me - it used to be dense and packed with info, now it's got large elements and wasted space.

[–] breakwaterlabs 3 days ago

> they are trying to maximize screen space.

Ironic to say on hackernews which shows massive whitespace in the margins-- and if I try to widen my tab sidebar it actually indents the margin rather than eating into it.

One can look across the computing space as a whole and see that, it is surely not the case that we're "maximizing screen space".

[–] abanana 2 days ago

It should have said maximizing screen height, not space (on desktop not mobile), in these modern days of widescreen monitors. If we have title bars, menu bars, toolbars etc, while using the full screen width, we're peering through a letterbox. (Fixed headers on websites contribute too.) Line length needs to be kept shorter for readability, leading to wasted space at the sides.

Perhaps, if you're not using a sidebar for bookmarks or vertical tabs or whatever, it suggests something ought to have changed in UI design back when widescreen monitors became the norm?

[–] someguyiguess 3 days ago

You think Hacker News’ design is new? It’s looked exactly the same since I started using it over a decade ago.

[–] LeFantome 3 days ago

Totally agree. But this does not take away from his point that maximizing screen space is the motivation in Firefox. In fact, all you have done is demonstrate why they are driven to do so.

[–] jrumbut 3 days ago

Maximized screen space doesn't really benefit this site.

The key element missing from this thread is that the Internet going from a text based to a multi-media (and increasingly video-centric) experience.

A lot of Internet users, at this point, do as much reading on their phone or laptop as I do reading on my TV (almost none).

[–] xp84 3 days ago

> I use lots

Oh really? I, sadly, use nearly none. Open on my desktop right now: Slack, Outlook, Zoom, Windows Terminal, Edge, Claude, Obsidian, whatever the Windows image viewer is called, Cursor, and VS Code.

Only the last 2 have menu bars. And I can’t be certain that I didn’t dig through the preferences of one or both of them when I first installed them to tell them to knock off the bullshit and give me back the menus. Once in a while, there is an option buried somewhere like that.

[–] dpark 3 days ago

In fairness I did not do a full inventory of all the apps I use. I see Word and VS Code. It may be less than I thought if I inventoried every app I regularly use.

I see some have gone the “browser” direction with tabs folded into the title bar and the menu bar dropped. Windows Terminal, File Explorer, and Notepad are all that style now.

Edit: Actually Notepad has the tabs in the titlebar thing but retained the menu bar and folded it into the command bar.

[–] xp84 3 days ago

I personally am pretty disgusted by ‘tabs in the title bar’ since really what that means is deleting the title bar. You can’t grab and move the freaking window because most of it is made out of a bunch of tabs or other widgets. I presume this is done because somebody’s research found that many people just do everything in maximized windows or the Apple “full screen mode.” As long as you don’t mind sacrificing the people who do use window managers to manage windows, likely the most sophisticated users, this seems like a great move. But I would argue it’s still stupid because I have plenty of screen real estate. Being able to read one additional line of text in my browser window or Slack conversation does literally nothing for me.

[–] Dylan16807 3 days ago

I love it. I can grab either end of the title bar just fine. I don't need to waste the entire middle. And if I have multiple windows I'm sacrificing more like 3 lines and it does start to matter.

[–] dpark 3 days ago

It’s a tradeoff. I spend most of my time on a laptop screen (even when using an external monitor, the external is my secondary screen) and appreciate the reduction in screen waste. I don’t need or want a huge click area just for moving the window.

[–] skydhash 3 days ago

Speaking of screen waste, I think 4:3 is way better than 16:9, especially for laptop screens.

[–] dpark 3 days ago

My favorite is 3:2 for laptops. 4:3 is a bit tall (screen is fine, but it makes the base much deeper as well). 16:9 is kind of crappy, especially if it’s a smaller screen.

[–] oneeyedpigeon 2 days ago

This is one thing I love about macOS: always a menu bar, always just one, in a consistent predictable place where Fitt's law makes it easy to access.