[ale] Slackware to drop Gnome?

[Michael D. Hirsch]

On Tuesday 12 October 2004 04:47 pm, David Corbin wrote:
> On Monday 11 October 2004 10:37 pm, aaron wrote:
> > The second is more on the Fitts law aspect (at least as Michael Hirsch
> > has explained it to me), and has to do with the idea that items on the
> > edges of the interface area are infinite in size; once the pointer hits
> > the edge it can't go any further, even if you continue roll the mouse in
> > that edge direction forever. Any interface targets at the far edges are,
> > in effect, the biggest possible targets and the easiest to hit.  I would
> > add that the top edge is probably the most logical for text menu items,
> > because all common written languages read top to bottom, even those that
> > may also read right to left.
>
> I can understand this reasoning, and it does make sense.  But I thought
> Fitt's law was that distance was a major factor.   Putting the menubar
> outside the application is increasing my distance....

Distance and area.  time = a + b*log(distance/area + 1) is the exact formula, 
I believe.  So with an infinitely large button, the distance doesn't matter.

In fact, most people I know tend to use maximized windows for most important 
tasks.  I use my java IDE maximized, people who work in word processors 
usually maximize them, etc.  In such a case the menu bar is already at the 
top of the screen, but the buttons are not on the actual boundary, so they 
are small.  Putting the menubar at the top makes almost no difference in the 
distance, which was already large, but a huge difference in the area of the 
buttons, which go from small to effectively infinite.

Michael