10.5.2 Drop down menu transparency

[achtung!]

Posted by HLdanWell what about Windows Vista, the start menu is very translucent and MS didn't compensate properly for the text to be easily readable but you don't see the Windows fanboys complaining.

how dare you to compare?! you've hurt my feelings!

I was browsing another mac forum when someone else brought up his hatred of the opaque menus and his reasoning made me realize another reason I find the translucent menus so much better. It's because--the way I see it--is that menus shouldn't be the focus of the screen. Rather, they should take as little focus from the application you're using as possible, because they're a tool of that application, part of it, and shouldn't distract one from it. The poster complained how he gained productivity from being able to "look through" the menu to the application to remind him of what he was doing. Maybe I'm just absent-minded, but sometimes when I click on the menu, its presence jolts me from remembering what I originally wanted to do, and so I either have to click back to the application to see what I was doing, or look around the menus to find the command that fits what I wanted. The translucency of the menus made it a much more "seamless" part of the application that didn't call attention to itself. Rather than being the focus of the screen, it was merely a tool that didn't take my attention away from what I was working on. I know that kind of thing may not apply to everyone, but it's how the translucency isn't always just for "aesthetic effect" and how it can actually increase productivity.

But I guess it's just my fault for being absent-minded, huh? Or maybe you think me and the other guy are lying?

the menus shouldn't have "little focus". everything that is active should have focus, should catch your attention, for improved perception and should distinguish what you're doing, which screen area is active in that instant, from everything else.

being able to "look through" the menu to the application isn't that "nice", but it could have been if you could then use your menus. and sometimes that didn't happen (FOR ME!!).

it's like the app that your trying to use being blended/burned/blurred (whatever!) with your desktop... wow, that would look very very "cool", "modern", will not look "plain" or even like "OS7". everything will look "seamless" and "better looking". wouldn't that be "fun"?

 

[JSchwage]

Well what about Windows Vista, the start menu is very translucent and MS didn't compensate properly for the text to be easily readable but you don't see the Windows fanboys complaining.

That's because Microsoft will only change something in their OS if either the EU gets on their case or Google takes them to court.

 

[knightlie]

the menus shouldn't have "little focus". everything that is active should have focus, should catch your attention, for improved perception and should distinguish what you're doing, which screen area is active in that instant, from everything else.

Absolutely Right. That's why they call the active control the "focused" control. The UI element being controlled should have prominence over all else - basic UI design. An active edit field or list box isn't translucent, there's no reason a menu should be.

being able to "look through" the menu to the application isn't that "nice", but it could have been if you could then use your menus. and sometimes that didn't happen (FOR ME!!).

Being able to "look though" the menu is completely pointless, and serves no useful purpose. It's just eye candy, and the .1 transparent menus looked awful, as did the menu bar.

it's like the app that your trying to use being blended/burned/blurred (whatever!) with your desktop... wow, that would look very very "cool", "modern", will not look "plain" or even like "OS7". everything will look "seamless" and "better looking". wouldn't that be "fun"?

Yep. It's pointless, like Vistas blurred opaque window borders. "We found it's handy to be able to see what's underneath windows." You CAN'T see what's underneath windows, because they blurred it. Ergo, it's useless.

 

[knightlie]

For people that have no problems with their eye-site, the transparent menus was a feature of Leopard. One that has now been removed just to get some babies to stop crying. Apple did the wrong thing by taking away this feature and should have simply added an opaque option under the handicap accessibility section for those that do not like new operating systems having new features.

That's a staggeringly offensive attitude you have there, stating that people who don't like transparent menus are handicapped babies. I love operating systems to have new features, I just prefer features that have some purpose and don't reduce usability.

Sucks to be you, eh?

 

[TheSpaz]

I just prefer features that have some purpose and don't reduce usability.

Like the over-done 3D dock with the reflections? Why doesn't Apple fix all the other strange pointless UI features? Do we need all the zooming and animations? What you consider "reducing usability" doesn't mean anything. So, big deal... you finally got your way and finally you can use your computer because finally you can't see through the way overly-distracting menus where you can hardly read the text on them. To me, one of the most beautiful parts of using OS X is it's ability to be very pleasing to the eye. Sure, there are things that bother me (like the 3D dock) but, most of it is okay.... Also, I don't have a problem with reading anything on top of a muted translucent surface.

Maybe 10.5.3 will reduce the reflectiveness of the new Dock by making it barely visible and perhaps they could take away the drop shadows on the windows.

 

[knightlie]

Like the over-done 3D dock with the reflections?

I agree, the new Dock is one thing I'll be disabling straight away. It's needlessly cluttered and not to good in the usability stakes.

Why doesn't Apple fix all the other strange pointless UI features? Do we need all the zooming and animations? What you consider "reducing usability" doesn't mean anything.

Thanks, I don't give your opinion much credence, either. When your career is based on making sure things are as usable as possible, I'll take you seriously. Perhaps.

So, big deal... you finally got your way and finally you can use your computer because finally you can't see through the way overly-distracting menus where you can hardly read the text on them.

You know, you and many other are being pretty childish about this whole issue. No, I didn't "finally get my way" - do you think I go around cheering when Apple does something that tick you off? You lot take any Apple decision you don't agree with as a personal affront - you should calm down a bit.

Simple logic dictates that something you are supposed to read, but which shows the contents through from underneath is less readable than something that is opaque - that's not my opinion, it's bloody obvious. See the post above about translucent pages of a book - such a book would be useless. That fact that some people - you included - can ignore that translucency and work with it anyway does not in any way reduce the validity of the views of others. The ability to ignore such background interferences is partly genetic, not based on how stupid you think other people are. Some people can't ignore such distractions.

Should Apple have made an option? Yeah, probably, but they didn't. So some people have to live the results, just as some people had to live with what they considered excessively transparent menus.

 

[HLdan]

I agree, the new Dock is one thing I'll be disabling straight away. It's needlessly cluttered and not to good in the usability stakes.



Thanks, I don't give your opinion much credence, either. When your career is based on making sure things are as usable as possible, I'll take you seriously. Perhaps.

Simple logic dictates that something you are supposed to read, but which shows the contents through from underneath is less readable than something that is opaque - that's not my opinion, it's bloody obvious. .

There's nothing wrong with the Leopard dock, pipe down. It's a 3D dock, it does not interfere with workflow as it sits to the bottom of the screen. I welcome Apple creating it because I felt the 2D dock didn't make sense. Ever been to a dock on a bay? It swoops out to the ocean and people are standing on it creating reflections. It's pure logic, do you want the dock to be illogical? If Apple just made it a 3D dock and slapped the icons on top of it then the MR forum would be fulla complaints that the dock makes no sense since icons are sitting on a 3D dock without showing shadows.

There's a point where Apple needs to put their foot down and keep the original idea. Leopard apart from the major improvement and features is suppose to have a fresh new user interface. It's not suppose to look like Tiger, Tiger was a 2D UI.

If we leave it up to you we might as well be back on Win 95 and Mac OS system 7.

 

[DaveF]

There's nothing wrong with the Leopard dock, pipe down. ... Ever been to a dock on a bay? It swoops out to the ocean and people are standing on it creating reflections. It's pure logic, do you want the dock to be illogical? If Apple just made it a 3D dock and slapped the icons on top of it then the MR forum would be fulla complaints that the dock makes no sense since icons are sitting on a 3D dock without showing shadows.

What? The application dock is a visual metaphor for a boat dock? The bar is the ocean and the icons are ships in their slips? And to make visual sense, it needs to suggest the receding perspective point? That's just ridiculous.

Your strawman argument that people want to keep everything fixed, and remain in the Win95 / Sys 7 days is equally silly. The desire is to actually improve the system, not merely change it to look different every few years. Changing for the heck of introduces poorly thought-out features like Stacks' auto-icon system. And the transparent menu bar.

Positive change gives powerful, useful, and attractive features like Expose and Dashboard.

 

[motulist]

I'll one-up you all in my criticism of the dock - forget 2D vs. 3D, either way the dock is a junky user interface tool. It's obtrusive, distracting, prevents you from easily navigating your screen, and is constantly yelling to bring attention to itself. Hiding it does not make it better, in many ways it makes it worse. It was a poor usability interface when it first came out, and it's no better today.

I've learned to live with it, but it's still a hunk of junk. Arguing about which dock look is better, that's like arguing whether you think your exploding Ford Pinto car is better in red or blue.

 

[kuwisdelu]

the menus shouldn't have "little focus". everything that is active should have focus, should catch your attention, for improved perception and should distinguish what you're doing, which screen area is active in that instant, from everything else.

being able to "look through" the menu to the application isn't that "nice", but it could have been if you could then use your menus. and sometimes that didn't happen (FOR ME!!).

it's like the app that your trying to use being blended/burned/blurred (whatever!) with your desktop... wow, that would look very very "cool", "modern", will not look "plain" or even like "OS7". everything will look "seamless" and "better looking". wouldn't that be "fun"?

I gave my explanation on the last page on why I think the menus shouldn't steal focus from the application they're being used for. I guess my way of working just doesn't make sense to you. The actual application being translucent through to the desktop or the applications behind it just wouldn't make sense, because the application you're using is what you want to concentrate on. The menus being translucent make sense because they're a tool of that application. Think of it like a HUD in a jet fighter. It's translucent so the pilot can see out the window through the important information like altitude, heading, velocity, etc. and out to where he's going. You wouldn't say that the heads-up-display should be opaque just so he can see the information better, would you?

I understand that not everyone thinks that same way, but if you use your menus as a TOOL of the application you're working on and consider that application the center of your focus rather than futzing around the menus, then it makes perfect sense for the menus to be translucent and allow you to see through to the application. If you consider your menus to be more important, then it should be opaque. I'm just saying Apple should keep the option there. They won't force you to use it. I won't. But many of us liked the translucency and even found it (surprise!) useful.

 

[kuwisdelu]

I'll one-up you all in my criticism of the dock - forget 2D vs. 3D, either way the dock is a junky user interface tool. It's obtrusive, distracting, prevents you from easily navigating your screen, and is constantly yelling to bring attention to itself. Hiding it does not make it better, in many way it makes it worse. It was a poor usability interface when it first came out, and it's no better today.

I've learned to live with it, but it's still a hunk of junk. Arguing about which dock look is better, that's like arguing whether you think your exploding Ford Pinto car is better in a 2 door or 3 door configuration.

Well, I still like it and find it useful. I don't really care between 2D or 3D. I like them both. I prefer the 3D dock, and don't really see any difference in usefulness between the two at all. But unless Apple can come up with something much better than the dock...I'll keep it, thank you.

 

[motulist]

Well, I still like it and find it useful.... But unless Apple can come up with something much better than the dock...I'll keep it, thank you.

Apple could make me a lot happier with it if I could hide it and have a hot corner unhide it instead of an entire side of the screen be hot. I don't like looking at the dock, I find it distracting and a waste of space when it's not being actively used. so I have it hidden, but then when my mouse gets anywhere near the side of the screen then the whole dock pops up, which is very distracting, often blocks what I was trying to aim for with my click, and makes me have to be super precise and careful with my mouse pointing. That's just a terrible interface.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Apple could make me a lot happier with it if I could hide it and have a hot corner unhide it instead of an entire side of the screen be hot. I don't like looking at the dock, I find it distracting and a waste of space when it's not being actively used. so I have it hidden, but then when my mouse gets anywhere near the side of the screen then the whole dock pops up, which is very distracting, often blocks what I was trying to aim for with my click, and makes me have to be super precise and careful with my mouse pointing. That's just a terrible interface.

In that case, I hope you get your option of a hot corner. But personally, I like the dock a lot. I find it quite useful, and I think ability to Hide + Dock is a much better implementation than any Windows way of handling programs, or any Linux distros that I've tried. So it's not a terrible interface at all. It's bad customization options or a very good interface that may not be as conducive to your particular way of working.

 

[HawaiiMacAddict]

Aloha everyone,

Here's what I don't understand. Why give us the option for a transparent menubar, but not include the drop-down menus as well? In other words, keep everything 10.5.1 (transparent) or change it to 10.5.2 (more opaque)? I also like the "original" drop-down menus, but that's just my preference. I will still continue to use Mac OS X anyway, however - it's still infinitely better than Windows!

As for the dock, you realize that you can make it smaller and/or simply hide it, right? I find it useful as it contains aliases for the programs I use the most often. I actually much prefer the new 3D look over the 2D look of Tiger. I was one of the ones who initially had problems doing the upgrade to Leopard because I was using ClearDock. I didn't mind seeing the icons, but didn't like the 2D dock. To each their own, I say.

That being said, I really don't like the mixing of 10.5.0/1 and 10.5.2 with respect to the menubar and its drop-down menus. It just seems a bit discombobulated. They should either both be 10.5.0/1 or 10.5.2, but not mixed.

HawaiiMacAddict

 

[kuwisdelu]

They should either both be 10.5.0/1 or 10.5.2, but not mixed.

That makes a lot more sense to me, too. If we can't have more than one option for it, a simple "Translucency On" "Translucency Off" option to control all of it would satisfy probably 99.9% of us, at least.

 

[knightlie]

There's nothing wrong with the Leopard dock, pipe down. It's a 3D dock, it does not interfere with workflow as it sits to the bottom of the screen. I welcome Apple creating it because I felt the 2D dock didn't make sense. Ever been to a dock on a bay? It swoops out to the ocean and people are standing on it creating reflections. It's pure logic, do you want the dock to be illogical? If Apple just made it a 3D dock and slapped the icons on top of it then the MR forum would be fulla complaints that the dock makes no sense since icons are sitting on a 3D dock without showing shadows.

What?? Dude, apart from the unneeded "pipe down," which I'm going to ignore, I have no idea what you're talking about. I suspect you don't either.

If we leave it up to you we might as well be back on Win 95 and Mac OS system 7.

And that proves the not only do you not know what you're talking about, but you're pulling BS insults out of your arse. I have stated no such thing. I want a UI which is at least as usable as the one before it, not less usable. The 3D dock and transparent menus are less usable for a large number of people.

 

[Tupring]

The effect is still there, just that it's just way too opaque right now:

I think that looks pretty good however it was much better before.

 

[TheSpaz]

I think that looks pretty good however it was much better before.

BORING!

 

[johnnyjibbs]

Having now installed the 10.5.2 update (having found the HD space to be able to carry out the install), I did not notice the increased opacity of the menus but am compelled to have a look tonight now when I get back to my Mac.

I must agree with everyone else who says that ledgibility must come before eye candy, but there's another school of thought that says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They have toned down the transparency over the years in Mac OS X and I never ever came across a situation in Leopard where the menus were an issue. In fact, I loved the new effect, which makes Tiger look garish in comparison.

The danger now with Leopard is that everything is either plain bright white or solid grey - that spells Windows 95 to me.

 

[kuwisdelu]

I must agree with everyone else who says that ledgibility must come before eye candy, but there's another school of thought that says "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". They have toned down the transparency over the years in Mac OS X and I never ever came across a situation in Leopard where the menus were an issue. In fact, I loved the new effect, which makes Tiger look garish in comparison.

Yes, I loved the translucent menus, but agree that usability must come before eye candy. However, as you said, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." For many of us it wasn't broke, and if Apple wanted to fix it for only certain people for whom it was broke, they should have made it an option, just like the menu bar. For some of us it wasn't simply eye candy; it was even useful and more useable.

 

[ibeetle]

Let Apple know how you feel

Is it possible to increase the drop down menu transparency? I've been looking around in all of the .plist files and cant find anything. I want it how it was before .2 or maybe even more .

Thanks for the help,
Tony

Miss the transparent Contextual Menu's? Sometimes called Drop Down Menu's. If MacWorld magazine can single handedly make Apple do away with them then lets show Apple far more people want them back.
If Apple can give people a chose with a check box for the Menu Bar why can't we have the chose of transparent Contextual Menu's with the same check box.

Send Apple your complaint at:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html/

 

[saltyzoo]

Miss the transparent Contextual Menu's? Sometimes called Drop Down Menu's. If MacWorld magazine can single handedly make Apple do away with them then lets show Apple far more people want them back.
If Apple can give people a chose with a check box for the Menu Bar why can't we have the chose of transparent Contextual Menu's with the same check box.

Send Apple your complaint at:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/macosx.html/

yeah, that's got to be one of the most important things Apple should be concerned about in the next release.

 

[Thetinguy]

If usability was the first priority in OS design, we would all be running around with 1 bit color for the Leopard theme with minimal visual flair. No one really needs all those fancy 3D animations, however we want it. It certainly possible to convey all the same information visually with less flair. In reality usability shares the platform with design. Both are considered when designing UI (along with many other things I am sure). I honestly do not need or want the added usability that comes from opaque menus, and I don't care if anyone with seeing problems does. I like it when things look nice. Yes my friends bought Macbooks mainly because they were really pretty. They don't care if usability is decreased by transparency. Their experince with a computer is better because everything looks pretty and, to a lesser extent, mine is too.

If you really demand so much usability, maybe you should switch to Linux. I am sure they have a distro out there with usability as it's top priority. As is clear from this thread although usability was lower, many users enjoyed their time with their computers more. Isn't that what good UI is?? If it isn't, I don't want good UI.

 

[kuwisdelu]

As is clear from this thread although usability was lower, many users enjoyed their time with their computers more. Isn't that what good UI is?? If it isn't, I don't want good UI.

And the kicker is that for many of us, it didn't even affect usability at all. Good UI should really optimize both aesthetics and ease of use, and for many of us getting rid of the feature was a sacrifice of aesthetics for no gain in ease of use. For some people it was justified, but I miss them, and so do many others, it seems.

 

[kevo0822]

Anyone found any sort of fix for this? Terminal command or something?