[Gman]

Can some one tell my why Apple doesn't make a mouse with 2 buttons or a scroll wheel. I love the look and the feel of my mouse (much better than my pc mouse) but I can't get use to just 1 button and the lack of a scroll wheel is driving me crazy. I know I could go ot and get a 3rd party mouse and I probably will but but I'll miss the way the original mouse looks next to my iMac and I'll definately miss the feel. So far (3 days and counting) I have to say this is my only gripe with my mac. Overall though, I'm very pleased with my switch from pc.

[Brad]

1. Tradition.
2. Because extra buttons and gizmos and doodads aren't necessary.
3. To force developers to write applications with better UI*.

* specifically, so developers won't shove a bunch of crap in the contextual menu or worse yet put stuff only in the contextual menu.

[Kickaha]

Looooong story.

Basically, it comes down to making sure that developers adhere to the UI guidelines, part of which state that *ALL* UI elements should be 'discoverable'. This means no hidden buttons, actions, options, etc. A new user should be able to just mouse around with the left (only) button and find everything they need. Contextual menus and such are for efficiency only.

How many times did you suddenly find an action in a contextual menu on Windows that you'd never seen before? That you couldn't find anywhere else? And that you couldn't seem to find again?

Single button mice as default *force* developers to make sure that everything their app does, is doable with one button. It's about the developers, not the users.

Edit: DAMMIT BRAD! *THAT'S* how you're beating me to the punch recently... giving crappy short answers because you know I'll fill in all of your conceptual holes a few seconds later, but you get to look good! BASTICH!

[Gman]

Thank you. No one has ever explained that to me beyond "its a mac thing".
I was starting to regret this posting after reading the "Apple Keyboard and Mouse" posting under "Apple Products". I was sure I would be flamed but you guys have been most helpful. But for the record I still miss my right click.

[Luca]

The other thing is that first-time computer users are most comfortable with a single button. Most Mac users ditch the included mouse in favor of a two button mouse with a scroll wheel anyway... you can get one for like $10.

[darshu]

I still claim it is essential to ship single-button mouse for one primary reason: To ensure developers keep making their apps usable with a single-button mouse. Sure you can point out counter-examples like Shake, but no one expects a multi-thousand dollar software package is going to be easy or intended for newbies anyhow.

Moreover multi-button trackpads are ergonomic nightmares, whereas a Powerbook/iBook trackpad requires a simple twist of the wrist to click it. Sure I have no problem using a regular mouse with 17,000 buttons, but the price to pay in having trackpad design/software design is too great to give up shipping a single-button mouse.

[Kickaha]

Bingo.

The day Apple starts shipping multi-button mice as default, is the day that I see the end of any UI coherence looming. (It's not perfect now, but it's a hell of a lot better than the competition.)

[kscherer]

Could it be that Apple does not want to create the perfect, awe-inspiring 2-button-scroll mouse because they do not want to: 1) give 3rd party manufacturers a reason to stop and; 2) Apple does not want to flat-out embarass Logitech!

And, Gman, who says you aren't gonna get flamed?

[atomicbartbeans]

This is also a thing that has bothered me about Apple's UI guidelines:

If the Apple philosophy is that the context menus should be used for efficiency, then why must you hold down a modifier key (usually command) to access them? Not very efficient to me. I broke down and brought a Microsoft Wireless/Optical Notebook Mouse (the only thing I would ever buy from them).

I love having 1. the right button for context menus, 2. the scroll wheel, and 3. the scroll button (mapped to exposé of course).

[Brad]

Originally Posted by kscherer Could it be that Apple does not want to create the perfect, awe-inspiring 2-button-scroll mouse because they do not want to: 1) give 3rd party manufacturers a reason to stop and; 2) Apple does not want to flat-out embarass Logitech!

1. No. Even if Apple could pull off a miracle like this, in typical Apple fashion it would cost four times as much as any other two-button scrolling mouse. Besides, many power users (myself included) want more than just two buttons.

2. No. Who cares about Logitech?

[Brad]

Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans If the Apple philosophy is that the context menus should be used for efficiency, then why must you hold down a modifier key (usually command) to access them?

See previous posts. The big deal is not about efficiency nearly as much as it is about making things accessible and easily discoverable. You don't have to hold that modifier key because the same options should also be available elsewhere (like in the menu bar).

[atomicbartbeans]

I did see previous posts, Brad. My point is that in addition to being accessible elsewhere, context menus are very efficient. Apple makes excellent context menus, but ruins their efficiency by making you press a modifier to access them (with Apple's mouse).

[dviant]

/me right clicks on a link and looks at the contextual-only menu options

I really don't think the old "it forces developers to write better ui" argument has been valid for quite some time. Ever since Apple added the ctrl modifier for contextual access it rendered that point moot. Not to mention that some things (like my example above) cannot be done properly except in contextual ways.

With that modifier accessible, bad developers can justify developing bad ui regardless what mouse Apple ships. It's like arguing that a fence with a hole in it will keep the rabbits out of your garden simply because it's a fence.

[asian_boy5]

If you do want a two button mouse with a scroll wheel with the spiffy design of apples mouse, check out Macmice's "the mouse" it come in either wired and bluetooth varients too.

http://www.dvforge.com/themousebt.shtml

[atomicbartbeans]

Perhaps Apple could make a "pro" mouse (perhaps aluminum/silver, like the PB/PowerMac), with 2 or 3 buttons and a scroll wheel?

Apple could really kick ass with mice, if they would get over their UI mental block.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by dviant /me right clicks on a link and looks at the contextual-only menu options

Pro app or consumer app? And yes, there are screw-ups, even in Apple software. The point is that they *ARE* mistakes. On other systems, that's just how it works, and it sucks.

Consumer apps shouldn't ever have such things, they are simply errors. High-end pro apps... well, a certain amount of leeway is given in such cases, since multi-button mice are simply a necessity of the field. (No, I'm not going to try and justify this. )

[dviant]

Link in Safari was what I was referring to. Not that it's anything *bad*. Just an example of things which ARE contextually dependent.



I'm not saying that it's ok for contextual menus to be used poorly... I agree there shouldn't be hidden crap in there if at all possible (with exceptions for things like Safari's contextual menu for links). My point was that a single button mouse isn't logically preventing bad gui as contextual menus are still accessible in Mac OS regardless of how many buttons you have.

[Kickaha]

Oh god, don't get me started on web browser UI semantics.

Dammit, too late.

GUIs are built around the idea that there are objects on the screen that you click on to select, then you can choose from a menu a list of actions to perform on them. This is how it's been since the dawn of GUIs, and it worked.

When the web was first implemented, on a NeXT no less, it worked like this. You selected a link, then could do all sorts of things with it, like copy, open in new window, etc, and it worked *just like everything else*, including double-click to open the link.

Then Andreesen and company decided to BREAK all of this in Mosaic when they were students, Mosaic became Netscape, and we were all fucked. We *HAVE* to have contextual menus because the UI for links is fundamentally broken thanks to a few short-sighted students.

Idiots.

[dviant]

Interesting. By that definition then you shouldn't be able to double-click apps? You should get a menu asking if you want to open it/move it/trash it instead? I'm glad that when I click a hyperlink it goes to it's location rather than asking me silly questions about things I likely don't want to do with it. :P

Regardless of GUI semantics, I think the reason we have good apps is because Apples philosophy around GUI is set to higher standards (which they used to be better at). I think evangalizing, leading by example and providing good documentation on the subject goes a hell of a lot further than obscuring contextual menu access due to shipping a button-challenged mouse. :P

[Kickaha]

No, double-click was used as a shortcut for 'most frequently used action'. So double-click on an app opens it, double-click on a mail message opens it, and double-click on a web link *should* be to open it.

But nooooooo, a few idiot students thought that was too hard, and not efficient enough, and screwed it up ever after.

Oh, and by 'menu', I mean the menu in the menu bar, not a contextual menu. Remember, no hidden features.

[dviant]

Ahhhh that part makes more sense then. So do you then think the very nature of contextual menus is bad given the current state of what how a click functions? I thought we were arguing over something but now I can't figure out what it is hehe.

[Kickaha]

Heh.

No, I think contextual menus are good *for efficiency*. They suck for discoverability though.

The single-click-triggers-action though... just stupid. The only things that should work for are buttons and widgets where there is one action possible. (Heck, I rather dislike it in the Dock even, but can live with it.)

[dviant]

So OK, I agree important things tucked away in contextual menus sucks and is bad ui. No one wants to go hunting for things. But then there ARE things that seemingly can go nowhere else efficiently given the single-click-triggers-action standard (like my Safari Links example). Point being that contextual menus are currently useful and sometimes necessary.

Which leads us back to the main topic. Given that there is a modifier key to access them even if you have a one button mouse, there is no point in saying the one button mouse "forces" developers to use good judgment regarding menus. At best a one button mouse simply obscures access to contextual menus.

[kscherer]

Originally Posted by Brad 1. No. Even if Apple could pull off a miracle like this, in typical Apple fashion it would cost four times as much as any other two-button scrolling mouse. Besides, many power users (myself included) want more than just two buttons. 2. No. Who cares about Logitech?

Well, no one "cares" about Logitech.

When you consider the number of third party, two-button mice that exist for the Mac, I don't think that GUI guidlines play in as a contributing factor. If developers wanted to get around the GUI stuff, they could do it without a second thought. The tools exist and Apple builds 2-button-scroll functionality into the OS, thus negating the single-button-mouse-for-GUI-conformity theory. If right-click and scroll features were NOT supported by the OS, then the theory would hold water. Otherwise, it SEEMS like a bit of an excuse. If Apple wanted single-button conformity, they could easily eliminate 2-button functionality, could they not?

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by dviant So OK, I agree important things tucked away in contextual menus sucks and is bad ui. No one wants to go hunting for things. But then there ARE things that seemingly can go nowhere else efficiently given the single-click-triggers-action standard (like my Safari Links example). Point being that contextual menus are currently useful and sometimes necessary.

Useful, yes. No one's arguing that they aren't, I don't think.

But they should NEVER be necessary. NEVER. NOT EVER. If they are, your UI is simply broken. Period. The web browser interface is broken, that's all there is to it, so contextual menus are a back-up kludge.

Which leads us back to the main topic. Given that there is a modifier key to access them even if you have a one button mouse, there is no point in saying the one button mouse "forces" developers to use good judgment regarding menus. At best a one button mouse simply obscures access to contextual menus.

I disagree completely. Who needs discoverability the most? New users. What's easiest for new users? One button. What's obvious, visible, and right there in front of those new users? A menu bar. It's a symbiosis of new-user-need and developer-enforcement that results in the one-button as default.

Contextual menus are for efficiency only, except when you're stuck a fundamentally flawed UI element like the web link.

[kscherer]

Kickaha, we actually agree with you. Context menus are a bit of an efficiency afterthought. They are not necessary, but quite useful. The point is that Apple's decision to create a single-button mouse has no bearing on this, as users (new and old) have access to a two button mouse. The point I can see, here, is that a new user, fresh from the box, does not immediately need a right click, thus Apple's decision to ship a single button offering. But what about an option? Why not a really cool 2-button job as an option?

[Kickaha]

I can't argue with you much there as a consumer, but it would create a fairly significant shift in the minds of UI developers, IMO.

"Ah! Finally we can just assume contextual menus, because Everyone Knows that people will buy the 2-button mouse, and now we don't have to assume only one button!"

I hope they continue to ship one button as default for many years to come.

[BlueRabbit]

Well, it's all part of Apple's iNewton plan. The iNewton will come out with a version of OS X installed, so everything on the screen will be accessible via just clicking with the pen, and no modifier keys.

[Kickaha]

Yeah, that's another point.

Seriously, ever tried using a TabletPC? Not. Elegant. Single-click everywhere is *MADE* for pen input.

No, we don't have a tablet. We haven't had a good powerful low-power CPU. With the move to Universal Binaries, though....

[kscherer]

Great, Kickaha, now you've opened the thread up to a bunch of TabletPC CRAP!

THANKS A LOT!