alt Hacker News> So it looked like the Mac but was infinitely worse.
"Infinitely worse"? Some people really need to cool off the hyperbole.
Having each window be a self-contained unit is the far better metaphor than making each window transform a global element when it is selected. As well as scaling better for bigger screens. An edge case like that may well be unfortunate, but it could be the price you pay to make the overall better solution.
Replies
jedberg • yesterday at 9:46 AM
The infinitely worse part was when you maximized the window so the menu bar was at the top, but Windows still had the border there, which was unclickable.
So now you broke the infinite click target even though it looked like it should have one.
That was the point of Tog's conclusion: edges of the screen have infinite target size in one cardinal direction, corners have infinite target size in two cardinal directions. Any click target that's not infinite in comparison, has infinitely smaller area, which I suppose you could conclude is infinitely worse if clickable area is your primary metric.
This wasn't just the menu bar either. The first Windows 95-style interfaces didn't extend the start menu click box to the lower left corner of the screen. Not only did you have to get the mouse down there, you had to back off a few pixels in either direction to open the menu. Same with the applications in the task bar.
The concept was similar to NEXTSTEP's dock (that was even licensed by Microsoft for Windows 95), but missed the infinite area aspect that putting it on the screen edge allowed.