Suggestion Next Release

[Andrew Farris]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> Andrew Farris wrote:
>>
>>> And when they go more than a few folders deep they'll still be 
>>> annoyed at all the useless still-open windows left around even if 
>>> they expect them.
>>
>> Not necessarily.
> 
> How can anyone possibly want all of the intermediate windows left open 
> when they really just want to get to some deep path location?
> 
>>>> A person new to nautilus spatial browsing but who has experience 
>>>> with linux may find it surprising, and so will someone who has 
>>>> experience with Windows Explorer but who has never seen Apple OS. 
>>>
>>> The finder in OS X doesn't clutter my screen that way - at least in 
>>> 10.5.  What Apple OS do you mean?
>>
>> Thats because Apple has chosen not to make it default behavior, not 
>> because it is not included.
> 
> And that's because Apple makes some effort to give people a better 
> experience.

No.  Apple has offered options, one of which maintains the prior behavior of 
Apple OS 6.x to 9 (spatial browsing) while also offering other options such as 
the multi-pane view.  To say they chose not to make spatial browsing the default 
because 'they want a better experience' is to once again claim your preference 
is the better experience.  I beg to differ.  I have the theory they decided not 
to make spatial browsing the default because they wanted to make sure everyone 
learns multi-pane tree structure browsing... one of their innovations in UI 
(i.e. look how cool this is).  I'm a huge fan of OS X, but I'm not going to 
gloss over the self-promoting preference choice there.

BTW, Nowhere in OS X will you find the nautilus browser tree view however... 
you'll find modifications to that idea which Apple wanted to add.  There just 
simply is no Windows Explorer type tree to click on little triangles.  Its not 
there for a reason, to distinguish OS X from the Windows experience rather than 
to be just like it.

>>  Take a look in the Finder preferences and you'll find it right there 
>> (always open in new window) and then set your finder mode to icon view 
>> (cmd-1) and start browsing spatially.
> 
> But I don't want to browse spatially.

I wasn't suggesting you did... that would be rather stupid given the emails 
you've already posted.  I was pointing out that you apparently are unaware of 
the fact that this file access mode exists.. in OSX (which your prior email 
claimed not to be true).

>> OSX will behave very similarly to Gnome when you've done that, 
>> remembering window placement for any directory you have opened.
> 
> I'll control that myself, thank you.

Ok, good deal.  I'll let the computer help me.

>> Whether it is the default behavior is not something I'm really 
>> concerned about, only the perception that it is somehow 'wrong' 
>> because you don't like it.
> 
> No option is 'wrong' if a user sets it himself. In that case it isn't 
> anyone else's business. The default behavior is the only one where you 
> can pass judgment.
> 
>> I suggest you go have a look through gnome development mailing lists 
>> for discussion on spatial browsing if you really are interested 
>> (especially if you want to argue it should not be the default for 
>> upstream).  You might also find this [1] interesting (see point 6).
> 
> If I understand point 6 to mean that spatial browsing relates more 
> closely to physical objects, that makes sense and is why I don't like 
> it.  If I wanted things to be as inconvenient as physical objects I 
> wouldn't be sitting at a desk using a computer.  I want the objects to 
> come to me, not to be frozen in some inconvenient distant space.  And I 
> want them to clean up after themselves better than things in the 
> physical world.

Uh huh, so you think that a tree browsing view is somehow much closer to 'not 
physical' than spatial browsing?  You feel that a hierarchy of deeply enclosed 
directories is easier to access when you're still going one level at a time into 
the tree than using the spatial browsing mode?  Tree views, and opening inside 
the same window all the time is modeled directly from File Folders within Filing 
Cabinets.

Both are fundamentally flawed ways that we access and organize our files in a 
computer.  They are both inadequate, and will need to change in the future.  The 
longer we take to realize this it will postpone real progress in human computer 
interaction while everyone keeps demanding that things work the way they used to.

You can argue that holding down shift, or using middle-doubleclick is 
inconvenient if you like (I believe it works just fine).  My windows clean up 
after themselves beautifully.

Point 6 was not saying spatial browsing is a holy grail for the future, its 
saying that human beings are spatially oriented and naturally think in terms 
much more akin to spatial browsing.  Memory of where a window, or the file 
within the window, is supposed to be is very natural for us to remember as we 
'browse' through files.  Those files are supposed to be where they last were, 
hence why having a window show up where you had it last time makes sense.

It is contrary to the way many people have learned to find their files, and if 
they don't like it thats understandable; they don't like change.  They don't 
have to embrace change.  But if they are going to claim the change is going 
backwards I'd like to see more than personal preference in the rhetoric.

>> This thread is one more example of why HCI is still (3 years after 
>> this blog) in the stone ages.. because people continue to demand 
>> things work the way they first learned them to work even when it makes 
>> very little sense from a perspective of how a human might best work 
>> with a computer.
> 
> I'm not demanding things to work the same as I first learned them, I 
> just want changes to be for the better, not worse.  The problem is not 
> so much about the attributes of spatial windows, although I much prefer 
> to control those attributes by my view instead of having them attached 
> to the object itself, the real problem is that opening unwanted windows 
> is a side effect of navigation.  I don't want to have to remember some 
> unnatural action for navigation vs. end point choices and I want an 
> explict 'open a new window' when I reach locations that I want left open.

You prefer trees.. there are those of us that do not.  I definitely have not 
suggested that anyone remove nautilus browser mode from gnome.

>> And interesting read [2] on why the 'desktop' itself is a poor 
>> interface destined to be forgotten and left behind as we learn to 
>> interact with our computers in far more complicated ways.
> 
> No argument there, but again, I want the objects/options to come to me, 
> not to be hiding in locations distant from my mouse pointer, especially 
> as screens get bigger.

You're free not to use your body's motor memory to your advantage if you want.

What you prefer is fine for you; I will take offense to you calling spatial 
browsing wrong however... it is what I and many other people prefer.

-- 
Andrew Farris <lordmorgul at gmail.com> www.lordmorgul.net
  gpg 0xC99B1DF3 fingerprint CDEC 6FAD BA27 40DF 707E A2E0 F0F6 E622 C99B 1DF3
No one now has, and no one will ever again get, the big picture. - Daniel Geer
----                                                                       ----