Feature request: browsing filesystem in gnome "computer" menu

[Peter Damoc]

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 12:09:41 +0100, Christian Luijten <christian at luijten.org> wrote:

>
> On 18 Nov 2004, at 8:53, Peter Damoc wrote:
>
>> The main problem is that people don't get it. A lot of people come
>> from Windows and they are used with a certain behaviour, some of them
>> are willing to give the new way a try but soon succumb to usability
>> issues. Maybe they
>
> I find it funny to read that "all" Windows people expect certain
> behaviour. The only argument against Spatial seems to be that it is not
> like how Windows does it!

Well.. you've read it too fast, I've said "A lot" not "All" :D and the argument, at least the way I see it, is not that Windows does it one way or the other BUT that certain users are used with a certain behaviour.

> [snip]
>
> Spatial encourages users to have shallow directory structures, because
> they will have many windows open on their desktops if they don't.
> Shallow directories result in being able to easily find your files
> back. Furthermore it is a much better metaphor for file browsing than
> the original browser since it abstracts the whole concept of a
> filesystem. There is no need for the user to know how a filesystem is
> built up with spatial views.

sometimes deep structures are needed, take for example my clinic's photo database, file hierarchy has a depth of 5 and I doubt it could be done with less without giving up at least some functionality. The only way to get read of such deep structures is to implement some kind of a specialised access mechanism based on labels (keywords) and this is what I had to do in order to be able to manage that monster. Shallow directories are not the answer due to posible presentation overload.
The best way, at least in my view, is something like iTunes. iTunes replaced my Winamp because it managed my music collection better, it completely removed the filesystem from my music collection, I no longer have to think "did I filed that song under "new stuff" or under "hip-hop" or maybe under "amateurs"... all I have to know is that it has all of this attributes.
Now why don't I have something like that for my documents? maybe keywords like Project, Document Type (image, movie, text), document extension, Author, etc. and be able to select my files via something like "All Projects| Images|PNGS| by Joe | last week| above 60k" or "Project MegaCool |Videos|MPGS| done| by everybody| from the beginning|above 1Gb"
This will emulate a depth needed without forcing the user to go back and forth searching.... ok so the video I'm looking for is not part of Project MegaCool no problem, I just select All Projects and maybe it pops in the list.

> With browsing that is a different case, the user has to have a
> tree-view of (part of) the filesystem open to be able to navigate. Such
> there is way too much information in the window and the user is
> confused very easily (seen it happen).
>
> Web browsing and file browsing are two completely different (and
> incomparable) things (Microsoft seems to think different on this).
> While web browsing is like reading a book, file browsing is like
> searching a file cabinet.
>
I disagree here, web browsing is very much like file browsing. You still search for some information and when you found it ... you consume it. Finding a video is not the same as watching a video also... finding a page is not like reading a page. If you want... think about Google as the "file" browser...
>
> Now, back to our Windows switchers which expect a certain behaviour:
>
> I just switched a family from Windows XP to Ubuntu with no problems at
> all. They were so irritated by the spyware and viruses that they almost
> ditched their internet connection in an attempt to keep their computer
> clean. They are completely non-technical users who want their computer
> to 'just work'. I installed Ubuntu and they're happy now, starting
> Windows only every now and then to do some DVD burning etc. They
> understand that Ubuntu is not Windows and that it is possible that
> something which works one way in Windows works in another way in
> Ubuntu.
>

Let me ask you this:
Have you installed Ubuntu and left or have you installed Ubuntu and explained? If you explained, they have more than just a Ubuntu install. This is why I mentioned the "Animated Tutorials", give users more than just the software, give them a model, let them learn first by imitation and then they will have enough confidence to learn by exploration. The first few steps into the unknown are by far the most difficult.
Again, I might be wrong, but I think that the main reason users stay away from development is the fact that they cannot make those few first steps, a lot of them might have the necessary skills, a lot of them might even want to become developers but... they are in front of the unknown, a wall is placed in front of them, a wall that most of the time seams unsurmountable. Few get lucky and maybe find a mentor that will guide them those few steps or maybe they have enough will and courage to take those steps alone.

>
> Maybe it is a good idea to look at the facts, is spatial indeed
> confusing for Windows users, instead of deciding for them that it is?
> One of the key factors I think is not to look upon Windows users as
> stupid users. The larger part of the Windows using population is not
> interested in technology and just want a computer that works.

A lot of the Windows using population just want a Mac. :D

> I believe many opponents of spatial windows use Windows as an argument
> because they cannot adapt to the "new" way of doing things. Come on
> people, give your real reasons for rejecting spatial Nautilus.
>

Yes, they cannot adapt, can you blame them?  The target here is not to make "spatial" or "browse" the default but to cater for all users. They could put a poll on the site for all I care and make each release use as default the result of that poll, as long as users will be able to choose their favorite way... everything is ok.

>
> Greets,
> --
> Christian Luijten
>


-- 
Peter Damoc
Hacker Wannabe
http://www.sigmacore.net/