Re: File Menu

[Gleef <gleef capital net>]

On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Samuel Solon wrote:
> >
> >Saying memory structures are files shows that you use the term File in a
> >way that nobody else does, either inside or outside the computer industry.
> >Please check out the FOLDOC definition, which I think most people will
> >consider reasonable.  You can find it at:
> >
> 
> I don't know about any other languages but to appeal to the "definition" of
> an English word to prove anything is usually pointless. Nobody decides what
> words really mean and their meaning changes over time.

For debate and discussion to be possible, peple need to be speaking the
same language.  This must be true not only in the gross sense, having
everyone speak, say English for example, but it must also be true in the
specific sense.  That is to say, the words we use must mean, if not the
same thing, at least similar things.  I only brought out this point when,
after a week of heated debate, it became clear that Dan was using the word
"File" in a sense that nobody else was using, nor has used to my
knowledge.

For example, if we were to get into a discussion regarding computer
hardware, and the topic of floppy drives comes up.  Lets say you took the
stand that, since floppy drives are becoming less and less useful in
general, and in a few circumstances (eg. secure workstations) are
downright bad to have, they should not be required.  Now lets say I were
to rebut your argument by saying that floppy drives are absolutely
critical and must be included in all machines.

After some debate it becomes clear that at least one of the reasons I am
taking my stand is because I misunderstand what a floppy drive is.  I am
arguing that the floppy is necessary because I think the floppy is also
the hard disk, the RAM and the ROM.  I would hope that at some point in
the debate, you would point me to a dictionary, so I can be more
enlightened as to the topic of the debate.


> Certainly, outside the sphere of computer usage I doubt anyone would even
> think of a sequence of <n> sized areas of magnetization accessed using a
> set of hierarchal data structures stored on a rotating magnetic medium as a
> file.

No, they would not.  The same thing would go for spooled print jobs, a
struct in memory, a database records and many other things which Dan was
using as examples of files.  These are not called files either in or out
of the sphere of computing.  That was the point I was trying to make, by
argument earlier, and by dictionary in the quote you gave.


> The best way to think of "File" as the name of that menu that appears in a
> large number of computer programs is as a verb. The first set of
> definitions in my "Webster's New World Dictionary of the American
> Language", second college edition, copyright 1976 are the verbs:
> 
> 1. a)to arrange (papers, etc.) in order for future reference, b) to put (a
> paper, etc.) its proper place or order
> 
> 2. to dispatch (a news story) to a newspaper office
> 
> 3. to register (an application, etc.)
> 
> 4. to put (a legal document) on public record
> 
> 5. to initiate (a divorce suit or other legal proceeding
>
> I'm sure a more recent dictionary would list computer related usages also.

Dan was clearly using File as a noun in all of his arguments, at least
all the ones I remember.

None of these definitions, even when extended to their computer analogues
would cover Exiting an application, or setting application-wide options.
Including print on such a menu is stretching the issue greatly, I have
never heard the word used as definition 2.  I suppose you can file a
printout, but filing a print (as is written in most places) is
nonsensical.  How do you file an exit?

 
> This is the sense we should be using the "File" menu. As a mechanism to
> getting things into and out of a program. Whether its from a disk file,
> network connection, database, scanner or to a printer.

This is an argument for my points.  I was arguing that File should not be
a required menu.  Many applications have no need for a menu for "getting
things into and out of a program".

Also, most menu headings are nouns, and discussed in terms of places.  For
example "You find the about feature under Help", or "Go to Edit, now go
down to Select All".  This makes most people I have talked to think of the
menu headings in terms of the noun definitions.  Saying, it should be
called File because it makes sense as a verb will not help matters, since
most people won't read it that way.  Buttons work well as verbs, menu
headings do not.


> One of the basic uses of many applications is to modify information, or
> create it. The "File" menu is where someone would look for operations that
> get things into the program or for a way to save information so it can be
> used in another form (a file for another program, a printout to get lost on
> the desk) or reused in the same program later.
> 
> There seems little reason to spread get/out information out among the
> menus. If you want to load something into a program or save something from
> a program the operations should be clustered in one, consistent, place; the
> "File" menu.

I was not suggesting that I/O operations be spread out among the menus.  I
was merely suggesting that the leftmost menu must be consistent.  Many
applications have no need for a File menu.  Therefore the leftmost menu
should be named something else.

I was also pointing out that many newer applications are getting away
from the concept of files, and would rather deal with "Projects" or
"Sessions", since their information spans many files, or is merely part of
a file.  Allowing the name of the File menu to be flexible encourages
this.  I think this is a good thing to encourage.


> Renaming it just obscures its function as the holder of "filing" operations.

Allowing it to be renamed allows the developer to be more explicit
about what the program is doing really, so the user isn't stuck thinking
about generic files.


-Gleef