Re: [patch] Bug 88585, Sorting of size column is messed up

[Darryl Rees <rees netnam vn>]

Surely ascending size should be smallest to biggest, ascending date 
should be forward chronological time, and arrows should point in the 
ascending direction, this all seems pretty intuitive (and is moreover 
almost always implemented that way).

If we want to argue that invoking a sort (one click) should default to 
ascending or descending order, surely that's a separate issue to which 
direction the arrows point. Related to this issue (if you think about it 
enough)... currently if an item is selected, and you click on a header 
to re-sort, the item stays selected but is not necessarily kept in view; 
a lot of apps with sortable columns will try to keep the selected item 
in view (multiple selected items? too hard!).

Note Mozilla/Netscape always defaults to ascending after one click, as 
does fileroller. Gnumeric has a little down arrow with a->z means 
ascending as I've described and up arrow with z->a for descending as 
I've described.

It's a hard ask to guess the most preferred one-click defaults without 
doing user testing. When I'm looking through ANY kind of alphabetical 
column I will use forward alphabetical order, even if I'm looking for 
items beginning with 'w' or 'y'... just zoom to the end of the list. I 
imagine there could be lots of people who think this way with 
chronological items as well.

Once there is a 'definitive answer' on this maybe it should go in the 
gnome usability guide?


Darryl Rees.

Braden McDaniel wrote:

> On Thu, 2002-11-14 at 00:21, David Watson wrote:
>  
>
> > On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, Braden McDaniel wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > On Wed, 13 Nov 2002, David Emory Watson wrote:
> > >      
> > >
> > > > To see one reason why we shouldn't go with your suggestion (i.e. the
> > > > evolution way) think about this: if we change the ordering for names
> > > > in the list view then we become inconsistent with the icon view.  If
> > > > we change the ordering for the icon view, then "sort by name" becomes
> > > > reverse alphabetical order!?
> > > >        
> > > I do not see why that is. An ascending alphabetical sort *is*
> > > "alphabetical order", not reverse alphabetical order.
> > >      
> > The list view is currently _designed_ to match the icon view.  When column
> > $foo is clicked, the list is sorted into the same order used in in the
> > icon view when "Arrange Items" -> "By $foo" is selected.  If a column is
> > clicked twice, the same effect is the same as selecting "Arrange Items" ->
> > "Reversed Order".
> >    
>
> What has this got to do with making the arrow point the correct
> direction for a given ordering?
>
>  
>
> > > If in the end it is arbitrary, it is broken.
> > >
> > > up = ascending, down = descending. That's not arbitrary at all. That's
> > > logical.
> > >      
> > Sure, it's logical.  Your just using the wrong logic (i.e. your axioms are
> > arbitrary and I don't accept them).
> >    
>
> What are the arbitrary axioms you think I'm using?
>
>