Re: Gnome 2.6: What were you thinking?

[jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 23:04, Franco Catrin L. wrote:
> El jue, 13-05-2004 a las 17:18, jamie escribió:
> > On Thu, 2004-05-13 at 21:33, John (J5) Palmieri wrote:
> > 
> > > > 
> > > > Well, quite a few people don't think that was a 'very good idea'.
> > > And quite a few people do.  Really any change like this is going to have
> > > people who love it and people who hate it.  Thats just life.  Should we
> > > just freeze the desktop where it is right now and never make a single
> > > change?  The thing I don't get is what the argument is about.  
> > 
> > The big problem is that spatial mode is on by default and the default
> > left click pops up new windows. Therefore for your Joe average user who
> > only left clicks at things he/she will quickly end up with a cluttered
> > mess of windows on the screen. 
> 
> Only and only if he/she has a deep directory hierarchy

But just about all users will no doubt access deep hierarchies at some
point E.G. they could go to computer->FileSystem->directory tree or to a
mounted network or CDROM with lots of directories. We shouldn't dismiss
the desktop clutter problem by making assumptions like they will
probably have a flat directory layout as thats unrealistic 

> 
> An average user just need to go to Documents, Music, Network, CDrom, DVD
> and that sort of _places_.  In that case  browsing to /mnt/cdrom or
> browsing to /home/user/download/thisweek/music doesn't make sense

Okay but you are assuming all these links will have already been placed
on the desktop? Joe user probably has no idea how to make symbolic
links. 

> 
> If you think about open a lot of windows because of the need of
> traversing directories then you are thinking about browsing and not
> about spatial mode.  Most advanced users use deep folders, like a the
> file organization of a software proyect for example, but for an average
> user, that level of organization is only noise.
> 
> > It would have been safer to make browse the default and spatial as
> > optional cause I'm quite concerned that companies who are looking at
> > Gnome to replace their windows boxes might be put off by spatial mode's
> > heavy clutter (and after all the negative press they are bound to look
> > very closely at this feature).
> 
> A new user will have an empty desktop and home directory and will put
> his/her things in appropiate _places_ as he/she wants.  No need for deep
> hierarchies.

Yes if they are not on a network or do not need to browse for files on
the system.

> 
> Have you seen that most windows users put a lot of files/folders in
> their desktop?

> 
> >  Using spatial in an efficient manner to
> > avoid this problem is not intuitive for most such users (and they would
> > need some training to use it right).
> 
> I don't think so.  Just think of putting things here and there.  Higher
> level of classifications, or locating things like /mnt/cdrom may need
> training instead
> 
> > Then using it correctly also has problems. If I middle click folders
> > then I sometimes get very disorientating results. By not reusing the
> > existing window and instead popping up a window on the other side of the
> > screen with a different size and shape I find It less efficient cause my
> > focus, attention and mouse pointer is located over the window that gets
> > closed and having to readjust wastes time and annoys me. 
> 
> It's because you are used to browser your files, not to open/activate
> them.
> 
> What if I say that I get very disoriented when my documents contents are
> replaced by the thrash contents in the same window?

Thats totally different. By popping up windows at various places on a
desktop you will be slowed down by having to move your eyes and mouse
much further particularly if you have a large desktop.

> 
> > A browser view
> > would always be more efficient in this regard. 
> > 
> > As for ease of use, I dont see anything in spatial mode which makes
> > things easier.
> 
> So you should use browse mode instead
> 
> >  If tree views in browser mode are a problem for some
> > users then my tabbed nautilus proposal would solve that (the tabs in
> > nautilus would represent the directory hierarchy of the current
> > directory so allowing fast navigation up and down the directory tree).
> 
> Read that: directory hierarchy.  Spatial mode is a metaphor of objects
> and places.

True but spatial is discrete and not always more intuitive . People will
create hierarchical folders for hierarchical files E.G. they may have an
accounts folder which contains folders for accounting years so the
hierarchical layout makes more sense than the spatial one (I.e.
/home/user/work/accounts/2004 has more meaning than 2004 on its own). By
saying spatial mode makes directory hierarchy more irrelevant you also
make it less organised and intuitive in that way.

jamie.