Re: [Fwd: Nautilus]

[Tomasz Janowitz <logan77 o2 pl>]

Reinout van Schouwen wrote:
> Op Wed, 21 Dec 2005 22:57:07 +0800, schreef Davyd Madeley:
> 
> (Shane O'Connor:)
> 
>>>>I recently started looking at gnome2.12 builds (moving on to 2.13 now)
>>>>and I just can't get my head around the default view for Nautilus -
>>>>the spatial view (a new window for each folder opened) is sooooo
>>>>annoying ;) 
> 
> 
> If this isn't in some FAQ yet, it ought to be. Shane, I suggest you read
> some past discussions and articles on the topic. For example:
> 
> http://www.bytebot.net/geekdocs/spatial-nautilus.html
> or
> http://interfacethis.com/pub/index.php?itemid=56
> 
> 
>>In short, because it is better. It takes some time, but once you get used
>>to it, and learn the easily discoverable keystrokes (like Shift-Enter or
>>middle click) you'll find it very easy to navigate.
> 
> 
> I'll add to this that making some bookmarks to folders in the file chooser
> will make them show up in the Locations menu. Use this well and you'll
> never have to be annoyed by lots of open windows at a time.
> 
> regards,
> 
I read this pseudo-psychological misconception from links, and ii must say
that we must live in two different worlds. I agree with Alan Cox and Jeff
Waugh on this spatial mode (not that ii actually need support ranting it,
it does well by itself). Few gripes:

1) Opening folder = opening window - it's not only unintuitive, but also
clutters pulpit.
2) There is no way of going to parent folder with closing current one with
mouse (and going file menu -> parent folder isn't what ii could call a
method, hack perhaps).
3) Every window has different size/placement. The intention was to make
'association' between folder and this window. The effect is only
frustration. What do I do, if I have hundreds of folders ? Do i set them
individually ?

Excerpt from first :
"It sticks to the fact that people associate better with the computer's
interface when they know that files and folders seem real, just like their
physical equivalents, where you "could manipulate in familiar, direct and
predictable ways." So, the spatial interface is supposed to be better,
because it helps mimic real life - this makes associations easier and
better for the user."

...and second link:

"Although mentally visualizing abstract relationships and hierarchies is a
skill familiar to computer programmers and other people who frequently use
systems that require such mental gymnastics (e.g. the command line), it is
not a skill that most people possess in any significant quantity."

This is some utter bul.... I know how it works (at least the gnome
implementation) and ii am mostly surprised that it ever went default.
   There is no problem with it as an option (but not default, unless you
really want to people scare away) for geeks with "specially" organized file
hierarchy. Someone wrote:

"So, this gets to the heart of the question.  In spatial mode this
situation can only occur if the user commonly uses lots of directories, or
deeply nested ones.
Is this the most common scenario for our target user?"

   Designing a behaviour of file manager assuming that it won't manage many
files/folders and deeply nested ones (which is what the filesystem was
designed for) isn't the best approach IMHO.

"I think it is not.  I observe people saving files to the default save
location for the application (web browsers, office tools, etc).  And
leaving them there."

   I don't know one such person. Maybe it's just friends I've got are such
a pedantic puritans. Or maybe organizing files in deeply nested trees is
normal way of dealing with lot's of files. I've got over 3 thousand mp3's.
Putting them in one location is a joke. Hundreds of documents, books and
other stuff has to be managed with directories. It helps, not stands in the
way.

Kind Regards.