Re: Proposal for File-Selection Dialog

[Gleef <dzol virtual-yellow com>]

On Mon, 21 Dec 1998, Ian Bicking wrote:

> In message Mon, 21 Dec 1998 18:52:51 +0100,
>   famrom@ran.es (Guillermo S. Romero / unnamed / Familia Romero)  writes:
> >>   You can sort horizontally.  This is annoying.  Or you can do like
> >> Windows and scroll horizontally.  I think they made the right choice.
> >
> > Or you can fix number of columns to avaliable space (two, three...), order
> > horizontally and scroll vertically, like reading.
> >
> > -------------^
> > |001 012 043 I
> > |080 120 579 I  <- 3 fixed columns, 3 lines visible, vertical scroll
> > |Aas Ahg cjh I
> > -------------V
> > eij hoi mie
> > opo rew wae    <- non visible, ready to enter dialog when scrolled
> > zzj
> >
> > If you want 579, you read first column 001, 080, Aas... hey! 080 -> Aas,
> > so or it is in between or does no exist (like searching in a dictionary,
> > looking sheet corners), so you read 080, 120, 579, found!
> 
> Dictionaries are sorted top to bottom, with horizontal scrolling:
> 
> Aardvark  Attic     | Bat   Bum  |
> Anteater  Austerity | Big   Cap  | (you must flip the page to get here)
> Apple     Ball      | Break Cola |
> 
> Why sorted vertically?  Because you want to be able to scan as long as
> possible for a specific word.  Looking for a range is considerably more
> difficult than a specific entry (i.e., it's easier to look for "579" than
> some two entries that come before and after 579 [080 and Aas]).

Sorted vertically is definately best for lists.


> Why scroll horizontally?  You can scan an entire column, then move your
> eyes to the next column and continue.  Moving to the next column is a
> significant break but it only requires the eyes to change direction.  If
> you have vertical scrolling you'd have to physically scroll everytime you
> would have otherwise simple shifted to the next column.

This is debatable.  Dictionaries scroll horizontally because they need to
conform to the standard book format.  The columns per page are because a
human reads a narrow column of text easier than a wide one.  One narrow
column per page would make a dictionary unwieldy, as would top binding
(vertical scrolling).  Changing from a paged book to a long scroll would
limit the readers ability to randomly access the pages.  Horizontal
"scrolling" for physical dictionaries is important, but most of these
arguments don't carry over to a computerized list.

In a list on screen, making the list a single column is not unwieldy, and
has the added benefit of being able to put additional information to the
right of the list column.  Random access is handled effectively by the
scrollbar widget, whether horizontal or vertical.

As you say, horizontal scrolling of vertical bars involves a significant
break at the end of each column.  Vertical scrolling only has a
significant break if the user elects to scroll by more than a line at a
time.  Vertical scrolling also makes an easier interface to attach
technology to, such as wheeled mice or autoscroll features.  


> If you sort horizontally you can scan at most four or five entries, then you
> move your eyes down a row.  This works OK for something that is strictly
> serial (like prose) but not for a list of disassociated items (like a file
> list).

Another case where horizontal sorting feels right to me is with captioned
icons (c.f. various file managers, such as gmc's icon view).  Here you
don't have the vertical scanning issues you get with lists.  It still
doesn't help with the issue at hand.

-Gleef