Re: File dialogs: an attempt at a summary

["Michael T. Babcock" <mbabcock fibrespeed net>]

To start, you've got people confused, because I don't want any of the things
you seem to think I want.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Christian Rose" <menthos@menthos.com>
> "Michael T. Babcock" wrote:
> >
> > There is no need to keep this behaviour from other platforms when there
is
> > the possibility of offering the user something more intelligent or
easier to
> > use.
>
> I think it's neither intelligent to press all information and hints into
> a tiny little file name field that the user has to scroll (even if there
> is only selections from one directory) and not provide other visual
> hints, nor do I think that it would be easier for the user to use.

I didn't say it was.  I said that just keeping the Windows paradigm for its
own sake is not necessary.

> I would guess that, when opening from multiple directories, the opening
> of a bunch of files from two or three different directories is the most
> common case.

My comment then, was to brainstorm good ways (not just silly ways) to list
those selections to the user in a quick, non-scrolling manner (that is, if I
selected two files, I don't want to scroll to see them both as being
selected).

> Secondly, yes,
>
> /usr/share/pixmap/backgrounds/amazon/01/02/48d2.jpg;
> /usr/share/pixmap/backgrounds/desert/04/01/3002.jpg; etc.
>
> isn't exactly easily reviewable. *That's my whole point*.

I would like to have a selection box that shows the list of files one over
the other, but that's just _one_ way, I'm sure people can think of others
when they do something other than trash others' ideas and think up new ones
themselves.

> In my experience, most users look at the file view, because it offer the
> best overview when multiple files are selected. The file name field
> quickly becomes cluttered, the file view has plenty of room for files,
> and scrolling in a file view with a scroll bar is easier than scrolling
> in a text field.

I didn't ask for the file name field; I mentioned it as being a necessary
evil if we didn't use another list ...

> Yes. But not at the expense of confusing the hell out of users by making
> the file view and file name field entirely seperate entities with no
> connection whatsoever in the entering and showing of selected files, the
> very task they're both designed for, and are alternate views of.

That won't confuse anyone but experienced Windows users.

Here's my 10 second training session:

"This is your finder box; it lets you go through your directories and files
to select files you want to open."
"And this, this is your selection box; it shows you which files you've
selected."

Drag'n'drop, double-click, enter, would all be reasonable ways to add one
file to the other box.

> > "I prefer the Windows way" messages are useful for tracking stats on how
> > many people can't brainstorm inventive ways to solve problems, and
little
> > else.
>
> "No, let's screw the windows way and established old UI concepts that
> users are experienced with and understand, and invent our own
> ass-backwards gimmicks that are entirely the opposite" messages are
> useful for UI philosophy discussions and inventing proof-of-concept
> experimental UIs, but not much else.

WIndows is not good established UI.  Go read some UI guideline documents
online.  The interface hall of shame is a good start.  Mackido has a few
interesting things to say too (although he and I have had our share of flame
wars).  I'm saying that this is a good forum to discuss new and innovative
and hopefully BETTER paradigms for visual interface, not a place to just
re-hash how Windows and Mac did it.

> If you don't have the time or the resources to actually make user tests
> with a radical new UI idea, I'd say leave the idea and use established
> UI conventions from other places that users can often be expected to be
> familiar with already.

This list _is_ part of the time and ressources; that's why it was
established.  Users?  We've got lots of people out there willing to test our
ideas if we try them.

> But if we have even the slightest doubt about the ease for the user to
> get familiar with and to learn an entirely different concept, my opinion
> is that we shouldn't do it.

I have a lot of doubt about your 'standard' multiple selection window.

> Please read the criticism about the Apple Quicktime player or the IBM (I
> think it was IBM) telephone application for some nice criticism of UIs
> where all previous UI conventions were scrapped "to make it easier for
> the user".

I've read those already.  They didn't give better or worse UI design
guidelines; they just decided to change paradigms.  It just so happens that
you see stuff on a computer screen (not in full 3D) you use a keyboard and
mouse, not your hands, so GUIs have to accomodate that.  IBM's new GUIs were
based on making 'real-life' objects on the screen, which were too hard to
use properly.  But at least they showed that they're trying.