Hi! > There are two basic approaches here - one is to avoid storing > things on the Desktop. Instead of seeing the Desktop as a separate > location in the file selector, you'd have a checkbox: > > [ ] Pin to Desktop > > (or whatever the designers come up with), and that would create > a symlink to the desktop. > > The other approach is when expiring or archiving to move files > from ~/Desktop to an archival location like ~/Documents. The pinning should be done automatically and the files should stay in the place I saved them (e.g. a firefox download should end up in ~/Downloads and OO.o should default to ~/Documents. The recent files should be stored by pinning on the "Desktop". > "Timeline view of files" > > For items that aren't on the desktop (the "slip") the default view > is a chronological one with "yesterday", "last week", and so > forth. So we need to be able to organize user's files this way. > > One approach is to keep track of user accesses and edits via > Zeitgeist (or in simplifed form by ~/.recently-used.xbel) > > The other approach would be to treataccess/edit time a > metadata property, and to use tracker to search over these > properties. > > (Note that the timeline here only includes each item once, > not once for each usage - I use "timeline" somewhat differently > below) Why would the timeline only include each items once? I really would like to see the activity journal here as it is so much more like people remember things. > * Using Tracker to extract and index metadata from files is > pretty uncontroversial. Using Tracker as the primary store > of information (such as tags) is more controversial - suddenly > the user's data is dependent on the use of Tracker. I doubt the latter is a good idea currently. > Concerns and thoughts concerning Zeitgeist: > The only think I can think of in the current mockups > that requires a Zeitgeist-like approach is the > "Frequent" selector. Without a longitudinal view > of usage, it's hard to answer "what are the most frequently > used documents in the last 30 days". See above, why not use the activity-journal? > * To a much greater extent than tracker, Zeitgeist is > is designed to require applications to be modified to > push events to it. Well, not entirely. You CAN provide extra data for zeitgeist but all applications that support Recent Files at least work ok. > * Zeitgeist is designed to be standalone and independent > from Tracker, but also used in conjunction. This, at > times, makes things not as good as they could be. For > example, Tracker has a pretty sophisticated system to > assign a UID to each file and track files as they > move around the file system, but Zeitgeist, which > identifies file by file paths will lose a file as > soon as it is moved - it doesn't piggyback off the > work that Tracker is doing. That should probably be fixed in zeitgeinst (or it should listen to tracker for such changes). It's a bug more or less. > Not much yet - I think it will definitely be hard to implement > our ideas without something that looks a lot like Tracker, and > since we have Tracker something that looks a lot like Tracker > is most likely Tracker :-) Zeitgeist seems less centrally crucial, > but there is a role for event logging here. Some of the more advanced search technologies really need tracker, I agree here. I am not sure if we want to depend on it hard for 3.0 but that can be discussed. But as said above I really want to have the activity journal available inside the shell as I think it is beside the shell another central point for 3.0 Most important would be to come up with a plan what we have in 3.0 and what we might have in 3.2 as I doubt anything will be ready by the time 3.0 is released. Regards, Johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil