Re: [patch] Bug 88585, Sorting of size column is messed up

["Braden McDaniel" <braden endoframe com>]

On Wed, 13 Nov 2002 10:45:14 +0000, David Emory Watson wrote:

> 
> Braden,
> 
> All good points.
> 
> To recap:
> 
> Tomas wants to change the ordering for sizes and possibly dates.
> Braden wants to change the ordering for names and types.
> David wants to know why any of this matters... ;)
> 
> To see one reason why we shouldn't go with your suggestion (i.e. the
> evolution way) think about this: if we change the ordering for names in
> the list view then we become inconsistent with the icon view.  If we
> change the ordering for the icon view, then "sort by name" becomes
> reverse alphabetical order!?

I do not see why that is. An ascending alphabetical sort *is*
"alphabetical order", not reverse alphabetical order.

> So here's what I think we should do:  Forget about ascending and
> descending order completely.

The only way to do that is to get rid of the arrows. "Ascending" and
"descending" are what the arrows mean.

> Leave nautilus the way it is.  Change the
> sort orders used in the search tool to match nautilus (or don't; it's
> really not that important).

I think it's a nontrivial usability issue. I found the inconsistent use of
arrows in Nautilus downright disorienting until I figured out that two of
the columns were simply broken.

> Alternatively, we could do what either you or Tomas want to do - I just
> don't think there's much conceptual benefit to it.  There are definitely
> clicks at stake though...

I am less concerned with the number of clicks than I am with Nautilus
disorienting users by behaving in an inconsistent--and thus, from a user's
standpoint, unpredictable--manner.

> If the maintainers are still reading this thread, which I doubt, then
> they can decide.  In the end its arbitrary.

If in the end it is arbitrary, it is broken.

up = ascending, down = descending. That's not arbitrary at all. That's
logical.

Braden