Fwd: Spatial Mode Window Cluttering and Possible Solutions

[Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com>]

Forgot to change To:, sorry.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com>
Date: Apr 19, 2005 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: Spatial Mode Window Cluttering and Possible Solutions
To: Olaf Frączyk <olaf cbk poznan pl>


On 4/19/05, Olaf Frączyk <olaf cbk poznan pl> wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-04-19 at 11:29 +0300, Kalle Vahlman wrote:
> > On 4/19/05, Olaf Frączyk <olaf cbk poznan pl> wrote:
> > > I suppose a spatial mode is useful only for a flat directory hierarchy
> > > one level deep (two at most).
> >
> > You guys are wack.
> >
> > One and two leves are optimal.
> >
> > Three is good.
> >
> > Four is manageable.
> >
> > Five I don't have anywhere, so I dunno.
> It is true for a personal use. For a company unfortunately it is not.
> I work in a not so big company. We have about 15.000 files (not counting
> system and personal). The hierarchy is average 4 levels deep. The
> deepest is (about) 8 levels. Unless you have a datababase to hold all of
> your files it is unavoidable to have rather big directory tree.

I do think that after four levels of directories it is better to use
the browser. The point everybody seems to miss is that you shouldn't
even try to use (on a regular basis) the spatial mode for deep
hierarchies. It "just doesn't work". All the hacks to gear it towards
working is usually gearing it back to the browser mode, which
obviously is stupid.

If you want to use spatial, but have a deep (>4-5 levels) hierarchy:

1) organize the hierarchy to be under 4-5 levels
or
2) use clever linking to get a shallow hierarchy for the things you
need the most. It doesn't hurt to traverse deep with spatial if you
only have to do it occasionally.

If 1 and 2 fail, the browser is your best bet.

--
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi


-- 
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi