Re: [Usability] "File views"

[Dan Zlotnikov <dzlotnik perpugilliam csclub uwaterloo ca>]

> Well some of your points make sense but I don't share the point that
> these directories should be hidden by default just because YOU base your
> assumption that they are rarely accessed from within Nautilus or that
> they may confuse new people. You base your opinion on what ? Personal
> taste ? Or what you like to see ? Or you think suits best for other
> users ?
>
> Please remember that Nautilus is a Filemanager. It should be able to
> access EVERY file on your System and not some or predefined ones that
> got decided by people who have no clue how I and others may use the
> System. I do agree that .hidden may (or may not, depends on the view) is
> a nice idea so people who like to have certain stuff hidden on their
> System put their directories there when they think it's time to do this.

You should be able to access EVERY file on the system, sure. Nevertheless,
the . files are hidden by default, and nevermind that deleting those will
frequently have a less devastating effect than deleting /usr or /bin
would. My understanding of Victor's suggestion is that the system
directories not be completely hidden, but that they be included in a list
of directories Nautilus hides to start with, always giving the option to
turn that feature off. It can be as simple as a basic/advanced mode
switch.

>
> What I welcome too (even if it's hard to belive) is that we (the
> community) drive a bit away from this 'confuse a new user' theory which
> has never been proven. The community we live in is a mixed one based
> upon experts, new users and so on. But I think (knowing the underlaying
> layer of any GNU system) that people who managed to pass the first
> obstacle with such a system would also be able to deal with these
> directories.

What sort of proof does that theory require? I'm a new Linux user, and I
tell you that these directories confuse me by their presence. I've
attempted to locate any sort of description of what goes into which
directory, and was unable to find any coherent, readable document on the
topic. I suppose that one case doesn't make the rule, but again, what sort
of proof would be satisfactory? We're not exactly in the position to
conduct major user surveys.

The notion that by virtue of having Linux, people no longer get confused
about the file/directory structure is rather laughable, in my opinion. In
too many cases the person who is using the machine had little to nothing
to do with the OS install process. Again, as it was in my case. I've
failed in my repeated attempts to install Debian on my machine, and had
to get outside help from what could be considered a guru.

Nautilus is there to make work easier, not to interfere with the work of
experts or confuse new users. Having some infrequently-accessed
directories hidden by default won't interfere with the work of expers,
since they tend to tinker with the settings anyway, and won't find it hard
to change this. Directories that merely sit there and don't have any
indication as to their purpose *are* confusing for new users. Think of how
you'd feel if your car had a pedal you were to never, ever touch unless
you took a special course. How often would you wonder about its importance
and function? How often would you slip up and accidentally push it?

Dan