Re: [Usability] spatial nautilus concerns

[Steve Hall <digitect mindspring com>]

[Addressing the "spacial" metaphor more than specifically rebutting
Sean...]

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 10:44, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 10:32 -0400, Mike Chavoustie wrote:
> 
> > I disagree for the same reason that David does -- I like the
> > simplicity of the spatial windows but don't need/want to have each
> > window open on its own.  I understand the one-to-one metaphor, but
> > on the same token I don't understand how opening the next folder
> > in the same window breaks it.
> 
> It breaks it because the *entire* concept of *Spatial* navigation
> requires that each folder always appear in the same place and same
> size as it did before. If you take away that property, it isn't
> spatial anymore.

A 2D desktop is *NOT* spacial, nor ever will be. This is the
fundamental problem with this concept. It relies on a 3D navigation
metaphor but attempts to apply it in a 2D environment. Oh, that (real)
architecture were as simple as a 2D composition!

Just one glaring example of this conflict is the very one we are
discussing, the issue of SCALE. 

In the real world, our perceptions of size and relationships between
objects and ourselves is greatly assisted by a tremendous range of
scale *and* direction. But in a 2D desktop you can have only pretend
proximity. This is usually implied by overlap and shadows, but
completely misses 3D cues of diminished size (even to the point of
disappearing), less intense coloration, lower visual resolution,
softer audible feedback (both primary and echo), etc. And it
COMPLETELY MISSES the implied directionality we use in 3D space
learned from extra-terrestrial and local light sources, sounds from
beside, behind or above us, peripheral movement and light, and
physical relationships we understand by turning our head or moving our
bodies. None of these exist in a 2D world.

So then...

If we revise our ideal for the desktop beyond some word, what is it we
are really trying to accomplish? Many of the points I see being made
contrary to the current Nautilus defaults are not against usability,
only against a metaphor WHICH IS BROKEN TO BEGIN WITH! Yet they are
fervently struck down as apostasy.

The thread-starting topic is spot on. Without a tremendous amount of
room or when used by a meticulous or methodical person, multiple
windows are ridiculous. There simply isn't the correct scale-to-item
ratio to properly spread things out as they might be in a garage,
workroom or the back yard. Yet I continually read arguments supporting
the current default as far flung as to say that the user simply hasn't
organized his files properly!

I'm very supportive of the great strides made in the GNOME desktop. In
fact, I believe that it is beginning to approach the level of
refinement that alternate desktops have. But we are KILLING OUR
ABILITY TO REFINE GNOME the last 10% by TOO-HEAVILY RELYING ON THE
WORD "SPACIAL" TO DEFEND THE BEHAVIOR rather than empirically
gathering feedback and designing improvements! Kudos to the first
poster for pointing this out.


-- 
Steve Hall  [ digitect mindspring com ]