Re: [Usability] spatial nautilus concerns

[David Feldman <mailing-lists interfacethis com>]

> Open in same window and the Tree belong together in my opinion. It  
> just doesn´t make much sense to use them separately. The other  
> advantage of combining the options is
> that a user who sees a spatial window knows that a new window will  
> open with left click.
> If he sees a browser window he knows a click opens the new folder in  
> the same window.

I'm skeptical that the problems introduced by two separate but  
similar-looking filesystem-navigation tools are outweighed by those  
that might be solved by avoiding a hybrid solution in each. Again,  
testing might illuminate this issue further.

I also suspect that the Mac-style treeview (which doesn't involve two  
separate panes) is more usable than the current one (which is similar  
to that used in Windows). The problem is that in the tree you have to  
remember you're only looking at folders, while in the main pane you see  
everything. Even as a fairly experienced user I still periodically have  
"where are my files?" moments looking at the side pane. Apple avoided  
this by providing a single, unified tree with both files and folders.  
And incidentally, it also has the advantage of being more agnostic in  
terms of getting along with either the spatial or the navigation  
paradigm.

> What I did not like in the first spatial versions were the many  
> windows on the screen. But
> in recent nautilus versions (2.8) you can use middle click to open the  
> new folder in a new
> window while closing the current window. Even when moving up in the  
> tree again you
> can keep with only one window. The advantage compared to open in same  
> window is
> that the spatial principles still work.

I like the ability to have it both ways, given that it doesn't get in  
the way of users who don't want to deal with it. However, (a) it would  
be nice to be able to use a modifier key instead of the middle button  
for those using trackpads or two-button mice. And for those who always  
open in a new window, I return to my earlier suggestion that one be  
able to swap the behavior, so a left-double-click opens in the same  
window and a middle- or modifier-double-click opens in a new window.  
Again, won't get in the way of the default and will benefit some users.

But again, this is auxiliary to the question of default behavior.  
Clearly configurability is often good but for the large number of users  
who won't configure, the nature of the default behavior is important.

> The only thing I would change in the default is to change open folders  
> to single click.
> While double click is default in windows especially novice users have  
> big problems with
> doing a double click. Either they don´t manage it at all or they move  
> the cursor causing a drag.
> Especially the double middle click is very difficult. Even more so  
> when the mouse has a wheel for
> the middle button. While changing the setting is only one little step  
> novice users will take some time
> to find this option. Advanced users who don´t like single click will  
> find the setting easier.

Single click seems like sticky issue to me. I have encountered novice  
users who don't like double-click. I don't know what percentage they  
are. Single-click is more efficient, and takes better advantage of the  
power of pointing. I also think users who are used to double-click may  
have some trouble adjusting, and particularly if they switch among  
several OSes it could be an ongoing source of irritation. Either way,  
feedback is important: If there isn't a clear indication that a process  
has begun (i.e. an app has been launched), the user could end up  
opening multiple instances before realizing what was going on, slowing  
the machine to a crawl. (The single- vs. double-click thing isn't the  
core of this issue, just something that can exacerbate it.)

I wonder if some sort of "smart" single-click might be possible. It  
would work like single-click, but would "capture" double-clicks so that  
anything that looked like a double-click would be interpreted like a  
single-click instead of two actions.

> Another nice thing would be an up button in the lower left of spatial  
> windows so you can easier
> do the most comon thing when moving up in the tree - moving up one  
> level.

To me this actually illustrates a potential problem with the spatial  
metaphor: It tries to de-emphasize the hierarchy but is still bound by  
it and thus can be awkward in representing it. Clicking an Up button  
like that seems like it could be jarring, requiring a dramatic and  
potentially confusing shift in focus from one window to another. A user  
might miss it altogether if the theme didn't differentiate active and  
inactive windows sufficiently and/or the two windows were fairly far  
apart.

--Dave

------------------------------------------------------------------------ 
--
David A. Feldman
User Interface Designer
http://InterfaceThis.com