Re: [Usability] spatial nautilus options (was spatial nautilus concerns)

[Logan Rathbone <logan rathbone utoronto ca>]

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:31:21PM -0400, David Feldman wrote:
> >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.
> 
> I disagree with the use of "entire" here. As I said earlier, numerous 
> hybrid solutions are possible and, in fact, some are in use already. 
> Some hybrids even partially implement the one-to-one window/folder 
> mapping but provide exceptions where needed. Regardless, one-to-one 
> mapping and spatial techniques in icon placement do not depend on one 
> another, and my guess is the latter is far more important.
>
I understand what you're saying --- the desktop metaphor should not be
cast in stone, and certain elements of a metaphor could possibly be
discarded if they do not make sense to the user.

However, the point he was trying to make here is that once you:

a) add a navigational toolbar, or
b) keep file navigation in one window,

then you have abandoned the spatial model.  The main thing that you
one must remember when dealing with a spatial model, is that there
cannot be an ``up'' button, because there is no ``up'' to go to in a
spatial model.  You simply have a folder open, and that folder is an
object with other objects inside it.  The _only way_ that that window
(folder) can display other files is if you put them there yourself.
That window is a folder that has stuff in it.  It's not a magical
viewport that can display anything on your system -- that is what a
window represents on the navigational model.

So for those of you that argue that the default behaviour, in a
spatial environment, should be to keep everything in one window, are
not craving a spatial model at all, but a navigational one, which has
already been pointed out by several other people in this thread.

I would like to make it clear that I am in no way a die-hard spatial
freak -- I totally agree that some usability studies are in order so
that we can find out precisely how many types of people (read: not
just experienced computer (read: Windows) users).  I think that if the
vast majority of users prefer one method over another, then that
method should be the default, and the alternative should be put in
gconf-editor so that the minority can switch if they really want to.  
If we have a 50/50 split, with slightly more people preferring method
A over B, then A should be default, but B should be well-presented as
an alternative in the preferences.

> >The classic example is driving instruction.  I cannot tell you how to
> >get to most of the places I go.  I don't know the names of the streets,
> >I don't know how many stop lights you have to go through, I don't know
> >how many miles/kilometers you must go down each road, I don't even know
> >really what major landmarks there are where you have to turn.
> 
> I would counter that (a) you know how to get to far fewer places than 
> there are folders on your computer, and (b) it's possible you use a 
> hierarchical organization in your mind for remembering directions, 
> hanging small streets off larger streets of highways, etc. Of course I 
> may be entirely wrong, but we just don't know if these analogies are 
> appropriate or not. They can certainly be misleading if we 
> unintentionally misapply them and compare two things that aren't 
> cognitively equivalent. Hence the suggestion for empirical testing :-).
>
Well, if what you are saying is true for the vast majorit of users,
then the default model must be reconsidered.  That's precisely why
usability studies are needed.
 
> >That's what spatial navigation is all about.  You don't think *how* you
> >get to your file, you don't follow a set of steps.  You just know that
> >you click here, and then you click there, and then over here.
> 
> But what if you know "it's inside that folder, inside that folder, 
> inside that folder"? Then isn't it more important to emphasize the 
> hierarchy? Again, this type of speculation is dangerous without hard 
> evidence.
>
I disagree with the person you replied to here.  I don't believe that
the spatial desktop metaphor is about not thinking about how to get to
your file; it's about knowing where your file is contained, but not
always thinking about where the container is contained.  The file is
in the container, and that's that.  Let's take a real life, objectual 
example here, because that's what we're dealing with in the spatial
metaphor -- dealing with objects in space.  Let's say, for example, 
that I wanted to retrieve an old bill.  Being the organized person
I am, I keep all my bills in one box.  My box is inside my house.
In fact, I conveniently keep it in my office.  Do I know how to get to
my office?  Of course, it's common sense.  But do I really need to
think in terms of a hierarchy here?  The box is right in front of my
eyes, so why should I think so hard about what room it's in, and where
that room is located in my house?

The next step is opening the box.  So I do, and I see some folders,
containing different categories for my bills.  Now that I'm here, I
know exactly how to get to my bill.  I go into the folder labelled
"Utility" and I see a whole bunch of bills.  I take the bill out that
I was originally looking for.  But the box is still open, and so its
folders are still visible to me.  Once I opened the "Utility" folder,
the box with the folders didn't disappear, nor did it change into a
container for the objects in my "Utility" folder.

Once I'm finished reading the bill, I put it away, close the utility
folder and put it back in the box, then I close the box, and that's
it.  The box is closed, and it's still in my office.  If I close the
box before I'm finished with the folders, the folders are still open,
and they're still there.

I hope it was obvious, but I was making a comparison between real-life
and what the spatial desktop metaphor is (or at least what I have
always thought it to be).  My box is my home folder, and it's on my
deaktop (in my office).  Who cares about my desktop's place in the
hierarchy?  It's right in front of my eyes, all I have to do is open
it.  I could go on and on about this, but I feel my point has been
made.

> <snip>...can't figure out how to turn off the toolbar with all the 
> navigation buttons in it. Can I do that somehow?

I'm not sure about that one, I looked too, and I couldn't find a way
to do so either.