Re: [Usability] The new file chooser

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Tue, 2004-09-21 at 02:08 +0200, rkaa netcom no wrote:

> >From my side of the fence, it looks like you're trying to find reasons to NOT
> add it  back. You haven't given a single good reason for REMOVING it.

yes, we do.  Exposing paths and URIs sucks.  It is an archaic bit of
computer wizardry that most users don't understand, and even many of the
hardcode techie super computer genius developers GNOME has don't find
the need for it in a GUI.

Bastien's point is that you haven't explained _why_ you want it back so
badly.  If you want to paste in a URL, that can be solved *without*
using a text entry.  So, now that we have that problem solved
(conceptually), there is no longer any problem presented that has a
reason for the text entry.  Since the only problem you've presented so
far *is solved*, you are going to need to present a new problem to argue
for the text entry.  And then, I assure you, a solution will be found
that *doesn't need* the text entry.

For those really *rare* problems that just can't be solved any other
possible way at all, ctrl-L is always there.  If that causes an extra
step for 0.01% of computer tasks, that's acceptable - adding clutter and
techno-babble to the UI for all tasks to satisfy 0.01% of them is just
goofy.

Another point of Bastien's is that you aren't explaing _why_ you need to
paste in a path.  Mozilla requires you to do so?  Maybe it's _Mozilla_
that's broken.  Indeed, why can't you right-click on an image and select
"Edit Image" ?  That's what you'd do with Nautilus; there's no need to
ever use the file chooser to open a file when Nautilus is used.  Mozilla
might need some enhancements since *it's* forcing URIs on its users.
(Which, I'll note, the web doesn't do.  You can comfortably use the web
without ever typing in a URI at all.)

> 
> > Read your e-mails again, getting you to explain the problems encountered is
> > like pulling out teeth.
> 
> There may be something wrong with your dentist. I've presented problems and I
> get replies with various creative suggestions about how things COULD be fixed.
> But none of the problems are actually fixed yet.

No, because code doesn't appear out of thin air.  Now that the problems
are solved in concept, someone has to write the code.  You're the one
having the problem, you're the one who wants the feature, you're the
prime candidate.  OK, you can't code.  Perfectly understandable.  It's
not perfectly understandable for you to expect everyone else to drop all
their priorities to solve your problem for you.  I really, really doubt
you've paid anyone in the project to solve your problems.

Although, really, if you want to send $10 - $20 to someone to get the
job done by tomorrow (it's not that complicated), I'm sure you can find
a willing participant.

> 
> > > Whats the "pretty please" about?
> >
> > About you making sure, extra sure, that you tell people what your
> > problems are, rather than pushing for a quick-fix solution.
> 
> Right. The problems are that I can't type, paste or copy directly into/from a
> text widget in the current filechooser. I've explained why I need to do that,
> and I've explained that I can't use the keyboard in some situations. Ctrl+L is
> not relevant for me
> 
> So you don't like quick fixes? Sometimes quick fixes are good fixes.

Not when we have solid reasons for why the quick fix is bad.  Exposing
paths == teh suck.

> And once in a blue moon horrendous interface mistakes are made.

Right.  Like making GUI users have to deal with paths and other CLI
throwbacks.  If the other apps you were dealing with didn't have
horrendous interface mistakes, you wouldn't be dealing with paths at
all.  ;-)

> Would be too silly if re-introducing the text widgets should be kept back by
> prestigous sentiments.
> 
> 
> > The filechooser got enough testing to skim out the bugs in the code, not
> > enough to divert whingy users that would go "The old dialogue was
> > better, the new one is rubbish" without explaining what the problems
> > they're encountering are, or why they would want the old dialogue (which
> > was really the rubbish one) back.
> 
> Oh.. names now. Well I'm not whingy - I'm furious, and I try hard to keep a
> decent tone here.
> 
> I said earlyer that I think the new bookmark idea is good. It's a true keeper.
> The missing text widget is bad. It should be re-introduced.
> 
> 
> > Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
> 
> R.K.Aa.
> _______________________________________________
> Usability mailing list
> Usability gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
>