Re: [Usability] The eternal fileselector dilemma :)

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 13:23:38 +0300, Lemmit Kaplinski
<lemmit kaplinski com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Kalle Vahlman wrote:
Considering this is a list which attracts
> people with (way) above-average knowledge of computers, I'd say they are
> proficient enough to subscribe or check the archives. But this is
> actually irrelevant to Gnome, although a usability issue in itself.

Yes, it's hardly usable if you have to cut&paste from the archives in
order to reply.

Also, the original author is who the text usually is adressed to, and
so it's only fair to make sure (s)he doesn't miss it (lots of
lists->lots of volume to be lost in).

But enough of that.

> >Basicly, you should never have to scroll the list. With bookmarks and
> Ahh - where does this come from? HIG? Usability studies?

It's my interpetation of how the system is supposed to work. If the
bookmarks don't have the exact location, they probably include the
location. If that fails (it's deeper) or the contents of the bookmark
is long, the type-to-find search jumps to desired item. Five items
with type-to-search will get you pretty close to seeing the item you
wanted without touching the scroll bar. Note that i didn't mean that
the list should not scroll, just that it shouldn't be neccessary to
scroll it to find what you are looking for.
> >type-to-search on the list you won't have to (too much at least).
> >Remember that in the save dialog, the filechooser interface is
> >secondary.
> No. Once you have expanded the dialog, it becomes primary.

What I meant was that the bookmarks are the preferred way to get the
location, not the filechooser interface. The save dialog is far from
optimal, but decent bookmarking (and, as usual, decent organization of
your files) makes the filechooser interface a last resort that is
rarely used.

> So it is actually not a dialog with extra options hidden. It is two
> dialogs rolled into one.

I'd say it is a dialog that includes a plan B, but that's subjective.
> I'd simply say that the current
> layout wastes room and I would vote for ripping out the duplicate list
> at the left and reserving the whole area for a filebrowser of some sort

It would fail on the consistency front, and I do agree with those who
say that consistency is a virtue. However, your suggeestion is not
that bad otherwise.

> Is there a "Gnome definition of Spatial for Dummies" around somewhere -
> you and I have very different understanding of the term.

There were some articles about this, but I can't locate them right now.

Basicly, the difference is (according to my understanding) that a tree
ties sequental objects to a parent-child relation and spatial model
does not. So in spatial, there cannot be an "up" button, since there's
no defined "up" to go to. In spatial the object is located by its
attributes and such.

These of course are (almost) the same thing as long as the
implementation is on top of filesystem that only works as a tree. This
is the reason I tend to drag metadata filesystems to the discussion
whenever I can.

Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]