Re: [Usability] GNOME3: Handling/Opening Documents (Website for Contributing Ideas?)

[Daniel Borgmann <spark-mailinglists web de>]

On Fri, 2005-04-22 at 17:37 +0200, Daniele Levorato wrote:
> 1 - applications do exist and I have to install them when I configure
> the system. You can't really hide the concept of application or you
> should provide a default set of application, hidden to the user (really
> inapplicable)

Obviously system administrators have to know what programs are (and that
includes home users who want to extend the capabilities of their
computer), but that has nothing to do with how those capabilities are
represented in the user interface.

> 2 - If the Document IS the application, how the user would figure out
> what "open with" is? or you would remove it? Removing "open with" would
> be a big hit to usability, in my opinion. Actually I have several
> applications, some of them operating on the same documents. Just think
> about images or video: an application is focused on "displaying" images
> (for example gqview) and his user interface is designed for that
> purpose, while others (like gimp) are intended to edit images and their
> UI is intended for that purpose. Would you use Gimp to just view images
> or slide-show? it wouldn't be comfortable.

We probably can't get rid of "Open With", but even this problem could be
solved with some creativity. Imagine Gimp or a text editor as utilities
which act on documents. To edit the text of a document, you could chose
"Edit with Text Editor" (or maybe attach the utility to the document via
drag an drop) and it would convert. I'm strictly speaking about the user
interface here, under the hood it could still use the old concept of
applications and simply reload the document in the editing application.

> 3 - Complex GUI cannot be simply "attached" as toolbar (or something
> else) to the document. Just think about Gimp or Cinellera! it's really
> impossible. There're some tasks (like video/image/text editing) that
> need a complex GUI infrastructure so that it's impossible to "hide" the
> application concept.

Well, thinking about Gimp, document windows actually are very
simplistic. The GUI of Gimp mostly consists of the utility windows.
Attaching a document to those utility windows could simply turn it into
a Gimp document. Of course it would be more complicated than this, but
"complex GUI infrastructure" doesn't need the application concept at
all.
Tools like Blender (or Cinelerra) are an obvious exception. They are not
remotely part of the desktop, so these considerations simply don't apply
to them. They just need to run and get their own screen or window or
whatever. Blender by default already takes over the entire screen (last
time I used it).

> 4 - Not all activities can be thought as documents. For example
> navigating the web, ripping or mastering a DVD, so the concept of
> application still remains for certain activities: it's more natural to
> see them as "task based" activities rather then "document based".

Yes, obviously not every task is document based. Tasks like this require
utilities in various forms. Some could be integrated in the desktop GUI,
others might require their own objects (like web browsers, until we can
find a proper way to separate the web into objects...). I think they
should be visually distinct from document objects (like OS X is
apparently doing with their brushed metal look, but nobody seems to
realize it ;)). Strictly speaking, applications are desktop objects,
too. So even if you implement a perfect document based interface, you
can still support "legacy" applications by displaying them as their own
objects (for example in a window). The interface to start/create those
application objects might slightly differ.

> 5 - It's impossible to consider that the document "is" the application,
> without the window concept: if I want to zoom the document or it's
> really too large, you would apply scrollbars (to fit the screen if you
> don't even have the "window" concept)... but in that moment the
> application/window concept you're trying to hide will pop-up to the
> user: he is not working on the document but on a view that someone is
> giving of it... who is it? the application obviously. And finally how
> would I close the document, resize it, move it? make every drag move the
> window is not a good proposal since there're documents (images and pdf
> for ex.) in which you can move the visible area in that way, rather than
> moving the window, and this is a good usability point!

Sure, objects on our computer are different from objects in real life
(for example they can have infinite size). Getting rid of window
decorations is really not a requirement for implementing an object
oriented interface, although it might be an interesting idea. If you
look at OSX or Longhorn, there is already a trend to make desktop
objects appear less "framed".

> 6 - Instant save deserves several drawbacks... the discussion would be
> too long but basically in my opinion it's really better to leave to the
> user the decision about when saving changes or discard them totally:
> full history or undo-lists are too high requirements for every
> application-development.

This is nonsense. I already use instant save in my application
(Scratchpad) since many months and it works like a charm. It has no
persistent undo yet and only a rather simplistic tagging system (which I
rarely use). I never had a single situation where I missed the old
method of explicit saving. On the other hand, the added convenience and
efficiency has been invaluable! And that's not even considering the
increased intuitiveness (we don't "explicit save" anything in real-life
and there we don't even have undo!). 
There are some rough technical challenges to overcome for more complex
document types than plain text, but from a usability point of view, I'm
very sure that instant save is the way to go.

> Finally, but this is my opinion, an environment where applications feels
> like applications is better because is more "task oriented", more
> natural. A "mixed" scenario would only clutter the desktop semplicity.

We already have this mixed scenario: Spatial Nautilus is purely document
based (and I love it). 

The GNOME Storage feature page still says: "Storage was not designed in
a vacuum, but is a chunk of a greater design for a revised desktop
system."
My greatest hope is, that such a document oriented "revised desktop
system" will ever see the light of the day. Whether as GNOME 3 or
something totally different. So far, it's just a distant dream. :)

-- 
Daniel Borgmann <daniel borgmann gmail com>