Re: [Usability] Faded File Extensions

[Jason Hoover <jasonhoover verizon net>]

On Sun, 2006-01-01 at 15:39 +0000, Alan Horkan wrote:

> Blame the user, of course it is the users fault.  Why didn't I think of
> that?

Sure I'll acknowledge it's "user blame". But who's fault is it if I name
a file "Foo.jpg" and another one "FOO.jpg" and can't tell/remember the
difference? Should we disallow identical names because the case is
different because "it might confuse the user"? No, I'd be told to change
the name instead of confusing myself, lesson learned, end of story.

> Isn't the extension part of the distinctive name I have deliberately
> chosen?  I could use .jpe, .jpg, .jpeg, jfif, jps all to describe the same
> effectively the same file type so my choice of extension is quite
> deliberate.

In which case, if it were that big of a deal to you, you'd turn off
hiding file extensions. But I can say reliably that 80% of the people I
see every day do no such thing (naming similar names). Or they'll name
it something like (shock and horror) "Business card pdf.pdf" or
"business card web.jpg"

I'm sick of looking at file extensions, and I'm sick of not even having
the option of turning them off. The current behavior is to not hide
them. If FE hiding were added it could just be left disabled and called
a "beta feature" or whatever. If people preferred it, change the
default. No one's asking to renovate Rome overnight.

-Jason