Just a curious thought
Why doesn't Apple organize the default OS X desktop backgrounds into the right folders? Apple created a hierarchy of folders in the Desktop Backgrounds pane of System Preferences, with titles including Desktop Pictures, Nature, Plants, Art, Black & White, Abstract, Patterns, and Solid Colors.
My gripe is that there are several images in Desktop Pictures that would be much more appropriately placed in some of the other folders. Things like the canyon and landscape photos going in the Nature folder, or the new circle patterns going in the Patterns folder, or the flowers going in the Plants folder.
I see why putting all of the best ones in a single folder makes sense, since most users might not navigate to any of the other folders. But then why have the other folders at all? And why not have them be subfolders or collections of items from the main folder?
Why do you think Apple organizes them they way they do by default?
Why doesn't Apple organize the default OS X desktop backgrounds into the right folders? Apple created a hierarchy of folders in the Desktop Backgrounds pane of System Preferences, with titles including Desktop Pictures, Nature, Plants, Art, Black & White, Abstract, Patterns, and Solid Colors.
My gripe is that there are several images in Desktop Pictures that would be much more appropriately placed in some of the other folders. Things like the canyon and landscape photos going in the Nature folder, or the new circle patterns going in the Patterns folder, or the flowers going in the Plants folder.
I see why putting all of the best ones in a single folder makes sense, since most users might not navigate to any of the other folders. But then why have the other folders at all? And why not have them be subfolders or collections of items from the main folder?
Why do you think Apple organizes them they way they do by default?