One View on the Finder... [Archive]

UpQuark

Apr 2, 2003, 09:42 AM

The article is long, but he is right on. Regardless of platform, if a user can see and touch and then perform an action on a file/icon etc and perform that action in the same manner anywhere - that is magic.

I like command line. I do - but when I am in a rush, I 'feel' like I can click - drag - drop much faster than typing the command line to do the same action.

I think that people are intrinsicly <sp?> 'unorganized' with respect to efficiency.

For instance - take a look at any company and the way they handle paper processes. Invoicing, procurment etc. Even if they have a place for everything and everyithing is in that place, if I were to walk in, I would be lost - my view would be filled with rows and rows of filing cabinets, folders etc. However, I would understand (or wish to believe) that all this physical information was in some kind of organization which I could eventually understand and learn. Each folder has a name and related content, which is in each filing cabinet, which is on each floor etc... you get the idea... So, if every department did this the same way, once I got the 'interface', I got it.

The danger is when we change how that interface works, based on how we walked in the room. If I use the stairwell, the filing cabinets look like this.. if I come through the lobby.. they look like this.

This is analogous to the current finder and way to see the information. Depending on how open/set your finder, depends on how it is organized. Very confusing to me - it is all the same data, but appears to be organized differently.

Even above performance enhancments - I would love to see a return to the cleaner more intuitive finder.

kansaigaijin

Apr 2, 2003, 09:48 AM

man, I just could not get through all that article, lost it somewhere in the file browser thing, sounds too much like that othe os. why not just use the browser then?

or just make your own finder, like Pathfinder, and let us check it out. No doubt Apple has something up its sleave, with the rumors of BeOS type filesystem circulating.

zedwards

Apr 2, 2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by kansaigaijin
No doubt Apple has something up its sleave, with the rumors of BeOS type filesystem circulating.

Having another filesytem has nothing to do with the Finder. I think you are confused that by using the BFS your Finder is going to look different. :rolleyes: Which is not the case, you wont notice a difference.

bikertwin

Apr 2, 2003, 10:11 AM

So the whole point of the article was that there shouldn't be paths?

The current finder is set up to use the simple/single folder view. The average user never even knows about the alternate views (multicolumn, etc.), much less actually tries to use them. So what's the big deal? He wants to remove the alternative views because he doesn't like them?

I kept waiting for him to get to some special point, but he never did.

What's so horrible about having multiple options for viewing files & folders? If you don't like the column view, don't use it.

NavyIntel007

Apr 2, 2003, 10:23 AM

We just need a cocoa based finder... bottom line. None of that other fancy crap.

UpQuark

Apr 2, 2003, 11:08 AM

Originally posted by bikertwin
So the whole point of the article was that there shouldn't be paths?

The current finder is set up to use the simple/single folder view. The average user never even knows about the alternate views (multicolumn, etc.), much less actually tries to use them. So what's the big deal? He wants to remove the alternative views because he doesn't like them?

I kept waiting for him to get to some special point, but he never did.

What's so horrible about having multiple options for viewing files & folders? If you don't like the column view, don't use it.

The issue is for the average users - think your Mom/Dad - would have to know how to turn them on/off. Also, with the current finder in OS X, it seems to disregard those settings as well, depending on where you go.

I like the GUI - just wish it was a bit cleaner, faster as well. Do a file open in word, fild a folder with hundreds of word documents, and try to scroll.

However, you are very right - this is about choice.. :) and preference.

If this GUI conversation is moot to you, then that is your answer.

Rincewind42

Apr 2, 2003, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
We just need a cocoa based finder...

If I may ask... Why? In excruiciating detail please. I want to know what you think the advantages of a Cocoa Finder would be. Please, indulge me.

Catfish_Man

Apr 2, 2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
We just need a cocoa based finder... bottom line. None of that other fancy crap.

I second the question above, and wonder why taking stuff out is "fancy crap" (although I agree that the file browser idea is fancy crap. Duplicated stuff is worse than slightly confusing stuff).

In response to Zedwards, if you read the article, you'll find out why BFS style metadata and fast searches are extremely important to his ideas.

I really really like the saved searches ideas, and have been trying to work out how to implement it for a few weeks now.

mk_in_mke

Apr 2, 2003, 11:58 AM

Before commenting the article, allow me to say how surprised I have been by the reactions in this forum. I would have expected most of the contributors to yell at ARS TECNICA and... It did not happen. This is how I think Mac Users should be: tolerant with other's opinions and clever enough to acknowledge critics and to build on it... Thanks guys!!!

OK back to the article...

ARS TECNICA article is very well documented and certainly Apple should use it to rethink some of the features they implemented. It is true that most of the mac user community is used to how the finder works but on plenty of aspects, it requires improvement. This is especially valid when you know that Apple always claimed that they wanted the users to have the best experience (ergonomics, one button mouse...). This article is right on target: Apple should go to the drawing board... Where I disagree with the guy is :

- when you know that OSX is a recent OS and based on the number of years of existence, I think Apple did a DAMN good job.

- Apple certainly preferred keeping the focus on a very solid OS and maybe analyze the minor issues, such as the finder, after...

Anyways, guys you rock!

Michel

jouster

Apr 2, 2003, 12:08 PM

My 0.02:

The column view is an excellent feature.

I find it the most efficient way to navigate using the finder.

Jeez, I even used to run a Column view finder in OS 8.6. It was a free/shareware thing.....ah, what was its name? Used to make my Mac crash....like....all the time.....

Doctor Q

Apr 2, 2003, 12:15 PM

Finder issue:

I've always been puzzled about a characteristic of the GUI desktop operating systems: When you navigate to first open a file or application, you use the visual elements of the file system display to click anywhere, open and close folders and subfolders, change views, follow aliases/shortcuts, move and resize windows, maybe even use a Find command, and eventually double-click on the item to open. Within each folder, I can arrange icons any way I like. Yet when you use the File->Open or File->Save As menu choice within an application, the process of identifying the file to open or the folder in which to save is completely different: I must navigate to the file/folder while confined to a dialog box listing files within each folder alphabetically. Why can't I find the file or directory starting from my desktop and have full Finder-style freedom?

I don't pretend to be a great interface designer, but as a user (and someone who has taught computers to many beginners) I always feel that my actions are artificially confined when I'm opening or saving. I know that file References.cwk is in that Job Hunt folder on the right side of my screen, so why do I have to find it alphabetically in a dialog box just because I'm working within AppleWorks?

I'm not sure what the best design would be to remove this interface distinction. Perhaps, when I'm opening or saving a file, I'd have a different cursor to remind me that I'm in a different mode even though I can navigate as in the Finder. Perhaps, instead, I would really be in the Finder, but having said File->Save As in AppleWorks would allow me to right click on any folder I come to and pick Save AppleWorks File Here from the context menu. If these are dumb solutions, I'll be happy with a smarter one.

Has anyone else noticed this or been bothered by it? Has anyone made a good suggestion for what to do about it?

Fukui

Apr 2, 2003, 12:41 PM

If I may ask... Why? In excruiciating detail please. I want to know what you think the advantages of a Cocoa Finder would be. Please, indulge me
Faster and eaiser to program for one.
They could easily update the finder and include so many features for free if they would atleast utilize the cocoa api's in the finder.
They can also make changes to the UI faster because of the way Objective C works hand-in-hand with user interfaces (keeping UI and Logic separate)...

My question is, why are so many people AGAINST cocoa???

P.S What I really want is access to my iPhoto, iTunes, and iMovie libraries from the finder and Open/Save dialogs....

FelixDerKater

Apr 2, 2003, 01:01 PM

On the subject of Column Views, this is an are where OS X absolutely sucks. The only time I use this view on the Mac is for media previews. MS got it right here and Apple dropped the ball. Under XP, the media preview pane is much better designed. Under X, it seems like a last minute addition that compromises the overall experience of Aqua. Why can't Apple include such a preview pane as XP allows in standard icon mode?

Rincewind42

Apr 2, 2003, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by Fukui
Faster and eaiser to program for one.

Subjective. The Finder team currently uses a private implementation of PowerPlant for the Finder, and thus they can rapidly add features to the Finder as well. If they move to Cocoa, then have to rip that all out and reimplement it in Cocoa, which to me seems like a waste of time.

They could easily update the finder and include so many features for free if they would atleast utilize the cocoa api's in the finder.

The Finder Team can likely easily update the Finder now. It depends on what features you want. As for the features they would get for 'free' with Cocoa, tell me what features you want. I said I wanted excruiciating detail :)

They can also make changes to the UI faster because of the way Objective C works hand-in-hand with user interfaces (keeping UI and Logic separate)...

Objective C doesn't give a rats butt about user interfaces, it's just a programming language. You could implement all of the same stuff that Objective C does in any other programming language. Remember, Objective C started life as a C preprocessor.

As for the UI & Logic seperate issue, PowerPlant has been doing this for a long time now too. Most UI Frameworks encourage this pattern, Cocoa included. Don't confuse the framework with the language it was designed in.

My question is, why are so many people AGAINST cocoa???

I'm not against Cocoa. I'm against broad sweeping statements that imply that some particular way is the One True Way. Far too many people have come to believe that Cocoa is the One True Way and reject anything not made in Cocoa out of hand. I hate to draw the analogy, but they are doing the same thing to Cocoa is done to RealBasic. People automatically assume something in Cocoa is good (as they often assume something in RealBasic is bad). But the reality is that it is the programmer that makes something usable, not the tool. Cocoa, like RealBasic, makes it easier for people who have no clue to inflict something massively horrible on the world.

In all the time since MOSR originally inflicted the Cocoa Finder rumor on the world, I have yet to see anyone give a good reason why this should or would ever come to pass. If you are going to state that the Finder should be re-written in Cocoa, then please back up your statement with hard facts of the advantages of moving to Cocoa, and why this could never be done in Carbon. Be sure to remember that Carbon is a rapidly moving target and that features that today exist only in Cocoa are just a system revision from existing in Carbon as well.

edit: fixed small stupid but annoying text issues.

FelixDerKater

Apr 2, 2003, 01:33 PM

The article's last mock-up on this page:

http://arstechnica.com/paedia/f/finder/finder-9.html

is just a copycat of Path Finder with a metal interface (link below)...

http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/16678

Masker

Apr 2, 2003, 01:38 PM

I guess I'll be the dissenting voice here. I cannot stand the "Folder is the window, the window is a Folder" metaphor. Then, when I navigate from my Home directory to Projects/Test/English.lproj/, the end result will be 4 open windows. Then, when I'm done with whatever I had to do to get to the English.lproj folder, I have to close 4 windows. That is TOTAL CRAP. I've always hated that aspect of System 7-9, and IMO, that methaphor is totally broken. I have to agree with Steve Jobs: the user should NOT NEED to be the janitor of a system. This is why we have and use computers: they take the tedium out of our lives. Why should using a computer BE TEDIOUS?

Another comment: Why have the Spatial Finder _and_ the Browser Finder? That's inane. There are some times when I find that a folder is best seen in list view and column view makes finding some files easier (though generally not). However, I find that it's a _per folder_ distinction. I don't want to, and shouldn't have to, remember which freaking Finder I want to use when I want to look at a folder. Just be flexible and elegant enough of a solution that I can use whatever portion of the functionality that I want at the time that I want to and remember for later so that I can just go back to the same folder and see it how it was when I left it. This is something that the Mac OS X Finder does very well.

Now, the save search results thing? How useful would it really be? I NEVER search for the same thing more than once, so for me this would just be a waste. I can see other people doing something different with their computers and needing this, or finding it useful, but it's certainly not very useful for general searches, IMO.

All-in-all, I find that this article lacks any convincing argument for changing the way that the metaphor(s) behind the current Mac OS X Finder. I think that the ideas that this guy brings up are old and tired, and were rejected with GOOD REASON. I believe that Apple actually made some serious improvements to the old OS 7/8/9 Finder in the Mac OS X Finder, and I, for one, love it the way it is. I look forward to seeing what the interface experts (that is, Apple) come up with next in 10.3.

soosy

Apr 2, 2003, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by Doctor Q
Finder issue:

I've always been puzzled about a characteristic of the GUI desktop operating systems: When you navigate to first open a file or application, you use the visual elements of the file system display to click anywhere, open and close folders and subfolders, change views, follow aliases/shortcuts, move and resize windows, maybe even use a Find command, and eventually double-click on the item to open. Within each folder, I can arrange icons any way I like. Yet when you use the File->Open or File->Save As menu choice within an application, the process of identifying the file to open or the folder in which to save is completely different: I must navigate to the file/folder while confined to a dialog box listing files within each folder alphabetically. Why can't I find the file or directory starting from my desktop and have full Finder-style freedom?

wow, there's a good idea. Open/Save really is completely different. My mother for instance, still doesn't really get them. Why shouldn't they be a lot more like the regular finder?

I usually like this guys articles, but I'm not too sure about his ideas this time. Having two views of the same folder is bad--okay I can agree with that. But I really like Column view and having to launch a seperate browser app seems so Windows Explorer-esque. I always found it so strange that you had to launch a seperate app to get some of the view styles you get built in on the Mac.

The current OS X does attempt to allow both browser style and spatial windows. Perhaps it just needs to make a greater distinction by adding the word "browser" to the end of the window's title as you turn on/off the toolbar in a window. ....okay it would take more tweaks than that.

The metadata/BFS databasey thing I'm all for though. Hopefully, if rumors are true, Apple is implementing it as we speak!

superfunkomatic

Apr 2, 2003, 01:52 PM

i'm really surprised that this is a big deal. if you like clicking icon by icon and think visually great. if you like to move through column view to get previews and files great. either should be acceptable, it's about options. why not use the option that suits your needs best.

personally i think column view is a dramatic improvement over the finder in the older mac os's. simple easy to navigate and for new users it's easy to develop a quick understanding of the unix underpinnings.

C14ru5

Apr 2, 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by jouster
Jeez, I even used to run a Column view finder in OS 8.6. It was a free/shareware thing.....ah, what was its name? Used to make my Mac crash....like....all the time.....
You're probably thinking of Greg's Browser.

Personally, I use the Mac OS X column view in one large window. I think Path Finder's view is nice, but it's a bit too advanced for my use. I prefer snappyness above everything. A hybrid between column view, smart playlists and LaunchBar is what I wish, but I guess this would require a lot of system-wide caching.

Fukui

Apr 2, 2003, 02:56 PM

I'm not against Cocoa. I'm against broad sweeping statements that imply that some particular way is the One True Way. Far too many people have come to believe that Cocoa is the One True Way and reject anything not made in Cocoa out of hand. I hate to draw the analogy, but they are doing the same thing to Cocoa is done to RealBasic. People automatically assume something in Cocoa is good (as they often assume something in RealBasic is bad). But the reality is that it is the programmer that makes something usable, not the tool. Cocoa, like RealBasic, makes it easier for people who have no clue to inflict something massively horrible on the world.

I agree with what your saying, but I think what most people are talking about is that what they really want is a Cocoa UI to the finder.

I know apple has nothing to do with Real Basic, but apps in Real Basic just look horrible for the most part, and most "Ported" carbon apps have schizophrenic UI's...to be honest, I dont care if someone uses carbon API's , cocoa API's or Java, I just want them to use the Cocoa UI features at least!!!

And since the cocoa API's are accessible from mach-o carbon apps, I don't care if the core is carbon...either.

RealBasic is bad
Every app that I have ever downloaded that was made with RealBasic I have thrown in the trash after about 30 seconds...RealBasic is actually a pretty cool development environment, but every app made with it, that I have ever used is not worth it IMO...sorry :confused: I don't mean to make flames...

Maclicious

Apr 2, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by jouster
My 0.02:

The column view is an excellent feature.

I find it the most efficient way to navigate using the finder.

Jeez, I even used to run a Column view finder in OS 8.6. It was a free/shareware thing.....ah, what was its name? Used to make my Mac crash....like....all the time.....

Me, too. I see column view as one of best things about os X. I have hundreds of word and excel documents on my machine, some more related, some less (as in one chapter per doc, excel files for figuring stats for each chapter, etc.), and this gives me sort of a birds eye view. This has become especialy true with the extra length of a 17 inch screen.

But, each to his own :-)

Rincewind42

Apr 2, 2003, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by Fukui
I agree with what your saying, but I think what most people are talking about is that what they really want is a Cocoa UI to the finder.

I know apple has nothing to do with Real Basic, but apps in Real Basic just look horrible for the most part, and most "Ported" carbon apps have schizophrenic UI's...to be honest, I dont care if someone uses carbon API's , cocoa API's or Java, I just want them to use the Cocoa UI features at least!!!

And since the cocoa API's are accessible from mach-o carbon apps, I don't care if the core is carbon...either.

Every app that I have ever downloaded that was made with RealBasic I have thrown in the trash after about 30 seconds...RealBasic is actually a pretty cool development environment, but every app made with it, that I have ever used is not worth it IMO...sorry :confused: I don't mean to make flames...

No flaming taken :). It's just tiring as a developer to see people every day making statements that seem to invalidate your work :D. The reality is that aside from those features in Cocoa that aren't yet implemented in Carbon (of which I can't actually come up with an example, :-P) the two APIs are functionally equivalent. The deal is that it is easier (perhaps in some cases too easy) to get non-standard behavior out of Carbon than out of Cocoa. And with the pletora of Carbon devs having to implement that behavior, it's not surprising that some of them get it wrong.

But it's not really that easy to put a Cocoa UI on a Carbon based application, and there are some features of Carbon that aren't available in Cocoa (that I know of) that the Finder requires (volume mounted events come to mind). This would negate the posiblity of making it primarily Cocoa. Thus Cocoa would have to be implemented at the window level (at this time at least) which requires building a bundle for each window type and creating an interface to that, which can get annoying and inefficient. And finally, there are technology differences between Cocoa and Carbon that for the Finder makes Carbon a more attractive UI (Finder List view comes to mind - yes, lists are faster in Carbon than in Cocoa).

So, I'm not against there ever being a Cocoa Finder, but for the forseeable future it would require bad tradeoffs. By the time it is feasible however, I suspect that no one will care anymore.

FelixDerKater

Apr 2, 2003, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by superfunkomatic
i'm really surprised that this is a big deal. if you like clicking icon by icon and think visually great. if you like to move through column view to get previews and files great. either should be acceptable, it's about options. why not use the option that suits your needs best.

Precisely. I agree. You need both options. A better idea would be to have a preview section in icon-based windows, and not only for column views. That would be a feature you could enable or disable for certain forlders, just like you can under MS Windows since Win 98. I am just saying that there are some thing MS got right in Windows, and that is one of them.

The Shadow

Apr 2, 2003, 08:06 PM

I can't get into the Carbon/Cocoa/RealBasic discussion, as I have no idea. However I would like to express my agreement with posts so far in support of the addition of the column view in OSX.

Here are some interesting quotes from the Arstechnica article:

"The last Finder that can reasonably be called "spatial" was in Mac OS 9."

"If humans were actually better suited to recognize and recall file paths and other non-spatial pieces of information, the GUI would have been a flop and we'd all be staring at empty screens with a blinking cursor awaiting input."

I really can't agree with this. First, I would like to point out I thought the reason for the GUI, was initially, that people who don't know the OS programming language are still able to use the computer. Isn't that right?

Second, Windows has been in terms of sales, the most successful OS, and historically Windows users have mainly used file paths for navigation.

Third, I work as a training consultant in primarily a PC environment (Mac at home). And I can safely say that 99% of Windows NT4/2000 users absolutely refuse to use short cuts of any sort on their desktop, or use their My Computer spatial folder thingy. They nearly all use Explorer. I always set my PC up with shortcuts all over the desktop, and that confuses the hell out of them.

Fourth, I've talked to at least a dozen Windows users who've transitioned over to XP, and by and large they don't like the interface, presumably because they end up using spatial thingy more.

Finally, I love the OSX GUI, although it can improve. IMHO it is ligh years ahead of previous Mac OS's. I use all the views. Sometimes the column view is invaluable. And it is sometimes easier for beginners than the folder view.

Thoughts?

kansaigaijin

Apr 2, 2003, 08:19 PM

I like column view. I think we should give the average user more credit about what they can figure out. We also shouldn't expect the OS to be kept at such a simple and restricted leve to suit the lowest common denominator either. Give people room to be creative, give them useful choices. Give them a manual or an explanation if they can't figure it out.

Man it could be worse. Your computer could give you a graphical rep of all the blocks on your drive, like Norton Speeddisk, and you could hunt down all the parts, then put them back in order like that Newsreader file thingy what UUCD? then open it. or you could have a UI like Autocad, it takes weeks to figure out all the different settings, etc.

But now we are in a transition stage. The average user will use iPhoto as a Finder for their images, ITunes as a Finder for music, Mail will evolve into something that handles text files (not really) but you get the idea. The finder will become less and less "the computer". When you open an "appliance" app it will automatically update itself on its types of files available.

An early way to use the web was to go to your portal site, and surf from there, and stumble onto things. Then search engines evolved, and you would go looking for specific things (as there was also more "specific things" to look for). As we get more info (meta-data) about the things on our computers, searching will become the normal way to look for things, not browsing folders and files. with the dbase filesystem, you don't have to be organised, and you don't need "Save" dialogs. Everything just goes into a big soup, and you search to fish them out, somewhat like the Newton system.

enough already. there is a current thread on this topic at macoshints as well, "your analogies are about to expire" also started by a bit of a tiresome ramble. but good to provoke a discussion though, I suppose.

applefan

Apr 2, 2003, 09:17 PM

I also prefer using the finder in column view. One of the few things I miss since switching is windows explorer. I like that I could reveal the contents of a folder in the column to the left and reveal the contents of a subfolder in the area on the right so I could the drag any file or folder from the right to any folder to the left. To accomplish the same thing with the finder, I need to open a 2nd finder window. It's not a major problem, but it seem less efficient.

wsteineker

Apr 3, 2003, 12:09 AM

I honestly prefer column view. It's more logical, at least in my perspective. It allows you to browse an obviously hierarchical file structure in an intuitive graphical manner, and it does it all in one window. That's a pretty cool idea. Sure, some of the advances of Windows Explorer and OS X finder (i.e. preview panes) would be a nice addition to every finder view, but it's a trade off. Adding a pref pane increases clutter, you know? One thing we definitely have over Windows is simplicity, and junking up all of the finder views just for the sake of adding features that are available elsewhere seems ludicrous. Just my $.02. :)

Fukui

Apr 3, 2003, 11:51 AM

It's just tiring as a developer to see people every day making statements that seem to invalidate your work.
Yea, I understand completely.

tygr

Apr 3, 2003, 12:17 PM

Got to admit that I didn't make it thru all the article but, here comes my rant anyway.,,

Originally posted by Masker
I guess I'll be the dissenting voice here. I cannot stand the "Folder is the window, the window is a Folder" metaphor. Then, when I navigate from my Home directory to Projects/Test/English.lproj/, the end result will be 4 open windows. Then, when I'm done with whatever I had to do to get to the English.lproj folder, I have to close 4 windows. That is TOTAL CRAP. I've always hated that aspect of System 7-9, and IMO, that methaphor is totally broken. I have to agree with Steve Jobs: the user should NOT NEED to be the janitor of a system. This is why we have and use computers: they take the tedium out of our lives. Why should using a computer BE TEDIOUS?

I second this one! One thing that strikes me is that everybody seems to neglect that the number of files an average user has on his computer is hundreds of times more today than it was when system 7 was out.

I did a quick check on my 40Gb drive and I have some 212.000 files (yes thats right, 212 thousand files). I remember having a 500Mb drive with almost 2000 files on, sometime back in 94-95, those where the days... :D Sure your average Unix system contains a lot more files than system 7-9 does. But, I've got thousands of pictures, thousands of music files etc. And I still have most of my old documents saved from the beginning of the 90's until today.

The user needs are totally different today compared to what was a reality when system 7 was designed. As the only viable way today is some form of hierarchy, you either make it flat or deep. Each has its own drawbacks. Flat; leads to a lot of scrolling to find your file, Deep; you need to open many folders -> you spam your screen with windows.

Another comment: Why have the Spatial Finder _and_ the Browser Finder? That's inane. There are some times when I find that a folder is best seen in list view and column view makes finding some files easier (though generally not). However, I find that it's a _per folder_ distinction. I don't want to, and shouldn't have to, remember which freaking Finder I want to use when I want to look at a folder. Just be flexible and elegant enough of a solution that I can use whatever portion of the functionality that I want at the time that I want to and remember for later so that I can just go back to the same folder and see it how it was when I left it. This is something that the Mac OS X Finder does very well.

I really liked the Finder of system 7 it made me a Mac man, but for my needs today, it isn't sufficient! So until someone invents a radical new way to store, find, browse and view my files I'll choose Column View over Icon View in 90% of time to locate the right folder. In 50% when I've found the right folder I change to List View or Icon View depending of what my task is.

All-in-all, I find that this article lacks any convincing argument for changing the way that the metaphor(s) behind the current Mac OS X Finder. I think that the ideas that this guy brings up are old and tired, and were rejected with GOOD REASON. I believe that Apple actually made some serious improvements to the old OS 7/8/9 Finder in the Mac OS X Finder, and I, for one, love it the way it is. I look forward to seeing what the interface experts (that is, Apple) come up with next in 10.3.

Agreed!

/tygr

Doctor Q

Apr 3, 2003, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by tygr
As the only viable way today is some form of hierarchy, you either make it flat or deep. Each has its own drawbacks. Flat; leads to a lot of scrolling to find your file, Deep; you need to open many folders -> you spam your screen with windows. I agree that you need a hierarchy, and that anytime you have a hierarchy you have the luxury and the duty of organizing files based on the tradeoff between having lots of files per folder and having lots of levels.

However...

(1) You don't necessarily have to leave folders open as you descend. Since Apple introduced the feature many releases ago, I almost always hold OPTION down to open subfolders and close their containing folder. Oftentimes I wish this was the default behavior. (Under Windoze, it is the conveniently named "Browse folders by using a single window that changes as you open each folder" option.)

(2) Navigating the hierarchy is the direct way to find files, but with 212,000 files you often want better ways to get to common locations. That's where a number of O.S. features can help, whether it's aliases, favorites, recently-used file lists, Find commands based on file attributes, Find commands based on file contents, or the "Search" folders that automatically maintain lists of (pointers to) files with certain characteristics. My point is that a filesystem has to organize its files in a particular way, but the user doesn't have to be limited to that view.

DStaal

Apr 3, 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by tygr
Got to admit that I didn't make it thru all the article but, here comes my rant anyway.,,

I second this one! One thing that strikes me is that everybody seems to neglect that the number of files an average user has on his computer is hundreds of times more today than it was when system 7 was out.

I did a quick check on my 40Gb drive and I have some 212.000 files (yes thats right, 212 thousand files). I remember having a 500Mb drive with almost 2000 files on, sometime back in 94-95, those where the days... :D Sure your average Unix system contains a lot more files than system 7-9 does. But, I've got thousands of pictures, thousands of music files etc. And I still have most of my old documents saved from the beginning of the 90's until today.

The user needs are totally different today compared to what was a reality when system 7 was designed. As the only viable way today is some form of hierarchy, you either make it flat or deep. Each has its own drawbacks. Flat; leads to a lot of scrolling to find your file, Deep; you need to open many folders -> you spam your screen with windows.

I hate spamming my screen w/ windows too, and I admit my solution doesn't work with a one-button mouse, but here is what I do: I set one button on my trackball to option-double-click. It opens a new window and closes the old one clean and simple. If I want both open, I do a regular double click.

I really liked the Finder of system 7 it made me a Mac man, but for my needs today, it isn't sufficient! So until someone invents a radical new way to store, find, browse and view my files I'll choose Column View over Icon View in 90% of time to locate the right folder. In 50% when I've found the right folder I change to List View or Icon View depending of what my task is.

Agreed!

/tygr

And I hate having to hunt through a semi-large folder where every time I open it the files move around! Or where I cannot get any files to show up in the top 2-3 rows of icon view! Both of these happen to me daily under OS X.

I use a hybrid system myself: most folders are icon view, a few large ones are list view. True spatiality helps most on the borderline cases: you can navigate by memory since the files are always where you left them. This is the most annoying omission from OS X.

Everyone uses their computer differently, fine, the advantage of a spatial finder are that there are base rules that we both can depend on, and use to help us navigate. I could under OS 9 remember 'this file is halfway down this folder'. Under OS X I, not always but often, cannot, since it may not be there next time. This means that in those cases I have to read all the names of the files in that folder (instead of just one to verify under OS 9).

If you have a better idea, or can explain to me why this finder is a better idea, please tell me. Until then I find it annoying that I cannot find my files without dedicating major amounts of brain space to them.

tygr

Apr 4, 2003, 02:07 AM

Originally posted by Doctor Q

(2) Navigating the hierarchy is the direct way to find files, but with 212,000 files you often want better ways to get to common locations. That's where a number of O.S. features can help, whether it's aliases, favorites, recently-used file lists, Find commands based on file attributes, Find commands based on file contents, or the "Search" folders that automatically maintain lists of (pointers to) files with certain characteristics. My point is that a filesystem has to organize its files in a particular way, but the user doesn't have to be limited to that view.

... and in what way does the current finder stop you from using "Recently used file lists", "favorites" and "aliases"? I think the current Finder does a better job providing users with different ways to locate their files. Thought I made that clear in the previous post... :confused:

Regarding your 1st point, I know of that feature and its still there! Ok so you can janitor your screen by holding option (and this is the point of: "...user shouldn't be the janitor..."), however it still doesn't give me the same overview and navigation help as the column view does

cheers

tygr

Apr 4, 2003, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by DStaal

And I hate having to hunt through a semi-large folder where every time I open it the files move around! Or where I cannot get any files to show up in the top 2-3 rows of icon view! Both of these happen to me daily under OS X.

I don't seem to have those problems, I could have had 'em b4 moving to 10.2.4. What version are you running?

True spatiality helps most on the borderline cases: you can navigate by memory since the files are always where you left them. This is the most annoying omission from OS X. I could under OS 9 remember 'this file is halfway down this folder'. Under OS X I, not always but often, cannot, since it may not be there next time. This means that in those cases I have to read all the names of the files in that folder (instead of just one to verify under OS 9).

I for one can't remember where a file is positioned in a folder when I deal with hundreds or thousands of files everyday, can you? :o I'm impressed! For me the hierarchy does the trick, I can organize my files so that I'll find 'em easily.

This is starting to sound like the old CLI vs GUI but the other way around. Now we have macusers saying that they want to use their brain power to remember the position of thousands of files in hundreds of folders (I know that the human brain store stuff in pictures, making it easier to rember this than the knowledge of the hierarchy you need when operating in a CLI, but I still think its a valid point :-) ) Instead of using it to acomplish tasks. :D

If you have a better idea, or can explain to me why this finder is a better idea, please tell me. Until then I find it annoying that I cannot find my files without dedicating major amounts of brain space to them.

Well you seem to have some problems with your Finder that I don't have, that could be it.

tygr

Apr 4, 2003, 03:04 AM

Originally posted by tygr
I don't seem to have those problems, I could have had 'em b4 moving to 10.2.4. What version are you running?

...

Well you seem to have some problems with your Finder that I don't have, that could be it.

Hmm, maybe I was a bit hasty there. I just did some checking and I found some inconsistencies, but not to the extent DStaal was describing. In my Applications folder I moved some items to the right, closed and opened and the're still in my chosen position. But when i rebooted and came back, other items had taken their old places, the ones I moved still was in my chosen location though. My Apps folder is usually arranged by name, maybe that has something to do with it? If so, its probably a bug and then it will be fixed.

cheers

DStaal

Apr 4, 2003, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by tygr
I don't seem to have those problems, I could have had 'em b4 moving to 10.2.4. What version are you running?

10.2.4. It may have something to do w/ me logging out daily too.

Not that that is an excuse. If I place a file somewhere it should stay there.

I for one can't remember where a file is positioned in a folder when I deal with hundreds or thousands of files everyday, can you? :o I'm impressed! For me the hierarchy does the trick, I can organize my files so that I'll find 'em easily.

Do you actually deal w/ hundreds or thousands of files everyday? Or do you have thousands of file of which you deal with a few dozen everyday?

I can quite easily remember where a few hundred files are by 'location'. For a few thousand I will know the general area, and can start a search there.

For the rest of the files in the sysem: they are in the attic. I rarely go there, and expect to have to search for them when I do. Not a problem; they aren't used that often.

But in the current Finder when I open the Users folder (which has four items) I can't find anything without a search. Since they don't stay put.

This is starting to sound like the old CLI vs GUI but the other way around. Now we have macusers saying that they want to use their brain power to remember the position of thousands of files in hundreds of folders (I know that the human brain store stuff in pictures, making it easier to rember this than the knowledge of the hierarchy you need when operating in a CLI, but I still think its a valid point :-) ) Instead of using it to acomplish tasks. :D

It always takes brainpower to remember something.

But it takes less, for me, to remember it by location then to search for it by name. I object to Apple wasting my brainpower.

Doctor Q

Apr 4, 2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by tygr
... and in what way does the current finder stop you from using "Recently used file lists", "favorites" and "aliases"?Originally posted by DStaal
It always takes brainpower to remember something.

But it takes less, for me, to remember it by location then to search for it by name. I object to Apple wasting my brainpower. Yes, the finder does a good job of giving you multiple ways to locate files. I was trying to make the point that the more ways, the merrier. I use the least brainpower when I can find files by whatever method suits me at that moment. If all I remember is that the icon was green, that's what I should be using to find that file. That's one more reason that the BeOS file system's use of metadata (arbitrary file attributes) sounds attractive.

tygr

Apr 5, 2003, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by tygr
...But when i rebooted and came back, other items had taken their old places, the ones I moved still was in my chosen location though. My Apps folder is usually arranged by name, maybe that has something to do with it?...

I've done some more testing and it seems that when my folder isn't Arranged by xxx the unmoved items doesn't fill the gaps from the files I moved. I chosed Clean up and then arranged the files like I wanted, and they're still arranged like that after a reboot.

:confused:

abdul

Apr 5, 2003, 08:57 AM

i know this hasnt got anything in such to do with the finder but the search functions on the mac are really crap compared to windows. In windows yuo can search for all the files you modified, accessed or created withn the last day etc on the mac it brings up nothing eventhough you know you accessed/modified/created something.

apart from that think i am happier with my mac than i was ever with my win xp

X-Baz

Apr 5, 2003, 09:17 AM

Having switched from Windows 18 months ago, and having just used OS9 for the first time in ages today, I reckon:
Windows Explorer is crap. In 95/NT it was a bit like the "classic" Finder - one window per folder, but not as elegant. In 98/2000 it was a hybrid of a browser and the classic Finder and in XP it's a full-blown browser.
"Classic" Finder: fantastic. Not only am I comfortable using it, but my wife and my dad are (and they both flap about using computers). My favourite features are the greying out of a folder icon when you open it, and the fact that you cannot have two separate windows looking at the same folder. That is the point of the "spatial" Finder.
OS X Finder: it's like the Win98/2000 Explorer. A mixture of a "spatial" Finder and a browser. I love column view. But I wish the folder icons would grey out when they are opened (I think that is very useful feedback). I also wish that they would start the hierarchy at the current user's desktop - the OSX Finder doesn't show what's actually on the drive anyway - so why not root it at the desktop, with icons for each drive, plus your home folder there (and hide the Desktop folder within your home folder - to prevent the same thing appearing in two places). In fact, that plus the windows actually remembering their settings would make me happy.
As for the cocoa vs carbon argument, I understand that Apple rewrote the Java runtime in Cocoa because multi-threading is easier in cocoa (not that it's impossible in Carbon - just harder). However, I'm a Delphi and Java guy - I've never used either Carbon or Cocoa, so I'm just restating what I've read.

X-Baz

Apr 5, 2003, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by abdul
i know this hasnt got anything in such to do with the finder but the search functions on the mac are really crap compared to windows.
That's the point of the rumoured Be-style filesystem - you can search for "All MP3s where the artist is XXX" or "All Emails where the sender is YYY and the received date is ZZZ". Couple that with the "live search folders" which automatically update as files are added and deleted and you'll have something which completely outshines XP (although MS are working on the same thing). However, it's all been done before in Be.

Doctor Q

Apr 5, 2003, 01:30 PM

I have thought for years that Windows had only one major window-handling advantage over Mac OS: the ability to resize a window from any corner or side. I can't see why Apple users haven't been demanding this.

Example: Suppose you have a window that is off the bottom of the screen (because you previously moved it down to get it out of the way) and you want to make the whole window visible with the top and bottom in particular places (e.g., from just under another window to just above the bottom of the screen).

In Windows, it takes two steps:

(1) Drag the whole window up until the bottom edge is exactly where you want it.

(2) Drag the top edge down until it is exactly where you want it.

On the Mac, it takes up to four steps:

(1) Drag the whole window up until the resize handle is visible.

(2) Resize the window until it is definitely no larger than you want it to end up.

(3) Drag the whole window up until the top edge is exactly where you want it.

(4) Resize the window until the bottom edge is exactly where you want it.

My example may be contrived, but there are plenty of other situations where the Windows feature is handy. I take advantage of the any-corner-any-side resizing whenever I use Windows, and I often wish I had it when using my Macs.

Is Apple missing something obvious, or am I?