Mac OS X Updates and Next Generation Finder Development

[bugfaceuk]

Actually, the "where you are" on the left, and the "what's there" on the right metaphor is very common in UI design, and seems very natural to many of us.

It's very common for web pages - especially for applications that have a web UI - to have a navigation pane on the left and a detail pane on the right.

You also see it in encyclopaedias, dictionaries, map and street atlas programs....

Sites like CNN use the metaphor (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/02/gaza.cartoon/index.html), shopping sites, bookstores....

The use of one metophor does not preclude the existance of a better one. Let's hope Apple are better at this than we are.

 

[sjk]

You, Militar, are a god among mortals. 5 years, and I never thought to try Command+Option+I .

Another variation is cmd-ctrl-I, for Get Summary Info. Select multiple files in Finder, click on the File menu, then tap the control key and notice how Get Info changes. The option key sometimes changes other items like that (in Finder and other apps) but I haven't found others that change with the control key modifier.

One change for a future Finder would be to document those shortcuts (and other features) more explicitly. In general, having a "Keyboard and Mouse Shortcuts" item under the Help menu of every app would be very useful. And clicking on the short description for a shortcut on the help page could bring up a more detailed explanation.

Taking that idea further (off-topic) ...

Regardless of what anyone thinks of Emacs, it has an excellent integrated help system. There are different "describe-" commands, like describe-key to display a description for what any key will do in the current context. Whenever I'm in doubt about what some keystroke will do I just invoke describe-key first to check it. Being able to get quick help for potentially any keyboard shortcut in OS X apps would be wickedly cool, IMO. Apple could integrate that kind of help support by reimplementing the shortcut interface, the latter being suggested in the last paragraph of John Gruber's Losers, Weepers article. That's overdue to be done, even without integrated help.

 

[DStaal]

sjk, you should take a look at KeyCue. Probably the best, and most direct, way of getting that info to the user.

Apple should build it in.

 

[sjk]

sjk, you should take a look at KeyCue. Probably the best, and most direct, way of getting that info to the user.

I'm aware of KeyCue, but ...

Apple should build it in.

First, I'd rather they reimplement the shortcut interface. That would have long-term benefits for developers (especially those writing software like KeyCue, Keyboard Maestro, iKey, QuicKeys, et.al.) and users. The current implementation complicates issues for users trying to sanely manage shortcuts in different contexts.

Have you read Gruber's article I referred to? That it was even written can be seen as evidence that the current implementation has problems. And that was over two years ago.

Problems with shortcuts are less obvious and interesting to most users than more well known and popular Finder issues. One thing in common is they can both negatively influence usability, sooner or later. Both are begging for improvements in their own ways and fixing shortcut problems can benefit Finder.

Does anyone look for files THAT much where it needs to be the focus of an operating system's development?? I guess I just dont get it.

You may "get it" more than you realize.

I think experienced users generally develop more file-centric views of data management than those with less experience. That seems to happen out of necessity as you're accumulating more files and become forced to figure out different ways to store and organize them to remain productive. And casual users, even when experienced, are less likely to be affected by growing demands of file management.

Is there any correlation between people who complain most about Finder and those with the most file-centric requirements for how they use it? If you're not doing a whole lot of file management then maybe Finder is good enough (or "almost") but when file management reaches a certain personal threshold does that make Finder's shortcomings more apparent (and frustrating)?

I'm probably trying too hard here (and failing, ugh) to categorize users who are generally most comfortable with the traditional "Finder as file manager" metaphor. But could that be the "anyone" who you (Arcus) were asking about in your post?

There's a traditional Finder metaphor and "Finder as something else" dilemma that I'm thinking of out but I'll save writing about it for another time.

 

[CoMpX]

Please don't. As bad as the current Finder is, it still has better spatial navigation than Pathfinder. (Given that spatial navigation is completely imposible in Pathfinder, that's not hard.)

There are a lot of things I'd like fixed in the current Finder. But I've never been able to use Pathfinder for more than a couple of minutes before quitting it in disgust. It does what it does very well. It doesn't do what I like.

I agree, the interface looks a little outdated and its just too busy and complicated to find things quickly IMO.

 

[askegg]

But I would really hate it if something like Path Finder (in its current state) were adopted by Apple. Whether you hate it or love it, the Finder is still very intuitive and well-designed. Yes, it has issues, but considering every single Mac user uses the Finder at some point, no matter what level of experience they have, it's not that bad.

Although I have not tried Pathfinder yet (I only found it today and will try it tonight) I must agree with your statement.

From the screenshots and reviews I have seen of Pathfinder it is the swiss army knife of finders. Something for the power user.

To cater for Apples customers they have simplified the finder as much as possible. Now my mum could use it with little training. Unfortunately, this means I do not have access to some features I find very useful on other platforms.

That said, I think there are a few things Apple could add to the finder to make life a little easier:

1. Add a breadcrumb trail so I can leap directly to a previous folder. Yes, you can do this with the forward and back buttons, but sometimes you want to go directly to a point.
2. Display the full file/folder address in the toolbar. This clarrifies where I am in the system and gives me another method to leap to a specific point.
3. A slide out meta data viewer/editor that changes with the item selected. I don't much like juggling multiple info windows.
4. I wish I could hit delete on the keyboard to move items to the trash (am I missing something?)

Yes I've aware of the various environment variables. I script for them all the time with SMS installer when I repackage software. But your average user does not and frankly shouldn't. And you dang well better look into your temp dir from time to time to clean it up.

This is about a month's worth or crap on my work system. I should really delete and defrag this weekend.

Hmmm - this is not really a filing system problem, but bad program behaviour. Things should clean up after themselves and not leave crap all over the place. I see this everywhere; even seemingly good programs on the mac put files and folders all over the system. Why can it all be held in the applications folder?

So that's my point, I think. It almost feels, with more and more data being stored on your hard-drives that a paradigm shift is required, and I'm not talking WinFS, but an entirely new presentation layer/metaphor.

But that's not going ot happen... so just add my vote to "NOT adding a tree on the left of finder"

I think you are right and I have been toying with the idea of a meta data driven file system. This is something that would have to sit on top of a traditional files system, possibly with a database engine, possibly like WINFS was/is meant to be.

The argument:

My mother is not very computer literate and documents, pictures and music is scattered all over the computer. She does not understand how computer filing systems work and does not organise the file. She just hits save, gives it a name and hits OK - the applicaiton will then dutifuly save the file in the exact location it happened to be at the time. For some reason this varies a lot within an application and between applications.

Retrieving a file normally results in a family support call:
Mum - "I saved this file, but now I can't find it. Word gives me a list of stuff, but the file I was working on is not there".
Me - "Where did you save it?"
Mum - "I don't know, but it's not there now."
Me - "Hmmmm"

Should the user really care where the file is kept? Can we make it easier for people to find there documents? Do we really need to specify a location?

The thinking:
When I am working on a document it is going to be related to a certain activity and contain certain keywords. What is the system where able to automagically classify my document for me? What if I could manually add/edit/remove keywords to the document? It is important that I need to know where the document is actually saved? No, not really, but I do need to retrieve it simply and quickly no matter where it is.

I should be able to tag my documents using whatever taxonomy I desire. Documents, pictures, music, URL's could all be tagged with keywords such as personal, kids, business, beach, party, racing, proposal, glasses, etc. Whatever.

Spotlight goes part of the way in finding my files again, but it needs a little more. I like the new idea of smart folders within smart folders. Predefined, customisable searches you can build into the system. Neat.

The major hurdle is how do you add the keywords? Can you build a system to do this automatically and reliably?

What about a keyword table/grid that allows you to drag keywords into/into documents, or the other way (dragging a document onto a keyword). BTW, I wish iPhoto did this, rather than opening up each photo, selecting the keywords tab and ticking all the appropriate words. Yuk.

I need to be able to sort and classify my keywords as well. Alphabetically, my own tree view, commonly used combinations?

The filing system on any computer is a type of database. It is built to store files that are classified according to a single hierarchy. The problem is almost nothing conforms to a single hierarchy, a single taxonomy. You may want to view the system by date, file type, owner, date created, size, etc. While we can do dredge the system for this information it is slow (spotlight saves some of this time by indexing files on the go). Is it possible to build a file system where documents can be classified, searched, sorted and viewed using an arbitrary number of classifications, keywords and taxmonomies without delay?

This is just an idea and you may all hate it, but I can live with that.


PS. After all this I did some searching and found John Siracus (mentioned previosly in this thread?). Go here, read it, understand it. This guy is spot on.

 

[sjk]

• Add a breadcrumb trail so I can leap directly to a previous folder. Yes, you can do this with the forward and back buttons, but sometimes you want to go directly to a point.

Have you tried adding the Path button to Finder's toolbar?

• I wish I could hit delete on the keyboard to move items to the trash (am I missing something?)

Command-delete?

 

[DStaal]

Have you tried adding the Path button to Finder's toolbar?

Neat...

Assuming you are using the Brushed-Metal Finder windows. If you aren't: Command-click the name/icon on the top of the window.

 

[sjk]

Command-click the name/icon on the top of the window.

Good tip. I'd forgotten to mention that proxy icon even though I use it all the time.

Should the user really care where the file is kept? Can we make it easier for people to find there documents? Do we really need to specify a location?

No (usually). Yes (possibly). No (hopefully).

In a storage sense I don't want to care where files are located (e.g. the iTunes/iPhoto-managed storage example I often use). I do care how my data is organized but often don't need or want that organization so rigidly enforced by hierarchical filesystems and file managers, much like what you're saying here:

The filing system on any computer is a type of database. It is built to store files that are classified according to a single hierarchy. The problem is almost nothing conforms to a single hierarchy, a single taxonomy.

Most users take that simple hierarchical taxonomy for granted (or, like your mom and my wife, don't quite grok it) without realizing how it's imposed by the filesystem or considering other perspectives, like:

Is it possible to build a file system where documents can be classified, searched, sorted and viewed using an arbitrary number of classifications, keywords and taxmonomies without delay?

I'm generally interested in more user-centric alternatives to the popular pervasive notion of file(-centric) systems. The new metaphor stuff, like bugfaceuk mentioned (and you also quoted to start your reply):

It almost feels, with more and more data being stored on your hard-drives that a paradigm shift is required, and I'm not talking WinFS, but an entirely new presentation layer/metaphor.

I'm not sure how much interest is still left here for more in-depth discussion of these ideas. Any related off-forum conversation is always welcomed, though.

 

[peharri]

What is the thing you think she gets confused about? I'm not sure what you are protecting people from trying to do?

I don't understand your question.

As far as "what she gets confused about", I answered that.

As far as "what you are protecting people from trying to do", what does that mean?

I'm not trying to prevent anyone from doing anything. Those who are insistant that the GUI should not reflect the underlying file structure are the people who generally are preventing people from doing things.

It's quite simple: Non-spatial file managers hide the structure of the file system. Users who use non-spatial systems who are not already familiar with the hierarchical nature of the file system in my experience get lost. They save files, and never find them again. They're unaware how the system works, because some jackass programmer/CEO doesn't like closing the occasional window and is prepared to make their operating system teach potential users facts about it that are completely untrue. Users become used to a modal/box view of their file systems with a belief that directories are arbitrarily linked to other directories without any structure. They fail to be able to easily find files and folders because they're not aware of the link.

The question is not who I'm protecting from doing things. It's why the anti-spatial lobby insists on "protecting" users from having too many windows open even when it's clearly at the expense of non-geek users.

 

[decksnap]

It's quite simple: Non-spatial file managers hide the structure of the file system.

I haven't been to this thread in weeks, but I just saw this and had to respond. That is not true. Spatial vs. non-spatial doesn't really affect the visibility of the file structure. My OS X finder window in non-spatial view shows me the exact hierarchy of everything, more obviously by using column view, but simply by having to dig through list or icon view shows me how I got there, same as in spatial view.

 

[sjk]

Those who are insistant that the GUI should not reflect the underlying file structure are the people who generally are preventing people from doing things.

Which GUI? Lack of reflecting the underlying file structure doesn't necessarily prevent people from doing things if those "things" don't depend on that structure.

I find it more interested to consider the perspective of how apps that "inherit" the filesystem structure are limited by it, in different ways and amounts.

It's quite simple: Non-spatial file managers hide the structure of the file system.

decksnap already refuted that assertion, quickly and convincingly.

Users who use non-spatial systems who are not already familiar with the hierarchical nature of the file system in my experience get lost. They save files, and never find them again. They're unaware how the system works, ...

Have you considered that hierarchical filesystems impose organizational structures on users who couldn't care less about that method of storing and accessing their data?

... because some jackass programmer/CEO doesn't like closing the occasional window and is prepared to make their operating system teach potential users facts about it that are completely untrue.

Do you hope to make a point based on a bitterly judgmental assumption?

Users become used to a modal/box view of their file systems with a belief that directories are arbitrarily linked to other directories without any structure. They fail to be able to easily find files and folders because they're not aware of the link.

Even experienced users who thoroughly understand file/folder hierarchies can lose track of data in them.

The question is not who I'm protecting from doing things. It's why the anti-spatial lobby insists on "protecting" users from having too many windows open even when it's clearly at the expense of non-geek users.

Another straw man?

Got any supporting evidence to share that backs up your confidentially opinionated statements?