The Spatial Way

Posted May 19, 2004 7:46 UTC (Wed) by Prototerm (guest, #20227) [Link]

This article mentions that the spacial way of looking at a filesystem is easier, and more natural. I couldn't disagree more. Any filesystem (Linux or Windows) is heirarchical in nature, and IMHO it's more natural to work with it as a heirarchical structure. I find opening directories in a new window to be cluttering and cumbersome, not to mention confusing in itself. I am "drilling down" from a higher to a lower level of the file system, and I expect a file manager to reflect that fact clearly and concisely. I find the flexibility of the "navigator" way of doing things more intuitive than the object-oriented way. The article mentions the potential confusion with open and save dialog boxes using the navigation metaphor, and I think that exposing a user (particularly a new one) to different ways of accessing the file system in this way is a bad idea. A problem not mentioned is that, sooner or later, even a new user must deal with the command line, which doesn't follow the spacial way, either.

A common complaint of GUI's is that they shield users from reality. The spacial view, by trying to hide the structure of the file system, hurts more than helps in this respect.

Posted May 19, 2004 8:52 UTC (Wed) by zlynx (subscriber, #2285) [Link]

There are a couple of things I would change about Nautilus. It isn't spatial enough. Using a symlink or .desktop link to access the same directory as a different name gives a different window layout. That should be fixed. Also, I want an option to always close the parent folder when I open a subfolder.

As for GConf, I like it. It is somewhat like the Windows Registry, but Gnome has taken the idea and improved it. A lot.

One improvement is that keys can have documentation attached to them. Another improvement is that the data IS stored in flat text files, not in a fragile binary format. It's in the .gconf directory. No, you can't edit them with a text editor while gconfd is running, but gconftool works.

Hating GConf because it has options arranged in a tree structure and looks similar to the Windows Registry is ridiculous. What's better about older Linux configuration files? dhcpd.conf is different from samba.conf which is in yet another format from ntp.conf. It is difficult to enforce system or network wide defaults. Every program has to write its own config file parser. GConf is just better.

Posted May 19, 2004 8:54 UTC (Wed) by haraldt (guest, #961) [Link]

Have used the spatial file manager of OS/2, and it does have some positive sides to it.
This means, for example, the ability to leave file manager windows open on the desktop like a menu, listing documents of a specific project. No file tree showing, no desktop clutter.
Really handy when opening a document means starting an application. You can make it work in the 2.4 nautilus too, but not as easy.
Another fine thing, it's much easier to copy or move files from one window to another than cut/copy/paste, and this is both faster and easier in spatial mode.

But, a file manager is for managing tasks. Most users have a lot of different tasks to do.
Personally, this means I have to use deep directory structures to keep any order to it at all. Three to five levels before getting to the guts of it, that spares me having to clean up all the time.
When opening a lot of subdirecties in spatial mode, you end up with desktop clutter. Way too much, and it's a bother to close them all.

Also, all that "Middle+double-click a folder" stuff is confuzzling. What I need is a "shift+left click" to open a window in spatial mode, and I need to set some browser icons to open right up in spatial mode. That's it.

This leads us to the topic being discussed again. Quantity does not replace quality, and perhaps it's a good idea to focus on quality first. But we also need lots more discussion on how we really need a desktop to work, not just lock people to limited concepts.
Look at the commercial success of the Mac desktop versus the MSwindows desktop. Most users like to be able to fiddle with some controls, to imagine themselves as advanced computer users. It may not be the most rational way for beginners, but still it happened that way and it happens that way. It's the way things go forward.
What about at least being able to set the controls not just to "beginner", but also to "intermediate" and "advanced". At one central place, for each user. And give organisations a chance to lock the users away from the more advanced levels, if efficiency and ease of use is most important.
That would please a lot of users, and most of all, developers, testers, people using the Linux desktop now. It'd be a bad idea to lose them.

Posted May 19, 2004 8:58 UTC (Wed) by doodaddy (guest, #10649) [Link]

It seemed originally that both desktops were simple, thin *desktop* layers -- a little more than MWM. They had features such as a "start" menu or a control panel. And my secret hope was that old 486 systems would run quickly with a fully functionaL OS and desktop. To me, this is part of the Unix way and would be a boon to companies everywhere. It would break the Wintel monopoly.

But then "they" started following Windows down the bulky COM, DLL applet path. I'm not sure, in 15 years of using desktops, that I have ever used, or seen anybody having used, or ever felt the need to use, a word processor page inside of a web browser. Or a lame semi-editable visio diagram inside a spread sheet (after double-clicking, waiting thirty seconds, and having my menus re-arranged). As a matter of fact, when these things load by accident I am more irritated than pleasantly surprised. It's a very expensive hack, IMO. (As a programmer, I have never felt the need to write a web applet as a loadable DLL what-not either.)

It is double-ironic that they are dumbing down the interface for beginners when the cores of these toolkits have power I can't find a use for as a professional. And I think this proves they have lost any direction. Again, keeping things simpler would have been a more Unix way and it would have been more prepared for a changing user base.

By putting a general purpose "active widget" system in place, both Gnome and KDE have made their tools slow to load and slow to use. And these "more than desktop" systems are so entangled in themselves that they are not very interoperable, easy to program for, or supportable. To me, they have both gone way past "The Unix Way." Therefore, the "competition" between them is pointless despite what people say. The Intel portion of the Wintel monopoly is safe as we must continue on the faster-chip treadmill.

I hope someone branches off an old copy of Gnome or KDE -- back before the active widget fad -- and works on simplifying the libraries and updating the desktop alone.

Posted May 19, 2004 9:16 UTC (Wed) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link]

Posted May 19, 2004 9:54 UTC (Wed) by pivot (guest, #588) [Link]

- double click on the root window could bring up a window of either the users home directory or the desktop folder.

- the context menu on the root window could have an "explore.." entry with either the home directory or the desktop directory as a starting point.

Posted May 19, 2004 12:41 UTC (Wed) by mattdm (subscriber, #18) [Link]

Posted May 19, 2004 14:16 UTC (Wed) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link]

What I find annoying is that the when I change the default view settings in the preferences dialog, I can't have different settings for browser view and spatial (folder) views. When I use Nautilus as a file browser, I like to look at the contents of my directories as a list. But I find looking at a folder in it's own window, an icon view seems more natural.

Is the problem that we have one tool for two dissimilar tasks ? And that's the reason for this discussion ?

Posted May 20, 2004 14:48 UTC (Thu) by raytd (guest, #4823) [Link]

Here's what I'd like to see.  (and implement, if i ever win the lottery.)
  Some, all, or none, may already be there.  I haven't checked.

--- Browsing ---
    [choose: (number-of-items)]
    more than (number-of-items) in folder, open as:
        [choose: (hierarchy, spatial)]
    less than (number-of-items) in folder, open as:
        [choose: (hierarchy, spatial)]

--- Spatial Properties ---
given:
    - all items (initially) belong to a super-group 
    - user can create new groups and assign items to said groups 
      - user can easily create groups (e.g. group by file type)
      - user defined group display properties override that of the super-group
    - user can add/remove an item from any group
    
    scale to [choose: (width) (height)]
    display text to [choose: (top, bottom, left, right, none(preview))] of item

--- Bindings ---
    open in new window on
        [choose: (single-middle-click, double-right-click)]
    open in current window on
        [choose: (double-right-click, single-middle-click)]