Re: [Usability] GNOME 2.6+ usability: points of critique

[Robert Fendt <rmfendt web de>]

And thus spake Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>
Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:28:15 +0100 (IST):

> Sure that is our primary audience but we want to retain the geek audience
> too if at all possible, as they will invitably be the ones forced forever
> to act as tech support for other users and there help evangelising is
> important.
> 
> It is difficult to cater to both but so long as we have the priorities
> clear I think we can do it.

That is a relief. Do not get me wrong, I like the idea of an easy-to-use
desktop environment. But I also believe that "easy" does not have to be
paid with "simple" (i.e., feature-less). And I am absolutely positive that
the features that get removed and then annoy me by their absence are not
only missed by me.

> > Again...
> > Just one time.
> > Nowadays you cannot use something different from a navigational mode
> > or a spatial one.
> > Gnome goes spatial.The decision was made.
> 
> I still think it was a bit early to make spatial the default (and of
> course I'm biased and going to try and resist it) but on balance spatial
> works well and is a good idea.

No. Unix file systems are by nature hierarchical. I find it much better
suited to work in a hierarchical structure with hierarchical visualisation
tools. A file manager is nothing different. Spatial would make sense if
using a non-hierarchical file system based on semantics information.

AFAIK BeOS did something like that. The idea of 'folders' was quite well
hidden, usually you worked in selections of files based on size, type,
date etc. The manager remembered those selection patterns, and they were
the underlying structure visualised as frames. Maybe you can do something
similar with Nautilus now, but I admit not having delved too deeply into
spatial mode.

Simply putting spatial on top of a Unix file system is nonsense. If you
want to "go spatial", then you have to do something about how the
underlying system stores data. Or at least add lots of meta-data to make
the selection metaphor work. And of course it is still totally useless if
you have to work inside an "old" directory tree with lots of levels and
maybe similar files with identical names, stored just in different
directories. Just my $0.02.

And of course I have left out a substantial flaw of spatial interfaces:
"spatial" needs screen space. Lots of it. On my 1600x1200 home screen it
will work. On my 1280x1024 at work maybe still, barely. But when using it
mobile on my laptop at 1024x768 it is outright painful.

Regards, Robert