Re: Structure in $HOME

[Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>]

On Sun, 2003-01-12 at 23:39, Seth Nickell wrote:
> > If each application keeps its own data in its own directory it is harder
> > to integrate applications with each other. Sharing becomes dependent
> > on what applications are installed, and each application will continue to
> > rule their own little world. I would like a directory structure that eases
> > sharing of resources, and sharing is improved if we think in terms of data
> > rather than applications.
> 
> Items that should be shared should end up in desktop shared settings, or
> possibly system. This structure already basically exists in the form of
> GConf (and actually, you'll notice the structure I mentioned is very
> similar to how GConf currently structures things).
> 
> > I think that "ordinary users" will not back up files by copying
> > them directly. They would rather user tools for this. What is important is
> > to make a directory structure that makes sense for developers. Then it
> > will be easier to write backup tools if the directory structure is
> > arranged in a way that files with different properties are separated in
> > different directory branches.
> > 
> > Finally, while I also think that preferences and application data should
> > be hidden, at least at the top level, I think that discussion is not
> > really important at this point. Instead we should find a directory
> 
> No, that's the only discussion which is important at this point. The
> human factors questions need to come first, not last, to have any chance
> of having positive effect.
> 
> > structure that makes sense. What we should try to do is to identify what
> > different kinds of preferences that exist, what kinds of temporary,
> > "discardable" data that exist, and what kinds of resources (like
> > bookmarks, contact lists) that exist, and build a structure that makes
> > sense for that.
> 
> I think this is based on a misconception... User's do not function best
> with a black box that has simple GUI interfaces to everything. This is a
> minimally useful interface. User's function best with an interface that
> helps them develop a Conceptual Model of the object they are trying to
> manipulate. This is much better served by an accessible filesystem than
> by a slew of specialized interfaces.

I have to bow to your superior usability knowledge here, but most
non-geek people I know use a computer by remembering where to change
things in the GUI. But they might learn that files can be saved by going
file->save, and loaded by going file->load, but they have no idea where
the files are being saved. When it comes to trying to copy these files
onto a floppy disk, they are stumped. Basically, I don't think a file
manager is the best way for a lot of people to use a computer.

-- 
Andrew Sobala <aes gnome org>