El jue, 13-05-2004 a las 14:56, Ingo Ruhnke escribió: > "Manuel Amador (Rudd-O)" <amadorm usm edu ec> writes: > > > Short answer: > > > > It's by design. And it's better. > > Wrong start. spatial isn't 'better', far from it. It might be better > for a few task, but its a lot worse for other tasks. It is better for the tasks which comprise most of the percentile for file management. If it provided an improvement of 50% on task "A" and caused a 50% loss of productivity on task "B", but task "A" is performed 80% of the time, it is simply better. > > > Whenever people use computers, they mainly manipulate things on your > > screen. Software (more accurately, interface) designers have found that > > one of the best ways to get people to use computers and be productive is > > to <i>mimic the real life</i>, in other words, to apply metaphors from > > the real life to what you see on the screen. This is why you hear words > > as "Home folder" or "Desktop". > > Again, I find the wording bad choosen, sounds to much like 'we know > better than you what is good for you'. Ease of use might be increased > by mimic real life, but productivity not really. Yes, well, it is only a draft. > > > In regard to files and folders, interface designers found people had an > > easier time understanding each folder as a separate collection of > > documents (and folders, albeit that distinction is harder to > > understand). > > Hm, what would be the alternative 'understanding' of folders? Just > wondering. Perhaps the word isn't "understanding" but "grasping". > > > Despite that, modern operating systems give you a "browser" > > interface to navigate around your files: that is, you click on a > > folder, and the contents of the window change to show that folder. > > I don't see how that clashes with the model of thinking about folders > as collection of documents. Yes it does. Go read ars technica. > > > Suffice it to say, people get lost and find navigating for files > > hard, because looking for files is an entirely different operation > > than browsing the Web (your brain works differently while you're at > > it). > > How that? I often even 'abuse' the browser for browsing my files, > since I still find it often superior (ie. quicker, has text input, > type-ahead find) to Nautilus. Especially I don't see how people 'get > lost', as with internet, URL-bar happily shows you were you are. Let's rephrase: Suffice it to say, it's harder for the average person to manage files with a browser, because the skills used differ from those used when browsing the Web. (and your argument is moot anyway, typeahead find is available in Nautilus, it has text input as well. Please *use* it before talking about it like you know what you're talking about.) > > > In this regard, GNOME has taken a very good idea from the Mac OS > > operating system and other graphical environments, and made the > > "folder" into the "window". > > Well, quite a few people don't think that was a 'very good idea'. Yes, those that are accustomed to the browser interface. Those comprise a minority of the world's inhabitants, fortunately. > > > * Each folder you open *always* opens in the same exact location and > > with the same size > > Doesn't hurt of course, but doesn't really matter much either for most > people. It matters a LOT. > > > * Each folder unequivocally opens in its own window, just like files do > > as well > > I don't have to navigate through the files to reach other files, thats > why opening a windows is ok, but I have to navigate through folder to > reach other files, while doing that am pretty seldomly interested in > the 'backrecord' of where I where before and back/parent-button can be > bring there anyway when needed. With deep directory (ie. everything > larger then two levels) this leads to an insane amount of clutter on > the desktop with spatial view. That said I find spatial view pretty > much impossible to use with deep directory trees. I don't. As you can see, it's just a matter of taste. Screen clutter is on the eyes of the beholder. And you can use your middle mouse button to reduce it. > > > * There is much less screen clutter, less toolbars, less screen > > estate devoted to controls, and more screen for your files > > I find the multiple windows cluttering my screen far more distractive > then a little toolbar. Especially since the toolbar is a usefull thing > and having a good visible parent-dir button is a good thing, took a > long time for me to find out that I can actually click this little > thing that hides in the statusbar. Thus rendering most of the uses for the toolbar moot. > > * Looking for files and getting to them is *faster* > > How that? Spatial view provides NO text input (the fasted may to > navigate through lots of files when you know them), clutters the > screen with my browse history and provides really nothing to speed up > browsing (no back-button or such). So I would says that spatial view > is a good slowdown for browsing files. > > > Once you get used to it (which can take up to a week), you'll discover > > you work faster. > > Again, that would be worth a bit of explanation. For you perhaps, for most of the people not. They just need to know why the change has been done, not technical explanations. > > > Things you used to think about will become automatic, and you will > > lose less time trying to get things done. The work environment will > > feel "just right". > > No, feels just wrong here. > > > Here's a "cheat-sheet" that will help you get up to speed in using the > > keyboard (you probably know by now that using the keyboard is also > > faster than using only the mouse): > > A visible toolbar would be much prefered then keyboard magic. Rox does > this right by basically providing just a single keyboard shortcut '/', > the rest is just normal text typing. -- Manuel Amador (Rudd-O) GPG key ID: 0xC1033CAD at keyserver.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente